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.
I wonder what the professors at MIT would say about a story about a man who walked on water, or talking donkey, or a woman who was instantly turned into a pillar of salt, or a man who was dead for 3 days and came back to life? Do you think they would say that any of those scenarios are plausible?
I wish there was a way that I could challenge those PHDs to find examples of the word Yom being used to represent a period of time other than 24 hours when being attached to a number value. Nobody uses the word Yom or even Day for that matter in that context because it would be utterly confusing to the reader or listener. They had words like Dor H1755, Cheled H2465, Eth H6256, and Paam H6471 to convey times, ages, periods, or occurrences. So it wouldn’t make any sense to use a word that could have an alternate meaning that would make the statement ambiguous without further clarification when they could use other words that would not cause any confusion at all to the reader or listener. And the term “there was evening and there was morning” only drives the point even further that these were 24 hour periods because if they weren’t 24 hour periods that term would be completely USELESS in the verse. It would serve absolutely no purpose at all. What would be the point of writing “there was evening and there was morning” if there were millions, billions, or even trillions of evenings & mornings? Why would that term be included in the statement if the word Yom was referring to an age or an epoch? It doesn’t fit the description of an age or an epoch, it’s not in any way connected to or in reference to an age or an epoch? The term “there was evening and there was morning” ONLY refers to the end of day and the beginning of a new day. There is not evening of an age or an epoch and there is no morning of an age or an epoch. The evidence is there brother, I know it doesn’t line up with what science tells us but ask yourself this, are they 100% positive how old the earth is? Do they have all the data that God has? No, they’re shooting in the dark based on what minuscule information they have, it’s their best guess which is why these are theories not actual proven facts because they can’t prove it. That’s the best they can do is make an educated guess based on the information they have now and that guess has been changing for over 100 years as they receive new information to calculate into the equation. People like Hugh Ross are scientists and as such they have to try to maintain some sort of credibility with the science community otherwise their entire reputation as a scientist would be ruined. They would be the laughing stock of the scientific community and their careers would be ruined. So they have to maintain some sort of science based theology in order to hang on to everything they’ve worked so hard for for decades. What Hugh Ross is doing is good because he’s trying to provide evidence to the scientific community that there is a causal agent in creation. He’s evangelizing to the scientific community, if you’ve watched his videos then you know this because he talks about it all the time. So he has to make compromises in order to make that work because he can’t just come to them with the straight gospel and convince them because everything they’re being taught directly contradicts the miracles of God. So he has to try to establish a middle ground where they are able to see a possibility of God being the causal agent in creation so in order to do that he has to reconcile the scriptures with science otherwise he’s not going to convince anyone in the scientific community of the existence of God. Now this might seem to work great for the creation account all by itself but ultimately it all falls apart when you start getting into the rest of scripture because the Bible is not a scientific book. People hanging on to science are not going to be able to believe that a woman instantly turned into a pillar of salt because she looked back at the city of Sodom while it was being destroyed. They’re not going to be able to believe that a man actually walked on top of the Galilee Sea. This is why I don’t understand why people insist on trying to reconcile creation with science because you still have countless other miracles in the Bible to deal with. If people can’t believe that these miracles did actually take place as they were written then how can they actually say that they believe in the Bible when in reality they’re really not believing in it? You can’t separate the miracle of creation from the other miracles of the Bible and it seems like that what people are trying to do. OEC believers say they believe that Jesus did die and came back to life 3 days later yet modern medicine tells us that it is impossible. So what’s the point of ignoring what modern medicine tells us but not ignoring what geology or astronomy tells us? All that does is make us inconsistent in our methodology. In my opinion in order to maintain consistency in our methodology we have to pick a side otherwise we’re just bouncing back & forth between science and scripture and never actually establishing any solid foundation.
When Peter began to sink Jesus said: "You of little faith, why did you doubt?"
According to Hasidic teachings, the Bible can be understood on multiple levels. The literal level represents the plain meaning of the text, while deeper symbolic and mystical meanings are also believed to be present.
Never asked him.
According to the KISS principle and the ideas put forth by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, a physicist and theologian, there is an attempt to reconcile certain interpretations of the age of the Earth with both scientific understanding and religious beliefs. Dr. Schroeder proposed a perspective that suggests a possible alignment between the biblical account of creation and the scientific understanding of time.
I’ve got my grandson sleeping near me and can’t listen to it now.I believe the Universe is as old as science says it is. Dr. Gerald Schroeder talks about this.
The Age of the Universe: One Reality Viewed from Two Different Perspectives | Aish
Can the universe be young and old simultaneously?aish.com
So how old is the earth according to the KISS principle and Dr. Schroeder?
I don’t see the connection between the topic and Matthew 18:3 because according to the verse only those with a childlike view enter the kingdom of God. It doesn’t appear that this is what you’re saying here. I would imagine that your position is that both those with the childlike view and those with a deeper view will enter the kingdom of God but that’s not the contrast that Jesus is making in Matthew 18:3. What Jesus is referring to is humbling yourself to the gospel message. Children have no problem believing in miracles, they will generally believe whatever they are told. It’s the adults that have problems believing in supernatural events.
Did he mention anything about the term “there was evening and there was morning”? I’m curious what explanation he might’ve given for that term being included in each day of creation.
Correct. Adam and Eve were created as brand new adults. You make a good point about rocks being instantly created as mature rocks that under normal circumstances would have taken billions of years to form, in the same way that Adam and Eve were created as adults, which would have taken at least 30 years for them to mature under natural circumstances. I can't argue against that!
"The reason the six pre-Adam days were taken out of the calendar is because time is described differently in those Six Days of Genesis. "There was evening and morning" with no relationship to human time. Once we come to the progeny of Adam, the flow of time is totally in human terms. Adam and Eve live 130 years before having Seth. Seth lives 105 years before having Enosh, etc. (Genesis chapter 5). From Adam forward, the flow of time is totally human in concept. But prior to that time, it's an abstract concept: "Evening and morning." It's as if you're looking down on events from a viewpoint that is not intimately related to them, a cosmic view of time." (Schroeder)
Because I don't have a PhD in either biology or physics I won't even try to address all these points. Hugh Ross does have a facebook page, and you could put your questions there.
In trying to understand the flow of time here, you have to remember that the entire Six Days is described in 31 sentences. The Six Days of Genesis, which have given people so many headaches are confined to 31 sentences! At MIT, in the Hayden library, we had about 50,000 books that deal with the development of the universe: cosmology, chemistry, thermodynamics, paleontology, archaeology, the high-energy physics of creation. Up the river at Harvard, at the Weidner library, they probably have 200,000 books on these same topics. The Bible gives us 31 sentences. Don't expect that by a simple reading of those sentences, you'll know every detail that is held within the text. It's obvious that we have to dig deeper to get the information out. (Schdroeder)
Although we can speculate and discuss how God created the cosmos, debating on the meaning of the Hebrew word "yom" to mean either a 24 hour day or a longer epoch of time, while remaining consistent with what Genesis 1 actually says. But to say it took God 12 billion years to create Adam and Eve, is moving away from being consistent with what the Bible actually says about how they were created. While the other five days of creation could have taken billions of years each, the sixth day would have been much shorter in duration. I don't believe that the sixth day was billions of years in duration. Adam was created, tended the garden, named the animals, had surgery resulting in Eve's creation, and recovered from that surgery. So the sixth day could have taken up to a year or two to have all those things happen.
Are you now telling me that Schdroeder did not tell you numerically how old the earth is according to the KISS principle?
