In reference to God creating an earth made with apparent age,

[Tree of Life]

You question you have to answer is why God would go out of his way to make the universe look much older than it is, and you haven't answered it yet.

If God created with apparent age it would be because it pleased him to create a mature world. That's essentially what the Genesis account says, modern scientific theories aside. Surely the ancient Hebrews knew that, according to normal providence, a forest could not grow overnight. And yet it does in Genesis 1. God creates fully mature plants, trees, animals, and humans who will then go on to procreate according to normal providence.

 

[lesliedellow]

If God created with apparent age it would be because it pleased him to create a mature world. That's essentially what the Genesis account says, modern scientific theories aside. Surely the ancient Hebrews knew that, according to normal providence, a forest could not grow overnight. And yet it does in Genesis 1. God creates fully mature plants, trees, animals, and humans who will then go on to procreate according to normal providence.

And when he has finished doing all that, he plants 65 million year old dinosaur bones in the earth.

 

[Hoghead1]

If God created with apparent age it would be because it pleased him to create a mature world. That's essentially what the Genesis account says, modern scientific theories aside. Surely the ancient Hebrews knew that, according to normal providence, a forest could not grow overnight. And yet it does in Genesis 1. God creates fully mature plants, trees, animals, and humans who will then go on to procreate according to normal providence.

No, they might not al all have known that.

 

[Tree of Life]

No, they might not al all have known that.

What are you suggesting?

 

[RickG]

Why would God create Adam as a fully mature man? Why would Jesus make well aged wine at the wedding at Cana?

Why take the Genesis creation account as literal when we know for a fact that there are problems with it geologically, astronomically and biologically (order of events)?

 

[Tree of Life]

Why take the Genesis creation account as literal when we know for a fact that there are problems with it geologically, astronomically and biologically (order of events)?

I don't know that we know these things for a fact. Today's science is often tomorrow's laughingstock. I am struggling with how to interpret Genesis 1-2 and have not yet fully solidified my position. I am leaning toward a more literal view because the text shows every sign of wanting to be understood literally. If this is so then I need to make a decision as to which source of revelation will be more authoritative for me. If the information in Scripture appears to contradict the information in nature then either we've misunderstood Scripture or misunderstood nature. If I believe that the literal view of Genesis 1-2 is more certainly the correct view of the text then, for me, it would trump today's popular reading of general revelation.

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't know that we know these things for a fact. Today's science is often tomorrow's laughingstock. I am struggling with how to interpret Genesis 1-2 and have not yet fully solidified my position. I am leaning toward a more literal view because the text shows every sign of wanting to be understood literally. If this is so then I need to make a decision as to which source of revelation will be more authoritative for me. If the information in Scripture appears to contradict the information in nature then either we've misunderstood Scripture or misunderstood nature. If I believe that the literal view of Genesis 1-2 is more certainly the correct view of the text then, for me, it would trump today's popular reading of general revelation.

Did you ever consider the possibility that God did not intend Scripture to be a science book?

 

[Tree of Life]

Did you ever consider the possibility that God did not intend Scripture to be a science book?

This is certainly the case. How do you think this affects the way that Genesis 1-2 should be interpreted?

 

[Hoghead1]

This is certainly the case. How do you think this affects the way that Genesis 1-2 should be interpreted?

I don't think there is any gap indicated there, period.

 

[Tree of Life]

I don't think there is any gap indicated there, period.

Genesis 1-2 means Genesis chapters 1 and 2.

 

[freezerman2000]

Why would God create Adam as a fully mature man? Why would Jesus make well aged wine at the wedding at Cana?

I'm talking about the geological aspects of the Creation account..nothing else.
Also, the question is WHY would He,not IF He did it or not

 

[Hoghead1]

Genesis 1-2 means Genesis chapters 1 and 2.

I argue these represent two contradictory accounts of creation.

 

[Tree of Life]

I argue these represent two contradictory accounts of creation.

You think that Scripture flat out contradicts itself?

 

[freezerman2000]

.

 

[freezerman2000]

The question is WHY would He,not IF He did it or not.

 

[smaneck]

Mark 8:12 He sighed deeply and said, “Why does this generation ask for a (scientifically verifiable) sign?
Truly I tell you, no (scientifically verifiable) sign will be given to it.

Good job turning the scripture on its head!

 

[RickG]

I don't know that we know these things for a fact. Today's science is often tomorrow's laughingstock. I am struggling with how to interpret Genesis 1-2 and have not yet fully solidified my position. I am leaning toward a more literal view because the text shows every sign of wanting to be understood literally. If this is so then I need to make a decision as to which source of revelation will be more authoritative for me. If the information in Scripture appears to contradict the information in nature then either we've misunderstood Scripture or misunderstood nature. If I believe that the literal view of Genesis 1-2 is more certainly the correct view of the text then, for me, it would trump today's popular reading of general revelation.

Yes, we do know these things for a fact. Genesis has fruit bearing trees before the sun is created, just to mention one problem.

 

[Hoghead1]

You think that Scripture flat out contradicts itself?

In about 100 passage, yes. Gen. 1 says first animals, then man and woman together. Gen. 2 says man, then animals, then woman. Either Adam was created before or after the animals. It can't be both. Another major contradiction is 2 Sam. 21:19, which states, in the original Hebrew, that Elhanan killed Goliath of Gath. In some English Bibles, they inserted "brother of" to cover this contradiction up0. But it is definitely there in the Hebrew, in the original.

 

[Tree of Life]

Yes, we do know these things for a fact. Genesis has fruit bearing trees before the sun is created, just to mention one problem.

Why should this be a problem for God? God is the source of fruit.

 

[Tree of Life]

In about 100 passage, yes. Gen. 1 says first animals, then man and woman together. Gen. 2 says man, then animals, then woman. Either Adam was created before or after the animals. It can't be both. Another major contradiction is 2 Sam. 21:19, which states, in the original Hebrew, that Elhanan killed Goliath of Gath. In some English Bibles, they inserted "brother of" to cover this contradiction up0. But it is definitely there in the Hebrew, in the original.

Genesis 2:19 reads - Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them...

"had formed" is וַיִּצֶר֩ which is the WCI form of the verb. WCI is past tense but it can refer to events in the past or completed events - hence the ESV translation here. So it can very well mean that God had, in the past, formed the animals (before he formed Adam). There is not necessarily a contradiction here.