age/expansion of the universe

[shernren]

Oh but I can have it both ways! CReation is intelligible to a degree but it no longer speaks clearly enough because of its brokeness. What God made was good and reflected his design, now we see fragments and our models of understanding need to reflect the broken nature of what creation reveals to us. I suppose this is also the difference between a modernist science and a postmodern science. We can find truth but need to be more humble about our grand theories because of the brokeness that is also there.

I just have two questions for you: both requiring merely yes or no answers, so you shouldn't have trouble typing an answer. Firstly: Am I understanding you aright? As far as I'm hearing, according to you, God's original design for the world was perfect and thus was fundamentally different at some physical level from this modern, fallen world. In particular, the ways in which our modern, fallen world is different from God's original, unfallen design for the world must account for why modern scientists are finding an apparent age for the world that is much, much older than it actually is. Am I understanding you aright?

And secondly: would God's original design then have been sustainable? In other words, if Adam and Eve had not sinned, would this original design for the world, which you suppose was significantly physically different from what we see today, be capable of indefinitely being sustained?

 

[Assyrian]

AS Jesus says the Pentateuch or Torah was written by Moses
and is an integral whole
and historical account of Gods early dealings with mankind and then later with the Hebrew peoples.

Jesus said this where?

These are very reputable (Oxbridge level) names you are dismissing. But add to that the consensus of the global historical church and it is for you to prove your case not me.

You really should not be quoting James Barr, he thinks the problem with fundamentalists is that they don't take the bible literally enough, or only when it suits them. Sure he thinks the six days are meant literally, so are the descriptions of the firmament as a solid bowl, the earth resting on pillars and the sun rushing around it every day. You should not quote what Barr thinks is the literal meaning of scripture, unless you are prepared to accept all of what he thinks it literally says.

Creation is cursed and our minds at war with error.

You never did back up that claim that creation was cursed.

 

[gluadys]

what is a consensus.

An agreement that includes well over a majority of those who have examined the pertinent information and theories or discussed the decision to be made. One can quibble as to whether one has consensus at 85% agreement or not until one has 95% agreement, but only 51% agreement is not consensus.

In the process of making decisions by consensus, consensus is deemed to be achieved when 100% of the participants agree to live with the decision, even if it is not their preferred decision.

When one includes the worldwide historic church in ones sample then the consensus is still not conclusive.

Consensus never means that the agreement is correct. Only that it is the one overwhelmingly accepted. So, for example, there is agreement among the overwhelming majority of Christians on the triune nature of God. That in itself does not guarantee the truth of the Trinity. And we have no means of confirming this truth--only faith that we have correctly deduced this doctrine from the experience of the church and the witness of scripture.

In science, one has the external source of evidence which constrains the consensus. Hence scientific consensus is often more complete than theological consensus.

's amongst academic elites can last hundreds of years only to be displaced by later alternatives.

Do you see this as a problem? If so, why?

Also lets not exaggerate the consensus there are many competing theories about the universe even within the naturalistic framework adopted by modern scientists.

One needs to discriminate between where there is consensus and where there is not. In Christian theology, for example, there is consensus on the Trinity. There is not consensus on the place of the Virgin Mary in the life and worship of the church. The fact that there is not consensus on the latter point does not undo the consensus on the former point.

In science there is current controversy on matters such as dark energy. There is consensus on the big bang. The former controversy does not undermine the consensus on the latter theory.

I consider the other religions you mentioned to be false ones and the scripture leaves no room for alternative ways to God.

That is irrelevant to the point that their texts, though culture-specific, have impacted many cultures over thousands of years. If untrue religious texts can cross cultural and temporal barriers, why not the bible?

There are deep differences between the Genesis text as a whole and the Apocryphal or mythological genres.

There are clear differences within the Genesis text as well.

AS Jesus says the Pentateuch or Torah was written by Moses

Actually, Jesus never says that. Nor, more importantly, does the Torah itself. The Torah is attributed to Moses because the Law was given through Moses. But this does not necessitate Moses being the person who put the Law in writing.

Agreed that scientifically the existence of the one place does not prove the other. BUt it makes a massive difference to the credibility of the text that it is talking about real places and historical figures- some of whom can be confirmed from other sources. If I were in a court of law and wanted to test the credibility of a witness the fact that what could be tested bore out would affirm a certain faith in his testimony.

And it is faith--a matter of trust. When there is contrary testimony, it becomes a matter of which witness you choose to believe. Unless you have evidence that conclusively points to one as being more credible than another.

More to the point, however, is whether the testimony is historical in the first place. No amount of historical confirmation of place, time, custom, etc. changes a myth or a legend into history.

The same secular source that confirms the existence of Pontius Pilate (josephus) confirms the existence of Christ and of James also. So not sure where this idea came from.

Actually I wasn't thinking of Josephus at all, but of this artifact:

http://www.knls.org/images/slideshows/Humble 1to13/jpg_humble01.htm


Josephus does not confirm the existence of Jesus. He only confirms the existence of a community of Christians who testify to the existence of Jesus. (I am not sure about James as I am unfamiliar with that reference in Josephus.)

This is where we part company in fairly decisive way. You are saying that you do not believe in the Divine inspiration of scriptures.

No I am not. I fully affirm the inspiration of the scriptures. In fact, once I discovered the Documentary Thesis, I was confirmed in my belief in the inspiration of scriptures. I find the history of the composition and assembly of the scriptures to be a wonderful testimony to God's work among his people for the purpose of creating, winnowing and preserving these texts for our edification.


I probably believe in a deeper level of inspiration than you do. For I see inspiration as applying not only to the reception of God's revelation and the writing of it (and note that the prophet who received God's word was often not the writer of the text, so there are already two levels of inspiration here); I also see inspiration extending to the editing of the texts and the construction of the canon.

"For in the days before the Flood...." Math 24 v 38 (It does not get clearer than that) - what is your objection?

"The next day, he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper" Luke 10:35. Does the temporal reference turn the story of the Good Samaritan into a historical event?

These are very reputable (Oxbridge level) names you are dismissing. But add to that the consensus of the global historical church and it is for you to prove your case not me.

I don't doubt their repute. I am saying that they are a minority voice among Hebrew scholars. That doesn't make them wrong, but it doesn't make their voice decisive either. The "global historical church" you are referring to is neither global nor historical. It is Western Euro-American Protestant and has existed only since the Reformation. Today it includes only a minority of Protestants.

Typology by nature is historical.

Nonsense. It is human imagination that finds typology in history. It does not exist in history apart from an interpretive framework. The type is a theological and metaphorical construct.

Are you reading the same passages I am :
"Therefore just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin...death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses...life through the one man Jesus Christ..Romans 5 v 12-21
Seems to be talking about real people and real events to me and situating a discussion of the redemption of sin that is available in Christ in that cotext.

Indeed, Paul at his metaphorical best. Nothing here requires a historical Adam. It doesn't even require a historical Christ. Both figures are consistently presented as theological icons. (Not that I am disputing the historicity of Jesus. Just that Paul's argument here does not require it. The Jesus of history fades into the background of the theology of the cosmic Christ. Both Adam and Christ are presented as contrasting types of humanity.)

The emerging picture here is that you reject the Mosaic authorship under the inspiration of God in favour of some kind of vision of mulitiple texts by multiple authors over time and then with scribal modifications also - is this correct?

I reject the Mosaic authorship on the basis of the textual evidence. I affirm the writing of the text under the inspiration of God, no matter who the author was.

Science is a construct of thoughts about creation.

That would be true of scientific theories. It is also true that scientific theories are grounded in observation and constantly tested against the physical evidence. They are subject to revision when the physical evidence requires it.

Theology is a construct of thoughts about God. It is a response to God and an expression of what He is saying in and too his church.

I agree. Would you agree that in this case there is no physical evidence that offers objective confirmation or disconfirmation of the theological constructs? The "evidence" in this case is testimony passed on by alleged eye-witnesses and the internal, subjective and untestable witness of the Holy Spirit.

With both sets of constructs the connection to the described or expressed reality is the crucial thing. How can the quality of this connection be measured. In science there is a rigorous communal testing by observation and deduction. In theology also the global historical church provides a forum in which ones thoughts about God can be tested.

The crucial difference being that science can appeal to what is sensory and theology cannot. Also, if you want to appeal to the global historical church you need to include much more than the literal-minded church of post-Reformation Protestantism.

Scripture also being inspired by God is a crucial test of the veracity of a theology. If a thought contradicts what is written there then its validity becomes questionable.

If there is a real contradiction, yes. But in most theological controversies we do not have contradiction but a difference of interpretation. Or the apparent contradiction exists in scripture itself, and different theologies opt to give one aspect more emphasis than the other (e.g. predestination vs. free will).

So for example Mosaic authorship of the Torah is affirmed in both the JUdaeo Christian tradition and by scripture itself.

It is not affirmed in scripture and the tradition is contradicted by the evidence.

Science cannot comment on the unseen world directly - no that is true.

Good, we are agreed on this.

Creation is cursed and our minds at war with error.

Actually, the scripture never says creation is cursed. It says in Genesis "cursed is the ground because of you [the man]" The ground is not all of creation. And in Romans Paul does not describe creation as cursed but as subject to futility and in bondage to decay.

Now if you wish, you can say: ok--that is the curse--to be subject to futility and in bondage to decay.

So what effect does that have on the intelligibility of the created order or the possibility of scientific analysis of nature? Even decay can be studied scientifically. Where is the problem?

Our minds are "at war with error". An interesting turn of phrase. There is a theological context in which I would accept it. But in terms of science I don't think we are speaking of a war with error, but of observational and/or logical errors with no theological import. These are self-correcting through multiple observations by multiple observers and the correction of logical fallacies.

The case of miracles is an interesting point here. An unseen cause produces a physical consequence. These are rare and unique occurrences which cannot always be mapped by science in terms of causes although their effects can be observed yet lack of visibility to scientific methods does not make them any the less real.

Science deals primarily with those regularities in nature we call natural laws. It is the regular coherence of nature that permits scientific prediction and the testing of hypotheses. So miracles, in general, fall outside of science, because, by definition, they are not part of the regular operation of nature.

The physical effect of a miracle, when there is one, can be studied--as for example, the many healings at Lourdes. But the cause cannot be deciphered. It is precisely in such cases---where no physical cause can be found--that these healings are designated as miracles.

In the case of such matters as the expansion of the universe, the formation of galaxies and of our solar system, the age of the earth and the evolution of biodiversity, there is ample evidence of the physical causes and consequences. There is no need to call upon a miracle to explain them.

Do you believe God works only in miracles, or also in the natural created order?

Oh but I can have it both ways! CReation is intelligible to a degree but it no longer speaks clearly enough because of its brokeness.

You haven't shown that. You believe it by faith, and as far as I can see, without adequate scriptural warrant. How do you know that the fall so affected creation that it cannot speak clearly enough on the matters science has investigated?

We can find truth but need to be more humble about our grand theories because of the brokeness that is also there.

I agree we need humility. Part of that humility, I submit, is subjecting our theories to the test of actual observation and evidence.

I find that, like most creationists, you are unwilling to actually look at created nature and explore what it says. You arrogantly assume that it has nothing of value to say. Because your theology says so.

 

[mindlight]

I just have two questions for you: both requiring merely yes or no answers, so you shouldn't have trouble typing an answer. Firstly: Am I understanding you aright? As far as I'm hearing, according to you, God's original design for the world was perfect and thus was fundamentally different at some physical level from this modern, fallen world. In particular, the ways in which our modern, fallen world is different from God's original, unfallen design for the world must account for why modern scientists are finding an apparent age for the world that is much, much older than it actually is. Am I understanding you aright?

Firstly let me apologise to you for not giving considered answers to your earlier posts. I did read them and did appreciate the analogies you drew with a crime scene and the word study on the key words. Thanks for granting me questions I can attempt to give short and simple answers to.

What God created was perfect and yes I do believe that must have meant differences from the present in the laws that governed the universe although I am not qualified to discuss what those differences might have been and which were the crucial ones.

Then there was a fall on many levels in Gods creation - in both the material and unseen heavenly creations and this broke the mirror in which we see creations reflection so to speak. So because of the essential brokenness of the universe what appears to us now is a distorted picture.

So I might have the utmost respect for scientists who argue with rigour and consistency on the basis of what they observe and calculate about the universe and still believe as I do that their conclusions are somehow flawed because they see is a distortion and the things that they observe have changed in fundamental ways.

And secondly: would God's original design then have been sustainable? In other words, if Adam and Eve had not sinned, would this original design for the world, which you suppose was significantly physically different from what we see today, be capable of indefinitely being sustained?

Well thats a very good question. I have to believe that Gods design was a sustainable design. But I am well aware of the problems of envisaging an infinite light speed for instance as the Einsteinian implication (E=mc2) as some physicists have pointed out to me would have been infinite energy and all of us frying in it. Unless the equations would have to be revised to deal with a perfect universe. That kind of maths is well beyond me. But the assumption of a perfect connection to the creator of the cosmos would entail its infinite capacity for renewal. So in answer to your question yes. The loss of that connection is the fundamental disruption to the universe- all else is merely symptoms.

 

[mindlight]

Jesus said this where?

Are you a Graf-Wellhausenite? The following article is a good one refuting that hypothesis:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/13
Most of the assumptions of that hypothesis have been disproved as
1) Moses did live in an age in which people could write.
2) There are answers to the problem passages described in this hypothesis: Genesis 36:31 see Genesis 17 v 16 and Genesis 36:31 for instance. Moses received special revelation from God about the implications of a monarchy for Israel e.g. Dt 17 v 14-15. Christians and Jews have always believed that God was with him and that he was therefore inspired in what he wrote.
3) There is no conclusive archaeological evidence to support the view that there were no tame camels at the time of Abraham.
4) there are a whole load of scriptural references throughout scripture indictaing this view:
“Moses wrote all the words of Jehovah” (Exodus 24:4).
“Jehovah said unto Moses, ‘Write thou these words...’ ” (Exodus 34:27).
“Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of Jehovah” (Numbers 33:2).
“Moses wrote this law and delivered it unto the priests...” (Deuteronomy 31:9).
“The law was given through Moses” (John 1:17).
“And beginning from Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them [His disciples—EL/ZS] in all the scriptures the things concerning himself ‘ (Luke 24:27).
Mark 7:10
“Have you not read in the book of Moses, in the place concerning the bush, how God spake unto him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?” (Mark 12:26
“For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47

You really should not be quoting James Barr, he thinks the problem with fundamentalists is that they don't take the bible literally enough, or only when it suits them. Sure he thinks the six days are meant literally, so are the descriptions of the firmament as a solid bowl, the earth resting on pillars and the sun rushing around it every day. You should not quote what Barr thinks is the literal meaning of scripture, unless you are prepared to accept all of what he thinks it literally says.

I have a good deal of respect for the recently deceased James Barr.

http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jul1985/v42-2-bookreview8.htm

He was of course a vehement critic of fundamentalists in his books. It may surprise you that I can accept many of his criticisms. Very often Conservative evangelicals are more rigid in their interpretations of scripture than is warranted by the style and content of scripture itself. However I disagree with him on scriptural inerrancy and his view that because scripture was not inerrant he did not have to accept the things it says about creation at face value. He was more honest about the Hebrew of the actual text when he said.

...probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.

This did not make him a creationist because even though he knew what the text said he did not accept that the text has the authority which I believe it has.

You never did back up that claim that creation was cursed.

We discussed the Romans 8 v 18-22 passage which I have already said I believe to be clear.

 

[mindlight]

An agreement that includes well over a majority of those who have examined the
pertinent information and theories or discussed the decision to be made. One can quibble as to whether
one has consensus at 85% agreement or not until one has 95% agreement, but only 51% agreement is not
consensus.
In the process of making decisions by consensus, consensus is deemed to be achieved when 100% of the
participants agree to live with the decision, even if it is not their preferred decision.
Consensus never means that the agreement is correct. Only that it is the one overwhelmingly accepted. So,
for example, there is agreement among the overwhelming majority of Christians on the triune nature of
God. That in itself does not guarantee the truth of the Trinity. And we have no means of confirming this
truth--only faith that we have correctly deduced this doctrine from the experience of the church and the
witness of scripture.
Do you see this as a problem? If so, why?
One needs to discriminate between where there is consensus and where there is not. In Christian theology,
for example, there is consensus on the Trinity. There is not consensus on the place of the Virgin Mary in
the life and worship of the church. The fact that there is not consensus on the latter point does not
undo the consensus on the former point.

I believe that the broad consensus of the global - historical church has been for 6 day creation in a
young universe. Most believers from the developing world accept this interpretation and those closest to
the original languages of the scriptures have always affirmed it e.g. the Orthodox Jewish community
today. This puts the burden of proof on those who do not accept the YEC view.

In science, one has the external source of evidence which constrains the consensus. Hence scientific
consensus is often more complete than theological consensus.
In science there is current controversy on matters such as dark energy. There is consensus on the big
bang. The former controversy does not undermine the consensus on the latter theory......
That would be true of scientific theories. It is also true that scientific theories are grounded in
observation and constantly tested against the physical evidence. They are subject to revision when the
physical evidence requires it.

As I said to Shernen I believe creation to be changed from its original state of perfection by the fall
and our perceptions of it to be distorted also. Decay and futility has consequences as the original
harmony and perfection of the created order has been disrupted by it and the universe no longer functions
as it would if it were in perfect communion with God.

That is irrelevant to the point that their texts, though culture-specific, have impacted many
cultures over thousands of years. If untrue religious texts can cross cultural and temporal barriers, why
not the bible?

I understand your point but the nature of the actual inspiration in these other cases is very different.
But granted truth and lies cross cultural barriers. The biblical revelation manages to be historical
and transcendent and maintains this paradox in the mystery of its inspiration.

There are clear differences within the Genesis text as well.

Of course - you'd have to be more specific before we start disagreeing with each other.

Actually, Jesus never says that. Nor, more importantly, does the Torah itself. The Torah is attributed to
Moses because the Law was given through Moses. But this does not necessitate Moses being the person who
put the Law in writing....
No I am not. I fully affirm the inspiration of the scriptures. In fact, once I discovered the Documentary
Thesis, I was confirmed in my belief in the inspiration of scriptures. I find the history of the
composition and assembly of the scriptures to be a wonderful testimony to God's work among his people for
the purpose of creating, winnowing and preserving these texts for our edification.....
I probably believe in a deeper level of inspiration than you do. For I see inspiration as applying not
only to the reception of God's revelation and the writing of it (and note that the prophet who received
God's word was often not the writer of the text, so there are already two levels of inspiration here); I
also see inspiration extending to the editing of the texts and the construction of the canon....
I reject the Mosaic authorship on the basis of the textual evidence. I affirm the writing of the text
under the inspiration of God, no matter who the author was.
I don't doubt their repute. I am saying that they are a minority voice among Hebrew scholars. That
doesn't make them wrong, but it doesn't make their voice decisive either. The "global historical church"
you are referring to is neither global nor historical. It is Western Euro-American Protestant and has
existed only since the Reformation. Today it includes only a minority of Protestants.

Think I answered this with Assyrian post regarding Mosaic authorship and rejection of Document
hypothesis. The texts themselves do not support your view of inspiration. If you believe the end
product of your deeper and longer process to be an inspired work then surely this contradiction is an
issue for their veracity.

And it is faith--a matter of trust. When there is contrary testimony, it becomes a matter of which
witness you choose to believe. Unless you have evidence that conclusively points to one as being more
credible than another.
More to the point, however, is whether the testimony is historical in the first place. No amount of
historical confirmation of place, time, custom, etc. changes a myth or a legend into history.

The ultimate questions do revolve around did it happen as the witnesses describe. But I do not believe
that science can establish a conclusion on this either way. In the end it does come down to a matter of
trust and who seems more credible.

Actually I wasn't thinking of Josephus at all, but of this artifact:
http://www.knls.org/images/slideshows/Humble 1to13/jpg_humble01.htm
Josephus does not confirm the existence of Jesus. He only confirms the existence of a community of
Christians who testify to the existence of Jesus. (I am not sure about James as I am unfamiliar with that
reference in Josephus.)
"The next day, he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper" Luke 10:35. Does the temporal
reference turn the story of the Good Samaritan into a historical event?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
The arab manuscript mentioned by Schlomo Pines includes the Testimonium Flavianum and is significant as
this is not an "edited" Christian source. So it seems Josephus had something to say about Jesus:
For he says in the treatises that he has written in the governance of the Jews: "At this time there was a
wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people
from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and
to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that
he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they
believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders" - Shlomo Pines'
translation, quoted by J. D. Crossan
Josephus a Romanised Secular jew thus confirms that the story was in circulation much as the Christians
suggest only one generation distance from Christ. It is not clear from his text if his source was the
Christians themselves or what others said they were claiming.

Nonsense. It is human imagination that finds typology in history. It does not exist in history
apart from an interpretive framework. The type is a theological and metaphorical construct.
Indeed, Paul at his metaphorical best. Nothing here requires a historical Adam. It doesn't even require a
historical Christ. Both figures are consistently presented as theological icons. (Not that I am disputing
the historicity of Jesus. Just that Paul's argument here does not require it. The Jesus of history fades
into the background of the theology of the cosmic Christ. Both Adam and Christ are presented as
contrasting types of humanity.)

Without an Historical fulfilment the doctrines lose their power and the texts that refer to them start to
seem dishonest. A real Adam and a real Jesus are required and in the case of the suffering servant
passages of Isaiah a real nation of Israel and a real messiah.

I agree. Would you agree that in this case there is no physical evidence that offers objective
confirmation or disconfirmation of the theological constructs? The "evidence" in this case is testimony
passed on by alleged eye-witnesses and the internal, subjective and untestable witness of the Holy
Spirit.
The crucial difference being that science can appeal to what is sensory and theology cannot. Also, if you
want to appeal to the global historical church you need to include much more than the literal-minded
church of post-Reformation Protestantism.
If there is a real contradiction, yes. But in most theological controversies we do not have contradiction
but a difference of interpretation. Or the apparent contradiction exists in scripture itself, and
different theologies opt to give one aspect more emphasis than the other (e.g. predestination vs. free
will).

Scientific investigation is not the way that I would expect to resolve a theological disagreement but nor would I expect a theologian to frame his views on the basis of a scientific consensus. Science is not the appropriate tool to resolve these differences.

Actually, the scripture never says creation is cursed. It says in Genesis "cursed is the ground because
of you [the man]" The ground is not all of creation. And in Romans Paul does not describe creation as
cursed but as subject to futility and in bondage to decay.
Now if you wish, you can say: ok--that is the curse--to be subject to futility and in bondage to decay.
So what effect does that have on the intelligibility of the created order or the possibility of
scientific analysis of nature? Even decay can be studied scientifically. Where is the problem?
In the case of such matters as the expansion of the universe, the formation of galaxies and of our solar
system, the age of the earth and the evolution of biodiversity, there is ample evidence of the physical
causes and consequences. There is no need to call upon a miracle to explain them.
You haven't shown that. You believe it by faith, and as far as I can see, without adequate scriptural
warrant. How do you know that the fall so affected creation that it cannot speak clearly enough on the
matters science has investigated?

There is a curse in Romans 8. It seems to be related to futility and decay ( a disconnection from the Divine and death because of that). That would introduce enough error and change in its fundamental regularities to make generalisations about its perfect origins and outermost limits a little fool hardy. Also we only see a distorted picture so what we see is not reliable anyway.

Our minds are "at war with error". An interesting turn of phrase. There is a theological context in which I would accept it. But in terms of science I don't think we are speaking of a war with error, but of observational and/or logical errors with no theological import. These are self-correcting through
multiple observations by multiple observers and the correction of logical fallacies.

If what they are observing is a distorted picture - as with a broken mirror. If the fundamental laws on the basis of which the universe operates have been altered by the fall. Then a scientific consensus matters very little.

Science deals primarily with those regularities in nature we call natural laws. It is the regular
coherence of nature that permits scientific prediction and the testing of hypotheses. So miracles, in
general, fall outside of science, because, by definition, they are not part of the regular operation of
nature.
The physical effect of a miracle, when there is one, can be studied--as for example, the many healings at
Lourdes. But the cause cannot be deciphered. It is precisely in such cases---where no physical cause can
be found--that these healings are designated as miracles.
Do you believe God works only in miracles, or also in the natural created order?

I believe in a God who created the heavens and the earth, what is seen and what is not seen. The interaction between these realms cannot be explained by a merely naturalistic paradigm and could appear miraculous by itself. I also believe in a God who will occasionally intervene in a miraculous way. Life to me is a miracle. That we exist at all in this now brutal and hostile universe on our fragile little planet is an amazing miracle that defies all but a theological explanation.

I agree we need humility. Part of that humility, I submit, is subjecting our theories to the test of actual observation and evidence.
I find that, like most creationists, you are unwilling to actually look at created nature and explore
what it says. You arrogantly assume that it has nothing of value to say. Because your theology says so.

The best way to explore nature is to see it as it was before it broke. Like loving an old woman who was once a perfect princess I suppose. That old woman will be the perfect princess again albeit a little wiser than before!

 

[mindlight]

But lets not forget that "Science" is duplicitous. When issues like angels are raised (or the resurrection) it suggests that it can't comment. As far as science is concerned, they can "exist", as long as they don't speak or presume to be relevant. So, when people speak of things revealed by angels (or other similar sources), it mocks, as in the mocking in this forum. An angel is a witness to what the truth is as much as any other form of evidence. The convenient duplicity that tries to bracket out that evidence is shameful.

The unseen realm lies beyond sciences ability to interpret so mockery is a form of collective ego defence I suppose. The naturalistic explanation assumes a material explanation is adequate when it is only part of the whole picture. The lies are in the assumptions and the results the expression of these.

It is one thing to disagree with the meaning of a certain testimony. It is quite another to say that you are a fool for accepting that testimony. Genesis is a testimony of a six day creation. The text allows it.

Those closest to the original text always interpreted as 6 days and Exodus 20 affirms that. The burden of proof is on those who disagree.

Science is at war with that testimony, but tries to make itself appear indulgent and beneficent by saying it does not presume to address things like angels or the direct revelation of God to Moses. It quite clearly presumes a great deal when you try to apply it.

I am not at war with science. I am a major beneficiary of science and technology. I just think that a highly successful methodology does have its limits and the consideration of the unseen world and of the origins of the universe are two of those. Similarly though I believe that many YEC need to be careful about claiming the authority of science to support biblically based conclusions when discussing origins. The most that can be achieved scientifically is a casting doubt on dominant paradigms.

I do not believe that a coherent scientific picture of our origins is available outside of a direct conversation with the Creator of the Universe. Its a conversation that I am really looking forward to!

 

[shernren]

Firstly let me apologise to you for not giving considered answers to your earlier posts. I did read them and did appreciate the analogies you drew with a crime scene and the word study on the key words. Thanks for granting me questions I can attempt to give short and simple answers to.

You should never feel comfortable when someone asks you questions which require only short answers. Often that either means he's tired too (which I'm not ) or that he's got what he thinks is a big whopper somewhere down the road and the small, short answers are just breadcrumbs leading to it.

What God created was perfect and yes I do believe that must have meant differences from the present in the laws that governed the universe although I am not qualified to discuss what those differences might have been and which were the crucial ones.

Then there was a fall on many levels in Gods creation - in both the material and unseen heavenly creations and this broke the mirror in which we see creations reflection so to speak. So because of the essential brokenness of the universe what appears to us now is a distorted picture.

So I might have the utmost respect for scientists who argue with rigour and consistency on the basis of what they observe and calculate about the universe and still believe as I do that their conclusions are somehow flawed because they see is a distortion and the things that they observe have changed in fundamental ways.

Well thats a very good question. I have to believe that Gods design was a sustainable design. But I am well aware of the problems of envisaging an infinite light speed for instance as the Einsteinian implication (E=mc2) as some physicists have pointed out to me would have been infinite energy and all of us frying in it. Unless the equations would have to be revised to deal with a perfect universe. That kind of maths is well beyond me. But the assumption of a perfect connection to the creator of the cosmos would entail its infinite capacity for renewal. So in answer to your question yes. The loss of that connection is the fundamental disruption to the universe- all else is merely symptoms.

So then let me ask about two specific areas of creation. I expect that your answer would be "yes" to the first; I honestly don't know about the second and wouldn't be surprised if you haven't thought thoroughly about that one either (I certainly haven't, not too much).

1. Were the Earth's orbital characteristics the same before the Fall and after? In other words, did the Earth complete one rotation about its axis in 24 hours? Did the Moon revolve around the Earth once every month (roughly 28-30 days, depending on how you define it) and did it cause tides? And had the Earth persisted in its sinless state for longer, would the Earth have completed one revolution around the sun in a year of roughly 365 days?

2. According to conventional science the sun produces light by fusing hydrogen into helium. Did this process also account for how the sun produced light before the Fall?

 

[gluadys]

I believe that the broad consensus of the global - historical church has been for 6 day creation in a
young universe.

Well, I would say you believe wrong then. At least about the six days being literal solar days. That concept was questioned by the rabbis even before Christ was born. A common belief at the time (and this had nothing to do with science) was that each creative day was 1,000 years. At the opposite extreme Augustine held that creation was instantaneous. Didn't even take six seconds, much less six days. He held that the narrative said otherwise because instantaneous creation is not easily assimilated by the human mind so God accommodated his revelation to the capacity of his human listeners.

I also noted the citation from Barr.

..probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days, ...
​

Is this the basis for you saying that most Hebrew professors agree with a six-day young earth creation? Because it is not a sound basis for that conclusion. Barr is not commenting on what the professors themselves believe, but on what they agree the original writers believed. On that point, I agree with them. It is a sound description of what the original writers probably believed. Just at the original writers probably believed the stars were fixed in the firmament (not to be mentally "translated" as outer space, they knew nothing of outer space) with waters above it and windows in it, that said firmament was supported by pillars and the earth set on foundations above the deep, and that the sun, not the earth, moved through the heavens.

As Assyrian says, if you are going to appeal to the beliefs of Barr, and the original writers to support a literal interpretation, you need to be aware of ALL that they took literally and have a very good explanation if you choose to accept only some of it as literal and not the rest.

As I said to Shernen I believe creation to be changed from its original state of perfection by the fall
and our perceptions of it to be distorted also.

However, you have offered no scriptural basis for this belief. Specifically, you have no scriptural basis for assuming HOW it was affected by the fall. Even if I accept that it is not in the perfect state of its original creation, that does not tell me what the differences are. You are implying that there are specific differences that affect its intelligibility. But scripture does not name any such specific differences. So how can you come to this conclusion?

Decay and futility has consequences as the original
harmony and perfection of the created order has been disrupted by it and the universe no longer functions
as it would if it were in perfect communion with God.

Yet, it is still intelligible. When we apply scientific study to it, we get consistent and coherent answers that have practical working applications. Does this not suggest that God has not abandoned creation entirely but sustains it in a coherent natural and habitable order? Why do you insist that science cannot come to accurate conclusions about this order? And if the conclusions are inaccurate, why do they depict a coherent, intelligible universe? Why does technology based on science work at a practical level?

Think I answered this with Assyrian post regarding Mosaic authorship and rejection of Document
hypothesis.

Not really. Most of them don't really touch on the DT itself, but on some arrogant 19th century European assumptions about ANE societies which were current at the time the DT was first proposed and became associated with it. Scholars who hold to the DT today know that those assumptions are incorrect, but also agree that further study of the text shows more, not less support for the DT.

I can't really comment much further though, for my only reading has been in the popular literature on it. My lack of Hebrew hinders actual study and analysis.

then surely this contradiction is an
issue for their veracity.

Interesting that you think there is a contradiction. I didn't see one.

Josephus a Romanised Secular jew thus confirms that the story was in circulation much as the Christians
suggest only one generation distance from Christ. It is not clear from his text if his source was the
Christians themselves or what others said they were claiming.

Yes, I am familiar with that quotation. It is the one on James I am unfamiliar with. As you say, the text does not indicate his source, and it certainly does not indicate that he took anytime to verify the reports of his source. That is why the citation is not a verification of the existence of Jesus. It is only a verification of the report of the existence of Jesus and what his disciples were preaching.

Had Josephus been able to report on Jesus from personal experience, or if he had even shown that he had sought out and found evidence that the people he heard these reports from were eye-witnesses the citation would be more relevant.

Without an Historical fulfilment the doctrines lose their power and the texts that refer to them start to
seem dishonest.

I don't follow this reasoning. It is not whether the doctrines have a historical fulfilment that is in question, but whether the textual description of the events is literal. You can have a historical fulfilment reported non-literally in the written text. What is dishonest about that?

A real Adam and a real Jesus are required and in the case of the suffering servant
passages of Isaiah a real nation of Israel and a real messiah.

So you accept that the suffering servant in Isaiah's text is a metaphor of a literal Israel, but cannot accept that Adam and Christ in Paul's text are metaphors for fallen and redeemed humanity. Strange.

Scientific investigation is not the way that I would expect to resolve a theological disagreement

No indeed, I wasn't suggesting that. Only pointing out that science has a tool that aids coming to consensus that theology cannot use: namely appeal to our sensory perceptions of the material world.

Theology has only the biblical text, various theological traditions of textual interpretation and the alleged witness of the Holy Spirit, which in its subjectivity seems to provide contradictory witness to opposing parties in any theological dispute. Much harder to build a consensus on that than on something you can see, touch or measure.

There is a curse in Romans 8.

Where? I don't see it mentioned.

It seems to be related to futility and decay ( a disconnection from the Divine and death because of that).

Now you are interpreting that "futility" and "decay" mean "a disconnection from the Divine and death because of that). But the text does not say that. What is your scriptural basis for making this equation? Particularly in terms of the non-human creation?

Note further, that even if this is a correct interpretation, it does not follow that creation has become opaque to scientific inquiry. Yet this is your main basis for rejecting science. It seems your case is very weak.

That would introduce enough error and change in its fundamental regularities to make generalisations about its perfect origins and outermost limits a little fool hardy.

Now you are really going out on a limb. "bondage to decay" introduces a change in fundamental regularities? Please, please, please provide one iota of textual support for this interpretation.

Also we only see a distorted picture so what we see is not reliable anyway.

But you have not established that the effect of the curse (which in itself you haven't established yet) was a distortion of nature. You haven't established a) that creation was cursed, nor b) what the nature of the curse was nor c) that the effects of the curse changed fundamental regularities or distorted our perception of it.

You are making these claims, but you have no basis for them. It is all reading your presuppositions into the text.

I believe in a God who created the heavens and the earth, what is seen and what is not seen. The interaction between these realms cannot be explained by a merely naturalistic paradigm and could appear miraculous by itself. I also believe in a God who will occasionally intervene in a miraculous way.

So basically, while you agree that God sometimes intervenes in a miraculous way, he is not absent from the natural working of nature. "natural" does not mean "without God". Right?

The best way to explore nature is to see it as it was before it broke.

Like I said, creationists are averse to actually looking at creation and will come up with any excuse to avoid the evidence.

 

[mindlight]

You should never feel comfortable when someone asks you questions which require only short answers. Often that either means he's tired too (which I'm not ) or that he's got what he thinks is a big whopper somewhere down the road and the small, short answers are just breadcrumbs leading to it.

So I am probably walking straight into your perfectly prepared trap by answering you but oh well us fundamentalists can walk through walls you know!!!! ;-)

So then let me ask about two specific areas of creation. I expect that your answer would be "yes" to the first; I honestly don't know about the second and wouldn't be surprised if you haven't thought thoroughly about that one either (I certainly haven't, not too much).

OK fire away. Although as you well know I am no scientist.

1. Were the Earth's orbital characteristics the same before the Fall and after? In other words, did the Earth complete one rotation about its axis in 24 hours? Did the Moon revolve around the Earth once every month (roughly 28-30 days, depending on how you define it) and did it cause tides? And had the Earth persisted in its sinless state for longer, would the Earth have completed one revolution around the sun in a year of roughly 365 days?

From the biblical evidence I would suggest no to this one. It seems more likely that the ancient year was 360 years (12 lunar months of 30 days). This finds a resonance in many ancient calendars e.g. Mayas and Assyrians for example.

http://www.360calendar.com/360-days-bible-solar-lunar.htm

In my view (and its not 100% tried and tested) there was some kind of cosmic catastrophe (either at the flood or the fall) which disrupted this perfect relationship in the numbers and therefore design of Gods creation. Consequently the earth used to be warmer having a tighter orbit around the sun and the lunar orbit was different also. This disruption has broken some kind of essential harmony in the Earth system. The fall in human life spans following the flood may also have a connection to this.

2. According to conventional science the sun produces light by fusing hydrogen into helium. Did this process also account for how the sun produced light before the Fall?

This one is way beyond me of course but I suppose what you are alluding to is the apparent process of stellar evolution in which Stellar nucleosynthesis takes lighter elements and makes them into heavier ones and light is given out as a kind of byproduct of these processes. Ultimately when the lighter elements are all used up and much of a stars energy has shone away then a star begins to die. So if these processes were evident in a star before the fall then would the evolution and death of stars also be a part of the prefall arrangement?

I honestly do not have a considered answer for this. Its a little presumptious to even comment on this but who cares I'll have a go and give you a reflex opinion which I will probably have to repent of later!!

This process of stellar evolution assumes a loss of energy in the processes of stellar nucleosynthesis even as smaller elements are formed into heavier ones. As energy converts to heavier and heavier forms of matter energy is lost but so also the heavier elements become more unstable. What would happen if energy and matter were perfectly interchangeable with no loss of potential energy in the processes and the combinations were always perfect with no vestigal instability. Could we then also envisage a process of stellar devolution whereby larger elements in alternate conditions broke down into smaller ones with no loss of energy or instability. If the process works both ways and with no loss of energy then starlight would be eternal. If the two processes were perfectly balanced then a star would remain a constant light forever and a day. To envisage a perfect star is what is required here - I am assuming that this is a star built to last and without the harmful effects on human physiology that the current configuration of our star filtered through the earths atmosphere produces e.g. skin cancer et al.

The problem then becomes what replaces the energy given off as light by the star in the stars essential makeup and what absorbs it elsewhere to avoid disrupting the balance of the overall system.

Of course a perfect star would also be a part of a perfect solar system and perfect universe. And inputs and outputs would have to be balanced across the entire cosmos. For this to happen where energy was being lost it would have to be able to draw on a continual source of renewal but so also energy given out would have to be continually absorbed to avoid disrupting a perfect balance in the system. Without a connection to an Almighty Creator I cannot envisage how these balances could be maintained and the renewal and absorption of energy perfectly balanced.

 

[shernren]

Since you don't have a sure answer for the second bit, I wouldn't press that - I certainly wouldn't be able to think of any concrete answer if I were in your shoes.

But just to confirm:

From the biblical evidence I would suggest no to this one. It seems more likely that the ancient year was 360 years (12 lunar months of 30 days). This finds a resonance in many ancient calendars e.g. Mayas and Assyrians for example.

http://www.360calendar.com/360-days-bible-solar-lunar.htm

In my view (and its not 100% tried and tested) there was some kind of cosmic catastrophe (either at the flood or the fall) which disrupted this perfect relationship in the numbers and therefore design of Gods creation. Consequently the earth used to be warmer having a tighter orbit around the sun and the lunar orbit was different also. This disruption has broken some kind of essential harmony in the Earth system. The fall in human life spans following the flood may also have a connection to this.

So let me get you right: the Fall may have changed the nature of the Earth's orbit slightly. However, the essence of it would still have been that days were 24 hours long? That years, instead of being 365 days long, would be roughly 360 days long instead? I'm not too concerned about the actual numbers, more concerned about rough estimates. Also, would the moon still exert a gravitational pull on the Earth that would have caused tides, the way it does today? The exact nature and timing of those tides may not have been the same, but roughly same?

 

[mindlight]

Since you don't have a sure answer for the second bit, I wouldn't press that - I certainly wouldn't be able to think of any concrete answer if I were in your shoes.

But just to confirm:



So let me get you right: the Fall may have changed the nature of the Earth's orbit slightly. However, the essence of it would still have been that days were 24 hours long? That years, instead of being 365 days long, would be roughly 360 days long instead? I'm not too concerned about the actual numbers, more concerned about rough estimates. Also, would the moon still exert a gravitational pull on the Earth that would have caused tides, the way it does today? The exact nature and timing of those tides may not have been the same, but roughly same?

To be perfectly honest I just do not know. A perfect arrangement would be a less damaging one and the harmony of natural forces is broken in some mysterious way.

 

[shernren]

To be perfectly honest I just do not know. A perfect arrangement would be a less damaging one and the harmony of natural forces is broken in some mysterious way.

However, given the insistence of YECs that the days of Genesis 1 are 24-hour days, would I be right to say at least that the days of Earth before the Fall, in your view, are 24-hour days?

 

[mindlight]

However, given the insistence of YECs that the days of Genesis 1 are 24-hour days, would I be right to say at least that the days of Earth before the Fall, in your view, are 24-hour days?

The literal historical meaning of the Genesis text is that a day is a day is day ie 24 hours by the reckoning of just about the whole of human historical thought on time. This is what the text says and how it has always been interpreted.

The fact that this remains an issue to me lies in fact that God did not create Sun and stars until the 4th day. So the original notion of a day was measured against the Eternal God for whom a day is like a thousand years... so what's a day measured against eternity? Does time matter when time and space are in perfect relationship with the source of their continual renewal, like Adam and Eve were in Eden forever able, as they were, to eat from the tree of life? How long were they in this garden before the fall and time became a countdown to the grave and all creation subject to unrenewed decay? The bible gives Adam an age when he died of more than 900 years but what would a year be in the context of an Eternal God. How long was a year in Eden - I do not know - I do not know if such a thing could be measured by any modern measure of time as the conditions which applied then no longer do so.

Also another thing that puzzles me about this account is how there could be darkness on the Earth when God was its Light. This is a mystery to me unless this darkness could somehow be construed to be a good thing. But is not God omnipresent and God is Light? How could any part of a good creation in perfect relationship with its Creator ever be in darkness?

 

[busterdog]

But I am well aware of the problems of envisaging an infinite light speed for instance as the Einsteinian implication (E=mc2) as some physicists have pointed out to me would have been infinite energy and all of us frying in it. Unless the equations would have to be revised to deal with a perfect universe. That kind of maths is well beyond me. But the assumption of a perfect connection to the creator of the cosmos would entail its infinite capacity for renewal. So in answer to your question yes. The loss of that connection is the fundamental disruption to the universe- all else is merely symptoms.

A caustionary note. Have a careful look at how this math is being done. One must conserve a number of values -- ie, conservation of mass and energy. The elementary mistake appears to be on those who fail to do so and come up with the "frying us all" response.

As for the latter, there is no such thing as "all things being equal." Most of what is is unmeasureable. That which we can account does vary a great deal.

 

[busterdog]

The literal historical meaning of the Genesis text is that a day is a day is day ie 24 hours by the reckoning of just about the whole of human historical thought on time. This is what the text says and how it has always been interpreted.

The fact that this remains an issue to me lies in fact that God did not create Sun and stars until the 4th day. So the original notion of a day was measured against the Eternal God for whom a day is like a thousand years... so what's a day measured against eternity? Does time matter when time and space are in perfect relationship with the source of their continual renewal, like Adam and Eve were in Eden forever able, as they were, to eat from the tree of life? How long were they in this garden before the fall and time became a countdown to the grave and all creation subject to unrenewed decay? The bible gives Adam an age when he died of more than 900 years but what would a year be in the context of an Eternal God. How long was a year in Eden - I do not know - I do not know if such a thing could be measured by any modern measure of time as the conditions which applied then no longer do so.

Also another thing that puzzles me about this account is how there could be darkness on the Earth when God was its Light. This is a mystery to me unless this darkness could somehow be construed to be a good thing. But is not God omnipresent and God is Light? How could any part of a good creation in perfect relationship with its Creator ever be in darkness?

Over the years, I have a lot of fun with the idea of relativity and what a day was way back then. It remains an interesting concept.

However, Exod. 20 seems to have a single measure day for day one and day six. At least, that would seem to be the most logical reading.

 

[Mallon]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I've always found it a bit odd that someone could insist the length of a day has not changed since the beginning of creation, and then berate uniformitarianism in the same breath.

 

[busterdog]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I've always found it a bit odd that someone could insist the length of a day has not changed since the beginning of creation, and then berate uniformitarianism in the same breath.

One is a unit of measure. The other is measure of conditions.

God could have measured the first six days in minutes.

 

[Mallon]

One is a unit of measure. The other is measure of conditions.

God could have measured the first six days in minutes.

I don't see your point. Even if God measured the first six days in minutes, 1440 minutes still equals 24 hours. It's the same amount of (constant) time.

 

[busterdog]

I don't see your point. Even if God measured the first six days in minutes, 1440 minutes still equals 24 hours. It's the same amount of (constant) time.

I spent a good portion of that time between waking and sleeping to figure out what you were talking about. Now, I think I understand. Tell me if I am wrong. The idea that the several sequences of creation would fit into apparently arbitrarily regular intervals is no more reaonable that assuming arbitrarily regular conditions over the millenia. Different type of abitrary measurements and a different types of uniformity -- but all based upon enormous assumptions nonetheless.

Creationism is indeed built upon an arbitrary system and presumption -- all in a good way..