Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[AveChristusRex]

But scripture never says what that delusion is. That it's about the apparent/embedded age of the universe and/or earth is an assumption on your part, but is nowhere in scripture.

Nor does it say that Christ specifically descended into hell, yet that is a primary belief of Luther himself (Luther spoke of Christ’s descent into hell and quoted Ps. 16:10 in an April 1533 Easter sermon at Torgau), moreover the Formula of Concord also states that “We simply believe that the entire person [Jesus Christ], God and man, descended into hell after the burial, conquered the devil, destroyed hell’s power, and took from the devil all his might” (Solid Declaration, Art. IX), yet this is stated nowhere in scripture, it is an analyzation of the soteriology the scripture speaks of, but is stated nowhere directly. It can be, then, that embedded age is not specifically stated by is an analyzation of the creation the scripture speaks of, no?

 

[truthpls]

I never said testing can only include the natural.

That is all science covers. So what else aside from science are you talking about?

Testing = If you do A, you reliably get B as the result.

Science can only do the natural. Therefore no creation explaining result is possible

A always leads to B, and B only happens after A.

Science only covers the natural. No other letters.

This will work just fine with the supernatural.

Like you tried it? How much does Casper weigh?

 

[AV1611VET]

You can't have age without history. No matter how much you try and think you're making a point about it, it's still wrong.

Thanks for the QED.

 

[AV1611VET]

Embedded history. How does that work for you?

Thanks for the QED.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If God is not deceptive in regards to the wine of Cana, why then with creation? Is it because we only studied the world, and not the wine? Why not both of them being non-deceptive and our understanding of them being the deception itself?

Because wine is wine (or in AV's version, grape juice), and the Earth is the Earth. One will only last a day and thus be no consequence to anything and anyone, while the other is the planet we live on and impacts... heck, everything!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thanks for the QED.

QED all you want until you OD, AV. You're still putting God to be a deceiver, and I call that blasphemy.

 

[River Jordan]

Nor does it say that Christ specifically descended into hell, yet that is a primary belief of Luther himself (Luther spoke of Christ’s descent into hell and quoted Ps. 16:10 in an April 1533 Easter sermon at Torgau), moreover the Formula of Concord also states that “We simply believe that the entire person [Jesus Christ], God and man, descended into hell after the burial, conquered the devil, destroyed hell’s power, and took from the devil all his might” (Solid Declaration, Art. IX), yet this is stated nowhere in scripture, it is an analyzation of the soteriology the scripture speaks of, but is stated nowhere directly. It can be, then, that embedded age is not specifically stated by is an analyzation of the creation the scripture speaks of, no?

You're basically arguing that since Biblical scholars and leaders have inferred and extrapolated some things from scripture, then you're free to make up anything you like.

The difference though is that "Jesus", "hell", and Jesus being dead for days are all in the Bible. Unfortunately for you there isn't a single mention of fossils in the Bible anywhere, let alone any hint of God creating them or even creating them in a deliberately deceptive manner. IOW, it's made up out of whole cloth.

 

[dlamberth]

If God is not deceptive in regards to the wine of Cana, why then with creation? Is it because we only studied the world, and not the wine? Why not both of them being non-deceptive and our understanding of them being the deception itself?

We can't go back and test the wine to verify the story. As far as I'm concerned it's just a story that as to be taken on faith. But the Earth is right there for us to examine. It's so close we even walk on it. When the Earth tests out as old, which it does, but believers say God made it to look old but it's really young, I don't see how is anything less than painting God as a deceptor. There's no comparison with the wine story and with what the Earth is showing us.

 

[AveChristusRex]

You're basically arguing that since Biblical scholars and leaders have inferred and extrapolated some things from scripture, then you're free to make up anything you like.

The difference though is that "Jesus", "hell", and Jesus being dead for days are all in the Bible. Unfortunately for you there isn't a single mention of fossils in the Bible anywhere, let alone any hint of God creating them or even creating them in a deliberately deceptive manner. IOW, it's made up out of whole cloth.

Deuteronomy 29:29: "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever." Do you think that God is restricted by time? Here are the facts as we know them from the Scriptures:

• According to Genesis 1–2, Adam and Eve were created as mature adults, not as infants.
• Stars were visible to Adam and Eve despite their light taking years to travel to Earth (Genesis 1:14–15).
• Ecosystems, rivers, and plants were fully formed and ready to sustain life (Genesis 2:10–12).
• Genesis 2:9 states that God created trees that were already bearing fruit, implying they appeared to have grown over time, even though they were created instantly.

And some you may dismiss:

• The transformation of water into wine at Cana (John 2:1–11) produced wine that appeared aged and suitable for immediate consumption.
• The multiplication of loaves and fish (Matthew 14:13–21) created food that appeared to have been processed and prepared.

I don't understand this claim that it is "deceptive," as on one hand you claim that there is no biblical proof of either position, yet claim God is deceptive, where did he state that the earth was not made old? If he directly stated that, then it is true that God is being deceptive and the argument fails, but if not, then where are you basing this "deception" off of? God’s creation is beyond human comprehension (Job 38–39), so if Genesis gives an account of visible stars, fully formed ecosystems, trees bearing fruit, and mature humans immediate upon their creation, and moreover the aged wine of Cana and prepared loves and fish of the 5,000, where is this deception?

 

[dlamberth]

Well, if we were to take the story as factual, as we know God can work miracles, then what? We are constricting God by saying that He (the Father) must abide inside time

Isn't His physical Creation inside of time? When the Geologist walks up to a volcano to study it's history, isn't that person looking at change of the mountain through the lens of time? We aren't constriciting God. It's the physical aspect of Creation itSelf that's bound to the Laws that God put on it. One of which is change. And change operates inside of time. And that's what the geologist is looking at as they study the Earth.

 

[AveChristusRex]

Isn't His physical Creation inside of time? When the Geologist walks up to a volcano to study it's history, isn't that person looking at change of the mountain through the lens of time? We aren't constriciting God. It's the physical aspect of Creation itSelf that's bound to the Laws that God put on it. One of which is change. And change operates inside of time. And that's what the geologist is looking at as they study the Earth.

'physical creation' maybe, but the creation of such creation does not have to be bound by time.

 

[dlamberth]

'physical creation' maybe, but the creation of such creation does not have to be bound by time.

At what point than do we not trust God's Creation and what the Earth is telling us about itSelf?

 

[AveChristusRex]

At what point than do we not trust God's Creation and what the Earth is telling us about itSelf?

What do you mean? Why is it that the idea of the world appearing old is untrustworthy? Would you not eat the bearing fruit given in Eden because it did not attest to a natural inception? We say God works in mysterious ways for a reason

 

[BCP1928]

What do you mean? Why is it that the idea of the world appearing old is untrustworthy? Would you not eat the bearing fruit given in Eden because it did not attest to a natural inception? We say God works in mysterious ways for a reason

The thing is, nobody can give a convincing reason for it. There is no hint of it in Scripture and it seems to serve no purpose in what we know of the plan of salvation. It just looks like a gimmick made up to defend the young-Earthers' reading of Genesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

The thing is, nobody can give a convincing reason for it.

What would you accept as a "convincing reason"?

Suppose you wanted to bring a son into the world ex materia, and wanted him to be mature enough to run your corporation the day you created him?

Would you create him mature and without a history?

 

[BCP1928]

What would you accept as a "convincing reason"?

Suppose you wanted to bring a son into the world ex materia, and wanted him to be mature enough to run your corporation the day you created him?

Would you create him mature and without a history?

If I was an eternally existing father I might have thought of it sooner,

 

[AV1611VET]

If I was an eternally existing father I might have thought of it sooner,

So that's a YES?

 

[BCP1928]

So that's a YES?

Sure, it's possible. It just seems weird, because it doesn't serve any purpose,

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure, it's possible. It just seems weird, because it doesn't serve any purpose,

Did you understand the question?

 

[dlamberth]

What do you mean? Why is it that the idea of the world appearing old is untrustworthy?

"Appearing" old and "being" old are two different things. If a volcano appears old, is it really old? What are we to trust here? How far do we take it? Is "Existence" old, or not?

It just that I feel I'm being told that it's OK to paint God capable of deception. You have even invoked Scripture to back up the perspective. And here is where we depart. The God I know, the One I pray to, God is not capable of anything like that. His Divine Nature won't allow it. To me, it would be like saying God is capable of Sin. That's pretty stern, I know. But that's the same approach I take when it comes to the Earth when the idea of Embedded Age comes up. And as much as AV corrects me, because everything in the Earth has history, I have to include "embedded History" as well.