age/expansion of the universe

[mindlight]

But the source of your understanding of what the Creator has said derives from the spin you give to the text of scripture.

Nonsense

Variables can be identified and measured. We can know to what extent variables prevent us from getting an accurate answer. We can know whether a measurement is more than 30% off or less than 3% off. You overestimate what we do not know.

The next few centuries will tell

Actually, given population growth curves, most Jews and Christians are probably alive today and do not agree that this is what scripture says. Furthermore, as has been shown repeatedly, many Jews and Christians well before the modern era held that the chronology of Genesis 1 was not literal.

Assuming global life expectantcy of about 40 years between 0-1947 ad and 60 years following that.
0-300 ad average pop about 200-250 m (225 x 8 generations=1.8bn) average Christian pop 5% (90m),
300-1300 ad average population about 250-500m (350m x 50 generations=17.5Bn) average Christian population about 10% and mainly European. (1.75Bn)
1300-1750 ad average population between 500-800m (650m x 9 generations=5.9Bn) average Christian population about 15% and mainly European (885m)
1750-1900 ad average population between 800m and 1.65Bn(1.2 x 4 generations=4.8Bn) average Christian population about 22% and mainly European (1.05 Bn)
Assuming world life expectantcy of about 60 years now so these are the people living
1900-1947 ad average population 2.2Bn x 1 generation=2.2Bn - average Christian population about 30% (660m)
1947-2007 ad population increases to 6.2bn - 30% Christian (1.86Bn Christians) compared to 3.235Bn previously. So those who hold to 6 day creation and a young earth vastly outnumber the present generation of Christians not all of whom belieev in theistic evolution. The burden of proof is on you guys.
the prevalent view before 1947 was definitely 6 day creation and young earth:
It is clear that the Jews interpreted the Creation account literally. Indeed their calendar dates the world
from 3,760BC Creation date. As Josephus says in the Antiquities of the Jews- "The sacred books contain the
history of 5000 years." Demonstrating that this was the view of Jews in his day. It might also be added
that Englishmen of the C21 are far less likely to understand the Hebrew in the passages than are the Jews of
the C1AD.
'Luther criticised Augustine .. for teaching and instantaneous creation with 6 mystical days of revelation to
the angels.' Augustines comments in his confessions were meditative in character. He
allegorised passages for devotional purposes. It seems he was quite influenced by the scholarly regime of his
day e.g. Neo-Platonism. Since he hardly spoke a word of Hebrew and he was no Greek scholar his views on
exegetical matters are not as influential as his theology has proven to be.
The Byzantine Church fixed the creation date at 5509BC and this remained the basis of the ecclesiastical
calendar in Orthodox countries like Russia and Greece until fairly recently. The Coptic Church and the
Alexandrians considered 5500BC as the date of creation.
The reformers emphasis was on 'sola scriptura'. They took a fairly literal view of the scriptures and swept
away much of allegorisation of the previous 1,000 years and they interpreted Genesis literally. Both Calvin
and Luther endorsed a 6 day view.
Archbishop Ussher of the Church of England in 1650AD considered 4004BC as the date of creation.
Furthermore in scripture itself:
The view that God created the world in a matter of days is affirmed in a number of ways in the rest of
scripture. Jesus affirms the authority of the account Genesis 1 v1 - the end of Chapter 2 when he quotes from
genesis 1 v1 (In the beginning...) and from the end of the prefall account discussing marriage (Matthew 19).
The fact that God created the world in 6 days is further affirmed in Exodus 20 v 11. These words were
according to the text written down by God Himself (Exodus 32 v 16). See also Exodus 31 v 12-17.
The traditional Jewish calendar dates the world to 3,760BC. The Jewish New Year begins on the occasion of the
anniversary of the creation of the world in October. As Josephus confirmed this is what the Jews of Jesus day
believed. Archbishop Ussher calculated the age of the earth on the basis of the genealogies - adding up the
number of years right back to the creation of the world. This places the date of creation as being 9:00 in
the morning of 23rd October 4,004BC. The Greek translation of Genesis 5 and 11 lengthens the time span Adam to
Abraham by 1500 years.
The Bible account seems to affirm this calendar. For instance using the information and specified time
periods in 1Kings 6 v 1; Exodus 12 v 40, genesis 47 v 9; 25 v 26; 21 v5 it is possible to calculate that
Abraham was born very close to 2,000BC. Using the information given int he genealogy in Genesis 11 it is then
possible to determine when Noah lived and from Noah to trace a line back to Adam's creation.
Also:
THE BEGINNINGS OF EARTHS HISTORY WAS THE BEGINNING OF MANS HISTORY
Job 28 v 26 -28; Proverbs 8 v 27-31; Isaiah 45 v 18 ("inhabit is always used of humans only) Mark 10 v 6; 13 v
19; Romans 1 v 20
ADAM HAD NO ANCESTORS
The genealogies date from Adam who is portrayed throughout the scriptures as the first man. Paul seems to
assume his historicity and takes him as the first man in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. On e major argument
in favour of Adam being the first man with no ancestors is that the Bible says that death came into the world
through Adams sin at the fall (Romans 5 , 1 Corinthians 15) If there was no death before the fall and Adam
had ancestors why are'nt they mentioned and does not their existence contradict the notion that Adam was the
first man and Eve the first woman created from Adam. Also if there was death before Adam then the link
between sin and death is broken (Genesis 2 v 17) and the doctrine of the fall (Genesis 3) is rendered
questionable. If there was no fall what did we need a Redeemer for? In Adam God had completed the basic
design of mankind ( leaving room for the growth to maturity and for the variety of choices but no room for
modifications in the basic design.) What is affirmed here is not evolution but rather special creation.
EVE WAS CREATED OUT OF ADAM
"In Matthew 19 Christ's prohibition of divorce is clearly based on the physical fact of Eve having been built
out of Adam, bone of his bone. What would have been the point of quoting Gene 2 v 24 except to emphasise the
literal truth of the narrative? Chap 1 v 27 would have been quite sufficient if the argument rested on the
fact that in th e beginning there was only one man and one woman." David Watson
God created woman out of Adams rib (Gen 2 v 21-22). This record of creation is fully confirmed in the NT.
'For man is not from woman, but woman from man.' 1 Cor 11 v 8) Of course no evolutionist believes that,
whether a theistic evolutionist or an atheistic evolutionist. All evolutionists believe that humans evolved
from ape-like beasts which in turn had evolved from "lower forms". The dignity of a woman or a man is
affirmed far more convincingly by special creation than by evolution.
THE NT AFFIRMS THE GENESIS ACCOUNT AS AUTHORITATIVE BY QUOTING FROM IT
There are 71 references to genesis in the NT. Every NT writer refers to genesis 1 -11. Jesus Christ refered
to each of the first 7 chapters of Genesis. Every chapter of Genesis 1 -11 except Chapter 8 is refered to
somewhere in the NT. Every NT writer apparently accepted those early chapters of Genesis as being
historically accurate.

 

[shernren]

I get your point - it just seems an incredibly wasteful way to consider the emergence of life. In the end Adam was formed from the dust of the earth and fashioned into the creature that he is. Then God breathed life into him. I suppose you could say all those retard neanderthals and cromagnons were all moments in the process but that it was not until homosapiens that God breathed life into mankind and the special spark of the divine that distinguishes man from beast was ignited. I get your point its a matter of perspective in the end I suppose but either way man as we see him today has to be a special creation and uniquely amongst Gods creatures models the divine to his creation.

And I agree with you that man is unique in the panoply of God's creation. We disagree on timing, that's all.

A consistent picture can be a false one as anyone who lived under communism could tell you. The rebels got snipperts of the truth but few could piece it together into a coherent argument. Many did not know why they were fighting and dying. It was embedded in them that they had right to freedom and to worship and to truth even though everything they were fed denied this to them. Dark matter is a provisional concept designed to explain just the kinds of gravitational distortions that are so hard to explain in the modern paradigm and which call it into question. But has anyone ever observed dark matter except by its effects? No - so is it real or just a model for trying to explain exactly the kinds of optical abberrations I am trying to articulate. The view is that the vast bulk of mass in the universe is unobserable and does not interact with the electromagnetic radiation in any observable kind of way. Since the bulk of observations about the universe are made on the basis of the observable effects of electromagnetic activity this is a major downer on the view that modern science can speak with much certainty about the universe beyond our small corner of it.

"A consistent picture can be a false one" - absolutely! I live with that as a to-be scientist every day. But it is one thing to make such a statement as a hypothetical possibility. It is quite another to take an actual "consistent picture", claim that it is false, and claim that everybody who thinks it is true is quite wrong.

How would you show that a consistent picture is a false one? By incorporating information that is inconsistent with it! I don't know what you were talking about in terms of "rebels under communists" (I be really bad at any sort of History), but how would you convince any of those rebels that they were wrong? If you just told them "You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong", would you get any of them to believe you? Surely they would say: "Show us the evidence that we're wrong!"

As for dark matter, I can say to you - backed by a great dark matter scientist I've heard in person before - that we have almost no idea what it is. However, we do have (as you noted) a good idea of what it does. In fact, the very fact that it does stuff consistently allows us to label it "dark matter"! Dark matter does what it does consistently, even though we have no idea what it is; and any theory that is posited will have to explain why it does what it does.

I would not have to show you a black swan only prove to you that you could not know if you had the full sample of swans to draw your conclusion from. Your conclusion remains a hypothesis until you have searched every nook and cranny for a black swan. Since it is not possible for you to do that you cannot even say to me all swans are white - you simply do not know.

The exception is not the only way to cast doubt upon the rule. If I lived on an island inhabited only by white swans I might believe as you do. But if I were to be transported to another island inhabited only by black swans then I would know that however well meaning you had been deceived. Since modern physicists have experience only of white swan island their theories on the universe lack cosmic credibility, there may well be black swans or pieces of broken china out there and neither you nor I can say either way with any certainty.

Ah: but you had to be transported to an island inhabited by black swans (i.e. Australia ) to learn that not all swans are white. And indeed, nobody would believe that not all swans are white until you could bring back evidence of a black swan.

I hope you can see the quagmire we're in. You insist that there are broken pieces of china everywhere, but you can't show me any. You insist that there are black swans, but you can't show me any. Now if you're stuck there, not being able to show me the broken china pieces and the black swans, you certainly can't begrudge me for living as if there aren't any, can you?

 

[Scotishfury09]

Before and after Christ comes back in glory the judgments of God will be all the more spectacular.

In light of God's brutality? I'm confused.

I can accept the judgments of the Old testament God as being in accord with New Testament. The terrible consequence of sin is what is altoften forgotten by the humanistic mindsets of modern interpreters. Sin warrants the extinction of all life as we know it.

How is that forgotten by modern interpreters?

Yet in Noah and in the life of Christ we see Gods mercy at work saving us from the savage consequence of sin.

How was Noah saved from the savage consequences of sin?

By contrast the evolutionary process takes place largely before the existence of a moral man able to make moral choices. Thus the pain and death in it have no justification in
terms of judgment and of justice. They appear as merely a horrible and meaningless tale of endless suffering with no apparent justification at all.

Was sin born into existence by man? A little snake I know might beg to differ.

Quote:
Its one of those mysteries of creation but when God saw the wickedness of men in the days of creation he determined to wipe out not only them but all living creatures over which
he had given them dominion also. In the end he shows his compassion in Noahs ark to both animals and man and seals his promise to this saved family of creatures with a rainbow. It
was to man God brought the animals to be named. It was through the snake that man was tempted to fall.

I don't see how this relates to the experiment analogy.

Scary stuff I agree but this is the God of the Bible - if you reject him, or as the generation before the flood appeared to do just ignore Him and live your life as if he were not
there then you risk total obliteration with hell to follow.

Thank you for the Sunday school lesson.

Maybe you don't see my point. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. A God-guided evolutionary process is brutal, but cleansing the world of what was probably 99% of all life is justified?

I accept most of the practical models of terrestrial science - its when they start speculating on origins and the uttermost regions of the universe that we part company.

What is your definition of "practical"?
And I'm guessing just outside our solar system is "uttermost"?

The reason I can accept the last two points when it comes to modern science is that I believe there are reasonable grounds to doubt sciences efficacy when it comes to questions about the remote regions of the universe (ie just about anything outside our immediate solar system) and also about the distant events of our origins.

Give me some.

Science exceeds its remit in these areas and speculates rather than provides definite answers.

You realize that the Theory of Gravity isn't a definite answer, right? I bet if I throw my keyboard up into the air, it'll come back down. Good luck finding definite answers in even the most mundane sciences.

To be agnostic about the conclusions of science in these areas is the most authentic position I believe that any Christian can hold.

You only believe this because you think you have to. You don't have any falsifiable observations that provoke you to think that way. You assume you should be agnostic about science because it doesn't fit into your theology.

I only need to prove grounds for uncertainty to win any argument in these areas. If we do not know then the biblical account could be true so to speak.

Could be true so to speak? You don't sound very sure of your convictions. Could be true like geocentricism? They didn't know, so they assumed the Earth was at the center. Do you believe the Earth is at the center of the solar system/galaxy/universe? Could I give you scientific uncertainties in the Bible and win the argument? I doubt it.

Maybe one day people will recover this fantastic tool of science but until then its batteries are probably getting flat now and it has not got the charge to relay a message back
to us or even to make measurements of its surroundings.

Wow. Now that is quite a speculation. What made you say that? Is there some sort of quirky scientific journal you've been reading that claims there is a force field outside the solar system that automatically rejects any sort of signal sent back?

You are missing the point on this and in practical terms I have little argument with terrestrial and practical science.

What is practical science to you?

 

[gluadys]

Nonsense

Truth. If you did not hold to the idea that Genesis is literal, empirical history, you would not claim it revealed a young earth.

The next few centuries will tell

The next few centuries will probably help us identify variables we are not able to quantify now and refine our current measurements. It is highly unlikely they will overturn current measurements. This is the history of science. That our observations become more detailed, our understanding of variables more consistent and predictable.

So those who hold to 6 day creation and a young earth vastly outnumber the present generation of Christians not all of whom belieev in theistic evolution. The burden of proof is on you guys.
the prevalent view before 1947 was definitely 6 day creation and young earth:

Not necessarily. From 1830 to 1950 most creationists were old earth creationists. And even before there was any evidence of an old earth at all, a number of Jewish and Christian theologians held to non-literal views of the days of Genesis.

It is clear that the Jews interpreted the Creation account literally.

Actually, they were among the first to suggest non-literal interpretations.

Indeed their calendar dates the world
from 3,760BC Creation date. As Josephus says in the Antiquities of the Jews- "The sacred books contain the
history of 5000 years."

So they have changed the starting date of their calendar since Josephus' day. Doesn't sound consistent with a literal interpretation.

Furthermore in scripture itself:
The view that God created the world in a matter of days is affirmed in a number of ways in the rest of
scripture. Jesus affirms the authority of the account

Affirming the authority of the account is not the same thing as affirming the hermeneutical principle by which it is interpreted by modern YECs.

The Bible account seems to affirm this calendar.

I would hope so, since the calendar is based on the biblical account. Circular reasoning.

Also:
THE BEGINNINGS OF EARTHS HISTORY WAS THE BEGINNING OF MANS HISTORY

As one would expect of a species-centric history. Just as, until recently, most American children were taught that American history began with Columbus.

ADAM HAD NO ANCESTORS
The genealogies date from Adam who is portrayed throughout the scriptures as the first man. Paul seems to
assume his historicity and takes him as the first man in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15.

Two of the most non-literal treatments of Adam in scripture!!

If there was no death before the fall and Adam
had ancestors why are'nt they mentioned and does not their existence contradict the notion that Adam was the
first man and Eve the first woman created from Adam.

Circular reasoning again. You derive these questions from the assumption that your literal historical hermeneutic is correct. The contradiction between the story so understood and actual history should bring that hermeneutic into question. If you cannot reconcile scripture as you interpret it with objective observations, maybe it is time to consider that your interpretation is falsified.

If there was no fall what did we need a Redeemer for?

This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners;

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

I think the fact that I have sinned is reason enough for me to need a Redeemer apart from whether Adam sinned or not. I think the fact that all sin is ample reason for a Redeemer.

"In Matthew 19 Christ's prohibition of divorce is clearly based on the physical fact of Eve having been built
out of Adam, bone of his bone.

Please do not add to scripture what is not there. Jesus did not use the word "physical" nor is there anything in the passage to say he did not accept an allegorical interpretation of this text.

What would have been the point of quoting Gene 2 v 24 except to emphasise the
literal truth of the narrative?

To emphasize the spiritual importance of marriage as embedded in the Creator's purpose for humanity from the time of its creation.

Your question is an excellent example of how a focus on a literal hermeneutic leads one away from the more important spiritual message.

Chap 1 v 27 would have been quite sufficient if the argument rested on the
fact that in th e beginning there was only one man and one woman."

Actually, chapter 1 does not specify the size of the original human population. It only says that humanity was created in two genders, not that there was only one of each gender.

This record of creation is fully confirmed in the NT.
'For man is not from woman, but woman from man.' 1 Cor 11 v 8)

Again, I would hope so, since the NT writers were not starting from scratch but using the OT to explain their teaching. The NT is NOT an independent line of corroboration for the OT.

THE NT AFFIRMS THE GENESIS ACCOUNT AS AUTHORITATIVE BY QUOTING FROM IT
There are 71 references to genesis in the NT.

And not one of them affirms the correctness of a literal historic hermeneutic lens of interpretation. Several actually treat the Genesis text non-literally.

 

[JAL]

The evolutionary process takes place largely before the existence of a moral man able to make moral choices. Thus the pain and death in it have no justification in terms of judgment and of justice. They appear as merely a horrible and meaningless tale of endless suffering with no apparent justification at all.

We don’t have to understand why God would allow millions of years of animal suffering – His ways are beyond our understanding. We do, however, have to reconcile it with God’s goodness and justice – but I suspect this can be easily done as follows. No animal is evil, because the animal brain is not conducive to a sense of right and wrong. However, this doesn’t tell us the state of the animal’s soul BEFORE being placed within the animal’s body – in my view they are fallen angels (demons).

After all, the sort of objection you are raising here cuts both ways – how do you justify the fact that Mosaic law condoned killing “innocent” animals? My solution is that no animal is innocent. When Jesus cast the 2000 demons out of the demoniac and into the 2000 pigs, He was just repeating what He had already done for millions of years – putting demons within animal bodies. Animals suffer because they merited this judgment prior to the creation of Adam.

I also disagree with your assumption that a literal reading of Genesis requires a young earth. See this post:
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36548107&postcount=204

I further disagree with your assumption that the Ancient of Days (Dan 7:9-11) is ageless, because merit is achieved only by labor/suffering over time (for example we couldn't praise God for the cross if it involved no suffering). Since God is said to be worthy/meritorious of our praise, He must have age.


However, I do agree with your reservations about whether science can possibly give us the “full picture” - in at least three respects. First, I doubt that science can explain so-called “forces” such as gravity. Second, I have elsewhere shown that human motility is predominantly a supernatural phenomenon inexplicable by physiology (see the opening post). Thirdly, I believe that mechanical movement must have historically originated in a First Mover (a soul which is self-propelling and thus nonmechanical/supernatural). For example I believe that gravity itself is an activity of God as soul/Mover.

 

[mindlight]

And I agree with you that man is unique in the panoply of God's creation. We disagree on timing, that's all.

True

"A consistent picture can be a false one" - absolutely! I live with that as a to-be scientist every day. But it is one thing to make such a statement as a hypothetical possibility. It is quite another to take an actual "consistent picture", claim that it is false, and claim that everybody who thinks it is true is quite wrong.

How would you show that a consistent picture is a false one? By incorporating information that is inconsistent with it!

That is the standard scientific method today - that falsifiability is the way to overthrow a theory.

I don't know what you were talking about in terms of "rebels under communists" (I be really bad at any sort of History), but how would you convince any of those rebels that they were wrong? If you just told them "You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong", would you get any of them to believe you? Surely they would say: "Show us the evidence that we're wrong!"

Oh no wait a minute you guys are the Communists - I cannot say Nazis lest Glaudys cry Godwin! I am the rebel fighting for truth, justice and freedom of speech. The system today is biased against the likes of me and there is no discussion in proper scientific circles of the fundamental points of tension between our two views - at least in Europe. The system believes that the evidence is overwhelming. I do not doubt a convincing and consistent case has been presented but have two main reasons to object to the conclusions regarding distant space and time. 1) We do not really know and cannot prove these things 2) The Biblical accounts paints a different view.

As for dark matter, I can say to you - backed by a great dark matter scientist I've heard in person before - that we have almost no idea what it is. However, we do have (as you noted) a good idea of what it does. In fact, the very fact that it does stuff consistently allows us to label it "dark matter"! Dark matter does what it does consistently, even though we have no idea what it is; and any theory that is posited will have to explain why it does what it does.

What we don't and cannot know is the big thing with me here. There are too many variables and no amount of clever analysis will resolve this until we start sending probes out and seeing the stuff close up

Ah: but you had to be transported to an island inhabited by black swans (i.e. Australia ) to learn that not all swans are white. And indeed, nobody would believe that not all swans are white until you could bring back evidence of a black swan.

I hope you can see the quagmire we're in. You insist that there are broken pieces of china everywhere, but you can't show me any. You insist that there are black swans, but you can't show me any. Now if you're stuck there, not being able to show me the broken china pieces and the black swans, you certainly can't begrudge me for living as if there aren't any, can you?

I am not talking about broken China and evidence for falsification -true - I am saying that the galaxies china collection is demonstrably larger and more varied than our own so I do not have a reliable guide to that market in your China shop. Its not that your plates are broken - theres just not enough of them!!

 

[mindlight]

We don’t have to understand why God would allow millions of years of animal suffering – His ways are beyond our understanding. We do, however, have to reconcile it with God’s goodness and justice – but I suspect this can be easily done as follows. No animal is evil, because the animal brain is not conducive to a sense of right and wrong. However, this doesn’t tell us the state of the animal’s soul BEFORE being placed within the animal’s body – in my view they are fallen angels (demons).

I agree with the fact that the suffering of animals is qualitatively a completely different matter to that of moral beings. However I think an animal can become good or evil by its connection with its human master. My cat is good but some of our neighbours dogs are clearly evil ;-)

Not sure about the devils in animals idea although there are least two biblical examples of the snake in the garden and legions pigs I suppose. But then why not angels speaking through animals also on occasions or least by the influence of their movements e.g. Balaams donkey.

After all, the sort of objection you are raising here cuts both ways – how do you justify the fact that Mosaic law condoned killing “innocent” animals? My solution is that no animal is innocent. When Jesus cast the 2000 demons out of the demoniac and into the 2000 pigs, He was just repeating what He had already done for millions of years – putting demons within animal bodies. Animals suffer because they merited this judgment prior to the creation of Adam.

Its an interesting view point - I would need to think that one through.

I also disagree with your assumption that a literal reading of Genesis requires a young earth. See this post:
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36548107&postcount=204

An interesting post. But what about the verses i quoted earlier showing that earths history began with man.

THE BEGINNINGS OF EARTHS HISTORY WAS THE BEGINNING OF MANS HISTORY
Job 28 v 26 -28; Proverbs 8 v 27-31; Isaiah 45 v 18 ("inhabit is always used of humans only) Mark 10 v 6; 13 v
19; Romans 1 v 20

Day age theory suffers in conflict with modern science also as you have plants before sunlight?

I further disagree with your assumption that the Ancient of Days (Dan 7:9-11) is ageless, because merit is achieved only by labor/suffering over time (for example we couldn't praise God for the cross if it involved no suffering). Since God is said to be worthy/meritorious of our praise, He must have age.

Now this is an interesting rebuke and one I am inclined to accept. Gods compassion, courage and sacrificial love were clearly qualities concealed before the emergence of a fallen creation. So is the God who has always been and always will be still growing in some sense and aging. There were none before Him and there will be none after him and he is eternal but He is engaged with the human timeline and our knowledge of Him has progressed as that timeline has moved towards the goal he envisaged before the creation of the world.

However, I do agree with your reservations about whether science can possibly give us the “full picture” - in at least three respects. First, I doubt that science can explain so-called “forces” such as gravity. Second, I have elsewhere shown that human motility is predominantly a supernatural phenomenon inexplicable by physiology (see the opening post). Thirdly, I believe that mechanical movement must have historically originated in a First Mover (a soul which is self-propelling and thus nonmechanical/supernatural). For example I believe that gravity itself is an activity of God as soul/Mover.

Agreed science is a limited methodology and especially when we consider the things of God, our origins and the far reaches of the universe. The physical and the spiritual were created together, the heavens and the earth - so the fall of angels and men is something with impacts across the whole of the seen and unseen universe. Interesting view on gravity. He sustains our lives and the cosmos and the hidden heavens. He is the glue that holds creation together and its lifeforce but gravity as an activity of God - interesting!

 

[mindlight]

In light of God's brutality? I'm confused.

How is that forgotten by modern interpreters?

How was Noah saved from the savage consequences of sin?

Noah was saved in a boat from a judgment that came on the world because of mans sin. This judgment wiped out the world of that time and washed it clean of a corrupt generation and its animals.

Was sin born into existence by man? A little snake I know might beg to differ.

World the flesh and the devil - but lets not deny our responsibility

Maybe you don't see my point. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. A God-guided evolutionary process is brutal, but cleansing the world of what was probably 99% of all life is justified?

A moral judgment for things done wrong is one thing. An arbitrary dolling out of pain to stupid animals is another.

What is your definition of "practical"?
And I'm guessing just outside our solar system is "uttermost"?

Something with multi sensual verification would be a good way of putting it. Most of the universe is only known by sight and some investigations by sound. The more senses you can verify a fact with the more physically reliable is your theory. Thus most practical science which has been applied to our lives is acceptable.

You only believe this because you think you have to. You don't have any falsifiable observations that provoke you to think that way. You assume you should be agnostic about science because it doesn't fit into your theology.

You and Glaudys share that view but in my humble opinion , my opinion is based on two reservations about science - one based on scripture and the other on our actual ignorance of the far reaches of the universe and of time.

Could be true so to speak? You don't sound very sure of your convictions. Could be true like geocentricism? They didn't know, so they assumed the Earth was at the center. Do you believe the Earth is at the center of the solar system/galaxy/universe? Could I give you scientific uncertainties in the Bible and win the argument? I doubt it.

You could try ;-)

Wow. Now that is quite a speculation. What made you say that? Is there some sort of quirky scientific journal you've been reading that claims there is a force field outside the solar system that automatically rejects any sort of signal sent back?

Now now do not mock - I am sure it is beneath you.

The observation on Voyager is based on some simple facts. The space crafts batteries on which cameras and communication equipment was based need solar energy to be recharged. Nearer the sun this was no problem. As the craft has moved further away it has been harder and harder to recharge the batteries of the craft to take a picture or send a signal. Also the further away the craft gets the weaker will be the signal it is able to send over all the other background noise of the universe.

 

[mindlight]

Truth. ...

It appears to me that you are imposing your own liberal rationalistic hermeneutic/agenda on to the biblical text and onto my writings also and that you have not reckoned properly with what is written.

 

[JAL]

An interesting post. But what about the verses i quoted earlier showing that earths history began with man. THE BEGINNINGS OF EARTHS HISTORY WAS THE BEGINNING OF MANS HISTORY
Job 28 v 26 -28; Proverbs 8 v 27-31; Isaiah 45 v 18 ("inhabit is always used of humans only) Mark 10 v 6; 13 v
19; Romans 1 v 20

I took a brief look at some of those verses - didn't see anything much in the way of a systematic chronology.

Day age theory suffers in conflict with modern science also as you have plants before sunlight?

Did you read that post of mine (the link) ? It is not day-age theory, first of all, at least not in the traditional sense. Secondly I proposed a topical reading which, while literal, does not entail plants before photosynthesis. (If that's your concern, I think you didn't read the post).