is creating with age deceptive?

Assyrian · Jul 11, 2007

archaeologist said:
So when did God make murder a sin, before or after Cain?

Click to expand...

when God said not to eatof the fruit of the tree of knowledge...

Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." No, no mention of murder there.

JAL · Jul 11, 2007

archaeologist said:
personal attack ignored.

archaeologist said:
ignorance ignored.

false accusation ignored.

actually, i was going to respond to some of what you said but your lack of understanding and failure to see what God has done makes this a worthless enterprise.

when you want to discuss sanely without all the crap, then come and talk to me but until then you have a lot of growing up to do.

your post is just typical of one who only knows alternatives.

peter said,

2 peter 2:20-22
{bold mine}

Actually, where I have stooped to insults and polemics it was only after your lead. Look at my first post - no insults, no polemics, but just sheer argumentation. I challenge you to find anything else in that first post.

If you don't like crap, stop INITIATING it. Because what goes around, comes around. Looks like YOU are the one who needs to grow up.

And even in those places where you PRETENDED to engage in real debate, it was cheap tactics. You distort the picture, as the classic YECists have a long reputation of doing. What I mean is, your response to me has largely been - "Sorry, JAL, my YECism must be accepted unless you can exegetically prove your point, with tons of supporting scholarship to boot." For several reasons this distorts the picture.

(A) It soon becomes apparent that the volume of proof you are demanding is equivalent to Karl Barth's dogmatics, which is impossible on a short thread. I don't debate in such manner. If a debater can make a reasonably good showing in a few words, I respect his position, unless I feel I can prove he has logically contradicted himself.

I do not disprepect your position (i.e. YECism). I have indicated, clearly enough, that I respect your conscience and position. But you have scorned mine withut ample justification, and frankly you aren't fooling anyone. That's the difference between you and me.

(B) You yourself have named few scholars for YOUR position. But you demand volumes of scholarship from everyone else. Sorry, I don't agree that the burden of proof falls on me.

(C) It's a logical fallacy to claim or imply, as you do, "If you can't prove your position, that proves my position is correct." Nope. You still have to prove your position in order to justify regarding it apodictic. Again, you use this cheap tactic as to distort the picture.

A few other points of objection:

You insisted that "day" must mean 24 hours. But in Genesis 2 Moses uses the term to summarize the whole six-day period when he speaks of "the day in which God made the heavens and the earth." And people use the word in a summary sense all the time, for example I could speak of Christ's generation thus, "Back in Christ's day, there were lots of wars."

Not only that, but your pretense of being the bastion of literalism is probably a facade. I'll bet I take Scripture much more literally than you do, for example in passages such as John 3:5 (literal water), John 6 (eat my flesh and drink my blood), the Last Supper (this is my body and blood), etc. In fact I'll bet I'm even more literal than you in Genesis. Until the Renaissance, ALL Jewish and Christian scholars took literally the crystalline firmanent with the waters above. Guess what? I still do. God hides these elements from mechanical instruments, in my view (He will even use permeation, if necessary, to prevent spacecraft from colliding with them), just as the Light of the Seventh Galactic Day is usually hidden from our eyes (Paul saw it on the road to Damascus, though, as did the Twelve at the Transfiguration).

So what about you? You take all these passages literally? Do you believe in the crystalline firmament and the waters above?

Because, if you don't take Genesis literally, you have no right to indict the non-literalists for the same.

archaeologist · Jul 11, 2007

If you don't like crap, stop INITIATING it. Because what goes around, comes around. Looks like YOU are the one who needs to grow up.

just like everybody else, you can't take responsibility for your actions but must lay the blame on somebody else.

you have the power tochoose to insult or not so it is on you if you do.

You distort the picture, as the classic YECists have a long reputation of doing

fale accusation. ignored.

"Sorry, JAL, my YECism must be accepted unless you can exegetically prove your point, with tons of supporting scholarship to boot." For several reasons this distorts the picture.

not at all. if you can't backup what you are saying then you are just making empty statements which undermine your position.

I have indicated, clearly enough, that I respect your conscience and position. But you have scorned mine withut ample justification, and frankly you aren't fooling anyone. That's the difference between you and me.

i haven't scorned anyone but shown how your position is untenable and non-defensible. ut this is a normal TE practice, make a post and whenrefuted attack the oppositionwith misrepresentations and distract fromthe fact you have nothing to back up what you say.

I don't debate in such manner

every debatist knows that they have to back up what they say or they look very foolish and lose credibility when shown evidence from the other side that there statements are unsupported and empty.

this lackof evidence also means you didn't do your homework, which is another blackmark against a debatist, as opinions do not count without support.

so i have asked youto provide proof for your position which you refuse to do, so youare the one at fault, looks foolish and has no credibility.

You insisted that "day" must mean 24 hours. But in Genesis 2 Moses uses the term to summarize the whole six-day period when he speaks of "the day in which God made the heavens and the earth." And people use the word in a summary sense all the time, for example I could speak of Christ's generation thus, "Back in Christ's day, there were lots of wars

you make no sense here except for me to ask, can't God make a summary without jeopardizing the text of Gen. 1? it is a big stretch to extrapolate that genesis 2 means that Genesis one is also a summary given the fact that fact that there are no summary words to support such an idea.

Not only that, but your pretense of being the bastion of literalism is probably a facade

i stand with God not evolution or the world. how you interprate that is out of my control as i look to present what the Bible says not what secular science has to say.

if you are a believer in Christ, which many here say they are, then that is where they have to stand forsaking what the world thinks because that is what God commands of His followers. scripture is quite clear on this yet many like to ignore that fact.

Because, if you don't take Genesis literally, you have no right to indict the non-literalists for the same.

read my posts again, i have stayed with the same message throughout my tenure here, reject the world's thinking, go with God's; use discernment and remove, shun all that is not of God and follow Him to the truth.

making evolution a creation of God's is not shunning the world but adopting and adapting its thinking for the express purpose of doing science the world's way which is also not of God.

if believers are to be the lightof the world thenthey must have something different to offer than what the world claims, adding in evolution is not offering what God did but trying to gain respect from those who are not God nor follow His leading. believers are to please God not seek the world's respect.

JAL · Jul 11, 2007

archaeologist said:
just like everybody else, you can't take responsibility for your actions but must lay the blame on somebody else.

you have the power tochoose to insult or not so it is on you if you do.

fale accusation. ignored.

not at all. if you can't backup what you are saying then you are just making empty statements which undermine your position.

i haven't scorned anyone but shown how your position is untenable and non-defensible. ut this is a normal TE practice, make a post and whenrefuted attack the oppositionwith misrepresentations and distract fromthe fact you have nothing to back up what you say.

every debatist knows that they have to back up what they say or they look very foolish and lose credibility when shown evidence from the other side that there statements are unsupported and empty.

this lackof evidence also means you didn't do your homework, which is another blackmark against a debatist, as opinions do not count without support.

so i have asked youto provide proof for your position which you refuse to do, so youare the one at fault, looks foolish and has no credibility.

you make no sense here except for me to ask, can't God make a summary without jeopardizing the text of Gen. 1? it is a big stretch to extrapolate that genesis 2 means that Genesis one is also a summary given the fact that fact that there are no summary words to support such an idea.

i stand with God not evolution or the world. how you interprate that is out of my control as i look to present what the Bible says not what secular science has to say.

if you are a believer in Christ, which many here say they are, then that is where they have to stand forsaking what the world thinks because that is what God commands of His followers. scripture is quite clear on this yet many like to ignore that fact.

read my posts again, i have stayed with the same message throughout my tenure here, reject the world's thinking, go with God's; use discernment and remove, shun all that is not of God and follow Him to the truth.

making evolution a creation of God's is not shunning the world but adopting and adapting its thinking for the express purpose of doing science the world's way which is also not of God.

if believers are to be the lightof the world thenthey must have something different to offer than what the world claims, adding in evolution is not offering what God did but trying to gain respect from those who are not God nor follow His leading. believers are to please God not seek the world's respect.

Empty verbiage. As usual no response to the objections raised.

As I have said repeatedly, I don't have to prove my position, nor am I even attempting to. You're the one with axe to grind around here. My goal was simply this: Can I postulate a POSSIBLE interpretation of Genesis without contradicting Scripture and without renouncing all science?
YOU are the one who wants to prove my reading impossible, and and you've done nothing to so demonstrate. But you pretend to. For example, I pointed out that "Day" in Genesis 2 does NOT mean 24 hours. This refutes the assumption that the term MUST mean 24 hours, thereby establishing a POSSIBLE alternative. That's all I am interested in, namely, exposing a POSSIBILITY. And you're reply? You basically stated, but it isn't possible or likely that in Genesis 1 it means 24 hours? Well, duh, I never denied that possibility. But the POINT is, you haven't refuted my proposed POSSIBILITY.

You keep insisting that I have failed to prove something when I never had any such desire or intent! And then you imply, "Since your proof failed, JAL, this failure proves my position is right." Cheap tactics.

JAL · Jul 11, 2007

Assyrian, as to the question,

"You don't create a car to eventually grow into a car, when you create a car, it is a car. So is making a car completely, deceptive?"

You replied;

"Does it include a log book with full service history in the glove compartment, 4,567,000,000 on the odometer, worn tyres and brake pads, mud caked inside the wheel arch traceable to three continents, and marks on the bodywork where complete wings had been replaced?"

Assyrian, your posts rock! (I hope I never get into a debate with you. I have a feeling I'd be on the losing end).

Assyrian · Jul 11, 2007

JAL · Jul 11, 2007

Archaeologist said:
For Him to wait billions of earth years, would make God look weak, indecisive, unclear in His thinking and so on.

Creating as he said in Genesis, in 6 days eliminates and dispells such accusations and shows Him to be who he claims to be.

Understandable objection, but there are a couple of points Id like to make here. You argue that an extended period of creation time makes God look weak. Essentially you envision a timeline like this

0---------------> infinite weakness

where, as time approaches infinity, God appears more and more weak. For example, six days, or seven days, or eight days, is not so bad, but 13 billion years is unacceptable. The problem with your accusation is that it cuts both ways. Your theory of six 24-hour days, by your own reasoning, impugns Gods strength, albeit less than the old-earth view. Why should we accept your model at all, that is, why should we accept your assumption that time impugns divine strength, inasmuch as this is ALSO a problem for your 24-hour cosmology? My solution lets just reject that whole assumption altogether.

Second point. With the appearance of great piety, Christians are fond of acknowledging, with Paul, Gods ways are beyond our understanding (see Rom 11). But sometimes it seems to me false piety, because the moment I suggest something difficult for them to understand (such as 13 billion years to create mankind), they are apt to insist, Impossible! God would never do such a thing because it doesnt make sense to me! Does it have to make sense to you for God to do it? Thought you said His ways are beyond your understanding?

This is not to suggest, Anything goes. God can do whatever He wants. No. I deem it logically contradictory to suggest that a holy God can violate ethics and virtue. Thus we need to address the question, for instance, why do innocent animals suffer, whether for 13 billion years in the old-age model, or 6000 years in the YEC model. I have what seems to be a very satisfactory answer to that question, although I dont intend to discuss it here.

Thirdly, the 13 billion year system is actually MORE consistent with divine character, in my view, than six 24-hour days. Why so? There is a bit of a logical weakness in mainstream thinking which my own theological system attempts to address. It is the issue of divine merit. What is merit, and how do we get it? Merit is earned by voluntary suffering for a righteous cause over an extended period of time. The longer the time period, the greater the merit. Here, then, is my timeline:

0---------à infinite merit.

Intensity of suffering is also a factor, but extended time is a necessity. Why so? Imagine the worst possible form of torture, such as being burned alive. No matter how excruciating the sensation, the fact remains that if it lasts only a nanosecond, that is, as time approaches zero, the total amount of suffering approaches zero and so does the total merit.

Take for instance the cross. If it turned out that Christ didnt suffer, that it was only an illusion of suffering, how much merit would it have? None! How much praise would God deserve for it? None!

The problem with the mainstream model is that it defines God as inherently immutably holy. He has no choice in the matter. His actions proceed from His predeterminately holy character. Even when He suffered on the cross, in this paradigm, it wasnt really a voluntary suffering but rather merely appeared to be such.

To avoid contradiction, therefore, I long ago abandoned the notion that God is inherently immutably holy. Rather, He was initially neutral, morally, and freely chose to persist in righteous deeds even in the face of the agony/suffering of temptation. How long did God, as Ancient of Days (Dan 7:9-11), so persevere? Keep in mind that if either angels or men have labored and suffered in righteousness longer than He, they have more merit than He. If God is righteous in demanding worship, therefore, He must have persevered ineffably longer than men (presumably a finite period, of course). Thats why Paul said in Romans 4 that God is more righteous than Abraham even if he (Abraham) had earned justification by good works.

During this enormous period of time God chose to BECOME immutably holy. He no longer has freedom to choose between good and evil, He cannot be tempted, as James said. But how then do we explain Christs temptation in the wilderness? Wasnt the temptation a big lie and a farce if God is inherently immutably holy? Certainly. Anticipating the atonement, therefore, God temporarily exempted, in my view, a small portion of the Son from immutable holiness so that He could endure the agony/suffering of real temptation on earth. It was this portion of the Son that became incarnate and suffered temptation.

HOW did God make Himself immutably holy? I have a pretty good solution for this, which I wont discuss here. Suffice it to say, as a hint, that my theory is similar to Calvins total depravity. Just as man, having sinned, cannot reverse his own depravity in Calvins view, so too God, having chosen righteous deeds for aeons, cannot reverse His own holiness.

Gods merit isnt infinite because He didnt suffer an infinite period of time. It is finite, but it is so ineffably beyond human merit that He deserves our worship. As for how long He spent creating the universe the longer the better. 13 billion years is nothing on His timescale. He was in no rush to create mankind, because the longer He persevered, the greater His merit.

archaeologist · Jul 11, 2007

I don't have to prove my position, nor am I even attempting to.

yes you do or at least show where you base your ideas? anyone can make a statement of possibility, my dog does it all the time. if you want to be considered or even considered credible, you need more tan : 'i call it galactic days and night' you have to show where you came to such a conclusion.

YOU are the one who wants to prove my reading impossible, and and you've done nothing to so demonstrate

read my initial response to your initial post. i proved you wrong right there.

You keep insisting that I have failed to prove something when I never had any such desire or intent

then don't say it if you can't back it up.

Assyrian, your posts rock

no they don't. he believes secular science's assumptions over the scriptural record. he doesn't rock, he just goes to the absurd.

Rudolph Hucker · Jul 11, 2007

archaeologist said:
.....

no they don't. he (Assyrian)believes secular science's assumptions over the scriptural record. he doesn't rock, he just goes to the absurd.

That's one more issue we disagree about. He is one of the best posters I have read in a long time.

Edit: and again I ask you Archie: what is "secular science"? Is it science as practiced by non-Christians?

archaeologist · Jul 11, 2007

You argue that an extended period of creation time makes God look weak. Essentially you envision a timeline like this

no that would not be what i was thinking. if you look through the Old and New testaments, you will see that when God acts, He acts in a way that leaves NO doubt that God did it.

with a theistic evolution or progressive creation model we see that anyone could have done it and that God coul dbe replaced by whatever item man wants to put in there. darwin did it when he replaced God with evolution and natural selection.

But with the 6/24 hour day, there is no way anyone could imagine an alternative which could accomplish that fact thus men are 'left without excuse' as the book of Romans says.

other examples; elijah and the prohphets of Baal praying for rain, gideon and 300 soldiers, the battle of jericho, paul's conversion. and so on.

where, as time approaches infinity, God appears more and more weak. For example, six days, or seven days, or eight days, is not so bad, but 13 billion years is unacceptable

it is unacceptable because there is no purpose for such an action. it diminishes God and His abilities, opening Him to mocking and other unsavory characteristics.

example: one such charge would be-- 'if your God is so great and powerful why did he take 13 billion years to create the world? or 'why should we believe your God if we have to wait billions of years for an answer to prayer?' and so on.

people need to have confidence in God and it just doesn't work with your evolutionary model.

I deem it logically contradictory to suggest that a holy God can violate ethics and virtue.

whose definitions are you going by? God's or man's?

Thus we need to address the question, for instance, why do innocent animals suffer, whether for 13 billion years in the old-age model, or 6000 years in the YEC model

the answer to the question lies with the answer to: 'why do innocent people suffer?'

well because of sin, which entered into the world at the fall of man. greed, lust, hatred...etc are all not of God and pervert man to do things which makes all of creation suffer.

is the issue of divine merit. What is merit, and how do we get it? Merit is earned by voluntary suffering for a righteous cause over an extended period of time. The longer the time period, the greater the merit

you will have to define what is divine merit and state where it is taught in the Bible. i do not recall Jesus or the apostles teaching on this. please state your sources for this thought.

and so does the total merit

sorry but that isn't taught in the Bible and needs to be discarded.

The problem with the mainstream model is that it defines God as inherently immutably holy. He has no choice in the matter. His actions proceed from His predeterminately holy character

here is what the Bible teaches:

1 Peter 1:16
because it is written, Be holy, for I am holy.

yes God is holy and acts out of that Holiness, if He didn't He wouldn't be Holy nor God.

here is a link to provide you with more of God's words about Himself as being Holy: by mistake link is at the bottom of post

we aren't defining Him as such, he defines Hmself that way.

To avoid contradiction, therefore, I long ago abandoned the notion that God is inherently immutably holy. Rather, He was initially neutral, morally, and freely chose to persist in righteous deeds even in the face of the agony/suffering of temptation. How long did God, as Ancient of Days (Dan 7:9-11), so persevere?

answered by the link. you abandoned the wrong thinking.

He cannot be tempted, as James said. But how then do we explain Christs temptation in the wilderness? Wasnt the temptation a big lie and a farce if God is inherently immutably holy? Certainly. Anticipating the atonement, therefore, God temporarily exempted, in my view, a small portion of the Son from immutable holiness so that He could endure the agony/suffering of real temptation on earth. It was this portion of the Son that became incarnate and suffered temptation

you do not understand the teachings of the Bible

Hebrews 2:18
For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted

Hebrews 4:15
For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

Gods merit isnt infinite because He didnt suffer an infinite period of time

those last two or three paragraphs just go against what the Bible teaches and what God himself has said about HImself. i would re-think such positions if i were you.

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword...chtype=all&version1=50&spanbegin=1&spanend=73

archaeologist · Jul 12, 2007

still waiting a rebuttal.

Rudolph Hucker · Jul 12, 2007

archaeologist said:
still waiting a rebuttal.

Rebuttal of what? This perhaps?

you do not understand the teachings of the Bible

archaeologist · Jul 13, 2007

same with this thread. it is safe to conclude that creating with age is not deceptive and that God did not use evolution but created what was neccessary for His purpose, which included maturity.

Rudolph Hucker · Jul 13, 2007

archaeologist said:
same with this thread. it is safe to conclude that creating with age is not deceptive and that God did not use evolution but created what was neccessary for His purpose, which included maturity.

It may be that more and more now have you on "ignore" so your posts are not visible.

archaeologist · Jul 13, 2007

but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

what does that tell you right there?

Assyrian · Jul 13, 2007

archaeologist said:
same with this thread. it is safe to conclude that creating with age is not deceptive and that God did not use evolution but created what was neccessary for His purpose, which included maturity.

That depends on whether you actually made your case for the topic or not. Being the last person top post in a thread does not quite count.

The last thread of conversation we actually had on topic was:
Archie: i see no problem with God making things fully mature. we know that adam had intelligence, could speak, could think, could name animals and so on.
Assyrian: There is a difference between mature and apparently showing very drastic wear and tear. That is what 'creating with age' is about.
Archie: we do not know all the effects of the fall of man, nor do we know all the devil has done, we DO know that when God finished, it was all good so those wear and tear marks came after the fall.
Assyrian: If you don't know the effects of the fall then you are reading things into the bible that it doesn't say. Any TE will tell you that radioactive decay in rocks has been very good. It keeps the planet's outer core liquid.
Archie: not at all. we know sin entered, death entered, and so much more. not reading into the Bible but recognizing the thoroughness of what took place when adam ate the 'apple'. no area of life was unaffected.
Assyrian: That goes way beyond anything mentioned in the curse in Gen 3. The bible never says animal death is the result of the fall, let alone radioactive decay or the death of stars.
Archie: again you limit your understanding to justify believing that which is not of God. your extrapolation and interpretation need much work.
Assyrian: Assertions and accusations rather than argument.
Archie: staements of fact and observation. i wouldn't accuse unless i knew it was true.
Assyrian: You will have to come up with more than claims of telepathic insight into my motives.

Your argument seems to have fizzed out in unsupported adhoms. But I must say it is an interesting tactic of yours, wait for a thread to die and then claim you have won. Yeah right.

Nooj · Jul 14, 2007

it is unacceptable because there is no purpose for such an action. it diminishes God and His abilities, opening Him to mocking and other unsavory characteristics.

Let God speak for himself. You are a human. How would you know God's purpose in his actions? Who are you to say what diminishes or mocks God?

archaeologist · Jul 14, 2007

Let God speak for himself. You are a human. How would you know God's purpose in his actions? Who are you to say what diminishes or mocks God?

God speaks through humans or they would never hear the truth.

Your argument seems to have fizzed out in unsupported adhoms. But I must say it is an interesting tactic of yours, wait for a thread to die and then claim you have won. Yeah right

no, i disagree with your definition of creating with age. it doesn not solely mean creating with wear and tear or with history.

i see in your argument you appealed to TE's so if that isn't circulaar reasoning nothing is-- 'it is true because i say it is so and if you still doubt me, ask my buddies...'

that wasn't even worth responding to

use your science to determine the effects of The Fall, please feel free to examine it from all aspects. compare the pre-wall world with the post and see the difference.

{i know you won't because it is easier to make up stuff and try to fit the evidence to that than it is to simply believe God}

i do no tthink you can get it much clearer thanwhen Paul said, 'by one man sin...death... entered into the world'.

it is quite clear that you have a problem with the way God wrote the Bible but the answers are right there if you are willing to listen to the bible.

Assyrian · Jul 14, 2007

Sorry, was there an argument there? This thread is dead you weren't been able to address the issues when we were discussing them. Go on to something new.

archaeologist · Jul 14, 2007

why? i haven't seen a decent rebuttal yet, with legitimate and credible sources linked.

is creating with age deceptive?

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency