From: "Gary Britt" 

And the description in Genesis fits with it as well.

Gary

"Ellen K."  wrote in message
news:rbgin1h9of3e3957snb6njh7i435jocp20{at}4ax.com...
> The big bang theory is actually quite compatible with the G-d centered
> view of creation, particularly as elucidated in kabbalah (not Madonna's
> version).
>
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 07:20:16 +0000, Adam
> <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near the
bridge"> wrote in
> message :
>
> >Ellen K. wrote:
> >> No, G-d did not "come about", being above time
there is no "before
G-d".
> >>
> >
> >How usefull.
> >
> >Maybe then the universe did not come about either & it's just an endless
> >cycle of big bang & big crunch with evolution & life
simply being one of
> >it's forces much like gravity, inter-atomic forces & magnetism etc.
> >
> >No need for God at all in that case.
> >
> >Adam
> >
> >> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 20:36:07 +0000, Adam
> >> <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the
field.near the bridge"> wrote in
> >> message :
> >>
> >>
> >>>Ellen K. wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>You are anthropomorphizing G-d... making Him just like
a person only
> >>>>more.   While it is a normal human tendency to explain
things in human
> >>>>terms, in this case it is wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Rubbish. That is the old "oh but God is so far from
your understanding
> >>>that you will just have to accept" bullsh*t that died in the
enlightenment.
> >>>
> >>>The ID fallacy depends for it's pseudo-logic upon the
central concept
> >>>that something complex (such as an eye or a person) can
not just come
> >>>about but must be created/designed etc.
> >>>
> >>>However it appears that central conept is flawed in that it would
appear
> >>>that the very same people then go onto declare that something as
complex
> >>>etc as God did just come about & was not created/designed.
> >>>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5