Apparent Age Theory

[billwald]

We live in a "holodeck" universe?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

i was wondering where the token GAP theorist was on this board. bet you have a Schofield Reference Bible on your desk *grin*.....

No, this is my theory based more on bible than geology. Gap theory does have some interesting points however.

I deduce the old age of the universe based upon the ancientness of God, and that the universe was created sometime prior to the restoration of Genesis 1. Jude reveals an 'estate' for the angels, that must have been the material universe including earth.

The (angels) sung for joy when the foundations of the earth were laid , earth being the then headquarters of the physical universe, their 'habitation'.

If someone else has come up with this same theory, well, they're pretty smart. 8^)

 

[rmwilliamsll]

No, this is my theory based more on bible than geology. Gap theory does have some interesting points however.

I deduce the old age of the universe based upon the ancientness of God, and that the universe was created sometime prior to the restoration of Genesis 1. Jude reveals an 'estate' for the angels, that must have been the material universe including earth.

The (angels) sung for joy when the foundations of the earth were laid , earth being the then headquarters of the physical universe, their 'habitation'.

If someone else has come up with this same theory, well, they're pretty smart. 8^)

AFAIK the most prominent place online for this is at:
http://custance.org/Origin_Models.html

 

[OldWiseGuy]

AFAIK the most prominent place online for this is at:
http://custance.org/Origin_Models.html

"Ruin/reconstruction, view." I like that.

 

[Willtor]

On the contrary, man has always tried to make sense of these things. Until recently the particular tools we use were not available, but man has always tried to make sense of the world around us - curiousity and reason are part of the God given gift that makes us special.

But the questions were not the same questions. The questions we ask (regarding "historicity" and such) have evolved to become so. I think this is largely the reason the deliberate use of myth is so alien to our society (and even equated with dishonesty).

Part of appreciating things is understanding them. We can now appreciate the size of complexity of the universe, but exactly that same understanding that tells us the size also tells us the age and something of the history. And it's the same curiousity that drives us to want to understand something of our creator.

Perhaps. But it is not clear to me that this is universally true. My best efforts at understanding the main proponents of YEC (not on this forum, but the sorts who write AiG and many of the popular books) have led me to conclude that many people feel threatened by scientific discovery.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I deduce the old age of the universe based upon the ancientness of God, ... * snip*

For a being outside time, 'ancientness' is meaningless.

 

[gluadys]

For a being outside time, 'ancientness' is meaningless.

On the age of God:

"You are older than the world can be,
You are younger than the life in me.
Ever old and ever new,
Keep me travelling along with you."

Part of the children's hymn "One more step"

 

[LoG]

"Ruin/reconstruction, view." I like that.

I find it rather strange that Gap Theorists are such a minority on this board actually. It is something I've always believed as did my father and his father before him. I've read some interesting theories by YEC's over the past month or so but in the final analysis Gap Theory is still the most plausable explanation of how this world came about.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

For a being outside time, 'ancientness' is meaningless.

To God 'time', as we express it, may be meaningless, but to us it isn't. Our minds function in 'time'. And as I cannot get my head around 'eternity', I settle for 'old'. 8^)

 

[tjnesbitt]

No, this is my theory based more on bible than geology. Gap theory does have some interesting points however.

I deduce the old age of the universe based upon the ancientness of God, and that the universe was created sometime prior to the restoration of Genesis 1. Jude reveals an 'estate' for the angels, that must have been the material universe including earth.

The (angels) sung for joy when the foundations of the earth were laid , earth being the then headquarters of the physical universe, their 'habitation'.

If someone else has come up with this same theory, well, they're pretty smart. 8^)

I agree with most of this based on more than 35 years of bible study and I have concluded the following:

The heaven where God lives and where all of the departed saints go is the same heaven that Paul called the third heaven, or paradise.

It was created at the same time that the earth was created in Genesis 1:1. Therefore unifying the observed natural state of the universe being about 14 billion years old and the fact that the earth is about 4 ½ billion years old. Science and the bible are both correct!

The big misunderstanding is the fact that the word "beginning" in Genesis 1:1 has nothing to do with the start of the universe! Instead, the "beginning" mentioned here speaks about the beginning of a new "age" or aion. The age of "heaven" and "earth" that we are now living in.

I also conclude that heaven and earth are similar places since they are always mentioned with similar things in them. Having been made at the same time and going to be renovated at the same time. Heaven, the "third" heaven where God lives, is a planet in the northern part of the universe.

I know this goes contrary to the paradigm established through traditional religion's views, yet it has merit based on what the bible actually states. What do you think?

 

[depthdeception]

I find it rather strange that Gap Theorists are such a minority on this board actually. It is something I've always believed as did my father and his father before him. I've read some interesting theories by YEC's over the past month or so but in the final analysis Gap Theory is still the most plausable explanation of how this world came about.

??? "Most plausible" as compared to what?

 

[LoG]

??? "Most plausible" as compared to what?

compared to, secular evolution, TE, or YEC.

 

[Tinker Grey]

On the age of God:

"You are older than the world can be,
You are younger than the life in me.
Ever old and ever new,
Keep me travelling along with you."

Part of the children's hymn "One more step"

That's beautiful.

 

[Tinker Grey]

To God 'time', as we express it, may be meaningless, but to us it isn't. Our minds function in 'time'. And as I cannot get my head around 'eternity', I settle for 'old'. 8^)

I believe the universe is old. I just find that basing it on the ancientness of God a bit strange.

If God is timeless and eternal, then God was around infinitely long prior to making the universe.

But, as you say, attempting to wrap our heads around such a thing is a problem. After all, what is 'infinitely long' or 'prior' mean to a being that doesn't experience time.

 

[depthdeception]

compared to, secular evolution, TE, or YEC.

Okay. How about some reasons? And how does one determine plausibility?

 

[LoG]

Okay. How about some reasons? And how does one determine plausibility?

Plausibility from a Christian perspective would be a viewpoint where the the literal interpretation of the bible is in harmony with the physical evidence.
An old Earth with multiple creations would expect to see Cambrian explosions, mass extinctions, a geological and fossil record showing an old earth, punctuated equilibrium etc. The Ice Age Extinction event with the subsequent 6 day creation event recorded in Genesis fits in quite comfortably with both scientific and scriptural evidence.

What makes Gap Theory even more interesting is that a number of ancient cultures alluded to it in their writings.

 

[ebia]

Plausibility from a Christian perspective would be a viewpoint where the the literal interpretation of the bible is in harmony with the physical evidence.

In other words "plausible" means "fits within my existing preconceptions". So nothing can ever change your view because anything that challenges what you already (think you) know is, by definition, implausible, no matter how great the evidence that you are wrong.

That's a stubborn refusal to learn that's rare even amongst year 8 kids.

Editted to add: you seem to be confusing Christian perspective with your perspective.

 

[LoG]

.... So nothing can ever change your view because anything that challenges what you already (think you) know is, by definition, implausible, no matter how great the evidence that you are wrong.

That's a stubborn refusal to learn that's rare even amongst year 8 kids.

What did I say to merit the personal attack, Ebia?
If the view is wrong, would you care to point out specifics?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Hang in there Lion,

I just got the old ad hominum myself on another thread.

 

[depthdeception]

Plausibility from a Christian perspective would be a viewpoint where the the literal interpretation of the bible is in harmony with the physical evidence.

Who defines "literal" interpretation, and why is this a necessary part of a naturalistic theory about the age of the universe?

It seems that you might be overestimating your ability to accurately interpret Scripture, as well as wrongly assuming that the Scriptures are meant to provide the kind of information/data that you are attempting to mine from them. Seems pretty shaky to me...