is creating with age deceptive?

[gluadys]

well with the fall things began to die -- thats a pretty noticeable change.

Where does the bible say that death was not a part of the cycle of plant and animal life before the fall? It only says that humans die because of sin. And all humans, including Adam and Eve, have died because of sin. So no big noticeable change.

and the Church has always interpreted these things to bring drastic changes.

Actually it hasn't always. The concept of drastic physical changes in the earth is fairly recent, rooted in the modern rise of young-earth creationism in the 1950s.

In the 19th century, old-earth creationists espoused catastrophism to explain geological ages, but those catastrophes all preceded the creation of humanity so were unrelated to the fall.

And prior to that both fall and flood were spoken of mostly in moral terms, not in terms of physical changes to the planet.

 

[jckstraw72]

St. John Chrysostom writes about how water was coming down from the firmament and up from below, reducing the earth to a similar condition of the first day of creation -- chaos. Both St. Basil and St. John go into what the firmament was and its purpose -- and many Fathers definitely commented on the physical conditions of the earth in creation and concerning the flood.

 

[archaeologist]

food for thought:

Investigating Origins

More on the Appearance of Galactic Age
Stephen Caesar, M.A.

One of the biggest controversies in the study of the origins of the universe is its age. If galaxies are billions of light-years away from us, then it took their light billions of years to reach us. (A light-year is a measure of DISTANCE, not time.) If the light emitted by these galaxies took billions of years to reach us, then the galaxies must, logically, be billions of years old. This argues strongly against the theory of a young universe.

This argument, however, runs into difficulty, given the fact that light and time are relative, as Einstein theorized a hundred years ago. Einstein postulated that if you were in a spaceship accelerating until it reached light speed, the closer it got to light speed the more slowly time would go by. When you reached light speed, time would stop for you. Einstein also theorized that gravity slowed down time. This relative nature of time was proved when two extremely accurate identical atomic clocks were placed one on a mountaintop and one in a deep pit. After several years, scientists discovered that, for the clock on the mountaintop (thus farther away from the Earth's center of gravity), time had passed more quickly than the gravity-heavy clock in the deep cave.

A reader of the science journal Discover expressed the confusion that this highly complicated subject engenders. In the Letters to the Editor of the March 2006 issue he wrote: "If the youthful galaxies located by the Galex telescope are 2 billion to 4 billion light-years from Earth but started forming less than 1 billion years ago, how can they be observed at all?" (p. 8). In other words, it should have taken the light from these 1-billion-year-old galaxies 2 to 4 billion years to reach us. The editors at Discover responded thus:
Your question cuts right to one of the trickiest problems in cosmology: how to refer to the timing of events when there are many different ways to describe them. The conventional solution is to describe everything from the way we perceive it. In this case, that means that when we say that the galaxies started forming less than a billion years ago, we mean that the galaxies AS WE SEE THEM TODAY appear to have started forming less than a billion years ago. Put another way, when their light started heading toward Earth 2 billion to 4 billion years ago, these objects were less than a billion years old. That convention may seem confusing, but the alternatives are even more puzzling. For instance, it would be more comprehensive to say that these galaxies, located 2 billion to 4 billion light-years from Earth, appear to have begun forming less than 3 billion to 5 billion years ago, and then their light spent 2 billion to 4 billion years traveling toward us. More comprehensive, yes, but even harder to follow! (Ibid. [emphasis original]). As can be seen, this issue is extremely complicated, and only further discoveries will help clear up the difficulty and make the whole thing a bit less confusing, especially to ordinary people.

Stephen Caesar holds his master's degree in anthropology/archaeology from Harvard. He is a staff member of Associates for Biblical Research

 

[jckstraw72]

Where does the bible say that death was not a part of the cycle of plant and animal life before the fall? It only says that humans die because of sin. And all humans, including Adam and Eve, have died because of sin. So no big noticeable change.

Paul tells us that by one man death came to the world -- he doesnt say to mankind, he says to the world.

also Paul tells us that all of creation is groaning and travailing, waiting for redemption -- this means all of creation is NOT the way it was meant to be. its not till after sin that God curses the ground.

 

[jckstraw72]

St. Symeon the New Theologian: "This whole creation in the beginning was incorrupt and was created by God in teh manner of Paradise. But later it was subjected by God to corruption, and submitted to the vanity of men." Homily 45:4

St. Basil the Great, commention on Genesis 1:29-30: "For the vultures were not yet looking over the earth at the very moment when the animals were born; in fact, nothing of what had received designation or existence had yet died so that the vultures might eat them." On the Origin of Man 2:6

St. John Chrysostom on Romans 8:19-22: "What means 'for the creature was made subject to vanity'? It became corruptible. Why, and by what cause? By your fault, O man. Because you received a body mortal and subject to sufferings, so the earth also was subject to a curse, and brought forth thorns and thistles."Homilies on Romans, Homily 14:5

 

[theIdi0t]

Paul tells us that by one man death came to the world -- he doesnt say to mankind, he says to the world.

So when Paul says the wages of sin is death, this mean he is speaking of temporal death? Or is he speaking of nontemporal death, a spiritual death a hell? If he using death as a stand in for hell, does this mean that animals go to hell as well?

this means all of creation is NOT the way it was meant to be. its not till after sin that God curses the ground.

If creation is not the way it was meant to be, answer this:

Did God desire for man to have Knowledge of good and bad?

 

[archaeologist]

i am going to post three sets of passages from established and credible sources which talk indepth on the subjectof creation. do they fit here? yes and no.

from the international standard bible encyclopedia:

4. the i.s.b.e. pg. 1281

1. CREATION AS ABIDING:​

Much negative ground has been cleared away for any modern discussion of​

the doctrine of creation. No idea of creation can now be taken as complete​

which does not include, besides the world as at first constituted, all that to​

this day is in and of creation. For God creates not being that can exist​

independently of Him, His preserving agency being inseparably connected​

with His creative power. We have long ceased to think of God’s creation​

as a machine left, completely made, to its own automatic working. With​

such a doctrine of creation, a theistic evolution would be quite​

incompatible.​

2. MISTAKEN IDEAS:​

Just as little do we think of God’s creative agency, as merely that of a First​

Cause, linked to the universe from the outside by innumerable sequences of​

causes and effects. Nature in her entirety is as much His creation today as​

she ever was. The dynamic ubiquity of God, as efficient energy, is to be​

affirmed. God is still All and in All, but this in a way sharply distinguished​

from pantheistic views, whether of the universe as God, or of God as the​

universe. Of His own freedom He creates, so that Gnostic theories of​

natural and necessary emanation are left far behind. Not only have the​

“carpenter” and the “gardener” theories — with, of course, the architect or​

world-builder theory of Plato — been dismissed; not only has the​

conception of evolution been proved harmonious with creative end, plan,​

purpose, ordering, guidance; but evolutionary science may itself be said to​

have given the thought of theistic evolution its best base or grounding. The​

theistic conception is, that the world — that all cosmic existences,​

substances, events — depend upon God.​

Pg. 1282

3. TRUE CONCEPTION:​

The doctrine of creation — of the origin and persistence, of all finite​

existences — as the work of God, is a necessary postulation of the​

religious consciousness. Such consciousness is marked by deeper insight​

than belongs to science. The underlying truth is the anti-patheistic one, that​

the energy and wisdom — by which that, which was not, became — were,​

in kind, other than its own. For science can but trace the continuity of​

sequences in all Nature, while in creation, in its primary sense, this law of​

continuity must be transcended, and the world viewed solely as product of​

Divine Intelligence, immanent in its evolution. For God is the Absolute​

Reason, always immanent in the developing universe. Apart from the​

cosmogonic attempts at the beginning of Genesis, which are clearly​

religious and ethical in scope and character, the Old Testament furnishes​

no theoretic account of the manner and order in which creative process is​

carried on.​

4. THE GENESIS COSMOGONY:​

The early chapters of Genesis were, of course, not given to reveal the​

truths of physical science, but they recognize creation as marked by order,​

continuity, law, plastic power of productiveness in the different kingdoms,​

unity of the world and progressive advance. The Genesis cosmogony​

teaches a process of becoming, as well as a creation (see EVOLUTION).​

That cosmogony has been recognized by Haeckel as meritoriously marked​

by the two great ideas of separation or differentiation, and of progressive​

development or perfecting of the originally simple matter. The Old​

Testament presents the conception of time-worlds or successive ages, but​

its real emphasis is on the energy of the Divine Word, bringing into being​

things that did not exi​

pg.1285-6

12. ERROR OF PANTHEISM:​

In this sense, its beginning may be said to be relative rather than absolute.​

God is always antecedent to the universe — its prius, Cause and Creator. It​

remains an effect, and sustains a relation of causal dependence upon Him.​

If we say, like Cousin, that God of necessity creates eternally, we run risk​

of falling into Spinozistic pantheism, identifying God, in excluding from​

Him absolute freedom in creation, with the impersonal and unconscious​

substance of the universe. Or if, with Schelling, we posit in God something​

which is not God — a dark, irrational background, which original ground​

is also the ground of the Divine Existence — we may try to find a basis for​

the matter of the universe, but we are in danger of being merged — by​

conceptions tinged with corporeity — in that form of pantheism to which​

God is but the soul of the universe.​

The universe, we feel sure, has been caused; its existence must have some​

ground; even if we held a philosophy so idealistic as to make the scheme of​

created things one grand illusion, an illusion so vast would still call for​

some explanatory Cause. Even if we are not content with the conception of​

a First Cause, acting on the world from without and antecedently in time,​

we are not yet freed from the necessity of asserting a Cause. An underlying​

and determining Cause of the universe would still need to be postulated as​

its Ground.​

13. FIRST CAUSE A NECESSARY PRESUPPOSITION:​

Even a universe held to be eternal would need to be accounted for — we​

should still have to ask how such a universe came to be. Its endless​

movement must have direction and character imparted to it from some​

immanent ground or underlying cause. Such a self-existent and eternal​

World-Ground or First Cause is, by an inexorable law of thought, the​

necessary correlate of the finitude, or contingent character of the world.​

God and the world are not to be taken simply as cause and effect, for​

modern metaphysical thought is not content with such a mere ens extramundanum​

for the Ground of all possible experience. God, self-existent​

Cause of the ever-present world and its phenomena, is the ultimate Ground​

of the possibility of all that is.​

 

[archaeologist]

from keil & delitzsch:

Keil & delitzsch pg. 6

The account of the creation, its commencement, progress, and completion,


bears the marks, both in form and substance, of a historical document in


which it is intended that we should accept as actual truth, not only the


assertion that God created the heavens, and the earth, and all that lives and


moves in the world, but also the description of the creation itself in all its


several stages. If we look merely at the form of this document, its place at


the beginning of the book of Genesis is sufficient to warrant the


expectation that it will give us history, and not fiction, or human


speculation. As the development of the human family has been from the


first a historical fact, and as man really occupies that place in the world


which this record assigns him, the creation of man, as well as that of the


earth on which, and the heaven for which, he is to live, must also be a work


of God, i.e., a fact of objective truth and reality.


The grand simplicity of the account is in perfect harmony with the fact.


“The whole narrative is sober, definite, clear, and concrete. The


historical events described contain a rich treasury of speculative


thoughts and poetical glory; but they themselves are free from the


influence of human invention and human philosophizing”


(Delitzsch)


Moreover, if the division of the work of


creation into so many days had been the result of human reflection; the


creation of man, who was appointed lord of the earth, would certainly not


have been assigned to the same day as that of the beasts and reptiles, but


would have been kept distinct from the creation of the beasts, and allotted


to the seventh day, in which the creation was completed-a meaning which


Richers and Keerl have actually tried to force upon the text of the Bible. In


the different acts of creation we perceive indeed an evident progress from


the general to the particular, from the lower to the higher orders of


creatures, or rather a steady advance towards more and more concrete


forms. But on the fourth day this progress is interrupted in a way which we


cannot explain. In the transition from the creation of the plants to that of


sun, moon, and stars, it is impossible to discover either a “well-arranged


and constant progress,” or “a genetic advance,” since the stars are not


intermediate links between plants and animals, and, in fact, have no place at


all in the scale of earthly creatures.


In contrast with all these mythical inventions, the biblical account shines


out in the clear light of truth, and proves itself by its contents to be an


integral part of the revealed history, of which it is accepted as the pedestal


throughout the whole of the sacred Scriptures. This is not the case with the


Old Testament only; but in the New Testament also it is accepted and


taught by Christ and the apostles as the basis of the divine revelation. The


select only a few from the many passages of the Old and New Testaments,


in which God is referred to as the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and


the almighty operations of the living God in the world are based upon the


7


fact of its creation: In Exodus 20:9-11; 31:12-17, the command to keep the


Sabbath is founded upon the fact that God rested on the seventh day, when


the work of creation was complete; and in Psalm 8 and 104, the creation is


depicted as a work of divine omnipotence in close adherence to the


narrative before us. From the creation of man, as described in Genesis 1:27


and 2:24, Christ demonstrates the indissoluble character of marriage as a


divine ordinance (Matthew 19:4-6); Peter speaks of the earth as standing


out of the water and in the water by the word of God (2 Peter 3:5); and the


author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, “starting from Genesis 2:2, describes


it as the motive principle of all history, that the Sabbath of God is to


become the Sabbath of the creature” (Delitzsch).


The biblical account of the creation can also vindicate its claim to be true


and actual history, in the presence of the doctrines of philosophy and the


established results of natural science. So long, indeed, as philosophy


undertakes to construct the universe from general ideas, it will be utterly


unable to comprehend the creation; but ideas will never explain the


existence of things. Creation is an act of the personal God, not a process of


nature, the development of which can be traced to the laws of birth and


decay that prevail in the created world. But the work of God, as described


in the history of creation, is in perfect harmony with the correct notions of


divine omnipotence, wisdom and goodness. The assertion, so frequently


made, that the course of the creation takes its form from the Hebrew week,


which was already in existence, and the idea of God’s resting on the


seventh day, from the institution of the Hebrew Sabbath, is entirely without


foundation.


There is no allusion in Genesis 2:2-3 to the Sabbath of the Israelites; and


the week of seven days is older than the Sabbath of the Jewish covenant.


Natural research, again, will never explain the origin of the universe, or


even of the earth; for the creation lies beyond the limits of the territory


within its reach. By all modest naturalists, therefore, it is assumed that the


origin of matter, or of the original material of the world, was due to an act


of divine creation. But there is no firm ground for the conclusion which


they draw, on the basis of this assumption, with regard to the formation or


development of the world from its first chaotic condition into a fit abode


for man. All the theories which have been adopted, from Descartes to the


present day, are not the simple and well-established inductions of natural


science founded upon careful observation, but combinations of partial


8


discoveries empirically made, with speculative ideas of very questionable


worth

continued next post...​

 

[archaeologist]

K & D continued...

Pg. 11

But if the biblical account of the creation has full claim to be regarded as​

historical truth, the question arises, whence it was obtained. The opinion​

that the Israelites drew it from the cosmogony of this or the other ancient​

people, and altered it according to their own religious ideas, will need no​

further refutation, after what we have said respecting the cosmogonies of​

other nations. Whence then did Israel obtain a pure knowledge of God,​

such as we cannot find in any heathen nation, or in the most celebrated of​

the wise men of antiquity, if not from divine revelation? This is the source​

from which the biblical account of the creation springs. God revealed it to​

men-not first to Moses or Abraham, but undoubtedly to the first men, since​

without this revelation they could not have understood either their relation​

to God or their true position in the world. The account contained in​

Genesis does not lie, as Hofmann says, “within that sphere which was open​

to man through his historical nature, so that it may be regarded as the​

utterance of the knowledge possessed by the first man of things which​

preceded his own existence, and which he might possess, without needing​

any special revelation, if only the present condition of the world lay clear​

and transparent before him.”​

By simple intuition the first man might discern what nature had effected,​

viz., the existing condition of the world, and possibly also its causality, but​

not the fact that it was created in six days, or the successive acts of​

creation, and the sanctification of the seventh day. Our record contains not​

merely religious truth transformed into history, but the true and actual​

history of a work of God, which preceded the existence of man, and to​

which he owes his existence. Of this work he could only have obtained his​

knowledge through divine revelation, by the direct instruction of God. Nor​

could he have obtained it by means of a vision. The seven days’ works are​

not so many “prophetico-historical tableaux,” which were spread before​

the mental eye of the seer, whether of the historian or the first man. The​

account before us does not contain the slightest marks of a vision, is no​

picture of creation, in which every line betrays the pencil of a painter rather​

than the pen of a historian, but is obviously a historical narrative, which we​

could no more transform into a vision than the account of paradise or of​

the fall.​

​

Pg. 12​

As God revealed Himself to the first man not in visions, but by coming to​

him in a visible form, teaching him His will, and then after his fall​

announcing the punishment (Genesis 2:16-17; 3:9ff.); as He talked with​

Moses “face to face, as a man with his friend,” “mouth to mouth,” not in​

vision or dream: so does the written account of the Old Testament​

revelation commence, not with visions, but with actual history. The manner​

in which God instructed the first men with reference to the creation must​

be judged according to the intercourse carried on by Him, as Creator and​

Father, with these His creatures and children. What God revealed to them​

upon this subject, they transmitted to their children and descendants,​

together with everything of significance and worth that they had​

experienced and discovered for themselves. This tradition was kept in​

faithful remembrance by the family of the godly; and even in the confusion​

of tongues it was not changed in its substance, but simply transferred into​

the new form of the language spoken by the Semitic tribes, and thus​

handed down from generation to generation along with the knowledge and​

worship of the true God, until it became through Abraham the spiritual​

inheritance of the chosen race. Nothing certain can be decided as to the​

period when it was committed to writing; probably some time before​

Moses, who inserted it as a written record in the Thorah of Israel.​

 

[archaeologist]

Edersheim- bible history
Pg18

Four great truths, which have their bearing on every part of revelation,​

come to us from the earliest Scripture narrative, like the four rivers which​

sprung in the garden of Eden. The first of these truths is — the creation of​

all things by the word of God’s power; the second, the descent of all men​

from our common parents, Adam and Eve; the third, our connection with​

Adam as the head of the human race, through which all mankind were​

involved in his sin and fall; and the fourth, that One descended from Adam,​

yet without his sin, should by suffering free us from the consequences of the​

fall, and as the second Adam became the Author of eternal salvation to all​

who trust in Him. To these four vital truths there might be added, as a​

fifth, the institution of one day in seven to be a day of holy rest unto God.​

It is scarcely possible to imagine a greater contrast than between the​

heathen accounts of the origin of all things and the scriptural narrative. The​

former are so full of the grossly absurd that no one could regard them as​

other than fables; while the latter is so simple, and yet so full of majesty,​

as almost to force us to “worship and bow down,” and to “kneel before​

the Lord our Maker.” And as this was indeed the object in view, and not​

scientific instruction, far less the gratification of our curiosity, we must​

expect to find in the first chapter of Genesis simply the grand outlines of​

what took place, and not any details connected with creation. On these​

points there is ample room for such information as science may be able to​

supply, when once it shall have carefully selected and sifted all that can be​

learned from the study of earth and of nature. That time, however, has not​

20​

yet arrived; and we ought, therefore, to be on our guard against the rash​

and unwarranted statements which have sometimes been brought forward​

on these subjects. Scripture places before us the successive creation of all​

things, so to speak, in an ascending scale, till at last we come to that of​

man, the chief of God’s works, and whom his Maker destined to be lord of​

all. (<190803>Psalm 8:3-8) Some have imagined that the six days of creation​

represent so many periods, rather than literal days, chiefly on the ground​

of the supposed high antiquity of our globe, and the various great epochs​

or periods, each terminating in a grand revolution, through which our earth​

seems to have passed, before coming to its present state, when it became a​

fit habitation for man. There is, however, no need to resort to any such​

theory. The first verse in the book of Genesis simply states the general​

fact, that “In the beginning” — whenever that may have been — “God​

created the heaven and the earth.” Then, in the second verse, we find earth​

described as it was at the close of the last great revolution, preceding the​

present state of things: “And the earth was without form and void; and​

darkness was upon the face of the deep.” An almost indefinite space of​

time, and many changes, may therefore have intervened between the​

creation of heaven and earth, as mentioned in ver. 1, and the chaotic state​

of our earth, as described in ver. 2. As for the exact date of the first​

creation, it may be safely affirmed that we have not yet the knowledge​

sufficient to arrive at any really trustworthy conclusion.​

Pg. 20-21

It is of far greater importance for us, however, to know that God “created​

all things by Jesus Christ;” (<490309>Ephesians 3:9) and further, that “all things​

were created by Him, and for Him,” (<510116>Colossians 1:16) and that “of Him,​

and through Him, and to Him are all things.” (<451136>Romans 11:36. See also​

<460806>1 Corinthians 8:6; <580102>Hebrews 1:2; <430103>John 1:3) This gives not only​

unity to all creation, but places it in living connection with our Lord Jesus​

Christ. At the same time we should also always bear in mind, that it is​

“through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of​

God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do​

appear.” (<581103>Hebrews 11:3)​

Everything as it proceeded from the hand of God was “very good,”fb1 that​

is, perfect to answer the purpose for which it had been destined. “And on​

the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested​

on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. And God​

21​

blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested​

from all His work which God created and made.” It is upon this original​

institution of the Sabbath as a day of holy rest that our observance of the​

Lord’s day is finally based, the change in the precise day — from the​

seventh to the first of the week — having been occasioned by the​

resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which not only the first, but also​

the new creation was finally completed. (See <236517>Isaiah 65:17​

​

​

 

[seekingmyLord]

I assume that this time, when you say old Earthers, you are also lumping TEs into this term, but I notice you accuse us of cherry-picking. Now, I can present numerous bits of evidence that YECs here do not have a response for, and YEC websites do not cover, but I will ask you what evidence do you think the TE is overlooking in his cherry-picking. Most of the TEs here are quite familiar with all the nuances of the YEC position, but many of the YECs here do not even possess some of the basic understandings of evolution.

TEs in this forum are not silent, you'll find several of them willing to go the mile for one inquiring YEC who wants to understand and question the TE position on Genesis and Science. Not a single YEC thread will go by with multiple responses from the TEs here. But there have been numerous TE threads, where the YEC voice is silent, or scarce. In fact most of the creationist here have locked themselves into their subforum, and banned TEs from posting there, while we have opened our subforums to all, and to all questions. A good sign of a cherry-picker is one who hides, when confronted with the cherries he forgot to pick.

I don't believe in evolution, I accept evolution, I have nothing to gain by cherry picking, I have no ulterior motivations to do so. But it is fine that you accuse us of such, but it is required that you tell us what we are ignoring, or failing to look at?

We have no qualms in confronting our theology or our science, and you are more than welcome to ask away. What you will find is that not a single question you ask, will go by unanswered, and not a single cherry is left unpicked.

Again, I will not argue the evidence. All that the arguments about evidence does for me is raise more questions that are not answered with evidence because the evidence does not exist, accept in the minds of men who just want it to be there. Been there, done that, don't need to repeat it.

I don't know what the other YECs have done before I came here, but I think your conclusions about them creating their own subforum could be assumptive based on your perspective. They could also have simply stepped away from the arguing. You see, my focus is not to make anyone believe or accept what I have chosen to believe nor to be convinced of what you believe. It is simply to try to understand why people feel the need so strongly to prove the other sides wrong in the issue of creation.

Why accusations of bearing a false witness against God, questions asking if God was being deceptive, and other such things that are so strongly worded and rather disrespectful within the body of Christ. I just don't get why it has come to such a successful instrument of accusation, dissension, and deep division within the church all in the name of God. Most importantly, I cannot see how this behavior could be pleasing to God.

Why can't we all just admit the real truth: We really just don't know, so whatever you and I choose to believe is simply that, our choice.

(Now, I suppose someone is going make the argument that we do know because science has provided all the answers. If science did provide all the answers to my questions with cold hard evidence, I would alter my beliefs, but I have been there, done that, for over thirty years and there still are just too many gaps for me to accept it as absolute.)

 

[busterdog]

Again, I will not argue the evidence. All that the arguments about evidence does for me is raise more questions that are not answered with evidence because the evidence does not exist, accept in the minds of men who just want it to be there. Been there, done that, don't need to repeat it.

I don't know what the other YECs have done before I came here, but I think your conclusions about them creating their own subforum could be assumptive based on your perspective. They could also have simply stepped away from the arguing. You see, my focus is not to make anyone believe or accept what I have chosen to believe nor to be convinced of what you believe. It is simply to try to understand why people feel the need so strongly to prove the other sides wrong in the issue of creation.

Why accusations of bearing a false witness against God, questions asking if God was being deceptive, and other such things that are so strongly worded and rather disrespectful within the body of Christ. I just don't get why it has come to such a successful instrument of accusation, dissension, and deep division within the church all in the name of God. Most importantly, I cannot see how this behavior could be pleasing to God.

Why can't we all just admit the real truth: We really just don't know, so whatever you and I choose to believe is simply that, our choice.

(Now, I suppose someone is going make the argument that we do know because science has provided all the answers. If science did provide all the answers to my questions with cold hard evidence, I would alter my beliefs, but I have been there, done that, for over thirty years and there still are just too many gaps for me to accept it as absolute.)

Amen.

 

[crawfish]

It is simply to try to understand why people feel the need so strongly to prove the other sides wrong in the issue of creation.

Why accusations of bearing a false witness against God, questions asking if God was being deceptive, and other such things that are so strongly worded and rather disrespectful within the body of Christ. I just don't get why it has come to such a successful instrument of accusation, dissension, and deep division within the church all in the name of God. Most importantly, I cannot see how this behavior could be pleasing to God.

Why can't we all just admit the real truth: We really just don't know, so whatever you and I choose to believe is simply that, our choice.

I can only speak of this personally, but I have absolutely no desire to convince YEC's that my version of creation is true. I have said before and will say again, it has no bearing on one's salvation, and I believe that God will hold true faith as a credit to the person even if that faith happens to be somewhat misguided (in this area, at least).

Why am I here? To learn. To share. To discuss. While this subject isn't important to salvation, it IS a stumbling block to many a potential believer. If we - I - can provide an view that keeps the purity of scripture but removes this stumbling block, then there is a good purpose to this discussion. I should add that I work/socialize with a large number of people who are atheist/agnostic and who are scientifically oriented. To try and sell them creationism as a hard requirement for faith would be to lose all influence with them. I will shine my light as a man of faith AND reason - I believe with all my heart that this is what God has sent me to do.

Also - I don't think discussions like this are displeasing to God. Where it becomes displeasing is when the nastiness sets in - where we try and divide ourselves by our beliefs, and ridicule others for theirs. Arguing is a simple necessity - because otherwise, we refuse to change as necessary and we stagnate. Conflict is like the spoon that stirs the dough, keeping it from setting.

 

[crawfish]

food for thought:

Investigating Origins

More on the Appearance of Galactic Age
Stephen Caesar, M.A.

One of the biggest controversies in the study of the origins of the universe is its age. If galaxies are billions of light-years away from us, then it took their light billions of years to reach us. (A light-year is a measure of DISTANCE, not time.) If the light emitted by these galaxies took billions of years to reach us, then the galaxies must, logically, be billions of years old. This argues strongly against the theory of a young universe.

This argument, however, runs into difficulty, given the fact that light and time are relative, as Einstein theorized a hundred years ago. Einstein postulated that if you were in a spaceship accelerating until it reached light speed, the closer it got to light speed the more slowly time would go by. When you reached light speed, time would stop for you. Einstein also theorized that gravity slowed down time. This relative nature of time was proved when two extremely accurate identical atomic clocks were placed one on a mountaintop and one in a deep pit. After several years, scientists discovered that, for the clock on the mountaintop (thus farther away from the Earth's center of gravity), time had passed more quickly than the gravity-heavy clock in the deep cave.

A reader of the science journal Discover expressed the confusion that this highly complicated subject engenders. In the Letters to the Editor of the March 2006 issue he wrote: "If the youthful galaxies located by the Galex telescope are 2 billion to 4 billion light-years from Earth but started forming less than 1 billion years ago, how can they be observed at all?" (p. 8). In other words, it should have taken the light from these 1-billion-year-old galaxies 2 to 4 billion years to reach us. The editors at Discover responded thus:
Your question cuts right to one of the trickiest problems in cosmology: how to refer to the timing of events when there are many different ways to describe them. The conventional solution is to describe everything from the way we perceive it. In this case, that means that when we say that the galaxies started forming less than a billion years ago, we mean that the galaxies AS WE SEE THEM TODAY appear to have started forming less than a billion years ago. Put another way, when their light started heading toward Earth 2 billion to 4 billion years ago, these objects were less than a billion years old. That convention may seem confusing, but the alternatives are even more puzzling. For instance, it would be more comprehensive to say that these galaxies, located 2 billion to 4 billion light-years from Earth, appear to have begun forming less than 3 billion to 5 billion years ago, and then their light spent 2 billion to 4 billion years traveling toward us. More comprehensive, yes, but even harder to follow! (Ibid. [emphasis original]). As can be seen, this issue is extremely complicated, and only further discoveries will help clear up the difficulty and make the whole thing a bit less confusing, especially to ordinary people.

Stephen Caesar holds his master's degree in anthropology/archaeology from Harvard. He is a staff member of Associates for Biblical Research

The response was right on - what we're seeing is a glimpse into the far past. I mentioned a supernova that may happen in a star 7500 light years away any day now; but the truth is (if it does occur) that it happened 7500 years ago; we are just seeing it today.

A light-year is a measure of distance, that is true; but since the speed of light is constant, when you're evaluating light, it becomes usable for both distance AND time.

 

[gluadys]

(Now, I suppose someone is going make the argument that we do know because science has provided all the answers. If science did provide all the answers to my questions with cold hard evidence, I would alter my beliefs, but I have been there, done that, for over thirty years and there still are just too many gaps for me to accept it as absolute.)

No one who knows science would make the argument that science has provided all the answers---not even all the scientific answers much less any other kind.

So maybe that is your problem. You are looking for an absolute. Science is not and cannot be that absolute. Is that the fault of science? Or are you just looking in the wrong place?

What puzzles me is why people want science to be an absolute and are so disappointed when they find it is not that they end up taking anti-science positions. Why this creationist longing for science to be what it is not and cannot be?

 

[seekingmyLord]

I can only speak of this personally, but I have absolutely no desire to convince YEC's that my version of creation is true. I have said before and will say again, it has no bearing on one's salvation, and I believe that God will hold true faith as a credit to the person even if that faith happens to be somewhat misguided (in this area, at least).

Why am I here? To learn. To share. To discuss. While this subject isn't important to salvation, it IS a stumbling block to many a potential believer. If we - I - can provide an view that keeps the purity of scripture but removes this stumbling block, then there is a good purpose to this discussion. I should add that I work/socialize with a large number of people who are atheist/agnostic and who are scientifically oriented. To try and sell them creationism as a hard requirement for faith would be to lose all influence with them. I will shine my light as a man of faith AND reason - I believe with all my heart that this is what God has sent me to do.

Also - I don't think discussions like this are displeasing to God. Where it becomes displeasing is when the nastiness sets in - where we try and divide ourselves by our beliefs, and ridicule others for theirs. Arguing is a simple necessity - because otherwise, we refuse to change as necessary and we stagnate. Conflict is like the spoon that stirs the dough, keeping it from setting.

Not bad. I am impressed with your response, however that "stumbling block" does equate to fellow Christians and their YEC beliefs. How can one remove it without also removing them? As for the part I made bold, isn't that typically what does happen? And if so, are we not then creating stumbling blocks for fellow Christians?

If you are hoping to stir in the different ingredients into a dough, those ingredients need to bind together, not be torn apart. Although there is probably enough heat for the baking, I don't believe this subject is binding the church together, from what I have observed over the years.

 

[seekingmyLord]

No one who knows science would make the argument that science has provided all the answers---not even all the scientific answers much less any other kind.

So maybe that is your problem. You are looking for an absolute. Science is not and cannot be that absolute. Is that the fault of science? Or are you just looking in the wrong place?

What puzzles me is why people want science to be an absolute and are so disappointed when they find it is not that they end up taking anti-science positions. Why this creationist longing for science to be what it is not and cannot be?

I am not sure that I have a problem, I have an opinion that might differ from yours. If you perceive that as a problem, you are stating my case.

Actually, I am in agreement with what you are saying, just probably not the same way you mean it. And I am certainly not anti-science. I just know, from first hand experience, that the politics of science gets in the way of the purity of it.

 

[Mallon]

Let me ask you, does it really concern you more that there might be an abuse of the word "science" or that Christians (oh, and for the record, Christianity is not the only religion to believe in a YEC) look stupid to the people who believe science's explanation is more believable than God creating the world?

What concerns me more is the reaction of non-believers when they see people like Ken Ham abusing science in an effort to win converts. Institutions like AiG ground their brand of Christianity in a literal reading of Genesis, and offer it up as though it agrees with the latest in cutting-edge science. But the non-believers can see right through that. They visit Ham's new house of wax and see that his is just the same old fundamentalist creationism repackaged with a pretty pink bow. And then they prematurely label all Christians as uneducated fools (and who can blame them when YECs so often tout themselves as the only uncompromising "true" Christians?). In short, the unbelievers feel they must become stupid to become Christian, and I think it's an unwarranted shame. I think the focus of Christianity should be placed back squarely on the grace of Christ (the Gospel), rather than on a particular interpretation of a single book of the Bible.

 

[crawfish]

Not bad. I am impressed with your response, however that "stumbling block" does equate to fellow Christians and their YEC beliefs. How can one remove it without also removing them? As for the part I made bold, isn't that typically what does happen? And if so, are we not then creating stumbling blocks for fellow Christians?

If you are hoping to stir in the different ingredients into a dough, those ingredients need to bind together, not be torn apart. Although there is probably enough heat for the baking, I don't believe this subject is binding the church together, from what I have observed over the years.

I am more worried about putting up stumbling blocks to those that have not yet acquired their faith as opposed to those that already have faith. If my belief in a non-literal Genesis causes someone to fall, then their faith wasn't strong enough to begin with.

There are plenty of stumbling blocks worse than this. Are you going to tell Calvinists and Armenians that we need to pick one side and quit arguing? Are you going to tell all the various denominations to pick one way to preach salvation and give up their various biases? Are you going to tell Protestants to go ahead and submit to the Catholic authority so we'll no longer be split?

The strongest reason that I won't shut up is that I believe in my heart that in the end, we'll all be moved from the belief in a literal Genesis creation by sheer force of evidence. When this happens, will Ken Ham and the creationists who believe that "a false Genesis means a false Christianity" all fall away from Christ? It is my belief that God has called some of us to look to the future, so that His people will have a place to go when it becomes impossible to believe otherwise. Like Luther and Galileo, sometimes conflict must arise before the truth can go forward.

 

[seekingmyLord]

What concerns me more is the reaction of non-believers when they see people like Ken Ham abusing science in an effort to win converts. Institutions like AiG ground their brand of Christianity in a literal reading of Genesis, and offer it up as though it agrees with the latest in cutting-edge science. But the non-believers can see right through that. They visit Ham's new house of wax and see that his is just the same old fundamentalist creationism repackaged with a pretty pink bow. And then they prematurely label all Christians as uneducated fools (and who can blame them when YECs so often tout themselves as the only uncompromising "true" Christians?). In short, the unbelievers feel they must become stupid to become Christian, and I think it's an unwarranted shame. I think the focus of Christianity should be placed back squarely on the grace of Christ (the Gospel), rather than on a particular interpretation of a single book of the Bible.

I understand what you are saying, although I respectfully disagree with the term of abusing science. On the other hand, science does have quite a history of those who have abused that were learned men.

Not sure that we must appear "intelligent" by the world's standards for people to accept Jesus as the Saviour of the world, but if that is the only way it works for you, I am not your judge.

The question in regards to Ken Ham's work is one that we all should bring before the Lord. Perhaps God has a specific purpose for it. . . for His ways are not our ways. Perhaps it is attractive to people of other YEC religions. You see, I trust God to do with it what He wills and that whether it is science or science-fiction, it can and I believe it will be used by God, if those involved have their hearts in the right place.