The Creation of Time
Each day of creation is numbered. Yet Nahmanides points out that there is discontinuity in the way the days are numbered. The verse says: "There is evening and morning, Day One." But the second day doesn't say "evening and morning, Day Two." Rather, it says "evening and morning, a second day." And the Torah continues with this pattern: "Evening and morning, a third day... a fourth day... a fifth day... the sixth day." Only on the first day does the text use a different form: not "first day," but "Day One" ("Yom Echad"). Many English translations that make the mistake of writing "a first day." That's because editors want things to be nice and consistent. But they throw out the cosmic message in the text! That message, as Nahmanides points out, is that there is a qualitative difference between "one" and "first." One is absolute; first is comparative. The Torah could not write “a first day” on the first day because there had not yet been a second day relative to it. Had the perspective of the Bible for the first six days been from Sinai looking back, the Torah would have written a first day. By the time the Torah was given on Sinai there had been hundreds of thousands of "second days." The perspective of the Bible for the six days of Genesis is from the only time in the history of time when there had not been a second day. And that is the first day. From the creation of the universe to the creation of the soul of Adam, the Torah views time from near the beginning looking forward. At the creation of Adam and Eve, the soul of humanity, the Bible perspective switches to earth based time. And therefore the biblical description of time changed.
First I would have to accept that the Universe is finite and non-eternal. Then I could quibble over it’s age.
I’ve seen no proof, so far, that it is not timeless and eternal. Just like God. It is God. Without GOD it is not.
(I think I got that from the Bible)
I could be wrong, but where is the proof? Our gaze has extended to the far reaches of the Universe, and what do we see? More of the same.
Math tells us there must be a limit to the energy used to create the Universe, and therefore it’s size is such and such. This is the same math that defines the largest size of certain stellar objects, and yet it has to be revised each month as we discover something LARGER than our ‘math’ said it could be.
The better our equipment becomes, the more we find. It’s the limit of our equipment that makes us believe there is a limit to the Universe (when logically it should make us believe the opposite).
People are funny.