A while ago I stumbled across the fact that since the stars and planets were created only on the 4th day since the creation of heaven and earth, there was nothing for the earth to revolve around, and I had a hard time imagining what it could have been that determined how "the evening and the morning" had come about without the sun being around, which is our clue along these extents nowadays.
My view of baby Earth was that of a solid ball hanging in space with nothing to revolve around, and no particular reason for revolving around itself.
I even came across the views of the geocentricists who claim that the earth is the center of the universe, and that the universe revolves around earth in 24 hours, and gave that some thought.
Maybe you're like the majority of people I know who wouldn't waste a second thought on such matters, but I've always been curious about our origins, and having just caught up a little on physics (a subject that had perfectly eluded me in school), I was clueless as to what kind of a cosmological scenario I would have to present to "anyone that asketh" me, since I wasn't very satisfied with my own current view of the first few days of history, and as usual, I brought my complaint before the Lord.
He didn't say anything.
He did remind me, though, that there was a book sitting on my shelf less than an arm's length away that I had purchased more than a while ago, and instantly I made use of my arm in order to find some answers. So, I gave it a second go at "Starlight and Time" by D.Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
I had already grasped his concept of time being distorted by gravity, and thus moving more slowly close to the center of the earth, and faster at a distance, thus making it possible for the light of stars billions of light years away to be seen by us, even if earth is only 6000 years old.
He claims that time moves so much faster out in the vastness of space, that billions of years may have passed out there during our meager 6000 terrestrial years...
(I'm still curious whether this view is supported by evidence, and if anyone comes across such information and would like to share it, I'd be grateful.)
This time I kept reading until the part to which I hadn't made it the first time around, namely his Appendix B: "A Biblical Basis for Creationist Cosmology," in which he reconstructs creation week by taking the statements from Genesis 1 literally (availing himself of the original Hebrew meaning of specific words) and interpreting the events it describes in scientific terms.
What it did for me was rekindle my faith in a biblical truth that my mind had previously rejected, and that was that the "expanse" or firmament created in verses 6-8 was not just a water canopy hanging above the atmosphere before the flood, but actually stellar space, the place where he puts the stars in verses 14-18.
That was something Dad had said back in the 80s, in a Letter called "Astronomical Fakery" (ML1309), but to be honest, I always thought that that was one point he was off about. First of all, that would have taken away my explanation for the longevity of people before the flood, and second, I couldn't imagine a layer of water surrounding the entire known universe. Not until yesterday, that is.
The longevity of Antediluvians can be accredited to the higher magnetic field on pre-flood earth, and according to Humphreys, when God created the heaven and the earth in Gen.1:1 & 2, the "heaven" it's referring to is what the Bible refers to elsewhere as "the Heaven of heavens," something even greater and beyond the scope of stellar space, which was only created on the 2nd day, and that everything else originally consisted of water (see v.2), confirming what Peter wrote (2Pe.3:5), that "the earth was formed out of water and by water."
In other words, the first appearance of solid matter occurred on day 3 when He makes the dry land appear, followed by herbal life, and only then by the rest of the stars and planets that now make up the bulk of matter we observe in our universe.
This may not be a revelation for anyone else, but it was a change of views for me. Somehow it's a bit easier to believe that space was just something God tucked between the waters when the bulk of everything we call physical was made of water in the first place, or maybe it just took all these years for me to find out just how little there is to all the claims made by scientists, media and the machine, and how little they really know of all they claim to know, until I was willing to adapt my perception of these things.
It shows just what a blessing Home schooling is, where you don't have to subject your kids to the stuff they're incessantly drilling into students' heads in public schools. In Germany, public school is obligatory, based on a law first passed by Hitler, so enjoy your freedom to homeschool and of being able to base your knowledge and that of your children on the Bible, which - after all - makes a lot more sense than their theories that try to explain away the Creator.
By now, nothing can surprise me much anymore, not even the notion that the universe should be nothing much different than a water bubble with a bunch of particles called stars and planets in it. It just makes God even bigger than I thought He was before... Outrageously big.
If you're in the possession of an even better or updated explanation or creationist cosmology model, feel free to share and enlighten other not-quite-as-bright minds such as mine & share the know.
Related article from GP Blog: Divine Physics