Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not even AIG claim that he is:Eric_C said:[font=Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif]Miller said that he couldn't accept a symbolic interpretation of the Genesis creation account.--(Testimony of the Rocks pub. 1857) Miller was not an old earth creation Christian.[/font]
Eric said:I hope that you don't take my boldness and convictions personally. I know that your convictions are just as passionate to you, as mine are to me. So if there is anything that I've said in my posts that are offensive to you, I apologize in advance. It is not my goal to cause anyones feelings to be hurt. If you knew me better, you'd probably take what I say with this grain of salt, I'm stubborn...lol
No... I did not say "the creation week is a representation of our week" I said "creation week (--be what our week represents" There is a difference. The creation week is not symbolic of our week, our week is a recurring time cycle after the pattern established in the creation week. The creation week is special because it only happened once, not like the other time indicators that are built into the creation, hence the reason for the command to remember and keep holy the sabbath. Why? For in six days..... Another thing, would the Israelites have forgotten the sabbath if they didn't keep it every seventh day? Had they forgotten about it, and He was simply reminding them of it when He gave the command? No, those reasons would be ridiculous. He said it, because they were to remember it exactly as it happened, seven literal days.jazzbird said:I see. The thing is - and you said it yourself - the creation week is a representation of our week. We are to model our work and rest after the example God gives us in Genesis. A representation is not the thing itself. It is a symbol. We see Gods example of working 6 and resting 1 in other places that do not refer to days. For example, the people of Israel are told to farm the land for six years and to rest on the seventh:Eric_C said:My point is that God gave us the time measurement, of a week, as 7 literal days of approximately 24 hours each, along with the other 3 literal time measurements.
Now if creation week (which is supposed to be what our week represents) is not a literal 7 days of approximately 24 hours each, then He has broken from the pattern of literal for literal and, He has been deceiving mankind from the beginning by not telling us that it was billions of years that our week represents.
Exo 20:11
--"For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."--
This is God speaking here and referring back to creation week in the past tense as a literal week.
Exd 23:10-11 And six years thou shalt sow thy land, and shalt gather in the fruits thereof:
But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still; that the poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave the beasts of the field shall eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy oliveyard.
Lev 25:2-5 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto the LORD. Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof; But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for the LORD: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard. That which groweth of its own accord of thy harvest thou shalt not reap, neither gather the grapes of thy vine undressed: for it is a year of rest unto the land.
I think you've misunderstood my purpose and use of the phrase. As simply as I can state my point. The appearance of age is relevant to ones ability to understand, that which one perceives physically.jazzbird said:No, speculation is not evidence, and I dont think its important to dwell on the condition of his body.Eric_C said:I'm still trying to understand how you could look at a full grown man (the evidence that we do have) and claim that, that, is not an appearance of history or age? Full grown is the appearance of age and the only evidence that we have. Speculations about what condition the body was in, is not evidence.
I will try to better explain my view on Adam and age: If something only appears to be old, it is not really old. Adam was created an adult. He was not created with the appearance of being an adult. He was an adult, yet he had not begun to age. Though we can speculate that perhaps he was created with calluses, I think it would be a mighty big stretch to say that he was created with worn joints and wrinkles as well. God created Adam so that he could function properly, not so he could appear old. Despite the fact that at his creation he was only minutes old, he was also an adult. That is what he was.
The whole appearance of age argument, reminds me of the argument atheists use when they say the world only appears to be designed with purpose. (I dont mean that as a dig). They are trying to force what we know about our world to fit their mold and their preconceived notions and prejudices.
The Holy Spirit has recorded in Scripture the account of the first week, all the days that Adam lived and the genealogy from Adam to Christ, and we know approximately how many years have past since then, 2004. The age of the earth is never specifically addressed in Scripture because there is no need, it contains the record of it.jazzbird said:No, he has not told us how old the earth is. Please support this assertion. If we knew, we would not have this big controversy on our hands.Eric_C said:The difference with the earth and mankind is, that God has told mankind just how old the earth is, there is no guess work. As a Christian, I can accept the possibility of Gods curse on the earth (because of mans sin in Genesis 3:17) to be the cause of rapid decay rates and or fluctuations in them and later restored to normal when the curse was removed in Genesis 8:21.
Please forgive me for not quoting you accurately. It appears to me that you are attempting to impose the methods of procreation on the Genesis account of original creation. Your argument here is based in opposition to the appearance of age, but the problem with it is, whether it is seeds, or full grown trees and vegetation, both have the appearance of age. God creating something new for the first time during creation week, it is going to look as though it had already been there for awhile. No matter what stage of development of procreation He may have created it at.jazzbird said:I didnt say that Adam was without a doubt the only thing that God created with full maturity. What I said is that we know from the Genesis account that not all things were created this way, and other than Adam, it does not tell us what things, if any, were created with maturity. Perhaps the animals were also created with maturity. If that was necessary to their safety and survival, then Im sure they were created in that manner. That has nothing to do with being fruitful though. If an infant animal can get along without a mother and grow to maturity, it will be able to reproduce in a short period of time.Eric_C said:As to your claim of Adam being the only thing that was created by God, a fully functional adult with the appearance of age. How can animal kinds and sea creatures be fruitful and multiply if they were not created as fully functional adults with the appearance of age?
Well, both are true. Trees and vegetation do grow from seed out of the ground. It also says that the earth brought fourth, it says the same thing of the animals, all the beasts of the field and the creepy crawlers. The Hebrew word for (is the same for all three) verse 24 bring, or verse 12 brought and forth, means, "come out, exist, to go out, go forth".jazzbird said:It doesnt say that the fruit had their seeds in them at the time of creation. The text is giving us a description of what kind of plant it is - that being the kind that bears seeds.Eric_C said:The account in Genesis says that God created the trees with their seed in their fruit and all the other vegetation with their seed in them, or in their fruit. It does not say that God created seeds only.
Genesis says that the plants grew - they were not planted fully grown. Ive posted this before in this thread, but no one seems to want to address it.
Gen 1:11-12 Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
The earth sprouted vegetations. The earth brought forth vegetation. This is not a description of mature plants and trees.
Your's is the position that makes the assumption of long undetermined periods of time for the days of creation week, something you have yet to prove Biblically. My position is the plain and literal reading of the text, and if my math is correct, I see a difference of 3 days from day 3 to day 6, not enough time for vegetation and trees to grow from seed. The object of the verb planted is the garden. What do the verses 7-8 say?jazzbird said:Hold on now .vegetation was created on day three and Adam was created on day 6. You are making an assumption that the garden was void of vegetation until after the creation of Adam. The verb planted is past tense. There is nothing to indicate God planting the garden after Adams creation. The text is merely giving us the information that God created a garden, and that is where he placed Adam. Why wouldnt God have prepared the garden for Adam when he created the rest of the plants? The Bible does not say that on day 3 God created plants and then on day 6 he created some more plants.Eric_C said:It says that God formed man, breathed into him the breath of life, then planted a garden and put him in it to work it. Now if that garden was planted from seed, what did Adam eat while he was working it? It takes 3 to 4 months, at least, to get vegetables to come up, fruit trees, it takes them 8 to 12 years when grown from seed to produce fruit. So what did Adam eat sense he didn't have any "super" abilities?
"Look at the passage I just gave above, it says "Which doeth great things past finding out" directly connected to God creating the celestial bodies in the heavens and the heavens them self. Not only do the Scriptures teach that mankind is in darkness and deceiving himself, it literally says that what God has done in creating the universe is PAST FINDING OUT!"jazzbird said:This scripture is speaking of the awesomeness of God. Yes, He is beyond our comprehension. He has power unimaginable. Job understands that he cannot comprehend the ways of God - that is true.Eric_C said:It is not that the universe isn't what it appears to be, it is mans inability to perceive the universe as it truly is.
Job 9:7-10
--"Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars. Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea. Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south. Which doeth great things past finding out; yea, and wonders without number."--
I dont think however, that your statement that we cannot perceive the universe as it truly is, is accurate. Of course there are many things we do not know. There are mysteries. But God does not tell us that we are to be ignorant of all the workings of the world. The scripture from Job refers to our inability to understand God. It is not telling us that we can understand nothing of our natural world.
I know I understand, I reason that I know I understand, know, know-ledge, ahhh, knowledge.jazzbird said:Yes, our senses are reliable. If I see a table, I know before I touch it that it will be hard. If I see a dog, I know it will bark and not purr. I am not saying that we are to rely on our own wisdom and intuition instead of on God - perhaps you think I say sense as in reason. I am saying that the Bible tells us that if we use our five senses they tell us things about our world. We use our senses to collect information and evidence. I could fill an entire post with Scriptures that tell us this - but I will limit it to a few verses:Eric_C said:Our senses are reliable??? I could fill an entire post with Scriptures alone that say they're not. Look at the passage I just gave above, it says "Which doeth great things past finding out" directly connected to God creating the celestial bodies in the heavens and the heavens them self. Not only do the Scriptures teach that mankind is in darkness and deceiving himself, it literally says that what God has done in creating the universe is PAST FINDING OUT! I find your last sentence to be spurious.
1John 1:1-3
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.
Deut 4:9
"Only take heed to yourself, and diligently keep yourself, lest you forget the things your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. And teach them to your children and your grandchildren
1Cr 15:4-7
.and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.
Evidence is important. It is necessary to support verbal testimony. Events carry more weight than words. Deut 18.22 says "When the prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him."
Jesus tells His disciples: "And now I have told you before it comes to pass, that when it comes to pass, you may believe." (John 14:29) Jesus acknowledges the importance of evidence and implies that if His words don't line up with the events, then He doesn't expect them to believe. It is the consistency of His words with the events of reality that prove He is who He says He is. He is telling us that we can believe what we experience to be true.
The Bible tells us so many times that we can trust events. God says we can believe our eyes. Some people will argue that after Jesus death the disciples saw merely an apparition, and not Jesus himself. What does Paul say? He says that they saw Jesus in His earthly body and that this is proof of the Truth of Christianity.
So God tells us we can believe what we see, yet you say that the astronomers cannot believe what they see in the sky. Are the events in the sky real or falsified?
jazzbird from previous post said:How is radiometric dating a presumption?
Eric said:I'll answer you with your own words[/b] "it's not perfect
Eric said:Aren't curses and judgments from God relevant physical conditions?
Eric said:.......No. The Christian young earth scientist are not the ones attempting to accommodate the fruit of the theory of evolution, which is old earth.
jazzbird from previous post said:Where is the evidence that shows that there is no fluctuation in the magnetic fields?
Eric said:That wasn't my point. And I don't believe I made any claim that they don't fluctuate.
Eric said:And by the way, where is the evidence to support that the rate of decay in radioisotopes hasn't changed or fluctuated in the past? There is a huge astronomical difference between the circumstantial of 40 to 80 years and the "guessed" at billions of years.
jazzbird from previous post said:Many scientists have been led to the Gospel through their study of our natural world.
Eric said:No disagreement here, though it certainly isn't because of the heavens teaching that slow and natural processes are Gods way of creating things.
Eric said:Absolutely, but the things that are discovered in the heavens and the natural world do not contradict what is written in the Scriptures. If they do, then they are not the truth.
Impact article # 352 by Dr. Humphreys titled, Nuclear Decay: Evidence for a Young WorldJazzbird said:Okay, here is my response to dating. I didn't want to throw too much out there at once. I know how difficult it is when there is so much to respond to. What do they call that....hurling an elephant....or something? That's funny. Anyway.......
Jazzbird from previous post said:How is radiometric dating a presumption?
Eric said:I'll answer you with your own words "it's not perfect"
The fact that it is not perfect does not mean that it is not greatly accurate. I did provide reasons to trust the accuracy in my last post. Maybe you would like to comment on why you see Hugh Rosss explanations as insufficient. (Its post #132). Radiometric dating has been found to be accurate when tested against other methods of measurement.
Impact article # 252 By Dr. Lorey titled, Tree Rings and Biblical ChronologyJazzbird said:For instance, carbon-14 dating, which has a short half life, is used to date material like bones, wood, cloth, paper and other dead tissue. This method has been cross checked with growth rings in trees and found to be accurate. Bristle cone pine trees are extremely slow growing and live up to 6,000 years. Tree rings provide continuous chronologies up to 11,800 years, but not beyond that because of the abrupt change in climate that took place.
Impact article # 254 by Dr. Vardiman titled, Out of Whose Womb Came the Ice? (Job 38:29)Jazzbird said:Ice cores are another way to determine age. A continuous count of layers exist up to 160,000 years, though absolute ages beyond 75,000 years cannot be determined as the percentage of error increases since the layers become more compact.
Margin of error...? One false witness does not corroborate another. The error in all of these that you mention is that the data is interpreted through the eyeglasses of billions of years of age for the earth, that is a huge error, a margin billions of light years wide.Jazzbird said:Tree rings, ice cores and other non-radiometric methods agree with radiometric dating over millions of years of time. The disagreement in values is only a few percent - which is close to the margin of error, and would not create huge discrepancies.
Well.., its assumed by the old earth camp that current natural processes haven't changed in the past, so why is it not valid for the young earth camp to assume that they have? Neither can be proved scientifically, but the young earth camp does have the testimony of The Scripture.Jazzbird said:Im sorry? I dont understand what you mean .Eric said:Aren't curses and judgments from God relevant physical conditions?
First of all, it is dishonest to quote me without including my subsequent correction or modification of my statement. Or maybe you just missed it?Jazzbird said:I find this to be a major problem with YEC. They throw the baby out with the bath water ..that is how the saying goes, right? They fight so hard against an old earth because they think that it will lend credibility to evolution if they admit the earth is old. The fact is, they are separate things. Observations, data, information - that is all benign. That is what leads us to the conclusion that the earth is old. Evolution is merely a theory that comes out of these observations. The evidence is not against the Bible. The evidence does not say that the theory of evolution is fact.Eric said:.......No. The Christian young earth scientist are not the ones attempting to accommodate the fruit of the theory of evolution, which is old earth.
Secondly, I'm not defending against old earth ideas because they lend credibility to the theory of evolution alone, no, my primary reason for opposing them is that old earth ideas discredit the testimony of Scripture. Scientific data must be interpreted and one does not get old earth out of the data unless one puts old earth into it. The conclusion does not prove the premise, neither does the premise prove the conclusion.Eric_C from post 136 said:OK, so I should have said Naturalism, which has been around much longer then Darwinian theories. They are both part of the same tree.thefigian from post 135 said:I'm afraid this is incorrect. Geologists such as the Christian Hugh Miller were formulating theories of an old earth 50 years before Darwin.Eric_C from post 134 said:.......No. The Christian young earth scientist are not the ones attempting to accommodate the fruit of the theory of evolution, which is old earth.Jazzbird from post 132 said:"And why is it the scientists (not all of whom are secular, BTW) who are rejecting the truth in this regard to fit their model? Couldn't the same be just as easily said about the young earthers?"
Andy
Yes it is. I'm not overwhelmed by speculations and you said that you agreed with me that speculation about the past is not evidence:Jazzbird said:There is overwhelming evidence that the earth is old. This is not a contradiction to Scripture.
(end part one)Jazzbird from post 139 said:No, speculation is not evidence, and I dont think its important to dwell on the condition of his body.
Yes, you are missing my point, which was, two types of rate of decay which neither can be absolutely proved to have fluctuated or remained constant in the past, yet one is accepted as being a constant and the other is not, simply because of the paradigm of old earth. Yes, magnetic poles can be reversed, but that would require certain conditions to be present, and those conditions can only be speculated about concerning the past. No man alive today was there to observe. I'm not saying that it is not possible, that was not my point.Jazzbird said:Jazzbird from previous post said:Where is the evidence that shows that there is no fluctuation in the magnetic fields?You said: "The Earths magnetic field is decaying at a certain rate that when extrapolated back to the past it gives an upper limit for the age of the earth of 10 thousand years. Of course, the evidence of the decay rate of the earths magnetic field being constant in the past is rejected because it does not fit with the model of billions of years old." Therefore, I thought that you were proposing that the decay rate is steady and does not fluctuate. Was that your point, or am I missing it? Maybe Im confused.Eric said:That wasn't my point. And I don't believe I made any claim that they don't fluctuate.
I was not referring to any sort of calibration using samples, I'm talking about looking at current rate of decay, how long it has been monitored, then making the assumption that the rate has been constant for billions of years, there is nothing to calibrate it with. The other methods you mention are just as speculative as radiometric dating, one false witness does not confirm another.Jazzbird said:When I said: "It is based on the half-lives of radioactive isotopes measured over the last forty to eighty years," I didnt mean that the samples were only forty to eighty years old. I was addressing the misconception some have that the dating is calibrated by samples that had been dated prior to the use of radiometric dating. There were no dates assigned to these samples prior to radiometric dating.Eric said:And by the way, where is the evidence to support that the rate of decay in radioisotopes hasn't changed or fluctuated in the past? There is a huge astronomical difference between the circumstantial of 40 to 80 years and the "guessed" at billions of years.
As to the rate of decay being constant, I did mention above that all the different dating methods agree. If the rate of decay changes, then when compared with other dating methods, it would be found inaccurate.
Inconsequential. I'll concede.Jazzbird said:Jazzbird from a previous post said:Many scientists have been led to the Gospel through their study of our natural world.I beg to differ. Have you read the testimonies of many old earth Christian scientists?Eric said:No disagreement here, though it certainly isn't because of the heavens teaching that slow and natural processes are Gods way of creating things.
So when secular scientists present evidence that suggest billions of years for the age of the earth, something clearly in opposition to word of God, the Bible, you agree 100% that it is wrong? Or are you saying that, when that evidence is presented, it is the cause to modify the meaning of Scripture from literal to symbolic? And if the latter, how then can any of the Scripture be reliable? Wouldn't that be bringing the Scripture in to subjection to ones own, or mans own understanding?Jazzbird said:Eric said:Absolutely, but the things that are discovered in the heavens and the natural world do not contradict what is written in the Scriptures. If they do, then they are not the truth.
I agree 100%.
Eric_C said:I would prefer to stick with the Biblical aspect of this discussion until we are finished with it. I will and do want to discuss the scientific aspect, but I'm not able to post links yet. I have ICR's written permission to quote a short paragraph or two from their articles, something I will need to do, but I'm required by them to post the link to the article and the copyright. After these two posts I'll need 2 more.
So when secular scientists present evidence that suggest billions of years for the age of the earth, something clearly in opposition to word of God, the Bible, you agree 100% that it is wrong? Or are you saying that, when that evidence is presented, it is the cause to modify the meaning of Scripture from literal to symbolic? And if the latter, how then can any of the Scripture be reliable? Wouldn't that be bringing the Scripture in to subjection to ones own, or mans own understanding?
Excellent point.A. believer said:I voted yes because I'm more inclined toward believing in a young Earth than an old one, but still I think your poll should have made a distinction between old Earth creationists and theistic evolutionists. "Theistic evolution" is compatible with deism, at best--certainly not with theism. Old Earth creationism, on the other hand, is compatible with Christian theism. I'm not sure there's any valid reason for holding to it, though. Those who do, apparently, do so because of the Earth's apparent age, but the idea that God created the Earth in a mature state, just as He created Adam and Eve as mature people seems perfectly reasonable to me.
A. believer said:I voted yes because I'm more inclined toward believing in a young Earth than an old one, but still I think your poll should have made a distinction between old Earth creationists and theistic evolutionists. "Theistic evolution" is compatible with deism, at best--certainly not with theism. Old Earth creationism, on the other hand, is compatible with Christian theism. I'm not sure there's any valid reason for holding to it, though. Those who do, apparently, do so because of the Earth's apparent age, but the idea that God created the Earth in a mature state, just as He created Adam and Eve as mature people seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Take your time, we're in the same boat, I'm very busy too most of the time. I will not lose interest if you take 3 or 4 days, or even 6, to respond. As long as they're not days as you understand Genesis 1 days to be...,Jazzbird said:I was wondering what was up with posting whole articles for me to read. I have read some articles on ICR in the past, and I will give a look at the one's you posted when I have time - I've been quite busy lately.Eric_C said:I would prefer to stick with the Biblical aspect of this discussion until we are finished with it. I will and do want to discuss the scientific aspect, but I'm not able to post links yet. I have ICR's written permission to quote a short paragraph or two from their articles, something I will need to do, but I'm required by them to post the link to the article and the copyright. After these two posts I'll need 2 more.
Before I say anything further I'll wait for your response.Jazzbird said:I am saying that old earth evidence does not conflict with a literal Bible. The day-age interpretation is not symbolic. It is a literal translation. "Yom" can be validly translated 'day' or 'period of time.' Reading it as a period of time does not make it symbolic. I know you posted a lot on the Biblical stuff that I haven't responded to yet, and I will talk about this in more detail then, if you really believe that my reading is symbolic.Eric_C said:So when secular scientists present evidence that suggest billions of years for the age of the earth, something clearly in opposition to word of God, the Bible, you agree 100% that it is wrong? Or are you saying that, when that evidence is presented, it is the cause to modify the meaning of Scripture from literal to symbolic? And if the latter, how then can any of the Scripture be reliable? Wouldn't that be bringing the Scripture in to subjection to ones own, or mans own understanding?
Looking back, I could have phrased it differently, I should have assumed you just missed it, a new page had come up and it was on the previous.Jazzbird said:Oh, and sorry about misquoting you on that one thing....I guess I overlooked your correction. Sorry!
I haven't read BB Warfield, but I just read a review of a book of selected writings of his on the topic that concludes that B.B. Warfield had more in common with modern day intelligent design theorists than modern day "theistic evolutionists." Would you agree with this assessment?rmwilliamsll said:TE under the name providential evolution was an early, fully orthodox reaction to the rise of darwinian thinking. it is certainly not deist. it's voice was only drowned out in the fundamentalist-liberal battles of the 1920's where PE looked to liberal for the conservatives. the best theologian to look at is BB Warfield.
I'm not sure if you're saying something different when you say that the Earth appears as if it evolved than what I'm saying when I say that the Earth appeared old, but if we are, then I don't see the problem.if God created the earth with apparent age then it is that apparent age that science is studying and the question becomes why did God make it appear that the universe had evolved. but essentially it is the well discussed issues of decartes demon and brains in a vat.
Eric_C said:Take your time, we're in the same boat, I'm very busy too most of the time. I will not lose interest if you take 3 or 4 days, or even 6, to respond. As long as they're not days as you understand Genesis 1 days to be...,ha ha ha, just a little humor there.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?