In this sermon, the speaker discusses the concept of a hologram and how it relates to our understanding of God's creation. He explains that a hologram is like a window into a smaller universe, and the size of the window determines the resolution of the image. The speaker emphasizes that his intention is not to teach, but to stimulate the audience to do their own research and study the Scriptures. He also highlights the significance of light in both the book of Genesis and the Gospel of John, emphasizing that Jesus is the true light that came into the world.

This is the third study in the book of Genesis conducted by Chuck Missler. The subject of this study is Genesis chapter 1, verses 3 through 19. But I also was, this evening, given a diagram that you might enjoy. It's a... I think if this was in Life magazine they'd call it the Ascent of Man or something. And they have a series of these prehistoric men. And I have to read you the captions. I'm sorry you can't appreciate the artwork from out there. But the first one is the Heidelberg man built from a jawbone that was conceded by many to be quite human. Notice I'm not making any reference to judges, what is it, 1316 or whatever, Samuel and the Jawbone. Yeah, okay. After the Heidelberg man we have the Nebraska man, scientifically built up from one tooth. You know, it's interesting how efficient, you know, efficiency is defined as coming to, creating vast amounts of conclusions from very little data. And the Heidel, the Nebraska man is an example of that. That tooth later was found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. Next comes the Piltown man with the jawbone that it was built upon, turned out to belong to a modern ape. Then Peking man, 500,000 years old, although all evidence of it has disappeared. Neanderthal man at the International Congress of Zoology in 1958, Dr. A.J.E. Cave said that his examination of the famous Neanderthal skeleton found in France over 50 years ago is that of an old man who suffered from arthritis. Then we have Cro-Magnon man, one of the earliest and best established fossils, is at least equal in physique and brain capacity to modern man. So what's the difference? And then we have, finally, in the whole climax of this series, we have modern man and he's just labeled, this genius thinks we came from the monkey. And then they're all worshipping a statue, which is a big, you know, gorilla. And it says, our father on it. And then it says, from Romans 1.22, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. So that's the history of the monkey men in the little chart that was given to me this evening as a little gift that you can take a look at if you'd like later. One of the things you might enjoy, if you're in the bookstore, and the actual name of the book eludes me, it'll come to me in a minute, the point being not just that the classical recreations of, you know, prehistoric man are an error, is that in the most cases, they were deliberate frauds. It was not just misguided good intentions. Yes. Thank you, thank you. The Fossils Say No by Gish, G-I-S-H. Thank you. Very interesting work. You'll find, of course, the libraries are full of fascinating works on evolution and creation and so forth. That's an interesting book because it gets into the legal background of some of the deliberate frauds that were presumably in an intent to gain publicity and notoriety that cloud the whole history of paleontology. And it's too bad. So much for that. Well, before we get into tonight's session of controversies, let's call upon our real teacher, and I'll explain that remark in more depth after we've had an opening prayer, if you would. Father, we praise you this evening for the joy of gathering together for the purpose of beholding Jesus Christ. Father, we thank you for this opportunity. We thank you for the book of Genesis and the opportunity to explore the book. We ask you in all these things, Father, to open understanding to what you have for us and guide us by the power of your Holy Spirit to discern those things you have for each and every one of us. Keep us from error, Father, and just be with us this hour, for we would see Jesus, in whose name we pray. Amen. Well, since the riot from last Monday settled down, I find it necessary to recon... How many of you have been here prior to the Genesis study, one of the previous studies, Revelation? Okay, well, then you're regulars. On the presumption that some of you are not, let me highlight a couple of things that you just should know as a point of departure. It's not my intention to teach. I read the book of James, and I find out what he says about teachers, and I'm doing my best to duck that office, okay? When you have a room of many hundreds of people, it's probably a futile act to duck that role, but I attempt to. My desire, passion, drive, interest, perhaps gift, is to stimulate you to do your own homework. It's not my intention to teach. It's my intention to highlight things, to get you excited and interested, is what God has here for us. Therefore, it's not my intention to honestly, carefully, objectively, boringly, highlight a balanced perspective of the Scripture. I'm not skilled to do that. I'd bore you to tears if I did. I will try to the best of my ability to highlight things that are controversial, and where the occasion demands, I will try to show you at least some glimpse of both sides. But I generally will retreat to a more colorful position of pointing out that there are two sides, sharing in some candor the views that I hold, but emphasizing that, hey, that's one guy's opinion. And if you know me well, you can know it's probably wrong. Colorful, but probably wrong. And so, if I had a blackboard, like the teacher always does, come to the blackboard, you always put something up in the upper right-hand corner, the homeroom number or something, I would put Acts 17.11, which is an admonition to search the Scriptures daily to prove whether those things be so. Don't believe anything that Chuck Missler tells you, or you're in real trouble. Now, having said that, again, I think I said that earlier, but I will from time to time attempt to remind myself of that, if not some newcomers. I apparently got some people very upset last time on the gap theory issue. So in the interest of being very definitive on that, let me point out that this whole concept of a possibility of a gap between Genesis 1.1 and Genesis 1.2 is a highly controversial area. I think I said that, but I want to underline it a couple of times. Secondly, while I admitted, I think in some candor, that while it's controversial, I lean to that, I want to also emphasize something that I attempted to emphasize last time, that even if you grant the idea, not saying you should, you do your own study and decide, but should you grant the idea, the gap theory is useless for the purpose that it's usually invoked for. The gap theory will do nothing for you to somehow try to account for millions of years prior to Adam, before the seven day issue and all of that. Simply because the issue of the apparent, I'll say apparent, age of the planet Earth, that's described by the fossil record, is put to silence, not by Genesis, but by the New Testament. Because fossils are dead, right? And how did death come about? By one man, Adam. So the fossils had to exist after Adam, who was at least six days beyond the period we're talking about, Genesis 1 verse 2. So all I was trying to get at is, is that if you don't buy the gap theory, and many scholars are militantly opposed to the gap theory idea, fine, you'll traffic on that soon enough. But even if you grant the gap theory idea, it doesn't apply or do any good relative to the apparently extended age of the planet Earth. I say apparently because there's a lot of evidence to the contrary relative to the age of the planet Earth. I'll come to that in a minute. But number one, gap theory is very controversial, and there are many good scholars on both sides of that issue. Most of the books that you'll read will go to tedious lengths to argue about the Hebrew grammar, both sides. I've spent a lot of time on that. In my opinion, those arguments tend to be inconclusive. The possibility of a gap, I personally think, is stimulating and interesting. I'm not trying to sell the idea. I'm trying to stimulate you to take a good second look at everything you read, whether it's in Genesis 22 or Genesis 1 or wherever. And I'll do that to you all the way through, throughout things that are controversial. If I think they're doctrinally significant, I'll try to be more cautious. I regard the gap theory as just one of those left-wing, murky, fuzzy things that's kind of curious. I don't believe it's significant. Put in a proper perspective, it's not significant doctrinally. Some people may disagree. It is if you try to any way cloud God's creation and cloud the doctrines. And to the extent it does, to that extent it's wrong, because that was clearly not God's intent. So much for the gap theory, I think. But be aware that there are volumes of books refuting the gap theory. It's a scribe to Chalmers in 1814. The origin of the particular idea is meaningless to me, because there's also those that believe pre-tribulationism started by Darby. And number one, I don't believe it did. But even if it did, I have reason to suspect that there were some very good people in the Book of Acts and others writing letters to each other that never heard of Darby and were pre-tribulation in their viewpoint. But that's another controversy that we can leave to another evening. We have enough controversies to address tonight ourselves. Just to sort of start it off in the Book of Genesis, I would like to call your attention to the Book of Joshua, chapter 1, verse 8. And I try not to put all our introductory material in the first evening, so I'll throw a few things at you each time. But in Joshua, chapter 1, verse 8, there's a very, very famous admonition. Most of us can probably quote it by memory. We've probably heard this many times. The Lord is speaking to Joshua, the successor to Moses. And in verse 8, he says, This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night. Thou shalt meditate therein day and night. That thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein. For then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, then thou shalt have good success. Then blessings will heap upon you? Not exactly. Then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. Terrific. Very, very oft-quoted admonition to Joshua that we can apply to ourselves. This book of the law shall not depart out of our mouth, but we should meditate therein day and night. Which book was the Lord talking to Joshua about? The Torah. The Torah. The first five books of J-E-P-H-L-M-N-O-P. A documentary hypothesis? Hardly. The first five books of Moses. I suspect that Joshua had absolutely no doubt as to who wrote the first five books of Moses. The ink was probably still wet. But anyway, I was intrigued by that because we quote the things, often losing sight of the fact that it's really the Torah that's denotatively in view here. In the other verse, I mentioned Acts 17.11. I put it on the blackboard. The other thing I would put up is Romans 15.4. That whatsoever things are written aforetime were written for our learning. Whatsoever things. That's the numbers, the commas, the size of the boxes, you name it. Whatsoever things are written aforetime were written for our learning. Now, I can't always explain what it is we're supposed to learn from some of these things. But we're going to stumble into that continually. Like, what was wrong with the second day? That he didn't say it was good. Does that mean that the second day wasn't good? No, I don't think so. Because all things later on are said that he looked at everything and it was good. But for some reason, the Holy Spirit didn't record that what was done on the second day is good. I don't believe that's an accident. I think that's there for a reason. What the reason is, is left as an exercise for the student. But we'll get to that a little bit later. Last time, I believe we covered in summary form the Ten Commandments of Genesis. Let there be whatever. Ten times that's mentioned. There are actual Ten Commandments of God where it says, Let there be X, Y, or Z. And that occurs ten times. And we talked about the different sevens, the seven words, the seven stages. The seven times good is mentioned. The seven times he made things. The seven times heaven is mentioned. And so on. And I think we covered that all right. Now, we're going to plunge into the night and this whole business of the days. I think we touched upon this last time. That the word Yom occurs 1,480 times in the Old Testament. 1,181 times is mentioned day. The rest of the time it means a lot of other things. Although never is the word used with a number that doesn't mean a specific day. It's used generically as a day. Day of the Lord. Day of vengeance. As an idiom. But never meaning a more indefinite period of time. A definite occurrence, but an indefinite period of time. How, when we speak of the day of the Lord. Is that one day? Or is it an era? A period? But never is it used. 1,181 times it means day. 24 hour day kind of thing. And I think we talked about that last time. But the one thing that I sort of saved to what I... Oh, one other thing. There are a lot of other theories of the six days. That there's a day age idea. And we could spend a lot of time trying to point out why the day age idea leads you into trouble. It sounds appealing at first. The G. We've studied in junior high school biology or wherever. That there were geological ages. Terrific. And we've seen little charts that lay down those ages. And they sort of parallel the six days of creation. Isn't that neat? Problem is they don't really parallel the six days of creation. And furthermore, those geological ages weren't one day long. Well, maybe what the scripture says is a day and an age or something. Except it's hard to reconcile with the evening morning bit. And we could spend several hours arguing the merits and demerits of the various views. From the book of Genesis. The Lord, the Holy Spirit, in the hands of Moses, saves us a lot of trouble. About the year day or the age day idea. By turning to Exodus chapter 20 verse 11. And you might annotate this in your Bible if you like. Because in my opinion, just one man's opinion. But in my opinion, this creates great difficulties for the day age hypothesis in some of these. If we go to chapter 20 of Exodus. And that should ring immediately familiar to you as the location of the ten commandments in the scripture. And verse 11, under the pen of Moses. Says, for in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth. The sea. And all that in them is. And he rested on the seventh day. Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. What's the clear intent of the Lord? What's the Lord's desire that we understand? That they were six days. That those days were consecutive. Now whether they were really consecutive or for some reason the Lord idiomatically wanted us to understand that. Really is kind of academic. Okay. That's what the Lord would have us understand. And I take him at his word that they were six days. I think he could not have written it in the book of Genesis any more specifically. Hey, there's a day and the evening and the morning completed. X day, right? The pattern is through the six, seven days, right? And yet we have volumes and volumes written by well-meaning evangelicals trying to somehow figure out that maybe he didn't mean six days. In the Ten Commandments it makes it very crisp that not only did he do it in six days but he had a purpose in doing it in six days. I'm very fond of Henry Morris' theme and there's several of the scientists that know the Lord Jesus Christ. Who are fond of the idea that the Lord created the creation mature. When he created a tree there were annular rings in it. If you took the tree he created and sliced it you might count the rings and discover it had 37 annular rings in there. Which would imply it was 37 years old. And I'd like to just view that as an analogy that if you give your girlfriend a watch you have it wound and set to the correct time. And he created Adam, he created him whole and so on. So the real question is why did he take six days? He could have done it in one day or 30 milliseconds. One possible reason is to establish the pattern of the Sabbath. Because we know from the New Testament the purpose of the Sabbath is that it was made for man. And ordained by God in this pattern for the creation. Which leads us to all kinds of other problems. Because we have a tough time visualizing the earth done in six days. The more geological background you have perhaps the more difficult that concept is to get across. Someone gave me a list that I won't go through the whole thing in detail. But it actually lists 33 evidences of a young earth. Scientific data that if objectively analyzed implies that the entire planet earth is less than 10,000 years old. And I'll go through a number of these just to give you a flavor of it. There are oil gushers, there are oil bed pressures that indicate an age of less than 10,000 years. And there's a journal article in the science magazine referred to. Carbon 14 disintegration versus production. That there's arguments anything over 3500 years tends to get suspect. Between 5600 years and 11,200 years ago. If you do an error analysis on carbon 14 you get that argument. Decay of the earth's magnetic moment. There's a complex thing in a very specialized field. But also speaks of the creation of the earth with an age less than 10,000 years. Certain large stars. There's arguments can be built. Atmospheric helium. Mississippi delta filling implies 4000 years surprisingly enough. Certain ocean concentrations having to do with the metal ions in the ocean suggest a few thousand years aging. There are some erosion arguments from certain cliffs. It goes on to sea ooze, earth spin, ocean sediment, volcanic water and rocks, influx of cosmic dust, comet decay, mutation load, population statistics, stellar radiation, cosmic dust velocity. I'll try to skim some of the more technical ones. Earth heat, lunar inert gases, stalagmites and stalactites. The Earth that perished is a book that I'll make reference to when we get to the flood. But I'm very fond of a photograph they have there of the stalactites or any with the vertical ones that drip under the five feet long. And they're under the Lincoln Memorial, which was built in 1923, which is clearly dated by classical stalactite analysis as being millions of years old. Topsoil arguments, geological features. Niagara Falls has a has a has a. There's a analysis there. Moon, radioactive dust, hydrogen, total hydrogen in the universe, moon radiation, short-lived lunar isotopes and atmospheric oxygen. Then it could go on this. Each one of these comes from a specialized field of science to go into it. Number one would require background that only a few of these I might be competent to even explain. There are creation science associations. This one, this list was came from the Creation Science Association of Orange County. Those of you interested right here in Irvine can come up afterwards to get an address in the bibliography that I hope to have printed for next time. There will be books. Those of you that are really interested in creation can find ample books to get into these things, depending on your particular level of interest. Those of you that are more general in your background, but would like to get into a general discussion of cosmology, the study of the origin of the universe, would find several books interesting. One of the books that is heavy, but good reading by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb is the Genesis Flood. It'll be in our bibliography that we'll hand out later. Those of you that haven't read Immanuel Velikovsky's World in Collision will find it fascinating, even though to the best of my knowledge, he's not a believer. He's just a very interesting writer, provocative writer. And the book, though, that I think many of you that have at least some feeling for technology might enjoy, is a small paperback by James Reed, published by Zonderman. Reed spelled R-E-I-D, God, the Atom, and the Universe. And he goes into the young Earth statistics. He also goes into the refutation of the Big Bang theory to a newer theory, which involves a dark sun. And that's extremely interesting to Genesis students in terms of what the current thinking in secular cosmology is. And he gets into plasmas and all of that, if you're interested in magnetohydrodynamics. Okay, good, we have some magnetohydrodynamics. All right, I think we spent three or four weeks getting down to verse three, right? We've done as much damage as we dare on verse two, so we can move on to verse three. And it said, And God said, Let there be light, and there was light. And that led me to a digression last time that has, in turn, led to the apparatus up here on the table. So I'm going to, I resisted the temptation to get a view graph and really bore you to death with a set of, a presentation that's designed for optical engineers. But it has to do with a testimony and scripture and so forth. But I mentioned last time, light itself is a great mystery. The more you understand of physics, the more confusing properties of light really become. And if we were to attempt to enumerate those qualities, well, let me back up. The reason light's such a mystery is that it has wave, that is frequency phenomena, like radio waves have. Yet it also is subject to gravity, implying that it has mass effects. But having apparent mass, if I might put it that way, but traveling at the speed of light, which is because of the mathematical implications of that, raises more questions than we have the capacity to even frame, let alone try to answer here. But if we were, in turn, going to try to describe what we might mean by perfect light, one of the things we would like to see in light is that it is temporally coherent. That is, it's paced within time uniformly. Most light is not. Incandescent light is not. Your fluorescents here are not. To have light that's temporarily coherent, if you visualize the corpuscles of light like a marching troop, that they're all in step and stay in step over time, that's spoken of as being temporarily coherent. The closest we come to that in physical reality in the laboratory is a laser. And when we have temporarily coherent light, interesting things can be done. And that's why we have one up here tonight that we can play with after the hour. Now, a perfect light, in theory, would be temporarily coherent and it would be at infinity. If light is close by, you get what's called parallax. Those of you that fool with cameras and try to use a viewfinder know that if you try to take a picture of something close in, you have an error between your viewfinder and the lens. Further away, it doesn't matter. But the error is very small. That's why single lens reflex is so popular, because you're looking through it. There is no parallax. But parallax is a basic problem in photography and lighting and so forth. And so to get rid of parallax, you want light rays to be parallel to each other, collimated, if you will. Or putting that mathematically, you want the mathematical source of that light at infinity. And now, if it's at infinity, if you have to get finite energy here from infinity, you need an infinite source of power, in concept at least. And you want it perfectly collimated so that it will go from infinity one direction to infinity the other. And traveling at the speed of light, it must have left there, at least mathematically, minus infinity ago. Now, if we put this down on a blackboard, it turns out each one of those ideas correlate with one of the attributes of God. The idea that he is unchanging, the same yesterday, today, and forever, is temporarily coherent. And remember in James where it says, in the father of lights, in whom there is no variableness or turning? You know what the word variableness is in the Greek? Parallax, in effect, the word from which we get parallax. Those of you who want to chase that can run with that one. The idea of having requiring at least mathematically infinite energy implies omnipotence. The fact that it's perfectly collimated would imply omnipresence. And the fact that it's traveling at the speed of light since minus infinity ago implies eternal or uncreated existence. So that's just a conceptual framework to jump into some ideas. It's not surprising then that all through the scriptures, not just in Genesis 1 verse 3, we find God speaking of himself in terms of light. The first direct quote of God is indeed, let there be light, or technically, let light be. And we could go through the scripture and find hundreds, and I'll let you do that on your own this summer if you've got a concordance and you're sort of interested in the state. Take the concept of light and follow it through the scripture. But you'll come across it in Exodus 13.1, the pillar of fire, remember? And the burning bush, God chooses to manifest himself to Moses. He takes advantage of the burning bush. The vision of the throne of God in Ezekiel chapter 1. And of course in the New Testament, Jesus' proclamation that I am the light of the world. And the light of heaven, when Saul is converted to Damascus Road, he sees such bright light he's blinded for a while. In fact, there's speculation that Paul's problem later on of his eyesight may have come from that experience. And we could go on and on, but this is really a digression, but it's a digression that I think will have some fruit for you. So I'm having you indulge in it. Now, it turns out that when you have highly organized light, temporarily coherent light, we call that a laser, that you can create some interesting effects. You and I are familiar with a photograph. A photograph is a spatial representation of an image. If you look at a scene, take a picture, you look at the picture, there's a one-to-one correspondence of a person's head, his left arm, his right arm. And the image itself relates to what you see in the space-time domain. And you have a lens that focuses the rays of light that's on the image, and it's captured on a photosensitive chemical piece of film and fine. Now, there's something else you can do. There is a kind of photography called lensless photography, where you can create images with no lenses at all. And one form of this is holography. And we have here tonight a hologram. And if I were to pass this around, I won't because I don't want the fingerprints on it. But what you have in this little holder is a piece of three by five inch, whatever, negative. And as you hold up the light, it looks gray. You can see some sort of swirly patterns on it, but they just look like a darkroom error. And the way this was created was that it was placed physically near some inanimate objects, some still-life items. It happens to be a chemical flask, a three-dimensional tinkertoy-type model of an atom, like you might see in a chemistry lab in school, and I think a little ashtray or a little pillbox or something. I've forgotten exactly. And then a laser illuminated both the objects and the film. And the rays of light that hit the objects bounced off the objects and also hit the film. So on the film was light directly from the laser and light that reflected from the objects. And what's recorded on the film is where those rays of light interfere with one another. And so the film really records just what's called the interference patterns. And you look at that and you can't see a thing. Now, what makes the hologram interesting is that when you illuminate the hologram with a laser in rough position of where it was when the original one was created, and you look at it, you will see a three-dimensional image of what was there before. And later on, after the hour, you can come up one at a time and take a look. Or you line up, and you have to look at it just from roughly the right angle. And you'll see, you look through this little, what is in effect a little gray window. And then behind it, you'll see a little chemical flask, a little three-dimensional model of an atom or tinker toy contraption. And as you move your eye, you can see around these things. And a little object. Very, very startling effect. Now, what we create by this, in effect, is a little window into an imaginary universe. And by the interplay of that light, you can see an image. Now, what makes this strange is if I cut this in half, you would still see the same objects. You wouldn't lose half the objects. You'd just see a window in that same universe that's smaller. And you have to move your eye a little more to take it all in. It's like we're in this room, and somebody's outside trying to peek in the window. And if the window is two feet square or five feet square, it would not encumber him in seeing who's in the room. Okay? That's how we've created a window here. And so we can cut a little quarter-inch square, or we can have this thing four feet square, and you'd see the same thing. The differences would be resolution. The larger it was, the sheet you have, the sharper the image. Now, why am I going through all of this? Well, for several reasons. The hologram has some interesting properties. Only light that is coherent from the reference laser is recorded permanently. Light from any other sources is noise and not recorded. There's lots of others. I'll try to skip the ones that get too technical. There's dozens of examples, and the dozens of examples all relate to some spiritual truths that I'm really up to. Now, if I hold this up in natural light, the light that we're looking at here, it has no form or comeliness. There's no reason you'd desire this piece of film. If you found it on my desk at home, you'd be inclined to throw it in the wastebasket. It's one of the mistakes that didn't come out. It has no form or comeliness that you would desire it. But if you illuminate this with the light that created the image in the first place, you get an image, a three-dimensional image that's faithful to the original. And that's exactly what we have here in our hands. We have a hologram, a hologram that was created by the Holy Spirit. And you take this book in natural light. The natural man does not discern the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. But you illuminate this by the Holy Spirit, and you will see an image, the image of Jesus Christ. And it has some other interesting properties. If you tear away, take one of the 66 books and throw it away, you don't lose the image of Jesus Christ. There isn't a particular doctrine of substance that you lose. The image of Jesus Christ is diffused over the three and a half million typewriter strokes, the 66 books written by 40 authors, the 15,000 verses, whatever it is. There isn't any particular focusing of any specific doctrine. Any critical doctrine is spread through the whole thing. So while if you throw one book away, you may lose resolution on some issue. You don't lose any substance. If you illuminate this book by some light of a different frequency, of a different character, that created it in the first place, you get a false image, a false image. If I illuminate this hologram with a laser of a different frequency that created it in the first place, I get a distorted image. And that there are many Jesuses. You may know that. You may be shocked. Did you know there are many Jesuses? There are some Jesuses that are worshipped as Satan's brother. There are some Jesuses that every cult has some approach to deny the deity of Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, as the Bible reveals. And these errors emerge from a false light, if you will. We could go on and on. If you are a light bearer, if I'm going to try to have more than one laser in the act, I've got to get the slave laser slaved to the master, temporally. One has to drive the other. You can't have two time bases in a laser system. Each one has to be slaved to the other. That's exactly what we have to do. We have to get in step, if you will, to the light that we worship, that we call Jesus Christ. We have to be submitted to his will. Now, by the way, how do you test the quality of the hologram or its effect? You attempt to test the image that it produces. One of the advantages of this hologram we have is that it had its origin outside our time domain. It validates its origin from being outside our time domain by telling us the end from the beginning. We call that prophecy. We can determine the quality of the image we have by testing those prophecies, those that have come true to validate its origin and those that haven't come true as guidance for ourselves. I can probably bore you for hours on holography, and I'll let that go. This all comes from a time when I was chairman of precision instrument. We used to make laser memory. So this is explain some of this hobby material. Now, we notice John tells us that. Let's turn to John chapter one. Remember, we turn to John chapter one, the first three verses referring to the original creation. We started the book of Genesis. But in this particular case, I'd like you to skim down and see verse seven. Speaking of John the Baptist came for witness to bear witness of that light to all men that they might believe. He was not that light that is John the Baptist wasn't, but he was sent to bear witness of that light. That was the true light. Verse nine, which light of every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world and the world was made by him and the world knew him not. He came into his own. So I received him and so forth. And. Climaxing the whole passage, in my my view, client climaxes at verse 14, where the word was made flesh and dwelt among us. And we beheld his glory, the glories of the only begotten father, full of grace and truth. In this passage, John's sweep, which goes earlier than Genesis one one, as we talked about before. It's very interesting to me that he gets right in the first few verses in the subject of light. Speaking, of course, of Jesus Christ. And from here, we could depart this whole thing that men love darkness rather than light. Why? Because their deeds were evil. You know, that's something that we should underscore right up in the front in Genesis. Most of us study Genesis or creation and fossils and all that stuff because of our interest in what's classically called apologetics. We somehow have the misguided notion that if we were just smart enough and had the facts at our fingertips, we could convince somebody that God is that he loves us. And so forth. Do you remember what Psalm 14 one says about the atheist? The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. Where does the fool say that? His heart, not his mind, his heart. Why do men not believe? Why do they cling to such ideas as evolution, what have you? To escape responsibility for sin. To escape responsibility for sin. Not some intellectual issue at all. And as we continue to go through Genesis, we'll try to highlight that. By the time we're going to show you before we're through that the six days of creation also highlight the God's approach to the spiritual condition of the believer. And they also pattern the bowls, trumpets and in Revelation. But let's let's getting ahead of ourselves. OK, we're we've jumped into the first day by talking about light. Verse four, God said God saw the light and it was good. God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light day and the darkness he called night and the evening, the morning or the first day. It's very interesting in this very first day. Not only does light show up, doesn't he say he created it? He may have called it into existence or he simply came on the scene. I'm not going to get into that whole debate. So it was good. And then he does another act. He divides the light from the darkness. Now, you and I think of darkness as the absence of light. I think we're going to see later, looking back at this, that the Holy Spirit's teaching of some other things. In John, I think it's 319, he says that men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. Darkness and light are set at opposition. They're set up here right here very early. Incidentally, those of you that are interested in Greek, it says men agapeo darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. So those of you that have been taught that the verb agapeo means God's divine love. You've got a couple of problem verses to deal with where men agapeo the front seats in the synagogue. And where Timothy speaks of, you know, false doctrines and so forth. Perhaps the most intriguing one is in John 3, where men agapeo darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. Now, that may shatter what you thought the word agapeo means. You're really thinking of the noun agape. And that's a whole other study you can get into on your own. Pointing out that the noun and the verb are not necessarily the same thing. Agapeo really means to be, apparently it seems to mean, to be totally given over to. And God divided the light from the darkness and God called the light day and the darkness he called night. And the evening and the morning were the second day. Now, we're going to come to the shocking discovery that the sun may not have been on hand at this time. We're going to discover it shows up, I think it's in day four. And that causes a lot of people some confusion. How can you have day and night without the sun? Well, you can have the sun. First of all, you can have other sources of light. That's one possibility. Another possibility, maybe the sun was there and it just wasn't revealed to an earthbound observer. And that's fair in terms of saying that, hey, this is a chronicle as it might have been seen from the earth. That's one view that some of the scholars have. We're getting ahead of ourselves there. But the whole cosmology of the dark sun is something that scientists are talking a lot about today. Because it turns out there's a lot of evidence accumulating that the planets did not come out of the sun. The big bang idea. That's day four. Let's see, where are we at day one? Verse six. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. And God called the firmament heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And boy, here we go. There are more guys that criticize the Hebrew cosmology because they figure, gee, these guys visualized water separating water. And you see little diagrams in the old texts of the concentric shells and how quaint these old ideas were. Well, the only anachronisms, I think, in my opinion, are in the minds of the critic, not the Hebrews. Because what this really says, I think, goes beyond our understanding today of our own space-time domain. First of all, the word that's used here is rakia in the Hebrew, which means expanse or spread out thinness. The word firmament is a construction. And it's not a bad term if you're trying to find a Hebrew word to speak of space. Space in the hyperspace sense. In fact, in the scripture, we have the word heaven used three ways at least. There's the atmospheric heaven, like in Jeremiah 4.25. And that's like a bird flying through the heavens. Heaven in the sense of the atmosphere. There's also the sidereal heaven. That's the curtain that we see the stars on, if you will. If you look up and you see heavens as we might use it in an astronomy sense. That's used in Isaiah 13.10. And there's a third use of the term heaven in the sense of God's throne. Which is something else, again. Semantically, we sometimes visualize God's throne, sort of three levels of altitude. You know, you go up under 40,000 feet and you can expect to find a few birds and things. And you go up to 40,000 light years or something and you've got stars and planets and stuff. And you go beyond that, depending on your background, you expect to see Darth Vader running around. Or maybe, that somehow beyond that is maybe God's realm. And I find that upside down. Because I have a couple of strange ideas, some of that will come up here in a minute. But this is maybe a good place to talk about God's apparent cosmology. When Jesus Christ wanted to speak of the abode of the dead. The temporary abode of the dead. Sometimes translated hell in the English, but it's Sheol or Hades in the Greek. He spoke of himself descending for three days into the abode of the dead. Where was that? In the belly of the earth. Remember, he made an analogy to Jonah. Just as Jonah spent three days and three nights in the belly of the fish. Socialist son of man spent three days and three nights in the belly of the earth. Something else along this line. You all may have heard the old riddle about the hunter who set up camp. And went ten miles south, found bear tracks, followed them ten miles to the west. Found the bear, shot it, dragged it, and went ten miles north back to camp where he skinned and ate it. The question is, what color is the bear? It has to be white, exactly. Because the only places you can go south ten miles, west ten miles, north ten miles, and end up back where you started is at the pole. I forget whether the polar bears are north or south, but maybe I told the story backwards, I forget. But the point is, at the north pole, all directions are south. Right? Or if you're in that region, anyone going towards the pole is north. Are you with me? Now, a very, very interesting thing. Throughout the scripture, we have the term, the abuso. Translated in the book of Revelation, other places, the bottomless pit. Right? Where is the only place you can have a pit with no bottom? The center of the earth. Because, you know, that's one place that every direction is up. Okay? You may have had that feeling in text time. Now, so we have a couple of strange, they may be just linguistic phrases. Okay? But I'm fascinated to notice that Jesus Christ, when he's talking about Gehenna, not Hades, a temporary thing. Revelation speaks of the time when Hades will be cast into the lake of fire. Gehenna. Right? Gehenna is permanent. Hades is temporary. Where's Gehenna? Jesus Christ tells us. In the outer darkness. Men want alienation from God? He's going to grant their request. Permanently. Now, so we're plunging into some terms here that have to do with hyperspace. As I would call it. If, and I think I have used this analogy up at camp a couple of times, but the risk of being repetitive. Let me try it again. If I had a blackboard here, and I was going to create a one-dimensional universe, I would create that with a line, say, that had length. No width. An imaginary line that has no thickness. And that's my one-dimensional universe. Go left and right, and go in one direction only. Not two. Two directions would be a plane, like you see in the paper. One-dimensional universe. And I'm going to put in that one-dimensional universe a one-dimensional being. He's a point on the line. And I'll grant to him, in my imaginary rhetoric here, the ability to travel in his one-dimensional universe. He can go back and forth in his line. Terrific. Now, what I'm going to do is create a discontinuity in the line. I'll erase an inch of it. And he can run up to the edge of that. And he may know intellectually somehow that there is some more one-dimensional universe on the other side of this break. But he has no ability to conceive of how to get across that break. Because the definition of his universe has ended there. Now, a two-dimensional being can come along and move him around that break and freak him out. That's a miracle. He crossed over to the other part of it. So that's one example. Let me change now to another example. Let me create a two-dimensional universe. A plane. Say, like a kitchen table. And on this two-dimensional universe, I'm going to put a two-dimensional being. A little something that can crawl around the table. Go in X and Y and left and right or whatever. And he can go in two dimensions. And he's happy as a two-dimensional being can be. Don't laugh. I know some. Now, across from the kitchen table, let's say there's a kitchen counter. It's the same height and so forth. But there's a gap. He can go up to the edge and he may know that over there there's some more two-dimensional universe. But he can't get there. Now, you and I, as a three-dimensional universe, can come and pick him up and put him on the other one. And he's freaked out. A miracle has occurred. One-dimensional, two-dimensional. Now, let's go to a three-dimensional situation. Let's create a three-dimensional universe that has length, width, and height. Say, this room. Okay. So we have a floor and a ceiling and four walls, six sides. Geometrically, say we're in a cube. In this case, it's more of a rectangle or rectangular prism. Fine. And let's assume for the moment that all the doors and windows are locked or they don't exist. They're just plain. They're solid walls. You and I are programmed in a three-dimensional universe. The concept of getting outside this room without passing through one of the four walls, the floor, or the ceiling is impossible. Our topology won't map that. I used a term here that I probably should have talked about. We're in the realm of topology here. How many of you know what an amoeba strip is? Those of you who don't can go home tonight and have some fun because you're going to conduct an experiment in topology because you're going to create a piece of paper that has one edge and one side. If I take this paper, you say, gee, it's got two sides. What you do when you get home is take a long strip of paper and just as if you were going to connect it to make a ring, give it a half twist and then glue it together. Then start on one side of the paper and draw a pencil line and just keep going. You'll find that without crossing the edge, you'll end up on the other side. The amoeba strip is mathematically a one-sided surface. It sounds strange. You think that's weird. Cut it in half lengthwise. You cut it right down the middle and you get one. Not two, one. Cut an amoeba strip down the middle and you get one result. You can play with that when you get home. The field of topology is a provocative one. It's a field of mathematics. That's what we're playing with this idea of what's called flatland. It's a classic example of multidimensionality. We got to the point of this three-dimensional being in a three-dimensional universe and the idea of leaving this three-dimensional space without passing through one of the walls is impossible to us. By extension, I can take a four-dimensional being and come along and move us outside the room without passing through the floor, ceiling or four walls quite conventionally. You can do that mathematically. We solve problems. In engineering, with those kinds of techniques, we indulge in a transform. There's a Fourier transform. That's what that image is. The hologram is a Fourier transform of an image. It's in the frequency domain, not the space-time domain. If you do stereo engineering of amplifiers and things, you'll use Fourier transforms. If you're an engineer, you'll use Laplace transforms. If you're a physicist in nuclear physics, you'll use the Lorentz transforms and other things. There are mathematical transforms that transform you from one space to another and it's useful for solving problems. They're real. Now, that's sort of what we're dealing with, in my opinion, in the second day. God is laying out some basic dimensionality. And we have this term, waters. I suspect, personally, that the term waters here is a euphemism. Most of us think our physics has been limited to high school physics at best, maybe, some college. And you know there are three states of matter, right? Solid, liquid, and a gas. Wrong, there are four. Most of the universe is in the fourth state of matter, called plasmas. You and I speak of plasma, maybe we think of it in the medical sense, in terms of a term used to apply to a specific thing there. But the word plasma in the field of physics refers to matter in which you don't have atoms that are whole. Because the energy level, you're really dealing in a subatomic fluid. The field of study here that really deals with plasmas is magnetohydrodynamics. It's a specialized field within the field of fluid mechanics. It's probably the most important field in the field of physics. Because that's what you deal with ion engines on. When you're dealing cloud, nebula, and astronomy, you're dealing with plasmas. And if you're going to get into this, understanding this, you really need to get into, if you're going to get it serious, the study of plasmas. Now, it's the predominant form of matter. I personally hold the belief, but it's just one man's opinion, that what this day is referring to is the plasmas in the universe. Not necessarily waters as you and I think of H2O, in terms of common water. That's just one man's opinion, it could be wrong. We're going to get into something else anyway. And that may be what this is referring to. And that is the concept of a water blanket around the earth. There is evidence that at one time, the world had a different water ecology than we're now used to. We're going to discover that in chapter two. Because it's going to mention that the way the ground got watered was that there was a mist. Something relative to dew, that we're used to like dew. And we're going to get the insight that one of the troubles Noah had in getting his message across, is that no one had ever seen rain before. How these people lived these 600 years and all that stuff. Very simple, they weren't exposed to cosmic rays. They had a water blanket absorbing them. One of the keys to longevity, in the early longevity, may have been the results of this water blanket. The greenhouse effect on the earth leading to, number one, the absence of air mass movements. No winds. Now that's interesting, the book of Revelation, where it says there are no winds for a while. In some cases that's not a good deal. Revelation makes that clear. But it also gets at this whole business of a uniform semi-tropical climate around the planet earth. And we have evidence of that. There's some interesting books written that are fascinated by these prehistoric, if I might use that term, mammoths, who were quick frozen. So quick frozen that some of the greens they were eating are in their stomach, undigested. And they're frozen. Now the question is, where did the greens come from? Because these are in Siberia. In the Arctic wastes, if you will. And they're one of a number of evidences that people have pondered that the world at one time had a different climate. And obviously a different fauna and what have you, as a result of that. There's also evidence, just to throw a few of these other things out, that the world at one time rotated in the other direction. As recently as the ancient Babylonians, in terms of their astrology, from the writings, there's some confusion because the naked eye planets are in the wrong order. Or putting it the other way around, the sun went the other way. And if you're interested in this kind of thing, and we're way out in the left field of speculation, Emanuel Wilikowski's book, Worlds in Collision, is one of three or four that he wrote that deals with this. It was the earliest and one of the best. Came out in 1951 or 1952. Initially caused a negative reaction in the scientific community. And there's still a lot of controversy surrounding him. What's interesting, though, in the last 30 years, he has continually gained, surprisingly enough, respect. And many of his speculations in the early 50s work have been supported or amplified, if you will, by some of our satellite studies and other things. So surprisingly enough, this character, fascinating character, who wrote back then, has gained, surprisingly enough, quite a following. He's certainly not free of controversy, but you find him fascinating reading. He records the Long Night in China from the Chinese legends and tries to tie that to the Long Day of Joshua. This is for a guy that's not a believer. From his style, you realize he doesn't really buy the Bible. He thinks some of the things the Bible describes were natural cataclysms and that the solar system captured a comet and so forth. He's one of the first guys that, before Patton, Sennheiser, and Hatch wrote the book, The NASA Engineers, about the computer models that support the idea of a comet being gathered in the planetary system. Velikovsky wrote that, anticipated them by 20 years. And there's a whole thing there. If you're interested in that, we cover that on the Joshua tapes in the Battle of Beth Horn on the Long Day of Joshua, if you want to chase that stuff down. Okay, we're going to cover this idea of the water blanket and what have you more when we get to Genesis 6 and Noah's flood. And the place where the fossils and all of that really come to bear is more in Genesis 6 than here. And so we'll leave that sort of go. But there's a couple of things that I can't resist sharing with you here. You might want to turn to Psalm 33. And this is just typical of a number of passages that I think you'll find rather interesting. Starting at Psalm 33, say verse 7. Or verse 6. It's hard to know where to start these things. There's so much here. By the word of the Lord were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. I think that's neat. He gathered the waters of the sea together as a heap. He layeth up the depth. Where? I wonder what that means. Where's the water stored? From the first day in Genesis you get the impression that beyond what we think of as space, there's some water stored. And there's several places where the scripture strangely alludes to that. And it goes on and you can read that at your leisure. Turn to Psalm 104. I want you to pick up some of these things. You think of the Psalms as devotional. But the Psalms are just full of interesting little apologetic insights. Psalm 104. Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God, thou art very great. Thou art clothed with honor and majesty, who coverest thyself with light, as with a garment. Now this is one of those places that we are going to get a very weird idea. We're going to go into Genesis 2 where it amplifies the creation of Adam. And of course in Genesis 3 where Adam falls and he sins. And you all know the story. You visualize Adam and Eve as per the movies or the slide strips when you were in a Sunday school class of these two naked adults among all the trees who sinned and suddenly are embarrassed about their nakedness. And they go cover themselves with leaves. They notice they were unclothed. Now we can deal with that in terms of their nakedness and their sudden knowledge. Nothing wrong with nakedness. You know that classical pattern of that story implies there is something wrong with nakedness. They were unclothed. What were they clothed with before? That's the theory. Now we can't prove it, but that's what most, I think, I should say many scholars suspect. That Adam was perfect. Remember he's sinless. He was perfect. And his being and the environment he trafficked in is an environment we have no insight into because we only know the earth after the curse. And Adam, when he sinned, took on the burden of that which they recognized they were not, they recognized a need they had they didn't have before for covering. We'll get into that more in Genesis 3. I wanted to skim down here. Verse 5. Who laid the foundations of the earth that it should not be removed forever? Thou cover'st it with the deep as with a garment. The water stood above the mountains. A reference to probably the flood. At thy rebuke they fled, and at the voice of thy thunder they hastened away. They go up to the mountains, they go down by the valleys into the place where thou hast founded for them. Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over, that they may turn not again to cover the earth. Now Henry Morris has done some calculations with the polar ice caps and the water we can account for on the earth there's enough to cover the earth, all the mountains. Now I haven't checked his calculations I wouldn't be competent to anyway. But separate from that there's also a belief from the scripture that there's water stored that was invoked in Genesis 6 which is one of the references to it. And if we took the time and I'll try to not take too much time on these digressions but speaking of the earth and its ecology it's fascinating to see in Isaiah chapter 40 verse 12 and also 22 that it speaks of the Lord hanging the sphere of the earth on nothing. And I think that's awfully interesting cosmology or geology if you like for Isaiah who wrote what? Eight centuries before Christ was born. Especially when you contrast that to some of the prevailing mythology of the day. Also I'm always fond of pointing out the Lord Jesus Christ's comment on his geology if you will. Geology being the study of the earth. Because in speaking of the rapture he says that two men will be working in the field. One will be taken and the other left. Two men will be sleeping in the same bed. One will be taken and the other left. That's in Luke 17 there's another account in one of the gospels which records he says two women will be grinding by the mill. One will be taken and the other left. Now what's interesting if you understand the household routine in those days is grinding at the mill is something you did at the beginning of the day. You ground the meal for the day for bread. That's something women did early in the morning. Two men working in the field did that when? That implied night time. And it all happens in the twinkling of an eye. And there's a little interesting subtlety which demonstrates the Lord's visualization of around earth. Because at the same moment you've got morning, noon and night. Isn't that interesting? I wonder how he knew. He made it. Okay. We're not going to try and exhaust these things or this will be a 107 week review of the first chapter of Genesis. This might be in the second day it might be referring to the separation of water vapors as it's classically described. I personally don't think so. I think the language in fact is referring to something far more fundamental. I think to really discuss this intelligently would require an understanding of wave theory. The mutual orthogonality of the electrostatic, electromagnetic and gravity fields. And I think that's the idiom in which we need to deal with on this. But that's one person's opinion. It gets more comfortable as we go gang. So let's go to the third day. God said, let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place and let the dry land appear and it was so. Now by the way as an aside the dry land isn't where you think it is because we're going to discover in the days of Peleg the land was divided. That's where we get some hint maybe to continental drift and all those neat things. But in any case we have water and land as we would think of it. Now some people tend to render this at least in their mind as an earth-born observer just observing God doing these things. And as the mist clears we begin to see land and water and that's a defendable position probably. I personally don't see it that way. Now God called the dry land earth and the gathering together of the waters he called the seas and God saw that it was good. And God said, let the earth bring forth vegetation and herb yielding seed and fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind whose seed is in itself upon the earth and it was so. And the earth brought forth vegetation and herb yielding seed after its kind and the tree yielding fruit whose seed was in itself after its kind and God saw that it was good and the evening and the morning were the third day. Now this is the passage that many scholars feel I don't but many scholars feel is the foundations of the earth. And in Psalm 102, Job 38, Zechariah 12 and Isaiah 48 for example we speak of such and so occurring and you know we're there at the foundation of the earth and they argue that gee that means that those particular events occurred prior to the third day of Genesis. Can't quarrel with that. I personally don't see the foundation of the earth I see that back in Genesis 1. Okay. It's a small point but just as an aside some people when you see the foundation of the earth try to make a case they see that because here's where the earth in the sense of dry land is first mentioned. I happen to be fascinated with the fact that nowhere in the book of Genesis is the planet earth created. It's taken for granted as we're here. Obviously it's included in Genesis 1. And it may be subsumed in some of the other things we see here but we have the earth without form and void in Genesis chapter 1 verse 2 independent of the gap issue gap theory issue. It's there suddenly without comment other than the all encompassing statement just as an aside. That's one of the reasons by the way I'm very intrigued with the possibility of the reconstruction concept that's implied by the gap theory. But it's just intrigue. Ten times in the book of Genesis God says after his kind. And this gets to the whole issue of this business of evolution. The concept of evolution is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics the entropy laws. Whenever you have a mutation it goes to disorder not more order. Higher level goes to a lower level. Never observed it otherwise. And this whole idea that random functionality can create order is something we never observe in the universe. Never have. And that's the summary statement. We could spend much of your time talking about the evolutionary hypothesis. And it's centuries of vain groping for the links that never are found. Everybody has their favorite little rebuttals. Those of you that are doctors or biologically sophisticated know that sugars in certain molecules are right handed or left handed. But the ratio of right handed to left handed if it was by chance is 10 to one. I forget which way it goes which is the predominant one in the universe which is interesting. Interesting rebuttal statistically. In every field you can find your favorite examples. The field of the DNA molecule people are fascinated because a DNA molecule is a coding chain and lends itself to coding theory. And the probability of creating any arbitrary protein molecule is interesting because if you tried making one of those randomly once every second that's a lot. The universe is regarded by most of the scientists as that ascribed to this sort of thing that it's 10 billion years old. Well if you made one every second for 10 billion years you only have 10 to the 17th tries to make a 10 to the 130th kind of event. It wasn't time. If I make one not every second or every thousandth of a second or every millionth of a second I'll deal in those speeds that computer engineers talk about nanoseconds a billionth of a second and I'll try an arbitrary try once every billionth of a second as a generation cycle to try and make an amino acid and I have only 10 to the that's 10 to the ninth times 10 to the 17th or 10 to the 26th and if you have a statistically organized approach you can prove that chance as the rival conjecture has no rational possibility of being considered if you're going to be scientific about it. You cannot deny the presence of a designer. Now this business everybody has a little favorite one of my favorites is a seahorse. How many of you know what a seahorse is? Do you know that a seahorse is a marsupial? We have a saltwater aquarium at home and that's one of the things that carries the young in a pouch like a kangaroo. The only problem is that among seahorses it's the male that has the pouch. Now when you think about that on your way driving home give me a scenario under the theme of evolution and the survival of the fittest thing and what have you that caused this to survive where the male has the pouch and carries the young and the female doesn't there are many evidences of God's sense of humor because I think God spent a lot of time hypothesizing that sort of thing. There is an issue here in the book of Genesis the plants do show up before the animals. The plants by the way are three Hebrew words des for grass and es for herbs or herbage and the word for tree actually means fruit tree because that says he created the mature. Now you plant a fruit tree it takes two years or whatever and that's interesting to me because that argues for a mature creation that says that there are tree rings on trees and it says that Adam probably had a navel if you want to play that game or whatever and that affects your view and if you buy that as I said when we started this course if you take Genesis 1-1 you won't have any trouble with the rest. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth as you want to wrestle if you want to wrestle with the Holy Spirit or God if that's your inclination wrestle with the fact that why did he take six days? Why didn't he do it now? He could have and rather than gee was it really just six days why wasn't it six billion years or something that's silly. Okay we're making terrific progress tonight maybe getting a late start is the key. Fourth day and God said let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night and let them be for signs and for seasons and let them be for the lights in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth and it was so and God made two great lights the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night and made the stars also and God said set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth and to rule over the day and over the night and to divide the light from the darkness and God saw that it was good and the evening and the morning were the fourth day the word here is maor the word light in Genesis 1-3 he's creating a bearer he's creating two light bearers and that's and some people think gee the sun and the moon were in existence but now just visible somehow through the water vapor and that's one approach it doesn't have to be the way I see things but this gets into the whole thing of astronomical issues and there's a lot of misconception about that we classically have been taught in school that there was a whirling mass and out of this came the sun and the planets and so forth and scientists recently are very embarrassed by that idea because it's almost mathematically disprovable and one of the books if you're technically inclined I mentioned before is the CETI papers the communication with extraterrestrial intelligence conference it was given in the Soviet Union in 71 cooperatively with scientists from the US and the Soviet Union and it's called extraterrestrial intelligence it'll be in our bibliography edited by Carl Sagan published by the MIT press it's a very interesting technical excursion because these guys are unbelievers just commenting on the possibility of communicating with life in outer space but in so doing establish probabilities of life existing at all they point out there's no data there's one data point the earth experience and if it exists is it organized it's an interesting interdisciplinary conference but among the problems they point out they get into this cosmology discussion and they point out the difficulties with the idea that the sun was the origin of the planets and it has to do with the conservation of angular momentum 90% of the angular momentum is in the planets that have only 5% of the mass of the solar system and grappling with that is a real bear trying to come up with some scenario that will explain it and it's a very often talked about scientific issue that the mathematical geometric methods and the assumptions that underlie them make any distance more than 330 light years totally uncertain we're glibly taught in planetariums and what have you that this star or that star are so many billions of light years away it turns out that the methods are very uncertain and more importantly there is no assurance of the uniformity of light speeds over those distances and you take away the uniformity hypothesis you've got a real problem there exist today models of relativity and space curvature that yield light motions that will reach the earth from infinite sources within a few years I don't mean to say that to be able to explain it but some of the presumptions and background that you hear some of these things are lacking caveats that should be associated in view of our more contemporary understanding of modern physics and I want to tonight before I finish take you on one excursion and we'll leave the rest of the days for next time but I want to set your mind at ease I want you to note for the record that we did get down to verse 19 but the one thing I would like to share with you we know from Einstein's theory of relativity as we talked about I think in the first session in terms of space time the time domain and all that that everything is relative and we hear of the expanding universe and before we do that we've got to go to Psalm 19 Psalm 19 we could spend the whole hour on Psalm 19 but we'll spend enough on it just to get you interested in it you sing part of it frequently here at Calvary Chapel verses 7 through 11 but I'd like you to read carefully with me Psalm 19 verse 1 the heavens declare the glory of God now if there's any chance to get interested in astronomy that's one of them the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament there's that word again showeth his handiwork day unto day uttereth speech and night unto night showeth knowledge we should pause here take a quick look at Romans 1.20 which reads for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen being understood by the things which are made even as eternal power and Godhead so they are without excuse and it goes on to the whole predicament of the secular unbeliever and we can build from that this whole idea that we're in an electronic simulation we think of this as a reality we think of spiritual things as some kind of fuzzy unseen principle but by saying that we sort of feel an unreality it's backwards this thing here this podium is an electronic simulation the actual mass here would probably be less than one cubic millimeter of mass if it was solid I forgot to get the statistics of just how infinitesimal the mass here is it feels solid because it's an electrical simulation atoms are in effect a mathematical simulation this really lacks reality the writer in the book of Hebrews 8 and 9 point out that the things we know of are but a shadow of the real reality that Jesus Christ did not shed his blood in a tabernacle made with hands and the tabernacle that was given to Moses to recreate in the wilderness was a model of heaven and what we see is a model of the real reality we're in what a mathematician would call the special case but back to Psalm 19 what the psalmist is saying is he's saying there's evidence of design in the universe and I've done my watch thing so I won't bore you with that one again day unto day utter speech night unto night showeth knowledge there is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard this actually is the definition of negentropy of those of you that are information scientists but let's move on their line is gone out through all the earth and their words to the end of the world in him hath he set a tabernacle for the sun which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber rejoiceth like a strong man to run a race his going forth is from one end of heaven and his circuit to the ends of it and there's nothing hid from the thermodynamics thereof two laws of thermodynamics which Einstein himself said in classical thermodynamics thermodynamics is the only physical theory of the universe concerning which he's convinced that in the framework of the applicability of its basic concepts it will never be overthrown the two fundamental laws of thermodynamics namely that the amount of the energy in the universe is a constant it cannot be created or destroyed taking the mass energy together and secondly that all energy transforms go downhill there's no such thing as a 100% efficient process which is the entropy law entropy laws occur between a temperature difference and since they occur imperfectly they tend to reduce those differences and eventually the universe at least conceptually would be of uniform temperature and there would be no ability to do work and all thermodynamic processes go to that area which is a uniform temperature or put another way, randomness order is the opposite of randomness the opposite of entropy the entropy laws are observed everywhere in the universe except for one exception understanding by the way that chance is the antithesis of structure refutes the evolutionary hypothesis and is linked to the curse in Romans 8, 21 and 22 but to get at something else today in verse 4 here by the way it was quoted in Romans 10 but I want you to notice what he talks about here he says his going forth is from the end of heaven and a circuit into the ends of it this psalm is often quoted by the cynics saying you believe the bible is literal and free of scientific error you got to be kidding because the bible says that the sun goes around the earth see, it says here, speaking of the sun he says in verse 4 in them, that is the heavens he set a tabernacle for the sun and his going forth is from one end of heaven and a circuit into the ends of it now that's cute if you had a Ptolemaic cosmology this type of model of the solar system we know that the earth revolves around the sun and I hate to explain it to you cynic but the sun is traveling at something like 600,000 miles an hour around our galaxy it takes 230 million years to make one circuit and I would submit to you that the psalmist isn't far off when he says his going forth is from one end of heaven to the other if you take the context of the solar system and his circuit is unto the ends of it if you're going 600,000 miles an hour over a 230 million year lap I would say that that's a fair comment ok now what I'm fascinated by is obviously we revolve around the sun but the sun itself is revolving around our galactic system do you know where the center of our galactic system is? it's located approximately in the constellation known as the Pleiades and that's what Job said that's pretty good insight for a guy that didn't own a telescope you can look that up if you like about the Pleiades in Job and Arcturus Job is a lot of fun but that's really getting off the subject I've got something else I'd like to share with you it speaks of a couple of other phrases here it speaks of the sun the sun of righteousness Jesus Christ isn't it interesting here that the psalmist uses that without the benefit of the New Testament points out that he calls him the bridegroom can you have a bridegroom without a bride? who's the bride? interesting isn't it? tabernacle of the sun, light of the world Christ claims to be in John 8.12 Malachi 4.2 uses sun, s-u-n, righteousness as the title of Jesus Christ we have of course the bridegroom mentioned in John 3.29 and I'll leave you to chase down who the bride is we also see that he runneth like a strong man he rejoices who but for the joy that was put before him set aside his deity and so forth you can look that up in Hebrews 12 first two verses about running a race and so forth and his going forth is from one end of heaven so there's a pun here yes it's the sun and it's astronomically correct in accordance with the most current thinking galactically at the same time there's a parallel of the psalmist drawing that's messianic with Jesus Christ himself the word going is going forth the term occurs in Deuteronomy 8.3 which Jesus Christ quotes that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God remember and that word is the same as the goings forth here Micah 5.2 but Bethlehem Ephrathah though thou be little among the thousands of Judah yet he is anyone whose goings forth have been from old to everlasting same word messianic again and you can play that further if you like and nothing hid from the thermodynamics thereof and you can tie that to Colossians 1.17 those of you that you know him are all things all things cohere we get into air mass movements and all of that but I think we're really running the limit of our time here the one last thought I mentioned is in terms of light before the sun it's possible that the light that was given to the earth was ultraviolet from the plasma that was being formed if you have that view of cosmology so the sun is not necessarily the source that might incidentally explain the difference between oil and coal in terms of the origin of those materials but the light that's being framed under what's called the theory of the dark sun is a popularly held relatively recent view in astronomy and which is something again that James Reid and the god the atom and the universe will deal with in reasonably lay level and I think that gives us a relatively perhaps heavy rather cursory summary of the first four days what we're going to do next time is take a few more days and then also go back and look at the days collectively in terms of some of their spiritual implications so we won't spend all our time on what would be called cosmology let's close with a word of prayer father we praise you that indeed the heavens declare your glory we thank you father for this opportunity to hear it from you the designer, the creator and more importantly the redeemer and father we would just ask that you would increase in us a hunger to know you better and more fully understand these things and we just praise you father that in all these things we can look to Jesus Christ our redeemer in whose name we pray, amen this concludes this study in the book of Genesis