How to explain 13.8 billion years?

[4x4toy]

True.

And then as satan in Genesis 3 - he proposes a form of "evolution" to Eve - claiming she would evolve into a higher order of being if she ate the right - something ..

That lying devil who deceives the whole world ...

 

[Meowzltov]

I understand the argument perfectly. Appearance of age. The problem is this: we either have a world ready to live in, or we have a rock, similar to the moon. In order to grow plants, there must be soil, which must contain the nutrients and carbon to feed them. The water in rivers, lakes and oceans must not be too alkaline or too acid, and must be properly oxygenated, or the fish die. As another on here argued, Adam and Eve, and probably all original animals, were created as adults, or post-juvenile. What you see as age is no more than what was necessary for this perfect garden to thrive immediately, not at some future date.

It's simply not necessary. Science has revealed what has happened over the last 5.4 billion years, how the earth has changed into one that could support life, and though Science doesn't know how life came from non-life (we do!) it has revealed how that life has evolved, how essentially mankind came from the dirt, and all the in between steps between the dirt and being a man.

 

[Meowzltov]

What we see today is something very different. A post-sin world winding down and preparing to collapse.

I don't see that at all. We do see another age of extinction coming on, this one manmade. But just like other mass extinctions, life will find a way.

 

[Meowzltov]

Which verses "do you have issues with"???

I don't have issues with any scriptures. Only with various interpretations.

 

[Meowzltov]

You are the one that divided the verses into two groups and let us know when group of verses you did not have an issue with.

The two groups were NOT "verses I like and verses I take issue with." That was what YOU did, and you altered my quote (truncated it) in order to do so. Like I said, it was sly and deceptive.

When I say I have "no issue with these verses" it is because I have no issue with ANY verses.

 

[BobRyan]

It's simply not necessary. Science has revealed what has happened over the last 5.4 billion years, .

That is pretty funny!

Thanks for sharing.

It is a keeper.

 

[Meowzltov]

Which verses "do you have issues with"???

↑
It's the verses that insinuate via genealogy that the earth is only about 6000 years old .

Take it up with God. Turns out... He is the author of those texts ... according to Pope Peter - 2 Peter 1:20-21

Stop it! You are deliberately misrepresenting me!!!!! This is sin!

YOU are adding a question, thus making it seem as though I am answering something that I am not.

Here is the full quote of what I said, emphasis added to show context:

So what? That's not the point. I have no issue with those verses. It's the verses that insinuate via genealogy that the earth is only about 6000 years old that I must insist not be taken literally.

 

[mark kennedy]

It's simply not necessary. Science has revealed what has happened over the last 5.4 billion years, how the earth has changed into one that could support life, and though Science doesn't know how life came from non-life (we do!) it has revealed how that life has evolved, how essentially mankind came from the dirt, and all the in between steps between the dirt and being a man.

You don't reveal the past unless they got that time machine done String Theory tells us is possible. Even then I think you need a flux capacitor to actually 'reveal' something from the past. The age of the earth is irrelevant to the doctrine of creation anyway, the heart of the emphasis in Genesis one is that God created life. So what if the earth and the universe is old, all we know about Gen. 1:1 is that it was in the beginning, Adam and his descendants is another matter entirely. That's not an interpretation, that's based on what the actual historical narrative. Last time I checked primary source documentation counted as high value evidence.

But then again, you know who can reveal the past? It would have to be someone who was there, like God, who tells it to a prophet...someone like Moses. Then you have these Levites who meticulously preserve these records and some more prophets who come along and 'reveal' the future as well. The same one who knows the future can tell us about the past.

"Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure'. (Isaiah 46:9,10)
​

Science hasn't given us anything but a ratio of radioactive elements to their decay products. Observe it for weeks, months or maybe a couple of years and they think that means they know how old everything is. That's not science, that's supposition.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Meowzltov]

You don't reveal the past unless they got that time machine done

This is sheer utter nonsense.

 

[mark kennedy]

This is sheer utter nonsense.

Yes I know but String theory is another subject.

 

[Meowzltov]

Yes I know but String theory is another subject.

That's right. String theory is quite interesting, but off topic. It neither supports nor refutes that the universe is 13.8 billion years old.

My point is that your statement that you need a time machine to know what happened in the past is just flat out mistaken. For example, I can to a pad of paper, see indentations, uses a pencil to color over it to reveal the remains of a dated letter, and know that the actual letter was written on that pad almost certainly on that date. I don't need a time machine to figure it out.

 

[Kiterius]

The astronomers say the visible universe is 13.8 billion years old,
the vast distance can prove that.
Then, how valid is the Church to insist it is only 6000+ years old?

Astronomers are wrong.

 

[Meowzltov]

The astronomers say the visible universe is 13.8 billion years old,
the vast distance can prove that.
Then, how valid is the Church to insist it is only 6000+ years old?

Most churches do not insist that it is only 6000 years old. This is the belief of a minority of Christians, specifically evangelical Protestants and fundamentalist Protestants. You are forgetting your mainline Protestants, and your Catholics (remember that the Catholic Church is bigger than all the Protestant Churches added together). I don't know how the Orthodox Church lines up.

 

[Jesus_is_Saint]

Then why did God let the universe to be without humans for billions years and finally he created humans 6000+ years ago?
Why he has to wait for so long to make decision to create humans?

 

[mark kennedy]

Then why did God let the universe to be without humans for billions years and finally he created humans 6000+ years ago?
Why he has to wait for so long to make decision to create humans?

The obvious answer is I don't know and the fact of the matter is I don't know that he did. My point is that 'in the beginning' is ambiquise with regards to the creation of the universe. That means that arguments about the age of the universe and the earth are irrelevant to the doctrine of creation. God may well have created life on earth minutes or billions of years after the creation of the universe. God may well be creating life on other planets and may have in the past, we just don't know. What we do know is that the Scriptures teach with a high degree of certainty that Adam and Eve were the first parents of humanity, without ancestors and that they were created about 6,000 years ago.

Speak where the Scriptures speak and remain silent where they are silent, it's served me well over the years.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Meowzltov]

Then why did God let the universe to be without humans for billions years and finally he created humans 6000+ years ago?
Why he has to wait for so long to make decision to create humans?

Don't you think there are a gazillion other things in the universe for God to appreciate besides humans.

 

[Jesus_is_Saint]

Before Adam and Eve, did God create anything in his image?
Is angel created in God's image?

 

[mark kennedy]

Before Adam and Eve, did God create anything in his image?
Is angel created in God's image?

I think so but it's just a perception. I strongly suspect that earth is only one place in the universe where God created life. Of course that's speculation but I think the Genesis account and even the new heavens and the new earth in Revelations can be isolated to earth itself. Of course, that's just me thinking.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Meowzltov]

Before Adam and Eve, did God create anything in his image?
Is angel created in God's image?

That's a very good question.

I believe that "God's image" means knowing right from wrong. Angels know right from wrong and can choose (as Satan chose wrong). Thus Angels are made in the image of God. What is more is that other primates such as chimps have so evolved that they have developed a primitive sense of right and wrong. It is only a matter of time before they are able to violate their conscience, causing their own "fall."

 

[Jesus_is_Saint]

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