If the universe is thousands of years old...
- Thread starter Damour
- Start date
- Status
Bravo, Damour!
So at the very least religious people can't keep on asserting that a literal interpretation of the Bible holds water. As much as they will, though.
This will be just another thread they will ignore.
So at the very least religious people can't keep on asserting that a literal interpretation of the Bible holds water. As much as they will, though.
This will be just another thread they will ignore.
Upvote
0
Science is the search for knowledge which must be the same as the search for God. If science shows us that the Earth and universe are billions of years old, then that means that they are billions of years old unless God is trying to fool us. Why would God want to fool his followers?
This is a question dad will not answer because his philosophy is that God made a different universe to fool all christians but him. He does not see anything strange in this.
This is a question dad will not answer because his philosophy is that God made a different universe to fool all christians but him. He does not see anything strange in this.
Upvote
0
I'm sure you've heard this, but quite frankly, the Bible is not a science book, but rather a book that uses human observation. The Bible says that the sun rises, therefore some people say "look, the Bible is a farce because the sun does not rise, the earth rotates around it!". But the Bible refers to the appearance, to a human being, of the sun rising. I think we can safely say that Science evolves and discovers more and more over time, but observation remains the same.
2000 years ago, there would be absolutely no credibility given to the authors if they said that the earth rotated around the sun, even though they would be right. But they used observation, which is a valid observation back then as it is now.
On that note, the farthest visible star is about 3600 pc's away, about 9,000-10,000 light-years away (see s Carinae and y Carinae). Even these stars are really hard to see to the naked eye. But none-the-less, the stars that are relevant to humans from the beginning of humanity to today are not that far away in space and time.
Also, the creation account begins with God creating the heavens and the earth, and the earth being void and formless, the Spirit of God hovering upon the face of the waters. Then God creates the earth and creates all these things that are relevant to all humans. There are various interpretations on the first 2 verses of the Bible, but there seems to be a period of time when the earth was formless (created, existent, but without shape, without mountains, or trees or anything like that) before it being formed. (The Hebrew word used for "created", 'bara', has the meaning of making something out of non-existence as well as forming something out of pre-existent material, causing something to happen). So one possibility is that there was a long period of time during which the earth was without form, the God forms it, eventually creating man from the dust of the earth.
Putting these things together, I come up with a possible answer to your question. The billion light years could be truly billion of light years, light traveling from that long ago when the earth was existent but not formed. Then God did His work, a few thousand years ago. And here we are today, debating over all the possible excuses to not believing in the obvious supernatural (God).
There is more to life that this. That's the bottom line.
2000 years ago, there would be absolutely no credibility given to the authors if they said that the earth rotated around the sun, even though they would be right. But they used observation, which is a valid observation back then as it is now.
On that note, the farthest visible star is about 3600 pc's away, about 9,000-10,000 light-years away (see s Carinae and y Carinae). Even these stars are really hard to see to the naked eye. But none-the-less, the stars that are relevant to humans from the beginning of humanity to today are not that far away in space and time.
Also, the creation account begins with God creating the heavens and the earth, and the earth being void and formless, the Spirit of God hovering upon the face of the waters. Then God creates the earth and creates all these things that are relevant to all humans. There are various interpretations on the first 2 verses of the Bible, but there seems to be a period of time when the earth was formless (created, existent, but without shape, without mountains, or trees or anything like that) before it being formed. (The Hebrew word used for "created", 'bara', has the meaning of making something out of non-existence as well as forming something out of pre-existent material, causing something to happen). So one possibility is that there was a long period of time during which the earth was without form, the God forms it, eventually creating man from the dust of the earth.
Putting these things together, I come up with a possible answer to your question. The billion light years could be truly billion of light years, light traveling from that long ago when the earth was existent but not formed. Then God did His work, a few thousand years ago. And here we are today, debating over all the possible excuses to not believing in the obvious supernatural (God).
There is more to life that this. That's the bottom line.
Upvote
0
T
tanzanos
Guest
Myk101, you started it well but then you spoiled it all by saying what all creationists say: " God created man a few thousand years ago". Men wrote the Bible and they were not versed in the sciences. In fact they did not even have the scientific knowledge of the ancient Greeks. some of the philosophers of the time had figured out the world was round and that the Earth orbited the sun (Thales, Aristarchus). Yet people were still persecuted for their astronomical beliefs up until a few hundred years ago. Why should we accept the Bible literally and not another religion's explanation of creation. Science is not a religion and it is not a tool to be used to disclaim religion. Religion is something personal. It is based on ones faith. Science is the language of knowledge. When creationists try to enforce their beliefs in schools then we will be forced to rid ourselves of science altogether. Science and creationism are mutually opposing. Creationism does not follow any rules by which something can be verified to be true. 
Upvote
0
tanzanos;
In an attempt to explain my position, I said more than the debate was asking for. The debate is centered on the light from the stars that are millions of light years away, and how does that fit with the Bible's perspective on the Universe. My opinion of God creating man a few thousand years ago is not part of the debate, but I wrote that just to clarify my position.
I agree that some astronomers from long ago have indicated that the Earth was round and rotating around the Sun, and they were persecuted for their beliefs. But the Bible is not a book about science. It does not provide clear, detailed descriptions of it's creation account, or any other topic for that matter. It is a book based on observation. So whether the writers (yes, human writers) were well versed in science and biology is irrelevant. The observations presented are the same for a child as they are for a physicist, an astronomer or biologist with a naked eye - not a telescope or a microscope, since they are inventions of science at a much later date than the original writing of the Bible.
So going back to the original question of light years, space time and so forth, could the Biblical creation account fit the relatively new discovered scientifical evidence? In other words, does the explanation I provide possibly answer the question? Remember, we are debating only this topic and not all at once. One topic at a time...
In an attempt to explain my position, I said more than the debate was asking for. The debate is centered on the light from the stars that are millions of light years away, and how does that fit with the Bible's perspective on the Universe. My opinion of God creating man a few thousand years ago is not part of the debate, but I wrote that just to clarify my position.
I agree that some astronomers from long ago have indicated that the Earth was round and rotating around the Sun, and they were persecuted for their beliefs. But the Bible is not a book about science. It does not provide clear, detailed descriptions of it's creation account, or any other topic for that matter. It is a book based on observation. So whether the writers (yes, human writers) were well versed in science and biology is irrelevant. The observations presented are the same for a child as they are for a physicist, an astronomer or biologist with a naked eye - not a telescope or a microscope, since they are inventions of science at a much later date than the original writing of the Bible.
So going back to the original question of light years, space time and so forth, could the Biblical creation account fit the relatively new discovered scientifical evidence? In other words, does the explanation I provide possibly answer the question? Remember, we are debating only this topic and not all at once. One topic at a time...
Upvote
0
T
tanzanos
Guest
The Bible cannot explain the creation of the universe. One can find any meaning in any written account. For example creationists have even found a creation date of 6,000 yrs from within the Bible. This I cannot understand how and where it is written in the Bible. But even if it was, the Bible is not meant to be taken literary. The universe is known to be a few billions of years old. We have discovered stars almost at the edge of the universe (expanding). A 6,000 year old universe just does not cut it. The science of astronomy is extremely precise. A few pages from a book written 2,000 years ago simply cannot compete. Even our own galaxy is bigger than 6,000 light years!!! Let us keep religion and science apart. Each to its own domain. 
Upvote
0
The Bible is unclear in many fields of science. You are right in saying that the Bible does not explain the creation of the universe - it explains the creation of Earth. Regarding the universe and galaxies the Bible is clear - God created them out of nothing... The stars and galaxies far away, invisible to the naked eye, are irrelevant to the Bible. The only reference is God creating them a long time ago.
As I said in my first reply, there seems to be a period of time where the universe existed but the Earth was formless with no life on it. That period could have been billions of years - which would explain the lights we see today with special equipment from millions of years in the past. Could the Bible and science shake hands on this particular subject of stars from far away? Can you say with 100% certanty that the Bible is wrong in the creation of the universe (not forming the earth, trees, animals and man) and that no Biblical explanation can integrate the now known galaxy?
By the way, what if 20 or 30 years from now scientists say that light traveling at the speed of light in near absolute zero and different gravitational implications has different effects than here on earth and they come up saying that there are no stars millions of light years away? Science has been known to refute itself in the process of "enlightenment" as technology and knowledge increase...
But that's a different debate altogether.
Overall, is there any chance of the Bible to still be right even if the Universe is billions of years old? We are not talking about the earth or life on earth, just raw materials, dirt, rock, sand, water, etc...
As I said in my first reply, there seems to be a period of time where the universe existed but the Earth was formless with no life on it. That period could have been billions of years - which would explain the lights we see today with special equipment from millions of years in the past. Could the Bible and science shake hands on this particular subject of stars from far away? Can you say with 100% certanty that the Bible is wrong in the creation of the universe (not forming the earth, trees, animals and man) and that no Biblical explanation can integrate the now known galaxy?
By the way, what if 20 or 30 years from now scientists say that light traveling at the speed of light in near absolute zero and different gravitational implications has different effects than here on earth and they come up saying that there are no stars millions of light years away? Science has been known to refute itself in the process of "enlightenment" as technology and knowledge increase...
But that's a different debate altogether.
Overall, is there any chance of the Bible to still be right even if the Universe is billions of years old? We are not talking about the earth or life on earth, just raw materials, dirt, rock, sand, water, etc...
Upvote
0
The speed of light in a VACUUM is always constant. If it is travelling through a material it will always be slower as it is absorbed and emitted by the particles in the material. Cold materials tend to be denser so the speed would be slower. Also, a vacuum, by definition, can not have a temperature.
This has already been taken into account. Gravity does not change the speed of light but it does change the frequency of the light waves.
Science is a methodology, not a conclusion. Theories have been thrown out because of new evidence, but science as a practice has not changed.
Depends on how you interpret it.
Upvote
0
I agree with you that Science is a process and that it has not changed, but just as you said, theories (ideas they held as true) have been thrown out by new evidence in the past. How certain can you be in theoretical physics? I know you're going to say something about this last sentence, go ahead...
But the overall argument on this particular topic is of greater importance to this debate. So, correct me if I'm wrong, you believe that , with the correct interpretation (or interpretations) of the Bible, science does not necessarily prove the Bible wrong in this topic of light years and universe age.
In that case, for this particular topic, there is no reason to disbelieve the Bible simply because there are lights in the sky from millions of years ago.
But the overall argument on this particular topic is of greater importance to this debate. So, correct me if I'm wrong, you believe that , with the correct interpretation (or interpretations) of the Bible, science does not necessarily prove the Bible wrong in this topic of light years and universe age.
In that case, for this particular topic, there is no reason to disbelieve the Bible simply because there are lights in the sky from millions of years ago.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
T
tanzanos
Guest
I am sorry but you are wrong on this one. The meaning of THEORY is not just Ideas held to be true. People misuse this word so much so that in common language it is understood to be what you say. But! in the scientific community the word Theory is:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Scientific Theory" [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Definition: Logical, systematic set of principles or explanation that has been verifiedhas stood up against attempts to prove it false.[/FONT]
When we refer to science we have to be as precise as possible. Although science allows for no boundaries in the quest for facts it demands that one in order to be scientific must adhere to strict rules.
What the Bible states in Genesis on creation and Adam and Eve was taken from ancient Sumerian mythology predating Judaism.
The Bible is not meant to be taken literary but as a guide to achieve ones peace with his inner being or whatever else one may desire but! Not as a scientific explanation of how the universe was created.
Also Astronomy is such a precise science that it is highly unlikely that the laws of physics will change. Don't forget that most of the laws are being applied on a daily basis.
Upvote
0
All theories are tentative because they are contingent on new evidence. The level of tentativity is indirectly related to the evidence supporting it. That is, the more evidence we have the more certain we can be (but never absolutely certain). For example, the Germ Theory of Disease (yes, I am a Kochist) states that microorganisms are responsible for infectious diseases. Almost everyone takes this for granted, but it is still a tentative theory.
I will leave it to the christians to decide which is the correct interpretation (I am an atheist/agnostic), but I see nothing wrong with interpretting Genesis as an allegory. Allegories are not required to follow reality (eg Aesop's Fables) so it really could be an apples to oranges comparison.
On the other hand, a literal interpretation of Genesis (aka Young Earth Creationism) is so contradictory to reality that it requires the type of mental gymnastics that are the staple of creationist arguments.
From my point of view, there is no logical reason to believe in the Bible to begin with. However, I have never disbelieved in the Bible because it has the scientific facts wrong. I was an old earth/theistic evolutionist when I was a christian.
PS: I forgot that this is a formal debate area. My main purpose in the last two posts was to correct some misrepresentations. I will leave the main argument to others.
Upvote
0
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
I am sorry but you are wrong on this one. The meaning of THEORY is not just Ideas held to be true. People misuse this word so much so that in common language it is understood to be what you say. But! in the scientific community the word Theory is:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Scientific Theory" [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Definition: Logical, systematic set of principles or explanation that has beenverifiedhas stood up against attempts to prove it false.[/FONT]
When we refer to science we have to be as precise as possible. Although science allows for no boundaries in the quest for facts it demands that one in order to be scientific must adhere to strict rules.
I apologize for over simplifying the usage of the word 'theory'. In my opinion, theory is different that fact, but I realize that for some, especially in the realm of physics, they are not different. Regardless of that, it is not the point of the debate. Whatever you equate 'theory' with, it is still a known "fact" that old theories have been discarded in light of new evidence and methodologies. So even what we know today to be a 'theoretical fact', like the value of the speed of light or the Big bang or evolution, could be updated sometime in the future in light of new information. We can only test theories with the capabilities, knowledge and technology we have today.[/FONT]
The source if inspiration of the book of Genesis is a different topic altogether, but let me say this, if 2 or more cultures shared a common historical event, would you expect to have some similarities in their accounts of such historical event - do you automatically have to conclude that one copied from the other, even if one was written at a later date? Also, the details of the accounts differ greatly, and the amount of specifics are greater in Genesis than other Sumerian or Babylonian texts... But I invite you to talk about this on a different thread, for the sake of the readers of these posts...
As an atheist, I would not state how the bible is to be taken, because you believe that it not to be taken anyway. But that's beside the point.
I agree with you that the Bible is not a scientific explanation of how the universe was created. But it does explain that it WAS created. The issue then becomes whether such a creation account of the universe can be true in light of observed scientific evidence.
Let me reiterate, the Bible does not give specifics on the creation of the Universe, just as you have stated (but it does give detail on the formation of earth as a life supporting planet). So there are many details that are left out. Whether there was a gap of one day between the creation of the "heavens and the earth" in a state of "formlessness" and the first day ("let there be light"), or a year or a million years, the bible is silent. This is where Science says billions... Well that could well be, and it would fit that particular scenario of creation. If astronomers said tomorrow that the universe is one million years old instead of billions, the bible can still be true, even if they said that the universe is a few thousand years old the bible could still be true. Solely because such detail is left out. On the other hand the Big bang could show an accord with the Bible in the respect of creation ex-nihilo (I said "could", not necessarily "does". Again much detail is left out, but the universe did have a beginning and such a beginning is also mentioned in the Bible) We can debate on the age of the universe, but I think of greater importance is what the bible is a little more clear on, like mankind and earth as we know it.
Going back to the topic of this thread, the original question may possibly have a false premise. "If the universe is thousands of years old, how come we see stars from millions of light years away" According to a literal interpretation of the Bible, the universe can be more that a few thousand years old (which is what my argument is). Not man, not plants, not mountains (the rock that makes up the mountains can be millions of years, but not the elevation), not fish or even bacteria or the smallest living organism - all of these elements are a few thousand years old according to the Bible. In that case the Biblical account is in accord with science in this subject.
I gave you one possibility. There are other possibilities that I can present, but my point is that you can't discredit this part of the Bible - because it does not necessarily contradict science, on this particular topic.
Are there interpretations of the bible that could fit the scientific evidence? I say yes. If so, then you can't discount the entire bible solely on this possibly non-existent discrepancy. It becomes a personal decision to disbelieve or at least disagree with this particular account of the bible. I realize there are many other topics that are seemingly conflicting, but let's tackle one at a time.
Upvote
0
Anybody can read whatever they want into the Bible, that's why there are so many denominations. The interpretation is up to us, not "them". Don't blame "them" because we are responsible for ourselves. We have to decide for ourselves what is the correct interpretation, what interpretation makes sense and fits other evidence and other passages. One might ask how... Well the answer is simple, you take the bible literally unless it is an obvious allegorical or metaphorical passage. My personal belief is that the universe could be very old or very young, but it is irrelevant. The Bible is unclear as to the age of matter. On the other hand, man and life are only a few thousand years old - and this is clear.
My literal interpretation does not require any gymnastics. Is my answer simple and plausible?
But if the Bible is true and science does support the Bible, should we not at least investigate further into it? After all, it's a book that changed lives over thousands of years, and people claim that it's powerful even today. It speaks of things that we should not take lightly, like afterlife and hell...
Just because I don't believe the Bible it does not make it false.
Bottom line: there ARE possible answers to these questions that can provide good answers. It is a personal decision to discredit the bible, not a mount of evidence.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Did you know that you can be a Christian, and believe that the earth is billions of years old? You can even believe in evolution and be a Christian. There is no conflict between science and the Bible...all one needs is a proper understanding how to merge science and the Bible.
Old Earth Creation Science
Word Study: Yom
The Hebrew word for day is the word Yom. Young earth creationists have always argued that the word used for the days of creation can only mean a 24-hour day. In this article, we will examine the uses of Yom in the Old Testament, and show that it can mean a wide variety of time periods.
First, one must understand that the Hebrew language is not nearly as diverse as our English language. Whereas our vocabulary is around half a million, the Hebrew language has only 8,700 words. The French language, one of the poorest modern languages in vocabulary and the language of choice for diplomats, has just about 40,000 words or over 4 times the amount of words that Ancient Hebrew has.
Many of the Hebrew words could be considered duplicates with only slight differences. Thus, words which contain multiple meanings are common. Such is the case with the word Yom.
Word Usage in the Old Testament
As you can see, Yom is used in a wide variety of situations related to the concept of time. Yom is not just for days...it is for time in general. How it is translated depends on the context of its use with other words.
Yom in the Creation Account
Even within the creation account, Yom is used to represent four different time periods.
Moses Other Uses of Yom
Moses, the author of the first five books of the Bible, and of Psalm 90, used Yom in many different ways.
As you can see, Moses used the word Yom to represent 12-hours, 24 hours, the creative week, forty days, several months, a lifetime, and eternity.
If God's Creation Was Billions of Years Old...
If God's creation was billions of years old, how would He have written the creation account in Genesis? One thing is certain...God is good at telling us exactly what we need to know.
When God refers to a large number, He uses picture stories, such as Abraham's descendants being as numerous as the sand. Why does He do this? If God had said, "You will have millions of descendants," Abraham would have asked, "What is a million?"
When considering the creation, if we broke it down into days, that would be 5,000,500,000,000 days, or roughly 13.7 billion years. Do we need an account for each day of creation...of course not. God in His infinite wisdom, saw fit to tell us the creation story by breaking it down into creative segments, each of which was attributed to a specific creative act or acts. We need to give the early Hebrews of Genesis a break...they didn't have calculators like we do!
One must also consider that time with God has no meaning. To Him, 10 billion years is like a day. Thus, it is no problem for God to put billions of years into one of His days. Dr. Hugh Ross puts it best in his determination that the frame of reference for creation is the surface of the earth. Genesis 1:2 puts the witness of creation on the surface. But who is witnessing these events? It is God himself. During the first 5.99 days of creation, God is the only one present. Thus, human time does not matter...no humans were there to witness the passage of time. What matters is how God sees time! Thus, a billion year day is only a passing moment in God's eyes.
The creation account is written in such a manner for all people to understand it. The issue is not how long creation took...the issue is that God did it, and that's all that matters in the end.
Old Earth Creation Science
Word Study: Yom
The Hebrew word for day is the word Yom. Young earth creationists have always argued that the word used for the days of creation can only mean a 24-hour day. In this article, we will examine the uses of Yom in the Old Testament, and show that it can mean a wide variety of time periods.
First, one must understand that the Hebrew language is not nearly as diverse as our English language. Whereas our vocabulary is around half a million, the Hebrew language has only 8,700 words. The French language, one of the poorest modern languages in vocabulary and the language of choice for diplomats, has just about 40,000 words or over 4 times the amount of words that Ancient Hebrew has.
Many of the Hebrew words could be considered duplicates with only slight differences. Thus, words which contain multiple meanings are common. Such is the case with the word Yom.
Word Usage in the Old Testament
As you can see, Yom is used in a wide variety of situations related to the concept of time. Yom is not just for days...it is for time in general. How it is translated depends on the context of its use with other words.
Yom in the Creation Account
Even within the creation account, Yom is used to represent four different time periods.
- Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate a 12-hour period
- Genesis 1:14 "And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate 24-hour days
- Genesis 2:4 "...in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate the entire creative week.
Moses Other Uses of Yom
Moses, the author of the first five books of the Bible, and of Psalm 90, used Yom in many different ways.
- Genesis 4:3 "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." In this instance, Yom refers to a growing season, probably several months.
- Genesis 43:9 "...then let me bear the blame for ever." Here, Moses uses Yom to represent eternity
- Genesis 44:32 "...then I shall bear the blame to my father for ever." Again, Moses uses Yom to represent eternity
- Deuteronomy 4:40 "...that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the Lord thy God giveth the, for ever." Here Yom represents a physical lifetime
- Deuteronomy 10:10, "Now I stayed on the mountain forty days and nights, as I did the first time,..." Here, Yom is a "time" equal to forty days.
- Deuteronomy 18:5 "...to stand to minister in the name of the Lord, him and his sons for ever." Again, Yom is translated as eternity
- Deuteronomy 19:9 "...to love the Lord thy God, and to walk ever in His ways..." Here, Yom represents a lifetime. As long as we live we are to walk in his ways
As you can see, Moses used the word Yom to represent 12-hours, 24 hours, the creative week, forty days, several months, a lifetime, and eternity.
If God's Creation Was Billions of Years Old...
If God's creation was billions of years old, how would He have written the creation account in Genesis? One thing is certain...God is good at telling us exactly what we need to know.
When God refers to a large number, He uses picture stories, such as Abraham's descendants being as numerous as the sand. Why does He do this? If God had said, "You will have millions of descendants," Abraham would have asked, "What is a million?"
When considering the creation, if we broke it down into days, that would be 5,000,500,000,000 days, or roughly 13.7 billion years. Do we need an account for each day of creation...of course not. God in His infinite wisdom, saw fit to tell us the creation story by breaking it down into creative segments, each of which was attributed to a specific creative act or acts. We need to give the early Hebrews of Genesis a break...they didn't have calculators like we do!
One must also consider that time with God has no meaning. To Him, 10 billion years is like a day. Thus, it is no problem for God to put billions of years into one of His days. Dr. Hugh Ross puts it best in his determination that the frame of reference for creation is the surface of the earth. Genesis 1:2 puts the witness of creation on the surface. But who is witnessing these events? It is God himself. During the first 5.99 days of creation, God is the only one present. Thus, human time does not matter...no humans were there to witness the passage of time. What matters is how God sees time! Thus, a billion year day is only a passing moment in God's eyes.
The creation account is written in such a manner for all people to understand it. The issue is not how long creation took...the issue is that God did it, and that's all that matters in the end.
Upvote
0
beachhuggles
Well-Known Member
sorry but governing of days, time, seasons etc were created on day 4 of creation, before any living creatures were created...
also in the books of moses, day was always represented as Yom followed by a number, the heurmaneutics in hebrew are not indicative of eons of time.
also if there was evolution before adam and eve, then there was death in the world, if there was death in the world then adam and eve were never going to live phyically eternally. therefore if there was death in the world before adam and eve and sin, then jesus was going to die anyway not as a result of taking on sin, therefore he was just a man and he was going to die anyway...
if you can't take god at his word in genesis 1 then how can you take anything else as absolute such as the 10 commandments, did he really mean do not commit murder? maybe he meant committ murder but don't get caught...
the logic of evolution/eons of time in creation do not stand up to scrutiny
also in the books of moses, day was always represented as Yom followed by a number, the heurmaneutics in hebrew are not indicative of eons of time.
also if there was evolution before adam and eve, then there was death in the world, if there was death in the world then adam and eve were never going to live phyically eternally. therefore if there was death in the world before adam and eve and sin, then jesus was going to die anyway not as a result of taking on sin, therefore he was just a man and he was going to die anyway...
if you can't take god at his word in genesis 1 then how can you take anything else as absolute such as the 10 commandments, did he really mean do not commit murder? maybe he meant committ murder but don't get caught...
the logic of evolution/eons of time in creation do not stand up to scrutiny
Upvote
0
Guys, thank you for posting on this thread, but let's not get side-tracked. We have proposed a couple of biblical interpretations that could fit the apparent scientific evidence of a universe of millions of years old. I personally do not agree with theistic evolution or even suggesting that "day" in genesis 1 can be understood as a long period of time. I agree that "yom" can mean many things in relation to time, but the Genesis account is clear on the "So the evening and the morning were the first day." This is literal interpretation and obvious intent. The other references to 'yom' in the other verses quoted by MichaelFischer use the word 'yom' constructively, that is the word is part of a larger group (just like 'ha-yom' gen 4:14, 'o-rek yom' Dt 30:20, 'kol hayom' in Dt 5:12...).
But the bottom line is pretty clear to me. The bible does not talk about past events with a scientific language. There is plenty of detail that is omitted because it is irrelevant to the Bible's message. (If it included all the detail we wanted it would be immense, and where would you draw the line, at defining time? or space? microbe? atom?...).
Let's come to the table with no preconceived notions about the Bible. Be honest and logical. If the universe's 16 billion year age can fit the Biblical account of creation, shall we deem the Bible false? Simply because the detail is omitted in the Bible, does it make it wrong and deceptive? And since the Bible does not include a lot of detail, multiple scenarios can fit the mold - if science said the universe was young, it would still be OK with the Bible; If science said the universe is old, it's still OK with the Bible; but if Science says that humans evolved, then it's not OK because there is some detail in the Bible that contradicts that particular statement; If Science said that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago it would contradict the literal and clear message of the Bible) But on this particular topic, of universe age, is the Bible wrong? (((I'm expecting an answer on this...)))
I know I'm taking this argument at a different angle than most YECs, but it seems to me that people get stuck in these debates in details, losing sight of the overall arguments.
My personal opinion on this matter is that the universe can be either old or young and still be Biblical. We don't know with absolute certainty how old it is, we have theories that "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]stood up against attempts to prove it false[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]", [/FONT] but we were not there to observe. There can be a 99% certainty level on a theory, but never 100%, that would be a fact and it would have to have been observed.
Even answersingenesis.org has an article saying that one viable answer to the light-year question is that the stars may be billions of years old but the time that passed during which these stars were formed went by very quickly. More detail at answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp
please read this article before you form your opinion on it.
I consider myself a YEC. The only difference is that I don't take the bible as a science book on these subjects, I take it as a book based on observation.
But the bottom line is pretty clear to me. The bible does not talk about past events with a scientific language. There is plenty of detail that is omitted because it is irrelevant to the Bible's message. (If it included all the detail we wanted it would be immense, and where would you draw the line, at defining time? or space? microbe? atom?...).
Let's come to the table with no preconceived notions about the Bible. Be honest and logical. If the universe's 16 billion year age can fit the Biblical account of creation, shall we deem the Bible false? Simply because the detail is omitted in the Bible, does it make it wrong and deceptive? And since the Bible does not include a lot of detail, multiple scenarios can fit the mold - if science said the universe was young, it would still be OK with the Bible; If science said the universe is old, it's still OK with the Bible; but if Science says that humans evolved, then it's not OK because there is some detail in the Bible that contradicts that particular statement; If Science said that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago it would contradict the literal and clear message of the Bible) But on this particular topic, of universe age, is the Bible wrong? (((I'm expecting an answer on this...)))
I know I'm taking this argument at a different angle than most YECs, but it seems to me that people get stuck in these debates in details, losing sight of the overall arguments.
My personal opinion on this matter is that the universe can be either old or young and still be Biblical. We don't know with absolute certainty how old it is, we have theories that "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]stood up against attempts to prove it false[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]", [/FONT] but we were not there to observe. There can be a 99% certainty level on a theory, but never 100%, that would be a fact and it would have to have been observed.
Even answersingenesis.org has an article saying that one viable answer to the light-year question is that the stars may be billions of years old but the time that passed during which these stars were formed went by very quickly. More detail at answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp
please read this article before you form your opinion on it.
I consider myself a YEC. The only difference is that I don't take the bible as a science book on these subjects, I take it as a book based on observation.
Upvote
0
T
tanzanos
Guest
It never ceases to amaze me how people speak on behalf of God. "God did this because he wanted this", "God made the speed of light faster so that the light reached the earth faster (to prove the universe is 6,000 years old)", "God intended this when he did this". Come on people, can one seriously insist he or she knows what was in the mind of God or why God did this or that? Personally I refute the Bible as a scientific record on creation. I believe Science is the only tool we have to understand the physical existence of everything. One is free to believe whatever one chooses so long as one does not enforce his beliefs on others. Evolution is taught in schools because it is a globally accepted theory based on millions of observations and countless of hours of experimentation, etc. Creationism is not science and should not be taught as such in schools. Sunday school or theology classes is where creationism belongs. 
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
It never ceases to amaze me how people speak on behalf of God. "God did this because he wanted this", "God made the speed of light faster so that the light reached the earth faster (to prove the universe is 6,000 years old)", "God intended this when he did this". Come on people, can one seriously insist he or she knows what was in the mind of God or why God did this or that? Personally I refute the Bible as a scientific record on creation. I believe Science is the only tool we have to understand the physical existence of everything. One is free to believe whatever one chooses so long as one does not enforce his beliefs on others. Evolution is taught in schools because it is a globally accepted theory based on millions of observations and countless of hours of experimentation, etc. Creationism is not science and should not be taught as such in schools. Sunday school or theology classes is where creationism belongs.
The Bible does say WHY God did certain things - read it and you'll find out. In that case, YES, people can know God's reason/motive/intent.
But, beside that point, please answer me this question: If I gave you a plausible answer to the apparent contradiction of science vs. the Bible on the topic of light-years, would you still argue that the Bible is wrong on that specific topic? (not whether we should believe the Bible as a whole, just one topic) I understand that you find no reason to believe the Bible to begin with, but is it still wrong on that topic?
Let's stick to one question, one subject at a time and see where it takes us.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
