is creating with age deceptive?

[theIdi0t]

Hi theIdi0t,
Hmmmm. Maybe I should display my faith icon or what ever you call it. It is the same as yours and so I accept completely what you say.

I just think you casually avoided the question.

Blessings,
FM

I thought I did answer your question. The six days are not symbolic of time, they are symbolic of order. Genesis creation is allegorical, not literal. (It seems that even some writers of scripture saw it as such, since numerous verses speak allegorically about the "Tree of Life, from Proverbs to Revelation.) Moses is tying in God's creation to what he already observes. He sees order in a seven day week, and uses that to symbolize God as one of order as well. Outside of Genesis, not a single writer of the Bible goes back to the 6 day time scale--shows you how much they cared for how long it took God to create us. Everything that is written in the Bible, is there because we had a question, no one in the time of Moses, to the time of the New Testament cared about God's time scale for creation, they cared about God revealing himself to them. They cared about the time God revealed himself to Mankind (Adam), not the time before.

 

[ForumMonk]

I thought I did answer your question. The six days are not symbolic of time, they are symbolic of order. Genesis creation is allegorical, not literal. (It seems that even some writers of scripture saw it as such, since numerous verses speak allegorically about the "Tree of Life, from Proverbs to Revelation.) Moses is tying in God's creation to what he already observes. He sees order in a seven day week, and uses that to symbolize God as one of order as well.

Hi,
Ohhh. Sorry as I thought you were trying to explain something much more profound than the symbolic link of the creation days to a God of order.

Well. Here is where we diverge, my brother. I do not believe the days of Genesis where symbolic, metaphorical, allegorical, or figurative. I'm sure we will have plenty of chances to explore this more in the future.

Blessings,
FM

 

[Mallon]

Fellow Posters,
I think one of the interesting points archaeologist made early on was, if God makes something a certain way, and tells you he made it, is it deception? For example, if I fashion a piece of furniture in an old style and try to pass it off to you as antique, that would be deception. But, if I tell you I made it, it is not deception.

Following that analogy, we may feel the need to ask God, "why did you make the world in such a such way" but we can not say to Him "why did you deceive us?".

I don't think God deceived us for a minute. I think God's creation attests to its genuine ancient age. It is only from a YEC point of view that I see a world created with false history as deceitful. I certaintly see no biblical basis for assuming God handed us an counterfit "antique" earth. I think He gave us the real thing!

 

[theIdi0t]

Fellow Posters,
Following that analogy, we may feel the need to ask God, "why did you make the world in such a such way" but we can not say to Him "why did you deceive us?".

Regards,

Well. Here is where we diverge, my brother. I do not believe the days of Genesis where symbolic, metaphorical, allegorical, or figurative. I'm sure we will have plenty of chances to explore this more in the future.
FM

Well, that is the thing ForumMonk. I can see Genesis as allegorical with or without evolution. The other TEs see it as allegorical as well, so did St. Augustine in the 1st century, as well as Philo of Alexandria. All of the TEs in this forum see the days as symbolic, metaphorical, allegorical, so this is where you diverge with all of us. I've already provided you an allegorical interpretation of Genesis two post back, and you seemed to imply that you agreed with it, but it stands where it does because it sees the symbols, not wood and leaves, but the spirit.

The TEs were just showing you one area of God's deception if Genesis was literal, but there are many areas that Genesis suffers when read literally. We who have seen it as allegorical, see no deception on God's part, but we tell those who try and tell us to read the account as literal as telling us that God deceives.

 

[crawfish]

Fellow Posters,
I think one of the interesting points archaeologist made early on was, if God makes something a certain way, and tells you he made it, is it deception? For example, if I fashion a piece of furniture in an old style and try to pass it off to you as antique, that would be deception. But, if I tell you I made it, it is not deception.

Following that analogy, we may feel the need to ask God, "why did you make the world in such a such way" but we can not say to Him "why did you deceive us?".

Regards,
FM

If you told me "Here is a piece of furniture I made" and it was from a kit you'd bought, would I be wrong for saying it was actually made in China? Or would you have been lying to me? Your statement would've been implying something completely different than what I implied. We were both right - the only way I could've been wrong is if I'd assumed you'd made it from scratch.

 

[ForumMonk]

I don't think God deceived us for a minute. I think God's creation attests to its genuine ancient age. It is only from a YEC point of view that I see a world created with false history as deceitful. I certaintly see no biblical basis for assuming God handed us an counterfit "antique" earth. I think He gave us the real thing!

Hi Mallon,
Of course you do, because you apparently believe in Old Earth Creationism and I am sure, based on the fact you have over 2000 posts, you've been through this discussion many times and so you know already, what the YEC will claim in rebuttal.

I don't think any Christian truly believes God deceived us. So really the issue is not one of deception, but rather perception based on ones world-view. The OEC will say God created an old earth because it took billions of years to create the earth. The YEC will say God created an old earth in one day, because there was really no other practical way he could have made it.

I see no end to this debate if it is framed in such a manner because it ultimately needs to address the real issue: OEC vs. YEC. And unfortunately, none were witnesses to the real story.

Best regards,
FM

 

[ForumMonk]

If you told me "Here is a piece of furniture I made" and it was from a kit you'd bought, would I be wrong for saying it was actually made in China?

lol
Hey crawfish,
You aren't allowed to change my analogy. Make one of your own.

Ok let me be specific. Lets say I planted an oak seed, waited 60 years for the tree to mature, cut it down, stripped the bark, sawed it into appropriate boards, and built a table from scratch. And because I have some really cool tools, I make a reproduction of a 150 year old Shaker night stand, because it suits my intended purpose....

You get the point. I wouldn't be deceiving you.

Blessings,
FM

 

[theIdi0t]

Hi Mallon,
Of course you do, because you apparently believe in Old Earth Creationism and I am sure, based on the fact you have over 2000 posts, you've been through this discussion many times and so you know already, what the YEC will claim in rebuttal.

We don't believe in OEC, we don't try and say the days are really in the millions, that is not what a TE believes. There is a big difference between an OEC and a TE. We don't try to fit our perspective as OEC as well as YECs do into a stretched out literal reading of Genesis.

This is going to be a stumbling block for you until you understand the difference between a TE and OEC, I believe I told you our position in a few posts.

lol
Ok let me be specific. Lets say I planted an oak seed, waited 60 years for the tree to mature, cut it down, stripped the bark, sawed it into appropriate boards, and built a table from scratch. And because I have some really cool tools, I make a reproduction of a 150 year old Shaker night stand, because it suits my intended purpose....

Where does the Bible tell us God's purpose was to make the Earth seem older than a few thousand years? I might as well just say the devil used his power to make the earth seem older to deceive us, since both positions do not come from the Bible, they are both fair don't you think?

 

[gluadys]

the earth only looks old if you look at it with an evolutionary mindset. if you accept that God created a mature earth (not actually having age) there was the fall which radically changed creation and the universal flood which radically changed creation, then there's no reason to think its any older than the Bible tells us.

However the Bible nowhere tells us that either the fall or the flood radically changed creation.

 

[crawfish]

lol
Hey crawfish,
You aren't allowed to change my analogy. Make one of your own.

Ok let me be specific. Lets say I planted an oak seed, waited 60 years for the tree to mature, cut it down, stripped the bark, sawed it into appropriate boards, and built a table from scratch. And because I have some really cool tools, I make a reproduction of a 150 year old Shaker night stand, because it suits my intended purpose....

You get the point. I wouldn't be deceiving you.

Blessings,
FM

I guess it depends on the original intent of the message. Was he really saying how he did it, or was he putting it in simple terms for a technologically simple people to understand?

 

[seekingmyLord]

Ah, perhaps, and God wasn't aware that we'd take it so seriously. The world is not a few billion years old, the evidence is just designed to look like it is, because God like a painter wanted to give his creation an age like finish.

Do you see the problem with comparing a painter who draws with age, and creator who creates with age? The woman on a painting will never wonder about her age, the woman who was created will.

Actually, I do I see a great many problems with arguing over when and how the universe was created, but it doesn't stop people from picking apart each post they see with an opposing view.

First of all, I tend to err on the literal side of the Bible--if that is err--because that is the same way a child would accept it and, even if I am completely wrong in believing in YEC, at least I have been wrong because I have faith enough to believe that God could have done it that way. Whether He did or not is not as important to me, as believing He could have. Just ask any father about whether he feels more honor that his child believes he can do nearly anything compared to a child believes his father cannot do things. I try to always err on the side that I believe would give God the most honor. (I am sure there are opposing views on how I should do that, too.)

I never get into the argument of the how and when of Creation, I only wonder why Christians, who are in training here (in a way) to spend eternity together and with God tend to get into these silly arguments like they know better than the other one about how and when the universe was created, when God is the only One who really knows! Recently, one man accused me of bearing a false witness against the Lord because I did not believe in theist evolution! What arrogance the whole Creation argument seems to bring out in Christians on all sides of it! Honestly, folks, it is like watching a bunch of children in a sandbox. Entertaining for some, perhaps, but largely a waste of time.

I would think those in service for the Lord would have more to do for Him within His creation than to argue with each other about how all in creation came to be.

Just a thought. . .

 

[Mallon]

I never get into the argument of the how and when of Creation, I only wonder why Christians, who are in training here (in a way) to spend eternity together and with God tend to get into these silly arguments like they know better than the other one about how and when the universe was created, when God is the only One who really knows!

I share your feelings, seekingmyLord. Though as far as I am concerned (and I think I speak on behalf of most evolutionary creationists here), my beef is not with what YECs believe, but with their abuse of the word "science" as though it somehow substantiates their faith. Believe what you want -- that's your perogative in a free country! But don't try to convince the world that your views are scientifically sound in an effort to gain converts!

Recently, one man accused me of bearing a false witness against the Lord because I did not believe in theist evolution! What arrogance the whole Creation argument seems to bring out in Christians on all sides of it!

I know how you feel. I was recently refused holy communion in my own church after my pastor found out that I was not a YEC!

 

[Tinker Grey]

First of all, I tend to err on the literal side of the Bible--if that is err--because that is the same way a child would accept it and, even if I am completely wrong in believing in YEC, at least I have been wrong because I have faith enough to believe that God could have done it that way.

You should be aware that this is the Christian portion of CF. Anyone arguing here DOES believe that God could have done it that way.

What TEs argue is that God did NOT do it that way. The claim is that the physical evidence that God left for us to freely examines tells us otherwise.

Regardless of my last paragraph, the point is we all, here, have faith that God could have done it that way.

Whether He did or not is not as important to me, as believing He could have. Just ask any father about whether he feels more honor that his child believes he can do nearly anything compared to a child believes his father cannot do things. I try to always err on the side that I believe would give God the most honor. (I am sure there are opposing views on how I should do that, too.)

I'd rather not have my child believe things I cannot do -- nor believe I did things that I did not do.

It is no honor to have my child deceived.

I never get into the argument of the how and when of Creation, I only wonder why Christians, who are in training here (in a way) to spend eternity together and with God tend to get into these silly arguments like they know better than the other one about how and when the universe was created, when God is the only One who really knows! Recently, one man accused me of bearing a false witness against the Lord because I did not believe in theist evolution! What arrogance the whole Creation argument seems to bring out in Christians on all sides of it! Honestly, folks, it is like watching a bunch of children in a sandbox. Entertaining for some, perhaps, but largely a waste of time.

Sometimes discussion of the subject matter at hand elucidates the qualities of God.

Sometimes, though most of us have not switched sides, we've actually fostered friendships and respect.

If nothing else, I think we'll have discussions in heaven. I rather suspect that God isn't going to fill our brains with all there is to know. That is, I think there will remain things to learn.

What we accomplish here is learning how to learn -- from each other.

I would think those in service for the Lord would have more to do for Him within His creation than to argue with each other about how all in creation came to be.

Just a thought. . .

See above.

 

[busterdog]

Only under YEC reasoning is God at fault for being deceptive.

You can say our current science is wrong - and you might be right - but it's pretty much like putting a puzzle together and seeing a bunny rabbit in a green field, only to have it change to a black starscape when you put the last few pieces in. In other words, the preponderance of evidence is far too great to assume that one or two items will show things to be utterly different.

OK. Either way, we are not taling about whether God is "lying" or deceving anyone based on how the earth appears. We are talking about proving the age of the Earth with a preponderance of the evidence. (Though, I think you mean the absence of reasonable doubt. Preponderance is 51% or better.) That's fine. If we can put a stake through the heart of the deception argument, that's great.

I'm probably not allowed to ask how many times she's turned 29... ]

Touche. Good one. (Except now you are in trouble for only questioning the woman about lying about her age! )

 

[crawfish]

Actually, I do I see a great many problems with arguing over when and how the universe was created, but it doesn't stop people from picking apart each post they see with an opposing view.

First of all, I tend to err on the literal side of the Bible--if that is err--because that is the same way a child would accept it and, even if I am completely wrong in believing in YEC, at least I have been wrong because I have faith enough to believe that God could have done it that way. Whether He did or not is not as important to me, as believing He could have. Just ask any father about whether he feels more honor that his child believes he can do nearly anything compared to a child believes his father cannot do things. I try to always err on the side that I believe would give God the most honor. (I am sure there are opposing views on how I should do that, too.)

I never get into the argument of the how and when of Creation, I only wonder why Christians, who are in training here (in a way) to spend eternity together and with God tend to get into these silly arguments like they know better than the other one about how and when the universe was created, when God is the only One who really knows! Recently, one man accused me of bearing a false witness against the Lord because I did not believe in theist evolution! What arrogance the whole Creation argument seems to bring out in Christians on all sides of it! Honestly, folks, it is like watching a bunch of children in a sandbox. Entertaining for some, perhaps, but largely a waste of time.

I would think those in service for the Lord would have more to do for Him within His creation than to argue with each other about how all in creation came to be.

Just a thought. . .

If only it were that simple. I, too, believe it doesn't matter how creation happened. However, I deal with people who won't accept Christianity if they feel they have to give up their rational belief of evolution/creation and accept the bible's version. They feel that if one is a lie, then it must be the one that isn't attested to by evidence. I think it's a shame that this mistaken view would keep someone from Christ; so I feel it's important to show that there is an alternative.

However, I will continue to stress that all the Christians here are my brothers and sisters and I'd defend all of 'em against the enemy if called.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I know how you feel. I was recently refused holy communion in my own church after my pastor found out that I was not a YEC!

[aside]
Wow. Can that be appealed to a bishop or something?
[/aside]

 

[ForumMonk]

This is going to be a stumbling block for you until you understand the difference between a TE and OEC, I believe I told you our position in a few posts.

Hi theIdi0t,
Yes, I tend to generalize at times. Perhaps I must avoid the generalization that one who believes the earth is old is OEC. But I think its fair to say that the majority of TE believe the evidence indicates a 4.5 billion y.o. earth. Whereas, OEC find scriptural evidence for it.

Where does the Bible tell us God's purpose was to make the Earth seem older than a few thousand years?...

It doesn't. There are many things the Bible does not tell us. However, it does tell us much about God's purpose with respect to how he wishes to provide and care for us. We can assume, that because the earth is as it is, (whether perceived old or literally multi-billions of years) it serves God's purpose to be that way.

Regards,
FM

 

[archaeologist]

answering mallon

I share your feelings, seekingmyLord. Though as far as I am concerned (and I think I speak on behalf of most evolutionary creationists here), my beef is not with what YECs believe, but with their abuse of the word "science" as though it somehow substantiates their faith. Believe what you want -- that's your perogative in a free country! But don't try to convince the world that your views are scientifically sound in an effort to gain converts!

all you are sayng here is that your way of science is correct and theirs is wrong.

you have defined science in a manner that it can only be done your way only. sounds close-minded, bias, narrow-minded and unwilling to look at all the data or theories.

kind of hypocritical don't you think?

 

[archaeologist]

also it seems to undermine your claim of searching for the truth.

 

[Mallon]

all you are sayng here is that your way of science is correct and theirs is wrong.

There is only one way of doing science and that is via the scientific method. YECs do not do science because they do not follow the scientific method. They start with the conclusion that Genesis is literal, and then work backwards, cherry-picking facts to support that conclusion. Even AiG attests to this. You can read about it on their website. Heck, even the late Henry Morris attested to this.

you have defined science in a manner that it can only be done your way only. sounds close-minded, bias, narrow-minded and unwilling to look at all the data or theories.

kind of hypocritical don't you think?

Sorry, archaeologist, but you lost the ability to judge bias, close-mindedness, and hypocrisy when you said:

"i have 4 degrees hanging on my wall and i have been considering getting a fifth and yet i still reject secular science's conclusions, theories and methods because they omit God, go in the wrong direction and give credit for God's work to something that never existed."