Jesus created old wine, why not old earth?

[California Tim]

Tell me, do you think it's wrong to accept Germ Theory since scientists previously thought that it was demons that caused diseases, then it was bacteria, then it soon included viruses, and will soon include prions? Will we ever go back to believing demons cause diseases?

I have absolutely no problem with any "theory" that offers an explanation concurrent with any Biblical account of the same issue whenever one exists. Since the Bible never claimed demons did the dirty work of germs, the germ theory is fine, useful, and even enlightens us further on the magnificance of God's intricate design. However the Bible is clear on the matter of creation and if all the scientists in the world united to declare anyone opposed to evolution, and the old earth is mentally incompetent, then I'd volunteer for a size 42 straight-jacket. As far as I am concerned, and much to the chagrin of the self-proclaimed intellectual elite, IF the Bible told me the sky was made of blue cheese, I'd believe it and any hypthesis to the contrary would be in error, no matter the supposed "scientific evidence against it. That is the level of my faith in the accuracy and reliability of God's written word to us. I know that no true knowledge will ever be able to contradict it ... and that's the kind of faith the intellectuals cannot stomach.

 

[dunkel]

I have absolutely no problem with any "theory" that offers an explanation concurrent with any Biblical account of the same issue whenever one exists. Since the Bible never claimed demons did the dirty work of germs, the germ theory is fine, useful, and even enlightens us further on the magnificance of God's intricate design. However the Bible is clear on the matter of creation and if all the scientists in the world united to declare anyone opposed to evolution, and the old earth is mentally incompetent, then I'd volunteer for a size 42 straight-jacket. As far as I am concerned, and much to the chagrin of the self-proclaimed intellectual elite, IF the Bible told me the sky was made of blue cheese, I'd believe it and any hypthesis to the contrary would be in error, no matter the supposed "scientific evidence against it. That is the level of my faith in the accuracy and reliability of God's written word to us. I know that no true knowledge will ever be able to contradict it ... and that's the kind of faith the intellectuals cannot stomach.

So because the Bible says that bats are birds, we should not bother using modern classification techniques to more accurately classify them as mammals? It's ok to classify other animals however the modern techniques say we should, as long as they're not already classified in the Bible, I guess...but if it's already listed in the Bible as being a certain type of animal, all further inquiry should cease?

 

[random_guy]

I have absolutely no problem with any "theory" that offers an explanation concurrent with any Biblical account of the same issue whenever one exists. Since the Bible never claimed demons did the dirty work of germs, the germ theory is fine, useful, and even enlightens us further on the magnificance of God's intricate design. However the Bible is clear on the matter of creation and if all the scientists in the world united to declare anyone opposed to evolution, and the old earth is mentally incompetent, then I'd volunteer for a size 42 straight-jacket. As far as I am concerned, and much to the chagrin of the self-proclaimed intellectual elite, IF the Bible told me the sky was made of blue cheese, I'd believe it and any hypthesis to the contrary would be in error, no matter the supposed "scientific evidence against it. That is the level of my faith in the accuracy and reliability of God's written word to us. I know that no true knowledge will ever be able to contradict it ... and that's the kind of faith the intellectuals cannot stomach.

I guess from this, there's really no debate possible. You believe in a literal translation of the Bible, and no evidence will ever convince you otherwise. However, I find it funny that you believe that scientists acting lockstep in accepting a 4.5 billion year old Earth, determined from evidence, is bad when you find nothing wrong about your position.

 

[vossler]

But it is testable. You can measure radioactive decay rates. Did you not read the link? It talks about the history of how measurements are made.

You're idea of testable and mine are obviously quite different. Yes, I read the link and I didn't find anything I haven't read before. We've still got man who's been around for less than 10,000 years determining the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years from information only within the last 200 years. That takes an awful lot of faith, too bad its so misguided.

And we see the affects of time, also. Remember, space and time are linked, and if we can measure space, we can measure time. Just like we don't get out a rule to measure the distance to the stars, we don't get out a stopwatch to measure the time of the creation of the Earth.

Again, I think its quite hubris of us to think we can accurately measure something like the past; something we have no direct knowledge of yet will state emphatically we know. Incredible!

Instead of throwing out quotes, why not actually try to address the evidence?

The quote was there to provide a mindset of how evolutionists think. It's no stretch to say that those type of thoughts are unique to this individual. As far as the evidence, all I can say is what evidence? Do you have observational empirical evidence that proves anything? If so please do tell. The thing is you don't. What you have are a bunch of theories based on a lot of guesstimation. Certainly not empirical or observational. But even if you did I agree with Tim would say it doesn't matter because the Bible says otherwise and that's all that matters.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

If you read John 2:1-11, Jesus creates wine from water. The master of the banquet said "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."

We know that the older the wine is, the better it tastes. (well, not from experience personally =P)

So why is it easy to beleive that Jesus can create aged wine, but God couldn't have created an old earth? Everyone seems caught up in all this well creation this evolution that, maybe 7 days weren't really 24 hour days blah blah.

Why is it so hard to beleive that God is powerfull enough to create the earth in 7 days (ok technically 6 if 1 was resting)? And why is it so hard to beleive that God is powerfull enough to create an earth that has old trees or old rocks on it? Just because the trees we plant start out small and grow slowly doesn't mean God has to follow the same rules.

Read John 2:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=2&version=31

I wouldn't say that the wine was old just because it was good. A new wine can be better than an old wine, and a really old wine won't taste good at all.

I would call this new wine.

 

[California Tim]

You believe in a literal translation of the Bible, and no evidence will ever convince you otherwise.

Correction: I believe in a literal translation of the creation account. I have no doubt the Bible contains BOTH literal and figurative language. However the Bible testifies to itself that the Genesis account is considered a literal historical narrative.

 

[random_guy]

You're idea of testable and mine are obviously quite different. Yes, I read the link and I didn't find anything I haven't read before. We've still got man who's been around for less than 10,000 years determining the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years from information only within the last 200 years. That takes an awful lot of faith, too bad its so misguided.

So you believe that new scientific methods formed from learning more information is bad? Finding new methods that also collerate closely with the 4.5 billion years means nothing since it's new?

Again, I think its quite hubris of us to think we can accurately measure something like the past; something we have no direct knowledge of yet will state emphatically we know. Incredible!

So using science to determine what happened at a crime seen is hubris, also? Even though we had evidence from the crime scene, it's hubris to form a theory about what happened since we weren't there. The Earth leaves a lot of evidence of it's age, and we can use the evidence to estimate the age of the Earth. Both forensic science and geology work using the scientific method.

If anything, it's hubris to assume something is wrong without ever studying the material.

The quote was there to provide a mindset of how evolutionists think. It's no stretch to say that those type of thoughts are unique to this individual. As far as the evidence, all I can say is what evidence? Do you have observational empirical evidence that proves anything? If so please do tell. The thing is you don't. What you have are a bunch of theories based on a lot of guesstimation. Certainly not empirical or observational. But even if you did I agree with Tim would say it doesn't matter because the Bible says otherwise and that's all that matters.

I'm sorry, what part of radioactive dating isn't empirical? It seems that Creationists seem to have the same mindset.

IF the Bible told me the sky was made of blue cheese, I'd believe it and any hypthesis to the contrary would be in error, no matter the supposed "scientific evidence against it.

No matter what evidence exists, no matter what science says, anything that going against a Creationists' belief is always in error.

 

[California Tim]

So because the Bible says that bats are birds, we should not bother using modern classification techniques to more accurately classify them as mammals? It's ok to classify other animals however the modern techniques say we should, as long as they're not already classified in the Bible, I guess...but if it's already listed in the Bible as being a certain type of animal, all further inquiry should cease?

You miss the point. I submit that any further inquiry will ultimately line up with those issues addressed (facts already declared) in the Bible. Further inquiry is not harmful, and serves a valuable purpose of validating the scripture and glorifying God's magnificance as demonstrated throughout creation or identifying man's own limitations where knowledge is concerned.

If there is an "absolute truth" for the athiest it would be found in the as yet undiscovered "theory of everything" or unifying theory. Once found, they submit that it testifies to its own truth, in otherwords, all empirical evidence becomes SUBSERVIENT to that unifying theory. Put another way, the "theory of everything" should it exist, is the acid test by which all evidence, all physical law is measured and proved. The empirical evidence doesn't create this theory, but when properly analyzed, fits the laws governed by the theory.

Fortunately, for Christians like you and me, we do not have an "undiscovered" theory of everything. Our unifying "theory", the source of all universal law is God Himself. That is the missing piece (the Holy Grail of knowledge) the humanistic approach to analyzing the evidence lacks in order to comprehend its meaning. By denying God's sovereignty a role in analyzing evidence we see a fruitless and often diabolical fanaticism when it comes to elevating incomplete theory or conjecture to the status of reliable refutation or even guidance in the interpetation of scripture. If it were, then it would stand to reason that ancient cultures could not have discerned the meaning of scripture due to inferior scientific knowledge -which of course contradicts what God said of His word.

I suggest the following order when deciding the priority of knowledge in this area:

1. Decide if the Bible is God's innerrant message to the world.
2. Decide if the author of Genesis intended narrative history or figurative interpretation. (this can be done within the Bible itself)
3. Analyze the empirical evidence in light of this revelation.

To recap: If Scripture is indeed God's innerrant message, preserved in translation and reliable in matters disclosed, and if the Genesis account is declared within it to be a narrative historical account of God's creative method, then the empirical evidence will fit that framework when properly analyzed. It's that simple. God's word is not suservient to any empirical evidence, but the other way around. His word is the "theory of everything".

 

[ebia]

However the Bible testifies to itself that the Genesis account is considered a literal historical narrative.

No it doesn't.

You miss the point. I submit that any further inquiry will ultimately line up with those issues addressed (facts already declared) in the Bible. Further inquiry is not harmful, and serves a valuable purpose of validating the scripture and glorifying God's magnificance as demonstrated throughout creation or identifying man's own limitations where knowledge is concerned.

If you are only prepared to accept evidence that supports (your understanding) of scripture, and insist on declaring invalid all evidence that doesn't, it's absurd to then claim that the evidence validates scripture.

I suggest the following order when deciding the priority of knowledge in this area:

1. Decide if the Bible is God's innerrant message to the world.

No. Christ is.

2. Decide if the author of Genesis intended narrative history or figurative interpretation. (this can be done within the Bible itself)

Myth.

To recap: If Scripture is indeed God's innerrant message, preserved in translation and reliable in matters disclosed,

It's not.

and if the Genesis account is declared within it to be a narrative historical account of God's creative method,

It's not.

His word is the "theory of everything".

His Word is Christ.

 

[ebia]

I cannot believe, you, a Christian, would ask this!

Why? Is God scared of people asking questions too?

I don't know why people want to take this kind of stance against God.

It's not a stance against God, it's a stance against people not thinking through the consequences of what they say.

 

[Scholar in training]

You are certainly right about that. With the historical track record of unreliability and its ever changing state of flux, the scientific community has painted itself into a corner where statistical fact is concerned and the kind of faith that must be exercised in it when countering Biblical doctrine is in a league of its own.

I take it you would prefer science to be entirely static and unchanging. Note that this means going back to geocentrism and a flat earth, among other things.

 

[Critias]

So because the Bible says that bats are birds, we should not bother using modern classification techniques to more accurately classify them as mammals? It's ok to classify other animals however the modern techniques say we should, as long as they're not already classified in the Bible, I guess...but if it's already listed in the Bible as being a certain type of animal, all further inquiry should cease?

Let me ask you, why do you think the Bible talks about birds and adds in a bat in the sub-category?

Do you think it might possibly be because the word 'owph means all flying creatures? It can even be used for insects as well as birds.

 

[Critias]

Why? Is God scared of people asking questions too?


It's not a stance against God, it's a stance against people not thinking through the consequences of what they say.

No, it seems you have a problem with God if He chooses to glorify Himself.

 

[vossler]

So you believe that new scientific methods formed from learning more information is bad? Finding new methods that also collerate closely with the 4.5 billion years means nothing since it's new?

Here's the point, please don't miss it, God said it took 6 days. It wouldn't matter to me what new scientific methods were formed, it still wouldn't change that absolute truth.

So using science to determine what happened at a crime seen is hubris, also? Even though we had evidence from the crime scene, it's hubris to form a theory about what happened since we weren't there. The Earth leaves a lot of evidence of it's age, and we can use the evidence to estimate the age of the Earth. Both forensic science and geology work using the scientific method.

If anything, it's hubris to assume something is wrong without ever studying the material.

Since the science you're speaking of #1 isn't against God's Word and #2 is in the present I would never see it as hubris.

I'm sorry, what part of radioactive dating isn't empirical? It seems that Creationists seem to have the same mindset.

Well to me empirical is a practical observation of an hypothesis. Too many assumptions are made to consider it empirical.

No matter what evidence exists, no matter what science says, anything that going against the Bible is always in error.

With that small fix to your quote you've got me pegged.

 

[dunkel]

Let me ask you, why do you think the Bible talks about birds and adds in a bat in the sub-category?

Do you think it might possibly be because the word 'owph means all flying creatures? It can even be used for insects as well as birds.

The word "owph" is a very tricky word. It can apparently mean different things, depending on the context and other descriptive words that accompany it. In Genesis 1:20, it is referring strictly to fowl or actual birds. As you pointed out, it can also refer to winged insects. As I said, context is important.

So, with that in mind, let's look at the context. The passage in question refers to the stork, heron, eagle, lapwing, etc. So what are we talking about here? Based on this context, what type of animal is being discussed? Insects? In this context, it appears that the author was talking about birds, especially considering that a whole seperate section is written to discuss other creatures that might get the "owph" descriptor, namely insects. More generally, are there any other passages in this part of Leviticus that mix animal types? When the author writes about fish, he mentions fish. When he is writing about mammals, he mentions only mammals. When he writes about insects, he mentions only insects. The trend is quite obvious.

With the rest of the verses making so much sense as they are, I think it is illogical to assume that the author would have broken form for this one particular creature. What is more likely is that the author, not having the benefit of modern science as we do, saw the bat flying through the air and mistakenly believed it to be a bird. And, really, why wouldn't you think so? Without examining a bat up close, it's a perfectly understandable thing to do. And considering that the passage in question is actually telling us that the bat is loathsome, what motivation would the author have to get close enough to a bat to figure out that it's not a bird after all?

Obviously, this is not the only possible answer. But it is the more logical answer, I believe.

It's the same basic idea with the cud-chewing hare problem. The hare definitely does not chew the cud. But there it is, in black and white, don't eat the hare that cheweth the cud. Now, we can go into all sorts of outlandish explanations about the hare eating his droppings, so this is kinda sorta like chewing the cud. Or, more logically, we can just say that if the author of Leviticus saw a hare munching away, it would appear to be chewing his cud, just like the cow does. And again, since the passage in question is actually telling us that the hare is unclean and that we should avoid it, what motivation would the author have to get close enough to the hare to see that, nope, he's not actually chewing his cud?

Again, this is merely the most logical solution, not the only solution. But, really, does it matter? Don't eat birds, don't eat rabbits. Ok, got it, let's not get hung up on the details.

 

[artybloke]

I cannot believe, you, a Christian, would ask this!

I don't know why people want to take this kind of stance against God.

You need a sense of humour transplant. It's obvious yours isn't working. Besides, you haven't answered the question. Why would God want to glorify himself?

 

[ebia]

No, it seems you have a problem with God if He chooses to glorify Himself.

Not at all.

And I'm also not concerned that God is going to get all huffy if someone asks why he would want to do that.

 

[Scholar in training]

However the Bible is clear on the matter of creation and if all the scientists in the world united to declare anyone opposed to evolution, and the old earth is mentally incompetent, then I'd volunteer for a size 42 straight-jacket.

Yes, it is quite clear when one is informed of the social context that the creation account in Genesis is myth. Someone who knew that the Bible (yes, the entire Bible) was written in a high-context society would know that they need to do extrabiblical research to better understand a doubtful passage's meaning.

I also want to point out that the word "myth" does not equal "untruth". That is your mistake (that "fact" and only "fact" equals "truth"), a mistake inherited from the Enlightenment, not from Christianity itself.

And for some reason (unbeknownst to me) you seem to think that a creation account intended as myth makes the Bible errant.

 

[ian90]

I get the feeling the point made in the orignal post has been lost.

Here's my reaction:

God makes wine that is indishtinguibale from wine that is one year old. We run tests on it and date the wine to be one years old. Even if these tests are infallible we are still wrong about the age of the wine. We are therefore also wrong in our assumption that dating has determined the age of the wine.

In the same way there's just no way we can confidently claim the world is 4.5 billion years old - only that it appears to us to be 4.5 billion years old.

Here is how I see the problem of coming to a conclusion on this:

VIEW ONE
If one reads the Bible and believes that the Earth is about 6-10 thousand years, but science shows that the Earth appears to be 4.5 billion years, then that person must hold to the view that God created an Earth with the appearance of age.

Of course science could be wrong with the dating, but I really struggle to believe that. If anything, I believe God creating an Earth with the appearance of age is more likely then scientists being completely unable to date something only a few thousand years old.

VIEW TWO
If another person reads the Bible and believes that the age of the Earth is indeterminate or very old, and science shows that the Earth appears to be 4.5 billions years old, then that person should have no problem reconciling the old earth view with the Bible.

I don't think science is really the key issue here - it's Biblical interpretation about the age of the Earth. If you take the second view believe the Earth to be old, it should be based on scriptural reasons, as I suspect Scholar in Training has done, and not scientific.

IF the Bible told me the sky was made of blue cheese, I'd believe it and any hypthesis to the contrary would be in error, no matter the supposed "scientific evidence against it. That is the level of my faith in the accuracy and reliability of God's written word to us. I know that no true knowledge will ever be able to contradict it.

No matter what evidence exists, no matter what science says, anything that going against the Bible is always in error.

YES!

Thank you declaring your faith in God's word so fearlessly. I agree with you and thank you in paticular for the time you take to post on here.

 

[artybloke]

No matter what evidence exists, no matter what science says, anything that going against the Bible is always in error.

No. The Bible isn't God.