Is R)$YT even a "time" word?

Mike Sangrey msangrey at
Fri Mar 29 14:01:41 EST 2002

On Fri, 2002-03-29 at 13:05, Ken Smith wrote:
> Actually, Liz, I expect that if the LXX and Vulgate were influenced by
> Aristotle, it would be *against* creatio ex nihilo.

This topic seems to come up on here fairly often <smile>, so let me poke
my head up out of my hole.  Hopefully, it won't get chopped off.

There is a way of having your cake and eating it, too.

Since light was created on the first day, before the first day, there
was no light.  Or, in other words, there was no electro-magnetic
spectrum before the first day.  That actually makes perfectly good
sense, since, according to Einstinian relativity, you can't have time
without the electro-magnetic spectrum.  The interesting thing, then, is
that Gen. 1:1 records a really big ball of water before time existed.  

So, relative to us, who exist within time, matter appears eternal since
it existed before time existed.  Relative to God, well, we're not told
by Genesis.  For me, Hebrews 11:3 tells me the answer to that riddle. 
But that's the color of a different horse.

And, anyway, how in the world do you express the creation of something,
without any reference to time, AND express that fact to people who can't
disassociate themselves with time, AND sound coherent at
the...ummmmm...same time?  Well, ya just state it and skip the
hyperdimensional calculus and 20th century physics.

Going back into lurk mode.

Mike Sangrey
msangrey at
Landisburg, Pa.
                        "The first one last wins."
            "A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth."

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list