Age of the Earth: Commentary on formal debate

[steen]

Well --- there's probably a gap in time of about a year in your question.

I don't know, but I'd say that there was no energy used in Creation, as energy itself was created.

I would also say that no energy was lost in an exchange of energy (as entropy dictates) prior to the Fall, which came about a year later.

In other words, Adam and Eve lived in a universe devoid of entropy for about 1 year.

So you are speculating and rationalizing. Now, God tells them that they can eat food from the Garden of Eden. Are you saying that their eating didn't lead to digestion, that it purely was a mashing up of material and nothing else?

Because ANY digestion is entropy. Your claims are PURE speculation and INTERPRETATION. There is nothing Biblical in it, only you seeking to fit Scripture to your personal beliefs.

 

[random_guy]

Well --- there's probably a gap in time of about a year in your question.

I don't know, but I'd say that there was no energy used in Creation, as energy itself was created.

I would also say that no energy was lost in an exchange of energy (as entropy dictates) prior to the Fall, which came about a year later.

In other words, Adam and Eve lived in a universe devoid of entropy for about 1 year.

Wait, so prior to the Fall, there was no sound? Adam and Eve couldn't walk because the coefficient of friction was zero so they would slip everywhere? If Adam and Eve hugged, Eve would not feel Adam's warmth? I think you should think about what it means for there to be no entrophy, scientifically, before you claim that. Entrophy isn't a bad thing, it's the only reason why we're able to be alive.

 

[steen]

And if science disagreed with science, what would you call that?

An issue to be resolved thorugh the Scientific Method. What should I call it, according to your interpretation?

 

[steen]

Huh?

You were doing all sorts of number crunching to show some form of mathematical symmetry in the books of the bible. It all seemed bogus and rationalizing to me.

 

[Willtor]

Willtor, did you read my post on how the books of the Old Testament were laid out in perfect balance? I forget where I posted it now, but it's somewhere around here.

Oh, I certainly think the OT is laid out, beautifully. But I don't think there's anything particularly divine about it (except as providence has permitted it to be). The order is different in Jewish Bibles, and even the divisions between some of the texts are different (e.g. - There is no "II Kings" as distinct from "I Kings").

In all my years of studying and learning the Bible, with only one exception --- the Allegorists --- have I ever heard Genesis referred to as "poetry".

There are three types of Hebrew poetry, and frankly, Genesis doesn't even come close.

Hmmm... Do they really not teach that Genesis is poetic? I'm concerned about the possibility of misinterpreting a text when its form is not acknowledged. Rmwilliamsll and Gluadys have made multiple posts (not in this thread, to be sure) talking all about the various puns and liturgical orderings of ideas within the creation account.

That reminds me, I do plan to post how the books of the New Testament are laid out also --- but not right now.

I look forward to it.

Let me make a point here:

I'm a Dispensationalist. That means that I believe that God divided time into 7 periods:
Innocence --- from the Garden to the Expulsion
Conscience --- ending at the Flood
Human Government --- ending at the Tower of Babel
Promise --- ending with the Egyptian Captivity
Law --- ending with the Crucifixion
Grace --- ending with the Tribulation
Kingdom --- ending with the Great White Throne Judgement
Notice how each one of these dispensations ends with a judgement of God on someone?

If God expects us to obey Him, and live according to His rules, don't you think He'd make sure we have a copy of them?

Why would God tell us to "study to shew thyself approved", if we neither know, nor have access to the materials?

I'm not a Dispensationalist. Even so, I know that there are places, even now, where Bibles are in short supply and people hear of Christ, only through preaching. Of course, I would have it that every person on Earth had ample access to the Holy Scriptures, but refuting this was not the purpose of my statement:

Even if people treated them as Scripture, they certainly did not think that everybody used the same words in the same ways.

Case in point: Paul may have used "faith" in a way that is different than the way James used it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don’t find it necessary, nor do I spend much time wondering what is being said.

Thus my point. It comes naturally. When I read that the earth was created in six days, I don't wonder if those were literal days or not --- I just assume 6 solar days and that's that.

That is a conclusion you can only draw if you are pre-supposing that Jesus was speaking literally. IOW, you are engaging in circular reasoning. Nothing indicates that he was not speaking of a mythical creation, a mythical Adam, a mythical hell and a mythical story about Jonah being swallowed by a whale.

Au contraire. Moses (as far as I know w/o looking it up) didn't even mention "fire and brimstone" when he mentioned Hell --- Jesus added it. In addition, Isaiah added the concept of Boyle's Law to Hell. That doesn't sound like circular reasoning to me.

Jonah said a "giant fish" --- how was Jesus, by circular reasoning, able to narrow it down to a whale?

Historically the church valued a hermeneutics of allegory.

No it didn't. The Allegorical Method of hermeneutics was popularized by Philo of Alexandria, and the early church rejected his garbage until around the 4th century AD.

Just because the church of other times and places uses different hermeneutical principles than you do does not place them in error.

What if one contradicts the other. Then what?

 

[AV1611VET]

"implied"??? Ah, so you are telling us that we need to INTERPRET this in an otherwise literally read Bible? That is a serious inconsistency.

I was going to use the word "imbedded", but thought otherwise. There are three types of truth: implied, expressed, and apocryphal.

Could you point to where Paul mentions "The 2LoT"?

Romans 8:20-22

Why not? Entropy drives the universe.

Entropy is driving the universe toward "heat death" --- Jesus is the force behind the Strong Nuclear Force that keeps the protons together - Colossians 1:17.

Before total entropy occurs, the Bible makes it plain that He is going to release His hold on the protons - 2 Peter 3:12.

 

[steen]

In addition, Isaiah added the concept of Boyle's Law to Hell.

No, Boyle added Boyle's law to Isaiah.

 

[steen]

I was going to use the word "imbedded", but thought otherwise. There are three types of truth: implied, expressed, and apocryphal.

"implied" is guessing.

Romans 8:20-22

Hmm:
[20] for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope;
[21] because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God.
[22] We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now;

Nope, not one word about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You are again interpreting.

Entropy is driving the universe toward "heat death"

And? It is what changes potential energy to kinetic energy and allows what in physics is known as "work," essentially any change. Without it, the universe and you would be static.

--- Jesus is the force behind the Strong Nuclear Force

No, Jesus is the Son of God. Your subjective, rationalizing INTERPRETATIONS are not scriptural, they are personal, you trying to fit your beliefs and your politics literally into scripture instead of looking at what scripture is teaching you.

that keeps the protons together - Colossians 1:17.

[17] He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Ah, so you have decided that this is the Bible trying to be a physics textbook rather than scripture? So you are now INTERPRETING scripture as a physics textbook to make it comply with your personal beliefs!

Before total entropy occurs, the Bible makes it plain that He is going to release His hold on the protons - 2 Peter 3:12.

[12] waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire!
Hmm, not one word there about physics either. Again, a rationalizing interpretation of scripture to fit your argument. In other words, you are quote-mining.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you are speculating and rationalizing. Now, God tells them that they can eat food from the Garden of Eden. Are you saying that their eating didn't lead to digestion, that it purely was a mashing up of material and nothing else?

Steen, in eternity future, on a New Earth, there is going to be no 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, yet we're still gonna eat.

Because ANY digestion is entropy.

Any work produces entropy (now) --- so I agree.

Your claims are PURE speculation and INTERPRETATION.

I'll agree with interpretation --- somewhat with speculation --- makes life interesting.

There is nothing Biblical in it, only you seeking to fit Scripture to your personal beliefs.

Funny --- I was taught this --- paid good money, too.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, Boyle added Boyle's law to Isaiah.

What was Australia before they called it "Australia", Steen?

(Sorry Aussies --- that's an old American joke.)

 

[steen]

Steen, in eternity future, on a New Earth, there is going to be no 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, yet we're still gonna eat.

What new world? What makes you think that you will have a physical body that needs food? And if you eat, you certainly has to live under entropy. Your claim simply makes no sense at all.

I'll agree with interpretation --- somewhat with speculation --- makes life interesting.

Ah, but you also said, as far as I recall, that the Bible was not to be interpretetd. or was that not you?

Funny --- I was taught this --- paid good money, too.

Perhaps you need your money back?

 

[AV1611VET]

Wait, so prior to the Fall, there was no sound? Adam and Eve couldn't walk because the coefficient of friction was zero so they would slip everywhere? If Adam and Eve hugged, Eve would not feel Adam's warmth? I think you should think about what it means for there to be no entrophy, scientifically, before you claim that. Entrophy isn't a bad thing, it's the only reason why we're able to be alive.

How then are we going to live in Eternity Future, Guy, when there isn't any 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

According to the Bible, it's with "glorified bodies" --- possibly what Adam and Eve had before the Fall?

Right now, you can't have a "glorified body" in a universe where Entropy rules.

 

[gluadys]

Thus my point. It comes naturally. When I read that the earth was created in six days, I don't wonder if those were literal days or not --- I just assume 6 solar days and that's that.

So do I. I also assume they do not relate to the history of the universe, but exist in the framework of the story only.

Au contraire. Moses (as far as I know w/o looking it up) didn't even mention "fire and brimstone" when he mentioned Hell --- Jesus added it. In addition, Isaiah added the concept of Boyle's Law to Hell. That doesn't sound like circular reasoning to me.

Moses and Isaiah lived and taught before Judaism adopted the concept of hell from the Zoroastrians. But my point was that it is circular reasoning to use a pre-supposition of a literal interpretation to claim that Jesus’ reference to hell affirms he was speaking of a literal hell. If hellfire is not literal, Jesus’ reference to it was not to literal hellfire.

Jonah said a "giant fish" --- how was Jesus, by circular reasoning, able to narrow it down to a whale?

I would have to check whether the Greek of the NT says “whale”or “fish”. It may be “whale” only exists in some English translations. If the NT Greek says “whale” it probably came from the Septuagint.

No it didn't. The Allegorical Method of hermeneutics was popularized by Philo of Alexandria, and the early church rejected his garbage until around the 4th century AD.

And continued to do so for over a thousand years.

What if one contradicts the other. Then what?

We know at least one is an insufficient interpretation. Probably both are insufficient on their own and a deeper meaning needs to be found that includes the partial truth of both.

 

[AV1611VET]

What new world? What makes you think that you will have a physical body that needs food? And if you eat, you certainly has to live under entropy. Your claim simply makes no sense at all.

What? My inivtation to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb has been cancelled??? Just because I have a glorified body???

Come and dine the Master calleth, come and dine.
You may feast at Jesus' table all the time.

And what do you mean, "What new world?" That's standard Christian theology.

 

[steen]

What was Australia before they called it "Australia", Steen?

Well, the translation is "Dreamtime Land," originating from the jiva or guruwari

Incidentially, here is the aboriginal creation myth;
http://www.didgeridoos.net.au/dreamtime%20stories/earth%20dying%20earth%20reborn.htm

 

[steen]

What? My inivtation to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb has been cancelled??? Just because I have a glorified body???

Rather, that's poetry, an allegory.

And what do you mean, "What new world?" That's standard Christian theology.

Sorry, I mistyped. What made you think there is going to be a "New Earth," a physical existence?

 

[AV1611VET]

No it didn't. The Allegorical Method of hermeneutics was popularized by Philo of Alexandria, and the early church rejected his garbage until around the 4th century AD.

And continued to do so for over a thousand years.

Okay --- so his garbage has continued for over a thousand years.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

What? My inivtation to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb has been cancelled??? Just because I have a glorified body???

Come and dine the Master calleth, come and dine.
You may feast at Jesus' table all the time.

Truth should not contradict truth. Your current ideas about entropy and your ideas about heaven contradict, so they cannot both be true. There are several different ways that your ideas could be wrong.

1. Your ideas about entropy and how it related to creation are wrong.

2. Your ideas about heaven are wrong.

3 Both your ideas about heaven and entropy are wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, I mistyped. What made you think there is going to be a "New Earth," a physical existence?

Oh, I read it in a Book somewhere --- specifically:

Isaiah 65:17; 66:22; 2 Peter 3:13; and Revelation 21:1.

That shows you that 3 different people (Isaiah, Peter, and John), from 2 different Testaments (Old and New), from two different styles of writing (prophetic, epistle, and prophetic), said the same thing.