RE: In the Beginning

[sandy_mcd]

It is one thing to assert that a being lives forever or has always existed and quite another to assert that a being existed / exists outside of time. If you assert that God exists beyond time are you asserting that time is not percived by him? Do his thoughts not happen in an orderly fashion one after another? or do you assert that all his thoughts happen at once? If we are made in his image and our thoughts occur in an orderly fashion does this not allow the inference that he is this way also.

It is hard for us to imagine what it would be like to exist outside of time and space. Physicists tell us that time and space are properties of the universe. What existed before the universe? That would be a nonsensical question; "before" implies a temporal relationship and there can be no such thing if time does not exist. The space conundrum is easier for me to recognize as a difficulty. If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? The intuitive answer would be empty space but if there were empty space then that it would be part of the universe and not outside it. The universe creates space as it expands. That is not something readily comprehended.
Consider the analogy of beings living on a line drawn on a sheet of paper. They can only go forwards or backwards and everything has a relative relationship with respect to string length. How would these beings comprehend the world of other beings living in a sheet of paper? The latter can zip around in 2 dimensions, not just forwards and backwards. This would be nearly incomprehensible to string beings.
Likewise, how can beings such as ourselves existing in our universe comprehend much of anything about a being who can create a universe? If such a being can create time, then obviously such a being is not limited by time.

[phareztamar]

Spring greetings Sandy. Reading your post, I thought maybe an excerpt from my first book, might fit in.


Chapter 1 of this letter has been about beginnings. Your beginning, my beginning, the beginning of the human race and the tangible universe. But we’ve omitted the most important beginning of all. You know…that question you usually hear from a little child. Innocent, but piercing. “But daddy, who made God?” Stop the presses! Close the front door! Of course, the proper answer is, “well honey, God has no beginning. He always has been, and He always will be.” And junior says, “yeah…okay dad…thanks.“ I mean, let’s face it…even junior knows…our brains just aren’t wired to grasp no beginning. At least mine isn’t. My little bouncy-ball just hit’s a wall (boing, boing) when you throw no beginning at me. Everything has a beginning…somewhere…far enough back…doesn’t it?
We really aren’t expected to understand no beginning. No beginning is just a tiny part of our God’s nature. And who can grasp the nature of such an Almighty God? To contemplate Him, figure Him out, anticipate His next move, or solve His logic, is a futile effort. He promised it would be:

For as the Heavens are higher than the Earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!

He hath made everything beautiful in His time: Also He hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
Who made God? God has no beginning. (boing, boing) But His majestic Creation does. That’s why He opens His diary to us with in the beginning. The heavens, the earth, outer space, the atom, the human race, fauna and flora all have a beginning. His Word has a beginning. To even imagine a God with no beginning, we have to go back a step farther than Genesis 1:1. We have to step outside of the box, leaving behind the safety, of our finite little capsule of time. Back to where there is no Creation. Back to where there is only our eternal God filling all in all. Before the endless universe…before space…before time…only God.
Here, we find our God with all of his thoughts of us, and all of His words to us, still internalized. Sort of like we who are made in His image, after His likeness. Our thoughts and our words reside inside of us before we speak them. When we open our mouth and release them, our words become signboards of what we were thinking. So it is with God. He spoke what was internal, and it became what is. I propose that it is here, when God opened a door by speaking, that we find God’s beginning. Now, please, put your stones down. I fully agree that God is infinite, and that He has no beginning. But I also understand, that before my first born son arrived, I did not exist as a father. For you and I … for all who have ever lived life on this Earth … for this Earth, and these heavens, and this universe…for this 16 billion year segment, this galaxy, this solar system; it is here, when God’s thought and intent turned to expression, that we find His beginning. What’s God been doing for the aeons of eternity prior to our Genesis? Who can say? Does it really matter? Does it at all affect this present Creation? Where you and I are concerned, Creation’s beginning, and the bible’s beginning, are for all practical purposes, God’s beginning. And, where beginnings are concerned, that’s very important. As we pursue the theme of this letter, it becomes vital to know what the very first thing created was. It was not the Heavens or the Earth, not the atom or space, neither time, nor even light. The very first thing…the first manifestation of this great God in our direction, was His Word … His act of speech … of releasing and expressing tangibly, what was once hidden internally. This alone is the chosen tool of the Master … the brush of the Artist … the vehicle for delivering Creation from nothingness. And to this very day, His Word remains the only link between an infinite God, and the human race He created. Before His Word, there was only God. After his Word, there was creation.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made.

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; these things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Poetry again, that for a speech-based humanity, God chose His Word…speech…as the implement of creation. Call that the southbound lane from God to us. In the northbound lane, from us to God, He again chose speech as the vehicle of praise, worship, and thanksgiving being returned to Him.
Summarizing our chapter on beginnings…creation’s beginning…our beginning…God’s beginning; while these things are nice to ponder, they are historical, not urgent. Our time, however, is about endings, not beginnings. Having studied the scriptures, it’s clear to me what a dire situation I find myself in. I am quite literally adrift in eternity, at the very ragged end of time. We live on a lost and dying world, that is hurtling headlong toward the end of its days. It is a world amped-up in knowledge, but criminally dumbed down, in wisdom and understanding. And to top it all off, it is a world that is just too busy to grasp, that something is terribly wrong here. Whatever else life is, our beginnings hold a key to today…to what life is today…here at the time of the end. They determine what we became. Here at the end of the beginning and the end salvation is available. The few there be that find it, first had to tear themselves from the treadmill…the mechanical rote…of life. None have regretted that choice.

[Philip]

So, phareztamar, the SHORT answer, as to what God may have created before our universe and time: beings or places, perhaps still in existence, yet UNCONNECTED to our universe, likely unknowable and undetectable, OR maybe other entities and times have NEVER existed - which is also unknowable and basically irrelevant to us. And which is also probably why God didn't see a need to communicate to us what came before our time and universe. Perhaps, in the eternity BEFORE our time, God simply gloried within Himself, as He doesn't NEED, nor has He EVER needed, ANYTHING outside of Himself. And so the speculation about such is both immense and rather pointless. Perhaps a bigger mystery is why God, Who has no needs and is complete and forever joyous within Himself/The Trinity, made man to begin with. Of course, we were created to worship and He DESIRES our fellowship - but He doesn't NEED it.

[RickD]

The very first thing…the first manifestation of this great God in our direction, was His Word

Before His Word, there was only God. After his Word, there was creation.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made.

Phareztamar, The Word of God, is Jesus Christ. The second person of the trinity. The only begotten(not created) son.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
That verse tells of the divinity of Jesus Christ. You almost sound like you don't believe that Jesus Christ is God. Let's be clear. Who do you believe Jesus Christ is?

[phareztamar]

Phareztamar, The Word of God, is Jesus Christ. The second person of the trinity. The only begotten(not created) son.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
That verse tells of the divinity of Jesus Christ. You almost sound like you don't believe that Jesus Christ is God. Let's be clear. Who do you believe Jesus Christ is?

I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God. I believe that the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.
My post "Emmanuel" goes into a little more detail. I do not believe in a trinity...or perhaps, I never have sorted out what it is, that people who believe in the trinity, really believe. Anyway, I hope that makes it clear enough for you.

because of Him,
phareztamar

[KBCid]

It is hard for us to imagine what it would be like to exist outside of time and space.

I believe it is harder... to imagine that we exist by chance. Yet "we" have no problem agreeing that chance didn't do it right?
You might consider an alternate view that God, time and space have always existed. What we percieve is the design that God formed within infinite space at some point in infinite time. The design of the universe was setup so as to allow one to "measure" time. Now follow some logic with me here.... 1) Prior to the existence of a method to measure time what would time mean? couldn't unmeasured still exist. 2) (this is the big one) How could God exist for the timeframes called forever or eternity if time didn't exist?

Physicists tell us that time and space are properties of the universe. What existed before the universe? That would be a nonsensical question; "before" implies a temporal relationship and there can be no such thing if time does not exist.

Indeed what did exist before the "universe" design was created? without structured energised matter there would be no way to define time nor give spatial understanding. what would here or there be with no reference? Let me throw one last bit of logic at ya here, If God created time from nothing then why is his perception of it different than ours?

Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.
2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Maybe the phrase "the longer you live the faster time passes" has some new meaning for why our perception of time is different than Gods. In my opinion if God has existed eternaly throughout time then I would say it is likely that time for him would be different than that of his created intelligences who only percieve time via planetary movement.

The space conundrum is easier for me to recognize as a difficulty. If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? The intuitive answer would be empty space but if there were empty space then that it would be part of the universe and not outside it. The universe creates space as it expands. That is not something readily comprehended.

YES.... I so love to see logic go down an orderly path. Space has always existed. It is the energised matter that God has created that now moves though infinite space. It (matter) in all its wondrous forms is now flying out from a point where God began energising matter into specific designs. Welcome to Genesis 1:2

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Wouldn't this explanation make more sense?

Consider the analogy of beings living on a line drawn on a sheet of paper. They can only go forwards or backwards and everything has a relative relationship with respect to string length. How would these beings comprehend the world of other beings living in a sheet of paper? The latter can zip around in 2 dimensions, not just forwards and backwards. This would be nearly incomprehensible to string beings. Likewise, how can beings such as ourselves existing in our universe comprehend much of anything about a being who can create a universe? If such a being can create time, then obviously such a being is not limited by time.

Sandy here is exctly where many people have overstepped the biblical texts. "how can beings such as ourselves existing in our universe comprehend much of anything about a being who can create a universe? If such a being can create time, then obvious".
IF such a being can create us and what we observe how could he do it without time? Time is a sequential order of identifiable periods. If God did not have a sequential series of thoughts prior to time then why create? If he did have thoughts prior to time how would it occur without time inbetween them? One last thing that seems prudent to point out. If we are the image of God in spirit and he has always existed and we can understand the concept of time then wouldn't he have always known time? wouldn't he have to know time before time in order to arrange for its measurement.

I think it is kinda incomprehensible that a being who has existed from eternity has only ever initiated this creative event.

[sandy_mcd]

...

Indeed what did exist before the "universe" design was created? without structured energised matter there would be no way to define time nor give spatial understanding. what would here or there be with no reference? Let me throw one last bit of logic at ya here, If God created time from nothing then why is his perception of it different than ours?
...
IF such a being can create us and what we observe how could he do it without time? Time is a sequential order of identifiable periods. If God did not have a sequential series of thoughts prior to time then why create? If he did have thoughts prior to time how would it occur without time inbetween them?

i said it was hard to comprehend

[edit add] and i am not claiming i do
that's the hard part, separating our concepts of time and space from models

[KBCid]

i said it was hard to comprehend and i am not claiming i do that's the hard part, separating our concepts of time and space from models

I am very much with you on this. The entirety of my post is that maybe... it is hard to comprehend because it isn't true. If we were to change the common assumption that time and space had a beginning wouldn't that eliminate the problem?

I think this would be a good thread to explore how the concept of time and space having a beginning came about. This may be the better scientific path to take since proper science proceeds from some form of evidence followed by a theory followed by repeatable experiments to back it. So if we were to find that there never was any evidence to begin the line of reasoning then we can possibly eliminate the need to try and comprehend someone elses imagination.

[KBCid]

pharaztemar wrote:

The very first thing…the first manifestation of this great God in our direction, was His Word

The first act of creation the 'living God' did was to create the 'living word'.
The 'living word' chose of his own free will to sacrifice himself to save what he believed was worth saving. Remember carefully Gen 2:17 "...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die". The 'living word' of God chose not to fulfill the very word he delivered to Adam and Eve. Had he done so 'man' would have ended right there and then.

If you think about it Satan intentionally tried to get God to admit to a less than perfect creation... by getting man killed. Man who was in Gods own words "made in our image". Satan was testing God. The 'living word' saw what satan was doing and chose to sacrifice his own life to keep him from proving that his father had failed in creating another being that was most like himself (in his image).

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

The first act of creation the 'living God' did was to create the 'living word'.

Where in Hell did you get this?

FL

[KBCid]

Where in Hell did you get this?FL

My understanding is derived from the words of the Son as it has been given in the biblical text. If this is incorrect then by all means show me a translation that makes more logical sense.

Son - a male child or person in relation to his parents.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/son

Parent
2. an ancestor, precursor, or progenitor.
3. a source, origin, or cause.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parent?s=t

Father - a person who has originated or established something
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/father?s=t

[dayage]

KBCid,

I think this would be a good thread to explore how the concept of time and space having a beginning came about. This may be the better scientific path to take since proper science proceeds from some form of evidence followed by a theory followed by repeatable experiments to back it. So if we were to find that there never was any evidence to begin the line of reasoning then we can possibly eliminate the need to try and comprehend someone else's imagination.

Science says that both space and time had a singular beginning.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/080 ... 3598v1.pdf

The idea comes straight from the Bible.
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning" (time) "God created the heavens and the earth" (a merism meaning the entire universe).

Before Time Began or before the ages of time (pro before, chronos time, aionios, ages)
Titus 1:2-3; 2 Timothy 1:9-10

Before All Time or Every Age (pro pas aion)
Jude 25

Before The Beginning of The Universe
Eph. 1:3-4; 1 Peter 1:20
Peter uses both kosmos (universe) with chronos (time) in a way that suggests their common origin.

Philo of Alexandria (~20 B.C.-50A.D.)
"Moses says also; "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth:" taking the beginning to be, not as some men think, that which is according to time; for before the world time had no existence, but was created either simultaneously with it, or after it; for since time is the interval of the motion of the heavens, there could not have been any such thing as motion before there was anything which could be moved; but it follows of necessity that it received existence subsequently or simultaneously. It therefore follows also of necessity, that time was created either at the same moment with the world, or later than it--and to venture to assert that it is older than the world is absolutely inconsistent with philosophy."
On The Creation, VII, 26

Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.)
"And from what source did Plato draw the information that time was created along with the heavens? For he wrote thus: Time, accordingly, was created along with the heavens; in order that, coming into being together, they might also be together dissolved, if ever their dissolution should take place. Had he not learned this from the divine history of Moses?"
Hortatory Address to the Greeks, ch. 33

Tertullian (160-225 A.D.)
"This is the promise He makes even to our flesh, and it has been His will to deposit within us this pledge of His own virtue and power, in order that we may believe that He has actually awakened the universe out of nothing, as if it had been steeped in death, in the sense, of course, of its previous non-existence for the purpose of its coming into existence."
Against Hermogenes, ch. 34

The first act of creation the 'living God' did was to create the 'living word'.
My understanding is derived from the words of the Son as it has been given in the biblical text. If this is incorrect then by all means show me a translation that makes more logical sense.

Then why have you only supplied us with English dictionary definitions of English words?

The 'living word' chose of his own free will to sacrifice himself to save what he believed was worth saving. Remember carefully Gen 2:17 "...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die". The 'living word' of God chose not to fulfill the very word he delivered to Adam and Eve. Had he done so 'man' would have ended right there and then.

No, Genesis 2:17 was fulfilled.
This is the Hebrew (transliteration) of Genesis 2:17:
Beyom (in the day) acholcha (you eat) mimenu (from it) mot (die) tamut (you die)

The back-to-back uses of mut (die) emphasize the certainty of the result. That is why most translations translate the two words as "surely die." The more I have looked at the sentence, the more I believe it was referring to when the outcome would become certain, not when the outcome would take place. "In the day you eat from it your dying shall be certain." In Genesis 3:4 the Serpent does not argue about the timing, he just denies the result. Also, God brings up the fact that Adam would not die immediately (Genesis 3:17), but that his dying was certain (Genesis 3:19). The day Adam ate the fruit, God made his future death certain, by removing him from the Tree of Life (Genesis 3:22-24).

This is very similar to what we see in 1 Kings 2:37, 42:
Beyom (in the day) [you leave Jerusalem] yadoa (know) teda (you know) ki (that) mot (die) tamut (you die). "In the day [you leave Jerusalem] you will know for sure that your dying is certain." Shimei's journey took at least 2 days and probably more like 3 or 4. Gath was at least 30 miles away and a day's journey was about 20-30 miles, plus he had to find his servants. Thus, the meaning was not that he would die on that very day.

In both cases the meaning was something like "once you do this, you can be sure that you will die." The phrase referred to when (the time that) the result would be made certain, not to the timing of the actual result (i.e. when death would take place).

If you think about it Satan intentionally tried to get God to admit to a less than perfect creation... by getting man killed. Man who was in Gods own words "made in our image". Satan was testing God. The 'living word' saw what satan was doing and chose to sacrifice his own life to keep him from proving that his father had failed in creating another being that was most like himself (in his image).

How do you come to this conclusion? Even after the Fall, we still bear God's image/likeness (Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1; 9:6; James 3:8). Jesus also alludes to this in Matt. 20:20-21; Mark 12:16-17; Luke 20:24-25. The coin bore Caesar's image, therefore the people were to give it to Caesar. We bear God's image, therefore we are to give ourselves to God.

[KBCid]

Science says that both space and time had a singular beginning.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf

Hi Dayage. Thx for taking the time to post.
What science is saying is that there was a begining to a non-zero entrophy state. What scientist on the other hand are saying is that they have a hypothetical/ conceptual explanation of how that state occurred.
I would say that the context of these papers you have linked must initially be understood. The makers of the papers are assuming no God/ inteligent designer with the ability to choose brought about the conditions we currently observe. So, they are trying to rationalize a beginning that just happened. Poof!. Their argument has no valid method of proving and would intrinsically remain a hypothesis forever.

In this letter, we advance the idea that a low entropy initial state, indeed one with zero entropy, is not only natural but compulsory. We address the origin of the Universe in the context of a new approach to quantum gravity rooted in a quantum equivalence principle that renders the state space of a generalized quantum mechanics fully dynamical...
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/080 ... 3598v1.pdf

The above paper although positing the same initial state of space as I do which would be the zero entrophy state goes on to address how such a state can change on its own by a natural means. A form of something from nothing hypothesis by way of saying there was always something and in some way its initial zero entrophy state changed naturally. Poof! it just happened.

The idea comes straight from the Bible.
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning" (time) "God created the heavens and the earth" (a merism meaning the entire universe).
Before Time Began or before the ages of time (pro before, chronos time, aionios, ages) Titus 1:2-3; 2 Timothy 1:9-10 Before All Time or Every Age (pro pas aion)Jude 25

Actually a beginning of time and the universe is found only within 'interpretational license'. One can certainly posit that 'in the beginning' means a start of time itself as has happened by many upon reading the references you give here but, is such a position tenable? We must consider further evidence before settling on such an assumption. Consider this;

Isa 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity,
Deu 33:27 The eternal God is thy refuge
Psa 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

What does eternity, eternal and everlasting mean?

eternity - infinite time; duration without beginning or end.
eternal - without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing
everlasting - lasting forever; eternal: everlasting future life.

'Infinite time'... You see there cannot be a beginning of time and a state of eternity at the same time. Either God is 'eternal' or time had a beginning and God had a beginning. Thus, when properly interpreted 'in the beginning can only apply to that point in infinite time when something came to exist. God made a choice at some point in infinite time to create something.
God never commanded - "let there be time" He did not create time. What he did create was a reference to track time so that it could be measured. he defined the method of measuring time in;
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

1 Peter 1:20 Peter uses both kosmos (universe) with chronos (time) in a way that suggests their common origin.

Let us review this;

1Peter 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world...

It would rather plainly state that an action happened prior to the foundation of the world. Nothing here intimates a beginning of either time or space. God has rather plainly also described how he founded the world in Gen 1:6-10. If he felt that it was worth describing how he 'formed' the design of the earth and universe then why don't we see a description of how time itself was formed? why no references other than a description of how to measure it?

Philo of Alexandria (~20 B.C.-50A.D.)
"Moses says also; "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth:" taking the beginning to be, not as some men think, that which is according to time; for before the world time had no existence, but was created either simultaneously with it, or after it; for since time is the interval of the motion of the heavens, there could not have been any such thing as motion before there was anything which could be moved; but it follows of necessity that it received existence subsequently or simultaneously. It therefore follows also of necessity, that time was created either at the same moment with the world, or later than it--and to venture to assert that it is older than the world is absolutely inconsistent with philosophy." On The Creation, VII, 26

Philo is a philosopher Dayage. Philosophers are also the ones who have concluded that materialism minus an intelligent designer is a logical path of inquiry to explain everything. He has done nothing more than made an interpretation with his own interpretive license in order to posit what he considers reality. Would you stake your life on the assertion of a philosopher? Note that even he understood that "measured time" is based on the motions of heavenly bodies. Where he failed was the assumption that time ceases to exist prior to the heavenly bodies existence. If I were to place you in a dark room for the rest of your life with no reference to time would it be logical to assume time had ended? The fact that the watch components (heavenly bodies) were designed and implemented cannot logically infer that before them there was no time.

Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.) "And from what source did Plato draw the information that time was created along with the heavens? For he wrote thus: Time, accordingly, was created along with the heavens; in order that, coming into being together, they might also be together dissolved, if ever their dissolution should take place. Had he not learned this from the divine history of Moses?"Hortatory Address to the Greeks, ch. 33

Indeed, did Plato learn his understanding from the history of moses? or did he use interpretational license on the history of moses? Plato is not God, his words are questionable and those who reinterpret other peoples interpretations are even more questionable.

The first act of creation the 'living God' did was to create the 'living word'. My understanding is derived from the words of the Son as it has been given in the biblical text. If this is incorrect then by all means show me a translation that makes more logical sense.

Then why have you only supplied us with English dictionary definitions of English words?

There are many interpretations and definitions. Begining with english seems like a good starting point.

The 'living word' chose of his own free will to sacrifice himself to save what he believed was worth saving. Remember carefully Gen 2:17 "...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die". The 'living word' of God chose not to fulfill the very word he delivered to Adam and Eve. Had he done so 'man' would have ended right there and then.

No, Genesis 2:17 was fulfilled. This is the Hebrew (transliteration) of Genesis 2:17:
Beyom (in the day) acholcha (you eat) mimenu (from it) mot (die) tamut (you die)

Yes. You and I can certainly rationalize in hindsight that 'in the day' meant an undefined period of time.

The back-to-back uses of mut (die) emphasize the certainty of the result. That is why most translations translate the two words as "surely die." The more I have looked at the sentence, the more I believe it was referring to when the outcome would become certain, not when the outcome would take place. "In the day you eat from it your dying shall be certain." In Genesis 3:4 the Serpent does not argue about the timing, he just denies the result. Also, God brings up the fact that Adam would not die immediately (Genesis 3:17), but that his dying was certain (Genesis 3:19). The day Adam ate the fruit, God made his future death certain, by removing him from the Tree of Life (Genesis 3:22-24).

This is very similar to what we see in 1 Kings 2:37, 42:
Beyom (in the day) [you leave Jerusalem] yadoa (know) teda (you know) ki (that) mot (die)
tamut (you die). "In the day [you leave Jerusalem] you will know for sure that your dying is certain." Shimei's journey took at least 2 days and probably more like 3 or 4. Gath was at least 30 miles away and a day's journey was about 20-30 miles, plus he had to find his servants. Thus, the meaning was not that he would die on that very day. In both cases the meaning was something like "once you do this, you can be sure that you will die." The phrase referred to when (the time that) the result would be made certain, not to the timing of the actual result (i.e. when death would take place).

I agree this has a great similarity and it sure seems that 'in the day' can mean a period of time rather than an absolute night & day and if we compare those verses to Gen 2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens..." then we could definitely continue with that rationale.
The one thing that should bother both of us here is that once Shimei was caught by Solomon he actually died, when Adam and Eve got caught they didn't. Do you suppose Adam and Eve understood that when God said "in the day" he meant an unspecified period of time and not the actual day they disobeyed? Or might we supposed God meant when I catch you, you will certainly die.
Out of curiosity here, If you knew as much about God as Adam and Eve did and God had said the same command to you what would you assume 'in the day' meant? What do you think would happen when confronted by your maker for disobeying him?

If you think about it Satan intentionally tried to get God to admit to a less than perfect creation... by getting man killed. Man who was in Gods own words "made in our image". Satan was testing God. The 'living word' saw what satan was doing and chose to sacrifice his own life to keep him from proving that his father had failed in creating another being that was most like himself (in his image).

How do you come to this conclusion? Even after the Fall, we still bear God's image/likeness (Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1; 9:6; James 3:8). Jesus also alludes to this in Matt. 20:20-21; Mark 12:16-17; Luke 20:24-25. The coin bore Caesar's image, therefore the people were to give it to Caesar. We bear God's image, therefore we are to give ourselves to God.

That was part of my point Dayage, we are made in the image of God. How would it look if God had simply killed Adam and Eve for disobeying him? couldn't he have simply reformed another set of man made in his image? Wouldn't Adam and Eve have assumed that God could simply replace them with a new pair? It would have looked bad if God would have simply killed the first creation that was made in the image of Father and Son.

[dayage]

KBCid,

You sound similar to seveneyes.

Read this before I answer your post.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/tempora ... on-reveals

[KBCid]

KBCid, You sound similar to seveneyes. Read this before I answer your post.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/tempora ... on-reveals

Is seveneyes a poster here? Because I see no reference to him in the Hugh ross article as of yet.
I am a bit disappointed that you are redirecting me to Hugh's argument though, since I cannot directly question him nor can I determine how he rationalized his point of view. I am simply left to agree or disagree with him and provide those points where they occur. But I shall do my best to accomodate.