I am not opposed as some are to the thirteen-billion-year-old universe. I am also not opposed to the young universe theory. But I am opposed to people attempting to use the Bible to attempt to prove or disprove either. The Bible was not written as a scientific document but begins with two very ancient stories explaining how a God created the universe and set it in motion.

 We cannot prove or disprove God with these two stories that don't even totally agree. We can't prove who carried down the most correct story of the beginning because most cultures didn't have writing. Stories like these were passed down orally. You know the details were embellished over the millennia.

Scientists have always thought they were on the verge of discovering the key to the universe. They just never quite do. The seven days in the Genesis accounts also have no basis that has been proved beyond all question. Were they days or periods of time? Who knows? The problem with everyone's theory of the beginning is that we have limitations. We do not have the original, unadulterated Genesis story any more than we have the original, untarnished Bible.

The New Testament has actually been altered through the ages. We have many times found older pieces of text that are slightly different than what we are accustomed to. However, we can take that new information and place it into our existing knowledge and become more enlightened as to the overall meaning of the Bible.

I suppose the time the Bible, mostly the New Testament, must have been tampered with the most was when Constantine decided to make Christianity the official religion of Rome. I read a letter in which new copies were sent to him as he requested. Who knows what changes were made? Being the Emperor I'm sure he saw a few that needed to be. It is a miracle that the Old Testament even exists.

Both scientists and creationists have one bad flaw. They think they know what happened and they think they can prove it. But when scientists and theologians find new evidence that puts their theory into question they should realize that their theories aren't quite as stable as they wish. Think about how the number of theories of how things got the way they are have blossomed during the past few decades. If science is so advanced and stabilized, why isn't there only one theory? Meanwhile theologians and scientists find each others' possibilities repulsive. The science community has become almost exclusive to those who reject any specific deity although a general "god" idea is okay as long as it is just a belief and not considered as a potential reason for our existence.

The reality of it all in my long thought out opinion is that God is beyond our understanding. We have been given life and a place to live it (for which we should be ecstatic and overwhelmingly grateful) and limited means of understanding it. Whatever God is is beyond our comprehension. How He chooses to allow us to understand Him and our beginning is up to Him. He gave us the five senses and anything we know beyond that is up to Him. Sure, we have instruments that use other means but we still have to interpret them with those same five senses. Scientists will have to realize that they can only understand the universe as much as He allows them to. God's reality is limitless in my view and man's reality is gradually revealed as He sees fit.

We, as humans, must learn to accept new truths. Both Christianity and science are very reluctant to accept anything that doesn't fit into their preconceived formula of the universe. Martin Luther and Einstein were both rejected at first because their views did not fit into what was widely accepted. My views will not be widely accepted, either, of course.

God reveals things to us gradually and it takes a long time for us to understand them because of our comfort in our beliefs. If they aren't already in our Bible, they're wrong. If we can't detect them with our five senses, they're wrong. That's how we judge reality. Think about it, if God had started the universe at a certain point and told it to go from there, how could we know it or how could we reject it? If you're scoffing now, you're making my point.