God did not create from nothing

AV1611VET · Thursday at 11:08 AM

Hans Blaster said:
It seem to fall into the category of "whatever gets you through the night" (John Lennon said that.)

it's alright, it's alright.

Ya -- I sat all through science class listening to the Muzak too.

Now I wonder why I don't understand anything.

2PhiloVoid · Thursday at 11:10 AM

AV1611VET said:
Literal

Ok. Then with that in mind, can you help me understand what the step by step process for proper biblical exegesis should be so someone like myself can arrive at the same conclusions you do? My question isn't pertaining to issues of science so much as to how to understand the entire Bible and thereby have the right Christian beliefs.

AV1611VET · Thursday at 11:15 AM

partinobodycular said:
Yeah, I know that's it's tough to abandon a claim that you've clung to so vehemently for umpteen years now. But admit it, you're a YEC. You'll just have to find a less confrontational way to explain to people that young doesn't always mean young.

Listening to you is like playing Simon.

YEC ... then Last Thursday ... then Apparent Age ... then Simulation ... now back to YEC.

AV1611VET · Thursday at 11:19 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
Ok. Then with that in mind, can you help me understand what the step by step process for proper biblical exegesis should be so someone like myself can arrive at the same conclusions you do? My question isn't pertaining to issues of science so much as to how to understand the entire Bible and thereby have the right Christian beliefs.

See if this helps:

Post 58

2PhiloVoid · Thursday at 11:34 AM

AV1611VET said:
See if this helps:

Post 58

Well, I have more in mind in knowing which books (or scholars) on biblical interpretation you've learned from over the years in your own Christian walk.

Like, for instance, back in the day when I was attending Bible College and took an introductory class to Biblical Interpretation, one of the texts used was How to Understand Your Bible, by T. Norton Sterrett.

I'm just wondering from where you've learned your own methodology.

AV1611VET · Thursday at 11:39 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
Well, I have more in mind in knowing which books (or scholars) on biblical interpretation you've learned from over the years in your own Christian walk.

Mainly from here:

AV1611VET said:
In Awe of Thy Word, by Gail A. Riplinger

Final Authority, by William P. Grady - (heavy reading)

Things to Come, by J. Dwight Pentecost (very heavy reading)

Basically anything by Peter S Ruckman or Gail A Riplinger will do.

2PhiloVoid · Thursday at 11:39 AM

Hans Blaster said:
It seem to fall into the category of "whatever gets you through the night" (John Lennon said that.)

it's alright, it's alright.

It might, but I was alluding to the fact that a number of people have various cognitive challenges stemming from either neuro-developmental issues or cognitive disorders.

The complication I was referring to comes in the fact that when we're on a public form attempting to have a conversation (or a debate), we often don't know the psychological baggage that plays into a person's ability to reason.

AV1611VET · Thursday at 11:48 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
It might, but I was alluding to the fact that a number of people have various cognitive challenges stemming from either neuro-developmental issues or cognitive disorders.

I've claimed several times here that too much adherence to science can create a mental block that intellectuals cannot get around.

Platte · Thursday at 12:03 PM

Hans Blaster said:
"Adam" looking 18 years old when created doesn't actually make him "18". I don't care how what his isotopic abundances or tree rings are.

Ding ding ding!!!! And that my friend is why its all about History - not science. The Billions of year old universe that science leads you into doesn't really matter...its the 5500 year old record History that carries all the weight.

All the science in the world can tell you something is billions of years old...but I don't care how what the isotopic abundances or tree ring are - the universe may look billions of years old when created but it doesn't actually make him "billions"

2PhiloVoid · Thursday at 12:06 PM

AV1611VET said:
I've claimed several times here that too much adherence to science can create a mental block that intellectuals cannot get around.

Sure, but I think both you and I know that there's more to having faith in Christ than merely whether or not we think the Bible is true.

2PhiloVoid · Thursday at 12:07 PM

AV1611VET said:
Mainly from here:
In Awe of Thy Word, by Gail A. Riplinger

Final Authority, by William P. Grady - (heavy reading)

Things to Come, by J. Dwight Pentecost (very heavy reading)

Basically anything by Peter S Ruckman or Gail A Riplinger will do.

Ok. That tells me what I need to know about your perspective. I'm familiar with the Dwight Pentecost book. Thanks for sharing.

dlamberth · Thursday at 12:31 PM

Platte said:
All the science in the world can tell you something is billions of years old...but I don't care how what the isotopic abundances or tree ring are - the universe may look billions of years old when created but it doesn't actually make him "billions"

Making His Creation look way older than it is? That sounds like a deceptive God to me.

That's not the God I pray to.
God's Creation can not lie. When it tells us that it's history is billion of years old, it's that old.

Platte · Thursday at 1:06 PM

dlamberth said:
Making His Creation look way older than it is? That sounds like a deceptive God to me.

That's not the God I pray to.
God's Creation can not lie. When it tells us that it's history is billion of years old, it's that old.

I thought God was pretty clear that he create Adam as a man.

Creation

The Inherent Paradox
You cannot have a functional, physical adult man without the appearance of a past.

The Cellular Level: His cells would need to contain mitochondria already generating energy, a heart that is already mid-beat, and lungs adapted to breathing.
The Structural Level: His skin would need the natural creases required for joints to bend.
The Verdict: Therefore, creating a mature man inherently requires creating a "false history" written into his very anatomy.

<Google AI>

So - we know these are inherent with Creation - thus you are not being deceived....unless you didn't know these are inherent with Creation - well now you do...

AV1611VET · Thursday at 1:22 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
Sure, but I think both you and I know that there's more to having faith in Christ than merely whether or not we think the Bible is true.

Let's not mix sanctification with creation.

AV1611VET · Thursday at 1:26 PM

dlamberth said:
God's Creation can not lie.

But it can be lied to.

Which is what science is good at.

dlamberth · Thursday at 1:30 PM

Platte said:
I thought God was pretty clear that he create Adam as a man.

Creation

The Inherent Paradox
You cannot have a functional, physical adult man without the appearance of a past.

The Cellular Level: His cells would need to contain mitochondria already generating energy, a heart that is already mid-beat, and lungs adapted to breathing.

The Structural Level: His skin would need the natural creases required for joints to bend.

The Verdict: Therefore, creating a mature man inherently requires creating a "false history" written into his very anatomy.

<Google AI>

You wrote that the Universe appears old when created. That's what I was replying to.
History wise, there's a LOT more going on in the Universe than beliefs of Adam's physical appearance.
Which is why making the Universe appear old, as you are saying, is a deception by God if as you say it's really only 6000 years old.
And because that whole argument makes God out to be a deceiver, that's where it fails the God is Truth test in a major way.

AV1611VET · Thursday at 1:44 PM

dlamberth said:
You wrote that the Universe appears old when created.

Why wouldn't it?

If God created a dress tomorrow so old it falls apart with age, wouldn't it look old too?

Platte · Thursday at 1:45 PM

dlamberth said:
You wrote that the Universe appears old when created. That's what I was replying to.
History wise, there's a LOT more going on in the Universe than beliefs of Adam's physical appearance.
Which is why making the Universe appear old, as you are saying, is a deception by God if as you say it's really only 6000 years old.
And because that whole argument makes God out to be a deceiver, that's where it fails the God is Truth test in a major way.

Let me help you so you don't feel you are deceived (because of your lack of knowledge)

From a purely scientific perspective, it is impossible to create a fully functional, Earth-like world that completely lacks the appearance of age.
In physics and chemistry, functionality and the appearance of age are fundamentally linked. To make a planet habitable for complex life, you must include natural systems that inherently generate the signatures of time.

The Physics of a "Brand New" Habitable World
To understand why functionality requires the appearance of age, consider what happens if you try to build an Earth-like planet from scratch using standard physics:

The Soil Problem: Functional soil is not just crushed rock. It requires broken-down organic matter, humus, and complex fungal networks. This decomposition process takes thousands of years. If you provide functional soil on Day One, it will already look old under a microscope.
The Tectonic Problem: A functional, life-sustaining planet needs a molten core and tectonic plate movement to recycle carbon and regulate global temperatures. Tectonic activity naturally creates friction, fault lines, metamorphic rocks, and mountain ranges. These are the literal wrinkles of a planet's age.
The Starlight Problem: For a planet to have a functional, stable night sky that can be used for navigation or long-term climate stability via a solar system, light from distant stars must already be touching the planet. Because light travels at a finite speed, seeing a star 100 light-years away means you are looking 100 years into the past.

<Google AI>

Now that you know this - you should understand Creation a little better and not feel deceived.

Your welcome!

2PhiloVoid · Thursday at 2:47 PM

AV1611VET said:
Let's not mix sanctification with creation.

I'm not mixing them because my earlier reference was to 1 Corinthians chapter 2, as well as to any other verse or set of verses in the entirety of the Bible that state or infer epistemological indicators. We both know that it ALSO takes an act of the Holy Spirit to enable a person to come to Christ and that no one comes to Him, whether in a reasonable state of mind or an irrational one, without being also drawn by Him.

That's all I was implying. Nothing more.

dlamberth · Thursday at 2:50 PM

AV1611VET said:
Why wouldn't it?

If God created a dress tomorrow so old it falls apart with age, wouldn't it look old too?

Looking old and actually being old are two different things.

God did not create from nothing

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Perceiving the Bigger Picture

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Perceiving the Bigger Picture

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Perceiving the Bigger Picture

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Perceiving the Bigger Picture

Perceiving the Bigger Picture

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Perceiving the Bigger Picture

Senior Contributor

Similar threads