How to explain 13.8 billion years?

[Meowzltov]

Human has body and spirit,
angle only has spirit.
Is this our difference?

I don't think we know enough about angels to say. Angels really aren't our business.

 

[BobRyan]

There is the argument that Bible truths like the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the miracles of the Bible - the seven day creation week - are "mythic reality" instead of a faithful trustworthy historic Bible account of God's action in real life.

Certainly atheists view it all as myth - and I am sure we can all agree to that point.

But Bible believing Christians usually take a different view than our atheist friends. And this is much to be expected.

This is not intended in any way to diminish the view of atheists that may happen to read these threads. I think it is only fair to admit that they would have a different view given their world-view for explaining everything that our Creator has done in making this world, life and indeed the entire universe.

 

[BobRyan]

Lucifer was Satan's name - given to him by God - before he became the devil.

This is an example of how folklore and myth can shape people's way they approach things. Here in this modern age with printed scripture for over 400 years and with the internet at our disposal people still cling to myth over knowledge that Satan's proper name is Lucifer.

Lucifer is a Latin word and in the Latin text it is used for both Satan and Jesus. It is just a regular word and it means light bearer but we would rather believe the myth and legend that it's Satan's proper name given to him before his fall. I would rather call Jesus Lucifer .

While it is true there is a tiny "hint" of truth in your statement - it concludes with gross error none-the-less.

As if you had never read Isaiah 14 in your life.

I prefer the actual Bible.

==================== Lucifer -- Satan-- the Devil
Isaiah 14

The Fall of Lucifer
12 “How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
13 For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’
15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
To the lowest depths of the Pit.

16 “Those who see you will gaze at you,
And consider you, saying:
‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble,
Who shook kingdoms,
17 Who made the world as a wilderness
And destroyed its cities,
Who did not open the house of his prisoners?’

18 “All the kings of the nations,
All of them, sleep in glory,
Everyone in his own house;
19 But you are cast out of your grave
Like an abominable branch,
Like the garment of those who are slain,
Thrust through with a sword,
Who go down to the stones of the pit,
Like a corpse trodden underfoot.
20 You will not be joined with them in burial,
Because you have destroyed your land
And slain your people.
The brood of evildoers shall never be named.
.

No doubt the Isaiah 14 text is figuratively referring to Satan and that is something I have never denied. Literally the text is talking about the King of Babylon

It appears that the literal application is to Lucifer - Satan - and is used figuratively to apply to the King of Babylon -- since it is only literally true of Satan - and can at best be called 'figuratively remotely-true' of an actual human being.

If somone says "that lion over there is king of the jungle and you my friend are like a lion on the basketball court" -- what is literally true of the lion is only figuratively true of the lesser context -- basketball player...

 

[DamianWarS]

It appears that the literal application is to Lucifer - Satan - and is used figuratively to apply to the King of Babylon -- since it is only literally true of Satan - and can at best be called 'figuratively remotely-true' of an actual human being.

If somone says "that lion over there is king of the jungle and you my friend are like a lion on the basketball court" -- what is literally true of the lion is only figuratively true of the lesser context -- basketball player...

this is a digressed topic, so as not to hijack the OP any further I made another thread where this can be discussed. You are welcome to contribute your thoughts in there

Lucifer is not the proper name of Satan

 

[dad]

Elvis has left the building.

Oh?

 

[BobRyan]

The bible genre is truth. Evilution is in the fiction dept.

Amen...

 

[Queller]

God created Adam and Eve as mature adults. Why is it so difficult to imagine that God can create a mature universe?

Because the universe and earth don't just have maturity, they exhibit signs of history as well.

For example, the earth has enough meteor impact craters that if they had all happened within the past 6,000 years, the earth would still be in a mostly molten state. Also some of the craters show signs of weathering and others don't (see Chicxulub vs Berringer).

Imagine if, when God created Adam, he gave Adam a scar on his knee. What would be the point?

 

[Queller]

Hi Zoii, you are definitely correct, the Bible was never meant to be a science textbook. That said, there are many reasons why taking the Bible literally is important.

Perhaps first and foremost is this, if the Creation is considered to be nothing more than a "real nice story", but not true, why should we believe that any of the other "stories" God tells us in the Bible are true? The other question is, if you choose to believe that "some" of the stories in the Bible are true and others aren't (especially when the various stories we are considering are written in an equally believable manner), how do we determine which story is true and which one isn't

By determining whether they are supported by the evidence God left behind when He created the universe. Viewing Genesis and the Flood as allegorical does not in any way impact the need to accept Christ for our salvation.

It is really no different than when you decide to take something as allegorical and not literal. For example, do you believe there is a mountain high enough to see all the kingdoms of the world?

There is also the matter of "assignments", which is particularly important when we are trying to decide who to "assign" the title of "Author of Evil" to. Because our sin is a universal trait among our race, we know that it has to have a single cause, and if our progenitors are not the cause (as the Bible tells us they are), that means that God must be IOW, if our race doesn't have "first parents" as the proximate cause of our fallen nature, then the way we are now (IOW, by nature, children of wrath .. Ephesians 2:3) is the way God made us!

I must admit this has always given me problems. How do you balance the omniscience of God with human free will? If God is omniscient then He knows what we will do and there can be no true free will. The only way to have true free will is if God is not omniscient which is directly contrary to Scripture.

As to the "First parents" concept, is it really that hard to imagine that once man had evolved far enough to be able to comprehend the idea of God, that that is when God gave that which separates us from all other animals (ie, the soul)?

These are but two of the reasons (and I hope that makes sense to you).

Yours in Christ,
David

 

[dad]

For example, the earth has enough meteor impact craters that if they had all happened within the past 6,000 years, the earth would still be in a mostly molten state. Also some of the craters show signs of weathering and others don't (see Chicxulub vs Berringer).

Nope! Many of them may have not even gotten out of orbit when being ejected in the flood year and flopped back. Most of them fell in the former state and one feature of that state was that rocks did not get hot as they now do. You simply look at the present rules and try to mold the reality of the past to them.

 

[BobRyan]

Because the universe and earth don't just have maturity, they exhibit signs of history as well.

For example, the earth has enough meteor impact craters that if they had all happened within the past 6,000 years, the earth would still be in a mostly molten state.

There is nothing that shows this to be fact. There are at least three sources for craters on earth. Two of them are at the flood when a spike in asteroid hits may have been accompanied with large eruptions on earth that also resulted in craters as large objects were cast out from the surface and sank back down into the ground when they fell. None of which would have resulted in a "molten earth". Though I do grant you it makes for "good stories".

 

[Queller]

As I said in my last post this issue is a smokescreen thrown up by atheists to try to prove God does not exist. if you look at the intelligent design evidence there are theories that fit with the bible as well.

You also need to consider that the whole issue of how these theories arose. Its called the big bang THEORY for the very reason it hasnt been proven.

It makes me sad to see things like this. Being declared a scientific theory is the pinnacle to which any idea in science aspires.

A scientific theory is a specific type of theory used in the scientific method. The term "theory" can mean something different, depending on whom you ask.


"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts." Source

As I put on another thread recently, I read a biography of Darwin a long time ago in which he admitted that he had been employed to come up with a scientific explanation which would prove that white people are superior to blacks and thereby justify the slave trade. He came up with evolution and that whites are more evolved than blacks to justify continuing with slaves. After reading this biography I gave him my own nickname for him - the "Father of Fascism" as the principles of his teaching and fascism in the third Reich were very similar with teachings of the superior race, etc.

Darwin was employed and funded to do this by people with an agenda.

Do you have any support for these claims? A link? The name of the book? Anything?

Here are a few direct quotes from Darwin on the subject:

I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery.— What a proud thing for England, if she is the first Europæan nation which utterly abolishes it. Letter to Darwin's sister Catherine, 22 May 1833.

It does ones heart good to hear how things are going on in England.— Hurrah for the honest Whigs.— I trust they will soon attack that monstrous stain on our boasted liberty, Colonial Slavery.— I have seen enough of Slavery & the dispositions of the negros, to be thoroughly disgusted with the lies & nonsense one hears on the subject in England. Letter to John Maurice Herbert, 2 June 1833

Well, your President has issued his fiat against Slavery—God grant it may have some effect. Letter to Asa Gray, 19 Jan 1863.

I declare I can hardly yet realise the grand, magnificent fact that Slavery is at end in your country. To Asa Gray, 16 Apr 1866

The phrase I have heard to describe the theory of evolution was that it "swept the world" but i believe from what I have read that it may have been an agenda led few who pushed it on the whole world to achieve their goals,

Where did you read this?

 

[Queller]

2 Primary challenges of the claim that the universe is "13.8 billion years old":

1. How do they know this? If the claim is based on "Red Shift", this assumes Uniformitarianism, in which is speculation at best.

Do you have any evidence that the basic physical forces of the universe worked differently in the past?

2. Could God have created a mature universe? He created Adam to be an adult male. Why could He (God) have not created a mature universe?

He could have. But why did he also create the universe with a history? For example why are there supernova remnants?

 

[Meowzltov]

Imagine if, when God created Adam, he gave Adam a scar on his knee. What would be the point?

Touche.

 

[Queller]

Because it is God's word. As soon as we start to question how "literal" one thing is... it's a slippery slope down as we try to decide what other things are actually "literal" or not.

If you question the validity of the "literal" Genesis account, then you can question the "literal" flood, the "literal" acts recorded by Moses, the "literal" King David.

Then, you will end up facing the "literal" Christ and His death and resurrection....

This is called the "Slippery Slope" logical fallacy.

I tend to look at it this way:

Did He tell us how He did it?
Could God do what He said He did?

Then why would I believe some men instead of believing God?

Because we don't have the originals of any of the books of Genesis. We are relying on copies of copies of copies and the fallible men who continually translated the previous copies.

There are a lot of things that the Bible was not intended for. However, if this book we call "the Bible" directly states that something happened a certain way, are you going to deny that explanation?

Do you believe the devil took Jesus to a mountain high enough to see all the kingdoms of the world? If so, where is it?

In the end, we will see that mankind has such a small piece of the puzzle, yet they are telling everyone that they have it all mastered and that you are a fool to believe this old book.

Not a fool to believe the Bible but a little silly to accept an interpretation of the Bible that contradicts the evidence of God's fingerprints He left behind. Especially when that interpretation has no effect on salvation.

 

[Queller]

The usual reply is "appearance of age": God created everything in the mature state. Thus He created a universe that appeared ancient, about 6,000 years ago. Genesis 1 is used as support of the idea of creation with appearance of age.

However, as I have already pointed out, the earth and the universe don't just have an appearance of age, they have an appearance of history as well. A history, that if the earth is only 6,000 years old, never happened. Which makes God a deceiver, not something I can accept. Can you?

Also the statement "astronomers say" is an overgeneralization. The age of the universe as 13-15 billion years is a tentative approximation coming from the inflationary model. It is not a hypothesis without dispute in the academic circles. Many astronomers reject inflationary model; some citing red-shift anomalies as refutation of red-shift as an indicator of recession velocity. Some propose the universe is far less than 13-15 billion years, some far greater (some even propose an infinite universe as the result of "local big bangs").

In other words, no one really knows.

Some models have much more evidence than others, however.

 

[Queller]

I never said they lie, I said they fit the evidence into what they want it to mean. There is a difference in whether they intentionally lie or buy into it believing it is the truth. i can't speak for anyone else on here though.

In your 60 years can you say you have any evidence that absolutely categorically proves either the big bang or evolution? I doubt it otherwise they wouldnt still be called theories.

Theory is the pinnacle an idea in science can achieve.

Nothing in science is ever "categorically proven". Germ theory, atomic theory, theory of gravity are all only provisional. If something comes along that disproves those theories and explains the available evidence better, then those theories will be discarded, just as Aether Theory and Spontaneous generation have been discarded.

I have met someone a few times who is a geneticist and humbly said that he was a speaker at a conference hosting the top 100 or so geneticists in the world as testimony of his achievements. He says he can prove DNA couldnt evolve. He also says I wouldnt understand as I dont have the scientific training to do so, so he wont even try to explain it. The point being there are people who think they can prove evolution is false and want to doscuss it but the mainstream scientific community just get angry and attack the people who say that, which I have seen numerous times in documentaries on the subject.

If the man truly has evidence that DNA can't evolve, then why hasn't he presented it? Someone that comes up with verifiable, reproducible evidence that overturns evolution has a Nobel Prize just waiting for them.

There is no even discussing the subject with them and I have seen genuine hate from them.

You mean things like "if you believe in evolution you're going to burn in hell"?

 

[dad]

However, as I have already pointed out, the earth and the universe don't just have an appearance of age, they have an appearance of history as well..

Name one or two examples.

 

[dad]

Do you have any evidence that the basic physical forces of the universe worked differently in the past?

You have any they existed even or worked the same? No.

 

[Queller]

Name one or two examples.

Barringer Crater in AZ, Chicxulub Crater in the Gulf, and Supernova remnants.

Please don't waste my time with any claims about physical forces working differently in the past without some kind of evidence. And over the years I been discussing this with you and seen others do so as well, you have never provided any such evidence.

 

[Queller]

You have any they existed even or worked the same? No.

You're shifting the burden of proof. It is your claim that the physical forces of the universe worked differently in the past therefore it is up to you to provide evidence for that claim. Not the other way around.