Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The world was made habitable for Adam and his descendants, God did not make Adam wait for the trees to grow and bear fruit, or the stones to produce their weight for building, or the stars to show their light; Adam would not have survived nor would he have lived as long as he and the other ante-diluvian Patriarchs did
The formulations, such as the egg cell and the nutrients, existed before the child; yet still the actualization of a new human body happens uniquely at conception.
Well, regardless, do you understand the point I was trying to make?
The comparison isn't intended to justify deception but rather to highlight that the appearance of age or history does not inherently equate to deceit; embedded age is more about functionality and coherence within creation
Earlier you cited the passage about God sending a strong delusion to justify this scenario, and now you're saying you don't understand how anyone can see that as deceptive? Does that mean you don't think delusions are deceptive?
I honestly have no idea how you can say God creating starlight showing events that never actually occurred, trees with rings for years that never actually happened, ice cores and lake varves with layers for seasons that never happened, and manipulating a host of other things like isotope ratios, all to paint a false picture of an ancient universe and earth, isn't deceptive.
The embedded age/deceitful God advocates are jumping through all sorts of hoops and creating contrivance after contrivance to justify their made up scenarios.
I said this eariler, the world was made habitable for Adam and his descendants, God did not make Adam wait for the trees to grow and bear fruit, or the stones to produce their weight for building, or the stars to show their light; Adam would not have survived nor would he have lived as long as he and the other ante-diluvian Patriarchs did
So you agree with Apple Sky in saying that the world must have been made simply, and if it is beyond occam's razor, God couldn't have made it? I mean, did God prepare Christ in the lapsarian sense before time? Because that would be an example of God making something for the world and for humanity without allowing it to come to be until later; I mean, take blacksmithing for instance, do you think God made the geological process for Iron begin as Adam was roaming? These ores form over millions of years through geological processes like sedimentation and volcanic activity, so did Adam have to wait? No, Adam and his descendants were able to make things and build things immediately upon their exile, so did God drop iron out of the sky for Adam?
I had not gotten into the discussion taking the pro-embedded age stance yet, I was only pointing out a specific example of God sending a delusion in response to someone saying that God was not able to do so, which had nothing to do with the current point, but it is fair that I should have separated those into two points.
What is your view of creation? Do you think that all of this happened naturally over millions of years? If you are YEC, there is no way to say that God did not embed age, as to say that all the trees God made had no rings, the ores just began their processes, and everything was beginning as the first animals were created, what did they eat? Where did they go? Moreover, if the world took an evolutionary cycle, then if it took millions of years for the world to prepare itself for human life, then why did God create fish on a separate day than humans? You cannot logically say the days in Genesis were not all equal amounts of time, so then fish had millions of years to evolve, yet didn't? It says God made fish, not the evolutionary precursor to fish, but fully evolved fish and birds, therefore, they should have evolved into a superspecies far beyond what we know today as fish, yet they didn't
Again, the world was made habitable for Adam and his descendants, God did not make Adam wait for the trees to grow and bear fruit, or the stones to produce their weight for building, or the stars to show their light
So God lied, or at least did not tell the full truth? I have read much of the apocrypha, and works such as the Apocalypse of Abraham speak of God showing Abraham the beginning and the end upon his death, or Enoch and Elijah being taken up by God into heaven as humans, implying they were fully prepared to see the true face of God. These are examples of the incomprehensible being comprehensible to some in the time that you are implying was rife with primitive thinking and God had to essentially use a slideshow to explain things. I don't think God would dumb down His chosen people in such a way: "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law" (Deuteronomy 29:29). Would you say this is wrong, and the things [i.e., the wisdom/understanding] that were revealed did not last forever, only for a certain time until it was corrected?
No.
The core difference is that you read Genesis like it's a science paper or newspaper report that's about all the specifics of how God created everything. I see it very differently, with its poetic elements, its vagueness, its use of "Adam" in a way that's synonymous with "mankind", and how the people whose book it actually is (Jewish people) aren't young earthers, as all indicative of being about larger themes.
Okay thank you.
Yes.
Because I don't read it as a newspaper or science report.
Of course you can, since the sun and moon weren't created until the 4th day, which means some other measurement of "day" was used prior to that (assuming a literal translation).
It doesn't say how God made fish, which makes sense since it's not a science paper.
That's one interpretation among many.
Taking Genesis literally, nothing and nowhere is it said that the things made in creation were not fully actualized upon creation, in fact the opposite: "And He said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done." The hebrew for "bring forth the green herb and such as may seed" is עֵ֚שֶׂב מַזְרִ֣יעַ זֶ֔רַע. The literal hebrew of the verse is the herb yielding (מַזְרִ֣יעַ, maz-rî-a‘) seed. God did not say "being forth the seed that bring the herb" he says "the herb that yields seed," implying that the herb was created in its actualized state with seeds, therefore the entire maturing process for it was skipped. Moreover, the next verse says the same of the fruit tree, using the word עֹ֤שֶׂה (‘ō-śeh) instead of mazira. עֹ֤שֶׂה (‘ō-śeh)'s literal meaning is bearing, with the KJV interpreting it as "yielding" (for AV), meaning that the fruit tree was made already yielding the necessary seeds to produce more of itself, it did not have to go through the process of being a seed, then growing into the tree.
So what is your definition of earth as used in Genesis 1:1?
