Big Bang

[busterdog]

I think it is quite valid to say the "big bang theory" fits better with theistic evolution than creationalism. If creationism is defined as young earth creationalism, then I have a question.

Let's assume all of creation was created within six 24 hour days of the creation of Adam and Eve. Now when were they created. If we use the generations listed, it works out to about 6000 years ago. And let's assume before Adam and Eve were created, no pre-adamic race existed. So what we are left with is the apparent age argument, like the wine at Cana. God created a whole false history, including cave paintings and the like, that appear to be more than 6000 years old. While this view has the least theological problems, it does not seem sound to me. Where have I gone wrong?

No, you are right. It is exactly like Cana. People just made the wrong assumption at Cana and misinterpreted the data.

Here's the other problem. We have been around on this one many times on this board. The argument is that God would never ever lie to us by giving us rocks that look old (e.g., Gen. 1 could lie, but God forbid that rocks would). This notion at its logical extension means that God has lied for millenia, since those who came before us did not interpret starlight as 16 billion years old, but he wouldnt lie to human beings living since about 1950. Well, scientists since about 1950. Its ok that he lies to about 5.9 billion people who arent modern scientists.

THe notion that God must be faithful to our beliefs (in age) is just a really bad theology.

 

[Van]

I do not think we can resolve a seeming paradox with "God lied or the rocks lied" nor can we resolve it with "I was mistaken about God or I was mistaken about rocks." That would be really bad theology.

 

[Assyrian]

How is it bad theology to think you might have made a mistake, surely every move of reformation is an admission we had got it wrong before?

 

[Van]

Hi Assyrian, sorry if I created that impression. The ability to admit we are wrong reflects humbleness and facilitates learning. So your observation is spot on. But that was not my point. My point was to "resolve a paradox" by accepting it with a shrug, "oh well, I must be mistaken somewhere" therefore accepting the doctrine that actually created the paradox. That is really bad theology. Either the rocks are old, older than about 6000 years, or they were created 6000 years ago with apparent age.
I am uncomfortable with using a "magic wand" and saying "apparent age" but to then accept the idea that the earth was created 5 billion years ago, would be "bad theology. I would in effect be going from a view that has a paradox, young earth with old appearing rocks, to another view that still has a paradox, an old earth with God's word seeming to say the earth is 6000 years old. Have I resolved the paradox? Nope.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hi Assyrian, sorry if I created that impression. The ability to admit we are wrong reflects humbleness and facilitates learning. So your observation is spot on. But that was not my point. My point was to "resolve a paradox" by accepting it with a shrug, "oh well, I must be mistaken somewhere" therefore accepting the doctrine that actually created the paradox. That is really bad theology. Either the rocks are old, older than about 6000 years, or they were created 6000 years ago with apparent age.
I am uncomfortable with using a "magic wand" and saying "apparent age" but to then accept the idea that the earth was created 5 billion years ago, would be "bad theology. I would in effect be going from a view that has a paradox, young earth with old appearing rocks, to another view that still has a paradox, an old earth with God's word seeming to say the earth is 6000 years old. Have I resolved the paradox? Nope.

I think the most obvious solution would be to re-analyse the technique by which you got an age of 6000 years. Have you done it yourself, or are you relying on other people's calculations?

 

[Van]

Hi Wiccan Child, yes I have looked through the list of geneologies. We know, or at least I believe we know, that David lived about 1000 BC so we can count the generations, and divide into 1000 to get an "average" generation time for that period. Next the actual age at the birth of the child in the line is given for the early generations, so you can add those years up. So we are left with the middle generations, and even if we use 100 years, which is very generous for an average, we cannot move the date back very far.

Here is a quick estimate. From Matthew 1 we have 14 generations from Abraham to David. And from Luke 3:31 and following counting backwards, we also get about 14 generations. So if we allow 100 years per generation, which is very generous, we go back from 1000 BC to 2400 Bc and the life of Abraham.

Now Luke 3:34 and following gives us about 12 generations to Noah. Even allowing 100 years per generation, that takes us back to 3600 BC.

Now in Genesis 5 we are given the generations from Adam to Noah. And the generation period is given. For example, Adam to Shem, 135 years. Now if you add up the 9 generations from Adam to Noah you get 839 years, so again the generation average is just under 100 years. So if we use 900 years, we get 4,500 BC or about 6500 years ago, even using a very generous estimate of the average generation period.