The dispute over the creation or evolution of the universe.
 

This dispute came about perhaps unintentionally since Georges Lemaitre and his Big Bang theory arrived in the early 20th century.  It is a fascinating theory and illuminates the brilliants of the scientific world at work from Lemaitre to Hubble. We should continue our exploration and discoveries of the vastness of our universe as we are equipped to do so.


Subsequently however, since his work theoretically goes to the origin of reality, it inevitably evolved religious and theological implications along with it. To where now, all scientific discoveries of the universe are synonymous with debate versus the once fundamental laws of creation, which originates from the source of the entire question, the creation account found in the first chapter of the ancient writings of genesis. 


Now, the resolve for this dispute is – to understand that there is no relevance as to the origin of the universe opposing the account itself.

Meaning, we should not pit the exploration discoveries of the origin of the universe against the creation account of the universe described in the first chapter of genesis because the account as described ‘does not’ proclaim God to have made the universe and should not be associated or identified with its origin.                                                                             


The genesis account does however, proclaims God to have created the heaven and the earth and goes on to ‘clearly illustrate verbatim’ how this was so, established by making a firmament… Therefore the 14 billion years in origin of the universe is an irrelevant probability and is independent of theological implications as to the validity of the account of the creation…


The documented testament of the account opens at our planet without its current form, void and under water; any existence prior to this condition is irrelevant to any possibility of ‘our inhabitance’ on the planet, as implicated with the ‘impact theory’ had not the impact occurred. 


The universe (however so) ultimately evolved this rock to its formless and void state under water, for an unknown amount of time, well after its origin, with no documented record of the account testifying of anything prior to this void condition...


                                                                            We must ask:


What event took place that changed the formless and void condition of the planet to its 'current' understood visible state? Is what the literal account testifies verbatim…


This testified event, created two new conditions to a void planet... First, it caused a divide between now two huge masses of water, under and above. Secondly it caused the 'dry' to appear... This purposefully made event or divide was declared a firmament... According to the testament… 


Two separate major events… One before this formless and void condition (big bang or whatever) and one after this formless and void condition (a firmament)… Only one event however, is relevant to the planets current form and its inhabitants...


Isaiah 45:18 - For thus says the Lord that created the heavens; God Himself that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it not in vain, and he formed it to be inhabited: I The Lord and none else...


Regarding Psalms 19:1 - How can the firmament ‘He called heaven’ declare His glory and show us His hands work, and we don't even know what the firmament is? Mentioned 9 times in the account of the event alone…


It is the ONLY thing made relevant to the literal account of the creation that visibly and clearly implicates the testament itself to be true, with no interpretation...


Until or unless we clearly see the creation of genesis 1 ‘does not’ profess an account as to the origin of the universe can we then without doubt or question understand there is no relevance as to the evolution of the universe in opposition accusing the creation account of genesis 1 to be false.


                                                                              Gate Keeper


To an affiliate editor or ‘gate keeper’ for an American science journal regarding the genesis text, the sun and a firmament made, I stated the sun predated the dividing event of this planet. He responds in disagreement with this fact by stating, and understandably so, that according to the genesis account the sun was made on the fourth day and that was after the firmament and that there are other possibilities truer to the account with respect to the identity of a firmament then this one… These two great lights are a common controversy as pointed out in the second resolve by Dr. Brown and others in a report by Mr. Cox you will read forthcoming… 


But the contradiction is not in the account…


The radiance of energy God acknowledged as light and named that light day, is the same ‘day light’ we know today, that was in existence before a firmament was made to divide a huge void rock without its form covered in water, when there was ‘only’ one source of light ‘relative’ to this void rock and no ‘lesser one’ – 


Subsequent to a dividing event made, created a new and current life sustaining environment with ‘now' two great lights relative to the planet after the event...  


One - the same great light accounted for before this dividing event that now rules the day, the other - the lesser light that is accounted for after the divide that rules the night, both of which ‘now’ relevant ‘only’ to a rock under them, just then called earth…


                                                                           Ironic Relativity -  


Ask yourself this - The scripture refers to two periods in time where the planet is entirely submerged under water, that are in question throughout mans history:


First - the beginning condition of the planet with no apparent dry thus unknown by name as of yet, void and uninhabitable in the creation account... 


Secondly - a much later period in time, after God has changed the condition of the planet to one that is inhabited on dry land, even up until the time of Noah and a flood in which the Planet finds itself entirely submerged under water yet again...


Qa: What would be the difference in the condition of the planet in these two periods of submersion? – 


The question must be considered because in the 'second' account of the planet's covering of water - The condition of the planet itself is such, that it is able to recede the flooding waters with no intervention allowing the 'dry' to again reappear...

Thus Noah and his family eventually land and again inhabit the planet...


As opposed to - the beginning condition of the planet was such, that it did NOT have a way for the covering waters to recede without intervention - thus finding the planet with no dry, void and uninhabitable according to the testified account of its beginning... Again, what would be the difference in its condition, which does NOT allow the waters to recede?  


Qb: What intervening event took place that altered the beginning condition of this void submerged planet - Enabling the waters to be gathered together to one place and subsequently allowing the dry he called earth to appear for the first time - that is essential for life and apparently, can be clearly understood by man after the fact, to bear record of such an event?


If the former or beginning condition of the planet itself, does not have the ability to recede or displace the covering waters allowing the dry land he called earth to appear - Then the planet is 'still under water'... With no way for God to THEN inhabit the planet in his image... Such an ability of the planet is essential to both accounts... 


The beginning planets inability to recede these waters must be different in its condition - Because in the same planets second period of total submersion, the planet 'now has an ability' to cause the dry to appear with no intervention to the planet, allowing the life of man to continue forward and inhabit the planet again - Otherwise, they die in the boat floating on an entirely submerged planet and thus finding the planet again void of life... 


Proving the beginning event not only absolutely necessary but as well, a onetime event of creation - Unnecessary for Noah's survival...
 

If this mystery of question has not or cannot be resolved definitively to date - Then clearly, man is missing a key 'determining factor of creation' as to the significant origin of mans own existence, to even speak of it...


                                                                      Let's reveal a mystery...