Why don't christians trust the biblical timeline?

Percivale

Sam
Supporter
Feb 13, 2012
924
206
Southern Indiana
✟122,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Ted, Peter didn't say who the wolves were, and I understood you to be calling anyone who believes the earth is more than 6000 years old a wolf. It is simply my desire for truth that led me to question the youthfulness of the earth.
Mark, by popular definition you don't take the word 'day' in Genesis literally. How do you define 'literal'?
I most definitely don't want to defend naturalism, I think it illogical as well as heresy.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Mark, by popular definition you don't take the word 'day' in Genesis literally. How do you define 'literal'?
I most definitely don't want to defend naturalism, I think it illogical as well as heresy.

Fair enough, a literal interpretation is warranted when the passage indicates actual events that happened in time and space. In the absence of figurative language, especially 'like' or 'as' the subject and verb are regarded as literal. The rules of Biblical interpretation are easy enough to understand until you start breaking the rules without knowing what they are. Origin wanted a figurative interpretation because he felt the literal was unhelpful, that's not a sound reason to dismiss the literal interpretation.

We most certainly can take 'day' literally, the passage emphasizes in strict terms that it is talking about literal days:

yôm (yome Strong's H3117 יום ) - From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially)

Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions יום:
1. day, time, year
a. day (as opposed to night)
b. day (24 hour period)
1. as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
2. as a division of time 1b​
c. a working day, a day's journey
d. days, lifetime (pl.)
e. time, period (general)
f. year
g. temporal references
1. today
2. yesterday
3. tomorrow​

The text gets to tell you whether or not the meaning is figurative or if it's a narrative. If it's a narrative then the literal interpretation is always preferred. If it's figurative you need something in the immediate context indicating that it is, the 'like' or 'as', and most importantly, two things have to be clearly compared.

I promise you this controversy has nothing to do with the length of days or the age of the earth, those are diversions. It's not so much when or how God created life that is an issue, it's whether or not God created at all. If you conclude an allegory you have just rejected a foundational doctrine of Christian and Jewish theism, that God is Creator.

Give it some thought and we can talk some more.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

Percivale

Sam
Supporter
Feb 13, 2012
924
206
Southern Indiana
✟122,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Mark, I do believe in creation, and do not think evolution could produce what we see and who we are. I don't get where you're coming from, are you arguing that the Bible supports young earth creation or not? Personally, I think the plainest reading of Genesis 1 does, but that it is not the only possible interpretation, so since science is clear on the age of the earth, one who values truth will adopt another interpretation, or doubt inerrancy. I'm not really sure which of those to go with. Let me emphasize, it is the age of the earth, not evolution, that I believe science has demonstrated conclusively. I am certain that evolution could not produce life or the human soul naturalistically, and doubt that it could produce any of the major kinds of animals.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Fair enough, a literal interpretation is warranted when the passage indicates actual events that happened in time and space. In the absence of figurative language, especially 'like' or 'as' the subject and verb are regarded as literal. The rules of Biblical interpretation are easy enough to understand until you start breaking the rules without knowing what they are. Origin wanted a figurative interpretation because he felt the literal was unhelpful, that's not a sound reason to dismiss the literal interpretation.

Judging by this post, your rules of Biblical interpretation are a hodgepodge of nonsense based on a complete lack of understanding of literary terms and a confusion of text with event.



We most certainly can take 'day' literally, the passage emphasizes in strict terms that it is talking about literal days:

Yes, we can, provided you understand that "literal" refers to the meaning given to the term by the author. It does not refer to whether the text is fictional or refers to actual events. In Genesis 1, the clear intent of the author is to refer to ordinary days and nights--what we would call 24-hour days (don't know it that division of the day was familiar to the author.)

But to deduce from his intended meaning of 'yom' that he was also referring to actual days in the history of the universe cannot be sustained on this basis. The days could be literary as well as literal. What they need not be is historical. But we see the confusion and conflation of 'literal' with 'historical' all the time in defense of a "literal" reading of Genesis 1. Almost the whole of Genesis 1 can be read literally. But it can still be considered a figurative account of the historical event of creation.



The text gets to tell you whether or not the meaning is figurative or if it's a narrative.

Here is another false dichotomy; as if a narrative could not be figurative. One does not have to choose between "figurative" or "narrative" when a text can be a figurative narrative. This is just a variation on the false notion that poetry is never a narrative (in fact if often is) and a narrative is never written poetically (some of the greatest narratives are epic poems.) Equally false is the notion that prose narrative always refers to actual events. Not at all true. Most novels are prose narratives. All the Harry Potter stories are, but no one would consider them to be about actual events.

Some novels are about actual events. But they are still novels, not history texts.



If it's a narrative then the literal interpretation is always preferred.

Why?
That is not a rule of interpretation. That is simply the dogma of literalists.


If it's figurative you need something in the immediate context indicating that it is, the 'like' or 'as', and most importantly, two things have to be clearly compared.

Your English teacher would be ashamed of you. Basically, you are taking one and only one of dozens of types of figurative language (a simile) and saying--if the passage is not a simile it is not figurative. Absolute nonsense. There are plenty of ways in addition to similes to be figurative. Especially in figurative narrative.



I promise you this controversy has nothing to do with the length of days or the age of the earth, those are diversions. It's not so much when or how God created life that is an issue, it's whether or not God created at all. If you conclude an allegory you have just rejected a foundational doctrine of Christian and Jewish theism, that God is Creator.

And still another false dichotomy. This is conflating the text about the event with the event itself. Choosing to read Genesis 1 as an allegory has nothing at all to do with one's belief in the actuality that God created this world and everything in it. Many people hold to the truth of the doctrine without finding it necessary to suppose Genesis 1-2 is anything other than a symbolic description of that historical event. No rejection of any foundational doctrine of Judeo-Christian theism has taken place.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ted, Peter didn't say who the wolves were, and I understood you to be calling anyone who believes the earth is more than 6000 years old a wolf. It is simply my desire for truth that led me to question the youthfulness of the earth.
Mark, by popular definition you don't take the word 'day' in Genesis literally. How do you define 'literal'?
I most definitely don't want to defend naturalism, I think it illogical as well as heresy.

Hi percivale,

Fair response. I define 'wolves', as I believe Peter also meant, to be those among us who do not know the truth and lead others astray by teaching that of which they have no knowledge. Yes, this would include anyone, even myself, who teaches something to be the truth, but isn't.

God has given us, I believe, a reasonably concise explanation of the days of creation. How long were they? They were days, each consisting of an evening and a morning, just like the days we enjoy today. When was this miraculous work of God performed? Five days prior to His creating the first man. How long ago was that? According to the genealogical record, about 6,000 years ago.

If God's explanation was as simple as He seems to have explained it to us through His Scriptures, then anyone who teaches something wildly different would not be teaching the truth, right? As I understand the Scriptures, both Jesus and John the baptist referenced those in Israel who were supposed to know the truth and teach the people, but did not, a brood of vipers.

If we put ourselves in the minds of these men that Jesus and John were speaking to and about, I believe we will find that they, like many today, believe that they know the truth. They believe within themselves that what they are teaching is the truth. I can't hardly imagine that any of the pharisees, scribes and elders of Israel went about teaching lies to the people and knew that they were teaching lies, or untruths if you will, about God. Yes, there may have been one or two who knew that they were trying to work some kind of agenda against God, but for these bodies of men as a whole, I believe that each one believed himself to be teaching the truth about God. Who He was; what He had done; what He is doing; the people's response to this God. They were called vipers. Peter was slightly less stunning in his word analogy and called these same people wolves.

However, I believe the ultimate understanding was that those who practiced such things were working to tear apart the kingdom of God. To put doubt in the minds of men regarding the simple teachings of their Creator and God. This is exactly what Satan did in the garden. God said that the day they would eat of the tree that they would surely die. Satan queried, "Did God really say..." So, we have a similar conversation going here. God said that He created this realm in 6 days and defined each day as consisting of an evening and a morning. Others are asking, "Did God really say..." or "Did God really mean..."

If God did miraculously and supernaturally spread out the earth and the heavens like someone laying out a scroll to be read in the time frame that He says He did (In more than one passage of the Scriptures); if He did just speak and whoosh physical forms appeared from nowhere, but just 'became' when God spoke for them to appear, and His children work to teach us that there is some other 'truthful' explanation as to how everything in this realm 'became', are they teaching the truth?

It's really quite that simple. Who is teaching the truth? Even if one's heart is sincere in believing what they believe, but it isn't the truth, would they not be very, very similar to the vipers that both John and Jesus spoke of? Now, many will say to me, well it doesn't matter. But I believe that it does. They will say to me, "Just believe!" Ok, fine! Believe what? That there is a God? The Scriptures say that even Satan and his demons believe this. So, I'm not convinced that just believing that a God exists and has spoken to us, is the culmination of what Jesus meant all those times that he encourages us to believe God. Satan knows these things. Believe that God sent His one and only Son into the world for the salvation of men? Satan also knows this. If this is the idea meant by the many encouragements for God's children to believe, then logically I must ask, "Why won't Satan be saved?"

You see, I am confidently convinced that we live in a created realm. A realm or existence that came about merely because God wanted it to exist. He created it all perfectly with all that man and the earth need to survive and endure for many, many thousands of generations. Nothing in this realm came about by natural processes. It was all commanded to exist in its present perfect form. God's purpose for creating it all is that one day He is going to harvest from what He supernaturally and miraculously made a body of people and He will take those who are faithful to Him and believe Him to be with Him and live an eternal existence where He will be their God and they will be His people.

If this belief that I have is the truth, then any who teach something juxtaposed to this truth would be not telling the truth. If God did create this realm of existence in 6 fairly normal day spans and someone teaches that He didn't, then somebody isn't telling the truth. If I teach things about God that are not true, am I not exactly like the pharisees, scribes and teachers of Israel? They believed with all their heart that they knew the truth and were teaching the truth, yet Jesus called them vipers.

It honestly seems like a pretty logical argument and relevant comparison to me. Perhaps I am wrong and may God Himself forgive me if I am, but my spirit is not convinced that I am.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Ted, Peter didn't say who the wolves were, and I understood you to be calling anyone who believes the earth is more than 6000 years old a wolf. It is simply my desire for truth that led me to question the youthfulness of the earth.
Mark, by popular definition you don't take the word 'day' in Genesis literally. How do you define 'literal'?
I most definitely don't want to defend naturalism, I think it illogical as well as heresy.

Interesting watching your posts, Percivale. btw, did you mean to say Paul, as the only reference I found to wolves other than from Jesus was Acts 20:29 where Paul is the speaker.

As you see by Miami Ted's reply, I think we all agree that "wolves" in the context of Paul's speech is a figurative application of the term to people who harm the flock (another figure) of Christ's church. I suppose that if he considers those who reject a time-line of 6,000 years to be harming the flock that would make you, me (and possibly Mark) figurative wolves.

Another point of interest here is that these figures do not carry the identification that Mark insists on. Paul says ". . . after I have gone, savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock." No use of "like" or "as" or any similar phrase to indicate that "wolves" and "flock" are figurative terms. By Mark's criterion, Paul in speaking to a literal flock of sheep and warning them of literal wolves to come.

Unfortunately, in popular speech, "literal" has acquired two additional (and contradictory) meanings.

One meaning conflates "literal" with "actual".
This overlap does not allow for the writer to intend a literal meaning of a word in a context of fiction or of poetic speech. It assumes that whenever a word or phrase is to be understood "literally", it is also to be understood as "having a present or past actual existence in the real world."

This is clearly not true. When Nathan recounts to David the story of a rich man who served his guest the pet lamb of his poor neighbour instead of taking one from his own flock, Nathan intends David to understand "lamb" literally, as a young sheep. It is only after David pronounces judgement that Nathan reveals the story is a parable, and gives the symbolic meaning. So although the term "lamb" was meant to convey its ordinary literal meaning to David, it did not, in fact, refer to any lamb that actually existed in reality.

One could say exactly the same of 'yom' in Genesis 1. The author intends to convey to the reader the literal meaning of the word. But is he recording the existence of actual days in real-time history, or telling a story about creation in which the seven days of the first week are a writer's device to move the story forward?

The text does not tell us which of these possibilities is the case. Nothing in the text could. It is only when one mistakenly associates "literal" not only with "ordinary non-figurative meaning" but also with "actual historical existence" that it appears to do so.

So, I am of the same mind as you concerning the actual age of the earth, but I do not take that to mean we must understand 'yom' figuratively (as a long age), but rather literally (as in a story about the creation).

Ironically, the other meaning "literally" has acquired in popular speech is exactly the opposite. It gets used as an intensifier giving added force to a figure of speech. "My Dad was so mad, he literally exploded!" Well, unless there are bits of blood, bone and flesh splattering the wall, he most certainly did not "literally" explode, but one hears this sort of thing often enough, it is no wonder people get confused as to what "literally" really means.

Another series of words I get on my hobby horse about are those associated with "nature" (natural, naturalistic, naturalism). Anyone who has read Darwin knows that he did not choose the term "natural selection" in contrast to "supernatural selection" but in contrast to "artificial selection" of the sort used by human breeders when breeding pigeons or pigs or roses or whatever.

In fact, if you think about it a bit, the bible itself, and most literature up to about a century ago, saw the world of nature as God's world and all naturalistic activity, not as excluding God's action, but as excluding human (artificial) action.

From your message, however, I assume you have adopted the definition that "naturalistic means" refers to natural process in which God plays no role. Perhaps you were not even aware that this is a quite recent reversal of the traditional meaning.

I would like to ask you a question. Leaving aside the matter of evolution, which I understand you reject, what natural processes can you name in which God plays no role?
 
Upvote 0

Percivale

Sam
Supporter
Feb 13, 2012
924
206
Southern Indiana
✟122,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I thought it was in 2nd Peter, where there's a chapter warning about false teachers, but didn't look it up. Jesus used the word in Matthew, and Paul did. Thanks for the correction.

I would say God is involved in everything that happens in the universe, but not that often in a current, visible, and direct way. For instance, God can do a miracle to, say, answer a prayer, but more often works through providence, arranging common events and processes to achieve his will. One should say which sense one is using when discussing God's works.

Judges 9:7-16 and Ezekiel 16 and 17 are 3 examples of allegories in Scripture. In each case, they are in prose, are not introduced with any 'like' or 'as', and are known to be allegories partly from what we know about the natural world (trees don't talk, etc), and also because we can see the parallel with the truth it illustrates, which is generally presented more directly after the allegory. Allegories make a truth more clear and vivid by compressing the characters and events into a shorter time span, using a smaller number of simple and vivid characters, and choosing the most important interactions to mention. Genesis 1 and 2 nearly fit this pattern if read from a background of modern science's understanding of origins, otherwise though, they don't as completely since they are not followed by a passage linking them to an actual event and presenting a moral (unless one could see chapter 2 as standing in that relation to chapter 1).
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
I thought it was in 2nd Peter, where there's a chapter warning about false teachers, but didn't look it up. Jesus used the word in Matthew, and Paul did. Thanks for the correction.

I would say God is involved in everything that happens in the universe, but not that often in a current, visible, and direct way. For instance, God can do a miracle to, say, answer a prayer, but more often works through providence, arranging common events and processes to achieve his will. One should say which sense one is using when discussing God's works.

I agree with this entirely. In fact, I would say that with the exception of acts that are obviously not natural (Elijah's chariot, Jesus' resurrection) God is always working providentially in common events and processes.

Would it not follow then, that there really is no such thing as "naturalistic" processes, if that adjective is taken to mean "natural processes from which God is excluded"?



Judges 9:7-16 and Ezekiel 16 and 17 are 3 examples of allegories in Scripture. In each case, they are in prose, are not introduced with any 'like' or 'as', and are known to be allegories partly from what we know about the natural world (trees don't talk, etc), and also because we can see the parallel with the truth it illustrates, which is generally presented more directly after the allegory. Allegories make a truth more clear and vivid by compressing the characters and events into a shorter time span, using a smaller number of simple and vivid characters, and choosing the most important interactions to mention. Genesis 1 and 2 nearly fit this pattern if read from a background of modern science's understanding of origins, otherwise though, they don't as completely since they are not followed by a passage linking them to an actual event and presenting a moral (unless one could see chapter 2 as standing in that relation to chapter 1).

Again, agreed. It is helpful, for purposes of illustration, to use an example where the text, which initially reads literally, is then restated as symbolism. But we should not assume that lack of an explicit explanation means there is no allegory. After all, none of us really needed guidance to the conclusion that "wolves" and "flock" were not literal terms as Paul used them.
 
Upvote 0

Percivale

Sam
Supporter
Feb 13, 2012
924
206
Southern Indiana
✟122,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I agree with this entirely. In fact, I would say that with the exception of acts that are obviously not natural (Elijah's chariot, Jesus' resurrection) God is always working providentially in common events and processes.

Would it not follow then, that there really is no such thing as "naturalistic" processes, if that adjective is taken to mean "natural processes from which God is excluded"?
True, no totally naturalistic processes. But natural is still a useful word for things God is not as directly involved with; things he is neither miraculously nor providentially causing, only allowing to give us a consistent universe and make our actions or science meaningful.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi guys,

Well, now that we have moved on to'natural' properties, I absolutely believe that there are natural properties that work in this realm that God created. I believe that gravity is a natural property. It works in a way that is predictable and quantifiable. The speed at which things travel are governed by natural properties such as resistance and force. It is because things in this realm created by God have natural properties that we can even set a course for a rocket to reach the moon. These properties are predictable and quantifiable. We know that because of the natural properties of wind resistance how a knuckle ball thrown by a pitcher will act as it travels to home plate. It is the natural properties of sound waves and other waves of force that we can offer radio transmissions around the world. Harness the power of water, heat and wind to produce electricity. All of these are possible and repeatable because we know the natural properties and forces at work in objects in this created realm. Paul even wrote of natural properties. He called them 'basic principles of this world'.

However, he warned that we be very careful in allowing these 'basic principles of this world' to deceive us in understanding the things of God. I absolutely believe that we can use our understanding of the natural properties of this world to understand the here and now. Where we run into trouble is when we try to use these natural properties in trying to explain away what God has done. God works outside of any natural properties that we know.

He can make the sun go backwards or to stand still in the sky. He can make water stand at attention several meters high. He can raise dead and decaying bodies to life. He can make things appear in an instant that, based on our understanding of natural properties, appear to have an age even the very day they were created. Adam is the most perfect and simple example of this.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
True, no totally naturalistic processes. But natural is still a useful word for things God is not as directly involved with; things he is neither miraculously nor providentially causing, only allowing to give us a consistent universe and make our actions or science meaningful.

Actually, I think the most useful meaning of 'natural' is to designate things humans are not involved with. Isn't that what we often mean when we express a longing for 'unspoiled nature'? We are looking for what God alone has done and has never been touched by human artifice or pollution. A forest where there has been no axe wielded, a prairie not ploughed up for growing grain, a pristine lake not surrounded by cottages or traversed by motorboats. That is natural; that is God's doing.

It seems to me that one cannot speak of anything God is not either miraculously or providentially causing. At least, I cannot think of anything other than human rebelliousness to which one or the other would not apply.

What would you put in such a category?
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Hi guys,

Well, now that we have moved on to'natural' properties, I absolutely believe that there are natural properties that work in this realm that God created. I believe that gravity is a natural property. It works in a way that is predictable and quantifiable. The speed at which things travel are governed by natural properties such as resistance and force. It is because things in this realm created by God have natural properties that we can even set a course for a rocket to reach the moon. These properties are predictable and quantifiable. We know that because of the natural properties of wind resistance how a knuckle ball thrown by a pitcher will act as it travels to home plate. It is the natural properties of sound waves and other waves of force that we can offer radio transmissions around the world. Harness the power of water, heat and wind to produce electricity. All of these are possible and repeatable because we know the natural properties and forces at work in objects in this created realm. Paul even wrote of natural properties. He called them 'basic principles of this world'.

I agree with you as far as you have gone, Ted. But I would see all this as God's providential action. Gravity is reliable and predictable, because God in his providence makes it so--and not as "front-loading" so that it runs "on its own" but every day, every minute, every millisecond in the present. I see God's providence as the active basis for everything you are calling natural properties.

However, he warned that we be very careful in allowing these 'basic principles of this world' to deceive us in understanding the things of God. I absolutely believe that we can use our understanding of the natural properties of this world to understand the here and now. Where we run into trouble is when we try to use these natural properties in trying to explain away what God has done. God works outside of any natural properties that we know.

The only change I would make here is to say that while God can and does work outside natural properties, he is not restricted to working outside natural properties. God also works through natural properties, on a constant, continuing basis. That, in effect, is what I understand by God's providence. God working through the natural properties, such as gravity, resistance, force, etc. provides a reliable world, a predictable world, a world of day and night, summer and winter, seedtime and harvest by which all living things are daily provided with the necessities of life.

He can make the sun go backwards or to stand still in the sky.

And this is the crux of the problem, for me. You affirm these miracles as God's work--and so do I. But it seems that you do not affirm that the daily, normal course of the sun across the sky is also God's work. Why would it not be?


He can make water stand at attention several meters high.

Right, but does he not also make the rain fall, and streams turn into waterfalls, and rivers empty into the oceans, and tides rise and fall. Does God not also, through the hydrological cycle, cleanse water and restore it to us so that we can quench our thirst and water our crops? Why affirm only the miracle and not the daily gift of water from God's hands?


He can raise dead and decaying bodies to life.

And God also recycles all the material of bodies into compost to feed new plant life and sustain life on earth through them. Is this not just as much God's work as the other?

What I fear is that in ceding to the idea that nature acts "on its own" without God, we lose our sense of awe and gratitude for the works of God that surround us every day. We lose sight of God when we conceive nature as just a machine God once put together and set to automatic operation.


He can make things appear in an instant that, based on our understanding of natural properties, appear to have an age even the very day they were created. Adam is the most perfect and simple example of this.

He can, but I would take Jesus' miracles of healing, of turning water into wine and a few loaves of bread into a feast for thousands as better examples. We know these had to be instantaneous. But we don't have as sure a witness that the same applies to Adam.

Besides, as has been pointed out many times, it is not an issue of apparent age or maturity that is the sticking point, but the issue of history. Does God create a world with a fictitious history, including evidence of past events that never happened? Or, as in the case of the flood, does he really cause a major miraculous event affecting the whole world and not only wipe out every scrap of evidence that it ever happened, but also plant evidence that it could not have happened? Because that is the sort of thing we are confronted with.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I agree with you as far as you have gone, Ted. But I would see all this as God's providential action. Gravity is reliable and predictable, because God in his providence makes it so--and not as "front-loading" so that it runs "on its own" but every day, every minute, every millisecond in the present. I see God's providence as the active basis for everything you are calling natural properties.





The only change I would make here is to say that while God can and does work outside natural properties, he is not restricted to working outside natural properties. God also works through natural properties, on a constant, continuing basis. That, in effect, is what I understand by God's providence. God working through the natural properties, such as gravity, resistance, force, etc. provides a reliable world, a predictable world, a world of day and night, summer and winter, seedtime and harvest by which all living things are daily provided with the necessities of life.

Hi glaudys,

Oh, I absolutely give God the glory that He is, by His limitless power and wisdom, the Creator of all these things and the one who set everything in it's place. Yes, it is by this same power and wisdom the reason that I even live this life. He created this atmosphere of the earth which contains something that we call oxygen that enables me to breathe every 3 seconds. He created all the plants and animals that sustain the needs of my body for food. He created Adam and Eve that through generations of procreation have allowed me to be a man of flesh born in this world today.

But, once God created Adam and Eve, it was through the procreation of the species that I now live. Once God created the first plants and animals it is through procreation and reseeding that the food is available to me today. Once God created the sun it is by the near limitless amount of a matter that we call hydrogen that makes it continue as the source of energy and light upon the earth. God made things to be self-sustaining with the various properties that He created them with to endure for the ages.

However, I don't see Him standing at the sun splitting the hydrogen atoms one by one. He made the sun to have the power within it's own makeup to do that. He doesn't stoop and tell each seed to grow. He created the processes of procreation that these plants would then endure on their own. These processes that God created and established and set in place in this physical realm in which we live are what we call the 'natural processes'.

Now, some will say, "So you mean God just started everything rolling and then just walked away." Yes and no. God did start the ball rolling, but He has never walked away. He is the overseer of all that He has created. Just as a gardener oversees the garden and trims and plants and fertilizes and waters, he is maintaining the garden constantly. The Scriptures use a similar explanation for what God has done and is doing. It equates the earth and the people on it to a vineyard. It says that He planted a vineyard and is overseeing that vineyard expecting a good crop.


And this is the crux of the problem, for me. You affirm these miracles as God's work--and so do I. But it seems that you do not affirm that the daily, normal course of the sun across the sky is also God's work. Why would it not be?

Yes, God set the sun in its place and established its course. He set each and every star in its place and established its course. But, He does not draw them through their course as with a ball on a string. He established their boundaries and the forces necessary to keep them in their respective courses.




Right, but does he not also make the rain fall, and streams turn into waterfalls, and rivers empty into the oceans, and tides rise and fall. Does God not also, through the hydrological cycle, cleanse water and restore it to us so that we can quench our thirst and water our crops? Why affirm only the miracle and not the daily gift of water from God's hands?

You answered your own question. 'Through the hydrologic cycle' God has given these things the power within themselves to repeat and continue. I do affirm both the miracle of creation and the perfect wisdom and plan of God that the miraculous is what sustains my life each and every day. God created the oxygen and also made the restorative process by which plants exude oxygen to replenish the supply. His creation is perfect and for most things self-sustainable by the natural properties with which He imbued the various parts of what He has created.




And God also recycles all the material of bodies into compost to feed new plant life and sustain life on earth through them. Is this not just as much God's work as the other?

What I fear is that in ceding to the idea that nature acts "on its own" without God, we lose our sense of awe and gratitude for the works of God that surround us every day. We lose sight of God when we conceive nature as just a machine God once put together and set to automatic operation.

Yes, I would agree that what we have done in our present day search and study of the natural properties is to set aside the fact that even these properties were created to happen because God made it so. We look at these natural properties and say to ourselves that that is how it has always been for time back as far as time can be seen to have existed. I say, no, these natural properties do work in the here and now, but they, just like man himself had a starting point of the miraculous creation event of God. God made the first tree. He made it to be a living organism that would take in carbon dioxide and let out oxygen as it's waste by-product, but that process only began when the first tree was created.

I don't believe that born again believers lose sight of God by these things because they understand that God is the first cause. That it is by the power and wisdom of God that these things exist and endure today. Those who believe that the natural properties are all that there are and fail to understand that they have only existed since God's act of perfect creation are the ones who lose sight of God.


He can, but I would take Jesus' miracles of healing, of turning water into wine and a few loaves of bread into a feast for thousands as better examples. We know these had to be instantaneous. But we don't have as sure a witness that the same applies to Adam.

Well, I believe that depends on whether we trust the Scriptures as the only sure witness of things before man's records. The Scriptures tell us that God made the first man, Adam, from the dust of the ground. That He created this first man from dirt and breathed into his form the breath of life. Are you saying that we can only believe that if we have some other proof beyond God's testimony to us?

Besides, as has been pointed out many times, it is not an issue of apparent age or maturity that is the sticking point, but the issue of history. Does God create a world with a fictitious history, including evidence of past events that never happened? Or, as in the case of the flood, does he really cause a major miraculous event affecting the whole world and not only wipe out every scrap of evidence that it ever happened, but also plant evidence that it could not have happened? Because that is the sort of thing we are confronted with.

Friend, God did not make any fictitious history. Man has weighed and measured what God has done and made up a fictitious history. God has told us the when of His creating. He hasn't told us that there was anything that existed in this realm prior to the days of His creating this realm. You won't find anywhere in God's account that anything in this realm existed before God commanded it to exist. So, where is it that you find that God has given us some fictitious history? The truth of what you are saying is that man has worked and is still working to deny the clear history that God has given us by the study of the natural properties of this earth and that is exactly what Paul warns God's children of believing:

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

Mankind has been taken captive 'through hollow and deceptive philosophy that depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world, rather than believing God's testimony that all things were created through His Son, Jesus. Man has weighed and measured the basic principles of this world and established that God's account just can't be relied upon as true. Who it is that has made up the fictitious history based on the basic principles of this world. Paul says to us, "Don't be taken in by these hollow and deceptive philosophies". So, the question that we must each ask of ourselves, if we are children of God, is, "Am I going to believe the deceptive philosophies or am I going to believe God?" I believe that if we choose to believe man's philosophies over God's own testimony, that we are then a part of the great 666. We are then marked on the hand and forehead with the mark. We work (hand) and believe (forehead) the 'truth' of man rather than the truth of God.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Hi glaudys,

Oh, I absolutely give God the glory that He is, by His limitless power and wisdom, the Creator of all these things and the one who set everything in it's place. Yes, it is by this same power and wisdom the reason that I even live this life. He created this atmosphere of the earth which contains something that we call oxygen that enables me to breathe every 3 seconds. He created all the plants and animals that sustain the needs of my body for food. He created Adam and Eve that through generations of procreation have allowed me to be a man of flesh born in this world today.

But is "God created" all we can say about these things? Can we also say that God daily and providentially supplies these things on a continuing basis?

But, once God created Adam and Eve, it was through the procreation of the species that I now live.

Is procreation simply an impersonal and mechanical process? If so, in what sense did God create YOU? After all, do we not hold that God created not only our first parents, but all of their children and grandchildren and great-great-. . . . . great grandchildren down to you and I. If we are right about that, must we not consider that procreation is God's mode of creating new human beings (and everything else that procreates)? Can we say God has no role in the process of procreation without implying that what originates in this way is no longer God's creation?



God made things to be self-sustaining with the various properties that He created them with to endure for the ages.

I am not sure we can say that. To me it seems we should say rather that things are sustained by God and endure because God continually sustains them for the ages.

However, I don't see Him standing at the sun splitting the hydrogen atoms one by one. He made the sun to have the power within it's own makeup to do that. He doesn't stoop and tell each seed to grow. He created the processes of procreation that these plants would then endure on their own. These processes that God created and established and set in place in this physical realm in which we live are what we call the 'natural processes'.

Now, some will say, "So you mean God just started everything rolling and then just walked away." Yes and no. God did start the ball rolling, but He has never walked away. He is the overseer of all that He has created. Just as a gardener oversees the garden and trims and plants and fertilizes and waters, he is maintaining the garden constantly. The Scriptures use a similar explanation for what God has done and is doing. It equates the earth and the people on it to a vineyard. It says that He planted a vineyard and is overseeing that vineyard expecting a good crop.

I like the analogy of the gardener; it is much better than the clockmaker. The clockmaker only needs to tend the clock when it runs down or something goes wrong with it. That is why this image led to Deism--the theology of the absentee Deity. But a gardener can't walk away. The garden needs to be tended. The plants need to be nurtured. The soil needs to be nurtured.

But I also think this analogy conflicts with your earlier statement that "He doesn't stoop and tell each seed to grow." A gardener does just that, for each seed is planted by the gardener, watered and fertilized by the gardener. Jesus tells us that God's eye is on each sparrow and that he knows the number of hairs on our heads. In another place, scripture tells us he calls the stars by their names. So why would God not also take an interest in each seed? Even in each atom bonding in the sun to provide us with light?

I used to keep a book of quotes, which sadly I lost in my last move. So I can't remember the whole of this one or where it came from, but the gist of it was that perhaps God takes such delight in his creation that he never tires of asking for daisies again and again and again. So daisies don't grow by the hundreds because God produces them en masse, but because he says to the earth, to the seeds "Do it again!" and each and every daisy exists because God keeps saying "Do it again!" Just an anecdote, but I like this image of God, whose pleasure it is to bring each thing into being for the sheer joy of seeing it again.




Yes, God set the sun in its place and established its course. He set each and every star in its place and established its course. But, He does not draw them through their course as with a ball on a string.

Are you sure? Is not gravity God's string? Did God just one time create gravity? Or does he continually sustain this force?








You answered your own question. 'Through the hydrologic cycle' God has given these things the power within themselves to repeat and continue.

But what sustains the hydrological cycle itself, if not God's loving providence?



I do affirm both the miracle of creation and the perfect wisdom and plan of God that the miraculous is what sustains my life each and every day. God created the oxygen and also made the restorative process by which plants exude oxygen to replenish the supply. His creation is perfect and for most things self-sustainable by the natural properties with which He imbued the various parts of what He has created.

I would still change "self-sustainable" to "providentially-sustained". That, it seems to me, is the message of the Psalms. "You make the clouds your chariot" not just once upon a time, but over and over again. "You make springs gush forth in the valleys" . We could go into the geological processes that lead to springs gushing, but the message is that by whatever process, God is doing this, and doing it now. It is a daily providential blessing, not an automatic consequence of a one-time creative act. "You cause grass to grow for the cattle" Again, we can speak of seeds and soil, sun and rain and all that goes into this, but in the Psalmist's eyes, this is a present on-going action of God; God makes this happen every year as the seasons cycle. "You make darkness and it is night" not just on the first day of creation, but each and every evening. "The young lions . . . [seek] their food from God." And God provides it via natural means. (All lines from Psalm 104)






I say, no, these natural properties do work in the here and now, but they, just like man himself had a starting point of the miraculous creation event of God.

And I would go a little further. I would say that God not only gave them a start, but that God continues to empower them. At the end of his great poem, The Divine Comedy, the poet Dante Alighieri contemplates the throne of God and the encircling throng of angels and saints around it and is caught up in adoration of "the love that moves the sun and stars". It is one of my favourite lines of poetry. God creates out of sheer love, for God needs nothing from creation. God's love and wisdom sustains the creation in being through all time, and the creation responds in love by being the reliable, predictable order on which we all rely. Creator and creation share a daily intimate relation of love which we perceive as "nature" "the natural world" "properties of nature" "natural processes" etc.

But we have a tendency to depersonalize and mechanize this relationship describing it mainly in terms of numbers, and forces, and forgetting what lies behind these.


God made the first tree. He made it to be a living organism that would take in carbon dioxide and let out oxygen as it's waste by-product, but that process only began when the first tree was created.

Actually, the production of atmospheric oxygen began with cyanobacteria. And still today, 50% of oxygen is produced by photosynthetic plankton floating in seas and lakes, not by trees. (And, of course, don't forget herbs and grasses too.)

I don't believe that born again believers lose sight of God by these things because they understand that God is the first cause.

They certainly shouldn't. But an overemphasis on miracles accompanied by near silence on God vis-a-vis the ordinary aspects of nature, gives that impression. And I have definitely seen some near Deist expressions of how God and nature relate to each other, coming mostly from creationists. So I wonder how well the young people are learning about the non-miraculous side of God's works. Maybe there should be more about that in the Sunday School and home-schooling curricula.


That it is by the power and wisdom of God that these things exist and endure today. Those who believe that the natural properties are all that there are and fail to understand that they have only existed since God's act of perfect creation are the ones who lose sight of God.

Agreed, if one takes "natural" to mean "without God" of course one loses sight of God. We expect this of those inclined to atheism. Once they feel they can explain something in nature with a scientific description of it, they tell themselves "See, no god needed."
But how well are we fortifying Christian youth and new Christians against this response? You have only to read the threads here to see that many Christians, defenders of creation, also define "natural" as "without God" and so react to natural explanations as "taking God out of the equation".

We need, I think, to reclaim the positive attitude to nature exhibited in the scriptures and held by Christians (including scientists) until fairly recent times. We need to see natural explanations not as "taking God out of the equation" but as "illuminating how God does things in nature". Viewed that way, scientific knowledge is no threat to faith, for the more we learn about the natural world, its properties, functions and processes, the more we stand in awe of the wisdom of God.




Well, I believe that depends on whether we trust the Scriptures as the only sure witness of things before man's records. The Scriptures tell us that God made the first man, Adam, from the dust of the ground. That He created this first man from dirt and breathed into his form the breath of life. Are you saying that we can only believe that if we have some other proof beyond God's testimony to us?

Oh, I agree with trusting scripture and I am not asking for some other proof. But there is still a large discrepancy between various ways humans have of understanding and interpreting the scripture. And these ways are not given by God, but derived from the fallible reasoning of human beings. Do we understand "dust" literally, suggesting God made a man just like a potter makes a clay jar? Or do we take it symbolically to reflect the close relationship between the stuff earth is made of and the stuff we human earthlings are made of? Either interpretation shows trust in God's scriptural revelation, but which is the better interpretation is not something the words of scripture in themselves can tell us. Nor, in many cases, can anything other than scripture either. All we can do is try our best to understand the reasoning of a person who prefers one interpretation to another and make our best judgment.





Friend, God did not make any fictitious history. Man has weighed and measured what God has done and made up a fictitious history. God has told us the when of His creating.

Now, I would say that it was Bishop Ussher who told us the when of God's creating. I don't think scripture really tells us when. So I think one needs to justify why one chooses to subscribe to the reasoning of Bishop Ussher about the when of creation.

He hasn't told us that there was anything that existed in this realm prior to the days of His creating this realm. You won't find anywhere in God's account that anything in this realm existed before God commanded it to exist. So, where is it that you find that God has given us some fictitious history?

I didn't say I was finding that in scripture. But when we read the rocks, the stars, the genomes of animals and many other signs, we see not just an appearance of maturity, but a history. Take tree rings. One can count them to get a good idea of how old a tree is. And if that was all they told us, I suppose God could create a tree with rings already in it to suggest its apparent age. But tree rings tell us more than age. They also tell us about the conditions in which the tree was growing at different times. The size and spacing of rings indicate whether the winter was long or whether there was a drought, or an infestation of insects, or numerous other events in the life of the tree. So, tree rings don't just tell age, they tell of historic events of the past. If that past was non-existent, then that history is fictitious. Dendrochronology goes back far more than 6,000 years, so did God create a fictitious history for those trees?
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi Glaudys,

Just a quick word before I'm headed out this morning. You wrote: But when we read the rocks, the stars, the genomes of animals and many other signs, we see not just an appearance of maturity, but a history.

Yes, and when we read of Adam, based on all scientific and medical knowledge that we have of the human body and its development, we also know that he could not have just existed on his first day of life as a standing tall, mature human man. We know that he must have had a history of some maybe 20 or 25 years just to have the form that he is described as having on the day of his creation. But I'm confident that he was created with that fully grown physical form. If that would make God a liar in the minds of some, then so be it.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

seeingeyes

Newbie
Nov 29, 2011
8,944
809
Backwoods, Ohio
✟27,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi Glaudys,

Just a quick word before I'm headed out this morning. You wrote: But when we read the rocks, the stars, the genomes of animals and many other signs, we see not just an appearance of maturity, but a history.

Yes, and when we read of Adam, based on all scientific and medical knowledge that we have of the human body and its development, we also know that he could not have just existed on his first day of life as a standing tall, mature human man. We know that he must have had a history of some maybe 20 or 25 years just to have the form that he is described as having on the day of his creation. But I'm confident that he was created with that fully grown physical form. If that would make God a liar in the minds of some, then so be it.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Would he have had a scar above his eyebrow from when he fell off his bike as a kid?
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Would he have had a scar above his eyebrow from when he fell off his bike as a kid?

Hi SE,

Why, did he have a scar above his eye? I don't think there is any evidence that he ever was a kid so that is exactly my point. Adam was created as a fully formed adult male human being. We know by all scientific, medical and historical data that we have on adult male human beings that it just isn't possible for a man to be living on the earth who yesterday didn't even exist in any form, either baby, child or adult. Yet, any medical study or testing of this adult specimen would, by all of our known measuring parameters clearly show that this adult male must have lived at least 20-25 or 30 years to be presented to us as he is.

My question: Does it make God a liar that Adam was created with an age that would point to a history of previous days of life or would man be the liar if he tried to compel others to believe that he must have had such a history based on all of our known scientific and medical knowledge applied to the apparent 'age' of his physical form? Who would be the liar?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

seeingeyes

Newbie
Nov 29, 2011
8,944
809
Backwoods, Ohio
✟27,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi SE,

Why, did he have a scar above his eye? I don't think there is any evidence that he ever was a kid so that is exactly my point. Adam was created as a fully formed adult male human being. We know by all scientific, medical and historical data that we have on adult male human beings that it just isn't possible for a man to be living on the earth who yesterday didn't even exist in any form, either baby, child or adult. Yet, any medical study or testing of this adult specimen would, by all of our known measuring parameters clearly show that this adult male must have lived at least 20-25 or 30 years to be presented to us as he is.

My question: Does it make God a liar that Adam was created with an age that would point to a history of previous days of life or would man be the liar if he tried to compel others to believe that he must have had such a history based on all of our known scientific and medical knowledge applied to the apparent 'age' of his physical form? Who would be the liar?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Why does the earth have a scar on its forehead? Why do tree rings describe differing seasons of growth before the world began? Shouldn't those rings be as smooth as Adam's forehead?

Adam on day 1 would present to any medical doctor as a "new" person because of his lack of scars, his lack of wear and tear, even though he was a "full grown" man.

In other words, Adam being a completely formed adult would not be trickery. Adam having a belly button would be.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Hi Glaudys,

Just a quick word before I'm headed out this morning. You wrote: But when we read the rocks, the stars, the genomes of animals and many other signs, we see not just an appearance of maturity, but a history.

Yes, and when we read of Adam, based on all scientific and medical knowledge that we have of the human body and its development, we also know that he could not have just existed on his first day of life as a standing tall, mature human man. We know that he must have had a history of some maybe 20 or 25 years just to have the form that he is described as having on the day of his creation. But I'm confident that he was created with that fully grown physical form. If that would make God a liar in the minds of some, then so be it.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted


No, you are confusing appearance of maturity with history. They are not the same thing. We do not know that Adam "could not have just existed on his first day of life as a standing tall, mature human man." We do not know "that he must have had a history of some maybe 20 or 25 years just to have the form that he is described as having on the day of his creation."

We do not know that because God could have created him instantaneously in the form of a 20-25 year old man, just as you believe he did. Appearance of maturity itself does not tell us age. Marks of history do.


Hi SE,

Why, did he have a scar above his eye? I don't think there is any evidence that he ever was a kid so that is exactly my point.

This is the illustration of the difference between mature appearance and history. If Adam was never a kid, then he never experienced a fall from his bike when he was a kid, so he would not have a scar from that experience. If God created him with a scar above his eyebrow, that would not just make him appear mature, it would make him appear to have had an actual childhood history that gave him that scar. But if God created him today with a scar, that evidence of history would be about a fictitious history that never took place in reality.

This is the sort of thing we do see in rocks, stars and genomes: evidence of historical events which must have taken place millions to billions of years ago. If the past does not extend so far back, those historical events are fictitious; they never actually occurred. But if they never actually occurred why does the evidence that they did exist? Did God create them with a false history built in?






My question: Does it make God a liar that Adam was created with an age that would point to a history of previous days of life or would man be the liar if he tried to compel others to believe that he must have had such a history based on all of our known scientific and medical knowledge applied to the apparent 'age' of his physical form?

No, nor did it make Jesus a liar when the wine he made from water appeared to be aged. But if God had created Adam with a scar above his eyebrow from a fictitious childhood accident, that would be a lie. It would be saying something happened to the child Adam, even though he was never a child.

Of course, we are not proposing this about Adam, but this is the situation we face with many natural phenomena; they don't just look mature--they bear the evidence of past events which affected them. Events which can be dated to a past, that according to your theology never existed.

Who could have put them there but God?
Why would he put them there?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi glaudys,

I have a bit more time now so I will continue my response to your last post to me.

You have allowed that you are more inclined to believe that God actually works day to day in causing events upon the earth. That He does daily work to cause gravity to do what gravity does. My position on the day to day 'happenings' upon the earth, and in fact, the whole of the universe is a little different Whether either position glorifies God more or less is certainly debatable, but, of course, if we are giving God glory for something that He really doesn't do, while I'm sure He appreciates the heart that thinks it does, I don't find Him to be a God who would hold the other understanding against that person, if it is the truth.

For an explanation of my understanding, let's use a fairly simple example. Let's look at the Red (Reed) sea. Obviously God can work in His creation to cause to happen things which go against the 'natural laws'. He can at His desire and for His purposes set any natural law aside and cause the physical to work in a way that is unnatural to us. In this example, He had water stand on its head for a period of time long enough for a group of people several thousand strong to just walk right between these two walls of water with all of the animals and household goods and all the things that they had taken from the Egyptians when they began their exodus out of Egypt. These two walls of water, one on their left hand and one their right, stood at attention without the aid of any physical structure that we might use to hold back water. Merely the power of God held these two walls of water in place.

However, for the several hundred years preceding this day and the few thousand years since, the water of the Red (Reed) sea has operated every day, 24 hours each day merely following the 'rules', if you will, of water all over the world. Yes, I give thanks to God that He established these rules and keeps them in place.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0