>I'll give you a rough outline of the first part now (what I've read so
for). His basic argument is that the universe was created in about 15
billion years and 6 days, it all depends on your frame of reference.
>From us on earth looking back (measuring via red shift etc) it looks like
the universe has been expanding for 15 billion years. The cosmic
background radiation (CBR) also indicates a similar age or a "streaching"
of it wave length, due to the expansion of the universe. He goes on to
point out that the CBR has cooled a million million times from its starting
temp at the begining of the big bang.
>Accoring to the theory of relativity, time slows due to gravity,
approaching the speed of light, and expansion.
>If you visited a planet with 350,000X more mass than earth (and could
survive), passage of time would still seem the same to you. However, what
passed for 3 minutes for you would be about 2 years on earth and vise
versa, 2 years on earth would be 3 minutes from your perspective. You
would see things on earth moving very fast, someone watching you would see
you moving very slow, 3 minutes worth of time in 2 years.
>He believes that the first 6 days of Genesis are from the universes time
frame perspective; its not until the creation of Adam that the perspective
moves to the earth's time frame. So if your frame of reference is the same
as the CBR, events on earth would be speeding by, the age of dinosaurs (120
million years) is just an hour long from the CBR perspective.
>(I hope I'm not butchtering this.) He is not saying God is slowing down.
The perspective that the opening of Genesis is written from changes at the
creation of Adam. Since Adam, the perspective has been earth based.
>He uses moderm physics and ancient (>600 years old) commentary on Genesis
to back up the claim that even the ancient Hebrew scholars made predictions
about the nature of the universe that are being discovered by scientists
>That's it in a nutshell. He cites lots of scientific papers, and is a
physicist himself and a Hebrew scholar.
>I'm still with holding a verdict, but it has stimulated a line of thought
I haven't had before.