How long ago was the universe created?

[ExTiff]

First of all, the first five books of the OT, just like the first five of the NT, are historic narratives. Should we dismiss Abraham, Issac, Jacob and Joseph as allegory. The exodus and the founding of the nation of Israel in Canasn? Then perhaps the incarnation, resurrection and coming of the Holy Spirit and new birth should be viewed with suspicion. There is also the central role of genealogies, the ten accounts that are known as accounts, featuring the lists that come with well ordered timeline. Genesis covers well over 2,000 years. It features the foundational narratives that are the bedrock of redemptive history. The allegorical approach you suggest consists of little more then naturalistic presupposition and unbelieve. I would submit Genesis is historic narrative penned and preserved by the ancient Hebrews as revelation from God.

As far as the old saw that there is some contradiction between the first and second chapters is baseless. That taunt from redactory criticism is based exclusively on the xhange in the word used for the name of God. What emerges is the covenant name of God in conbection with a covenant made with Adam and Eve, thus the covenant name. I suggest you learn to appreciate the literary features before you start dismissing the sacred content aimlessly.

As far as the old saw that there is some contradiction between the first and second chapters is baseless. That taunt from redactory criticism is based exclusively on the xhange in the word used for the name of God. What emerges is the covenant name of God in conbection with a covenant made with Adam and Eve, thus the covenant name. I suggest you learn to appreciate the literary features before you start dismissing the sacred content aimlessly.

There are quite a few rather fundamental difference between the two separate creation 'myths' in Genesis. And before you get all hot under the collar about 'myth', it does not mean fictional, it means (a narrative with deeper meaning than appears on the surface of things, or by merely a literal interpretation).

The entire order of creation in Gen. Ch2 is reversed, compared to Ch.1. Chapter 2 has no time scale whatever. Chapter one has all creatures made before man. Chapter 2 has man made before all creatures. Chapter 1 has earth formless and void with a watery abyss. Gen.1:1-5. Chapter 2 has earth on the first day without plants or herbs and no water at all. Gen.2:4-5.

You seem not to have read it properly if you think there are no differences.
.

 

[miamited]

That makes sense. But why do people live longer now than they did 400 years ago? 400 years ago a person was lucky to live to be 30. Like I said I believe that people lived to be 900 years old now. But I didn't before my conversion. I didn't believe in a lot of things.

Hi neostar,

Perhaps because of man's efforts the length of lives was further shortened in what we tend to call the dark ages and the Elizabethan age. Or, perhaps God's effort was to further shorten the lives of man, again to forestall the inevitable, but man has taken some countermeasures that have fought against God's purpose. Knowing the efforts of man today to work towards denying the truth of God, that certainly wouldn't be outside the realm of possible explanations. I think we do well to keep in mind that the turn around from the lower life expectancy of several hundred years ago has, according to the claims of men, come about by the work of their own hands. Advances in medical understandings and technology have allowed us to take some steps to lengthen the days of some people. Our understanding of germs and viruses and providing clean water from days in which raw sewage ran pretty unattended in many city streets has certainly brought about changes in life expectancy.

It's also worth remembering that God's word proclaims woe to those who build house upon house. Most of our past plagues have originated, that is to say the first cause of such things, was generally within the overpopulated cities where houses were built one atop another. This caused things like an overabundance of sewage and lack of basic facilities such as clean water and air to overcome those in such locations. Perhaps God knew that when He caused to be written, "woe to those who build house upon house."

However, that brief period of total history in which man's life expectancy ran in the low 60's could well just be an anomaly brought about by all the pollution and disease created by man and God has corrected it back to the 70-80 year lifespan of His desire. It is true that we can't really know all that God is doing or has done beyond what He tells us in His revelation of Himself to us and so, yes, I agree that all of this is just our surmising, but each of these possibilities could be the truth of the reality that is life.

What we do know from the Scriptures is that Paul seems to clearly teach in his first chapter of his letter to the Romans that the sin of man is going to grow more and more rampant. That not only will there by loads of sin upon our backs, but there will be those who approve of such sin. This approval is going to mean that more and more people are going to be saying, "Well, what they're doing is ok." So, more and more people who listen to the truth of man are going to just follow along and as time marches on, because of this effect, sin is going to get worse as more and more people approve of those who live in sin and, therefore, begin to adopt that way of life over God's way of life. Then, as I previously pointed out, when we read in the revelation that the whole world is going to follow after the beast, I honestly can't see how we can't glean an understanding of those things that the problem of sin in the world, as God sees it, is going to only get worse and not better. That is until God removes the wicked from the earth and we begin the millennial reign of Christ upon the earth.

Again, according to the revelation, at the time of the resurrection of those to enjoy the millennial reign of the Lord, the wicked remain in their graves. So, at that time we should get a pretty good understanding of what the reality of eternal life with God is going to be like. As the revelation explains it, the millennial reign of Christ seems to be some final test of each man's heart. We read at the end of the millennial reign that Satan is released one last time to attempt to deceive. I read that to mean that while the only ones raised to enjoy the reign of Jesus will be those who have expressed faith in Jesus, that still even after that, Satan will be freed to deceive those who have lived through that reign of Jesus. One final opportunity for Satan to draw away those whose faith may yet be weak.

Who could really deny, according to the truth of the Scriptures, that some of those who live through the millennial reign will decide that the life they have lived with Jesus isn't really the life they want? I remember a man in a fellowship I attended making the statement one day that if there wasn't golf in heaven he didn't want to go. What if there isn't golf in the eternal life? Will that man really say, at the end of the reign of Jesus, "Hey, thanks for the opportunity of a life like this, but it really isn't what I want."

God bless,
ted

 

[miamited]

Like I said I believe that people lived to be 900 years old now. But I didn't before my conversion. I didn't believe in a lot of things.

Hi neostar,

Friend, brother, that's what being born again is all about. By the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit we begin to see and understand the things of God. We begin to believe that God's truth stands as 'the truth' of all that is. It's a good testimony for one to have who proclaims faith in Jesus, that they see and understand things differently today than they did when they were lost to God.

May God continue to richly bless you with the confirmation of His truth and love for you, through the power and presence of His Spirit in your life.
ted

 

[ExTiff]

Hi neostar,

Perhaps because of man's efforts the length of lives was further shortened in what we tend to call the dark ages and the Elizabethan age. Or, perhaps God's effort was to further shorten the lives of man, again to forestall the inevitable, but man has taken some countermeasures that have fought against God's purpose. Knowing the efforts of man today to work towards denying the truth of God, that certainly wouldn't be outside the realm of possible explanations. I think we do well to keep in mind that the turn around from the lower life expectancy of several hundred years ago has, according to the claims of men, come about by the work of their own hands. Advances in medical understandings and technology have allowed us to take some steps to lengthen the days of some people. Our understanding of germs and viruses and providing clean water from days in which raw sewage ran pretty unattended in many city streets has certainly brought about changes in life expectancy.

It's also worth remembering that God's word proclaims woe to those who build house upon house. Most of our past plagues have originated, that is to say the first cause of such things, was generally within the overpopulated cities where houses were built one atop another. This caused things like an overabundance of sewage and lack of basic facilities such as clean water and air to overcome those in such locations. Perhaps God knew that when He caused to be written, "woe to those who build house upon house."

However, that brief period of total history in which man's life expectancy ran in the low 60's could well just be an anomaly brought about by all the pollution and disease created by man and God has corrected it back to the 70-80 year lifespan of His desire. It is true that we can't really know all that God is doing or has done beyond what He tells us in His revelation of Himself to us and so, yes, I agree that all of this is just our surmising, but each of these possibilities could be the truth of the reality that is life.

What we do know from the Scriptures is that Paul seems to clearly teach in his first chapter of his letter to the Romans that the sin of man is going to grow more and more rampant. That not only will there by loads of sin upon our backs, but there will be those who approve of such sin. This approval is going to mean that more and more people are going to be saying, "Well, what they're doing is ok." So, more and more people who listen to the truth of man are going to just follow along and as time marches on, because of this effect, sin is going to get worse as more and more people approve of those who live in sin and, therefore, begin to adopt that way of life over God's way of life. Then, as I previously pointed out, when we read in the revelation that the whole world is going to follow after the beast, I honestly can't see how we can't glean an understanding of those things that the problem of sin in the world, as God sees it, is going to only get worse and not better. That is until God removes the wicked from the earth and we begin the millennial reign of Christ upon the earth.

Again, according to the revelation, at the time of the resurrection of those to enjoy the millennial reign of the Lord, the wicked remain in their graves. So, at that time we should get a pretty good understanding of what the reality of eternal life with God is going to be like. As the revelation explains it, the millennial reign of Christ seems to be some final test of each man's heart. We read at the end of the millennial reign that Satan is released one last time to attempt to deceive. I read that to mean that while the only ones raised to enjoy the reign of Jesus will be those who have expressed faith in Jesus, that still even after that, Satan will be freed to deceive those who have lived through that reign of Jesus. One final opportunity for Satan to draw away those whose faith may yet be weak.

Who could really deny, according to the truth of the Scriptures, that some of those who live through the millennial reign will decide that the life they have lived with Jesus isn't really the life they want? I remember a man in a fellowship I attended making the statement one day that if there wasn't golf in heaven he didn't want to go. What if there isn't golf in the eternal life? Will that man really say, at the end of the reign of Jesus, "Hey, thanks for the opportunity of a life like this, but it really isn't what I want."

God bless,
ted

"woe to those who build house upon house."

Actually if you compare this: Isa.5:8 with this: Mic.2:2 it becomes clear that this means accumulating houses and land until you become a millionaire owner of everything around you, therefore "alone in the midst of the earth". It is not actually building on top of existing houses, though that also would not be a good idea.

Using a modern translation can often help get the right idea of what was intended by The Word. Isa.5:8. or this Isa.5:8. It is not in fact health and safety building and planning regulations to avoid plague. It is a condemnation of unbridled capitalism.
.

 

[miamited]

Hi again neostar,

Don't know if you've ever read my testimony, and for those who think I'm too long winded they're welcome to skip over this thread, but...

I used to, as Paul declares, live like 'one of them'. I was raised going to church on Sunday and even participating in youth activities and summer camps. But all of that didn't much affect the way I lived. I was a fornicator beginning in my late teen years. A thief who used to steal cigarettes from the check out counter of stores to support my early habit of smoking. I had no qualms in using and approving of course words and being friends with those who were like me. I lived that way for pretty much the first 40 years of my life. Having a kind of religion, but not a true faith 'in' that religion.

I was raised in the public school system and for a time took to reading Popular Science and such other books and magazines that espoused the million/billion year old timeline of all that we see in the heavens and upon the earth. I believed it! It all seemed to be perfectly logical and well proven by people that I believed to be very, very wise and smart people.

Then at the age of 40 I began attending a new fellowship after having been out of fellowship for quite some time. One of the first teachings of the pastor at this new fellowship was on the prophecies of the Scriptures. Specifically, the prophesies concerning the reality of Jesus. The ones that told us that someone was coming and also told us when he would come and how he would come and the things that he would be doing to show us that he was this supposed prophetic Messiah. My natural mind, of course, believed that some of those prophecies had to be added later. That there were some that absolutely no one could have known that they would work out as they did at the time they are claimed to have been written. So, I set about to study some of those prophecies, but as I did, I took a small leap of faith. I prayed to God that He would give me understanding and wisdom of these things.

One of the first realities that I came across was the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls, which have pretty well been proven to precede the days of Jesus upon the earth, contained a lot of these prophecies that I thought must surely have been added after the fact. Then I read of Jesus standing in the synagogue and reading from the scroll of Isaiah and then declaring that what Isaiah had written hundreds of years before was being fulfilled in front of their very eyes. Then Jesus went out and did all the things that Isaiah had written that he would do.

Finally, I came across an explanation of the prophecy of Daniel's 70 sevens. The explanation was just so unbelievably simple, but ended up bringing us, pretty much to the day that Jesus was living among us, which is exactly what Daniel, hundreds of years earlier had told us. I began to be convicted that God's word is true. Which of course, led to the next conviction that if God's word is true, then I'm a sinner. I looked at all the things that God called sin and, yep, I was surely one of those. There was no doubt in my mind that while I thought I had lived a pretty good life among men and had friends and wasn't some mass murderer or had stolen millions of dollars from some bank, in God's eyes I was just as much a sinner as anyone else.

At some point I got down on my knees in my bedroom holding a copy of the Scriptures in my hands and prayed fervently that God forgive. But I didn't just ask that He forgive me and that I was now trusting in His Son for my eternal life, but I asked that He give me an unquenchable thirst to know Him and understand Him through the study of His word.

Friend, I'm here to give testimony that for about 2 years I couldn't hardly put the Scriptures down and each time I would sit down to read the Scriptures I would again ask God for wisdom and understanding by and through the power of His Spirit. I was doing pretty much what the holy men of God exampled to us in the old covenant. I prayerfully studied the word of God.

Here's where I get to the part that relates to your claim. Throughout this time of pretty diligent study, I also was convicted as you say you have. A lot of what I had believed for 40 years just up and went 'poof' in my mind. I began to understand that this God had the power and authority to have really created all that is in this realm in a mere six days. I began to understand that the only reason that I might have to not believe that such was the truth, was because the wisdom of man was doing it's best to teach me that it just couldn't possibly be so.

You know, the Scriptures account that Abraham was willing to draw down the dagger or knife or sword to take the life of his very own son because he trusted God. I don't think I could display such a faith if God asked me to kill my son. Knowing how much I love my son, I have to believe that Abraham loved his just as much if not more. After all, Isaac had been an answer to Abraham's desire as a husband for some 80 years or so. To have a son with his wife who would carry on his name and his family. That was one of the greatest desires of any man in those days and is pretty much the same desire for a husband today. The majority of married people today want to have children and then love those children with a greater love than pretty much anyone else on the planet.

Then the Scriptures repeatedly account for us the faithfulness of Abraham and how God honored his faith. Based on that, that's the kind of faith I desire. To believe God no matter the cost or how out of step it may cause me to be with the world. Even with others who proclaim to believe in that same God. I believe God!

I believe that He created all that exists in this realm in six days. I believe that He created the first man from the material of dirt that was lying about on the dry land of the earth on the sixth day of His creative work. I believe that He then created for Adam a woman and that He did actually take one of Adam's ribs as the foundation of her body. I believe that God flooded the entire area of dry ground upon the earth, not just some local area of the middle east or whatever area we believe to be where Noah was living when the flood came upon the earth. I believe that because unless God did it just as He said, then His other purposes for bringing on the flood are a lie. A local flood would not have wiped man off the face of the earth. A local flood would not have destroyed every creature that lives and breaths on the dry land.

I believe that God did cause the river Nile to be completely and totally filled with blood. Otherwise it would not have been true that the people could not find any water. The Scriptures tell us that even in digging holes in the dirt all that came forth was blood. I believe that there was a day in Egypt when the sun shown just as brightly as it ever does over all the land of Goshen, but then the land of Egypt, which was only a few miles away, was so dark that people couldn't see their hand in front of their faces. There is no eclipse or natural phenomenon of the heavens that can create that reality as it is described in the Scriptures. God literally stopped the rays of the sun from reaching the land of Egypt and there doesn't seem to have been any bleed over or refraction or reflection from the rays of the sun that were lighting up all of Goshen. That's impossible!!!! I believe that God did it!

I believe that God separated a fairly vast sea of water in a manner that a wall of water stood at attention on both the left and right side of the Israelites as they passed through on dry ground. I believe that at one time God caused the sun to stand still in the sky over the promised land for nearly an entire day and I also believe that God caused a shadow cast by the sun to go backwards from its natural direction of travel. Just as Hezekiah said, it's a simple task that the shadow continue to grow forward in its natural travel. All you have to do is wait. He knew that only the power and authority of God could make the shadow go backwards.

I believe all of these things and more, because I believe that God was faithful to answer my earnest plea for wisdom and understanding through His Spirit as I began my journey into faith. I firmly and faithfully believe that the whole of God's word is the truth concerning all that God has done to make Himself known to us today, and also to those who lived before. I believe that the things that God did among the Israelites in Egypt were done that they might marvel at the power and authority of their God and thus be drawn back to him. And that they were also written down for us today that we also might marvel at the power and authority of our God and be drawn back to Him.

God bless,
ted

 

[miamited]

Actually if you compare this: Isa.5:8 with this: Mic.2:2 it becomes clear that this means accumulating houses and land until you become a millionaire owner of everything around you, therefore "alone in the midst of the earth". It is not actually building on top of existing houses, though that also would not be a good idea.

Using a modern translation can often help get the right idea of what was intended by The Word. Isa.5:8. or this Isa.5:8. It is not in fact health and safety building and planning regulations to avoid plague. It is a condemnation of unbridled capitalism.
.

Hi tiff,

Perhaps so. But if I don't compare it to Micah 2:2 and just accept it as written, it says exactly what it says. Personally, Micah 2:2 doesn't seem to have anything to do with building of homes, but rather the taking of homes. I don't see the connection that you seem to.

In fact, God's final words as to why He proclaims woes upon those who join house to house and field to field seems to directly address that the reason is the overcrowding. It creates a type of living where one has no place to be alone.

God bless,
ted

 

[mark kennedy]

There are quite a few rather fundamental difference between the two separate creation 'myths' in Genesis. And before you get all hot under the collar about 'myth', it does not mean fictional, it means (a narrative with deeper meaning than appears on the surface of things, or by merely a literal interpretation).

Should I take Genesis figuratively and then. take the resurrection of Christ in the same vein, because they are related. Does God promise us eternal life when he claims to have created life in the beginning figuratively, I don't think so. You will get no figurative nterpretation from Genesis 1 and there is no contradiction in Genesis 2. There is an expansion, a continuation but the idea rhat they contradict is a fabrication.

The entire order of creation in Gen. Ch2 is reversed, compared to Ch.1. Chapter 2 has no time scale whatever. Chapter one has all creatures made before man. Chapter 2 has man made before all creatures. [

You will never get that from the text, it's a ridiculous mutalation of the context. God simply directs Adam to name the creatures, he never says he made them subsequently, that"s fancifull nonsense.

Chapter 1 has earth formless and void with a watery abyss. Gen.1:1-5. Chapter 2 has earth on the first day without plants or herbs and no water at all. Gen.2:4-5.

That's after creation week. God. planted a garden for domesticated plants. There is no clear indication of when.

You seem not to have read it properly if you think there are no differences.
.

I've read it plainly and often, what you argue is not in the text.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I am against making science equal to God.

Science is God. Romans 1:20 says: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." People like to argue "Evolution" but if they do not believe in God then they are without excuse because Evolution shows us HOW God made what HE did in the Creation of this world. Science gives us Evidence for God but the evidence is to complicated for most people to understand. They could understand if they wanted to but they do not want to put the effort into understanding.

When science conforms to Scripture, it is a useful tool.

Yes exactly we need both. Science confirms Scripture and Scripture confirms Science. We can still see some of the crazy understandings people have of the Bible before Science came up with new information so we can better understand the Bible.

I studied Ancient history and science for 20 years before I ever read the Bible. So I really had a head start in that area. Now I have studied history and science for 50 years and the Bible for 30 years so I am starting to understand. I have days I read, study and learn for up to 18 hours. When I was in College I was doing real good if I could study for 5 hours.

I wish more people had a understanding of Archeology and all we have learned from that in the last 100 years. They (the students) work very hard for very little but the very little they have is very significant. For example they put a drainage pipe into the temple mount and they sifted through the dirt that was left over from that project. It took them years to get permission to sift through that dirt. Then they finally got permission and they found pottery bits and pieces. But what was best was one arrow head that came from Babylon. We now have physical evidence that Babylon attacked the city of Jerusalem. Not as much evidence as we have from the Romans when they destroyed the temple. Still we have evidence from that time period in the Bible. Although they say a small part of the temple mount has the foundation from the temple that was destroyed at that point in history. Still God has left us something in the way of physical evidence to show us that the story in the Bible is a true story. We have Science and History to show us evidence so we can know how true and accurate the Bible is. For those who want to look, study and see.

 

[miamited]

Hi again tiff,

Isaiah 5:8, and I readily admit that it will take someone much more knowledgeable than me to get to the bottom of this point I'm about to make, uses the word 'wə-hū-šaḇ-tem' and translates that Hebrew word in many English bibles as 'and where they may dwell'. From what I gather, the entire verse is translated in the Hebrew as: Woe to those who join house to house field to field they add till no place and where they may dwell alone in the midst of the land'. My argument rests on the word 'and'. From what I gather, the verb tense and conjunction allows that the translation could actually be 'and' or 'furthermore' or 'but'. The Hebrew conjunction is 'waw' from which the first part of the word in the text starts out as 'wə-

Now many translations, I believe, have taken some liberties here. They seem to translate this as 'they are caused' to dwell in the land alone. Or, that 'they are left' to dwell in the land alone. But, according to Strong's text analysis of the Hebrew text in this piece of the Scriptures, neither of those translations are encouraged or shown to be how the original Hebrew text would have been understood. If we simply remove the word 'and' we have: 'Woe to those who join house to house field to field they add till no place where they may dwell alone in the midst of the land'. This would seem to fairly clearly make the point that God is telling us here that this joining of house to house and field to field leaves us with no place to dwell alone or enjoy any personal privacy.

We can also use the word 'furthermore' rather than 'and' according to Strong's. Thus we read: 'Woe to those who join house to house field to field they add till no place furthermore where they may dwell alone in the midst of the land'. This translation also seems to clearly lead us to the conclusion that it is the overcrowding robbing a person of any personal space as the problem.

I used this to answer neostars question because it would seem that this overcrowding brought about by houses being joined side by side is a large part of the reason why we endured many of the plagues. When people are overcrowded it takes a lot to rid the area of the human waste created and to supply an adequate amount of drinking water and food. So disease is given a place to fester. Because people are living so close together it becomes harder to contain communicable diseases and infections. I'm certainly willing to consider that perhaps Isaiah wasn't referring to the conditions of living a few hundred years ago, but I believe the point may well still stand that what God is warning us of in this woe is that our desire to build more and more homes that are joined together, as we have in most of our larger cities, is not a good thing for us because it robs us of 'personal' space. We feel closed in and trapped and that isn't good for us.

Now yes, most of us have adapted and accepted this type of living as the norm, but I'm not sure that it's what God has ever intended for us. After all, most of us have turned away from enjoying the Sabbath once a week and I'm not sure that's what God intended of us either.

God bless,
ted

 

[miamited]

Yes exactly we need both. Science confirms Scripture and Scripture confirms Science. We can still see some of the crazy understandings people have of the Bible before Science came up with new information so we can better understand the Bible.

Hi joshua,

I think you may have missed alex's point. What he said is that when science 'conforms' to Scripture it can be a useful tool. I don't believe that at all means that his understanding is that science 'confirms' Scripture. In fact, most of this discussion is that science doesn't 'confirm' Scripture. When it comes to the miracles of God's work, science isn't even able to offer up a clue.

Go ahead. Ask any scientist to 'confirm' that God parted a sea. Or that the sun can be out shining just as brightly as ever in a land called Goshen and yet just a few miles away in a land called Egypt, it is pitch black. Of course, the penultimate question for which science cannot even begin to posit an explanation is how Jesus came to be born according to the account of the Scriptures.

Now, your position is likely to be that science doesn't or hasn't addressed those questions. But if a believer is to consider that the creation of this realm is a miracle just as much as any of these other miracles, then why are we to trust such answers if they can only come up with an answer for one of them? If science can confirm the Scriptures, then wake me when it has confirmed the whole of the Scriptures. Not just one little piece. It is understood that there are different 'scientific' fields according to man's definition and that the archaeological sciences have confirmed much of the historical accounts of the people and places of the Scriptures, but that's about it.

God bless,
ted

 

[ExTiff]

@mark kennedy

You will never get that from the text, it's a ridiculous mutalation of the context. God simply directs Adam to name the creatures, he never says he made them subsequently, that"s fanciful nonsense.

Gen.2:4-20:

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates."

(God made trees and rivers)

"And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."

(Adam (man) was ALONE (no animals yet). God then decides to make man a companion. Do you understand so far?)

"And out of the ground [the same as he had made Adam, out of the ground], the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

(Adam made first, animals formed after Adam in order to provide a companion because Adam was alone. Are you OK up to here?)

"And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him."

(I don't know what Creationist nonsense Bible you have been reading, but what you have just read is the Authorised King James, and any first grader can tell you that what you have just read clearly states that:

(1) God made Adam.
(2) God then made trees and rivers.
(3) Adam was alone and God said that, 'being alone like that sucked'.
(4) So God then made animals, to find a mate for Adam, so he wouldn't be alone.
(5) No suitable mate was found, even after God made each animal and Adam named them all.)

You will never get that from the text, it's a ridiculous mutalation of the context. God simply directs Adam to name the creatures, he never says he made them subsequently, that"s fanciful nonsense

Now who is mutilating the text? God never directed Adam to do anything at all. God 'brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them'. Naming the animals was Adam's idea and God brought them to him as God made each one, to see what Adam would call them.

I don't know what you think the word subsequently means but I and most other people think it means afterwards. After what? After God decided Adam was alone and being alone was not a good thing. Subsequent to that, God then made all the animals and Adam named them.

That's after creation week. God. planted a garden for domesticated plants. There is no clear indication of when.

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."

(1) When was this? "in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens".
(2) There were no plants or herbs and no rivers yet. "every plant of the field before it was in the earth", "and every herb of the field before it grew", "God had not caused it to rain upon the earth".
(3) Indication of when was between creating man Gen.2:7. and creating animals, Gen2:18-20.

You obviously have never read this properly before it would seem.
.

 

[AlexDTX]

Generalizations are generally unhelpful. (that's irony by the way).

Science is very good at asking 'How' questions and finding truth concerning 'How' things happen, which leads sometimes to 'why' they happened. This is mostly by observation of 'facts'.

Religion on the other hand is very good at asking 'Why' questions and finding truth concerning 'why' things happen, which leads sometimes to 'how' they happen. This is mostly by exercising 'faith'.

The two are not competitors or in opposition. Quite a lot of scientists are religious because they also want answers to 'Why'. Quite a lot of Religious people are scientists because they are interested in getting answers to 'How'.

Some really wise people want and get answers to 'Both'.
.

Why and how are not the topic. The topic is the age of the universe. The biblical account is around 6,000 years. The scientific account is around 13 billion years. Christians who accept the atheist position that there is no God and the universe evolved, are putting the opinions of men before the revelation of God.

 

[AlexDTX]

Science is God.

No it is not. God is a living person. Science is knowledge. God is the designer of the creation and the Creator, therefore God has the "science", but knowledge is not life. The tree of knowledge of good and evil brought death, not life.

The knowledge of man is finite and incapable of infinite knowledge, whereas God is omniscient. Unlike Google's desire to acquire all known knowledge so they can have the "mind of God" their quest is impossible.

As I said, science is a useful tool when it stays within the boundaries of revealed knowledge from God. But the imaginations of man, no matter what evidence man may think he has, when contrary to revealed knowledge within Scriptures, is always wrong. Note, too, that God flooded the world because the imaginations of man were evil [wrong] continually.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Now, your position is likely to be that science doesn't or hasn't addressed those questions.

God has all of the answers to all of our questions. We just are not ready to understand. The answer is still to complicated for us. For example do you know what an Event Horizon is? God is a singularity and He is eternal. The world we live in is a duality and we are temporal. In the Bible we have sunrise and sunset. The beginning and the end of the day. There are other understandings and other interpretations but this is the one we need to understand if we want Scientific evidence for God.

True Science and a true translation and interpretation of the Bible are always going to agree. If Science and the Bible do not agree then someone does not understand. Either their Science is not true or the interpretation of the Bible is not accurate. Like the Universe itself there is an extreme mathematical accuracy to the Bible. People are starting to develop some very nice software on the computer to show that.

Science itself goes back to Abraham in the Bible. He was a Chaldean from the city of Ur. The ruins of that city are still there but it is a lot way from the water now. The Chaldean's were the first to use a base of 60. I was taught in college our system is a base of 12. But this is based on 5 times 12 or 60 beginning with the Chaldeans. Sixty seconds in a minute - 60 minute in a hour. Then you have the two 12 hour periods for a day. 12 hours of light, 12 hours of darkness on two days of the year on the equinox. This math goes back to the time of Abraham. Some people say this is based on the 3 digits of our 4 fingers for a total of 12. Or add the thumb and we have three digits of 5 for a total of 15, there are 15 min in a quarter hour. Both hands would be thirty or half an hour. This is very very simple math that a child can understand.

Matthew 11:25 "At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."

 

[ExTiff]

Hi tiff,

Perhaps so. But if I don't compare it to Micah 2:2 and just accept it as written, it says exactly what it says. Personally, Micah 2:2 doesn't seem to have anything to do with building of homes, but rather the taking of homes. I don't see the connection that you seem to.

In fact, God's final words as to why He proclaims woes upon those who join house to house and field to field seems to directly address that the reason is the overcrowding. It creates a type of living where one has no place to be alone.

God bless,
ted

Youngs Literal says "Woe [to] those joining house to house, Field to field they bring near, till there is no place, And ye have been settled by yourselves In the midst of the land!"

Seems to carry the notion of contented settlement on one's expanding private country estate, set in acres of land, after having bought up everything around and flattened it, so you have no close neighbours, and the place completely to yourself. What Micah was complaining about too.

The "field to field" gives the clue I think, indicating accumulation of land by acquisition or hostile takeover.

Also look at the threat that God makes against such land grabbers.
"Of a truth many houses shall be desolate,
even great and fair, without inhabitant.
Yea, ten acres of vineyard shall yield one bath,
and the seed of an homer shall yield an ephah."

The Living Bible gives this: "Your homes are built on great estates so you can be alone in the midst of the earth! But the Lord Almighty has sworn your awful fate--with my own ears I heard him say,"Many a beautiful home will lie deserted, their owners killed or gone. An acre of vineyard will not produce a gallon of juice! Ten bushels of seed will yield a one-bushel crop!"

This is not plague that is threatened or warned against, it is invasion, war and famine.
.

 

[AlexDTX]

God has all of the answers to all of our questions. We just are not ready to understand. The answer is still to complicated for us. For example do you know what an Event Horizon is? God is a singularity and He is eternal. The world we live in is a duality and we are temporal. In the Bible we have sunrise and sunset. The beginning and the end of the day. There are other understandings and other interpretations but this is the one we need to understand if we want Scientific evidence for God.

True Science and a true translation and interpretation of the Bible are always going to agree. If Science and the Bible do not agree then someone does not understand. Either their Science is not true or the interpretation of the Bible is not accurate. Like the Universe itself there is an extreme mathematical accuracy to the Bible. People are starting to develop some very nice software on the computer to show that.

Science itself goes back to Abraham in the Bible. He was a Chaldean from the city of Ur. The ruins of that city are still there but it is a lot way from the water now. The Chaldean's were the first to use a base of 60. I was taught in college our system is a base of 12. But this is based on 5 times 12 or 60 beginning with the Chaldeans. Sixty seconds in a minute - 60 minute in a hour. Then you have the two 12 hour periods for a day. 12 hours of light, 12 hours of darkness on two days of the year on the equinox. This math goes back to the time of Abraham. Some people say this is based on the 3 digits of our 4 fingers for a total of 12. Or add the thumb and we have three digits of 5 for a total of 15, there are 15 min in a quarter hour. Both hands would be thirty or half an hour. This is very very simple math that a child can understand.

Matthew 11:25 "At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."

I am not in disagreement regarding the benefit of scientific inquiry. Your continuing to argue about science tells me that you place science as high as God in our esteem. That is what I disagree with.

 

[joshua 1 9]

you place science as high as God in our esteem.

God created Science. The devil has counterfeits and forgery's. I am talking about true science.

 

[mark kennedy]

Why and how are not the topic. The topic is the age of the universe. The biblical account is around 6,000 years. The scientific account is around 13 billion years. Christians who accept the atheist position that there is no God and the universe evolved, are putting the opinions of men before the revelation of God.

No, the Scriptures say the heavens and the earth wrre created, in the beginning, that could have been seconds, that could have been billions of years before. The age of the earth and the universe us irrelavant to the doctrine of creation. The time God created life is another matter entirely.

 

[AlexDTX]

No, the Scriptures say the heavens and the earth wrre created, in the beginning, that could have been seconds, that could have been billions of years before. The age of the earth and the universe us irrelavant to the doctrine of creation. The time God created life is another matter entirely.

I see you are an eisegesic apologist. I only accept what is plainly written.

 

[miamited]

God has all of the answers to all of our questions. We just are not ready to understand. The answer is still to complicated for us. For example do you know what an Event Horizon is? God is a singularity and He is eternal. The world we live in is a duality and we are temporal. In the Bible we have sunrise and sunset. The beginning and the end of the day. There are other understandings and other interpretations but this is the one we need to understand if we want Scientific evidence for God.

True Science and a true translation and interpretation of the Bible are always going to agree. If Science and the Bible do not agree then someone does not understand. Either their Science is not true or the interpretation of the Bible is not accurate. Like the Universe itself there is an extreme mathematical accuracy to the Bible. People are starting to develop some very nice software on the computer to show that.

Science itself goes back to Abraham in the Bible. He was a Chaldean from the city of Ur. The ruins of that city are still there but it is a lot way from the water now. The Chaldean's were the first to use a base of 60. I was taught in college our system is a base of 12. But this is based on 5 times 12 or 60 beginning with the Chaldeans. Sixty seconds in a minute - 60 minute in a hour. Then you have the two 12 hour periods for a day. 12 hours of light, 12 hours of darkness on two days of the year on the equinox. This math goes back to the time of Abraham. Some people say this is based on the 3 digits of our 4 fingers for a total of 12. Or add the thumb and we have three digits of 5 for a total of 15, there are 15 min in a quarter hour. Both hands would be thirty or half an hour. This is very very simple math that a child can understand.

Matthew 11:25 "At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."

Hi joshua,

Well, I'm not wholly against science. I just have a different understanding than you of what the scientific method can prove and what it can't.

God bless,
ted