Age of the earth, why is it relevant?!

Daniel Martinovich · Jul 4, 2018

dreadnought said:
I'm not assuming anything. The earth could be billions of years old, or it could only appear so.

What I was addressing is the convoluted scientism that has effected or is being imposed on our culture that is bewitching people into thinking the earth “appears” to be old when looking strickly at appearances. It appears young.

Let me give you an example. If you look at sediment layers. The Grand Canyon is a good example. The goverment imposed view is those different layers of sediment were deposited millions of years apart. People accept that without even thinking so it “appears” old. However if one just applies a little scientific observation to it they will quickly discover this cannot be true. How? There are a thousand canyons cutting through this sediment that make up that area of the world. IF the bottom layer of sediment were 150 million years old and the next layer 120 million years old and the next 90 etc etc. Then why is there not a canyon cut through that 150 million year old layer filled up later on by the 120 million year old layer of sediment? The layers are different colors. Or why is there not a canyon cut through the 120 mil year old sediment later filled up by the 90 mil year old sediment. Or how about canyon cutting through the bottom three layers of sediment later filled up by the different color sediments of the top three layers?
Nothing like that exsits in N American. At least that I have seen. It’s all just flat layers of sediment with canyons carved through all the layers. Just like would happen in a giant flood with currents dropping thier sediment as they were pushed out by another current then canyons being carved through all the layers of sediment at once as the waters drained away to the oceans.

dreadnought · Jul 4, 2018

Daniel Martinovich said:
What I was addressing is the convoluted scientism that has effected or is being imposed on our culture that is bewitching people into thinking the earth “appears” to be old when looking strickly at appearances. It appears young.

Let me give you an example. If you look at sediment layers. The Grand Canyon is a good example. The goverment imposed view is those different layers of sediment were deposited millions of years apart. People accept that without even thinking so it “appears” old. However if one just applies a little scientific observation to it they will quickly discover this cannot be true. How? There are a thousand canyons cutting through this sediment that make up that area of the world. IF the bottom layer of sediment were 150 million years old and the next layer 120 million years old and the next 90 etc etc. Then why is there not a canyon cut through that 150 million year old layer filled up later on by the 120 million year old layer of sediment? The layers are different colors. Or why is there not a canyon cut through the 120 mil year old sediment later filled up by the 90 mil year old sediment. Or how about canyon cutting through the bottom three layers of sediment later filled up by the different color sediments of the top three layers?
Nothing like that exsits in N American. At least that I have seen. It’s all just flat layers of sediment with canyons carved through all the layers. Just like would happen in a giant flood with currents dropping thier sediment as they were pushed out by another current then canyons being carved through all the layers of sediment at once as the waters drained away to the oceans.

Layers don't skip 30 million years, do they? If a layer is 150 millions years old, isn't the layer on top of it 149,999,999 years old?

Daniel Martinovich · Jul 4, 2018

dreadnought said:
Layers don't skip 30 million years, do they? If a layer is 150 millions years old, isn't the layer on top of it 149,999,999 years old?

Not according to the best and the brightest amping is using the government to impose their dogma on the nation. Amy layers being laid down now? Layers with land animals in them?

Jamsie · Jul 4, 2018

Kenny'sID said:
Nothing on my comments on Adam, and the indications thereof?

Sorry, I think that I got a bit confused with the aside with Saint Steven. Here is what I wrote: The commands whether water or land has God speaking to the created matter to produce, seems quite clear. Genesis 2:7 "made from dust" … and the significant part "breathed...the breath of life..."

So specifically to this then both animals and man were made from the "dust"/earth... "Let the land produce..." why is it not plausible that at a certain point God breathed as noted above to make mankind a special creation. It may just as easily be plausible that God created mankind totally distinct and separate as two acts of creation were. Considering too that "image" is not a physical concept.

As I've noted elsewhere it should be clear from the structure of Genesis that God was not Doing something but Saying something. So what follows the spoken command must be explanatory since we know that God's fiat was sufficient to his purposes. Also, note that 1:27 states "Male and Female..." yet in Chapter 2 we see that there was a time lapse of undetermined time. To be clear I do not profess to have all of the answers but again I think reading Genesis with sufficient delicacy (GK) opens up legitimate interpretation.

Kenny'sID · Jul 4, 2018

Jamsie said:
Sorry, I think that I got a bit confused with the aside with Saint Steven. Here is what I wrote: The commands whether water or land has God speaking to the created matter to produce, seems quite clear. Genesis 2:7 "made from dust" … and the significant part "breathed...the breath of life..."

So specifically to this then both animals and man were made from the "dust"/earth... "Let the land produce..." why is it not plausible that at a certain point God breathed as noted above to make mankind a special creation. It may just as easily be plausible that God created mankind totally distinct and separate as two acts of creation were. Considering too that "image" is not a physical concept.

As I've noted elsewhere it should be clear from the structure of Genesis that God was not Doing something but Saying something. So what follows the spoken command must be explanatory since we know that God's fiat was sufficient to his purposes. Also, note that 1:27 states "Male and Female..." yet in Chapter 2 we see that there was a time lapse of undetermined time. To be clear I do not profess to have all of the answers but again I think reading Genesis with sufficient delicacy (GK) opens up legitimate interpretation.

Then your take is Adam was created, and instead of what many see as a common sense deduction, so were the animals, the animals that Adam actually named were evolved. Not sure that makes sense, since we are all made from the same stuff, what would be the point? And what about the simply spoken times/7 days, what has to be done to change that too? Just to many changes form the simple word has to come into play, in order to make evolution work.

It's as though someone pulled that out of scripture to make it work with evolution and no one would think any such thing had the theory of evolution never been introduced.

At any rate seems a lot of stretch, and "leaning unto our own understanding", as well as assumptions, to reach your possible conclusion, something that also leaves questions/confusion, or us knowing nothing concrete.

Then there is that thing were God is not a God of confusion, while again, that leaves us confused/guessing in the end. I'd think, just as he told it like it was with creation, he would have simply said they evolved if they did...but he did not, why would he not? And he's smart enough to make us understand anything, dispelling the popular argument, he put it the way he did because "we wouldn't understand evolution" ...yet another completely unbiblical "leaning to our our understanding" not his word.

mark kennedy · Jul 4, 2018

Tetra said:
Okay, so I'm going to start off by stating my position just so we're clear. I believe the "new earth" theory is nonsense.

However, the purpose of this post isn't to debate the age of the earth, but rather, I'm trying to sort out why it matters how old the earth is?? It seems in my experience, new earthers tend to be obsessively dogmatic in holding this position. It's not sufficient that simply they hold this worldview, it's necessary everyone else does as well. Is there an underlying philosophical position I'm missing here?

Is there a philosophical underpinning to this post I wonder, what is a new earth. I happen to believe the earth and the cosmos could be very old or very young and it wouldn't effect the doctrine of creation. Thats based on the text and opinions to the contrary, Darwinian or otherwise don't impress me

scottyp588 · Jul 4, 2018

Devin P said:
Well, I'm sorry scotty, it's not a fact. It's still a theory, and a theory isn't fact. That's why it's called a theory. No one has been able to effectively prove it as of yet, which is why it's called a theory. That is by definition, what a theory is. It's a set of ideas that people collect through data and analysis that "attempts" to explain a phenomenon. The things you're mentioning regarding evolution have been brought up, and they are things people use to try and prove it, but as I said, there are too many variables that have kept it from being 100% fact as of right now. Hence the reason it's still called the "theory of evolution", because it's not proven to be a fact yet. Will it be one day? It's my belief, that yes. Science will "prove" it to be a fact within our generation, but I won't believe that judgement.

There are too many things regarding evolution that either go against the grain of what's believed to be true, things that have been lied about, left out and omitted from data sets to skew results in the favor of the theory, or simply strongly exaggerated to make their case. There's too many things that throw up red flags for me to accept it, even if a wildly popular and renown scientist comes along and says it's a fact one day. But, that's yet to happen, because it's still a theory, and is yet to be proven, hence the term theory.

Gravity isn't a theory, it's a fact, or technically a law. Right? Well, gravity IS explained, in the theory of relativity. Gravity is a law, but the "theory" of relativity, is not. It's simply a thought or an idea used to explain something that we don't know that much about yet. Sometimes that theory is proven, and it's no longer called a theory. Such as gravity. Instead of calling it the theory of gravity as it once was, it's the law of gravity. Some scientific circles call it a theory still, but that's only some circles.

Evolution is a theory because it's got too many things preventing it from being predicted, understood, and just plain flat out proven. The very idea of it implies that the animal that didn't evolve, is weaker than the version of itself that did (generally). Sometimes they imply that the evolution would make the creature weaker at times, until they evolve further, or that chain of evolutionary changes dies out and begins anew with another specimen. My point is, if eventually, a species evolves into a stronger, better version, then the remaining version of that animal, would cease to exist. If an entire species changed for the better, the entire species should change, not split off into two or several different species. If we came from monkeys, there should no longer be monkeys, otherwise how could you prove that we came from monkeys? Basically every single animal has similar bone structure, so the idea that we have similar structures doesn't make much sense. There's more into this whole evolution from monkey idea that we could get into that cause me to disbelieve in the whole thing as well, but that's another topic for another time. An entirely different can of worms.

There are only so many time I can explain how this is wrong. Clearly, you have no intention of learning why you are wrong. A theory, in science, is not a guess. Go to your closest university and talk to someone in the science department. I gave you easy to read resources to try to show you how this works and you clearly didn't read it.

The "why are there still monkeys" question is an instant red flag that's lets me know you have no idea what evolution is or how it works. Sadly, even in 2018, this misguided perversion of what some Christians think evolution is, still comes up. Besides the fact that we are apes and not monkeys is the first of many fallacies your question brings up.

But, If you aren't going to educate yourself on something that widely accepted, even in Christian circles, there is nothing else I can do. I'm not going to waste my time talking to a brick wall because you can't accept something that might be different from what you are taught.

Devin P · Jul 4, 2018

scottyp588 said:
There are only so many time I can explain how this is wrong. Clearly, you have no intention of learning why you are wrong. A theory, in science, is not a guess. Go to your closest university and talk to someone in the science department. I gave you easy to read resources to try to show you how this works and you clearly didn't read it.

The "why are there still monkeys" question is an instant red flag that's lets me know you have no idea what evolution is or how it works. Sadly, even in 2018, this misguided perversion of what some Christians think evolution is, still comes up. Besides the fact that we are apes and not monkeys is the first of many fallacies your question brings up.

But, If you aren't going to educate yourself on something that widely accepted, even in Christian circles, there is nothing else I can do. I'm not going to waste my time talking to a brick wall because you can't accept something that might be different from what you are taught.

I was taught evolution. Science can say what it wants to justify itself. A theory isn't proven fact, it's an educated guess at best.

Alright, then why are there still apes? If it's that simple, just explain it. I'll listen but I don't have time to go read links right now. A summed up explanation should do.

Devin P · Jul 4, 2018

scottyp588 said:
There are only so many time I can explain how this is wrong. Clearly, you have no intention of learning why you are wrong. A theory, in science, is not a guess. Go to your closest university and talk to someone in the science department. I gave you easy to read resources to try to show you how this works and you clearly didn't read it.

The "why are there still monkeys" question is an instant red flag that's lets me know you have no idea what evolution is or how it works. Sadly, even in 2018, this misguided perversion of what some Christians think evolution is, still comes up. Besides the fact that we are apes and not monkeys is the first of many fallacies your question brings up.

But, If you aren't going to educate yourself on something that widely accepted, even in Christian circles, there is nothing else I can do. I'm not going to waste my time talking to a brick wall because you can't accept something that might be different from what you are taught.

I'm aware that scientists place much weight into their own hypothesis, but a hypothesis is still just that. Just because the most renown scientists accept something that's yet to be proven doesn't make it any more proven.

It has to be predictable, chartable, and reproducible, scientifically speaking. Based on what classifies something as a fact (scientifically speaking anyway.)

scottyp588 · Jul 4, 2018

Devin P said:
I was taught evolution. Science can say what it wants to justify itself. A theory isn't proven fact, it's an educated guess at best.

Alright, then why are there still apes? If it's that simple, just explain it. I'll listen but I don't have time to go read links right now. A summed up explanation should do.

The amount of words that you have read from my post are more than that of the link I provided. But, this is the last time I'm going to entertain this subject with you. Reading your nonsense saddens me, because, if you would take the time to actually learn about the subject, a lot of your misconceptions would be cleared up.

Modern apes are just as evolved as we are. Humans and the other apes share a common ancestor. We all evolved from that common ancestor.

The goal of evolution isn't to become "better" in the way that you are thinking. Evolving into humans wasn't "better" for the apes that live on earth now, that's why they are still around. Simply put, some apes started climbing down from the trees and taking advantage of resources on the ground and eventually those apes separated from the group and started their own way of life. The misconception that being human is the ultimate goal is not accurate.

Survival of the fittest is a phrase that gets thrown around a lot but isn't understood by evolution deniers. Survival of the fittest simply means that, in a given environment, organisms that have advantageous traits are more likely to pass those traits on. And over time, less advantageous traits die out as more advantageous traits appeal more to the survival of the group.

The key thing to remember is that evolution takes a lot of time. There wasn't a ape that gave birth to a human and boom, life as we know it. Very small changes over long periods of time is how it works.

This is the best off the cuff breakdown to the why are there still monkeys fallacy. There are countless resources out there if you want to dive deep and actually learn about it. Feel free to take advantage of the technology that science has provided us with to learn more.

1watchman · Jul 5, 2018

LWH said:
What does it mean to faith in god? How can we trust something none of has never seen ever?? I have yet to see god come down and preach a sermon, correct the mess of the world, or right the religious wrongs. C'mon guys...

So, if you don't believe in God and don't trust the Bible, why are you here on this site? We want to help those who are seekers about God, but you don't even believe He exists. We can only help you by showing what God teaches us. Some fundamental things I can share with those who question some things God states, is this:
1. Science teaches that "no energy is lost ---it just moves on" and our soul and spirit are energy, so we WILL go into eternity somewhere, and the Word of God informs us that we will either be in Heaven as faithful ones to God, or cast away into "everlasting darkness and suffering". If some choose to oppose God, they are foolish at best to take such a risk.
2. God would not expect anything of us that He has not told us about, so the Bible is indeed God's Holy Word, as He says. Take it or leave it!
I will pray you will wake up to eternal truth and not rely on your limited reasoning.

Jamsie · Jul 5, 2018

Kenny'sID said:
Then your take is Adam was created, and instead of what many see as a common sense deduction, so were the animals, the animals that Adam actually named were evolved. Not sure that makes sense, since we are all made from the same stuff, what would be the point? And what about the simply spoken times/7 days, what has to be done to change that too? Just to many changes form the simple word has to come into play, in order to make evolution work.

I'm not sure what you point is here...Yes, Adam was created, all things were created. How does it not make sense since you note "we are all made from the same stuff" exactly as God commanded "Let the land produce...". What does that mean "Let the land produce..."? Is not the command to the land directly?

Kenny'sID said:
It's as though someone pulled that out of scripture to make it work with evolution and no one would think any such thing had the theory of evolution never been introduced.

What exactly is being "pulled" out of scripture? I did not add or subtract but stated exactly what the passage states.

Kenny'sID said:
At any rate seems a lot of stretch, and "leaning unto our own understanding", as well as assumptions, to reach your possible conclusion, something that also leaves questions/confusion, or us knowing nothing concrete.

God did give us reason and I assume for us to use it. How specifically is what I set forth, based on information gleaned from a number of Biblical scholars, "leaning" only on my understanding? Again, those who dismiss the assertions never want to unpack "Let the land...". YEC and immediate creation also leaves myriad questions/ confusion as to what we now know from science. Perhaps the reason so many refuse to admit to the discoveries of science is that they create an either/or scenario when no such dilemma is necessary.

Kenny'sID said:
Then there is that thing were God is not a God of confusion, while again, that leaves us confused/guessing in the end. I'd think, just as he told it like it was with creation, he would have simply said they evolved if they did...but he did not, why would he not? And he's smart enough to make us understand anything, dispelling the popular argument, he put it the way he did because "we wouldn't understand evolution" ...yet another completely unbiblical "leaning to our our understanding" not his word.

You state that He would have said they evolved if they did...but as I noted explain why God didn't simply state "Let there be living creatures...? He didn't, He directly commanded the Land, and water...how is that not so obvious, and how do you explain that fact?

I do find it rather tiring to constantly address "reason" as if in all cases our "own understanding" is somehow completely lacking. We would know nothing of God without both our mental and spiritual endowments, and the purpose would be to use them. There is a marriage, or should be, between reason and faith, the foundation/leaning is always God centered. So do we read scripture as if we are reading a novel or do we use our God given reason to judge, compare, deem credible, and prayerfully plumb the depths of His Word? I believe there is seldom a "plain" reading of many scripture passages but a layered depth that we are invited to pursue. When a question is raised it is a worthwhile pursuit to look deeply into scripture to see if our inculcation is slightly amiss or not. Thus, reading with a Chesterton "Sufficient Delicacy" often opens the eyes to a fresh and challenging perspective.

Halbhh · Jul 5, 2018

Jamsie said:
Yes, a number of scriptural issues are peripheral to the core message of the Bible. However, as it relates to the influence on culture in general there is much validity to these tangential details of a Christian worldview and as it relates to reality in both politics and science.

When something isn't in the Bible, such as for example what time periods may have passed between the individual days in the creation vision given to Moses, then the length of those time periods is of course not a scriptural issue at all.

But we see many try to assert it's His Word the mere assumptions they use, mere trivial durations of time (such as for instance the common idea not in scripture that these can only be consecutive 24 hour days (only), or thus 144 or 156 hours)-- as if Genesis chapter 1 was about trivial things like mere time duration? No! It should totally transform our minds as we read it!

What could we do to help people be more humble, and gain more faith? To trust God more, instead of themselves? It has to be the gospel that could save them. Anyone is only truly changed by Christ, true surrender/repentance. As Paul wrote it:

"And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."

This is the only thing that can save anyone -- the Word of Christ -- but who will go to them and bring them Christ's Words?

Jamsie · Jul 5, 2018

Halbhh said:
When something isn't in the Bible, such as for example what time periods may have passed between the individual days in the creation vision given to Moses, then the length of those time periods is of course not a scriptural issue at all.

But we see many try to assert it's His Word the mere assumptions they use, mere trivial durations of time (such as for instance the common idea not in scripture that these can only be consecutive 24 hour days (only), or thus 144 or 156 hours)-- as if Genesis chapter 1 was about trivial things like mere time duration? No! It should totally transform our minds as we read it!

Agreed, trivial as concerns those who believe however, not so trivial to those who do not believe. For the believer I would only suggest that such issues of scripture make for interesting discussions, and have an affect in a larger context. We also can take what is in the Bible to draw logical conclusions, isn't that why some people contend that the "Trinity" is not explicitly stated in the Bible? The study into the various peripheral issues also can tend to invigorate a desire to search the Bible with fresh and prayerful open eyes... and heart. We all make assumptions concerning various dogmas and such based on "His Word"...

Halbhh said:
What could we do to help people be more humble, and gain more faith? To trust God more, instead of themselves? It has to be the gospel that could save them. Anyone is only truly changed by Christ, true surrender/repentance. As Paul wrote it:

"And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."
This is the only thing that can save anyone -- the Word of Christ -- but who will go to them and bring them Christ's Words?

The question I would ask is what are the stumbling blocks, the resistance, the reservations and such for those who do not believe ... certainly the issues discussed are not "trivial". Yes, it is the Gospel that will ultimately save by God's prompting however, as Machen and others have plainly stated we must influence the culture and modernistic society that surrounds us. What seems "trivial" to some Christians is not at all to many non-believers, whether it be for reasons of science, perceived hypocrisy, rantings of some televangelists, exclusive nature of the Gospel, mega church wealth, etc. and these need to be addressed to open the palnting of a seed.

Kenny'sID · Jul 5, 2018

Jamsie said:
I'm not sure what you point is here...Yes, Adam was created, all things were created. How does it not make sense since you note "we are all made from the same stuff" exactly as God commanded "Let the land produce...". What does that mean "Let the land produce..."? Is not the command to the land directly?

Sorry I expected more from you than I should have there, I'll explain. If, as I gathered, you believe Adam was made then and there, and since the animals are pretty much composed of the same "stuff" (chemicals)
what would be the point of having them evolve over all that time, he didn't do that with man? Makes much more sense to just make them then and there as well.

Have you ever heard of the term "overthinking"?

Jamsie said:
What exactly is being "pulled" out of scripture? I did not add or subtract but stated exactly what the passage states.

And drew the conclusion from it that you did. One can say they read/saw the same thing another might, then call the black that was there, white.

Jamsie said:
God did give us reason and I assume for us to use it. How specifically is what I set forth, based on information gleaned from a number of Biblical scholars, "leaning" only on my understanding? Again, those who dismiss the assertions never want to unpack "Let the land...". YEC and immediate creation also leaves myriad questions/ confusion as to what we now know from science. Perhaps the reason so many refuse to admit to the discoveries of science is that they create an either/or scenario when no such dilemma is necessary.

It's reasonable not to let "reason" get out of hand and to not get carried away and reason things into something they are not. Surely you know that can happen and we can reason anything into anything we like but at some point it becomes unreasonable.
"Let the water/land bring forth" the water and land are home to things being brought since it was spoken and up to now, things being born of bodies (brought forth) created by God, but some want to lean unto their own understanding, and once the bible is stretched so far that's what it becomes, our own understanding/no longer the truth, a stretch of the simple truths of the bible because "we are smart", we then end up with things like theories and unproven confusion, like evolution....or the unreasonable.

Jamsie said:
You state that He would have said they evolved if they did...but as I noted explain why God didn't simply state "Let there be living creatures...? He didn't, He directly commanded the Land, and water...how is that not so obvious, and how do you explain that fact?

See the above answer on that

Jamsie said:
I do find it rather tiring to constantly address "reason" as if in all cases our "own understanding" is somehow completely lacking.

See above again.

Kaon · Jul 5, 2018

Anguspure said:
I understand that the importance is linked to the definitive statement that Moses made in relation to keeping the Sabbath: For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.

If Moses was wrong about this, then what else was he wrong about?

Created the Heavens and the Earth and all that is in them in totality in six days; the heaven and earth were created before the first day existed.

Separation of Light and Darkness (where did they come from, how long were the Hebrew implications going on?) was the event constituting the beginning of the first day of work. The Redeemer has corrected any of His people that needed it - including Moses - in, and outside of the canon.

Anguspure · Jul 5, 2018

Kaon said:
Created the Heavens and the Earth and all that is in them in totality in six days; the heaven and earth were created before the first day existed.

Separation of Light and Darkness (where did they come from, how long were the Hebrew implications going on?) was the event constituting the beginning of the first day of work. The Redeemer has corrected any of His people that needed it - including Moses - in, and outside of the canon.

The timeframe in reference to terrestrial days is moot anyway.

Time is relative and to a transcendant observer of creation 16 billion years of work takes about 6 days.

Kaon · Jul 5, 2018

Anguspure said:
The timeframe in reference to terrestrial days is moot anyway.

Time is relative and to a transcendant observer of creation 16 billion years of work takes about 6 days.

There is no such thing as time as humans know it - time is an evolution of events coupled onto a dimensional space. It is not always linear, or one-directional.

With that said, if you take Genesis 1 literally, the heaven and earth were created before anything else in this plane of existence. If you choose to take it figuratively, or if you choose to ignore that the heaven and earth were created before anything else, then the entire time issue is moot.

But, this still ignores the Hebrew words and implications of each word used in Genesis 1. If there is no sun/stars yet, how can there be light (a common question)? Look at what "or" means in Hebrew in the context of an absence of what we call light. Why was there a separation of light and darkness before luminaries were made and the earth was filled with matter? Look up what "choshek" means in the context. Why are there days when there was no sun to count a sunrise/sunset/moonrise/moonset? Look up what "yom" means in the context of missing historically human timepieces (e.g. a sun.)

A deeper look into Genesis 1 will show that there is a lot more going on than than the Christian status quo. And, it isn't about promoting a young earth. In fact, the earth's age isn't important at all; what happened after it was made (before time itself as humans know it) is what is important.

Jamsie · Jul 5, 2018

Kenny'sID said:
Sorry I expected more from you than I should have there, I'll explain. If, as I gathered, you believe Adam was made then and there, and since the animals are pretty much composed of the same "stuff" (chemicals)
what would be the point of having them evolve over all that time, he didn't do that with man? Makes much more sense to just make them then and there as well.

I suggested that for Adam it could have been at a certain point in time or then and there. What I did do was differentiate Adam from other animals though noting there same physical creation. So that "Let the land produce..." and all are made from "dust" still remains unanswered as to why a process is not put into place by God? As I noted God could have "breathed" into Adam at a certain point for created or specially "then and there"...this does not avoid the very distinct command to the created matter.

Kenny'sID said:
Have you ever heard of the term "overthinking"?

And drew the conclusion from it that you did. One can say they read/saw the same thing another might, then call the black that was there, white.

I'll agree with you on "overthinking" when you are able to address the Gen. 1 passage in terms of structure and direction of the fiats, so far you have not. Just as one could call the white that was there, black... it would help if one explained.

Kenny'sID said:
It's reasonable not to let "reason" get out of hand and to not get carried away and reason things into something they are not. Surely you know that can happen and we can reason anything into anything we like but at some point it becomes unreasonable.

It is also possible to simply avoid something that one has believed and approach with a fresh look and study. Yes, reason can certainly "get out of hand" but too it can be set aside when one chooses not to be open to a different perspective/interpretation based squarely on what has been written.

Kenny'sID said:
"Let the water/land bring forth" the water and land are home to things being brought since it was spoken and up to now, things being born of bodies (brought forth) created by God, but some want to lean unto their own understanding, and once the bible is stretched so far that's what it becomes, our own understanding/no longer the truth, a stretch of the simple truths of the bible because "we are smart", we then end up with things like theories an unproven confusion, like evolution....or the unreasonable.

You are more intent on slighting me, perhaps a weak form of ad hominem, than actually addressing the substance of this discussion. "Reason can get out of hand", "some want to lean unto their own understanding", "bible is stretched", ".../no longer the truth", "we are smart", "unreasonable"... hardly offers a criticism of the interpretation other then perhaps "I'm right you must be wrong because.... ???

Yes, water and land are home to things...but we are discussing creation and specifically the "how", we know the why. You have not addressed the passage except in a vague and general sense, would it be foolish to think that an immutable God would create in the same essential process that He did at the beginning?

So rather than using all of the terms noted above which offer no substance please address specifically what follows, and how scripture has been twisted or misinterpreted:

It should be very clear that any reading or interpretation of Genesis 1 revolves around fiat or commands as the sole instrument of creation, "And God said". That the sole and only operative agent was God's commands is further supported in Psalm 3:6, Heb. 11:3, and 2 Peter 3:5. Therefore, any "God made" statements are explanatory, for on each day it is clear that God has not Done something but rather to have Said something, not to have Made something but to have commanded something.

The distinction is also that the fiats were mediate not immediate. Gen. 1:3 reads "And God said, Let there be light, and there was light", quite pointedly an immediate command. Yet how can one not take note that subsequent commands are directed in a mediate way directly to the land/water. Again, it could have been written "And God said, let there be vegetation and there was vegetation"... but this was not the case so why avoided? The command was directed at pre-existing created matter and "it was so". I would suggest that based on the plain reading of the account that "what was so" is God setting in motion all of the laws for the incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced? The immutable God ordered the processes then just as we see today.

So the verses in question do not actually state that God made anything directly but through mediate creation. The question then becomes, how? Creation was obviously a supernatural event however were the processes that we see today invoked by God at the outset?

The structure of Genesis 1 is plain in that "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed ... God saw that it was good." must be explanatory/post-fulfillment otherwise God's spoken commands were neither sufficient and false according to the other Bible passages. And again the verse explicitly reiterates the mediate agency as to God commanding the earth/land...how is this not a created process?

The structure of Gen. 1 is as Capron notes as follows - the Fiat - the Fulfillment - the post-fulfillment - the day.We have six days represented by command(s)defined as evening and morning with designated day, indeterminate time - based on the fiat not based on the fiat not the completion of the processes invoked.

Halbhh · Jul 5, 2018

Jamsie said:
Agreed, trivial as concerns those who believe however, not so trivial to those who do not believe. For the believer I would only suggest that such issues of scripture make for interesting discussions, and have an affect in a larger context. We also can take what is in the Bible to draw logical conclusions, isn't that why some people contend that the "Trinity" is not explicitly stated in the Bible? The study into the various peripheral issues also can tend to invigorate a desire to search the Bible with fresh and prayerful open eyes... and heart. We all make assumptions concerning various dogmas and such based on "His Word"...

The question I would ask is what are the stumbling blocks, the resistance, the reservations and such for those who do not believe ... certainly the issues discussed are not "trivial". Yes, it is the Gospel that will ultimately save by God's prompting however, as Machen and others have plainly stated we must influence the culture and modernistic society that surrounds us. What seems "trivial" to some Christians is not at all to many non-believers, whether it be for reasons of science, perceived hypocrisy, rantings of some televangelists, exclusive nature of the Gospel, mega church wealth, etc. and these need to be addressed to open the palnting of a seed.

I agree. It's helpful now and then to let some -- some seekers -- know that Genesis chapter 1 does not say what the time duration of verse 1 was; does not say the time duration of the entire creation despite some falling into the snare of arguing their theories about mere quantity of mere time duration. As if the scripture was about such a ultimately small thing.

To help them realize that kind of representation about time duration isn't the message of the chapter, and isn't even in it but for added assumptions or speculations of individuals. To help them realize faith isn't about contradicting mainstream science stuff.

That faith is about learning/hearing the word of Christ.

That even Genesis chapters 1-3 are about our relationship with God, Who created all that is, though we aren't told small details.

Age of the earth, why is it relevant?!

Friend

Lip service isn't really service.

Friend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Natura non facit saltum

Resident of the Cosmos

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Resident of the Cosmos

Overseer

Well-Known Member

Everything You say is Life to me

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Everything You say is Life to me

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency