6000 Years Since Creation?

[Big Drew]

Hi Drew,

No, perhaps you didn't. So, let me ask you. What was going on on the earth and why was the universe created if, you believe the biblical account of the creation of man? Maybe a full clarification of what you do believe would shed some light on why you question the validity of asking such a question of one's teacher of the truth of God.

Thanks and God bless.
In Christ, Ted.

We don't know what was going on...as I said in another post...all we know is that God spoke it into existence...now, when He spoke does that mean things immediately formed or did it take time...we simply don't know. Science attempts to answer these questions and maybe they're right...not in evolution, necessarily, but in that the earth is billions of years old. And if it is, so what...doesn't change the fact that I believe God created the earth...so, not something that is detrimental to one's eternal well being, IMHO.

 

[Willtor]

No.



No.

There are many conservative Christians who are open minded about this issue. That does not mean they have somehow "sinned" against God. It means, only, that they are using the brain God gave them to explore their surroundings. God gave us "physics" to help us to define and explore our surroundings, specifically, our physical universe. Though, physics only allows us to view our universe, not anything beyond its boundaries (nothing outside of our space and time).

The debate of the age of the earth is nothing new. Early Christians also held this debate. In fact, if I am not mistaken, a young earth theory was not popular until after the reformation.

Ultimately, your salvation is not affected whether you believe in young or old earth creation, IMO.

Early Christians did hold this debate. Actually, the idea of a young earth was popular among the literalists. It is true that some (especially within the first few centuries) pointed out that a year is like a day to God and said that the world might be older, but my readings have suggested to me that most of the literalists thought that a day referred to a ~16 hour period. Those who took a figurative notion were all over the map with respect to how old the Earth really was.

St. Augustine reasoned in a similar way to miamited in that the world was made for humanity, but he drew a different conclusion: the universe was created in an instant (what is the point of having the universe sitting around for six days without the pinnacle of God's creation?), and that the descriptions of the six days were actually a retelling of the same one day.

My own hypothesis is that it had to do with the great debate over the shape of the Earth that spanned centuries and crossed even the divide from ancient to medieval. Augustine wrote a book called The Literal Meaning of Genesis in which he presented an interpretation that he thought was more acceptable to the natural philosophy of his time. But he didn't really approve of literally interpreting Genesis, and his main thrust was to ensure that Christians didn't make Genesis into saying something that non-Christians knew wasn't so based on reason and experience.

But if you read St. Basil's Hexameron, he provides a literal interpretation of Genesis that takes the days as literal days. I don't recall if he took a particular stand on the matter of the shape of the Earth in that book. Paradoxically, the Hexameron was actually a good case for what I have called the Ontologists, since Basil reads God's command for the Earth to bring forth life as a defense of spontaneous generation -- a natural process. Note that in the text, it is the Earth that makes life, and not the hand of God. This is much more of a process argument than a particulars argument.

You are right, however, that it was the allegorical interpretation that was really popular in the scholastic period. St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa addressed the matter of creation in a way that did not necessarily contradict Aristotle's views (which had recently been reintroduced into Europe) on the state of the universe (including its eternity). This became the popular view up until the Reformation, when a series of new literal interpretations arose.

This is all a round-about way of saying that the history of the interpretation of Genesis is mixed. There have been periods of predominantly literal interpretations, periods of predominantly allegorical (or otherwise figurative) interpretations, and periods of contention.

 

[sealacamp]

Agree with your first point, which is ironic because I'm going to disagree with your second point. The Bible was written for man, not for God. God created time and space, so surely in His infinite wisdom He knows the difference between a day and a billion years? He knows what a day means for us, and His word was written for us. So a day must be a day. Simple as that.

Really then why is this in His word?

Psalm 90

For you, a thousand years are as a passing day,
as brief as a few night hours.

Or this

2 Peter 3

But you must not forget this one thing, dear friends: A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day.

Do you think that time is relevant to God?

Sealacamp

 

[miamited]

Hi Seal,

You know, a lot of people attach a significance to these two passages with the Genesis account. All either of these passages intends to me, is that God is outside of time. However, there are some indications that when God spoke of the 'days' of creation, He fully intended that we understand them to be normal days. For example, at the end of each 'day' period he explains further that there was morning and there was evening of that day. This would seem to me to be included in the account as a way for God to indicate to us, after all God knows our heart and how easily we are led astray from the truth, that these days that He is explaining to us are normal days just like we experience right now. If He intended that the days were long periods, then surely He would have held back the Holy Spirit in his inspiration to the original writer of these things to just say, 'day'.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." Thus ended the first day.

And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." This was the second day.

And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. Thus ended the third day.

You see, I'm one who believes that God is wiser than I am, or any other man for that matter. I'm also one who believes that God knows our heart. This faith leads me to understand that when God's word says that it is written under the direction of His Holy Spirit, that every word, every jot and tittle is accounted for and placed in the account of God's word for a purpose. There is nothing, let me repeat for complete clarification, there is nothing that God's word says down to the actual words used and all descriptors, adjectives, adverbs, nouns, pronouns that God didn't cause to be written for some revealing purpose to us.

With this understanding, when I read that God completed the first day of creation and there was morning and there was evening the first day, I have to sit back and ask myself, "Why did God describe each day in such a way?" Knowing how wicked my own heart is, the only conclusion that I can come up with is that God knows that the time was going to come when people would deny the truth of His creation. He foreknew that people like you and I would one day be sitting in our nice comfortable homes on our computers debating and discussing the act of creation. With that wisdom and foreknowledge He had the Holy Spirit include in his inspiration to the original writer the further descriptive of each day consisting of a morning and evening. Even one of the other posters on this issue has brought up the 'fact' that there couldn't have been a day before the sun was created because a 'day' is the time from the rising of the sun to the next rising of the sun. We nearly all, automatically when we think of a day, attach to it the rising and setting of the sun as a desciptor of a day. So God, knowing this, had the Holy Spirit add to the account of each day that there was a morning and an evening. For the express purpose of making sure that His children understood that when God said 'day', it was in fact a 'day' just as we think of 'day' today.

Similarly, regarding who Adam and Eve were. Many of those same people who don't really sit down and study all the facts given in the creation account and try to reconcile them to each 'theory' of creation, would like us to believe that Adam was not a real, actual person, but rather an allegorical descriptor of mankind in general. Great!!! Then who was Seth? What is meant when God's Spirit inspired the original writer to write that Adam lived 930 years? These are all 'facts' of the beginning of creation and man's life within it that, certainly I can't, reconcile with some allegorical Adam.

Maybe someone here can explain to me what God's word meant when it says that Adam lived 930 years. That when this allegorical Adam was 130 years old he had a son in his own image named Seth and that that child lived 912 years, etc. Again, when I apply my understanding that nothing in God's word is superflous and unintended, I have to ask myself, "OK, let's work this 'Adam is some allegorical explanation of mankind' theory out. I can't do it. I can't tie an allegory to specific names and years of the generational account of Adam. However, when I again use my understanding and know that God knows the arguments and debates that are surely going to ensue regarding His truth, then a little light goes off in my mind. 'Bing' the reason God listed the generations is so that we can see that, in fact, Adam is not an allegory, but was a real live breathing man who was the first man that God created with the ability to reproduce with his wife, Eve, also a real live breathing woman who together with Adam produced real live breathing children with real live names and real specific lifetimes. For me, friend, it just doesn't work any other way.

Sure, I can take one 'fact' of the creation account and spin all kinds of tales, but God, knowing what a stupid and wicked man I am, praise His holy name, instructed His Holy Spirit to write things that, when taken together with all the other 'facts' of the creation account, don't fit with any reasonable explanation, but the one that is the simplest. Friend, the first thing we each need to understand is that God is wise and knows the future. He knows that the generations to come are ultimately going to turn from His truth and seek alternate explanations for how we all got here. Most all of the New Testament writers confirmed this for us. I believe He has done His very best to provide for us facts and accounts within the creation explanation that, when taken all together and studied can only lead to one conclusion.

Now, with all of that said, when I wrap everything up and tie all the loose ends together, then it is a very simple matter to understand that scientists are wrong. They don't mean to be and it is not necessarily some great betrayal perpetrated against God, but they are wrong. They are misinterpreting the data. But that misinterpretation begins when the scientist takes the oath that there are no such things as miracles and everything 'must' have a logical, scientific explanation. You see, God, is the God of miracles and when we understand that the creation is a miracle, plain and simple, then we must also understand that those who deny the miracle and try to explain the here and now from gathered data that must be logical and scientific, then there is no other conclusion to be made but that their conclusions are wrong. It's simple logic. If is is assumed that there are no such things as miracles and it is denied that a real miracle cannot explain the creation, then whatever explanation is arrived at, must be wrong!! It can only be because the real reason is a miracle and the very definition of a miracle is something that happens outside of normal, logical, scientific explanation.

God bless you my friend and may He cause His face to shine upon you.
In Christ, Ted.

 

[PaulFan]

Hi Seal,

You know, a lot of people attach a significance to these two passages with the Genesis account. All either of these passages intends to me, is that God is outside of time. However, there are some indications that when God spoke of the 'days' of creation, He fully intended that we understand them to be normal days. For example, at the end of each 'day' period he explains further that there was morning and there was evening of that day.

IMO, you have correctly pointed out the strongest pillar in the argument for a 6000 year old Earth. I am not saying I believe in a 6000 year old earth, but when I attempt to reconcile what we know from "physics" to the "bible", the passage you gave always stands out and prevents me from definitively believing that I know the answer.

So, I can tell you that I do not know which camp is on the right track. On the one hand, God gave us physics which allows us to investigate and understand our universe which HE created and physics tells us that we have a very old earth (in human terms).

On the other hand, God is all powerful and if he wanted to create the universe in 6 days, then he can do it.

So, I remain humble when discussing this topic.

 

[salida]

Visit: www.creation.com and you will get detailed answers from scientists who believe in creation. There is more evidence here than agnostic/athiest science or what I call their philosophies.

Also, the bible isn't just some story book-so it has way more credibility than some man made ungodly views.
Visit: www.TheBibleProofBook.com, (you will need acrobat reader for this), read The Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell a former agnostic- (its overwhelming circumstantial evidence of bible) and Examine the Evidence by Muncaster a former athiest/The Case for Christ and The Real Jesus by Lee Strobel a former athiest. www.equip.org (articles), http://www.gotquestions.org/. (This info is just the tip of the iceberg).

I would want a pastor who trusts the bible over man made secular views also.

 

[miamited]

Amen, Salida,

There is actually a good bit of evidence that can be shown to support a young creation view outside of the Scriptures themselves. However, and I'm as guilty as anyone, once we have set our mind to whatever belief we might have of 'how we got here', we tend to not continue looking at other evidence and just blow it off. From this we get those who say that YEC are ignorant and blind to the 'proof' of whatever view they hold. We are accused of being closed-minded and blind. Often times, though, a lot of the 'proof' that is being espoused has already been checked by the YEC and already rejected as true. Finally, born again believers know that when God said that His children would live by faith, as I understand that to mean, there will be issues that come up in our life where we will have to say, "Look, I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't reconcile with God's word and in anything that conflicts with God's word, I'm going with God." After all, if we could really 'prove' God to the satisfaction of every person on the earth, or God would 'prove' himself to every person on the earth, I doubt that we'd have so much false relgions, evolutionists, etc.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

 

[Resha Caner]

An interesting discussion. Probably the wisest comment for treating this issue within the community of believers is to say that creation proceeded according to Genesis, and leave it at that.

However, it's not usually believers who are raising the issues. It's discussions with non-believers that challenge believers to take a position.

There is actually a good bit of evidence that can be shown to support a young creation view outside of the Scriptures themselves. However, and I'm as guilty as anyone, once we have set our mind to whatever belief we might have of 'how we got here', we tend to not continue looking at other evidence and just blow it off. From this we get those who say that YEC are ignorant and blind to the 'proof' of whatever view they hold. We are accused of being closed-minded and blind. Often times, though, a lot of the 'proof' that is being espoused has already been checked by the YEC and already rejected as true. Finally, born again believers know that when God said that His children would live by faith, as I understand that to mean, there will be issues that come up in our life where we will have to say, "Look, I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't reconcile with God's word and in anything that conflicts with God's word, I'm going with God." After all, if we could really 'prove' God to the satisfaction of every person on the earth, or God would 'prove' himself to every person on the earth, I doubt that we'd have so much false relgions, evolutionists, etc.

As such, these comments are very important. What is the goal of discussing this issue with non-believers? Is it to prove a point or to witness to them? I would say it is the latter. As such, I would highly recommend taking their "evidence" seriously. That doesn't mean accepting it, but neither does it mean dismissing it in a condescending manner. On the flip side, be open to the challenges raised against the "evidence" of your position. I think you will find that non-believers (at least those who aren't just looking to ridicule) appreciate a honest discussion over an attempt to prove a young earth.

Ask yourself: If my view of creation were wrong, how would it change my theology? You may find that the "theology" that would change is not really scripturally based.

For example, I would challenge the notion that God created the universe to give man a place to live. If so, what is the purpose of everything that lies beyond earth? God created because it pleased him. That's it.

On the flip side, I understand that atheistic theology (a nice oxymoron) requires an old earth. As such, I'd like to hear a summary of recent YEC ideas on the shortcomings of dating methods (a short summary if possible).

But, I would also challenge whether the Bible really gives enough evidence to say earth is 6000 years old. It requires a literal interpretation coupled with some shaky assumptions. So, I'd be curious to hear about the evidence mentioned that is outside the Bible (again, a quick summary if that is possible).

In the end, personally, I think people have a misconception of what we actually know about "time".

 

[miamited]

Hi Resha,

You have made very valid points and I agree. I didn't mean to imply that I wouldn't listen and 'hear' what someone of another belief said, as regards the creation, but just that it is fairly common human behavior that once we have made up our mind about something, been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that one position is correct, we all tend to get glazed eyes when the same points keep coming up over and over again.

However, you bring up an interesting point that I have, quite frankly, done a lot, a lot of thinking over. You wrote:
For example, I would challenge the notion that God created the universe to give man a place to live. If so, what is the purpose of everything that lies beyond earth? God created because it pleased him. That's it.

Consider for a moment the size of the earth and the sun. Would the creation work perfectly if all that were in the enormous black ink of space were the earth and the sun? God's word says that the stars are for us to mark seasons and times. So, just for a moment put your thinking cap on and reason as I have about this very thing. Why did God create such an enormous universe for us?

If we allow that the only two bodies in all of the creation that God made to fill the black void of empty space were the earth and sun, and we know that both the earth and the sun move in an orbit, right? How big would the universe need to be? The earth moves around the sun once a year. The sun's orbit has yet to be determined, but we know that all the bodies of the milky way are moving in a spiral. Therefore, both the sun and the moon are moving in some sort of orbit, how big would the universe need to be to accomodate just those two bodies constantly and always rotating and orbiting? Now, add just enough stars that we can see, which by the way would still all be in the milky way, to set these seasons and times that the Lord spoke of. Now, how large does the universe need to be to accomodate each of the, oh say, few dozen stars that fit this criteria that are also always rotating and in some sort of orbit.

When we speak of a year we say that the earth has made one orbit around the sun and is now back where it started. The truth, however, is that, no, the earth is not back where it started except in relation to the sun. The sun has moved and the earth is on a different point of the universe. As the earth is orbiting the sun, the entire milky way galaxy is in a rotational orbit, so the sun at the end of the 'year' period is not where it was one year ago. Therefore the earth is only in the same place in relation to the sun, but not in the same place in the universe.

Now, try to grasp the enormity of what God would need to create as a universe just so the earth can be sustained in the universe with these few other stars that are millions and billions of miles away that we use to determine seasons and times. It kind of makes me think that, yea, the entire universe was created to provide a place for man and its enormous breadth and depth is a requirement that an all wise God, who intended just to create the planet earth on which He was going to start human life, knew would need to exist to sustain the earth in its orbit. As far as we know, every heavenly body of any size has a gravitational effect on other bodies. When I look at the universe, I see the workings of the finest clock works. Every part necessary for the whole to work.

I know that it's a hard concept to grasp and honestly it took me many hours of praying and considering before I came to realize the enormity of the universe and why its size may well be a requirement that all things work as they do. That the earth can endure year after year after year after decade after decade after century after century after millenium after millenium and it all works perfectly because each body of the universe has some sustaining effect on another. That all the stars of the milky way are required to keep the sun where it is in relation to the earth. That all the stars of the universe are required to keep the milky way in its orbit. I see the universe as the most complicated set of gravitational motors that make the earth endure. So, yes, I have no problem understanding that God didn't create the universe so that He could look out His picture window and say to himself, "Oh, what a marvelous view this is", but rather that it was all created as a completed whole that sustains the earth where it is, rotating and orbiting millenium after millenium. All the heavenly bodies of the universe working as a sort of choreographed dance that merely sustains the earth.

It's an awesome notion, but one that, for me, just causes me to sit and marvel at what God has done, that we might know Him and love Him and be loved by Him. BTW, it's also worth considering that when God created the universe, He created it to last for eternity. Now, I ask you, how big does the universe need to be to work perfectly for all eternity?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

 

[Resha Caner]

Now, I ask you, how big does the universe need to be to work perfectly for all eternity?

I once wrote an essay called "The Thing." It was intended to be part of a larger work about what it's like to be an engineer - specifically about the way people in this world treat science with great mysticism while pretending to be reasonable. But I'm not satisfied with it yet (I write for a hobby), so I haven't shared it with many people.

I do, however, often quote one concept from that essay. It is this: I have stared into the abyss and came away with a changed perspective on the immensity of God, the limits of the human mind, and what "truth" is. Any time I go into any detail, people just roll their eyes and call me weird (even my wife). So, I'll boil it down to this: beware how far you let "logic" take you from a scriptural base. To quote Rick Warren, "It's not about you."

I like the writings of St. Augustine, but when I came to his discussion of free will, I got very aggravated. He basically said, "We have free will because God decided we should." I embarked on a long philosophical journey to reach my own conclusions about free will, and I would be able to write page after page on the mental contortions I went through. But guess what. When it was all done, my conclusion was, "We have free will because God decided we should." My intent is not to divert this thread to another topic. It's just an example.

My point is this: God created the universe as he did because it pleased him to do so. To go anywhere else is speculation, and one must be careful of speculation. Thinking he did it this way for people has dangerous implications about who is more important and who is in control.

The universe is the way it is because it is perfect. I have my own thoughts on why that is, but they are speculation - and they are different than what you have said. God could have made the universe any way he wanted. It could have been Flatland (if you know that book). But this way is perfect, and I always try to keep that as the first principle. Anything else, how we fit in and why we fit where we do, is secondary.

 

[miamited]

Hi Resha,

I hope you're able to get your work printed some day if that's your goal. You responded:
My point is this: God created the universe as he did because it pleased him to do so. To go anywhere else is speculation, and one must be careful of speculation. Thinking he did it this way for people has dangerous implications about who is more important and who is in control.

Let me ask you, is there some Scriptural confirmation that says God created the universe because it pleased Him to do so? Otherwise, you do realize that your claim is as much speculation as mine. I do agree that all that God creates is done by and through His perfect will and would logically follow that He did it because He wanted to. It's not like His boss told Him He had to do this task whether He wanted to or not and so He begrudgingly created our realm. However, I find that throughout the Scriptures we see the working of a great plan that follows a purpose. Similarly, while I have nothing other than my prayerful consideration to allow for all of the further reasoning that I have added to the creation account that is admittedly not given in the evidence of Genesis, it does allow for a far greater loving God. To consider that He did it only for His pleasure, which would be somewhat selfish, although certainly in a good godly selfishness, and to consider that He did it all for me/us gives one two different pictures of God's love for us.

Quite frankly, I'm at a loss as to your last comment. To think that He did it for people somehow having dangerous implications of who is more important or who is in control? No, I don't understand that line of reasoning. It doesn't make me consider myself or any man more important than God. It does make me consider that I/we are more important than the apes, dogs, cats, cattle, etc. but I find the sacrificial system of worship given to the Jews also supports that. Who is in control? God is, but as explained it does make a large difference in how we view His love for us. Since I find that this understanding makes me see His love as greater, I don't think there is much danger in the implication. Surely you do agree that God's love for man is awesomely great, I mean, after all He gave His one and only Son's life in exchange for ours, right? That's some kind of love.

Anyway, I'm just asking you to spend some time looking at the stars and the awesome universe and just considering, and you might even try praying for the wisdom of God's Holy Spirit regarding this issue if you'd like to get some settlement about it, that every heavenly body out there was set in place in a perfect order and in total perfection to accomplish God's purpose of creating a realm in which the flesh of men could live. That's all. If you ever are able to come to agreement about this, I think, quite frankly, your view of God and the awesomeness of His great love might be slightly expanded, which I certainly see as a good thing.

Remembering that the command is to love the Lord your God with all your heart and mind, I find that anything that makes His love for us greater also makes our love for Him greater.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

 

[Resha Caner]

All I wanted to do was be clear on that first principle, and I think you understand me - even agree with me to some extent. I love to speculate, and it looks like I may have found someone who is willing to share ideas. That's great. I just wanted to be clear on what it is - speculation. Whenever I become speculative amongst non-believers the result is usually that they turn me into a pin cushion. So, I don't think it's a good idea for believers to present their speculation to non-believers as if it is an expository on scripture.

I'm hoping we can get past this first part and move on to some other aspects of the topic.

But, to answer your questions, yes, I think there is scriptural support for what I said. Starting with the vaguest, there is the reason God gives in Genesis for creating: it is good. Hopefully I don't have to drag this out too far, but a combination of many verses makes it clear that only God is good (Psalm 107:1, Romans 3, etc.). So, if the creation was created good, it could only be because God wanted it that way - because it pleased him. Of course there are alternative ways to interpret what is said in Genesis, but I think other verses support that interpretation. For example, there is Rev 4:11. Some interpret the Greek word "thelima" in that verse as "pleasure", some as "will". The second is more literal, but the first carries some context with it. For example, the use of "Lord" in that verse is the emphatic version, indicating that God is the most important part of the verse, not the creation. So, another possible interpretation of thelima would be "volition" which carries with it both the meanings of will and preference. Finally, though, there is Eph 1:5-6, which says he predestined us to adoption because it pleased him, and that our purpose is to praise him. And, there is Col 1:16-19 where it says we were created for him, and that it pleased him to have all this fullness dwell in him.

So, what are the theological dangers of looking at it the other way? In short, it turns the model on its head. God is no longer the focus, but man. A good example of this is to look at medieval theology. The reason the medieval church rejected the heliocentrism of Copernicus and insisted on geocentrism was not because they thought Copernicus was practicing bad science. It was a theological issue. They had come to a point where they thought God needed them. Without them, God would be lonely or bored or useless. God needed a purpose, and we were it. I looked around for some references that you can look at for yourself, and the best I found was James R. Ginther's Westminster Handbook to Medieval Theology at books.google.com. Check out pages 47-48 where it states that this attitude led them to "tailor their account of creation's [the world's] functions and intentions so that they fit humanity's needs." In other words, thinking that God created the world for us led them to think they could do as they pleased on earth ... that they were, in a sense, the god of earth.

(edit: Since I focused on how mankind's creation was intended to please God, I should add that other verses also indicate the same of all creation. Just as our purpose is to give glory to God, so is the purpose of all creation. See Psalm 103:22 and Rev 5:13. I don't see any verse that says, "Earth, support people so they can praise the Lord.")

 

[miamited]

Hi Resha,

Yes, one must be careful in speculation. After all, all we can say about much of the Revelation and even some of the prophecies of both the Old and New Covenants, is to speculate about what 'exactly' they mean, or how 'exactly' they will come about. But, I find that a lot of growth in the knowledge of God begins with speculation. We read a passage of Scripture that is not absolutely confirming in some manner and we begin to speculate, "Could God mean this?" or "What is God trying to tell me here?" Then through deeper study and, yes, even further 'speculation' we begin to formulate more solid understanding.

However, you did respond with:
So, what are the theological dangers of looking at it the other way? In short, it turns the model on its head. God is no longer the focus, but man.

I categorically deny that last claim. That is somehow turns the model 'on its head?' That God is no longer the focus, but man. No! Emphatically, No!
Even with your post of the problems associated with the Copernicum 'theory', I really don't see the connection that you are obviously trying to make. As I stated, when I consider that God made the entire universe in exactly the way it was made, with all of the created heavenly bodies from one end to the other, necessary that His perfect universe works and that His whole purpose in making such a perfect universe was to bend down upon the earth and scoop up a handful of dirt to create His most beloved entity of this created realm; rather than building myself or man up to any great heights, I find that God is elevated to an even greater throne.

Here's my example: I have for years discussed with people, even 'christians', that the 6,000 year YEC model gives more glory to God. Any evolutionary model cetainly displays a great and marvelous God, however, the God who can speak, just think to say the words, "Let there be..." and everything is instantly created in pure perfect working harmony to exist forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever more, is, certainly in my mind, a greater, more loving, more powerful, more wise God than a god who only speaks some form of creation that still has to be perfected after His creating. As I understand evolutionary theory, this is exactly what is at stake. Did God speak into existence a perfect realm of physical creation in which we live with all things necessary to feed us, cleanse us, provide for us in every way; or did He rather only create a semi-perfect creation that still had to 'evolve' to produce His most glorious piece -- us?

Here is one of the reasons I hold this belief, besides what I believe the Scriptures reveal. A book written by Ron Carlson and Ed Decker, called Fast Facts on False Teachings says it thus:

You are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm that washed up on an ocean beach 3.5 billion years ago. You are the blind and arbitrary product of time, chance, and natural forces. Your closest living relatives swing from trees and eat crackers at the zoo.
You are a mere grab bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance. You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an obscure galaxy in a remote and empty corner of a vast, cold, and meaningless universe. You are flying through lifeless space with no purpose, no direction, not control, and no destiny but final destruction.

Now, admittedly the last sentence is directed to those who have an atheistic approach to life, but the first part is a fairly accurate description of the evolutionary model that most, who believe in such, understand.

You are a special creation of a good and all-powerful God. You are the climax of His creation, the magnum opus of the greatest artist in the universe. You are created in His image, with capacities to think, fee, and worship that set you above all other life forms. You differ from the animals not simply in degree but in kind.
Not only is your kind unique, but you are unique among your kind. God has masterminded the exact combination of DNA and chromosomes that constitute your genetic code, making you as different from all others as every snowflake differs from the rest.

Now, both descriptions continue on in the book to explain the difference between what faith in God, or lack thereof, ultimately means in regard to our 'worldview'. Suffice it to say, that such an understanding as the second does give rise to the belief that God created everything good, for our purpose and it was His good pleasure to do so because of His great unlimited capacity for love.

Just consider, your view, allows that, "Well, there may be other life forms out there. There's really no telling what all God has created out there in the vastness of space." My view, allows that, "Wow, God did all this for us." So, I'm at truly a loss to understand your perspective that somehow my understanding that God created all of this for us, somehow lessens our love or respect of understanding or glory of God. Whatever it is that you are trying to say. The 'universe created in a moment in time recently all for us' theory, I find, makes God wiser, more powerful, and more loving.

God bless you and, yes, I will be happy to 'speculate' further with you.
In Christ, Ted.

 

[miamited]

Hi again Resha,

You also posted:
They had come to a point where they thought God needed them.

I'm guessing that this idea came from one of the books that you referenced. I'm not sure that I agree that that is the truth regarding 'why' those in Copernicus' time really balked at his theory. Believers have often believed that the earth is the center of the universe based on their understanding of exactly what I'm saying, His purpose for creating. However, science has proven that the earth is not the center of the milky way, but then we don't really know where the milky way stands in relation to the entire universe and honestly, therefore, don't know whether the earth is the center of the universe. However, what Copernicus proved really had nothing to do with whether or not the earth was the center of the universe, but that the sun didn't go around the earth, but rather the earth goes around the sun. I have no problem with that and, yes, believers who held to that being 'proof' that the eartj and not the sun was the center of the universe were wrong. Whether or not the sun orbits the earth or the earth orbits the sun really doesn't answer the question of the center of the universe.

However, when we consider the 'center' of the universe in God's perspective, there are two separate considerations to be made. Is the earth the actual, physical, geopraphical 'center' of the universe would be the first consideration. Quite frankly, we don't have enough information about the universe to answer that. The most real, provable information we have is really basically the milky way system. What lies beyond that and where the exact center of the universe is has yet to be determined. If the universe is really limitless, then technically speaking there is no true 'center'. Every point of the universe is as much the 'center' as any other.

The second would be whether in God's sight the earth is the 'center' of the universe. In God's heart is the earth the 'center' of which He created everything else around. The Genesis account would seem to support this. It opens with, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." From that point on, there is very little mention of the heavens and the entire line of Scriptures deals with how God developed and worked on and in the earth. There isn't even a single paragraph about what God has done on Mars, Jupiter, Alpha Centauri, etc. in the whole of the 66 books of the Scriptures. Now, you will surely jump in and say, "Well, that's because the Scriptures are written to us and God doesn't need to tell us what He's doing on Mars, Jupiter, etc. and I would agree wholeheartedly, but from a Scriptural point of view, which is what we're talking about, a believer could well understand that the earth is the 'center' of the universe as far as God is concerned. It is where He directs His attention every moment. There is no record that He expends a wit of His love and emotion towards any other heavenly body. Yes, the Scriptures declare that it is by His hand that all are sustained and suspended in the heavens, but beyond this mechanical necessity to make all things work in perfect harmony, it would seem that God doesn't give near the attention to the other heavenly bodies that His word leads us to believe that He gives to the earth and its inhabitants. he surely didn't send His ONE and only Son to any of them.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

 

[Notamonkey]

Here is a site I think those of you on this thread would find of interest: www.creationworldview.org It was started by a former atheist, PhD in astro-physics and biblical scolar.

I think no matter what you believe , old earth, young earth, it's not problem salvation wise depending on what you do with it. Just like anything that isn't a sin by it self, but could be if you stray. Like, being rich doesn't make you greedy. What you do with that money can.
Having said that, I am a YEC because I feel the evidence best supports that position and contradicts an old earth view.

With that I encourage you to read some of the articles on that site.

By the way, I really enjoy the back and forth on this thread!

Blessings,
Paul

 

[Resha Caner]

We both have an ability to be verbose, don't we?

I categorically deny that last claim.

Good to hear that. I'm not saying your speculation is guaranteed to lead you into a man-centered view. I'm saying it has in the past, and it could for other people. I don't know how much history you've read, but my point was that Copernicus challenged Church theology (intended or not) - and IMO that was a good thing because they had strayed too far.

His whole purpose in making such a perfect universe was to bend down upon the earth and scoop up a handful of dirt to create His most beloved entity of this created realm

But I still think it is dangerous to claim to know "His whole purpose," and as you said later that we are "His most glorious piece." I'm happy just to know God loves me. I don't care how "glorious" I am. Is there wonder in how people are created? Yes. Does that mean it's God's primary focus? No. If our purpose is to praise him, then we should praise him for all the wonders of creation, not just the wonder of man.

Any evolutionary model...

I don't accept evolution. But that doesn't mean I accept 6000 years either. The whole "why would God wait a billion years" thing seems a bit silly to me. Why did he wait 6 days? If he has the power to speak creation into existence (and I believe he does), then why not do it instantaneously? IMO, time is irrelevant to this whole conversation. So, consider this. Suppose an error were found in the way people have been counting Biblical time (after all, the Bible doesn't use our dating system), and we were forced to accept that the earth is 10,000 years old rather than 6000. Would that make a different to you? What if it were 100,000 ... a million ... where does age begin to make a difference? I don't think it makes any difference.

Did God speak into existence a perfect realm of physical creation in which we live with all things necessary to feed us, cleanse us, provide for us in every way; or did He rather only create a semi-perfect creation that still had to 'evolve'...

I believe it is the former, and there is a definite theological issue with thinking that God turned us loose to improve ourselves - by whatever means. So, we can agree on that.

Just consider, your view, allows that, "Well, there may be other life forms out there. There's really no telling what all God has created out there in the vastness of space."

Yes, it does allow that. I don't see why that's a problem. I take it you don't like C.S. Lewis' space trilogy, where the main character finds life elsewhere. Honestly, I don't think life will ever be found elsewhere, but it wouldn't cause me any problems if it were. It would just be another reason to praise God. How about you?

I will be happy to 'speculate' further with you.

Glad to hear it. I hope we can get this out of the way and move on.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm not sure that I agree that that is the truth regarding 'why' those in Copernicus' time really balked at his theory.

There was probably more than one reason, but this is one of them. In this case, if you want to put forward another reason, I would ask you to back it up with a reference.

[We] don't know whether the earth is the center of the universe.

I realize that. No one pushes for any center anymore. It is all considered to be relative.

The second would be whether in God's sight the earth is the 'center' of the universe.

And I get your point here as well, but still disagree that we are necessarily the "center".

Now, you will surely jump in and say, "Well, that's because the Scriptures are written to us and God doesn't need to tell us what He's doing on Mars, Jupiter, etc.

Essentially, yes.

There is no record that He expends a wit of His love and emotion towards any other heavenly body.

Does he have any reason to tell you that? Is there any promise that the Bible is a complete explanation of the infinite nature of God? For me, that is what it boils down to. Yes, God loves us. And, yes, he gives us his attention. But the totality of humanity is too small to occupy the entire mind of an infinite God.

It is where He directs His attention every moment.

And so, I disagree with this statement. My speculation has taken me elsewhere. As for the issue of sending Christ to die for other life forms, that is something I don't speculate about (1 Peter 3:18). Maybe there was no need. Maybe someday people will be missionaries to other life forms. I don't know. For some reason that question doesn't interest me.

When you're ready, I'd like to get back to the earlier questions I raised.

 

[sealacamp]

All either of these passages intends to me, is that God is outside of time. However, there are some indications that when God spoke of the 'days' of creation, He fully intended that we understand them to be normal days. For example, at the end of each 'day' period he explains further that there was morning and there was evening of that day.

Yes that is my whole point that God does exist outside of time. And the earth may well be as young as you try to convince me that it is yet it appears to me that it is not. Our evidence for time may well be inaccurate but it is hard to imagine that our ability to measure the age of things is off by billions of years or even trillions of years. Our ability to measure everything else appears to be very adequate so it is only reasonable that our ability to measure the age of things is fairly accurate, I don't think it is perfect. Yes God knows that we are easily led astray and He also knows that it is difficult for us to understand complex ideas. This time frame was given to us about 4000 years ago when people had less understanding of many things about Gods creation. That being the case I think that the time frame laid out in Genesis is given to us in a way that we can understand and be in awe at the power and creativity of God. The earth may well be the age you believe or it may well be older. Frankly I think it is older yet that is a matter of faith as well isn't it? In reality none of us truly "know" how old the earth is and what ever we choose to believe is a matter of faith. For me the bottom line is that God created this entire universe of matter how He did it or how long it has taken is secondary to me believing that He is the author of all life through Christ His son our savior.

Sealacamp

 

[miamited]

Hey Resha,

You responded:
If our purpose is to praise him, then we should praise him for all the wonders of creation, not just the wonder of man.

Absolutely correct-o-mondo!! I'm with you there!

You asked:
Why did he wait 6 days?

That's also where we agree. God could certainly have made everything instantaeneously at the same time. But I'm with you that for Him to sit around waiting billions or millions of years would seem really far fetched. This is exactly why I believe that the 6 day creative God is in some ways more glorious than the god of evolutionary theory. Just as an issue to mull over. Remembering that God knows our hearts and how wicked and unbelieving we are, maybe He thought cutting it down to six days was the fastest He should do it to get any of us to believe in how He created all things in this realm. I mean, come on, how many of us want to deal with all the "that's impossible naysayers" if the truth were to be that God just instantly made everything in a single moment? LOL!!

Finally you wrote:
When you're ready, I'd like to get back to the earlier questions I raised.

Sorry, you'll have to refresh my memory about those.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

 

[Resha Caner]

We'll start with the easy one - at least I think it will be. Since time isn't a big issue for me, I haven't kept up to date on the latest arguments. What is the latest feeling on issues with dating the earth and so forth?