W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page  Contents Page for this Volume What is New





News 372

Journal of Creation, Vol. 20(1), 2006

See also: Defining Drama Ch.   3, Christ the Cumulative and the Culmination Ch.   9,
Cascade of Truth, Torrent of Mercy
Ch.   6




Man tends to love man. That is one of the major problems. He becomes absorbed, fascinated with his wants and powers, which are considerable in both cases, and then begins to imagine himself something more than he is, and from this, becoming unfastened like a clip on a dress, he expands where he ought not, and the thing falls down, which is so embarrassing that, in concern or confusion, he then becomes faint-hearted or cynical or desperate, and so turns pride into puniness. In the end, some even like to praise him that so puny, he can be so proud.

However pride in what you did not make, attain to or invent, and use of a product's powers as if you produced what you know you did not, and imaginations about how it might be that something before you was wonderful and passed this selectively on to you, so that you really in some hidden but conceivable way, have part of the wonder of your own being: this is merely asinine.

What man EVER on this earth, in this format, has been able to so much as begin to make life (Dayspring *2)! What is the use of allowing imagination to feed pride, for pride being illusion, makes a destiny which is no illusion. Man is currently experiencing some instalments on the destiny of pride of life, and they are not very lively, although the anguish certainly is so!

In Defining Drama, Ch. 3, an overview is provided of many of the developments, at an ultimate level and under the investigating light of the word of God, concerning origins. There has now been added there, at *8, something containing much of what follows. It was put there for a unitary convenience. Here however, it seems good to extend that addition and deal with elements of the topic alone.

First, let us note that Professor's Slusher's point about the impossibility and indeed, almost comic element in trying to work out from the parts and participants in an explosion, what was there*1! If you KNEW, of course, it would help in recognising any of the parts. Similarly, although the whole concept of an explosion, as in the Big Bang, is as ludicrous, and more so, than the efforts of Descartes in his generative efforts in his own domain, being presumptuous in rationality, bringing man's ideas to those of the divine creator, with a show of a little knowledge, to give plausibility to what involved infinite address; and although as has been repeatedly shown in many evidences, the idea of the Bang does not find verification, but anti-verification repeatedly, a point Harnett explores in his recent book (2006), yet there is an analogy to it.

The concept is foolish; but the improperly imagined scenario has one point that at least relates, however foolishly, to the fact.

There was not an explosion of matter, in the sense of something creating itself, a logical fallacy at the outset, since force and simple system does not equal intelligence and complex refinement, and not only must what is to be in any system to have an end result, include or incorporate ALL the aspects, or what is superior to them and able to engender them categorically and in every feature involved, but any aspect must have basis in an adequacy, as must the whole aetiologically. However, despite the ludicrous consignment to time and innately unintelligent matter, there was a thrust of power from the Maker of matter, mind and spirit, with intelligence, imagination and creativity of course, as must be present for anything pervasively complex, composed and invading new realms of reality, or more properly, being sown or shown by the One whose these are.

There was in a sense the OPPOSITE of an explosion, similar only in suddenness and vast drama, beyond the simple imagination of anyone who does not know and fully UNDERSTAND what exploded and why. There was more correctly, an EXPOSITION of the mind of the One whose is the mind to expose, the power to impose and the imagination to compose. Whether it happened, in His scenario construction in His imagination as it was transported into material reality, accompanied by an implosion or explosion of force, would depend on His intention and schema.

The force, however, is not a particularly apt term. In fact, when I write, I am using force, and letters dance meaningfully before my eyes on the screen; but the last thing one would think of, were one's interest the object of the exercise, that is creation of words and hence meaning in a transportable form, to minds which have power to comprehend and imagine as well: it would be the concept of 'force'. Someone not really interested in the production might for example say, He twiddles his fingers, and this would, to a point, be true. However the twiddling is thus most simplistically wrought, and it is a virtual comedy of reductionism to speak in this mode, except as a joke in seeking to deliver to the mind, any account of the actual work done. It is like noting the beads of sweat on a tennis player's brow. These do indeed form, but are, to say no more, not anywhere near the summit of the type of exercise involved.

The POINT of the WORKING of the fingers is this, that they are, being controlled by mind, in the grip of a scenario of spirit, which through mind manifests itself in communicable digits in point-laden propositions in a semantic outpouring which communicates a vision, an idea, a dream, a logical exposition or whatever the case may be, at the relevant level.

It is not the force which is the relevant consideration when what is happening is concerned, as distinct from the modes of making it happen. The working of the keys would be the last and the least of considerations, until and unless one was rather morbidly fascinated with the inert devices employed, yes deployed to communicate the thought.

Thus there is certainly an explosion into space of thought, and it involves the slow moving of the screen on which it is placed, and in a very short time, there is evidence of the thought, and it can even be read. The matter, if you like, to use this as a miniature in TYPE and STANDARD, of creation in general, explodes into being. You could say the same of a flower in Spring; but the term is actually metaphorical only. In fact, there is a sudden exposure of what has long been developing, but which only now reveals what it is. It has with an explosion, one point in common: this, that it was not, as a flower stretched out, there at all. Now it is.

Yesterday, no flower, today a flower, one says, and this resembles an explosion in its SUDDENNESS. If the ASPECT of arising suddenly is in view, then there will be certain correlations of interest. This of course, in NO WAY, implies that the explosiveness in the metaphor used, is one of anything other than a certain suddenness resulting in a vast change in the situation. Less would be unfair; more would be untrue.

That is the general nature of the situation of the creation in view. When God created the universe there was no visible status quo (as clearly noted in Hebrews 11, as it commences), and is the nature of creation of the visibly constrained from the non-constrained. Hence the event of the creation is vastly more amazing than that of a flower arriving en scène. There was not only no visible situation which did not until suddenly, as with a flower, reveal its content; no, the situation was far more profound than this. There was no visible situation at all!

The laws, impulsions, components and compulsions of that underlying object, matter, which can be used as a basis like a car chassis, for much: they are, before the impulsion of the creation, simply  not there. Like a poem, it is unwritten, but with this, the paper is not there, the pen, the space, the time: only the mind of the Maker, His power and His thought, His Spirit and His will.

Thus, as to the creation: all of its elements, underlying, overlaying, structural, concatinative: they are not there. Then they are. The event has a certain uniqueness, majesty, wonder. It is not only expansive to the imagination, implying the power to perform, as with a flower, but expansive to the heart and spirit as well, implying the power to create the little systems which man so proudly boasts of, such as that which he inhabits and that which is his own, and aids the realisation that in and of himself he neither understands their genesis or their destiny, merely watching what they do.

To be sure, if his spirit were not enthralled with sin, then he would the more readily see what Romans 1:17ff. attests, the minimal necessities of the powers behind the construction of the structures which relating in logical intimacy, also relate in practical correlation (cf. Repent or Perish Ch. 7). Still, unless he be told, man even when realising the logical necessities, and the self-abandonment of seeking to avoid reason while using it, may see the grounds of his creation, rather than the precise methodology. To read the poem is not to share either the methods used to create, think, envisage, imagine, perceive, conceive, or of putting this into the initial draft.

In a way, it is like seeing the first flower, and trying to know all about it, by seeing what it was two minutes before, and then before that, and then examining the DNA and then wondering how it came and so forth. After a while, it is merely an exercise in imagination, unless logic is used to find the adequacy of the necessary causation, and restraint is used in pretending knowledge about how it proceeded to put in place any of the ingredients which merely are found working, whether in this highly complex cell structure of that. As Denton remarks, there are no simple cells. You might as well ask for a simple dance in which there is only a trudging push of impulses to feet. A dance per se has a certain minimal character to BE one, involving imagination, intelligence, bodily proximity, fluency of some kind in motion, or its ironic distortion, and so on.

Thus when one considers the 'explosion' into being, the term has been over-used to the point that it becomes a deadly enemy of clear thought; for so many seem to take it as a source, rather than the testimony of an event. Explosions, per se, accomplish nothing constructive. It is only when they are DIRECTED to an end, and COMPELLED by a control, using this and that thought and constraint for a purpose, that they bear any relationship to a construction such as man so vainly seeks, with such pride of life, to understand as if it had already exploded into existence, before it did another turn. Quietly, he ignores how nothing could explode, on the one hand, or how there was a creation, if not, of what is not nothing, first of all, on the other. Fast movement may happen; but assuredly it is neither the key nor the explanation of vast constructions of law-abiding matter or law-breaking man.

It would be wise therefore to invade this realm of thought with a different kind of word, to move explosively from explosions to impartations, and since it HAS - if logical - to be from NOT nothing, and since it IS what is thus justly called a creation, an assemblage in sophisticated inter-relationships of multiple tiny components into a whole which contains virtually limitless units and unitary constructions with purpose options, or purpose related provisions, it is best to talk of the Creator, non-material of course since the constraints of matter have to be accounted for, and what delimits has to be found first. It is of a Spirit therefore, that one must take account, and one having all that is required but without matter as a basis or component, and of His being eternal, since when there is nothing, nothing goes ... or comes. If and because, however,  HE is here, and all that is logically necessary must always have been here, or nothing would be, to the point, then from Him comes the temporal, child of the Eternal.

It is far better, a far better thing indeed, to talk of the creation of the Creator, that vast concatenated, constrained, composed, imaginative totality, produced with an inter-operative brilliant suddenness and organisational wit, such as Proverbs 8 so beautifully stresses, by expression of Himself, so making an impression into being.

Whether He chose a compression, or an expansion at any phase (as when for example one may photo-copy something small into something larger, or expand a written article), and whether He did any such thing in this way or that, it is quite impossible to determine except you are told. We shall consider this further later. Nevertheless, this must be said: If an explosion for what WAS there, defies assured analysis for those who know nothing of what the objects and situation was there before it happened, then there is a certain comedy in imagining that you can work it out in the case where in the realm of the things in view, the creation,  the visible, there was absolutely NOTHING there at all. It becomes almost like a saucy impudence to seek to trace the issuance into being, before it is complete to go back so far; for in that case,  you are trying to harass its sudden imposition into material reality, and expression into viable format, a knowledge, based on certain inter-relations of its parts, of HOW HE DID IT.

There may, indeed, be certain residues, if He chose to leave them apparent: in all creations, such residues are always at the discretion of the author, and the more power and brilliance he has, the more difficult it is to find any part of the creation mode and hence results.

There are those whose desire is this: to have something already there without the laws and integralities of a composed and systematic kind, interweaving causatively apt realms of thought and contrivance, which by fast movement gains these things. It is of course a magic, and for that you need the magician! That resembles a simple sleight of hand. Fast movement is irrelevant except to the stupid or inept eye; the CAUSE of the result is quite distinct from any amount of speed or slowness. You need what it takes to do what is or is not seen!

There are others who wish the Creator to move in some way which resembles the way the thing, once created works; but this is astonishingly foolish. In creating, you do not act as the thing made, acts, but in its very instruction and imposition and constraint INTO being, you make the thing which later acts in the way which results from your creation. You may make it derisively, comically, gravely, clumsily to illustrate a point. Purpose is critical in such a case. As we have seen in Spiritual Life... Ch. 4, there is only good here possible; but the varieties of good motive and thought, creativity and sub-motivations are enormous, just as are  the means. Indeed, anyone expert in what IS happening has little more option to find how it was MADE to happen, then limited intelligence and guesses of intention, would involve; and less, since the infinity of power and depth is beyond all measurement or construing.

Any endeavour to make a product's maintenance and imbuing in a situation, with its nature, a key to its creation is merely self-deception. It may relate somewhat, little. COMING into being is not the same kind of process at all, as ACTING as is acting when made. Efforts to unravel such things of extraordinary complexity, and ultra-material depth, merely march, never agreeing with each other, being of course, based on a fallacy.

There seem to be others who want fast movement of magical matter, sitting there and preening itself happily (or often unhappily) into non-matter and law moulding itself into breach of law, and mindlessness brooding itself into mind, without much thought about such marvels. Irrational as this is, it is scarcely surprising,  since without mind there is no room at all for it, to become a basis for something which draws it all on - a sort of teleological construction which, like the other sleights of hand, is more than slightly absurd. What is being done here, in such teleological constructions,  is simply exposing the source of power and imagination, for imposing creation in the first place, setting him in some cloud of future chronology, which he seems most abundantly able to command and from which control, and having him draw things upward, in nature, construction and content, in comprehensibility and comprehension unclouded and uncontained alike, to himself.

What sort of a being is this which magically sits on a cloud of thought in a creation which is not yet created but trying to flap non-existent wings to soar into non-existent heights drawn by a principle which is merely a name for the properties needed in the intelligence which so purposively acts and imaginatively and dextrously dynamises ?

And if you have him at last, why not at first ? and if you wish to have a magical material situation, and put in it what after all is a spiritual and mental power which can control it, and uplift the whole thing, as if a magnificent weight-lifter lifted the universe, but not in weight, rather in wisdom, where do you get him from ? and if it he is to be part of the whole thing, where is your aetiology for him and it! You merely ignore the problem of creation, and invent all the things needed, and present them in a space, which has no ground, and without any ground for their systematic co-partnership, or the means of communication, or the presence of intelligence, make the little model explode into being. Explode ? Implode!

Thus we are in the end back to creation from the Creator, so that avoiding magic; and following reason, we may talk realistically, without aetiological oblivion and indeed, comedy whether of nothings, or of ingenious inertia or ingenuous beings jumping from nowhere into no place, to do their job which is never seen to be operative. Smuggling God in is merely logically illicit; you need to RECOGNISE what you are doing, and avoid such hidden premises, which Customs always find in the end!

Yet this is not really the place for comedy.

Nor is it wise to impose farce when your own origin and destiny is involved.

Now it is time to review some further aspects of the matter.



In 2006, Hartnett and Williams published  Dismantling the Big Bang, and aspects in the above domain are given some attention in Defining Drama Ch. 3, *8, in a milieu where various related points are readily available by hyperlink. This relates here, and in an expanded mode, forms part of the following text. Meanwhile, its site in Ch. 3 needs attention, for any thoroughgoing investigation.

The precise nature of the speed of light, the very nature of gravity, the existence of an almost endless seeming list of putatives, possible this or that bundles of energy, forms of matter, grave-seeming postulations about things never found, like dark matter, and other things newly thought, abound.

In all of this mêlée,

bullet which is the roving and sometimes almost writhing contractions, expansions and diffusions of thought,
bullet far more obvious than any imaginary universal parallels which would merely require creation, formation and formulation for their intertwined interstices, 
bullet in the same way
as any other postulate which does not shrug at causation,
but prefers sober avoidance of the groundless and mystical magics of unverified occasions:
bullet it is a marvel that any is willing to lay down the law.

It is even more so, when you consider that for many, the basic and inherent intellectual suicide of having no truth available in a universe of mere relativity where even that assertion assumes what is denied, is  opted first of all!

In fact, the biblical depiction of majestic oration from the deity, with a minute and vast cohesion of His laws and ways, words and results, remains the only logical option (cf. The gods of naturalism have no go!). When this is realised, then various coherent, rational and fascinating possibilities may be discerned as to some of the evidential results of His making the force, the form, the systematic intricacies of mutual devolvement, and in the case of man, the arenas of comparative independence, the energy distribution patterns, the space, the word enshrined to the microscopic eye in the DNA of living things, wrought naturally enough for the One God,  in one language, and indeed that intricate magnificence of pattern and process past all that man has ever come near to copying in the divagations of his own imagination.

This incomparable superiority in the creation to the power of man displayed in his own creations, it is only to be expected when you begin to look at the hardware and software from that sublime, divine and creative intelligence which gave to that with which man is invested, not only a name and a place outside the mere control of matter, but scope for compositions concerning it, and inventing dispositions for it, now that both he and it are created, he with the mind to analyse and the spirit to be dissident to theory or law, if he will.

In this free realm of human thought*2 , the velocity of light is no longer a sacred cow but is freely admitted by many leading scientists to be not only variable, but immensely so, depending on circumstances, situations and scenarios, while various scientists assault one another's theories and theorems often with spectacular confidence, for example Arp,  Setterfield in his relatively new lecture series (His Time is Near! Ch. 9, CRC), Humphreys in his Starlight and Time and Hartnett moving on in a domain germane in many ways to the profound, preceding critiques of Slusher*3.

Meanwhile, the imaginary and never confirmed particles of this or that sort are mouthed by those who would not normally in science go so far on so little, so that mere combinations of thought and words become significant seeming substitutes for scientific method, by which you START which what EVOKES such requirements, not just because you want an idea, but because you have no apparent option, none so harmonious with so many data, so unerringly free from collision with other data from other fields or principles and laws fundamental to actual science, as based on what occurs, not what is deemed.

Indeed, science has dignity and earns respect ONLY when it starts with what any one can find, given knowledge and skill, and continues to account for it in testable terms, and is willing to abide by the results. Imagination is under some constraint ... despite its vital role, as to the place of its insertion, the mode of its use and its discipline both in catholicity of appetite and focus on its own impelling data.

This is very frequently far from the case in this current light-matter-astronomy-origins clatter and clangour. That is precisely one reason why it is unstable. Now we look at another reason for this phenomenon, partially related to the first,  and at least as inveterate!

When you superadd to all the scene of argument and imagination, the feeble light of mere hypothesis and the faint retardations of no confirmation, where hope replaces fact and heat replaces light even in talking about it, the fact that in the institution of these things there is an ABSOLUTE FREEDOM on the part of the One who gave them their inter-active construction into the logical realm and material reality of systematic sequences of causal nexus in the first place: then it is small wonder that there is such an anti-consensus! Omit the ground and obviously you will be floating. Act on magical impulse and clearly your thought is airy.

As Hartnett reviews in his Dismantling of the Big Bang, and has long been shown and become apparent, the Big Bang hypothesis in particular is contrary to so many evidential realities (cf. TMR Ch. 7 E), that its illusion is inexcusable. The anti-verifications merely mount. It should have been categorically abandoned long ago.  Now there are all sorts of efforts to bring in new scenarios, and these are so fraught with the burden of imagination, and empty on distinctive verification that what is left is the need to bring all the actual evidence into focus, including the logical necessity of creation, and designate the possibilities.

Hartnett is currently examining one of these in his field, and wishing that more funds were made available outside the intellectual dragon of Big Bang, so that some constructive work in terms of scientific method, not partisan cultural clichés, clinks and clichés, could be made. His concept of rapidly moving space expansion near the outset, after the creation of earth, while pointing out that evidence is consistent with the earth as centre of the universe (op. cit. p. 135 - not biblically stringently necessary but interesting and coherent with the biblical evidence cf. above, and in accord with a number of data,  such as Slusher also noted years ago) is of some note. It is being presented in its milieu as solving problems which many have wrestled in the arenas of unbelief, and it has commendable features *4.

The most commendable is its strong endeavour to follow biblical data to their conclusions and scientific data to their requirements. The consistency of the former  with the scientific data is shown in some detail,  unlike, and that to an extreme degree, the inconsistency of such models as that of the Big Bang.

In textual terms, it is to be noted that the stage at which such expansion occurred, between day one and day 4, on day 4, is not apparent from the Bible, since it proceeds first to declare the creation of the heaven and the earth, and then, having revealed ordering sequences on earth, turns to the heavens, a sequence in time or thought, in revelation of the actions or concatenation. Chronologically the organisation moulding of the stars and sun and moon, functionally, is in its place. Whether this was also their time of creation is not available for textual deduction. The relevant term is not used in the text at this point. In all things, biblically, it is best to take what you are told, and leave what you are not.

This has been treated at some length at   Let God be God Ch. 12, and will not be repeated here. The morning and evening sequence certainly strongly suggests the existence of what is shown in its ordering mission and mandate and its visibility from the earth - as a place for conceptualising the matter in hand for us, namely light sources. To be sure, the Lord COULD have merely made a sequence by direct means, but the presence of the germane terms, evening and morning, throughout is nearly decisive and certainly impossible to ignore, from day one. This in no way interrupts the sequence of events as revealed, but merely means that the question of whether the light sources were made in the creation of heaven and earth at the outset, as implicit in terms of evening and morning, or later, does arise.

The continuation of the same ethereal, evening and morning, phrasing makes it a most ambitious project to imagine that the later means for the same were absent, when they are first mentioned! The explanation being in terms comprehensible, and these being consistent throughout, it seems overwhelmingly likely that the general situation involved, at least,  was in place at this first use of the phrasing: that is, the heavenly bodies concerned with light source and management, even though their heavily underlined functions are kept till day four  to become obvious by statement and by performance. The text is to those who, being persons, listen, and to consider in terms whether populated at that time or not, that relate to their vocabulary, their observations, the injection of revelation, and the understanding of what might have been observed, simply, being observable!

The precise functions, as in Genesis 1:14ff.,  which the said bodies are to undertake,  become then in day four an announcement within the action and nature of things. That, it is a focus on earth with its attendant heavens,  where man is, to whose ears address is made in review of the creation in which he participates and concerning which he therefore can readily achieve understanding once coherently instructed. In orderly fashion, it then proceeds with a turning to the heavens and the mandate given, with the parallel exhibit of the now regnant power of the heavenly bodies. Where and what they are to be, and what is to be done: it is clarified.

This meets all the criteria of consistency of vocabulary,  and allows for non-imagination of options not stated. If, in a financial review, you start by referring to cheques, then it is not too startling if the author expects you to understand that the apparatus, later explained in detail,  was there  at least to the point that the term had a normative meaning in the initial context of OPERATION. Otherwise, you would expect an explanation of the diversity of meaning of so fundamental  a term.

Assuming intelligible diction, coherent speech and teaching clarity, therefore, one is constrained  toward the concept that the evening and morning related to heavenly bodies in relevant measure present in Day 1, and revealed in Day 4, as formed to become regulative from that latter time in their time and season domains. This would occur now that the earth was ready, as in the text is shown to be such,  so making meaningful such luminary ministration as a stage in turn arriving. This in turn again, proceeds with the preparation for man, whose needs  and whose  viewpoint is of course assumed, as would be the needs and ways of actors, in the preparation of a stage. We move up the slopes to foot-hills of meaning, ready for the towering pinnacle, the rational, the spiritual, the moral being for whom this is made: man, and that, it is not as if he were some entire and comprehensive innovation, though he is utterly an arrival.

It is in the image of GOD that he is made, susceptible to an extraordinary fellowship and responsibility, though in a domain not simply spiritual. The thing is brand new! but the image is not, for it is that of God! In man, the utter innovation is a rendering from the infinite to the finite, a format in such a world as this for such a one as man, with access to the invisible by cardinally clear means, until sin makes a mockery of his status, and of his pride. It is notable that it WAS pride not least, when man fell, as in Genesis 3, for impervious to reality, Eve accepted the concept that man could be as God, knowing good and evil, forgetting the created part of it, and remembering only the image part, a vain and inglorious yielding to ambition for desire, and a peremptory dismissal of factuality for fraud.

Sad as this result was and grievous, yet what preceded it was a wonder. In this sovereign creation of man what do we find ? It is a creation which becomes one of the  most important facts in human history, what MAN IS! and how he may relate not only to the other creation, but to the Creator Himself. From this flows the wonder of man, his self-admiration when he forgets how he can have it, and wants a non-divine divorce, his amazing antics when he misuses such power, as when a youth goes wild with a sports car, provided dad pays the bills for its upkeep. From that situation comes the Incarnation, to cover the cost, and the resurrection, to implement the result of the cover, and the Age till judgment, to cover the earth with the news of it. That in turn leads to a 'new creation', remodelled man, not actually as super-man, but as renovated man! (Colossians 3:1).

We are then in Genesis 1 (cf. Dayspring, News 87), looking forward to the pith continually, the preparations for this focus.

This moment of marvel  is reached in verse 26, and of course is noted in its outstanding uniqueness, by the Hebrew term for 'creation', v. 27.

The creation then is related to man, as the stage and setting is invented, deployed and set.

When you make a stage, there is a multitude of matters, especially if it be a particularly large one: nails or bindings, wood of various kinds, the design of it, the strength and the correlation with the load, the site, the placement within the site, the comfort and functionality of the seating, and so on; and if you conceive of it as a vast structure, you begin to gain the atmosphere of its formation. However, though in a vast structure's case, a book might be written on its construction, from imagination to image, from image to design, from design to first arising, from this to detail, yet wtih a coherent view for the work, there would be in mind always, the OBJECT, the objective of the exercise. Always, there would be the tendency to work, to move, to have and hold a perspective, in which this USE factor would dominate.

At times it might be in some recess, as you concentrate on the parts, but all the time it is in the purposive thrust of thought, and in the kernel of the well-written narrative.

Here the case seems no different. We proceed with the correlative elements of the stage in view, their functionality of vast importance, relative to the end use, and come with this viewpoint, to the arrival of the actors.

Thus they - mankind - are not merely things RELATED to the matters in hand, to the creation, and hence to the text which evinces it. Indeed, the needs of the actors are a master POINT in having the stage at all! We see something of this in Isaiah 51:6.

At whatever precise point, however, the creation of astronomical objects as part of the entire gamut of creation, occurs, and in accord with these considerations,  whenever the heavens  are stretched forth, as so often noted in scripture and in particular notable in Isaiah 43:24, this stretching out of this phase,  is the phrasing used in the word of God repeatedly. It is a concept adduced by Humphreys and Hartnett variously on this point, and for this, there is indeed a good basis.

As Hartnett observes, while research continues, the concept of this kind that he is using, is one where there comes a vast acceleration of ageing process in far-flung astral creation, resulting from the enormous dilation as vast space is invented. That, in turn is indeed a testimony to divine majesty - whether it is to be at this or that day. Its occurrence if so understood, brings implications, and these are amongst them.

This, he points out,  is one way of accounting for a young earth and an aged space, and elements in it: the age being not in any earth-mode of our knowledge, computable in our own terms, since such acceleration of event is not for the initial arena of creation, the site for creation and salvation to come, for man, one indeed noted in germ in Genesis 3:15, the protoevangelion. On this concept, the heavens thrust forth, rush out and the physical criteria may be conceived as a vast increment of the ageing process in the usual way.

The space itself is thus thrust out to huge parameters, for the creation. The centre of the universe phenomena noted above, for the earth, would thus make for a simple conceptualisation. The thrust is biblical in concept; the result is harmonious with evidence to this point. If then space is issued into being and astral objects are appointed in it, then the age-time results for such enormous dilation and acceleration of the newly arriving magnitudes of spatial creation would be in the domain that Hartnett is noting. It makes for one more fascinating scenario of thought, in seeking to see in a spatial setting, aspects of the creation.

As for us, our observation is of the results:  such dilation of space is in the model of a work of creation, not of maintenance, and as such it appears now to be fitting the data. The Big Bang is not. Its manifold failures begin to become encyclopedic in scope! (*4).

Indeed,  theoretical clashes for objects in the universe 'older' then the universe, has long been noted, from Slusher on*5, and it remains part of the diffuse career of Big Bang conceptualisation, as one of its confusions if not delusions. Such language is quite fair as a description, when you cling to what is denied by the data, in a sort of rigor mortis which should long ago have led to a decent burial of this ludicrous theorem,  in terms of scientific method, where anti-verification is simply not permitted for a viable and valid theory.

Actually, in principle, you could SAY that you are still hoping and re-formulating your theory; but in FACT, UNTIL your alternative or other option, your refined version,  is both consistent with established (as distinct from mere cultural clap-trap) scientific laws,  and capable of test, and until it removes or escapes anti-verification and thus has a distinct life of its own outside of the imagination: the theory is DEAD. It is certified dead. Its mortals remains should in all decency be disposed of, if not with praise, then with expedition.

The funeral parlour, with a distinct lack of seemliness, scientific or other, has simply not been called in, and the thing lies there, twitching and being prodded.

In such cases, there is a protocol of reason, a mode of logic, a procedure of method.

Thus, if anything like such a theory is ever found  again, this is for the time,  indifferent to the method of science. It has to work, to live; and it is useless to guess that this or that might achieve existence; indeed, it is worse than the gambler resolving what to do with his winnings. In this case, it is all imagination. There is no contest. Nothing so much as exists that meets the case in the entire secular domain. Validity, verification, rationality, detail, they range themselves against the follies of idle imagination, cause-free fondling of the darlings of irrationality*6.

What is necessary is realism, integrity and practicality. It MUST work, it MUST be testable, it MUST be coherent rationally (not rationalistically, since this is merely a theory which is incapable of support which intrudes as if relevant - cf. Repent or Perish Ch. 7); and it MUST avoid any contradiction by non-verification when it is exposed to what is happening.

Of course, if the hypothesis concerns what is NOT happening, then you have to establish its relevance to what IS happening: as for example, in showing that what IS happening has no logical basis unless it were implemented outside its mere continuity powers, which give no attestation of self-generation; while nothing of course, does nothing, and is never relevant in any logical tests, except as a basis for reductio ad absurdum. What invokes it is automatically logically defunct!

The new liberty for the velocity of light, and various testable entities as shown in the Creation Research lectures (cf. His Time is Near Ch. 9), the concepts of Hartnett, these present new vehicles for thought, and explanation which all require a refined testing; but they are better and of a better hope than is what is already dispensed and dispensed with, this Big Bang illusion. They are moving where logic is not already vacated, but where it may be found. To be sure, refinements are needed; but the matter moves where there is a road! At that, as we shall see, there is a reason why all the endeavours to move science into absolute beginnings is most limited; and failure to discern this is one of the reasons for the unmitigated mess which astronomy-astrology has been brought. Efforts to bring it at least back to reason are welcome; but the limits are systematic.

It is completely fascinating, then,  to consider and ponder how the Lord MAY have dealt with the velocity of light, in view of its variability, and in view of the creation conditions which would represent a situation far beyond the norm, with extremes now only able to be thought of. It is however when you add to this circumstance, the fact that in CREATION, you are dealing with what is being DEALT with, NOT with what is merely operating as built, that it becomes readily understandable that there is small cohesion of thought on the one hand, and that creationist views are the most consistent.

Thus God COULD have brought light to the land and not shown in the results, as creators do not have to, any evidence of how He got it there.  One of the puzzles one may have in considering some expert and ingenious creation is just that: how on earth was it done! Looking at it, you are not looking at its manufacture! Where the finite is at work, correlations may be extant and help at hand; but even then, one must be aware of the scope of the work of creation and its methods, if one is to be plausible. When however the wisdom and ways of the Creator is infinite, we are dealing with the extremities, and past them. What we find out will be by His word, and further than this, the case will readily become systematically divorced from the divine dealings.

Creators at the human level often EXULT in that, presenting you simply with the fait accompli, outside completely the domain of your observation of what NOW IS! Voilà, presto! Creation tends to be like that, whether for the artist, the playwright, the dress. Whatever went INTO it, there now it is!

In the case of the infinite God invented the creation of things incorporating material elements, there is a vast wonder. He could have slowed light, or elements of matter's composition, or any number of inchoate ingredients at will, a very small matter. He could with light as with matter, have hastened its operations, moulded them in motion, or acted differently. The DAY rather than the WAY is specified. Some things are indeed TOLD us, but this is a given.

Again, with this or that material substratum or operative entity, light or other, he could have driven it in ways which were not operational but institutional. He tells us simply that He commanded it to exist, that He stretched forth the heavens, that He made light regulators and stars visible. He does not say how many were visible.

Visibility of the majesty of the heavens was an initial fact of the creation. God knows the situation; you do not need the actors as present to indicate the state of the case being prepared for them. How the PC in America could use such confused notions in referring in their departure from biblical creation, as if relevant, is a sad thought! (cf.  Let God be God Ch. 12). Its entire irrelevance and failure to perceive what is occurring makes for a certain implausibility of their undoubted derogation of textual standards at the outset. What they refuse expressly as out of the question, is not only in it, but cardinal in kind, and almost impossible to AVOID! On such premature bases, nothing of an expository kind can be built. Yet let us return to our basic consideration of the advent, mould, agencies in creation.

The onflowing reality of light, when once instituted, and its exposure of events inscribed in its fast days, if God saw fit to have it record any of that type of action, is not known. Growth speed is not a declared item, merely a result. To be sure, the days are days as noted above; but the elements of action within them, this is not to be assumed. For that matter, the evening and morning certainly point to the normal mode of days, as reasoned above and in SMR pp. 171ff..

Slusher has brought up questions*7 of universe geometry, and others of universe particles, concepts flow and overflow, and it is simply beyond the scope of modern science at this stage at any rate, and without divine intervention indeed, to know precisely what happened in origination, except as is normal in such creator- cases, even with man: and that ? it is when they are TOLD.

When we deal with the Creator of ourselves in our creativity, and of our entire environment in its outcome, then not being told comes very close to not knowing; and whereas surmises can be in order, if properly circumscribed in atmosphere and expectation, for some matters, the domain is not ready for unchartered immigration! Results in types of  causal systems themselves constructed as part of the creation, cannot be read back into the institutive phases. System is not available here, though it may be able to point here and there, to this and that of interest.

As to the revelation itself, the data delivered, dictated in deposition for man to read in the Bible, these do not indicate such minutiae as these. God is not explaining to those who could not understand, but declaring to those who listen.

Thus, questions of His MEANS of bringing the light of the stars to the earth, whether by light velocity and geometrical means, of this or that type, at this or that moment in the sequence, or by heavenly expansion, for which there is currently a good case, in terms of vast dilation and ageing outside the earth, which was, being central and initial, not subjectible to such ageing, being then a base from which the surrounds were set out: these matters: these may be fascinating, but are not operational. Using such a base, we currently get a good result, but the concept of stretching out the heavens in a vast dilation of space as to mode, though heavily concordant with the Bible, needs care in its deployment, to what extent it is figurative, or refers to objects in space being deployed.

This sort of phrasing however is used so often in various places, not limited to any one statement in any one sort of context,  that it is indeed most possibly a simple action which He undertook and would appear to have some substantial basis in mode.

God has His own counsel, and we have His word, not identical with His thought! His thought is infinite; His word is finite. The word is infinitely true, but not all is declared. Its universal principles are truth; but not all is universal principles. Its statements of action are as provided, not as imagined. The difference can be of vast importance, as in reading anyone's mind or 'deducing' from detail, or inducing from ideas, what is beyond the scope of 'interpretation', being an investigation for which no human psychiatrist has the scope or the ability!

The word is His thought, but it is delimited; His thought is infinite, His word from infinite wisdom, is finite. He KNOWS what He is doing and has accomplished; we see something of what He has DONE and that is most instructive on His power and His majesty, His eternity and His nature. It does not however cover all His plans. It does not uncover all His heart. He then tells us what we need to know.

What then of the extended evidences in investigable realms, such as astronomy and modes of instituting its particulars ? In view of these variables and operative aspects, from the information now gained and apparent distances or times now found, the issues involved remain a fair subject for research and investigation. The variables, however, both divine in creation and sublime in kind, on the one hand, and of mere maintenance variety on the other, are so vast that it is small wonder, if you  superadd the endeavour to dispense with the creation entirely, and have magical material automatically self-inscribed by autonomous power of delimitation never found, that a crowd of  eruption of imagination is taking the field for many. In some cases, the ideas are so dissonant as to suggest not only crowding but clowning.

The Arabian Nights becomes a romantic parallel to the Imaginative Days. When you write God's book for Him, it is scarcely surprising that there is so little agreement. Stability and resolution in fact comes when, and only when, you do not presume where He has not declared, and you do reason where the scope is just. It is here that Biblical Christian Apologetics has no residual knots or problems, and all else wallows (*5).

Indeed, now there is a twofold situation.

On the one hand, you have aspirant approaches, starting with creation, making enormous strides, and testing with care and joy, and on the other hand, in marked contrast, anti-creationist approaches, imagining this or that format of energy, matter and anti-matter of other more advanced concepts, dark matter and a whole stable of concepts, in a frenzy of frustration, in what seems an almost epileptic trance of action ungoverned. There is no NEED to invent obviously inadequate and inept things out there, without evidence or even contrary to it, in order to circumvent the operation of the institution of the logical, delimited, defined realities with which our universe in its integral interactive and reciprocal programmatics deploys. Ideas about principles do not substitute elegantly for making the thing where the principles are evinced. Nothing is uninventive; man is not nothing, one may be sure!

The deposition of what is neither self-making nor self-sufficient but determined in structure or system is not to obtained by fiddling. You need the wherewithal to fiddle. It is rather like a young man without money, but a family name, imagining that by his name he can become wealthy by simply borrowing. You need the funds.

Such alien approaches are all failing the ultimate logical test, and making more propositions than performances, as if the Wright Brothers wrote manual after manual, but never actually flew.

History would be very different in such a case; but they did fly. Theories too must fly. It is quite useless to imagine the irrational, and construe what merely begs the logical question, in various forms and formats arriving by magic, You NEED logical coherence and consistency, for the operative creation, its laws, and for the institution of creation, its Cause. The Bible has always signified the cause, and implied the major laws as shown in TMR Ch. 8, as here linked (cf. TMR Ch. 7 as linked).

Further, when you seek to find in the ARENA of creation, an explanation of creation in terms of what is NOT the work of creation, but that of maintenance, it is obvious that you will find a difficult realm. You are trying to account for the mellowing of the pages of a book (a visible process based on what it physically is), in terms of the writing of the book (from an invisible, imaginative and intelligent dynamic, which it actually needs in order to be), and so seeking from the continuity of the published book, historically, to find the way it came to be.

There is in all such procedures,  a certain disingenuousness! It is just a little ambitious, in principle! It is in fact at  the ultimate, more than a trifle absurd.

When forthtelling all about light in particular, something capable of internalised usages when being created, placement as created, greater or lesser speed when created, differential slowing and phased slowing or speeding, deployment in varied geometries, as extant or as potentiated: then you are in a realm where discretion does not overreach itself. It is one which is as spectacularly invaded by false knowledgeability as when you seek to deduce the kind of broach Agatha Christie was wearing (if any), when she wrote of Poirot's last case: and doing this,  from reading the book!

Many and various would be the theories; but they would all be produced in ignorance, where light does not dwell. It is not her purpose to tell you this, and access to the light on the pages of her book will not provide for you access to the rays coming from her broach as she wrote. That, it is just the way it is. Some things you simply need to be told, if you are to know. Creators and creations have a close relationship; but it is not all susceptible to deduction, when you seek the WAY it was done!

It is sufficient that a coherent resolution is always available, granted the appropriate underlying model, in this case by logical necessity, creation; and that nothing else has such coherence except the testimony of Creation, in particular, as found in the Bible. Moreover, this both explains the multitude of exponents - some ignoring the necessary aetiology, some assuming principles later to fade away, and their absurd confidence.

As to the former, error must be numerous when imaginations rove. As to the latter, a stark position in defiance of logic, like the bombast of the dictator to the world, normally has a certain appearance of confidence, to give it any flotation at all. It has to be sold to the creator of it as also to his listeners, and these may require sound where syllables are less obvious, to feel any conviction!

Alas sound is not enough. Nor is profusion any guarantee that any alienated proponent is right, in the crowd uproar of such theoreticians (a verbal extension of 'theorist' just as in this case, there is a sound extension of their imaginary worlds). They ignore the necessary, and thus necessarily, almost in proportion to their capacity, fulminate or function away without result. They produce in irrelevance what is phased out in a little while, as new ideas, rank and unlovely, seek to do the impossible, achieve the implausible, or declare the unknown. You simply cannot dig from a Creator's mind, the way He did it, when He does not tell you; and the multitudes of assumptions and anti-verifications over time become if not comic, then hilarious. Of exposure of such endeavours, you see much in Sarfati's work (loc. cit.), and in Hartnett's (op. cit.).

As to these anti-verifications, they abound. Indeed, in Journal of Creation, Volume 20 (1), 2006, there are two highly informative presentations, one an article by Hartnett, one a book review by Andrew Sibley, dealing with the perfect multitude of recent efforts to do this or that in the field of astronomical variables and origins; and their utter differences between themselves are sometimes of the highest order, being based on general relativity or not, plasma concepts or expansive concepts, light stability in velocity, or demonstrable instability, modes of variation of such velocity, together with grand concepts to allow for or even impel the same. These are shown to come from highly reputable astronomers, with or without nuclear expertise, involving such variables as highly diverse modes of powering of the sun’s energy supplies, one based on recent research of moon rock, and alleging that this solar energy  is not derived from nuclear fusion but in fact from neutron repulsion.

If you like imagery, then you could say that the cosmic and the universe's genes are subject to vast mutations, but only in the minds of those who (in effect) conceive them, now this way,  now that.

Thus does this once more illustrate the tenuous character of theories in this realm, with numerous assumptions, variable degrees of confirmation and anti-verification, fudge factors and general looseness, equipped liberally with dogmatism. From these contributions in the Journal, we also find a vast dissatisfaction with the Big Bang concept, so-called derisively long ago by famed Cambridge astronomer Hoyle, whose derision of evolutionism is an exemplary additive. Indeed so vast and widespread is this, as anti-verifications rise like quail at the advent of the hunter, that an ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ has been published in New Scientist, Jan. 17, 2006. This decried the growing number of unconfirmed hypothetical entities, such as inflation, dark matter and dark energy, used as props for what is an inherently self-contradictory Big Bang cosmology (cf. Hartnett, Dismantling the Big Bang, Ch. 4,   Jonathan Sarfati, in Refuting Compromise, Ch. 5).

In other words, on a given theoretical basis, it is impossible. It fails evidentially. So you invent things without grounds known to science, one after the other, to ‘cover’ case after case; and if such things often enough do not themselves achieve any verification, the basic theory, the Big Bang is nevertheless held as if intact, despite the failure in terms any experimentally confirmed concepts. Every time it fails, and this is often, something is invented by and for imagination, in order to cover up its ineptitude. Now if it has been DERIVED from a theoretical concept and then this had been utilised in order to confirm as correct, the experimental results, this would have had a certain verisimilitude.

When however new VIEWS arise, in order to accommodate flat anti-verifications, and these are not INDEPENDENTLY indicated from evidence, far less underlying and originally constraining evidence, then the theory is a mere appendage of imagination, and does not deserve scientific credibility. This appears as the basic nature of their joint protest.

In no other field of science, they erroneously chant, would such a virtuosity of invention be permitted successively in order to avoid empirical contradiction of the theory. Though their intention in this regard is sound, their sweeping generalisation is not. It is precisely in evolutionism justly attacked by Hoyle as by countless thousands, that just this is done, with one exception. There is NO concept which can or does even have a passing plausibility save it. In other words, here the case is even scientifically worse!

It simply fails, and yet is kept, like the will of someone dead a thousand years ago, as if this would supply some comfort; and as to that, the will is a fraud. It was never so written. (Cf. SMR pp. 140-150, Ch. 2,  The gods of naturalism have no go!)

Striking indeed is this confusion and profusion of assurance which leading to comic parodies of science, provides the VERIFICATION par excellence of presumption, and the prediction of Biblical creationism.

To revert however to their point, the assumptions of the Big Bang simply do not find confirmation within the conceptual framework in which it was created, and alternative frameworks are not in the slightest degree confirmed by evidence, in conjunction with such a theory. The scientists concerned, outraged and conceiving science violated, as well they might, founded their own Conference, at which one of them declared "that there is a crisis in the world of science is now confirmed.” He proceeded (bold added for reference):

“Papers presented at the conference by some of the world’s leading scientists
showed beyond doubt that the weight of scientific evidence
clearly indicates that the dominant theory on
the origin and destiny of the Universe is deeply flawed.”

The Big Bang has been blown up like a balloon, and now is exploded in the same way, by the very pressure put upon it!

The uniformitarian and to invent a term, postulatiferous*6A Big Bang has lost its éclat, being outclassed by successively intractable data, the flimsiness of desperado efforts to conserve its already merely imaginary life, and the discrete structure of the universe so continually confirming itself, as in the atom, as in man's own triple matrix (cf. TMR Ch. 7, SMR Chs. 1, 4).

At this conference, then, leading scientists variously exposed the Big Bang enormities and contradictions, while presenting a whole array of ideas, by no means on one model, showing the vast variety and uncertainty of their field in the arena of secular science. Indeed, one concept now is that the background radiation is derivative from the sun, is solar and not broader in origin! So does the scenario multiply its scripts!

It is precisely this sort of thing which is predictable, both in evolutionism and in astronomical self-genesis; for both delete logic in order to use it, and then confound themselves in anti-verifications, with ad hoc ideas which in any case do not cover all the evidence. You simply CANNOT in the first instance have a logic which lies down dead while the structure of the universe is put there by magic (no cause, means magic, inadequate causation does no better), and then works in variously self-contradictory or empirically absurd regions in order to carry on the farce. In this case, you abandon thought as to the universe's origin, and then make a farcical parody of any sort of knowledge in talking of its destiny. If a bear cub came from a cup of water (time is not going to create for you what the system does not contain), then it is useless to consult one of such an opinion, on its growth patterns or death!

In fact, aetiology can neither rest nor be arrested. It is inherent in thought and invalidates it when it is dismissed, but requires the Creator when it is followed (as shown in detail in


The gods of naturalism have no go!

The Necessity of the Location of the Divine Remedy,
Scientific Method, Satanic Method and the Model of Salvation,

Celestial Harmony for the Terrestrial Host).

ALL that is controlled needs a basis outside itself; for a product requires a cause, principles that operate to keep it so require the same, the mind which sees it so or otherwise, dependent on logical analysis and error or non-error, the same, and the spirit and will of man the same. Short-circuiting logic at ANY point will lead to insoluble problems in the end, and HENCE a lack of harmony and MOREOVER a plethora of sub-standard imaginations by high-grade thinkers, scientific or other, since the nature of the case is as illicit as is the spiritually predictable and scripturally defined obstinacy in seeking a solution where logic is not found, by means of logic!

Seeking to excavate something from nothing, whether principles of causation or their consequence, grades of being from lower grades by ‘trends’ without ground or power, and spiritual oversight despite postulated relativistic inundation, over it all: these are mere illustrations of alogisms so extraordinary as to confirm in themselves, by verification, the falsity of such procedures both in cosmogony and evolutionism. The mode is self-contradictory, and this produces results; the GROUND of the mode is irrational and contrary  to the Creator, in a LIVING process and confrontation, so that the collision being intensified, the results are to be expected to be vast and amazing, both in kind and in the degree of aberration from scientific method which results. This conference is a stark and startling verification in this very field, where some are appalled by consequences foretold for millenia (cf. Jeremiah 2, 23, Romans 1).

One must realise how profound is this biblical verification, for that such minds could so err, yes, this is predictable on the biblical basis (Ephesians 4:17-19), and it explains this modern phenomenon, not only in terms of stated principles, but of a divinely created drama from beginning to end in which these principles form a part (cf. News 87). It differs from many in that the Author of it has granted a certain liberty to the players, and is a divine drama alone, in that He full well knows what their choices will be, and WHY! (Isaiah 46:8, 44-46).

The broader the failure of what is aetiologically bankrupt at the first, in endless seeming and often wholly diverse postulates, embarking proponents like a bark Ark without keel, the more verified is the biblical insistence which never changes (Romans 1:17ff.). That the Bible declares the anti-Creator thought foolishness, and that those who have it, pretending wisdom, become vain or empty in their unwisdom, is then verified in itself. It makes immersion in naturalism a philosophic fad, leading away from truth to a plethora of inept ideas, vapid and indefensible.

That they should err for SO long in these two fields, and in such all but comic ways, and with such assurance and such multiplicity of efforts: this is precisely the outcome of the biblical model, and it is an  exact and multi-dimensional verification. It COULD not be otherwise. Its remarkable occurrence is a verification of profound proportions, being by nature near to absurd, in other circumstances, but requisite here!

The Creator's power provides the answers on His own 'model' which is stated ever so clearly in the Bible, and which the major laws of science, as Barnes has shown, applaud, and where startlingly apt procedures are  available, at the boundaries of science. No model, however, can do more, even on a divine basis, that is, one in general moving FROM the Creator to the creation in thought, than suggest what seems to fit; and when the results from such a basis outdo all competition, this is merely what is to be expected. They have the advantage of potential validity, and of lacking all need to invent the irrational in order to program their propositions.

It is WHAT IS WRITTEN which endures, and that too, in stark contrast to the fibrillating intensity and immensity of the secular theories in their vagaries and volubility; and as to this, it neither changes nor encounters the slightest embarrassment. God says; and it is; man says without God, and it is fizz. The one lasts; the other arises with surprises, but shortly, its pleasant taste is gone, and all that remains is ... air. Speaking as if God when not, is a spectacularly otiose operation, and its results tend to resemble the volcanoes, variable in output, unconstructive in result, of extraordinary heat and highly variable light, because of the smoke which issues with the leaping volumes that erupt.

Creation-based quests then have more things right at the outset, and at the onset, and for this domain of scientific exercise, there are some hopes. At least, antilogy does not at once rise up, in affront, and the creationist testimony where used without affront to the act of creation itself, is able to have uniform solidity and scope. What CAN be tested if staggering in its confirmation; and even what cannot be tested, to the extent that efforts are made, avoids the ludicrous as the secular does not. It has no need of the undisciplined theorem, the ludicrous or the outrageous. It is at least consonant with reality.


That, it fits. In the end, you know of creation - what it is, by what it does, and by what the Creator tells you; you know of HOW He did it, by what He tells you, and to a highly limited extent, by the nature of the product. This being a severe limitation in principle, it is enough to muse with wondering sadness, the comedies of propositions coming and going, as people try to excise the founding dynamic of matter's throb with its delimiting geometry of form, the analytical precision of mind's domain and the often vexatious if not seditious propositions of will, which often likes to deny itself, like other tyrants, the more secretly to operate.

Tragedy is around the corner from such comedy, and it remains as always true that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, and that nothing else has logical validity*6 .




It is not just that a deficient conceptualisation of the truth of your origin is a ground for your devastation in eternity. It is far deeper than that. It is rather that a rebelliously irrational, and contumaciously incoherent approach to the topic, when the truth is both manifest and infinitely superior to the fictions man makes, while he does not make himself but a vast and verificatory mess of his misused self and world,  represents rejection of reality. If you do this, then you must  be impacted by it. Let us not again be fixated with motion misreadings. It is not an impact of a physical kind which is the major point, it is one which is both rational and spiritual, as well as moral.

If you defy your Deity, then you defy not only your own internal construction, apt for reason, with hardware and software available to your spirit for communication within and without, to yourself and to others,  but your own Creator also. To do this has all the wisdom of a child shooting his parents. If you read Calvin and Hobbes, and recall the case where the little horror child speaks to his father about conditions for his re-election to the post of father, with some hope of securing a failure, or even with the chiding that it is an assured thing, some change... then you possibly smile.

Resentment or self-importance alike can lead to such idiocies as those of Calvin. People can deploy them against husband, boss or nation. If however you IGNORE the fact of nation or father, then there is an impact sure to come. It may depend, in the case, on the patience or wisdom, the kindness or other of your particular human relationships; but it will come. Reality does not go on a holiday because of a mood in some figure. Verbal fluency does not achieve wisdom by its effusions. Logical necessities do not evaporate because of heat within.

Destiny therefore becomes intolerable and contemptible for such cases. That is found in Daniel 12, where the outcome is deemed everlasting contempt. If you deal in the realm of the everlasting, which you do when you approach the domain of the One who necessarily IS eternal, then the contempt is in this realm also. It is everlasting contempt.

It is far from being the case that God is contemptuous. As we learn from His word, He is love, and although love can chasten, and indeed act even in the midst of chronic and mordant, inane and inept rebellion, and can even remove what becomes most grievous, as He removed Tyre (cf. The Pitter-Patter of Prophetic Feet Ch. 4), after much warning, yet there is in love that certain hopefulness. You see it repeatedly in the Bible (as in Jeremiah 17), where efforts do not cease, however certain the result, to intervene. The Lord did not fail to WEEP over Jerusalem when it refused pertinaciously, irrationally and in a way the precise contrary to the requirements of the revelation given and ostensibly received: and so earned its come-uppance. It was destroyed a generation later, almost with precision; time for reflection but not for congratulation...

Consider for one moment what went into that situation. God loved. God acted. God warned by the prophets for centuries beforehand, instructed for the day, when it would come, in thousands of data, and prepared those who would listen, for the arrival of the day and way of Christ, providing identikit recognition in ways both marvellous and patient. The prophets were eloquent, now simple, not piercing, now penetrating, now fearlessly inveighing, now tenderly appealing, and the ways of things had their numerous fulfilments before the day, not one word failing at any historical epoch on the way to that great day, when having sent prophets, God sent His only begotten Son Himself. You see the transition simply in Mark 12.

When the Christ arrived, and even before the minds of the keenest of observers, provided NO way for His attack, but death, then death it was. The certainty of His authenticity became the certainty of His murder.

He could not be overthrown in argument by the greatest scholars, the most mordant critics, in works, by the most agitated and agitating of assailants (Luke Ch. 11 moves to its end in an absolute flurry of worry and torment as His detractors lie in wait), and He would even propose (as in Mark 2), challenges which were beyond the reach of any but God, and then fulfilled them. Result: they hated Him the more. He even raised the dead - in Lazarus, for example: result, they then HAD to remove Him lest the people should follow Him. SURVIVAL, lest Rome should interfere and trouble the nation, deeming Him a king, meant that He must not survive. It is expedient for the people that He die! was the most religious idea of priestly Caiaphas (John 11).

Palestinian propositions against Israel have an eerie resemblance to that proposal of Caiaphas, one of course, duly implemented. Love is long. Thus even now, as the day for a vast revival of faith in Christ is to come, as Zechariah predicts in Ch. 12, there is a simple solution, a viable remedy. It COST God much, in patience and in power, in suffering and in sacrifice; but He is practical. He did it, He came to do it and finished it (John 19:30, Hebrews 9, Ephesians 1:10, Colossians 1:19ff., Romans 3:23ff., Galatians 1:6-9); and it is done (Galatians 3). It means that  the whole structure of salvation is intact, and what is needed is neither the Inquisition by which the Romanist heresy sought to use FORCE in the arena of faith as explicitly forbidden (Matthew 26, John 18:36), nor the Siberian enterprise, by which Communism sought to make a road of blood instead of asphalt for its progress, in fact into a bankruptcy long before apparent*8 nor the intifada murder operations of Palestinians to tell Him how to arrange things, nor the explosions of Islamic militants, or their murder warrants against those turning Christian, apparently lacking intrinsic means for what they force. All of this, over long history, you simply do not need, nor is it rational to try, to MAKE men what YOU want by YOUR*9 ideas in a way the PRECISE opposite of what Christ did, .

Force is not to the point.

ONLY repentance is, with faith in the only God who has irrevocably and indefeasibly attested Himself (*5) in the Bible and in Christ, in full accord with it, uniquely meeting all that the reason He has given us can present, and that with a facility which is part of the majesty on High.

This means a return, a reversion to the reality already bruised in the rebellious heart, and an acceptance of the consignment of mercy, in Christ, as given by grace only, through mercy, to cover sin, so that not fractiously rebellious but spiritually humble, yes meek citizens of the kingdom of heaven might no more indulge or engage in the battles of the pride of life, and the passions of clutching fingers and vengeful missions.

Vengeance is MINE! says the Lord (Romans 12:19). While man plays God with intellect or arm, it is not playful; it is vicious. The result is a destiny, in the end, where the truth lies trodden on and the blood of Christ trampled; and it is this  which is deemed contemptible. It is to be desired that this be avoided. You see it again quite explicitly in Hebrews 10! It is not sin but refusal for its purgation which is fatal; and when the cost for that purgation was infinite, in Christ's Cross, where purity took pollution and deity suffering for man, in man's very form and format, then contempt becomes contemptible and refusal becomes the ultimate in renegacy. It is more than sad, and its poignancy is vast like an endless chasm. Yet facts will not alter by mere will, neither does the morbid thrill of blood letting alter innocence to guilt, or guilt into innocence.

The immediate interests of grappling and grasping are not to compared with the ultimate design for man, the desire of his heart when, if ever, it seeks repose, and the thrust of the glory of God. Nor, most mercifully, are the errors of heart the finale, but the rejection of their cure (John 3:19), one of the most potent expressions of the divine love, which rejecting, man in his millions self-condemns to what lacks ... love. Love does not force.

It is Christ, the Lord's Christ (Acts 2:26) who is needed. He has been slain once. If now again He is slain in the heart, then it is not sin as such which brings the judgment, but the refusal of its solution. The ultimate solution is not that to the 'Palestinian question', an ingestion of rebellion against the Lord's own real estate apportionment, made as a promise, for a part of the earth which HE made: but to the sin question. When this earth is gone it may all seem rather silly, to have slaughtered in order to disinvest God (cf. Galloping Events Ch. 4), of His word and work, and to grab it. In the meantime, passion displaces reason, desire revelation, and the wonder of the destiny for man, not only in the Middle East, but in the midst of his many and various rebellions, moral, spiritual, intellectual as well as territorial and spatial, suffers dereliction for many.

The pride of life is a fatal attendant, a deadly friend and an arm of the fiend. It is to be eschewed as if potassium cyanide, loved like an adder, embraced like a dog with rabies. When man has contempt, one can reason that it is pathological; but when God shows contempt, after the most massive movement of love conceivable, then one can merely dream. Nothing more remains.

Deserved contempt past all remedy, in the very face of remedy, indeed rebellion which is a consuming passion, consumes; and it is this which leads to the result divinely stated to be ... contemptible, even before the least contemptuous and the greatest lover of all!

Such is the pride of life.

The PRINCE of LIFE (Acts 3:14-15) however is a vital friend, to be sought like clear spring water in the desert, loved with all the heart, embraced like love itself, for GOD IS love!






See especially the first of the following pages, but remember that Professor Slusher's work is very systematic, so that the others are presented with this.

SMR pp. 76-78, 104, 165, 170, 204, 207, 239-244, 249, S15, S21-S23, S27, S30



See for example:

It Bubbles ... Ch. 9, SMR pp. 348ff.,

Little Things Ch. 5,

SMR Chs. 1,3, 5, 10, Predestination and Freewill and the Predestination quintet.


See on various aspects of this topic:

SMR pp. 76-78, 104, 165, 170, 204, 207, 239-244, 249, S15, S21-S23, S27, S30;

Divine Agenda Ch. 1,

A Spiritual Potpourri  3, 1,

Red Alert 11,

Cascade of Truth, Torrent of Mercy Ch.   6,  

News 80, Ancient Words, Modern Deeds Ch.   4;  with

Barbs ... Item 29 , TMR Ch.7,  

Kingdom of Heaven Ch.  ,

Repent or Perish Ch.  6;  

Calibrating Myths ... Chs.   1, SS  8.


See Hartnett's work, Dismantling the Big Bang, and for his own presentation, Ch. 5 within this. He precedes this by his dismantling procedure!  See Slusher,  The Origin of the Universe, p. 35-44. In similar theme of non-resolution of quite numerous problems in secular astronomy such as  the Big Bang idea,  of numerous problems, consult for much detail,  Jonathan Sarfati, in Refuting Compromise, Ch. 5, including the secular use of variable velocity of light, op. cit. pp. 157-158.




See Slusher's work, The Origin of the Universe, p. 38, and TMR Ch. 5 at this location.



Those who lack a sense of humour will perhaps be troubled here. The 'iferous' suffix simply indicates that it is involved in, or gifted at having the thing in view: here postulates. Hence it means: bearing (like fruit) postulates, or adapted to many postulates, or more precisely, liable to superabundance of postulates, as a natural outcome of its very nature. That is the nature of the 'Big Bang' hypothesis, a mother with many chickens, if you prefer poultry to the botanical.

The word 'postulatiferous'  is coined perhaps; but no matter, if it was made before, it is all one. It comes from 'postulate' and implies a multiplication in this field, relative to the Big Bang, of the nature just described.

This is the point of it, and Shakespeare is not the only one to be concerned to note a Comedy of Errors.


See for example: SMR Chs. 1-3,






There are even different systems of approach in this field, as shown rather extensively in Slusher's Origin of the Universe, filled with discrepancies and endeavours of this or that theory or theorist to contain them, with more versatility and agility than verifiability, and this even for major objects, data, fields, in the universe; and no less is to be seen in Harntett Dismantling the Big Bang, Chs. 2 and 4-5, as an herd of concepts and conclusions, discrete ideas and imaginations is is surveyed with such a variability as to be an excellent commentary, like one of Charlie Chaplin's silent films, before any words are spoken, on the diffuse state of undisciplined imagination together with the passionate desire to play God with knowledge, without the facility of having it or the means of gaining it at the creation.



See :

Aviary of Idolatry

News 44,  69, 97 (the exploiters, the fanciful,
the Communists, the de-godders and the realities),

Tender Times for Timely Truth Ch.   8;
The Grating Grandeur ... Ch.   2; SMR  pp. 925ff.;

Beauty for Ashes Ch.    6 (and Hong Kong, and the movement of nations in the last century a concern),

with News 98, News 37.


See *8 above, with More Marvels ... Ch. 4, Divine Agenda Ch. 6, Red Alert Ch. 10, *4 with its many references.