• 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.

Do you believe in a literal 7 day creation?

Status
Not open for further replies.

GodAtWorkToday

Active Member
Nov 29, 2004
202
27
67
Sydney
Visit site
✟506.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Thanks Vance, for those links, they certainly make interesting reading. I might have to re-think my position of geocentricity. Maybe we don't have a sun-centered solar system. Don't know, would really like to see some evidence rather than just opinion.

However I love this verse mentioned in one of the pages;
1Ti 6:20-21 ESV O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called "knowledge," (21) for by professing it some have swerved from the faith. Grace be with you.

or better translated;

1Ti 6:20-21 MKJV O Timothy, guard the Deposit, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of falsely-named science, (21) which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen.
The Greek word is "gnosis"
G1108
γνῶσις
gnōsis
gno'-sis
From G1097; knowing (the act), that is, (by implication) knowledge: - knowledge, science.
I must say I do see a lot of that which Timothy was warned of happening on these threads, where 'knowledge' is exalted over 'faith'. It's too bad that God says;
Heb 11:6 MKJV But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
Interestingly, the very next verse, speaks of Noah and the Flood, which is something that Evolutionists would have us believe is only "mythological, allegorical, poetic, or non-literal". Which to put it bluntly, they say is a false lie. I choose not to call God a liar and accept His Word as factually true.

I particularly liked this page that I linked through to;
http://www.fixedearth.com/pythagoras.htm

The very strong linkage between ancient anti-Christrian religions and the proponents of all the elements of the evolutionary arguments, makes very compelling reading indeed. Based on that information, I'm glad to be a 6 dayer, YEC. I wouldn't want to be included in that other camp of pagan non-believers, if my life depended on it. Which interestingly it does.
 
Upvote 0

JaimeMan

Regular Member
Dec 6, 2004
161
7
Tampa-Clearwater
Visit site
✟327.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
From gospelway.com:
The chart below categorizes the verses according to the nature of the books (law, history or prophecy, etc.). Then it shows whether the "days" are each literal or could be longer periods or could refer to hundreds of millions of years.
Type of book Total verses Literal days Long ages? Millions of yrs
OT Law 191 all none none
OT History 187 all none none
OT Poetry 86 all none none
OT Prophecy 168 162 6(??) none
Total OT 632 626 6(??) none
NT History 116 all none none
NT Epistles 17 all none none
NT Prophecy 9 4 5(??) none
Total NT 142 137 5(??) none
Bible Total 774 763 11(??) none

Observations about the results:

(1) Regardless of context, "days" longer than literal days are highly unlikely.

(2) If we consider context all possible examples of longer periods are found in prophecy, never in history or doctrine or even poetry. Prophecy commonly uses words symbolically, so such a use proves nothing about historical or doctrinal contexts. But creation accounts are history and doctrine, not prophecy. So any attempt to determine the meaning of "days" in creation by appealing to prophetic texts would misuse Scripture.

(3) Moses uses "days" 191 times. All are literal; none refer to long ages. So why should we believe the "days" of creation are long ages in Exodus 20 & 31?

(4) Overall, "days" occurs almost 600 times in history, doctrine, and poetry. Always each day is literal, never a long period of time. To argue for long ages in Ex. 20 and 31 is to speak without Bible precedent.

(5) And finally, no Bible passage - not even prophecy - uses "days" to refer to ages lasting many hundreds of millions of years each. There simply is no Bible authority whatever for such a conclusion.

"Days" translated "age" or "time"

The above comments refer to "days" (plural) when translated "days." However, in six verses YOM is translated "age." In every case, YOM is plural. Further, in over sixty verses YOM is translated "time." In the majority of these YOM is plural. While not included in the chart above, these instances do not conflict with the results but completely harmonize with them.

When YOM is plural and is translated "time" or "age," the "age" or "time" is indefinite in length, not because the "days" are not literal, but simply because the context does not tell how many days are included. There is no evidence that each of the "days" is a long time period. Hence, these cases too are compatible with a literal meaning for "days."

The use of "days" to refer to creation compels us to conclude the days are literal, not long periods.
Jaime
 
Upvote 0

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟25,661.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
GodAtWorkToday said:
Thanks Vance, for those links, they certainly make interesting reading. I might have to re-think my position of geocentricity. Maybe we don't have a sun-centered solar system. Don't know, would really like to see some evidence rather than just opinion.
:thumbsup: Of course, you're only kidding. I like a good joke as much as anyone.

However I love this verse mentioned in one of the pages;
The Greek word is "gnosis"
I must say I do see a lot of that which Timothy was warned of happening on these threads, where 'knowledge' is exalted over 'faith'.
See, here is how keeping abreast of basic historical context will help you: any conservative, fundamentalist scholar (check it out!) will tell you that Paul's warning against exalting gnosis is a polemic against an early form of gnosticism, which exalted spiritual knowledge and experience over everything physical. Pure gnosticism said that all matter is evil, and the way to transcend it and become like God is to increase your secret knowledge of spiritual things. This is nothing like our insistence that the physical universe can actually tell us something about how God went about creating it.

Interestingly, the very next verse, speaks of Noah and the Flood, which is something that Evolutionists would have us believe is only "mythological, allegorical, poetic, or non-literal". Which to put it bluntly, they say is a false lie. I choose not to call God a liar and accept His Word as factually true.
This is why our debate never progresses. We choose to call God a liar? If you'd even try to understand you'd see that we don't believe that myth, poetry, and other non-literal forms of writing are "false lies." Are you calling Jesus a liar for using parables? It gets ridiculous. It's time you stop bearing false witness against us by categorizing everything we say as "God lied".

I wouldn't want to be included in that other camp of pagan non-believers, if my life depended on it. Which interestingly it does.
And just because pagan non-believers believe something makes it false. Interesting. And what in heaven's name do you mean by the fact that your life depends on it? Have we badgered you into the hole in which all you can do is threaten us with divine damnation? Lurkers, bear witness.
 
Upvote 0

GodAtWorkToday

Active Member
Nov 29, 2004
202
27
67
Sydney
Visit site
✟506.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
What is clear when you take a step back from this thread is that there is a very clear contest of opinion between a factual, literal, interpretation of Gen 1-2 (and other verses), that clearly purport to show how God created the world as revealed to Moses by God and those who propose Evolution as the only valid interpreatation, which necessitates an old-earth, and they try to support this by calling Genesis 1-2 mythological, allegorical, non-literal. This group happily throws in TalkOrigins as a supporting reference for their beliefs.

When you look at TO, who see that it is not an objective site relating to Creation/Evolution but rather an extremely pro-evolution site, that among other things attempts to de-bunk a global flood. So Moses got it wrong again from God about the Noahic flood. So even thought the Bible says its global this group would have us believe that it was no more that a catastrophic local flood.

In short, the arguments presented (when looked at as a whole), call God a liar, or Moses as incompetent, or the book of Genesis as a deception to the way things actually are.

There is no middle ground on Creation/Evolution. If God started an evolutionary process, and we (Man) evolved from the other primates, then He would have, (or should have), said so in His revelation to Moses. Otherwise He was deceiving us about the facts.

However, when you look at Genesis, we see God, through Moses telling us, that He created, that He did it in 6 days and then rested, that plants, animals, people are separate in their creation, and that they reproduce after their own kind. Ie variation within species, but not speciation (unless you want to use really arcane specie definitions). And that their was a global flood that destroy all living things apart from the ark dwellers.

Now for us to say that the Genesis account is wrong, that it means something else, is to declare the revelation of God to Moses as false. If we can't trust God's revelation to Moses in Genesis, then how do we do so for the Ten Commandments. If the Law of God is also mythology, the why to we need a redeemer from the Law of Sin & Death.

When you look at the whole can of worms that is evolution and its attack upon Christion Creation beliefs, you see very clearly a very direct satanic link that seeks to undermine the redemptive work of Jesus on the Cross. Even satan believes Jesus died on the cross but that won't ever get him out of hell.

So when I say my life depends upon my beliefs relating to Genesis, that is not a tactic of argument, but rather a very true comment upon the slippery slope of belief and faith that TE's find themselves on.

It is not a question of just different beliefs about non-essential Scriptures but rather the foundations of life, the Source of our being, the nature of sin, and the need of a redemptive sacrifice. These are way too important for God to chance it, upon verses of questionable interpretation.

It God were to start His revelation with a false story and masquerade it historical narrative, then how could we trust ANY of the rest of it. Know for sure who's camp you are fighting and defending in, because there is only two camps and they both have their generals. In one corner you have God/Jesus/Holy Spirt. Think for yourself who is in the other corner.
 
Upvote 0

California Tim

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2004
869
63
62
Left Coast
✟23,854.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
GodAtWorkToday said:
It is not a question of just different beliefs about non-essential Scriptures but rather the foundations of life, the Source of our being, the nature of sin, and the need of a redemptive sacrifice. These are way too important for God to chance it, upon verses of questionable interpretation.

It God were to start His revelation with a false story and masquerade it historical narrative, then how could we trust ANY of the rest of it. Know for sure who's camp you are fighting and defending in, because there is only two camps and they both have their generals. In one corner you have God/Jesus/Holy Spirt. Think for yourself who is in the other corner.
:clap: :amen:
Very well stated. It's puzzling how hard a pill it is to swallow for some to claim God is not an author of confusion - even though the Word says so:
For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 1 Cor 14:33​
 
Upvote 0

Gold Dragon

Senior Veteran
Aug 8, 2004
2,134
125
49
Toronto, Ontario
✟25,460.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
GodAtWorkToday said:
However, I have never been able to get over this hurdle. Let's say a star is 10 light years away. It takes the light 10 years to travel to us. So if the star goes super nova, we don't even know about it until 10 years later. OK fine.

But, how do we know the star is 10 light years away? Because the light took 10 years to get to us? How do we know that? I know this is displaying my ignorance, but its never been shown to me by what objective evidence these huge distances, and huge time lags are measured and can be known to be accurate.

I understand that time, speed and distance are all related, but even if we accept speed (of light) as a constant (which I question, over long periods), it seems to me that both time and distance are unknowns. If you make any assumption about one of those unknowns, you then by relationship, impose that assumption upon the other unknown.
This link may help.

How Stuff Works - How are astronomers able to measure how far away a star is?

The speed of light in a vacuum experiments are explained in the history section of the following link.

Wikipedia - Speed of Light

The distance of a planet is measured in light years, not because someone timed how long it took light to get to earth, but because that is a large enough unit to make distances between stellar objects have value.

A light year is 9.46x10^15 meters . So 9.46x10^16 meters is 10 light years. Scientists use the triangulation explained in the How Stuff Works link to get the distance in meters. And then express that distance in light years.
 
Upvote 0

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟25,661.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
California Tim said:
:clap: :amen:






Very well stated. It's puzzling how hard a pill it is to swallow for some to claim God is not an author of confusion - even though the Word says so:
For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 1 Cor 14:33​
Interpretation out of context must be a maxim of your hermeneutics. A cursory look at 1 Cor. 14 shows that what is being referred to is too many people prophesying at the same time. "The author" is not even in the Greek (hence the brackets), and Paul's word translated above as "confusion" meant "disorder, disturbance, unruliness" (hence disorder as opposed to "peace") and was referring to disorder in manner of the message's conveyance, not the clarity of the interpretation of the message. We see that Jesus purposely used parables to obscure his real message from some. So here you are making a rule for God to follow - "Completely clear and understandable at face value for everyone." He doesn't care to oblige your demands.
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The problem that most YEC's have comes down to some very basic issues:

1. They think that a message given by God in the form of literal history is somehow more valid and would have more value than a message given by way of allegory or symbolism.

2. They insist that a message given by way of allegory or symbolism would, for some odd reason, be a false statement or a lie.

3. They think that the scientific conclusions reached about evolution and an old earth are somehow the product of a desire to attack the Bible.

All of these are incredibly wrong.

First of all the age of the earth was determined to be old before evolution was ever presented and it was determined by Christian scientists. So much for that YEC mistatement.

Second, Genesis 1 and 2 could only be a lie if it was written as history, but that history was not true. If it was NOT written as history, but as an allegorical presentation of the essential truths, then it could not be a lie if it was not literal history.

Third, Jesus himself proved that the presentation of truths by telling about events that were not historical is very powerful, so this prejudice in favor of literal history makes no sense.

If Genesis 1 and 2 could only be read one way, as literal history, and there was no other possiblity, then that would be one thing. But this is simply not the case.

And godatwork, you shock and amaze me with your reaction to the geocentrism site. The point of sending you there was so that you could see how people can tie themselves to a literal interpretation of Scripture and fall into serious, serious error.

Lastly, the fact that you are willing to found your salvation on the how and when of God's Creation rather than the who and why is where the real danger of YEC'ism to Christianity lies.
 
Upvote 0

GodAtWorkToday

Active Member
Nov 29, 2004
202
27
67
Sydney
Visit site
✟506.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Vance said:
The problem that most YEC's have comes down to some very basic issues:

1. They think that a message given by God in the form of literal history is somehow more valid and would have more value than a message given by way of allegory or symbolism.
No, both would be of equal value. However, when allegory is used in the Bible, it is clearly declared as such. However, Genesis speaks of real people Adam/Noah who are in the geneologies. This is therefore real history, and therefore narrative historical writing, not allegory. Genesis does not use phrases like "it was like" or "there was a rich young ruler". No it speaks of real people in real situations. God clearly states this is the way it is. That is not allegory.

Vance said:
2. They insist that a message given by way of allegory or symbolism would, for some odd reason, be a false statement or a lie.
Not so. Only if it is deceptive by trying to present as historical accuracy and was in fact allegory. The other problem is that we are both happy to use the word allegory as a neutral word meaning symbolic writing or teaching, however the other word that TE's like to use is mythology, which is incredibly close to 'myth'. This then conveys to a reader of these threads that Genesis is full of myths. A myth is something that is 'not true'. That fully undermines the authority, accuracy, and authenticity of the Bible. Genesis is NOT a myth, it is NOT mythology and it is NOT allegory. It IS a historical narrative, revealed by God (the only one who was there at time), how things began.

Vance said:
3. They think that the scientific conclusions reached about evolution and an old earth are somehow the product of a desire to attack the Bible.
I don't deny that. When you look at evolutionary writings (Talk Origins is a good example), their whole point is about trying to prove the origin of man, WITHOUT GOD. God said HE created man. He did not say he created an amoebic soup that evolved into man. HE said that HE created man first hand. Now is this true or not?

Don't bother continueing in this thread until you answer that question. Did God create man, first hand?

Vance said:
All of these are incredibly wrong.
Your opinion. Based upon what evidence?

Vance said:
First of all the age of the earth was determined to be old before evolution was ever presented and it was determined by Christian scientists. So much for that YEC mistatement.
Care to provide the details, rather than just making the claim?

Vance said:
Second, Genesis 1 and 2 could only be a lie if it was written as history, but that history was not true. If it was NOT written as history, but as an allegorical presentation of the essential truths, then it could not be a lie if it was not literal history.
Already covered, but nobody has answered my question, if Adam is allegorical (not real), at what point in the geneology of man, and history of man, did they become real people? Does the language structure of the text change at this point? Who has determined what that point is, an by what authority?

Vance said:
Third, Jesus himself proved that the presentation of truths by telling about events that were not historical is very powerful, so this prejudice in favor of literal history makes no sense.
Yes He did. But He never presented them as historical, about real people. Also the theological truths stand. Even IF Gen 1-2 was allegorical, the theological truth presented is still that God created man, first hand, and breathed His Spirit into man. Evolutionists would tell us that, that is not true. Which means the theological truth presented by God was false. I don't think so.

Vance said:
If Genesis 1 and 2 could only be read one way, as literal history, and there was no other possiblity, then that would be one thing. But this is simply not the case.
You and others have chosen to read it another way. That does not mean that you are right. The context and content of the passages, only support one style of readership, and that is literal history.

Vance said:
And godatwork, you shock and amaze me with your reaction to the geocentrism site. The point of sending you there was so that you could see how people can tie themselves to a literal interpretation of Scripture and fall into serious, serious error.
Actually, they make some very good reasoned arguments, and historical linkage of scientific luminaries back to Kabbalistic Judaism makes very interesting reading. If such an organised plot was indeed fostered, something satan is well capable of doing, then you do have to question the validity of the things we have been brought up to believe, even in High School science. It is certainly true that the capitulation of the church on the issue of heliocentricity, did lay the foundations for the rise of evolutionary science.

That being the case, every thoughtful Christian, should really examine the claims of both sides with a critical eye for fact, assumption, and motive. Basically from personal experience, I could not say with certainity that either was true. I only know that I am more comfortable with geocentricity because that is the accepted 'knowledge' of the day that I have grown up in. We accept it without thinking.

I have not set about a search of the Scriptures or science to see what is and what is not. Considering the protagonists (Biblical authority believing Christians vs scientific opinion accepting adherants), I dare say the quality of the arguments for and against would be no better than those expressed in this current issue.

Vance said:
Lastly, the fact that you are willing to found your salvation on the how and when of God's Creation rather than the who and why is where the real danger of YEC'ism to Christianity lies.
No argument on 'Who'. Believing who God is, and who Jesus is the main issue. I don't think 'why' is actually that relevant. Nor for that matter 'how'. How and why are very common to 'Greek' thinking which is what we have decended from in the west.

However Hebrew thinking was much more about Who and What and When, which is one reason why much of their main religious literature is historical narrative. The What and When of Gen 1-2 are important, because they reveal a lot about WHO God is.

My salvation is not locked into Gen 1-2. But my belief in the authority of the Bible is dependant upon it being truthful from cover to cover. My faith is Jesus, is very much tied to my acceptance of the truthfulness of the gospel message, which is built upon the foundation of the authority of God's Word.

As I said before. If I can't believe Gen 1-2 as being true, then by what twist of logic should I believe John 3:16 is true. Do we not have both passages by the same mechanism? That of God revealing His truth to a Biblical writer to record for the benefit of all generations. So if I can't believe in the revelation given to Moses, why should I believe in the revelation given to John.

You see Vance, it is not just you an me in this discussion. Looking at the view count, 10 times more people are reading this thread, than those that are posting. So for these readers, their acceptance or rejection of Christ, could be dependant upon whether they believe they can trust the claims, promises and requirements of the Bible. When we undermine sections of the Bible, by claiming them to be wrong in fact, we create a stumbling block for the non-believer, and the new believer. Jesus had some strong words to say about those people.

Personally, for me, my salvation is secure, because I know the Bible is TRUTH from cover to cover. Therefore John 3:16 has the same authority for me, as Gen 1-2.
 
Upvote 0

GodAtWorkToday

Active Member
Nov 29, 2004
202
27
67
Sydney
Visit site
✟506.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Gold Dragon said:
This link may help.

How Stuff Works - How are astronomers able to measure how far away a star is?

The speed of light in a vacuum experiments are explained in the history section of the following link.

Wikipedia - Speed of Light

The distance of a planet is measured in light years, not because someone timed how long it took light to get to earth, but because that is a large enough unit to make distances between stellar objects have value.
Thanks for those links. They are quite helpful. It is interesting that the only observable measure, 'triangulation' is only valid for stars out to 400 light years. Beyond that scientists, then use colour/brightness comparisions which is by far a lot more subjective, and based upon assumptive conclusions. How surprising that it is these measures that have come up with the billions of light years measure. Hmmm.

Also interesting about the change of standards in 1983 so that metres are now determined by the speed of light. So in the D=S*T equation we now have the distance measure set by the speed constant, rather then by some outside objective measure.
 
Upvote 0

JaimeMan

Regular Member
Dec 6, 2004
161
7
Tampa-Clearwater
Visit site
✟327.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
The Gap Theory of Genesis Chapter One

By: Jack C. Sofield

(A Layman's Critical Appraisal)

Preface

When this work was originally written in 1975 the book Unformed and Unfilled by Weston W. Fields had not yet been published. Had it been, it is doubtful if this work would ever have been started. However, Dr. Fields' work is the result of his doctoral thesis and is written at a high academic level. This presentation is aimed at the understanding level of the average person. The author is gratified that his original thesis has been substantiated by such a scholarly work. Nevertheless it is still true that when most Christians are asked their opinion about the “Gap Theory”, they reply with something like “What theory is that?” This answer indicates that in spite of all that has been written about theistic evolution to date; little has been taught in the Sunday Schools or from the pulpit about this topic. This is even more remarkable since this theory was an integral part of the original Scofield Bible notes. Because the initial verses of the Bible are so foundational to the proper understanding and application of the remainder of the Scriptures, it is incumbent that we have a proper understanding of the issue of origins as recorded there.

My motive for producing a work of this nature is two-fold. On the one hand, my scientific training motivates me, and on the other my commitment to the Bible as the verbally inspired, inerrant word of the living God provided the incentive. As a person trained in the sciences, I have investigated, as thoroughly as I could, the claims of science in the realm of origins and evolution. I have found the evolutionary concept of a natural origin and development of all material in the universe to be destitute of true scientific proof and lacking even as a philosophical answer to man's origin, purpose and destiny. The link between evolution and the gap theory is found in the theory's statements that express a desire to provide for the lengthy time periods, or “ages,” required for evolutionary concepts and to harmonize these ages with the Biblical record of creation. My scientific rejection of the basic premises and reasoning behind the gap theory is one reason for this effort.

In regard to the Word of God, the Bible, I can best sum my feelings by referring the reader to an oft quoted passage of Scripture, II Timothy 2:15. “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth” (KJV).This verse points out three very important facets of dealing with the Word of God. First, the Word is to be approached “eagerly” and with “enthusiasm”, which is what the word study implies. The Word should be more than just read, since studying implies learning, and learning comes only from understanding. It is certain that one will have to put forth more effort and dig deeply to arrive at this understanding, but this exertion will provide a sound basis for any resultant action. Second, I am to engage in this study for the purpose of pleasing God and not to satisfy the demands of men, nor to enable a détente to exist between the absolute declarations of an almighty, omniscient God and the relativism of humanistic, secular philosophies. This purpose of Bible study should ever be recognized not only in personal study but in group study as well. Third, I am admonished to rightly divide the Word. The idea is that I am to use a straight line for my walk through the Scriptures and not a tortuous path that can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. It is apparent that the Timothy verse implies that many divide the Word improperly, and this error is to be guarded against. To allow secular theory to dictate the meaning of many important verses and passages of Scripture is not consistent with the above admonition. This verse in II Timothy is my second justification for what I have written.

I trust that what follows will be understandable, useful and meaningful to your study of the Biblical account of God’s creative actions.

Definition

The gap theory postulates that an indefinite span of time exists between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. This time span is usually considered to be quite large (millions of years) and is also reputed to encompass the so-called “geologic ages.” Proponents of the gap theory also postulate that a cataclysmic judgment was pronounced upon the earth during this period as the result of the fall of Lucifer (Satan) and that the ensuing verses of Genesis chapter 1 describe a re-creation or reforming of the earth from a chaotic state and not an initial creative effort on the part of God.

History and Purpose

The gap theory is not of recent origin but can be traced back to the early 19th century when the new discipline of geology was breaking upon the scientific scene. Theologians were in no intellectual position to argue, from a scientific basis, the claims of the geologists that the processes responsible for the formation of the surface features of the earth were occurring at almost imperceptibly slow rates as they had always done in the past (the principle of uniformity). Rather than accept the accusation that the Biblical record was no longer valid in the light of “scientific” claims, they chose to accommodate the Scriptural presentation to these new geological theories. A place had to be found for the vast ages of the past, well beyond the accounts of the first man and his environment as recorded in the Bible, and the most accommodating place was between the two aforementioned verses of Genesis.

While the gap theory, or ruin-reconstruction theory as it is sometimes called, is not the only effort at this type of accommodation, it is the most popular theory among those who feel the Biblical record of origins merits their attention. Some have even proposed that the gap should be placed prior to Genesis 1:1, but they insist on a “gap” nevertheless.

It is the author’s opinion that while these efforts at reconciling the Bible with geological claims are very enthusiastic and sincere, they are quite unnecessary. The Text, as given, is quite capable of standing alone in the face of all the criticism that can be engendered by so-called “scientific” claims and theological interpretations. One important fact should be kept in mind when considering the gap theory. This interpretation of Genesis and associated passages of Scripture was not developed in an effort to solve apparent problems with the Text. It was not difficulties with the fall of Satan or the condition of the earth during the six days that precipitated the theory. It was, and is, an effort to solve the problem of time. The time of the earth’s formation, according to natural science, is extremely long and drawn-out, while the Biblical record describes a relatively recent, rapid formation. There were, and still are, those who are quite unwilling to make a decisive choice between these two accounts and thus the gap theory.

Geological Ages and Evolution

As has been previously pointed out, the gap theory, along with other accommodation theories, is an attempt to reconcile a great age for the earth, as presented by geologists, with the relatively young age as deduced from the Biblical record. Since many proponents of the gap theory would disclaim a belief in an evolutionary process of earth history, it is instructive to evaluate the “geologic ages” to determine if they can, indeed, be separated from the theory of evolution.

The geologic ages represent the time scale of the standard geologic column. This so-called “column” is composed of animal and plant fossil remains found in layers of sedimentary and igneous rock. These remains are arranged in layers and interpreted by geologists and paleontologists to present a record of gradual developmental sequences that propose to demonstrate the gradual evolutionary change of simple forms of animal or plant life into different, more complex forms. The record of ascendancy is thought to be from simpler forms in very ancient times to the more complex forms in modern times. Figure 1 shows a simplified diagram of the geologic column with the postulated life forms and their assumed age eras. It is most important to understand that in the “geologic column” the ages of the various layers are determined by the form of the fossil remains found therein. Older levels in the column are “old” only because they contain what are believed to be simpler, more primitive, less developed or incompletely evolved life forms. The invertebrates are assumed to have evolved first, followed by fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals in that order. It should be obvious that the basis of the structure and arrangement of the geologic column is the concept of slowly evolving life forms which in reality and fact is the THEORY OF EVOLUTION as proposed by Charles Darwin in 1859.

One can easily disclaim his or her adherence to, or belief in, evolution, but acceptance of the geologic column with its attendant “ages” contradicts this claim. The situation is an either/or one. As the old adage so well expresses it, “one cannot have his cake and eat it too.”

Scientific Dilemmas

Gap theorists hold that the need for a re-creation, as they interpret Genesis chapter one, is based on the loss of plants, animal life and surface features of the alleged prior creation due to a world-wide, complete, catastrophic judgment imposed upon the earth as a result of the fall of one called “Lucifer.” This proposed judgment would appear so complete as to even cause the loss of light upon the earth. This of course implies that the entire solar system, if not the universe, was destroyed. There can be no doubt that such a judgmental act would also have a serious, if not disastrous, effect upon the geological features of the then existent earth. Most gap proponents place this judgmental catastrophe just prior to the re-creative effort. However, its placement in reference to geological time, at the beginning or end, does not remove the following major dilemma.

The gap theory exists for the purpose of allowing the geologic “ages” as proposed by the assemblage of the geologic column. Those geologists who believe in the veracity of this “column” as to its testimony of earth and life development do not believe in or allow for a world-wide catastrophic causation for the formations therein. These geologists, being Uniformitarians, reject out-of-hand the gap theory as having any validity in describing the early earth. This is the first dilemma. The theory is rejected by the very ones it is meant to appease.

The Geologic
Column and Geologic Ages1




ERA

AGE

CHARACTERISTICS

YEARS AGO

Cenozoic

Quaternary

Modern plants, animals and man

25,000 to 975,000



Tertiary

Rise f mammals and higher plants

12,000,000 to 70,000,000

Mesozoic

Cretaceous

Modern insects and extinction of dinosaurs

70,000,000 to 200,000,000



Jurassic

First reptile-like birds





Triassic

Earliest dinosaurs and modern corals



Paleozoic

Permian

Primitive reptiles





Pennsylvanian

Earliest insects





Mississippian

Rise of amphibians





Devonian

First seed plants, boneless fish

200,000,000 to 500,000,000



Silurian

Earliest land animals, rise of fish





Ordovician

Earliest vertebrates, oldest land plants





Cambrian

Only invertebrates, small sea life



Proterozoic



Primitive water plants and animals

500,000,000 to 1,000,000,000

Archeozoic



Questionable life

1,000,000,000 to 1,800,000,000

Figure 1

The second dilemma is that the effects of such a catastrophic event in earth history, as proposed by the gap theory, would preclude the survival of the very geologic phenomena the theory purports to support. Such destructive forces as to leave the earth “waste and void” (gap theory terms) in its totality would surely disturb or remove any of the evidence used to adduce the geologic column and the geologic ages in the first place.

If, as some gap theorists claim, the judgment was responsible for the formation of the fossil record, then the geologic column must have been formed rapidly contrary to the opinions of the evolutionary geologists. Thus there were no vast geologic ages in the first place. Regardless of what tack the gap theory sets out on, in regard to the judgmental catastrophe used to punish “Lucifer” prior to or subsequent to the geologic ages, the gap theory is self-negating. That is, the very concept that spawned it is done away by it. This might be referred to as a “suicidal” concept. In spite of this impasse in logic and the presence of such an imposing dilemma, the gap theory is believed to be supported by Scriptural references. This seems contradictory to the very nature and character of the God who says “. . . let us reason together . . . ”
 
Upvote 0

Gold Dragon

Senior Veteran
Aug 8, 2004
2,134
125
49
Toronto, Ontario
✟25,460.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
GodAtWorkToday said:
Thanks for those links. They are quite helpful. It is interesting that the only observable measure, 'triangulation' is only valid for stars out to 400 light years. Beyond that scientists, then use colour/brightness comparisions which is by far a lot more subjective, and based upon assumptive conclusions. How surprising that it is these measures that have come up with the billions of light years measure. Hmmm.
FYI, colour/brightness is not subjective at all. It is an objective measure that is an extrapolation based on known data. Yes there are larger margins for error and assumptions and that go into extrapolations, but the assumptions are pretty basic ones like:

a) stars consist of matter fusing
b) space is a vacuum
c) etc.

I'll try to find out what those assumptions are and give you a chance to show that they are incorrect. Since those calculations have undergone the scrutiny of thousands of scientists I doubt you'll have an easy time about this. Until then, those extrapolations are valid.

Just to give you an idea of the number of stars measured via parallax (triangulation).

Wikipedia - Hipparcos

The High Precision Parallax Collecting Satellite of the Hipparcos Space Astrometry Mission was a project of the European Space Agency (ESA) dedicated to the measurement of stellar parallax and the proper motions of stars. The project was named in honor of Hipparchus. The satellite was used to measure the distances to 2.5M+ stars, within 150pc of Earth; resulting in the Tycho Catalogue. The Hipparcos plans were proposed in 1980.

The satellite was launched, by an Ariane 4, on August 18, 1989. The original goal was to place the satellite in a geostationary orbit above the earth, however a booster rocket failure resulted in a highly elliptical orbit from 315 to 22,300 miles altitude. Despite this difficulty, most of the scientific goals were accomplished. Communications were terminated on August 17, 1993.

The program was divided in two parts: the Hipparcos experiment whose goal was to measure the five astrometric parameters of some 120,000 stars to a precision of some 2 to 4 milli-arcsec and the Tycho experiment, whose goal was the measurement of the astrometric and two-colour photometric properties of some 400,000 additional stars to a somewhat lower precision.
For more information about how scientists extrapolate for more distant stars, here is a good link.

Distances to the Sun and Stars

GodAtWorkToday said:
Also interesting about the change of standards in 1983 so that metres are now determined by the speed of light. So in the D=S*T equation we now have the distance measure set by the speed constant, rather then by some outside objective measure.
This isn't some anti-Christian conspiracy. Here is the story of the meter and how we determine its length.

Wikipedia - metre

In the eighteenth century, there were two favored approaches to the definition of the standard unit of length. One suggested defining the metre as the length of a pendulum with a half-period of one second. The other suggested defining the metre as one ten-millionth of the length of the earth's meridian along a quadrant (one-fourth the polar circumference of the earth). In 1791, the French Academy of Sciences selected the meridional definition, using the meridian of Paris, over the pendular definition because of the slight variation of the force of gravity over the surface of the earth, which affects the period of a pendulum. In 1795, France adopted the metre as its official unit of length. Although the first prototype metre bar was short by a fifth of a millimetre due to miscalculation of the flattening of the earth, this length became the standard. So, the circumference of the Earth through the poles is approximately forty million metres.

In the 1870s and in light of modern precision, a series of international conferences were held to devise new metric standards. The Treaty of the Metre (1875) mandated the establishment of a permanent International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM: Bureau International des Poids et Mesures) to be located in Sèvres, France. This new organization would preserve the new prototype metre and kilogram when constructed, and would maintain comparisons between them and the basic units of other, nonmetric, weights and measures. This organization created a new prototype bar in 1889, establishing the International Prototype Metre as the distance between two lines on a standard bar of an alloy of ninety percent platinum and ten percent iridium.

In 1893, the standard metre was first measured with an interferometer by Albert A. Michelson, the inventor of the device and an advocate of using some particular wavelength of light as a standard of distance. By 1925, interferometry was in regular use at the BIPM. However, the International Prototype Metre remained the standard until 1960, when the eleventh General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM: Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures) defined the metre in the new SI system as equal to 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red emission line in the spectrum of the krypton-86 atom in a vacuum.

To further reduce uncertainty, the seventeenth CGPM of 1983 replaced the definition of the metre with its current definition, thus fixing the length of the metre in terms of time and the speed of light:
The 1983 decision was to improve the precision and accuracy of the meter standard with something that was known to be constant in all situations. The speed of light being the best example that we have. If it is determined that something else is a better constant, scientists will redefine the meter using that standard.

Your assumption is that scientists are uncertain about the constancy of the speed of light. You are free to perform experiments to show that it isn't the case and if you do, you will have world renown status in the scientific community, like these fellows are trying to achieve by making that same proposal ... link.
 
Upvote 0

Tenacious-D

Active Member
Jul 26, 2004
226
14
✟424.00
Faith
Anglican
GodAtWorkToday said:
Thanks for those links. They are quite helpful. It is interesting that the only observable measure, 'triangulation' is only valid for stars out to 400 light years. Beyond that scientists, then use colour/brightness comparisions which is by far a lot more subjective, and based upon assumptive conclusions. How surprising that it is these measures that have come up with the billions of light years measure. Hmmm.
You need to check things out at a little more. Direct parallax measures can be made to about 2000 light years with about 20% errors. But there are other direct geometrical measurements on certain objects much farther away. SN 1987A is one object this has been done for as well as the masers in a spiral galaxy at about 21,000,000 light years away.

Also colour/magnitude distances are not subjective as you put it but do have larger statistical errors. That is not the same as subjective. There are also other measures of parallax that are more statistical in nature but are still valid albeit with larger errors. Another method possible to larger distances and also key in the calibration of the colour/magnitude relation is the use of eclipsing binary stars where a direct distance can be solved for.

Perhaps the most important thing about all these techniques is the concordancy of the results. If the distances were bogus for one method why are they in agreement (within errors) with the other techniques if they are also bogus.



Also interesting about the change of standards in 1983 so that metres are now determined by the speed of light. So in the D=S*T equation we now have the distance measure set by the speed constant, rather then by some outside objective measure.
Meaningless point. Before 1983 the length of the metre was the defined constant based upon the standard metre in Paris. After 1983 the speed of light was defined as the constant and the metre defined from this. These two are entirely equivalent and no discrepancy is possible based upon this.
 
Upvote 0

Gold Dragon

Senior Veteran
Aug 8, 2004
2,134
125
49
Toronto, Ontario
✟25,460.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Actually my above post is not quite right and missing the element of luminosity.

Distances to Stars in Leo

Background and Theory
If the distance to the star is known via its measured parallax, it is a trivial matter for astronomers, or anyone else for that matter, to determine the absolute magnitude of the star using the distance-magnitude relation. However, most stars are too far away to have a measurable parallax. In these cases, the distance to the star must be determined by some other method.

We can use our knowledge of the H-R Diagram and our analysis of a star's spectrum to determine stellar distances. From the strength of the lines in a star's spectrum, we can give it a spectral type and luminosity class. We can use the luminosity to find its absolute magnitude and thus its distance. Finding the distances to stars based upon their spectral type and luminosity is known as spectroscopic parallax (even though no parallax determination is involved). This method is neither easy nor exact; however, it has proved to be one of the best ways to learn about the more distant stars.
The first part of this method involves determining the star's spectral type and luminosity class. Astronomers can determine a star's spectral type based on the absorption lines in the spectrum of the star. The hottest stars show strong hydrogen lines and some helium lines. Spectral type A stars have predominately only hydrogen lines. As stars get cooler, more lines will appear as heavier elements [for example, calcium (Ca), and iron (Fe)] recapture their electrons. The singly ionized calcium atoms (Ca II) are especially strong in spectral type G stars. Spectral type K stars have very weak hydrogen lines but strong iron lines and similar heavy elements. The width of a line can be used to determine an approximate luminosity for a star. For a given element, supergiant stars will have narrow lines and dwarf stars will have broad lines. Here is an example of the luminosity effect for spectral type A0 stars, from A0 Ia to A0 V, and a white dwarf. Note that the lines of the white dwarf are so broad that they are smeared out.
Here is the conversion between apparant and absolute magnitude.

http://www.astro.umd.edu/education/astro/sprop/lum.html


Here is a great article from my Alma Mater.

Determining the Distances of Remote Stars by Spectroscopic Parallax


My discussion of the subtle differences between the spectra of the giants and the main sequence stars of similar temperature may strike you as an irrelevant digression, of less than Earth-shattering importance. But there is in fact a very important consequence of this kind of observation. In a technique known as spectroscopic parallax, the study of the spectral types and luminosity classes of stars allows us to derive distances for many millions of stars, far out beyond the limits to which we can successfully make direct parallax measurements. (As noted above, we can measure trigonometric parallaxes directly for only the nearest few thousand of the billions of stars in the Milky Way galaxy.)

The name "spectroscopic parallax" is actually a bit of a misnomer, because no parallax measurement is directly involved. The name arises for historical reasons: Once you know the distance to a star, you can readily work out what parallax the star would have if only you could measure it, and distances used to be quoted in terms of the parallax, whether measured or inferred.

To understand how the technique works, consider the simplest imaginable situation. Suppose you are studying an extremely faint star, one which is obviously very remote -- much too far away for you to hope to measure its parallax directly. But suppose you discover that its spectrum is identical to that of the sun, in every minute respect. It would then seem fairly logical to assume that the star itself is identical to the sun in all important respects, including its intrinsic brightness. We could then calculate how far away it is by comparing its apparent brightness to that of the sun.

In spectroscopic parallax, we do essentially this, as follows:
  • We start with a catalogue of several thousand stars whose distances are known from direct parallax measurements. In this catalogue are stars of a great variety of spectral types and luminosity classes.
  • We now turn our attention to a star so far away that its parallax cannot be measured directly, but bright enough that you can collect enough light to get a decent spectrum.
  • Suppose that the spectrum tells you that this star is, say, of K spectral type (a moderately cool star). As noted, this is only part of the story. Is the star a bright K giant or a much fainter K main sequence star? What local standard star do we compare it to?
  • As described above, the subtle differences in the star's spectrum tell you whether the star is a giant or a main sequence star. Let us suppose, for instance, that it is deduced to be a giant. You now know which of the more local stars is its "twin", and simply intercompare the brightnesses of these two to determine how much farther away the new target is.
Note that the spectroscopy plays the critical role of allowing you to intercompare identical stars -- the remote targets and the more local stars of known distance which act as standards. If this sort of distinction were not possible, we would be in serious trouble, at least for stars which are isolated in space. (We will see later that determining the distances to clusters of stars is somewhat easier.) To return to our example, if K giants were spectroscopically identical to K main sequence stars, you would have no way of knowing whether a particular K star was a moderately close main sequence object just barely beyond the reach of parallax or else a giant 10,000 times brighter but at one hundred times the distance!
 
Upvote 0

GodAtWorkToday

Active Member
Nov 29, 2004
202
27
67
Sydney
Visit site
✟506.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Here is something really interesting that I have just come across. I know it has probably been argued to death of these forums but that was before my time here.

Anyway, following on from GD's links, I thought OK, I've looked at TO, so now what does AiG say, just to get some balance and came across this article talking about a new creationist cosmology that is unsettling the big bangers.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

There is further comment from the theory's author located at;
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-338.htm

These articles actually make a lot of sense. Interestingly they are not too far from the links that Vance sent on geocentricity. While Humphreys is not suggesting the earth is the centre of our solar system, he is saying it is close to the centre of the universe in his theory.

I really like this quote from the first linked article:
While this is exciting news, all theories of fallible men, no matter how well they seem to fit the data, are subject to revision or abandonment in the light of future discoveries. What we can say is that at this point a plausible mechanism has been demonstrated, with considerable observational and theoretical support.

What if no one had ever thought of the possibility of gravitational time dilation? Many might have felt forced to agree with those scientists (including some Christians) that there was no possible solution —the vast ages are fact, and the Bible must be ‘reinterpreted’ (massaged) or increasingly rejected. Many have in fact been urging Christians to abandon the Bible’s clear teaching of a recent creation [see Q&A: Genesis] because of these ‘undeniable facts.’ This reinterpretation also means having to accept that there were billions of years of death, disease, and bloodshed before Adam, thus eroding the creation/Fall/restoration framework within which the gospel is presented in the Bible.

However, even without this new idea, such an approach would still have been wrong-headed. The authority of the Bible should never be compromised as mankind’s ‘scientific’ proposals. One little previously unknown fact, or one change in a starting assumption, can drastically alter the whole picture so that what was ‘fact’ is no longer so.

This is worth remembering when dealing with those other areas of difficulty which, despite the substantial evidence for Genesis creation, still remain. Only God possesses infinite knowledge. By basing our scientific research on the assumption that His Word is true (instead of the assumption that it is wrong or irrelevant) our scientific theories are much more likely, in the long run, to come to accurately represent reality.
I would suggest that this theory is worthy of consideration by Christians.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.