|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 21, 2011 17:24:12 GMT -5
I thought I saw this being discussed somewhere, but I can't remember where. I hate to start a whole new thread for one question. But this has been on my mind for a while. Whether it's an old earth or a young earth, what does it matter? God is still God. Jesus still died for our sins. We are still here. In my opinion, it doesn't much matter how old the earth is. What matters is where we are going. What do you think?  |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 21, 2011 17:38:08 GMT -5
People will say that it matters because truth matters. Well truth does matter but not always to the same degree of importance between people. I get your question, Didymus. But if one believes in a young earth then what we have in essence is a Creator who played a fooling game with us in which all things follow a law created by God which makes it impossible to deviate from that law but He himself did not follow the law He gave us to determine some parts of truth. For example the rate of decay of the carbon 14 isotope is a naturally radioactive carbon isotope with atomic mass 14 and half-life 5,730 years, used in determining the age of ancient organic, geologic, or archaeological specimens.
We know that it does not change and we therefore have evidence from that carbon dating how old something is. There are now even better, more accurate measures used which also date something. But the young earth creationist must avoid the very laws God set in motion in order to deny the possibility that earth is billions of years old.
To me this is very important in that God gave us the measure to check out the age of things He created. It presents God as faithful and true to Himeself as well as to His creation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jan 21, 2011 19:49:48 GMT -5
I don't understand that argument, myself. That is, we say that God created and then say it wasn't, or couldn't be, created 'in motion'. To say that God broke His rules in this matter is a little strange, since He has already broke the second law of thermodynamics which claims the universe is using up its pool of usable energy (total energy remains constant but what is usable is running out). God therefore had to have created the universe with a certain level of usable energy and not completely as usable energy.
So instead of creating a universe of only usable energy, He created one at a certain level of usable energy. And instead of creating a universe in which nothing had any carbon 14 in it, He created it with it according to His rules. It was a universe made already in action.
Or take for example light from the stars and even galaxies. It could be billions of years for the light of other galaxies to reach us. Does that mean God had to create them billions of years before He then even created our galaxy billions of years ago? For that matter, those galaxies might not even exist today.
No matter how we look at it the universe had to have been created as already in action.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 21, 2011 20:18:26 GMT -5
I certainly believe God could do it but did He do it in one sweeping all complete creation? Lots of evidence shows He didn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jan 21, 2011 20:26:15 GMT -5
Lots of evidence shows He didn't. Other people look at the same evidence and conclude that He did. That says to me that there must be a certain amount of interpretation involved to reach any conclusion whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 21, 2011 20:37:34 GMT -5
Lots of evidence shows He didn't. Other people look at the same evidence and conclude that He did. That says to me that there must be a certain amount of interpretation involved to reach any conclusion whatsoever. Yes, of course there is. I agree that there is. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 21, 2011 22:42:00 GMT -5
I have read (an indicator that I'm not positive about this) that carbon 14 dating is accurate to only 10,000-15,000 years, or something like that. Whatever it was, it was a number in the thousands, not millions. But as Allyn said, there are other, newer methods now.
Whether someone believes in a young earth or an old earth, it doesn't matter to me. I've been a young earth believer all along, but the Beyond Creation Science book has made a good case, based on biblical evidence (that is, in the biblical text), for an older earth. I haven't converted yet, but I'm not opposed to it like I used to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 22, 2011 2:53:49 GMT -5
Is God really God? If He is, can he not create the entire universe in 6 days? If He can, then is it too hard to believe He can create a young earth that looks old by human standards? |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 22, 2011 15:02:39 GMT -5
Is God really God? If He is, can he not create the entire universe in 6 days? If He can, then is it too hard to believe He can create a young earth that looks old by human standards? Tom, The issue is not what God could have done. The issues are, 1) What did God do? 2) What does Scripture say he did? If Genesis 1 is a description of the creation of the physical universe, then what it says should A) be consistent with itself, and B) be an accurate description of the physical universe from an appropriate perspective. Whitcomb and Morris brought Ellen G. White's perspective into the modern evangelical church. That is what modern YECs like Ken Ham, ICR, Kent Hovind, etc. teach. If you believe that, well it didn't come from Scripture. It came from the Seventh Day Adventist Church. If you have some other view, then spit it out so we can examine it. You complain that you don't like these other views that people are suggesting. That's fine. But you have not offered any reason except your own emotions and what appears to be an appeal to Ellen G. White. And you haven't offered an alternative. Suck it up and offer something constructive. |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 22, 2011 15:18:10 GMT -5
If God didn't create the physical universe, where did it come from?
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 22, 2011 17:36:21 GMT -5
If God didn't create the physical universe, where did it come from? Tom, Are you still beating your wife? You are bearing false witness by asking questions that start from a false premise. No one here has claimed that God did not create the physical universe. As far as I know, everyone here believes that God did create the physical universe. |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 22, 2011 22:42:07 GMT -5
If God didn't create the physical universe, where did it come from? Tom, Are you still beating your wife? You are bearing false witness by asking questions that start from a false premise. No one here has claimed that God did not create the physical universe. As far as I know, everyone here believes that God did create the physical universe. Then what is Genesis 1 all about then? Is it about the creation of the physical universe, or the creation of a covenant? |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 22, 2011 23:54:13 GMT -5
Tom, Are you still beating your wife? You are bearing false witness by asking questions that start from a false premise. No one here has claimed that God did not create the physical universe. As far as I know, everyone here believes that God did create the physical universe. Then what is Genesis 1 all about then? Is it about the creation of the physical universe, or the creation of a covenant? Tom, You said you were ignoring me. Actually, I've been ignoring you. So, I am not going to answer your questions.
Read more: livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=userrecentposts&user=didymus#ixzz1BpVgr95G
Neither will I answer you. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Jan 23, 2011 5:49:50 GMT -5
You are bearing false witness by asking questions that start from a false premise. No one here has claimed that God did not create the physical universe. As far as I know, everyone here believes that God did create the physical universe. I'd like to ask a question on this point, if I may. If all scriptures on creation relate to a covenant, then why would anyone believe that God created the physical universe? You made the point earlier.... The issues are, 1) What did God do? 2) What does Scripture say he did? If I've been reading right (and forgive me if I haven't, I haven't read every thread and response), some are arguing that Gen 1-2 relates to the creation of the covenant, not the physical universe. So we essentially have no scriptures to prove that God created the physical universe. So why believe that he did? If it's important to focus on "what God did", and "what scriptures say he did" -- since scripture doesn't comment on physical creation -- how can we prove that God had anything to do with it? Isn't that just a scripture-less assumption? |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 23, 2011 10:10:19 GMT -5
Paul,
What sort of arguments will you accept? What do you mean by Scriptureless? Most of us go to work each day and perform tasks that are not found in Scripture. Almost nothing in your life can be proven from Scripture. Since they can't be proven from Scripture, how do you know they exist?
Do you have a wife? If you do, she is certainly more important to your life than any view of creation. Yet you can't prove she is your wife from Scripture.
People claim that Scripture says the physical universe will someday end. A couple times, fools have claimed Scripture says the woman I married is not my wife. People find a lot of things in Scripture that aren't there. We have a long history of it.
So why is it not possible that people have found a creation of the physical universe even though Scripture speaks of no such thing? Please read that question carefully. It is a long, complicated question. It is not a short question followed by a controversial statement of fact.
What sort of arguments will you accept?
Mathematically, we can not go from here to infinity in finite steps. Therefore, we did not get from infinity to here. Therefore, time had a beginning. (Plato's argument)
Cause and effect. Everything physical has an appropriate cause. Time certainly had a beginning. The physical universe appears to have formed out of nothing at this beginning of time. There is no possible physical/natural cause for this beginning effect. Therefore the cause must be supernatural. (The Kalam cosmological argument)
Legal/Historical. Only the God of the Old Testament, the man Jesus, and their legal representatives acting under power of attorney have had the ability to directly command the nature to do their bidding. The ability to do with it as they please shows that they have ultimate ownership and that they are the only ones who have demonstrated the power and knowledge necessary to have created it. (Martin's argument.)
To consider otherwise is to assume that some other God created it and the Father we worship and His Son Jesus are usurpers.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 23, 2011 11:17:33 GMT -5
Neither an old Earth nor a young Earth is essential for the covenant creation view. The old Earth view was around long before the recent young Earth view...but length of existence or majority of adherents is of no prove in either case.
A vast amount of christians throughout history (99.99%) have always believed that the "world" to end was physical creation. Their eschatological end was directly related to their physical beginning. This has always been a Revelation new heaven and earth versus a Genesis old heaven and earth.
Preterism comes along and has proven (though few will listen) that the eschatological end is covenantal. Therefore the "world" that DID end could not be the Genesis material physical creation.
And because of this preterist realization, two things resulted:
1. The original creation of that "world" must to be moved from Genesis 1 to somewhere else.
2. A closer examination must be made on the traditional view of Genesis 1.
Preterists hold to either of those two viewpoints.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 23, 2011 11:35:12 GMT -5
Neither an old Earth nor a young Earth is essential for the covenant creation view. The old Earth view was around long before the recent young Earth view...but length of existence or majority of adherents is of no prove in either case. A vast amount of christians throughout history (99.99%) have always believed that the "world" to end was physical creation. Their eschatological end was directly related to their physical beginning. This has always been a Revelation new heaven and earth versus a Genesis old heaven and earth. Preterism comes along and has proven (though few will listen) that the eschatological end is covenantal. Therefore the "world" that DID end could not be the Genesis material physical creation. And because of this preterist realization, two things resulted: 1. The original creation of that "world" must to be moved from Genesis 1 to somewhere else. 2. A closer examination must be made on the traditional view of Genesis 1. Preterists hold to either of those two viewpoints. Hopefully the debate will address arguments from both sides - but I have no problem reconciling the creation of the physical universe made to be used later in the religious participations of Israel as they placed their faith in sacrifice, altar and Temple as those things already in existence in the true sacrifice, altar and Temple found only in heaven at that time. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Jan 23, 2011 18:11:42 GMT -5
What sort of arguments will you accept? What do you mean by Scriptureless? I don't think it's a matter of accepting an "argument". It's a matter of statement. If the bible states nowhere that God created the heavens and the earth, then I'm not sure what kind of argument would suffice to convince us that He did. I believe there is only One True God because the bible categorically says so (John 17:3). I believe that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, again, because the bible clearly says so (John 20:31). I'm a preterist because I believe in the clear teaching of scriptures such as Mat 16:27, 28 and Mat 10:23. If no scripture teaches (and I'm not talking about "implies" or "can be understood to mean") that God created the heavens and the earth, I honestly don't understand why you would believe that he did. What I mean by scripture-less is that there are no scriptures which directly address it. Anyway, this was just a side point. Don't waste your time addressing it. I was just curious as to whether there was a simple answer. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 23, 2011 18:32:19 GMT -5
What sort of arguments will you accept? What do you mean by Scriptureless? I don't think it's a matter of accepting an "argument". It's a matter of statement. If the bible states nowhere that God created the heavens and the earth, then I'm not sure what kind of argument would suffice to convince us that He did. I believe there is only One True God because the bible categorically says so (John 17:3). I believe that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, again, because the bible clearly says so (John 20:31). I'm a preterist because I believe in the clear teaching of scriptures such as Mat 16:27, 28 and Mat 10:23. If no scripture teaches (and I'm not talking about "implies" or "can be understood to mean") that God created the heavens and the earth, I honestly don't understand why you would believe that he did. What I mean by scripture-less is that there are no scriptures which directly address it. Anyway, this was just a side point. Don't waste your time addressing it. I was just curious as to whether you'd have a simple answer. Paul, I gave you an answer. Was it not simple enough? |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Jan 23, 2011 18:39:31 GMT -5
I don't think it's a matter of accepting an "argument". It's a matter of statement. If the bible states nowhere that God created the heavens and the earth, then I'm not sure what kind of argument would suffice to convince us that He did. I believe there is only One True God because the bible categorically says so (John 17:3). I believe that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, again, because the bible clearly says so (John 20:31). I'm a preterist because I believe in the clear teaching of scriptures such as Mat 16:27, 28 and Mat 10:23. If no scripture teaches (and I'm not talking about "implies" or "can be understood to mean") that God created the heavens and the earth, I honestly don't understand why you would believe that he did. What I mean by scripture-less is that there are no scriptures which directly address it. Anyway, this was just a side point. Don't waste your time addressing it. I was just curious as to whether you'd have a simple answer. Paul, I gave you an answer. Was it not simple enough? No. But thank you for trying. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 23, 2011 19:08:44 GMT -5
Paul, I gave you an answer. Was it not simple enough? No. But thank you for trying. I didn't think it was simple, either! I understand the point Paul was making and I thought it was a very good point. But I think I understand Jeff's answer, at least in a simplistic way. The heavens declare the glory of God; the sky displays his handiwork. (Psalms 19:1 NET) The many branches of science, exploring those heavens, eventually leads one to the concept of intelligent design, if not directly to YHWH God. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 23, 2011 19:20:14 GMT -5
Paul, I gave you an answer. Was it not simple enough? No. But thank you for trying. Paul, Which step needs explaining? 1) The physical universe is not eternal. It had a start. 2) The law of cause and effect requires a cause for the start of the physical universe. 3) That cause is not physical. 4) Therefore, that ultimate cause is supernatural. There was a supernatural creator. 5) The God of the Bible demonstrated He can control the physical universe at his will. 6) No other god we know of has done the same. 7) Therefore, the God of the Bible is the only reasonable candidate for creator of the physical universe. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 23, 2011 21:41:53 GMT -5
What sort of arguments will you accept? What do you mean by Scriptureless? I don't think it's a matter of accepting an "argument". It's a matter of statement. If the bible states nowhere that God created the heavens and the earth, then I'm not sure what kind of argument would suffice to convince us that He did. I believe there is only One True God because the bible categorically says so (John 17:3). I believe that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, again, because the bible clearly says so (John 20:31). I'm a preterist because I believe in the clear teaching of scriptures such as Mat 16:27, 28 and Mat 10:23. If no scripture teaches (and I'm not talking about "implies" or "can be understood to mean") that God created the heavens and the earth, I honestly don't understand why you would believe that he did. What I mean by scripture-less is that there are no scriptures which directly address it. Anyway, this was just a side point. Don't waste your time addressing it. I was just curious as to whether there was a simple answer. You admit being a full preterist. I will assume (and I don't like doing that) that you believe the Lord appeared a second time in 70 AD at the destruction of Jerusalem. Problem. There is not a single Scripture that says that He appeared a second time at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD because all Scripture was written prior to that event! |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 23, 2011 21:47:43 GMT -5
[ The heavens declare the glory of God; the sky displays his handiwork. (Psalms 19:1 NET) The many branches of science, exploring those heavens, eventually leads one to the concept of intelligent design, if not directly to YHWH God. I find that verse extremely similar to: Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. (Psalms 102:25 KJV)Here is your verse from the KJV: The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. (Psalms 19:11 KJV)
Do you think Psalm 19:1 and Psalm 102:25 speak about the same things? |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 23, 2011 22:12:22 GMT -5
[ The heavens declare the glory of God; the sky displays his handiwork. (Psalms 19:1 NET) The many branches of science, exploring those heavens, eventually leads one to the concept of intelligent design, if not directly to YHWH God. I find that verse extremely similar to: Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. (Psalms 102:25 KJV)Here is your verse from the KJV: The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. (Psalms 19:11 KJV)
Do you think Psalm 19:1 and Psalm 102:25 speak about the same things?Ha! I deliberately avoided making any comment regarding if the verse spoke of physical elements or covenant because I knew full well there would be different opinions in that regard. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Jan 24, 2011 6:46:11 GMT -5
Hello Jeffrey,
The problem is, if scripture doesn’t categorically state that God created the heavens and the earth, then you’re just assuming that he did. Broadly speaking, science and religion clash because statements in scripture clash with statements in science. Science says that the universe came about by chance (i.e. without God). Christians (or some of them) don’t accept that because they feel it contradicts scripture (e.g Genesis 1:1-31). If you don’t believe that Genesis 1-2 proves that God created the physical universe, then what reason do you have (scripturally speaking) for doubting science’s claim? Who’s to say that the universe didn’t come into existence by chance? Do you have scriptures to refute that view?
You assume that, because God can control aspects of the physical universe, that he must somehow have created it. That doesn’t naturally follow. It just means he’s powerful. Scientists can split atoms and create matter. Yet scientists didn’t create the universe. It just means they have the knowledge and the ability to exercise a degree of control over it. The same could be said for God. (Accepting of course that God is obviously far more powerful).
I’m not saying all this to advocate the theory. It’s pure nonsense. All I’m saying is that if you remove the scriptures which say that God created the physical world, then you have no reason (scripturally speaking) to believe that He did. You can choose to believe it personally. But that’s not the same thing as having a scriptural argument.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Jan 24, 2011 6:49:07 GMT -5
Hello Mellontes, You admit being a full preterist. I will assume (and I don't like doing that) that you believe the Lord appeared a second time in 70 AD at the destruction of Jerusalem. Problem. There is not a single Scripture that says that He appeared a second time at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD because all Scripture was written prior to that event!Not a problem. We have categorical statements to say that Christ would return within that generation (Matt 24:34). That his return was imminent in the first century (Rev 1:1). That his return would coincide with the destruction of the temple (Matt 24:3). These things are written fact, and have been proven by history (Josephus etc.) Besides, Genesis 1-2 isn’t prophecy. So it’s a whole different ball game. Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Jan 24, 2011 6:53:22 GMT -5
Hiya Bev, The heavens declare the glory of God; the sky displays his handiwork. (Psalms 19:1 NET) The many branches of science, exploring those heavens, eventually leads one to the concept of intelligent design, if not directly to YHWH God. Which “heavens", Bev? Which "sky"? Which "sun"? Which "earth"? The same sun, earth, heavens and sky of Genesis 1-2... which are actually relating to covenants? The many branches of science, exploring those heavens, eventually leads one to the concept of intelligent design, if not directly to YHWH God. Only if you believe in God already. True, some have been converted. But many scientist are atheists and agnostics, and the majesty of the heavens does nothing to persuade them otherwise. Toodles. Paul |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 24, 2011 10:14:49 GMT -5
Hello Jeffrey, The problem is, if scripture doesn’t categorically state that God created the heavens and the earth, then you’re just assuming that he did. Broadly speaking, science and religion clash because statements in scripture clash with statements in science. Science says that the universe came about by chance (i.e. without God). Christians (or some of them) don’t accept that because they feel it contradicts scripture (e.g Genesis 1:1-31). If you don’t believe that Genesis 1-2 proves that God created the physical universe, then what reason do you have (scripturally speaking) for doubting science’s claim? Who’s to say that the universe didn’t come into existence by chance? Do you have scriptures to refute that view? You assume that, because God can control aspects of the physical universe, that he must somehow have created it. That doesn’t naturally follow. It just means he’s powerful. Scientists can split atoms and create matter. Yet scientists didn’t create the universe. It just means they have the knowledge and the ability to exercise a degree of control over it. The same could be said for God. (Accepting of course that God is obviously far more powerful). I’m not saying all this to advocate the theory. It’s pure nonsense. All I’m saying is that if you remove the scriptures which say that God created the physical world, then you have no reason (scripturally speaking) to believe that He did. You can choose to believe it personally. But that’s not the same thing as having a scriptural argument. Paul Paul, There are a lot of things Scripture does not speak on, that you assume to be true. Why are those not a problem? Broadly speaking, science and religion clash because interpretations of Scripture clash with interpretations in science. Big deal. Interpretations of Scripture clash with other interpretations of Scripture. Interpretations in science clash with other interpretations in science. Science says no such thing about how the universe came about. Some scientists do, but that interpretation shows the religion those individuals are committed to. What reason do I have for doubting "science's" claim? Because that interpretation violates the dictates of science. It is a religious statement, not a scientific statement. Here's a problem you have never considered. In the past 50 years, every christian who has written a detailed description about how Genesis 1-11 matches "true" science (except possibly Dick Fischer and Don Stoner) has born false witness against science. It may not purposeful, but it is the effective result. Some are quite purposeful in producing fraud, others produce a lot of wishful thinking, and still others are just ignorant of the subjects they are writing on. With such a poor track record, why would any thinking person believe their was any hope of finding an agreement between Genesis and the physical data. As for Fischer and Stoner, and actually all the rest, the details of their Genesis force futurism, typically dispensationalism, on the text. No one has ever produced a physical interpretation of Genesis 1 that allows preterism. They all require the biblical eschaton to be the end of the physical universe. There are no exceptions. After years of understanding this problem and attempting to find a physical creation solution, my coauthor and I eventually gave up and developed covenant creation. If you believe Genesis 1 is a history of the creation of the physical universe, then please produce an interpretation of Genesis 1 and an interpretation of the facts of science, that is, the hard experimental data, that are in agreement. If you can't find matching interpretations of the two sources of data, then you must conclude 1) produce unsupportable interpretations of one or both sources as most interpreters do, 2) that one of the sources is pure myth (as the young-earth creationists and the new atheists have done), or 3) that the two sources of data are describing two different events (which I have done). |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 24, 2011 10:18:43 GMT -5
Hello Mellontes, You admit being a full preterist. I will assume (and I don't like doing that) that you believe the Lord appeared a second time in 70 AD at the destruction of Jerusalem. Problem. There is not a single Scripture that says that He appeared a second time at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD because all Scripture was written prior to that event!Not a problem. We have categorical statements to say that Christ would return within that generation (Matt 24:34). That his return was imminent in the first century (Rev 1:1). That his return would coincide with the destruction of the temple (Matt 24:3). These things are written fact, and have been proven by history (Josephus etc.) Besides, Genesis 1-2 isn’t prophecy. So it’s a whole different ball game. Paul Paul, The early church almost unanimously saw Genesis 1:1-2:4 as prophecy and the remainder of Genesis 2 as mostly prophecy. You clearly disagree with the author of Hebrews and with John's own disciples. |
|
