Theological Question for Young Earth.

[miamited]

Hi again sanoy,

If I may expound a bit more on some of the current understanding of man concerning the world in which we live and the universe in which we live. Most, if not all dating methods, explain the age of the universe merely on the light of the stars. We have the speed at which light travels, which we then multiply/divide by the distance that we believe stars to be from us, which gives us a calculation of how long that star must have been out there for us to now, today, see that star with our eyes. But God has played with the light of stars a few times throughout the account of the old covenant Scriptures. The sun is the closest star to us and there was a time that God's word declares that all of the land of Egypt was in utter and complete darkness for three whole days. A darkness that could be felt. So, I think it reasonably clear to understand that such darkness didn't come about because there were thick clouds covering the sun. Even during the recent eclipse when, for some areas of the world, the moon was completely blocking all direct sunlight's ability to reach the earth, in the most center parts of that swath of total coverage, it was only an early evening kind of darkness. One could clearly see all around them. I happen to live in South Carolina where the total eclipse was experienced and it was not midnight dark. It was merely early evening dark.

I have been through some hurricanes and other storms in which huge thunder heads of clouds completely covered the expanse for miles and miles above me and rain was pelting down and still the darkness created by such cloud cover is only early evening darkness. One can easily see to walk around at noon on any given day no matter how much cloud cover or moon blocking is provided against the light of our sun. Yet the account of the darkness in Egypt says that for three days the land of Egypt was pitched into pretty total darkness. It is described as a darkness so deep that people couldn't see one another out and about. But that's not really the most amazing aspect of the darkness that covered Egypt! We are told that in the land of Goshen, which is really not much more than a suburb of Egypt proper, that for those same three days they enjoyed pretty normal sunlight.

Truly, the only explanation that I can come up with is that God was able to command that the light of the sun did not reach the parameters ascribed to the land of Egypt, but the rays of light of the sun easily and normally reached the land of Goshen. Not only that, but He somehow even kept any reflective light out of the area of Egypt. When the eclipse came upon us, it was really reflective and refracted light that kept the area of total eclipse from being pitch black. You could stand and look about you and see a sort of sunrise effect all around the area of the total eclipse which was light that was reflected and refracted by our atmosphere. Hence, it never achieved total midnight blackness while the sun was high in the sky. But God was able to make it a deep darkness that covered the land of Egypt that was so dark that people couldn't see one another walking about. The only way God could have achieved that was not through some natural phenomenon, but the power and command of God over light.

At the crucifixion of our Lord we are told that a darkness came over the whole of the land in the middle of the afternoon. It lasted for three hours. Many people try to date the crucifixion based on eclipses that may have occurred in those early centuries. But a three hour darkness created by an eclipse is impossible. God created light and He created all that is in this realm and He has the power and authority over every natural thing that He created to cause it to operate in ways that science will openly tell you is impossible.

Just consider the fact that Mary had never had sexual relations with a man. That's what she told the angel who visited her. This was in a day when there was no medical science that would allow a woman to become pregnant through some manipulation of the reproductive process, such as invitro fertilization or some other kind of 'test tube' manipulation of a female egg and male sperm. 2,000 years ago the only way a woman became pregnant was that she had sexual relations with a man and his [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] would fertilize her egg in her uterus. Science will tell you that's impossible! There is not a single scientifically proven method by which a woman 2,000 years ago became pregnant in any other manner. Even today, a woman cannot become pregnant without somehow introducing male human sperm into a female human egg. While it can be done outside the uterus, it still requires those basic building blocks.

So, when people try to explain to me that science proves this and science proves that, or that science denies this or that being possible in the natural realm, I agree wholeheartedly...unless God is a part of the equation. If God wants to sweep his hand, so to speak, across the expanse of the universe and at the very moment of each stars coming to be have its light visible upon the earth. I got no problem with that! He is, after all, the God of the impossible. The Scriptures declare that with God, nothing is impossible.

So, for me, when God's word gives an account of some event that the natural processes of things would preclude there being such a possibility, I just sit back and think, how very, very awesome is our God.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Jamsie]

The problem with this idea, also known as embedded age or appearance of age, is that it makes God a deceiver.

I agree with this and believe that Romans 1:20 confirms this. Science is the discipline that gives us understanding "from what has been made". Most would agree that the Bible was not intended to be a detailed book of science. However, where those instances that science comes into play it would be wise to give critical thought to our interpretations.

One might consider questioning what Genesis actually states. How did God create? Is there a clear time frame involved in Genesis? The questions for Christians is not DID God create but rather HOW did God create... and I believe Genesis clearly offers views other than a specific finite time and a 6 day completion.

 

[2tim_215]

Wha? God a deceiver? How? And how does Romans 1:20 prove this? You need to look at this verse in context:
Romans 1:20-23(KJV)
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
How is it that He says the invisible things of the world are clearly seen deception and as a result should be understood by things that are made (which includes humans)?

"One might consider questioning what Genesis actually states. How did God create? Is there a clear time frame involved in Genesis? The questions for Christians is not DID God create but rather HOW did God create... and I believe Genesis clearly offers views other than a specific finite time and a 6 day completion."
Why do we need to know how? He says what all He needs to say to us in Genesis. We either believe Him or we don't. What makes you think that if He tried explaining it to us we'd be able to comprehend. Look at all Science has done to try and figure it out and have come up short due to the obvious complexity in creating an entire universe and everything in it.

How can we (as finite human beings) expect to completely understand and comprehend the fullness of an infinite one? Seems to be an impossibility from a realistic standpoing.

 

[KWCrazy]

The problem with this idea, also known as embedded age or appearance of age, is that it makes God a deceiver.

Not in the least.
Everything created in the 6 days was in its mature form, including the tree, all the animals, man and the earth itself. Adam walked with God on as an adult on the day of his birth and spoke as an adult man. This is fully explained in the text you reject.

There are craters in the earth. You say they were created by meteor impacts over millions of years. They could well have been bubbles of molten rock that popped and formed that shape. God could have envisioned what a mature planet would look like and created that. We won't know until we see Him, and at that point none of it will matter.

Adam didn't have scars, save maybe one where he lost a rib.

It's not supposed to be easy. Faith is hard, especially when the Father lives in secret, forever hidden to those who do not seek Him.

 

[Jamsie]

What makes you think that if He tried explaining it to us we'd be able to comprehend. Look at all Science has done to try and figure it out and have come up short due to the obvious complexity in creating an entire universe and everything in it.

How can we (as finite human beings) expect to completely understand and comprehend the fullness of an infinite one? Seems to be an impossibility from a realistic standpoing.

I don't believe I stated that the "Theory of Everything" is even at hand nor ever within our grasp. One can take the negative view of science or one can at least admit how much knowledge we have gained from science. Give some consideration to just how much the myriad advances of science has changed your life, and at the very least a much clearer picture of the world and universe.

Again, you are misreading what has been said, just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we can't know somethings. Is not nature a part of the general revelation of God? Romans 1:20 speaks to God's handiwork - "understood by the things that are made.." and what do they reveal "His eternal power and Godhead (divine nature)". If God gave us the intellect and ability to reason yet these capabilities lead us in a false direction then...what?

“People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”

–Physicist Paul Davies

 

[Jamsie]

Not in the least. Everything created in the 6 days was in its mature form, including the tree, all the animals, man and the earth itself. Adam walked with God on as an adult on the day of his birth and spoke as an adult man. This is fully explained in the text you reject.

I'm not answering for Queller but would note the following. I do not reject the text at all but would only point to the fact that it is not what the scripture states. Where does the Bible state that everything was created in it's "mature form"?

 

[JackRT]

When you accept Genesis 1:1 , you can accept any other verse from Scriptures , because if God could create something from nothing , why he could not create it being for example alredy 4b year old ? When he created Adam , he did not create him as baby , why would world be created as baby aswell ? God could just create mature world just as created mature Adam .

There is a reason that the ha'adam was created mature in the Genesis myth ---- a baby ha'adam would have lain there and starved. For me, the authentic record of creation is written in the stones, the bones and the stars and it is only in the last few centuries that we have been able to read that record. The five creation stories in the Bible are human interpretations.

 

[KWCrazy]

I'm not answering for Queller but would note the following. I do not reject the text at all but would only point to the fact that it is not what the scripture states. Where does the Bible state that everything was created in it's "mature form"?

God created flocks of birds, not eggs.
God created trees bearing fruit.
God created whales in the ocean and fish in the sea.
God created a planet suitable to support life, and positioned the sun at the prefect distance to provide light and warmth.
Nowhere did God create eggs or saplings. The world was complete in six days, and living things reproduced after that by His command.

 

[2tim_215]

I don't believe I stated that the "Theory of Everything" is even at hand nor ever within our grasp. One can take the negative view of science or one can at least admit how much knowledge we have gained from science. Give some consideration to just how much the myriad advances of science has changed your life, and at the very least a much clearer picture of the world and universe.

Again, you are misreading what has been said, just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we can't know somethings. Is not nature a part of the general revelation of God? Romans 1:20 speaks to God's handiwork - "understood by the things that are made.." and what do they reveal "His eternal power and Godhead (divine nature)". If God gave us the intellect and ability to reason yet these capabilities lead us in a false direction then...what?

“People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”

–Physicist Paul Davies

Not taking a negative view of "Science", just some scientists who have an agenda based viewpoint, the agenda being to take a "negative view" of God. And as much as science has done for us, it's minuscule compared to what God's done for mankind (without God creating man, there is no science or scientists for that matter). And yes, we are told that nature reveals the "handiwork" of God and proves to us His existence. And He does give us the intellect to figure out what we are able to. We should be thankful for Him gifting us that ability, not claiming that he's a deceiver. The only deception here that I see is men deceiving themselves into believing something that isn't true.

 

[KWCrazy]

Not taking a negative view of "Science", just some scientists who have an agenda based viewpoint, the agenda being to take a "negative view" of God.

Science is the study of the physical world around us. It cannot confirm or deny the supernatural. It would be expected that Science would see a mature world as old, just as it would assert that Adam was a grown man that bad begun life many years ago as a baby. Science takes what is known and uses that to investigate the unknown. It's limitation is that it cannot account for anything supernatural. As such, the scientific date of the earth could not possibly under any circumstances align with the timeline given to us in the Bible. The question is, do you put your faith in the word of the Lord or in the science of man?

 

[Jamsie]

God created flocks of birds, not eggs.
God created trees bearing fruit.
God created whales in the ocean and fish in the sea.
God created a planet suitable to support life, and positioned the sun at the prefect distance to provide light and warmth.
Nowhere did God create eggs or saplings. The world was complete in six days, and living things reproduced after that by His command.

Would you agree that if we take a plain reading of Genesis 1 we clearly arrive at the salient point that the sole operative agency of creation was "And God said,..."? Christians do not deny God as the creator but only as to how, and perhaps when.

Genesis seems quite specific in that God spoke and creation followed his command. However, one does not derive "flocks of birds" from the spoken command of God, rather quite clearly "And God said, "..."So" or "and it was so..". God commanded the "water" and the "Land" it was not immediate creation but mediate, which is what the passage clearly states.

 

[Jamsie]

As such, the scientific date of the earth could not possibly under any circumstances align with the timeline given to us in the Bible. The question is, do you put your faith in the word of the Lord or in the science of man?

True, there couldn't be an alignment of the timelines because the Bible offers none. However, the assumption from the interpretation of 6,000 years (approx.) does not follow from the evidence, that is quite clear. It is not a question of Faith vs. science, that is a false dilemma. Nowhere in the Bible is a specific time frame given for creation, and a delicate reading would only lead one to conclude that there exist possibilities within the Genesis account. That God has given us the ability to reason says much about what we can know, what we can deny, and what rabbit holes some may seek to enter.

Objective science simply follows the evidence what various scientists seek to extend into the metaphysical realm is really not germane.

 

[2tim_215]

Would you agree that if we take a plain reading of Genesis 1 we clearly arrive at the salient point that the sole operative agency of creation was "And God said,..."? Christians do not deny God as the creator but only as to how, and perhaps when."

I don't believe we deny the above, we just know that it happened. Exactly when and how, no one knows. If you believe scientists belief of earths age (billions of years) then it must have been a long, long time ago. As for when man was created, that's another question mark, but again harking back to science and recorded human history, it appears to be 6000 and 10000 years ago of what we would consider civilized man. The "scientific fact" that this earth has been around for much longer than man has stands to reason. An infinite God would have been around eternity past and if so, does anyone think that He was just twiddling His fingers all that time before he decided to create man?

"Genesis seems quite specific in that God spoke and creation followed his command. However, one does not derive "flocks of birds" from the spoken command of God, rather quite clearly "And God said, "..."So" or "and it was so..". God commanded the "water" and the "Land" it was not immediate creation but mediate, which is what the passage clearly states.

How could you possibly know this? Were you there when it happened, whenever that was? I'm pretty sure that there were no scientists there at the time either to definitely say that was not the "method" He used.

 

[Queller]

Not in the least.
Everything created in the 6 days was in its mature form, including the tree, all the animals, man and the earth itself. Adam walked with God on as an adult on the day of his birth and spoke as an adult man. This is fully explained in the text you reject.

AS I have explained to you and others many, many times, there is a difference between embedded age and embedded history. You even deliberately chopped out the part of my post that you quoted that explains this.

There are craters in the earth. You say they were created by meteor impacts over millions of years. They could well have been bubbles of molten rock that popped and formed that shape.

Quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read. And I've had debates with dad, 57, and AV1611VET.

Or maybe I'm being uncharitable. It may just be that you are completely ignorant of the things you're trying to discuss and don't know any better.

God could have envisioned what a mature planet would look like and created that.

A mature planet does not have to have meteor impact craters. And thank you for making my point. If God created something unnecessary that implies history where none is needed, that makes him a deceiver.

We won't know until we see Him, and at that point none of it will matter.

Adam didn't have scars, save maybe one where he lost a rib.

My point exactly. The earth does have scars that can only be explained in the context of a long, real (not embedded) age.

It's not supposed to be easy. Faith is hard, especially when the Father lives in secret, forever hidden to those who do not seek Him.

I've sought Him. I accepted Him many years ago. It's why I know better than to think the earth is 6,000 years old.

 

[Jamsie]

How could you possibly know this? Were you there when it happened, whenever that was? I'm pretty sure that there were no scientists there at the time either to definitely say that was not the "method" He used.

God gave us reason and it seems quite clear as to what the text states, how does it not? Of course all of this is based on a person's interpretation of the Genesis account as to it being a historic narrative or poetry or metaphorical or what have you... It seems pretty clear if one reads with "sufficient delicacy" God sets forth mediate creation...the "water" is commanded not simply "Let there be birds, etc."

 

[KWCrazy]

Genesis seems quite specific in that God spoke and creation followed his command. However, one does not derive "flocks of birds" from the spoken command of God, rather quite clearly "And God said, "..."So" or "and it was so..". God commanded the "water" and the "Land" it was not immediate creation but mediate, which is what the passage clearly states.

In what world?
20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

This all happened on day 5. Every winged bird was created according to its kind, and all water dwellers according to their kind. All was done by the end of the fifth day. THAT is what the passage clearly states.

 

[KWCrazy]

Nowhere in the Bible is a specific time frame given for creation, and a delicate reading would only lead one to conclude that there exist possibilities within the Genesis account.

You mean if you ignore all that about the thirds day, the fourth day etc?
And if you ignore Exodus 20:11, transcribed by the finger of God?
Science cannot answer questions of origination. Origination of anything from nothing is precluded by natural law. Science cannot account for supernatural activity. God has allowed the devil to lie to the minds of many to see who will follow Him in faith and who will not.

 

[KWCrazy]

You even deliberately chopped out the part of my post...

Never would I do such a thing.... but in the interest in not encompassing a page of text. As you recall, I said Adam had no recorded scars. However, I'm pretty sure the trees would have had rings.

The stupidest thing I've ever read was the rejection of the Scriptures. You might throw in the dogmatic adherence to things your science teacher old you without ever questioning whether he had a clue about the declarative statements he made in ignorance. Maybe I'm being charitable and you seriously assume that you DO know things unknowable. Maybe you thought all craters were caused by impact.
Craters come in two flavors: those that aren’t caused by asteroids or comets, impact craters, are formed by powerful volcanic explosions.
Such outbursts can be violent enough that once the eruption is over, the volcano collapses in on its empty vacant magma chamber and forms a caldera, or volcanic crater.
Lake Toba in Sumatra, the largest volcanic structure on Earth, is an example of an enormous caldera that has filled with water over time.
Whereas volcanic craters arise from deep inside the planet, impact craters originate in outer space.
source
I included a link so you can contact NASA and tell them how ignorant they are.

A mature planet does not have to have meteor impact craters.

How many worlds have you made?
Let's defer to Corinthians 4:4
In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

AV said once that evolution will eventually become so entrenched that only a handful will not be deceived by Satan's lie. I'm pretty sure that's true. Your side will likely make a lot more inroads before the Lord returns.

I accepted Him many years ago.

On His terms or yours?
God man man in His image. We don't get to return the favor.
God said in Exodus 20:11 that He created the heavens and Earth and all that is in them in six days and rested on the seventh. God Himself carved that into the stone tablets. That's what the Scriptures tell us.

 

[Queller]

Never would I do such a thing.... but in the interest in not encompassing a page of text. As you recall, I said Adam had no recorded scars. However, I'm pretty sure the trees would have had rings.

Why? They don't need it. Tree rings are a record of the annual growth cycle of the tree. They show changes in environmental conditions throughout the life of the tree. A tree with tree rings that showed seasonal change would be deceptive as the tree did not experience those changes nor is that record of seasonal change necessary for the tree to have an "appearance of age".

The stupidest thing I've ever read was the rejection of the Scriptures.

I don't reject the Scriptures, just a literal interpretation of them that contradicts the evidence God left behind.

You might throw in the dogmatic adherence to things your science teacher old you without ever questioning whether he had a clue about the declarative statements he made in ignorance. Maybe I'm being charitable and you seriously assume that you DO know things unknowable. Maybe you thought all craters were caused by impact.

No, I just think that all meteor crater impacts were created by, you know, meteor impacts.

Craters come in two flavors: those that aren’t caused by asteroids or comets, impact craters, are formed by powerful volcanic explosions.

Such outbursts can be violent enough that once the eruption is over, the volcano collapses in on its empty vacant magma chamber and forms a caldera, or volcanic crater.
Lake Toba in Sumatra, the largest volcanic structure on Earth, is an example of an enormous caldera that has filled with water over time.
Whereas volcanic craters arise from deep inside the planet, impact craters originate in outer space.
source
I included a link so you can contact NASA and tell them how ignorant they are.

And they don't look anything alike to the trained eye.

How many worlds have you made?

The same amount as you.

Let's defer to Corinthians 4:4
In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

AV said once that evolution will eventually become so entrenched that only a handful will not be deceived by Satan's lie. I'm pretty sure that's true. Your side will likely make a lot more inroads before the Lord returns.

I certainly hope so. I want to bring doubting souls to Christ not turn them away as St Augustine warned some 1600 years ago.

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7"

On His terms or yours?

His.

God man man in His image. We don't get to return the favor.
God said in Exodus 20:11 that He created the heavens and Earth and all that is in them in six days and rested on the seventh. God Himself carved that into the stone tablets. That's what the Scriptures tell us.

Right because God couldn't have explained creation in terms men already understood, could he?

 

[Jamsie]

In what world?

I believe we are talking about this world, Earth, are we not?

This all happened on day 5. Every winged bird was created according to its kind, and all water dwellers according to their kind. All was done by the end of the fifth day. THAT is what the passage clearly states.

That is your interpretation, I disagree. What is clear is that passage does not say "And God said, Let there be living creatures, and let birds fly ..." but what the passage does say is let the Water teem/bring forth. Again, in verse 24 the command, as in verse 20, was directed at the "Land" to produce/bring forth. Unless one questions the efficacy of God's command then what follows would be explanatory. "So" or "it was so" begs the question what is "so"...obviously that the command was set in motion/process. It in no way diminishes the fact that God created, just how and that through water or land.