The general approach that I will take is that I will first demonstrate that there are many heavens. Next I will show that God created only one of those heavens 6,000 years ago. I will show that this Earth was created from the remains of a previous Earth. Then I will go through Genesis 1 and show that God created only what was spoken at that time, and that was not the whole universe. I will show that the earth existed as an entity called the deep before God said anything. Finally I will show that Ezekiel confirms that there was a universe existing before the current earth. The likeness of the Oort Cloud is drawn based on several images from Science Photo Library. The focus here is on Genesis 1 but there is much more to be said on the subject of creation

What God created 6,000 years ago

As outlined I will start with the issue of many heavens.

There are many Heavens

Typically when God says heaven He is talking about what we can see above.

God is here talking about things that we can copy. Things that we can see. It is not talking about imaginary things. Making up things that we don't understand was not even mentioned because of how foreign it would be to worshiping God. Understanding anything means retaining the context in which it was said.

God never says or implies that what you can see above, or anything else, came from from nothing, just that it was completed at that time.

Notice that in this extract from Isaiah 5, verse 30 shows that the earth has heavens.

So light is darkened, but only in the heavens that belong to the earth, not everywhere in the universe and for sure not in the third heaven.

We observe birds in the heavens, plural, and indeed consider it their domain.

How about rain? When God uses heavens here is He saying that the rain comes from outer space?

In my opinion there is no possible way of using the Bible to claim that the heavens means the universe. There are many heavens. There is a heaven where the birds fly, there is a heaven where the clouds are, there is a heaven where the sun and moon are. The earth is associated with those heavens at creation. There are also other heavens. The heavens that God created 6,000 years ago were the ones that are contextually associated with the earth. Briefly we can see that it is confirmed in the New Testament. From the beginning or the Bible record when God gave the information to Moses, He made it clear that there was a special heaven. Take special note of Deuteronomy 10:14.

So there is the Earth, the heavens, and the Heaven of Heavens. The confirmation of the heaven of heavens comes in 2 Corinthians where it is called The Third Heaven.

Both the Old (as we just saw) and New Testaments show that God lives there.

The third heaven is part of heaven and is in the heavens. It is not outside the universe. God inhabits this universe, He does not live outside of it.

There is a heaven with the stars and heavenly bodies.

What about the firmament that God created? Songs have poetic licence but the psalmist is clearly talking about what we see when we look up in the daytime. He is referring to the same firmament that was created in Genesis 1:6. Is the sun seen across the universe or just across the firmament? Does its heat even reach to Alpha Centauri?

Jeremiah and Isaiah show that from another perspective the heaven also contains the planets and constellations.

So when interpreting the word heaven or heavens we must maintain the context of what was said. In order to determine the limits of what is meant by heaven, first we have to understand what was said and that defines the context.

There is a heaven with earth's atmosphere. . .

. . . and there is a heaven where birds fly.

So clearly there are many heavens and the word means different things depending on the context.

Genesis 1:1-9

 I am going to break this down so that you may stand a better chance of understanding my convoluted (and perhaps very inferior) reasoning concerning these scriptures.

Genesis 1:1-2

What verses 1-2 does not say:

It does not say that this was the beginning of everything, or the beginning of the universe. THE heaven (singular) and earth is not the universe, it is just informing us of what He is focussing on, and in verse 2 He explicitly tells us that it is the Earth and not the universe. Paul shows us in II Corinthians 12:2 quoted above, where he mentions the Third Heaven, that it was common knowledge then. They knew that there were three basic heavens and here in Genesis God is dealing only with one. The cat is not all cats, the dog is not all dogs, the house is not all houses, the cat and dog and house is not all cats, dogs and houses. If I went to your house and you spoke of the cat, that would be perfectly normal but I would automatically know that I have to listen to the rest of what you say to know which cat you mean: for example it could either be my cat or your cat. We have to determine from the context which beginning this is. Later we will see that the very use of the word creation tells us that it is not the beginning of everything. The writer of Hebrews tells us (Hebrews 11:3) that what we see now was made from something else NOT NOTHING. That thing that it was made of is not what we see at present. Note that the word worlds in Hebrews 11:3, sometimes translated as the universe, does not mean that in Greek.

A gap

Job 38:7 (KJV) says When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

So to the rest of our knowledge we must add this information on the angels. Then Exodus 20:11 (KJV) says For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

How do we deal with this additional information? First note that Exodus does not say that it was in the beginning (the absolute beginning) that this six-day event occurred; then also notice that it does not say created. It does not say created for everything because some things are new, like the animals, and others were already there, like the water for example, but some (the new things) were created.

Now let us add some reasoning. If the universe was created before, or at the same time as the angels, then the angels could not sing to see it happen, so the angels had to be created before the heavens and the earth. This means that and all that in them is tells us that He is not talking about the universe since the angels are in the universe. So the first thing that we know is that He is not talking about the universe and there is another very important piece of information that we have. The beginning here cannot mean the beginning of everything because it necessarily excludes the creation of the angels and the water. It is more likely to be the same thing that is called the foundation of the world in the New Testament.

We cannot forget what it says in John. John 1:1 (KJV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Now if there are two beginnings then there must be a gap.

In Genesis the beginning refers to the beginning of the age of man not any of the many other possible beginnings for someone who has lived eternally. In my view, in most places where people assume the universe the word used does not refer to an object but to a time or age.

The watery/fluid mass

Even before I go to the scripture I want to present what I believe is logical. Matter cannot exist in nothing. If you tell me that something solid exists then I believe that I am correct is assuming that space exists because matter must occupy space.

I hope to spend some time later discussing this fluid mass but I want to propose that it is mass, it is matter therefore there is already space. Matter can only exist in space. Now the word translated water is also used for semen for example. I say that to say that it can mean something liquid with some solid pieces of matter in it. This will be important but I do not want to develop this topic here. The first thing that I want to emphasize here is that you cannot move if there is no space. It does not even make sense to say it. If there is not space there is no separation and no here or there. It does not make sense to talk about moving. The mere fact that God says move means that He had already begun to make things and one of the most amazing things was already made: space. If you think that matter is hard to make what about making space from nothing. It is incomprehensible to the human mind but we have the evidence for it. The other incomprehensible thing that was made was time. There is no beginning or end without time. It does not make sense to speak of a beginning without time. The beginning is a fixed point in time that is separate from any other time, consequently there must be a beginning that preceded what happened in genesis 1-2 since time preceded Genesis 1-2.

Now I already hinted that I believe that Psalm 104:30 and Genesis 1 are talking about the same thing; a renewal of the Earth. Later on we will discuss the meaning of created as used in the Bible. I hear people nowadays laughing at tohu and bohu and pointing symbolic fingers. It reminds me of when I was in school and children who had no shoes laughed and pointed fingers at children who wore cheap shoes. To me tohu wa-bohu, coming from the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:2 (And the earth was without form, and void) when paralleled with Isaiah 34:11 and interpreted as became waste and empty is a far superior explanation than that of the finger pointers.

At absolute zero there is no energy. There is no light at any wavelength. Everything crumbles into one mass of mush. So if the Earth exists there must be heat. Where did it come from? The earth not only existed but it already existed as complex materials which require energy to bond. The deep we are told consisted of water and land (it is actually in italics but we can discuss that later). Water is a compound and earth is actually many compounds. Heat can be created by chemical reactions within a planets core. Most things will survive without light for a few days but they will not survive extremely low temperatures. If you have a naturally decayed solar system or indeed universe then suns will die but there will be some heat and gravitational force to keep the solar systems and galaxies together. This is the condition that I believe is described in Genesis 1; a dead system that came about as a consequence of neglect and a satanic attitude. The Earth would be an ice planet because it has water. There are scientific arguments about gravity that could suggest that all of the water would fly off into space but let us assume that these were overcome. At such low temperatures there would be no atmosphere because all of the gases would become liquid first then solid if we actually reach absolute zero, undefined for me. Adding heat (which could produce some level of light) would be the first step in rebuilding the atmosphere. In order to sustain it He would later create a sun (but not necessarily out of nothing). Now that is pure guesswork mixed with a little science but it is a possibility. It is more extreme than what I assume actually happened because I think that only the earth was destroyed based on the scriptures but the whole region seems to have suffered from general neglect for an unknown period of time.

Genesis 1:3-5

What it does not say:

Night and day can only be used if a cycle has been created. The intention here seems to be to say that all other days would be like the first day otherwise the rest of Genesis 1 does not make sense, since the rest of it is divided into days. God specifically says that He is speaking of the earth hence this day and night cycle only relates to the earth. We have no idea about anything beyond it. At this point we do not know what was or was not there. You cannot honestly interchange earth with universe. There is no intention to say that the days that came about here on earth were the same across the universe i.e. it does not say that there were no night day cycles going on in other parts of the universe. It does not say that God and all of the angels live on a single planet that is lit by God. It does not say that some angels do not live on other planets that have suns and flora and fauna depending on that sunlight.

Some people argue that in the beginning of everything. God created the Earth as a blob of water and space. He made a mistake and had so much extra water that He sent some of the water out to the edge of space and threw some planets and stars into the vacant space. I would rather believe in tohu and bohu. Take a quick look again at Genesis 1.

Genesis 1:6-9

What it does not say:

It is in this verse that God defines the boundaries of creation 6,000 years ago and this age. He said that it is bounded by a set of water in space. From that water we get both the heaven and Earth. He defines the space from the firmament above to earth as what he meant by the heaven in verse 1. It is this area that will be destroyed at the end of the age and it is this area to which Adam brought sin. God decided that there was too much water making up the already existing earth for His purpose. He did not make a mistake and create too much. God created a firmament between the excess and what He wanted. He collected the one under the firmament AND HE FORMED A CANOPY WITH THE EXCESS TO SURROUND THE EARTH AND FORM A BOUNDARY. He did not just leave it. What happens to water left in space? It dissipates. It does not form stars and planets on its own. Now what about the other possibility, i.e. that He actually did move much of the liquid somewhere out at the edge of space? This introduces some complications. Remember that the firmament exists between two sets of water. Assuming that the other set of water is now encircling the universe that would have been a lot of water to waste. Even though water naturally dissipates it is so much water that it remains a distinct, identifiable entity and forms something that we are under. It still exists as something. It is not to the left or the right alone but we are always under it. He did not even create stars or anything from it because He says that it is still out there i.e. He divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. He did not dissipate the water so that it would no longer be a body it was made into a canopy. He gave the expanse a name not the water. God would have wasted so much water that He could encircle the universe with it and it remain as an item identifiable as the waters above the firmament. There is no scenario under which that appears Godlike to me. It says that God began His first actions in the universe by finding space and an enormous ball of water that He did not create and was left lying around that He called the earth but was really the whole universe. He was so wasteful that He took a teeny weeny bit of it to make the earth and then threw away the rest without the dignity of even naming it. Instead of making planets from the rest He somehow just created the planets in His spare time in those six days out of nothing so that they somehow appeared later.

Another thing that He did was collect complex materials. The word land is in italics but if you look for the word dry that precedes it you will no doubt get Strongs H3004, Hebrew yabbashah, meaning dry ground. Ground is a medley of complex materials not one type of atom or molecule. In one word you are actually saying that almost every element in the periodic table existed and hence pre-existed God's Spirit moving over the deep.

While we are on the subject of what it says about God let us recognise that it also purports that God, who had lived for eternity past, either found or had created only a ball of water and a jumble of raw materials in all that time and lived nowhere. He would not even create a home for Himself. He had no eye for beauty or to appreciate anything of the goodness of matter which He said was very good. He only learned that wine is something that He wanted to drink because of men. Mankind taught God to appreciate the beauty of a lilly and the and the taste of milk and honey. When He claims to have always been the same that is a joke because He cared for none of these things before man taught Him. He lived under a rock (or more precisely land and a ball of water), He would not eat, He had no eye for beauty in material things or the smell of apothecary. He was a hermit. Men have been so wonderful to God that He ought to be glad that we were created or He would be nothing. Men are the centre of the universe. I want to suggest that that line of thinking is dangerous.

Heavens does not mean universe

We should be able to see already that the universe and the heavens are not identical. Heaven is used to describe various areas above the earth while the universe always means everything. Heavens or heavens and universe is not interchangeable.

Notice that there is a Heaven of Heavens that is different from the heavens. The heavens cannot therefore automatically mean the whole universe.

Earlier we saw that the Heaven of Heavens is part of heaven and is where God lives. Here we see that the heaven that He created 6,000 years ago, and the heaven where He lives, are representing distinct, non-overlapping areas.

Is this dew coming from space? This due is coming from heavens (plural).

Did all of the universe drop when God went out of Seir.

Job knew when the resurrection was,

And he also knew that something would happen to the heavens before then. Did he mean the whole universe?

In verse 6 of Job 20 is Job talking about the universe when it says heavens? In all honesty can anybody say that he is talking about the universe when in the next breath he talks about the clouds.

Is Job telling us to look unto the universe here? He is just talking about where clouds are.

Notice this use in the New Testament.

This is a contrast between two worlds. It first identifies the old world, then it identifies the new world as including heavens and earth. One world overflowed with water and the next phrase must therefore refer to the same entity or else the comparison would not make sense. Did the universe flood with water? Does that even make sense?

God does not live outside of the Universe

God lives in the universe and the area is sometimes called the heaven of heavens

Notice that this puts is water ABOVE the heavens. Does this mean the the water is outside of the universe? That by definition is impossible. That is why it is called the UNIverse. It is everything. When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, stated by Sherlock Holmes.

The Heaven of Heavens is where God and the angels live.

Is this saying that God has set His glory outside of the universe? Who would care about that?

Can anyone say with a straight face that this is talking about the universe? Does thunder and lightning happen in space?

You cannot be talking about the universe and the clouds in the same breath. Has God any mastery of the spoken language or is he missing the basics. When people go down that line then I have no answer because it clearly contradicts the evidence of God's perfection and makes our faith vain but for me He uses heavens and clouds in the same breath.

There is a heavens or heaven that is associated with the earth and is not the universe. God lives in the universe. Sometimes where He lives is called the heaven of heavens and it is said that it is in the sides of the North.

It is interesting that because of the earth's rotation axis we can always tell North but we cannot tell east and west. Zion on Earth is built after that pattern of that heaven.

God basically says that He has existed for all time but does not claim that He existed before time. He and time exists together.

He did not exist before the beginning. He was in the beginning. Beginning means the start of time.

People who say that God lives outside of time and space are contradicting the Bible. It makes no sense. We saw above that He lives in the universe and that is where we find His glory.

Time and time again the heavens and the clouds are linked and the context shows that it is within the limits of the atmosphere.

Is this saying that God goes outside the universe and rides on it? I think that sort of thinking is biblically unsound.

Did the whole universe drop?

There is an approach nowadays that indicatees that people think that they have more understanding than the people God chose to write the Bible, but can you honestly say that David is claiming that these people were bad-talking the whole universe. It is David that is using the word heavens so we have to take the meaning from him as he understood its meaning then.

Is it at all reasonable to suggest that David is saying in this verse that God's mercy is outside of the universe?

Is God going to shake the whole univers just to accomplish something here on earth. Is it possible to say with a straight face that this is saying that God will snuff out all of the stars in the universe?

From the other scriptures connected with this we know that this is talking about the Day of the Lord. It is not talking of the new heavens and new Earth yet.

Is this dew coming from outer space?

Satan is limited to the Earth so do his angels just roam around the whole universe at will while he is bound here?

After Day 2 then what?

Before we go on I will backtrack a bit to add more context. With the evidence that we have already covered it I can now go back to before day and add some details to fill in the picture.

A previous Earth

Now we can move back to the beginning of Genesis.

This does not say that God created all of the heavens when he created the earth. It is only one heaven (singular) and would logically be the one connected to the earth. The next point is that, however you believe that it happened, there was an earth before God began the creation process of Genesis. That earth was without form and void but it was there. There is no possible rendering of this verse that does not require that the earth already existed. Jeremiah indicates that the expression without form and void means waste and empty. If it is waste and empty then it must already exist before He began the words of creation or even moving over the deep. What Jeremiah says confirms that observation.

This also establishes that there had to already be a universe. You cannot have here and there without space. It is logically impossible, hence space existed. Remember that the Holy Spirit works with a sound mind.

Things that do not make sense are nonsense not spiritual. Making nonsense in a religion creates a mystery religion and that is not of God. It is by accepting things that do not make sense that the mystery of the Trinity has taken hold to dull mens minds. By using the sound mind of the Holy Spirit we can reject that in the same way that we can reject irrational beliefs about creation. Certain theories about creation fall into the same category as the Trinity.

The process of Creation

I do not believe that I need to go into too much detail here but creation does not mean that you start from scratch. Adam was definitely created.

But it was from the dust of the ground.

At this point I will not go into discussion on Luke 10 where Satan fell and Revelation 12 which shows that he brought down 1/3 of the angels with him, because then I would have to discuss angels, but that is also a supporting point. I will go into that at another time but there are several others.

The earth was created from material of a former earth. How did he do it?

So we know how the actual creating was done, i.e. by speaking. Let us proceed to examine the rest of Genesis and see each time that He spoke and what was created.

God never said anything about a universe but men have added junk to what God said to suggest that He did. Notice verse 6. He did not create the waters, all he did was create a space in it. This space is what He tells us is the heaven that He created. He does not leave us guessing. This is borne out by modern science and is called the Oort cloud. The image at the beginning of this article is a likeness that I made if it. According to scientific theory the Oort Cloud is a spherical shell surrounding everything in our solar system and basically acts as its outer boundary. This shell is made up of icy pieces of space debris that are sometimes drawn into our solar system to become comets. God sent some of the water to the edge of the solar system and kept some at the core to create what He needed.It is interesting that the Oort cloud appears to be one-of-a-kind. Scientist have been scanning the universe to find another solar system surrounded by water and so fat they have not been able to find even one.

What it does not say:

God said two things on the third day. On thing separated already existing dry land from the water. This explains why He called it the deep because the water enveloped a relatively small body of solid land. The other thing that He said caused the land to be productive. God already knew that these things would have been good but he saw that they were when He was done. Based on what God says about Abraham, God only knows things when He has the evidence. He knew it from eternity past so He had the evidence, but saw that this specific part was good after it was complete. He did not wait all that time to make something for the first time that He knew would have been good all along, something that He would continue to enjoy: Matthew 26:29 [KJV], But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers kingdom. It is something so special that abstaining from it would be considered a sacrifice.

Genesis 1:14-19

What it does not say:

Now What did God instruct the creation to do?

1. to divide the day from the night
   
2. be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years
3. be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth

Now from verse 16 the TWO lights were supposed to do all three of the above not just one thing? We can shuffle it around in our minds to perhaps get stars to divide night from day but I believe even that would be dishonest.

Once we see God focussing on the firmament. He tells us that He made two great lights for a specific purpose. God made one long statement that created two lights only. The lesser light ruled the night but joined the already existing stars to rule the night. Light from stars is not enough to light up the earth. On a moonless night outside is pitch black but you can see the stars clearly. He dos not say that He created any stars. Notice how insidious men are with their evil to pervert the truth. At the end of verse 16 they added he made in the English Bible. Check yours and see that it is in italics. The original Hebrew says And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, the stars also. What this says is that the stars rule the night with the moon that is all. It does not say that they were created at that point. God only made two lights not a billion suns.

Evidence from Satan

Is there any other solid evidence that the universe existed? Yes there is. Ezekiel 28:13-16 [KJV]: Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. [14] Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. [15] Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. [16] By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

Notice that Satan sinned long before Adam but yet it is Adam who brought sin into the world (Romans 5:12) even though Genesis shows that Satan for certain lied before Adam sinned and we can substantiate from other parts of the Bible that he did worse too. How is that possible? I will consider that later. Ezekiel is talking of the change from a devoted angel to Satan. I do not believe that I have to establish that with any other scriptures. God is talking of real things not imaginary ones. He first talks of things that we are familiar with like emerald and sapphire. He then goes on to show that there are things in heaven that have never been reproduced on earth, such things as the holy mountain of God and the stones of fire. We know that when God created Israel He did a shadow of the holy mountain of God (there is also a scripture that shows that Zion is patterned after it). We see that in Sinai and Zion but that is a whole other subject. We have never had the stones of fire but they exist. Lucifer walked up and down in them. They still exist because God WILL destroy him from the midst of them. This is talking about things that existed before man and the creation recorded in Genesis and still exist, but not on Earth. If there were stones and a mountain there was a creation, a universe not just a ball of water.

I could go on to talk about the estates and how they existed before man, and how Satan was cast to a previously existing Earth and such things, but I believe that this should be enough to prove the point that everything did not come into existence 6,000 years ago. The truth is here a little, there a little and it is our job to put all the pieces together and not allow ourselves to be fooled by propaganda.

Genesis 1:26-31

Let us jump now to the creation of man.

What it does not say:

Notice that this sentence is constructed similarly to how He made the one with the two lights. Just as all that followed applied to the two lights all that follows here applies to man. God made the rest of the system by SPEAKING but He FORMED man from the dust of the ground. Here we see God communicating with inanimate matter and it responds to Him. It is not saying that He spoke in Babylonian or Amamaic or Hebrew or Egyptian, which did not even exist at he time. It is not the sound that matters. He is able to communicate by His spirit directly with the material. He does not use magic spells. He spoke three times and each time something happened that represented His intent. With man he went further and was hands on but in both cases the creation came from something that was already there.

Doctrine of Demons

Creation 6,000 years ago is a doctrine of demons because it lies about God in Satan's favour. The Bible says that the universe (all things) were created for God.

It was not created for man as some people claim. It is something that He wants, i.e. His will and something that He likes i.e. His pleasure

They are not something that He does not care about. When did He find out that He likes things? When did He start to do something about it? God said that He likes  (finds pleasure in) things made from matter and He said earlier that things made from matter can be very good. Did He just lie there for eternity past craving these things and doing nothing about it?

We know that angels like food. The manna was called angel's food.

He could have called it cat food but He called it angels food. Why?Angels obviously do not eat to survive so it has to be because they like food. Since they were creted before man where did they get it from? We know that they probably like wine too, because God likes wine.

We know that God loves gold and pearls and precious stones

We know that They love somewhere beautiful to live because the morning stars sang for joy at the creation of the earth and the demons would rather fight a war with Michael than give up the freedom access the material universe. They are to be bound in some area. If spirit beings have no appreciation of space why then is it a problem?

We know that God lives somewhere.

And Zion was built to represent that.

So God knows all of these things and still did nothing about them for Themselves and furthermore They claims that They were always love but nevertheless provided none of these things to share with the angels.

The one in the Old Testament claims that He was always the same.

And so does the one in the new.

If He has always been the same then why did He not know that He likes these things? If He is claiming that He is love then why did He not show love to the angels? So from Satan's point of view he was justified in rebelling because God did not love them and is a liar about always being love. It is only 6,000 years ago that He began caring about anybody other than Himself. Before that, being able to see into hearts, He knew of the yearning of the angels and would not give them a sugar cake. He would not create anything for them. He was too lazy to do anything for Himself, let alone the angels, and now is talking about His eternal love. So from Satan's point of view how could you live like that for eternity? The angels were around at the creation of this earth so they predated it. If the universe came into existence at that time then God made no home for them. God knew that He wanted somewhere to live. He now lives in the Heaven of Heavens in the sides of the North. Since He does not change then He knew that He wanted that a long time ago. He knew that He wanted that and that the angels would therefore want that too but He did nothing. He is either a senile old man or a lazy old hermit or both. So that doctrine makes God look bad and Satan look good. Only a demon would think it up. The alternative is that God always knew that He liked nice things, i.e. He likes things out of matter, not only spiritual things, He is going to create a new Kingdom out of matter. He therefore built a material universe, the only universe that the Bible says exists, for His pleasure. He loved the angels and they share His space that He created for His pleasure. It is so beautiful and appealing that Satan wanted it all.

So that is why it is a doctrine of demons. God loves everyone that He ever created and goes to the hilt to be generous, considerate and attentive. Any doctrine that goes contrary to that is evil and sinister and wicked no matter how they try to sugar coat it.

Romans on creation

One scripture that is constantly abused is Romans 8:22 [KJV] For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

When other writers use the word it is usually clear that it means people e.g.

The word translated as creature is the same in Greek as the one translated creation. But with Paul in Romans it is not so clear. Let us look at all of the other books in which the word is used and then return to Romans. The argument is that the word means universe and therefore the word creation can be swapped for universe but is that true? Let us see.

Mark

Now we have a conundrum. Are angels male and female? Were the angels created before or after the universe? If you say after then where did Satan fall from and where was his domain if there was only nowhere? We can get back to that one later.

This next one is interesting.

Aside from the fact that the universe of creation does not actually make sense it does kind of work. What it emphasizes is that the word applies to something and must be understood in context.

The problem here is that the universe is not in the world. If you go everywhere in the world you cannot speak to all the universe and you cannot speak to all creation.

Colossians

No comment necessary.

No comment necessary.

Hebrews

The word translated building here is the same word translated creation elsewhere.

Peter

In Greek it actually says

This next one does sound kind of nice too except that everything has not continued the same from the beginning of the universe because again God never told us when He created that ball of water and the water became creation and of course there is the matter of Satan who was thrown down.

Revelation

Actually that one is kind of interesting too. This is talking of Christ who is the firstborn of many brethren. At first He was not created unless you want to start some apostasy to support the creation = universe myth. That gets weird. If you do I humbly bow out. You can do some manipulation I suppose and say that Christ was from the foundation of the world and then define world to mean universe and it pops right out. But just remember that these are your definitions not the Bible's. The more we swap words the deeper the hole we dig for ourselves. If we want to force one scripture to mean what we want we have to break many other scriptures.

Creation was defined in Genesis. The universe is all things and they were also created but are not what was defined as creation in Genesis.

The earth (what came from the ball of water) was created for man but the universe was created for His pleasure. None of this is absolute evidence. It all stems from our concept of God. If we believe exactly what is said in Genesis 1 then we have one concept but if we begin to swap meanings of words as we go along to satisfy our preconceived understanding, we dig a deeper and deeper hole. If God needs you to swap out words for Him because He did not know the right word then guess who is God. Christ existed from the foundation of the world not the foundation of the angels or anything else that existed before this world. If we change that then we now have to redefine more words because then angels cant be sons of God, for example. We now have to find a way to redefine son and it goes on and on.

Mark 16:15 is parsed exactly as Romans 1:25

I suppose you could say that people serve the universe but to me this is talking about people not the whole universe. Again you just could just redefine the meaning a little bit and get what you want.

The abuse or Romans comes from redefining creation from what God said in Genesis to mean the universe. Creation and universe are not interchangeable.

The Greek word is

G2937 ktisis (ktiy'-sis) n.

1. original formation.

2. properly) the act.

3. (by implication) the thing.

{literally or figuratively}

[from G2936]

Now let us replace that with the word universe

If you insert universe it tells a perfectly logical story but remember that it is you who made the assumption. It tells a different story than if you leave it alone. Which story is true?

It begins to unravel when you include

Because that becomes

And it gets worse.

The world and the universe are different unless you define them to be the same to achieve your personal objective.

Actually the parsing of Romans 8:19 is exactly the same as Romans 1:10 and literally means the original formation not the universe. It relates to a feature of the specific thing. When that thing came into being not all things.

I suppose that everybody has taken a concordance and done this same analysis and we have come up with different results, but for me the stand that I have taken has more justification than the alternative. For me it is completely dishonest to swap universe with creation and teach the result as a dogmatic revelation from the Bible, especially when you deny that, if left alone, it presents a perfectly clear meaning.