A8. Some Questions from the Initial Reviewers (response is in italics)

From Ted:

Today I read your attachment. I agree with much of it. I have problems on some of the direct statements and inferences that you have. Mostly about the point of Adam being one person through whom my blood began as progenitor rather than merely being one among many, and happened to be the one that fell from grace.

I believe in a literal dated creation allowing that a system of inactive orbs were in place at some earlier time by the same God though do not deem that necessary, just possible-so that the "dust" of Adam may not have been brand new, is not an issue to me, that it was created by the hand of the same God is an issue to me. And that this world has a beginning and an ending which is about process, plan and fulfillment along with failure loss and grief, is also a must to me. Applying scientific reasoning to the things we don't know about God and ancient history, is folly and worse than a waste of time. Deut 29:29

Ted:
What is the alternative to using the logical thinking process that God uses when He talks to us throughout His Bible? God is very logical: Do this and this will happen; I have a plan for you, Why do you persecute me, Saul?

Here's the deal:

- Nowhere in the Bible does it specify that Adam was the first man ever created by God
- It does specify that through Adam sin was introduced into the Human race.
- The sons of God are not necessarily human offsprings of Adam and Eve.
- Gen 1: 26-28 tell us plainly that God created men and women on the sixth day and told them to multiply and cover the Earth.
I have suggested that these humans were not created of the dirt as were Adam and Eve. This difference is what I read into the texts that tell us "the sons of God" took "daughters of men" for wives later in the timeline (Gen 6: 1-3). Note the daughters of "men" not "Man".
There was a reason that God carved out a special place in His creation of Earth for Adam and Eve to begin the Sin Drama.
- I suggest that He first created the 3D universe to look like the perfect angel universe before the iniquity was found in it.
- When He made Man from the dirt, He knew Man would sin and eventually return to that dirt. The dirt to me symbolizes the bacteria that are inherently in all humans and animals now living on this planet. I suggest that you won't find any bacteria in any angel or in any of the original "sons of God".
- Knowing that Man must Fall to fully demonstrate “good” and “evil” choices and consequences in this Sin Drama, God needed to introduce from the beginning His Plan of Salvation, ie even though they die, yet He can give everlasting life to those who want it enough to want to have a relationship with Him (John 3:16). The entire Bible points to the fact that God knew ahead of time that Man would fall and He had this Plan in place before creating Adam.

NOTE: This Falling away from God was not initiated by being tricked into sinning. No, Sin arose as a result of exactly what had happened in Heaven prior to this, with the angels. Angels did not suddenly start sinning in a perfect world for no reason. Likewise, neither did Adam. Instead I suggest it was all about making naïve choices. Like the angelic beings, Adam and Eve were naïve about what constitutes evil choices. To them, many choices that would seem perfectly good, would actually lead them to self-destruct eventually, ie they would be called “evil” choices. So, when Lucifer offers them a choice, his logic seems fine to these naïve humans and they go for it. This is what I say happened first to the fallen angels, albeit their first poor choices would have been different.

As a side note, I can hypothesize about the first evil choices the angelic beings might have made and why. I suggest that one early issue was about how created beings could possibly have any free will when God is the Thinker and they are merely His thoughts. The answer given may have been that God can actually think of free-willed beings and elect to not control their actions. For some, this kind of answer is not good enough - they need hard evidence. The sin we hear about when iniquity was found in Lucifer, in this scenario could have been the result of him trying to get this proof by doing things that he felt God would not want him to do. If he could do such things, then he would know that God was not controlling his every move. However, such things are self-destructive by definition because anything that is self destructive (Regardless of whether or not we understand why) is a bad choice and God only wants us to choose from those things that enhance our existence. This is why I see God as loving and experienced parent and not as a dictator demanding obedience.

Getting proof of this causes grief to enter the perfect angelic world. And yet, there is always the suggestion that perhaps over time they will work out the kinks and everything will be okay again. Not so, and as such, the world continues to self-destruct as they try to get the kinks out by themselves. The result is that eventually all must die and then there is no one left to tell the tale, that God was right. Meanwhile, there is, “war in heaven”.

This is why God needed to create a surrogate universe a little lower than the angel universe, which they could all watch (like a movie) as the Sin drama played out. Then, they would learn the lessons by watching us self-destruct and they would not need to. The kingdom of remaining, unfallen angelic beings could stay perfect as long as they were experienced enough to detect an evil choice and avoid making it. Therefore God wants them to watch the entire human sin drama play out with all it varied choices as the situations repeat in each succeeding generation. They must see it all to fully understand good and evil as God does and then they must “Remember” what they learned.

Of course God needed to show that He doesn't create thinking beings just to burn in hell, or similarly to live in torment on earth. He must show His love for humans by becoming one Himself and dying on their behalf. His plan is that all humans will live with Him for ever after, in angelic form, in heaven, with the other angels. Any human can receive this gift of everlasting life, but all will not. For those who choose to "hide" from God, He will eventually give them what they want as well, ie He will stop thinking about them and they will cease to exist. As we have discussed prior, humans are recreated into angelic beings on the Last Day, but although they are in Heaven they are quarantined from the rest of the angelic host. First they must get on a par with those unfallen angelic beings by reviewing the records (books) of the entire human sin drama and understanding good and evil as the angelic audience did. They must “live and reign with the Glorified Christ for 1000 years and judge the world” as the angels did.

Ted says:
The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law. About us and Angels being thoughts in the mind of God, I am OK with that with some descriptive comment about what it means.

Everything must be in the mind of God. Where else could it be?
God must be all-alone in His universe. There can be no outside to God. If there were, then how big would it be? The First Cause must be a universe unto Himself.
Hence, everything God creates must be inside Himself. This criteria is met if God creates by thinking. This is not something that must be a mystery, since every other thinking being we know of creates in their mind by thinking. Surely the God, Who created them can think at least as well as they can, so it is logical to believe that God creates by thinking and thus everything He creates is indeed "in His mind".
This is an example of scientific reasoning. We attempt to explain the unknown in terms of the observable.

Knowing God isn't about knowing everything there is to know about God and His creation. It is knowing the essentials about God, and that is what He has given us in the Bible. To me, knowing God is all about having a relationship with Him, not about understanding Him. With that understanding, I have no problem with those who teach that the OT is done away with etc.

I agree, but how would you propose to prove that they are wrong and the view I hold is correct? It is not because I say so or because I have a better paradigm. If it is so, and has been affirmed so by inspired writers, then can you prove they are inspired? Would you need to use logic to prove that? If so, then why stop there? For non-scientific mortals like me, we can live with our faith that the writers we believe were indeed inspired and that we are correctly understanding what they wrote. If the Bible is only for NASA scientists and their counterparts in all ages, who then can be saved? God would be guilty of making a plan few can know or understand. Surely the Bible is for everyone. Nevertheless, I suppose that doesn't mean that everyone will understand it. Surely those who don't even try will never understand it. Some will understand it better than others. Do you think EGW understood it better than most? And like the vision of Jacob's ladder, it reaches all the way from heaven to earth. The bottoms rungs are within my reach. This ladder is not exclusively for any person or group of persons, only those who allow the inspired words of the scriptures to speak for themselves, here a little and there a little, rightly dividing the word of truth.

The Bible explains itself. So why do you think everyone does not hear the same messages when it comes to interpreting what they will believe as facts? EG, How come most of them cannot even know that the Sabbath is the 7th day?

It is the student of Scriptures duty not to know the greatest scientific minds and truths, as that is a knowledge elitism totally foreign to the kingdom Jesus preached, but to know a place in the scriptures where authority for a particular view exists. What does this mean? All we are trying to do is to understand what God is telling us. Is there one truth in His message or not? In the example, is the Sabbath the 7th day or not?

Salvation knowledge is for the common people who faithfully study and compare the inspired words of scriptures, not the words of men. I contend that they are settling for what sounds good to them and not seeking the truth with all their heart. If they all would continue to seek the truth, then they would be converging on it and not lost in contradictory versions of it. One sentence of scripture is of greater value than 10,000 of men's ideas and arguments.

If the Bible is not understood correctly does it have any value? Perhaps it does in general terms such as developing your relationship with God, since that is not dependent on a full or even partially correct understanding of the details of the Bible. However, just look at all the Harold Campings in the world, who are quite certain of what they believe even though we think he is off the wall. He certainly will not be saved because of his understanding of the Bible. He could still be saved because of his relationship- with God, but that is up to God.

That is my authority for my views on God, Salvation and Eternity. Not on the scientists, theologians/preachers, just the words of scripture.

You may be kidding yourself. What we are talking about here is using the "Scientific Method" to assess our beliefs. Anyone can and everyone should do that. This is not about using higher math or such to interpret the Bible. Rather it is about Seeking God with all your heart and mind.

And if perchance Scripture is silent on a subject, I have no problem for people to express their opinions, but I get more than a little upset when they teach for dogma the ideas of men.

You have your own ideas as well. How would you prove that yours are right and others are wrong? Both cannot be right if/when they are totally contrary. I think you must resort to logic and the scientific method. Until you can show why your ideas are more correct, I submit that you are merely teaching as doctrine your own ideas. Now, if you can show everyone how your ideas fit the Bible and the observable facts consistently in all cases and that they make logical sense as well, then I would believe that you are on the right track. Surely, God's truth will someday make sense to all of us.

That is about as black and white as it gets. You accept the scriptures as the word of God, understanding the principles of inspiration laid out in the scriptures, and make dogmatic statements about those things clearly taught in His words. Dogma outside of that is heresy. This is what is meant in the last verse of Revelation about anyone taking anything away from the words of this book, or ADDING ANYTHING TO THE WORDS OF THIS BOOK.

I've heard Harold Camping say the exact same thing on his radio show, speaking about people like us (SDA). A curse is pronounced on such persons. Harold has told his listeners that SDAs are a cult as are any Christians who keep the 7th day Sabbath. I heard him say this just after quoting Rev 22 as you have done above.

People who determine to know what the Bible says on any subject, rather than on the words of mere men doesn't sound like mentally lazy people to me, who determine to follow God's words and only God's words, does it to you, really?

Yes it does, when they cannot show me why the other views are bogus and only theirs are correct. Exactly what are they using to convince themselves that they have the truth? Their unique interpretations are only what makes them feel good. As Karl Marx said, "This kind of religion is the opium of the people". My quest is to thoroughly justify everything I believe in terms that follow the scientific method. No math is required, but logic and critical thinking are.

Respectfully,
A student of the Scriptures

Respectfully, NASA Mike
A student of the scriptures and the scientific method.
My God is very logical and if I am to be held accountable for what He says, I must use logic to understand His Word.

From Richard:

p. 4 "I have found that logic and reason must be used to sort out truths from beliefs." This is an outstanding statement, coming as it does from an SDA. I agree. I like the emphasis on logic. "Logic is fundamental to both science and religion, because it makes sense out of what you believe. If you abandon logic, you could be believing lies and never know it." Too many SDAs are afraid of logic and reason. What a shame! This trend has become especially obvious among some of our brothers and sisters with right-wing tendencies. Their anti-intellectual mutterings bother me.

p. 4 "If we can instead point out how our faith is merely an extrapolation of what we can observe and not merely a blind leap . . ." I think this is good, but I'd delete the word "merely." Saying that faith is merely an extrapolation from empiricism may say more than the author could wish or substantiate. I think the author is trying to tell us that faith is based upon evidence, though the evidence may not be coercive, incorrigible. Done.

p. 5 "Although miracles may be possible and may be the rational answer in some cases, the exclusive use of miracles to prove a point is unscientific. I intend to present a model where everything the Bible relates about God and His Creation can make sense and not conflict with the observable facts." Sounds interesting. He's got my attention! "Reasonable faith is defensible as we dig deeper into it, because it fits the observable facts."

p. 5 The author is pretty hard on passionate belief, which certainly is understandable. However, he might want to add a few words about the need for passion as well as reason when it comes to our belief system. That way it isn't assumed that it's a one or the other alternative. I would think that our religious perspective should involve all aspects of our being, including both our intellect and our emotion. My position is that you first need to use logic to ascertain and to verify the facts. Then, with all the facts in front of you, your decision on how to respond to them will be based on your personal emotions.

p. 8, par. 2 In one paragraph the author demonstrates that the First Cause is eternal? I'm not sure he can be so quick. I'm still trying to figure out what he said in this paragraph. His points need some expansion here, I think. He needs to be clearer. Let me try to explain this better. My high-powered scientist friend, Dr. Gunther Kletetschka, is discussing this with me now as we fly towards the North Pole. He makes the point that there is no way to damage "energy". Energy can not be created or destroyed by anything in this universe that we know about. As far as we can tell, energy can only change form, including the changes between what we call matter and what we identify as "other" forms of energy. Hence, energy must be eternal.

I am saying that Thoughts are a form of energy. My hypothesis is that thought energy is the primordial energy in this universe. This is what I call the "thoughts of God" - His "Holy Spirit". God's thoughts are the energy that holds this universe together. So, in order to prove this, I logically apply the concept to everything addressed in my book and see if/where it breaks down. I could be wrong about this, but then there would be a better explanation out there for how thought arose in this universe. This fits perfectly with the biblical view that this entire universe is indeed in the mind of God. But, where else could it be?

p. 9 The author doesn't define the word "personal." The closest he comes is to indicating that personal means the ability to think. It might help his case all along if he would define his terms.

You're right. I need to define terms more often. Some answers below also deal with this. If the universe can think, then it has a personality, doesn't it?

p. 8-10 What is the difference between the author's philosophy and pantheism? This question will arise when people read such things as "Everything that has been created by this First Cause must exist within it." (It is unclear on p. 8 whether the author believes this or not.) "He thinks and we exist, but we exist in His mind, not outside of His form." (What does that mean? Do we not have objective existence?)

There can be no outside to the First Cause, because the First Cause must include all that there is at the beginning. There must be a limit to the physical dimensions of this universe, ie there is a finite form to this universe. If not, then we have an infinite progression of outsides. The same logic applies here as for the need for a First Cause that had no cause. God must have a finite form. He also must have more dimensions than the three we have, to account for His eternal characteristic and for His having no outside. For this reason, anything that is created by God cannot be placed outside Himself. If God creates by thinking, as we do, then indeed everything He creates is in His mind.

"God is the Thinker, and everything else is His thought." (Is material reality, then, identical with divine thought? What does that mean? Is God's thought somehow material whereas human thought is immaterial?)

Material reality is indeed identical with devine thought. This must be true and it agrees with the biblical views as well. God know everything; God is everywhere; and God is all-powerful. These statements apply to the "things" in the mind of God. It works for us too. We know everything and we are everywhere in our mind because nothing exists in our mind until we think of it. Likewise, we can do anything in our mind as easily as thinking about it. Surely God can think at least as well as we can, so He can do all this as well.

It follows that God's thoughts are our reality. But God can think in 3D (or more) and we can only think in 2D. His thoughts can be material (solid) whereas ours cannot be solid objects. We see our thoughts as though they were a movie or a drawing, without the dimension of depth, ie they are "immaterial" or better stated, "non-physical".

p. 10 "If there is a God, where is He? If He is all around us as we believe . . ." This again makes one wonder if this is pantheism or panentheism. And if it is not, then the author has to explain to readers the difference. It looks to me like the difference between this approach and pantheism is that on the pantheistic view, God is in everything; but that on this author's view, everything is in God.

You got it but both statements are correct in a sense. "All is in the Mind of God" is not equivalent to "every thing is God". I am thinking of an apple. That apple is in my mind, but it is certainly not me. Yet, my thoughts are "in" the apple, having created it. Same goes for God: His thoughts (ie His Holy Spirit) is in everything that He is thinking of (Genesis 1:1,2). Since His Holy Spirit is God, even though it is a distinct Person, it can be said that God is in everything. However, again this being true does not mean that any particular thing is God.

I'm arguing against Monism. I'm supporting the concept you identified as pantheism, but not in the traditional sense as I've understood it. The part of God that is in everything is His thoughts, not His physical being. I think this is where the confusion lies and this is what makes the traditional interpretation of pantheism bogus.

The author has already postulated that God is personal. What does this mean, then, he goes on to explain that God is all around us? Are we somehow inside a person? What does that mean?

Personal implies the ability to think. That may be a bit broad, but this is the term used to differentiate an inanimate god/first cause, from the God of the Bible. Perhaps "imagine" fits better, because it is a little more than merely thinking as an insect might do. We say the God of the Bible is "personal". I say that means He can think at least as well as we, His created beings, can. I say that we know the First Cause is personal if It can think at least as well as we can.
There are three distinct Persons in every thinking being. Yet each is that being. Myself, my thoughts and my image of myself in my thoughts are all "Me". Each is distinct yet equal as the Bible tells us. However Myself and my Image are lumped forms while my thoughts are not. It is my thoughts that are everywhere, not the other two Persons. If you've seen my image or communicated with me via my thoughts, then you've seen me or communicated with me.
Yes, we are all truly physical beings, but we are in the mind of a God, Who is more than physical.

p. 10 "If God is the Thinker and everything else is His thought, then He is separated from His thoughts . . . a dimensional gap just as we are from our thoughts.It would indeed be appropriate to conclude that 'everything we observe is in the mind of God'." What does this mean? One would assume that as long as God is thinking about the universe, the universe exists. As long as God is thinking about us, we exist. So when we die and disintegrate, does that mean God has stopped thinking about us? Apparently so, because on p. 11 the author writes that God "is the Thinker and we are His thoughts. . . . . We go away if God stops thinking of us." This is exactly the case! How else could God create this entire universe and know everything in it; be everywhere in it; be able to do anything in it that He can think of; and offer beings in it everlasting life? Indeed, God creates by thinking and thus everything He thinks of is in the mind of God.

This is quite similar to the philosophy that everything exists only as long as God perceives it. This philosophy appears to be quite close to Berkleianism, the idealism of George Berkeley, who postulated that objects are collections of ideas and exist solely "in a mind." The Latin expression esse is percipi sums up Berkeley's philosophy. "The reality of the everyday world is secured by being made directly upon the mind of God" (Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 3, p. 585). There is usually some truth in all serious philosophies. I agree with this Berkleianistic view when applied to the mind of God. If God ever stopped thinking of something I say indeed it would cease to exist. It would not "burn in hell". It would go away. God could elect to remember something without ever activating it, eg keep information on His hard drive but never open that file again. This is what I say He means by symbolically tossing things into the Lake of Fire in Rev 20:14,15. However, Christ tells us that after the first death we "sleep". This means that God is not yet finished with us. One day He will again raise us up either to Life Everlasting or to Death in the "Lake of Fire".

"Berkeley argued [that] the entire physical world exists only in the minds that perceive it. . . . Because we believe that physical things continue to exist when we are not observing them, we must assume that there exists a mind that observes all physical things all the time. . . . This universally present and observant mind is God" (Worldbook Encyclopedia, vol. 2, p. 259). Surely the things we perceive in our minds are not as real as the things God is thinking of in our world. The chair I'm thinking of goes away when I stop thinking of it, but not the chair I'm sitting on. God is thinking of the chair I'm sitting on. So, Berkeley was on the right track, but our thoughts are only in our minds and of no consequence to others around us. Out thoughts are not shaping the physical world we exist in. God's thoughts are doing that.

Here's where we really need to appreciate this: God is thinking of 4D angels and of 3D humans simultaneously. They can see us but see cannot see them. They cannot squeeze themselves into our 3D world any more than we can squeeze into a sheet of paper. They cannot think themselves into our world. Yet God can do that. God can think of an angelic being in human 3D form, interacting with Abraham. This being could be superhuman and walk through walls as some angels and the risen Christ were reported to have done. God can think it up any way He wants. However, you'll never see a demon doing that on his own. The demon's thoughts cannot materialize outside his mind, because even God's thoughts cannot materialize outside the mind of God.

Joad summarizes Berkeley's thought this way: "Things can only exist in so far as they are known or perceived by minds. To exist, in other words, is to be an idea in some mind" (Guide to Philosophy, p. 48). Berkeley argues that there is a difference between perception and imagination. Human perceptions enter the mind whether or not one wants them to do so because perception is not a function of the will. What I perceive -the ideas in my mind- are there because these same ideas "are also ideas in God's mind which He passes into mine" (Joad, p. 50). The external world continues to exist independently of my individual perception and thinking processes because "God's perception sustains it" (ibid.).

In the book Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous, Berkeley writes: "All objects are eternally known by God or what is the same thing, have an eternal existence in His mind."

My reading of Comberiate's philosophy leads me to conclude that he believes reality exists because God thinks it to be or thinks it into existence. Reality does not exist independently of God's thought but exists solely in or within God's thought. Thus, all reality exists within God or within God's mind, to be more precise. No, I agree with your statement. The ultimate reality is God. Everything else is of a lower reality, created in His mind and only existing as long as He thinks of it. Where else could it be? God must be a universe unto Himself and there can be no outside to Him. It follows that everything derived from God’s thoughts must reside in God’s mind.

It appears that Berkeley and Comberiate have much the same goals to argue for God's existence and to undermine materialism and refute atheism. The question remains: Have they succeeded? Many philosophers would respond, No.
I am not capable of critiquing Berkeley's or Comberiate's philosophy here, but I feel somewhat troubled by it. Perhaps I am too much of a materialist to buy into the concept -as I understand it is being presented. And I don't think the average reader will resonate at all with the argumentation.
Others more capable than I have critiqued Berkeley's philosophy and found it wanting. The Encyclopedia Americana comments that according to Berkeley "the notion of 'matter,' the foundation of the scientific world view is simply rejected" (vol. 3, p. 585). One wonders, then, if that criticism is valid how can a rocket scientist-Comberiate-hold to such a view?

I must hold this view, because scientists must investigate theories until they become facts. Our notions of matter are incomplete. We understand Newtonian Mechanics and to some extent Relativistic observations. But, when we zoom into matter to the nth degree, what will we find there? Surely what we call subatomic particles are not actually solid objects. From all we can detect there is mostly energy in the space between the smallest or largest elements we call "matter". So, the "notion of matter" is still a variable in the scientific world. It must remain open to criticism and alternate views until we have all the facts.

Joad thinks that Berkeley's view requires an infinite regression of perception(s) or thought(s) (see p. 65). Joad also proposes that Berkeley's philosophy cannot be disproved, but that does not necessarily make it correct.

As I have stated, you can never get to infinity, so it is illogical to require being there to prove something. Nevertheless, without understanding the physics or chemistry of thought, I know I can think. I know all people can think and I know rocks cannot think. If God can think at least as well as I can, then everything we read about Him in the Bible and what we observe in the world around us makes perfect sense. We'll never have enough dimensions ourselves to understand it all as God does, but we can deal with that.

Another criticism of Berkleianism is that it does not deal adequately with the existence of evil. Comberiate will deal with this later in the book. Yes, I believe that "evil" is a consequence of choices and thus dependent on free will. The Bible indicates that there was a perfect angel world and that Lucifer himself was perfect - until iniquity was found in him. Something had to happen in between those two conditions. I suggested that Free Will was at the base of this transition. Any intelligent being who recognizes that he is created and sustained by a God, Who is thinking of him in His mind, will next wonder how he can have any free will. I suggested that God can keep him alive by thinking of him, yet elect to not pull his strings. Perhaps this is an acceptable answer to most, but a "rocket scientist" angel will need to get proof. I suggest that getting that proof is what causes "evil" to arise and iniquity to be found in Lucifer. As I have suggested, naïve beings do not understand when some of their seemingly benign choices will actually lead to their self-destruction. When I define “evil” as the set of all such choices leading to self-destruction, I can clearly understand how sin arose in a perfect (but naïve) angelic world. Any naïve choice to do evil will result in sin and eventual self-destruction, ie war in heaven. It’s unavoidable until all the angelic beings fully understand good and evil as God does. Hence God’s plan to realize His everlasting, perfect kingdom of heaven requires all his unfallen angelic beings to learn about good and evil by watching our human sin drama in its entirety.

p. 11 God "creates by thinking. His thoughts, which I equate with His Holy Spirit, create our reality. . . . His thoughts are everywhere in our universe, but He is physically outside of it." Comberiate doesn't indicate, I don't think, whether or not like Berkeley he thinks that reality, created by divine thought, is sustained by divine thought. One would assume that this may be the case, but I haven't found it spelled out yet. Yes, this is what I believe. This is how God alone can offer His created beings "life everlasting".

I'm still puzzled how God's thinking process becomes reality? How does a mental process become a material item? Perhaps I'm too naïve to understand this. But it troubles me. And because it troubles me, I don't find it especially helpful.

Here’s how it works: There are levels of reality. Anything that lasts forever is surely more real than anything that is temporary. Also, if I stop thinking of God, He does not go away, but if He stops thinking of me, I go away. Hence, I am physically real, but still not as "real" as God. God's reality transcends our physically reality. But we know that. Again, God can think in 3D or even 4D (angels). His 3D thoughts are reality to us. His 4D thoughts are supernatural to us.

His suggestion that the Holy Spirit is the same as God's "thoughts" seems to depersonalize the Holy Spirit. This would not be acceptable in our Trinitarian theology. Not necessarily. Thinking in my opinion is what determines personality in the first place. God's Holy Spirit is surely personal.

p. 11 God's "thoughts create a lower level reality, because they only exist as long as He is thinking them." I take it, then, that God, who is eternal, at some point began thinking of this external world, which then became reality. Maybe Comberiate is equating thought with energy and hence thinking of the transformation of energy into matter-along Einsteinian lines. This is the direction I am going. I believe that when we get down to the adhesive, which is holding this universe of "matter" together, we will find that it is the thoughts of God. Literally. I can only draw an analogy to what is going on in my own mind. God's thoughts are indeed "higher" than my thoughts. They are able to do everything mine can do and more. My thoughts hold together all the 2D things I'm thinking into existence in my mind. I can elect to manifest that adhesive in any form I wish, including "no form". God does the same thing in 3D and 4D.

p. 12 "Our entire universe and everything in it is in the mind of God." That's why the author can insist that God is external to the universe. Yes, it's very analogous to the traditional, biblical concept of God and it fits perfectly as long as God can think at least as well as we can.

p. 12 "Consider the chair we are sitting in. Which is more real-this chair or the image we have of it in our mind? The image of the chair in our mind will go away when we stop thinking of it. However, the chair we are sitting in will not go away if we stop thinking of it. That chair is in the mind of God. It is as real as we are. Both will continue as long as God continues to think them. If God stops thinking of anything it goes away. The reciprocal of this is also true. God can give us everlasting life by continuing to think of us." The more Comberiate explains his position, the more like Berkeley's philosophy it sounds.

I never heard of Berkeley before this. To me this was all original material, but it would be truly amazing if I were the only person who ever thought like this before.

p. 12 "You can never see the Creator face-to-face, because you cannot get outside of Him to look at His face." Interesting. It works, doesn't it?

p. 12 "God thinks of Himself as a dead human in that thought." Where does the reality of human free will come in, then? On this philosophy, the Romans could never have crucified and killed Jesus had not God been thinking Jesus to death-thinking Himself to death as a human. So was God thinking murderous thoughts? Is everything that happens a result of God's thinking processes? That's scary, isn't it?

Not scary, but this is the reason why some of us and some of the angels (eg Lucifer) need to look for proof of our free will. We just don't have all the dimensions that God has, so we cannot duplicate His unique ability to keep us alive by thinking of us without controlling our decisions. Sometimes we can get a glimpse of this when we want to go back to sleep to see how a dream will turn out. However, God can do that in His imagination, ie with full control of His thoughts.

p. 13 Jesus (and Lazarus) was resurrected from the dead because God re-thought Him back to life. Yes ,just as God will do on the last day, when the glorified (ie angelic) Christ (ie Michael with the holes in His hands) calls forth those dead, who chose to have a relationship with Him while alive.

p. 13 "God affirms that we have choices by not overriding them." But how does this relate to all reality being the effect of God's thinking? If we choose wrongly, we do so because that is the way God is thinking us to be. So where is the free will? Our thinking (process) does not exist in and of itself, does not have aseity. It is the direct effect (result) of God's thinking. So whatever any human may think-be it good or bad-the origin (cause) of this thinking is God's thinking. I have a hard time accepting this, let alone believing it to be the case, but it seems to follow logically the author's line of argumentation.

Again, this is the very concern that confused the smartest angels in that perfect world. We are talking about something so significant that the almighty God had to address it specifically. He had to create another image of the 4D angel universe, a little lower (3D) so all the angels could watch a Sin Drama play out. The significance of this drama cannot be underestimated! It must result in the ultimate self-destruction of the humans. As long as all the angels remember the lessons learned from this drama, they will not need to self-destruct and sin will never rise again anywhere in their universe. The entire universe will live happily ever after as intended in the beginning. Note, it is impossible for God to create a perfect universe of free willed beings, that will stay perfect forever, unless this Sin Drama is played out in a surrogate universe! What an awesome thought. That is the very reason why the Sabbath Day was created as a sign for all time - so all created beings would remember the universe that was created for this purpose and the lessons learned.

p. 15 Most readers probably wouldn't object to the author's conclusion that our experience of eternal life totally depends on God. They might not, however, like the way he reaches this conclusion: "It's His thought, and only He can decide to continue thinking of you from some point to forever, or else you will surely cease to exist." This is to say that no one inside God's thoughts has the ability to do this. There is none other like our Creator God. Many bogus gods suggest they have enough super natural powers to command our respect and awe. However, if they cannot give us everlasting life then they are nothing. Our God is an awesome God.

It's at this point where Comberiate continues with his Berkleianism. God not only creates "our physical" reality by thinking, but also He sustains "our physical" reality by continually thinking of it. This is exactly why God can one day think us up as angelic beings, who can inherit the kingdom of heaven where the angels are. The resurrection of Christ demonstrated this perfectly.

As a literalistic thinker-and maybe that's the problem with me-I keep wondering how divine thinking, which is abstract, can end up being matter, which is concrete. The author keeps assuring us that this is what has happened and continues to happen. But how? I'm troubled by the connection. How does an idea become a tree? How does a thought become a bird? How does a thought, which has no atoms (though in human thought may result from atoms) become an atomic structure?

First, recognized that we don't understand the difference between matter and energy perfectly. Thought is a form of energy. [I believe it follows our laws of radio wave theory just as any other electromagnetic radiation does.] When we think, we can detect energy and we know that we are not thinking of solid objects. We can see in our minds objects that have only two dimensions, like drawings or a movie. If God can think as well as we can, then He also can think in lower levels of dimensions than He exists in. But, God must have more than three dimensions (eg at least five, because He is eternal and with no outside). Hence, His thoughts can have three or even four dimensions and still be less dimensions than He exists in. So, for God, His ideas can be 3D solid objects or even angelic beings with 4 dimensions.

The concept of thought goes beyond us. We can think and we can understand what is happening with that to some extent. However, angels and God can also think. We cannot understand the additional capabilities that they must have, but we know that our capabilities are a subset of theirs. Angels can think in 3D. God can do that and more. For example, God can keep us alive by thinking of us and yet not control our every decision. His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. All this is developed later in the manuscript.

p. 15 Comberiate has concluded that his form of Berkleianism explains the accuracy of fulfilled prophetic predictions. "Only the Thinker [God] can accurately predict the future every time, because it's His thought." This is an interesting deduction and is consistent with his Berkleianism.
In essence, he is saying that the predicted future is inevitable because it is based on God's thinking. Predictive prophecy in essence explains ahead of time what God will think in the future, and thus that future will come into existence because God's thinking brings it into existence. I'm necessarily a bit foggy on this point.

I believe that somehow God elects to not know the future in such detail. He knows the situations, which He will think up, but He elects to not know how His free-willed beings will respond to them. Otherwise, why bother. He could just imagine a universe of robots (ie more grass).

Once again we have the problem of evil. If God today predicts an evil yet to come, which in the future actually does come into being, then God has thought that evil [event] into existence. So God thinks not only good thoughts but also bad thoughts. Everything is in the mind of God. Evil is a choice and sin is the consequence of bad choices. God must know good and evil but that does not make Him evil. He knows evil but He does not choose evil. The problem is that the wages of sin is eventual death. Lucifer and Eve wanted to know good and evil, but they chose evil and sin resulted. The goal of God is that His created beings will know both good and evil, yet never need or want to choose evil. For this to happen, they must witness the Sin Drama play out on this earth to its bitter end. Then all who remain can live happily ever after with the Image of God in the angel universe - knowing good and evil, bit choosing good. [My happiness having understood the faith I believe far exceeds the happiness I had with faith and no understanding.]

Additionally, how would Comberiate explain unfulfilled prophecy? We have numerous instances where God's biblical prophets went out on a limb by predicting a future event or situation, but this predicted event never happened. What does Comberiate say to this? Initially, God was thinking that in the future He would think in a certain way and then, for whatever reason, decided not to think that way? How does this help? If predictive prophecy is merely the expression of God's thinking (process), then why did the prediction sometimes not come into being? Was there something faulty in God's thought processes?
Give me some examples of this. Each one is a separate case. Some of the Biblical prophecies are yet to be fulfilled, eg many in Revelation.

p. 15 What exactly does the following mean? I can anticipate scores of letters from irate readers. Jesus "had to die, not merely sleep for three days. I contend that He is still dead, and that the human Christ will never again interact with this world of ours. . . . The human Christ, having been raised to the glorified state, will never be human again." Ouch! This can surely logically follow Comberiate's Berkleianism, but it is not "good" SDA theology.
Humans are made in the image of angels. Michael the Image of God in angel form says, "Let us make Man in our image." Hence, we look like angels, but we are a little lower than angels. This means that they have all the characteristics we have and then more. I say that the risen Christ is angelic. Clearly He is no longer human, since humans cannot walk through walls (Jn 20: 19,26), even though He had flesh and blood (Jn 20:27 & Lk 24: 39). For this reason we say He has a "glorified" body. I say that that is the same kind of body the angels have and that is why He can exist in the same heaven as those angels while we humans cannot. Tell me this: Will Christ ever again take on a totally human body as he had when he walked the Earth as Jesus of Nazareth? I say He will not. I all cases where He appeared after His resurrection He was no longer human. He had flesh and blood but He walked through walls and He ascended into heaven. We must distinguish His current form from His human form, so we call Him a “glorified body”.

I think you can see that it is for all humans to live and to die once, and then the judgment. After which, there is no more Earth for the former Earth and its sky have passed away and no place will be found for them (Rev 20:11 & 21:1). Therefore, there is no place for humans to exist in human form. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. We must be changed at the sound of the trumpet on the Last Day, as Christ was changed. Then Ecc 9:5 is in effect - never again is it for the dead humans (or the dead Christ) to have any role to play as humans in this world again.

How do we harmonize this with EGW's writings? "Christ has carried His humanity into eternity" (7SDABC, 925). "He gave His only-begotten Son to come to earth, to take the nature of man, not only for the brief years of life, but to retain his nature in the heavenly courts" (1SM 258). "All come forth from their graves the same in stature as when they entered the tomb" (GC 645).

They come forth in the same stature as did Christ, but they too would be able to walk through 3D walls, if there were any left at that time. Notice that the risen Christ was not immediately recognized by even His followers. Same stature, but with perfection and those supernatural characteristics that all angels have as well. Remember, human flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven, where the angels and the glorified Christ reside.

Also, let me add here a comment about the term "Son of God", that I recently realized. Michael and Jesus are both the Image of God. One is the angel, "Who is like God" and the other was the human, "Who was like God". Jesus was the Son of God, but Michael is not. Jesus was actually born of a woman and the Holy Spirit of God. Michael, like all angels, was not born of angels as far as I can tell from Scriptures. Hence, the term "Son of God" would not apply to Him. Similarly, Adam would not be a son of God, since he was created directly as are all the angels. This is my way of using the terminology consistently.

p. 15 "Neither will any of us who are going to be raised to Glory at the second coming of Christ, ever be human again. At that time we, like Christ, will be raised incorruptible and immortal, but not human. Our human bodies will remain dead." I don't think this is what Adventist mean when they talk about the resurrection of the righteous. We generally believe in the resurrection of the body-the human body, certainly.

This is not a problem, but you need to think about what we believe. We believe the glorified body is similar to the old one we had, but it's perfect and it has a number of other properties that enable it to live forever, unlike that old one. Therefore, we don't need to worry about rounding up all the totally decomposed molecules that formed that old body 1000 years ago or more. In cases where the human is alive on the Last Day or where his old body is still around, God re-creates a new body for us on the spot. We must be changed as we rise to meet Christ in the sky (reread 1Cor 15:50-53). God demonstrated this with Christ, and the old body is nowhere to be found. That is why it is no longer in the tomb. Again, the reason this angelic body still looks human is only because humans were made in the image of angels.

p. 16 "What if you were to find in this universe, a source of information that accurately predicts the future without error. . . . The source of predictions would need to be independent of the events it was predicting." I agree with the second sentence, but I think that the assumption made in the first sentence is wrong. It is based on a faulty premise: The prophetic predictions were fulfilled without error. That is simply not the case.

One can turn to many examples, but for the moment I'll stick to Ezekiel. In Ezekiel 26 we read that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the city of Tyre, making it like the top of a rock, and it would be built no more (v. 14). It would be razed (v. 12). Its towers (v. 9) and walls (v. 12) would be broken down. Nebuchadnezzar would ride into the city as a conqueror (v. 10). The fact is that this never happened. Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre. Even God admits this three chapters later, when He admits that the prediction did not come to pass, and so He was giving Nebuchadnezzar Egypt as a consolation prize (29:18-20). Perhaps this is a partially conditional prophecy. It's almost completely correct in that Nebuchadnezzar did lay siege to Tyre for 15 years. Only the final victory of entering the city was unfulfilled for some reason. I'll need to research this, but this is a new one on me.

Ezekiel also spent a lot of time (chapters 40-48) predicting a new temple-describing how it would look and how a river would flow from it. These predictions were never fulfilled. Still in the future after the Earth is made new in heaven. This is the final outcome of God's magnificent salvation plan. It is never fully completed on this earth but only in heaven after the Sin Drama has played out here.

One could point to other examples. But my point is that the assumption of accuracy the author makes is not sustained by the evidence. If the Biblical prophecy is in error, then why believe any of it? My read on such cases is that there is always room to interpret them as conditional prophecies.

p. 18 "God the Creator is the Thinker and everything else is a thought in His mind." This is the big picture the author keeps referring to-Berkleianism.

p. 19 "I suggested that God is the Thinker and everything else is His thought. By that I meant that literally everything in our universe is in the mind of God."

p. 19 Comberiate insists here that his Berkleianism is not incompatible with free will, but I don't find his defense of free will in the light of his Berkleianism very convincing. Why not? Do the other answers above suffice? Again, this is the very point that caused sin to arise in a perfect angel world.

p. 25 "At this point in Genesis 2, there were many men, sons of God, but they did not need to work the ground as it was originally created. . . . Men and women populated the earth, but when Adam was created he was isolated in the garden of Eden." "The Bible talks about how a man will leave his father to be with his wife, which clearly indicates that Adam and Eve will procreate as the other 'sons of God' were doing outside the Garden of Eden." This is very interesting-and may actually be the case-but it surely flies in the face of a very literal reading of Genesis. This kind of interpretation will have to be vigorously defended. I think there are possible clues in the story that can be interpreted to substantiate Comberiate's position here, but few SDAs would want to deal with them.

The other alternatives I've heard are less believable. Clearly this possible scenario fits the literal interpretation of Gen 1 & 2. First God creates the image of the angel universe and the Earth as a stage. Then he fills it with life just as was the case in the perfect angel universe. As with the angels, he creates human images of them the same way. Then He carves out a stage (Garden of Eden) where the questions of Lucifer can be raised and the drama can begin. Everything is sequential and logical.

p. 25 He assumes, but does not demonstrate, that the Satan in the book of Job is Lucifer. This identification is not easy to demonstrate from a scholarly biblical perspective. I thought it was and as such it makes perfect sense in my model. Who else could that Satan be?

p. 26 "Adam's banishment from Eden does not directly affect the rest of the human race, who were created prior to Adam." This is heterodoxy for Adventists. How could Adam’s banishment from Eden affect those outside of Eden, until they started intermarrying? Adventists have improved on the earlier Protestant views, but they are not yet out of the woods.

p. 26 The author's identification of the "sons of God" and "daughters of men" is out of step with both scholarly consensus and SDA tradition. Okay, what do those scholars have to say about these two groups? I could be wrong in this, but I've seen no better explanation as yet.

p. 26 I'd like to know more about these humans created prior to Adam, "who had no sin in their heritage" and who were denominated "sons of God." This speculation requires substantial support. I wish the Bible were more detailed. However, if we take what we read literally, this scenario that I suggested seems to work very well. It's the best I can offer at this time, so I'm open to other logical suggestions.

p. 26 "Adam was likely not the first human." Most SDAs will find this jarring. There's no real preparation for such an assertion-except other assertions to this effect. A clear rationale needs to be given. Does the Bible clearly state anywhere that Adam was indeed the First human created by God? If not, then why is it important to assume that he is? Adam is important because he is the first human to sin and as such to affect the entire human race thereafter. This is the important point and as such the Bible must address it. Same logic applies to the story of Cain as the first murderer.

p. 36 I agree with the author, I think, that the dualism of Eastern mysticism isn't biblical. On the other hand, I wonder where the author is going when he writes: "If there is indeed one God, then isn't this other thing we call 'evil' in His mind as is everything else?" I've already raised that issue, and Comberiate is shrewd enough to see this complaint coming. I'll be interested in his line of argumentation.
I agree that human free choice is involved. But I'm awaiting an explanation of how this "new" reality is related to God's thinking, which underpins (creates) all reality. I hope my detailed answers above in blue resolved this concern. If not, I'll try again next time.

p. 42 It is not necessarily so that the Bible equates Michael with God, a divine being. The Biblical name itself indicates that Michael is the one Who is like God. He is the only archangel mentioned in the Bible. He is totally angelic, but He is the one angel Who is like God. Futhermore, we believe that God wants to be with His created beings. He created angels a long time before us. Why would He not want to be with them as well? Michael is how He did it.

p. 44 I don't understand how it can be on this theory that God can continue thinking the evil angels into existence but does not by thinking create (control?) their thought processes. If thought processes are part of reality, are they not also existing within God, existing solely because He is thinking them into existence? He can do this and we need to trust Him when He says that we do indeed have free will. However, as stated above, this is very hard for us rocket scientist types (human or angelic) to do. Unfortunately the proof we need will eventually kill us and then God will need to start over again, and again, and again,… until he finally creates a surrogate universe of humans.. They can self-destruct to prove His points and the angels won't need to. Therefore, all the angels need to do now is to watch the Sin Drama unfold on Earth and never forget the lessons they are learning.

p. 44 "I wonder if God really knows what we will do next. I suggest that He certainly could know our future choices, because He is the Thinker of what we will do. However, if He is really looking for us to share our unique experiences with Him, then I suggest that He must choose to not know what we will do next." I do accept this suggestion. I don't think one needs to accept the author's proposals, however, to agree with this assertion. I, too, do not believe that God necessarily knows how I will exercise my free will in minute detail, because I think that detracts from the very concept of free will, which means freely choosing among various alternatives. An explanation of why God does not know this information can take various forms. One is the form that the author suggests-it's the result of a self-imposed restriction God has freely chosen. Another argument that has been put forth is that God knows everything that is an object of knowledge-that's what omniscience means-but how one might use free will is not an object of knowledge. I appreciate this alternate argument as well.

This approach is quite traditional and is used by systematic theologians to explain that God can do everything that is an object of power, but some things are not objects of power because, for example, they might be self-contradictory (God cannot make a rock so big He cannot move it) or nonsensical (God cannot make 4 + 1 = 7). Similarly, God cannot remember my sins that He has promised to forgive-and bury in the sea. I would say that if God can conceive it then He can realize it. I can't conceive of a square circle, but maybe He can.

I’ve since answered this question in the section Does God really Know Everything?

Much has been written in recent years by some evangelical biblical scholars and theologians regarding "the openness of God" or "presentism," which is distinct from process theology, though both schools of thought have points of agreement and resemblance.

p. 45 "God has been thinking forever and has had time create many worlds. I believe they all have more than the 3 dimensions we know of." Perhaps. However, I don't think NASA Mike has explained why our reality is the only one with 3 dimensions. Why didn't the Thinker also make our world with more than 3 dimensions. Why did we get shortchanged?

Our world probably does have more than 3D, but whatever number it has, the angels have all of them and at least one more. Because we have fewer dimensions than they have, the angels can all watch us (as we watch a movie screen) but we cannot see them. Also, if there were other 3D life in our universe, its fate would be totally tied to our Sin Drama, according to my interpretation of the Bible - the entire universe is to be rolled up like a scroll and pass away.

p. 47 On what basis can we assert that in the world to come "humans will be re-created as angels"? What warrant do we have for this? Such an idea is perilously close to the concept some Christians have that when we die we become angels in heaven.

Just follow what happened to the Human Christ upon His resurrection. Where He went we cannot follow, but He is living now with the angels, right? When we too are changed as He was, then we too will live in that world. Only thing is that God needs to create a place for us to live. All the angels already have their homes in heaven. He recreates the Earth in 4D just for us to live on. He moves His HQ there and abides with those of us, who are recreated to live and reign with Him in angelic form. Angels can live forever as I believe the "sons of God" created on the 6th day could. However, humans from Adam were born not created in that same way. Adam was created from dirt and returned to dirt, ie not created to live forever.

p. 49 I think I like the suggestion that "God does intervene [miraculously] on occasion, but that He will never intervene at a point where it would preclude a free will decision." I think this is an interesting point. Me too.

His reasoning in places throughout the book that God created the world in a mature state, so that the world looks older than it actually is, has been propounded before. The suggestion has merits in that it accounts for appearances: the world looks older than it actually is. However, there are drawbacks also. This makes God create a certain deceptive element at the time of Creation. And He's never told us about this approach. So He has purposely left us in a world that is very confusing. There is a lie of sorts here-the world as God created it looks old, and He has not taken the initiative to inform us of this. Some see this as a moral deficiency on God's part.

Not so. God tells us that He made the world already mature, we just need to understand why he didn't take 6 billion years to do that. You would need to do likewise if you were to make a movie to get some moral across to your audience. You create the stage and the props. They must look mature if the audience is to follow the plot. Whatever state God creates in, it must already have a degree of maturity. A tree must have rings to be a tree. A seed has tremendous detail within it. A single cell has even more detail. Where could God start that would not have the appearance of age?? Even a single point source suggested in the Big Bang theory would be so incredibly complex that you’d have to consider it very mature. The evolutionists have the same problem. They just do not know where to start the process. Without God at the start, there is always a big Question Mark.

From Ekkehardt

Sorry that my answer took so long. I have read your manuscript and found it quite helpful in many respects. Especially, when you talk about dimensions I am basicly with you. We cannot limit God to our three-dimensional reality. Although I like your manuscript there are some areas in which I have some concerns. I think I do understand you, but I am not sure if the average reader could not get a wrong impression. Let me mention some of the issues:

(1) You strongly stress reason and logic. I would agree that it is normally better to approach a subject with reason and logic than with feelings and experiences only. However, there is also the danger to overestimate reason. What we need is a sanctified reason. Frank Hasel has written an article on this subject. Yes, but I would suggest that the facts need to be interpreted logically and then the final decision is an emotional one.
(2) You present God as the Thinker. He thinks being into existence. Your analogy is helpful, yet the danger exists that God is presented in a one-sided way. God must be more than reason. I would wish you could maintain what you have yet paint a more holistic picture of God. According to your suggestion God thinks beings in existence. It might be helpful if you could add some sentences which show that you do not share a platonic world view in which our world is not real, but only the supernatural world counts. You do not state this, but readers could misunderstand you.

Others have said the same thing, and I have added some statements as you say, but perhaps it warrants a more involved and direct response. Do you have any suggestions as to what should be added and where? I should probably add that this is not a platonic world view, because God's thoughts of us are physically real, even though God is a higher level of reality than anything He thinks of. I had that concept of the Chair vs the thought of the chair in one section. Not enough, I guess. I believe most philosophies have some merit. They're not all wrong. The trick is to sort out the truth from the error.
(3) I would not equate the Holy Spirit with God's thoughts. The Bible presents him as a person that has a will, emotions, makes decisions, etc. Otherwise you may collapse the three persons into one person. In addition, God was not alone in the beginning. There is the trinity in which three personalities, being one God and not three Gods. Within the trinity God's love, his thoughts, etc. circulate, humanly spoken. The sentence "God (Michael, the Image of God) must give up everything (as the archangel) and the Father/Thinker must think Himself up as another human (Jesus of Nazareth)" sounds confusing, at least to me. First of all, a sharp line is drawn between The Image and the Father. Only the Father is called "the Thinker." The title is not used for the Image. In the case that we have a trinity the persons of the trinity would share the characteristics of the trinity. Secondly, the distinction between the Father and the Son is blurred, because it seems that the Father became Jesus.

One of the Easter season movies was about the "Face of Jesus". In South America it showed that they are still drawing pictures of the Trinity as three faces on one neck. Others still can't figure out what the Holy Spirit did during the creation of this universe. I struggled over what this Holy Spirit was for 8 months after realizing that God could think and that Jesus was His thought of Himself in human form. The best answer I found was by looking at all thinking beings. In every case, their thoughts totally define them. Not any one thought, but all their thoughts at any one time. Their thought, unlike their bodies or their image of their bodies, is not a lumped form. This then explains how God can be everywhere and know everything. This also works for the case where God, Jesus, and /or the Holy Spirit are seen talking to each other. We all do it. This also explains Genesis one, when the Spirit moved across the waters of the deep and animated this planet. God can do anything as easily as thinking about it. It fits too well. What else works so well. There are not three Gods, right? You and any thinking can and are doing the same things we see God doing, only His thoughts are higher than ours.

(4) The statement that the human Christ is still dead brings you closely to certain forms of Gnostizism. The NT stresses that Jesus was resurrected and that he was human. He rose with the same, but now glorified body, which probably belongs to a higher dimension. I would not dissociate humanness from Jesus or the resurrected believers. It seems to me that humanness may still be applied to a person even if that person now has access or exists in a higher dimension.

The Bible seems to stress a kind of transformed humanness. But, humans cannot live forever and they cannot work the miracles like walking through walls, which the "Glorified" Christ did. I say that the differences you described are some of the differences between the humans and the angels. The word glorified then means angelic. The angels have everything we have and then more. We are made in their image. Does this help?
(5) I agree that we should not pinpoint the age of the earth to 6000 years. Nevertheless, the Bible suggests a rather short chronology. I do not know how you want to justify your approach when on one hand you suggest that the flood story does not need to be taken totally literally, while on the other hand you talk about the precision of prophecies.

I believe there is an undisclosed amount of time between the creation of the Earth and the creation of Adam. It's a thought at least at this point, which makes some sense. Better explanations are solicited.
As I have said in subsequent addendums to the version of the manuscript I sent to you, "Anything God creates will immediately have the appearance of maturity." I believe the Great Flood is the best overall explanation to all the geological features we observe today, from the strata in the rocks to the questions of dating deep ice cores. However, I just don't think this Flood has to cover the polar ice cap regions as well to be as effective as needed. I'm not arguing that it cannot, but I'm open to suggestions on this detail, either way. For example, even if the Great Flood did cover the polar regions as well, the ice in those regions should have survived intact to a large extent. The ice over Antarctica is an average of 1mile deep over5.4 million square miles. You can’t melt this much ice in a year just by submerging it in water for a few months. Greenland ice is similar. Greenland has one tenth as much ice as Antarctica, but both regions have ice reaching almost 3 miles deep.

(6) Sometimes I would suggest to leave a little more latitude and not to make clear-cut statements on issues that we do not know. E.g., you speak about "the 4D world where Christ-glorified and the angels are now." Are you sure they are not in the 5th dimension?

I thought I qualified this position in the beginning, because there may well be more dimensions in the angel world and even in our world than I used to illustrate my viewpoint. My point was that there had to be more dimensions than we have, so I was going to use 4D throughout the text to keep the explanations more clear. I realize completely that what you say is very true – there could well be more dimensions in the angelic world than 4 and God would still have more dimensions than that.
Is Jesus less God than the Father is, since you in another place you claim that the Father exists in an even superior dimension?

Jesus and the Father are One, even as I am one with my image of myself in my thoughts. However, I can think myself up in any form I wish, therefore any particular thought of myself is only temporary. However, there is no time in my life when I do not have some image of myself in my thoughts. Therefore, both Persons in God have existed (in some form) for all time. Also, the Father, just like me, must have more dimensions than anything He thinks of.
The suggestion how Satan fell away from God is interesting. Yet, I would include a "maybe" "Maybe he felt that he must distance himself from God to exhibit his free will."

Yes, I agree that this is just a suggestion as to how iniquity could have arisen in a perfect angel world.
(7) I am not sure if the 3D universe will be discontinued. It seems that the creation account talks about the creation of our solar system mainly. The text in support for your view may be a little stretched. It makes more sense to me that in our 3D universe there are a number of planets containing intelligent life whose inhabitants all have the possibility to use their free will by making a decision against God. Only the earth did. Thus, the earth became the test case.

I am still working on this possibility, but if there are beings light years away from us who are watching us, then we need to introduce high technology into the equation. It's far simpler to use the fact that these angelic beings must have more dimensions (since they walk through our walls) and therefore the world they live in must have the same extra dimensions as well.
But God was not cruel to create us only for the purpose to be guinea-pigs. I do not agree with the sentence "Mankind was set up to fall." In this case, God would be the originator of misery, suffering, and death and could be accused of not being a loving God.
God was the originator of "Choice". With choice must come alternatives and hence the possibility of evil. Misery, suffering, and death are the consequences of bad choices. This does not mean that God has those qualities.
There are some minor issues that I do not want to mention. I also felt that the document could be shortened a bit. Sometimes there was some kind of repetition.

I repeated because I believe readers will often go directly to some chapter of particular interest to them and I wanted to give them enough of the big picture to be complete. I also wanted to continually show that every chapter is consistent with the whole viewpoint.

Please, do not misunderstand me. In spite of the above mentioned points I enjoyed reading the manuscript. All your comments are excellent and worthy of more detailed explanations. When we find that we cannot provide those explanations, then we'll need to find a better Big Picture model. I wish Mr Camping would debate his viewpoint with the one presented here. Perhaps the truth would be revealed.
May our Lord continue to bless you. Best wishes,

26 July 2001, updated Nov 6, 2001, partially updated 20 Dec 2003

ß back home next à

For more on this and a response to any questions, please email any comments to nasamike@nasamike.com