If God created a 12 billion year old universe 6000 years ago

[chadman]

Third, your argument based upon imagined clarifications fails to consider that the abused interpretations of such phrases come from the Dark Ages by Rome rather than from the Biblical cultural context in which they were used. How do you know that the phrase "four corners" was not understood in the day it was written to simply mean four compass directions?

I wanted to at least respond on this point. First and foremost - the fact that I mentioned a precedent for literal vs symbolic, ie, 'eat my flesh', etc... is NOT to argue for Gen 1 details. It just demonstrates how we too draw a line in the sand with our interpretations regarding what is literal and symbolic, poetic, etc, whatever. All things are not black and white, and if it was so simple brother - there wouldn't be the thousands of splinters we see today in Christianity.

Did you ever wonder, really really wonder WHY Jesus prayed his last prayer for unity in the garden so ferverently and with such pure passion? I think he saw us all coming.

 

[billwald]

First chapter of Romans infers that we can learn something about God by observing the universe. If the appearance of the universe does not reflect reality then what do our observations tell us about God?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Simple minds...why is there such disagreement among Christians on this interpretation in Gen 1? Why isn't there a big issue about the name of Jesus' mother? Because THAT is simple. Saying it's simple doesn't make it so. LOL.

Theistic evolution finds its advocates primarily among liberals not conservative bible believing Christians.

Well there was but you appear to have backed off that position now since you have yet to give me the logic behind it. Funny because I thought you said in post 25 the following with which I take issue in particular:

I have not backed off at all from that statement. Creation within six literal days necessitates the creation of light from stars in transit because otherwise such light still would not be reaching earth. Creation of light bearers on day four necessitates the creation of light from the sun in transit because otherwise there would be no sunlight until day four and therefore no "day" light until day four. Again, the literal reading of the context demands creation of light, night light, day light in transit if this text is read literally and if creation was performed in six days according to the contextual development found.

God COULD have created the SUN on DAY ONE, and it would have taken only 8 minutes to get daylight to Earth. I still for the life of me, cannot fathom what you mean with this millions of light years statement - am I understanding you here? Seriously.

My argument was not based on what God "could have" done but upon the literal rendering of the context. Upon the literal rendering of the context both night light and day light were created instantly apart from the light bearers on day one and the light bearers were not created until day four.

Oh and don't go far reaching and blaming Catholic middle ages for Christians thinking the Earth was flat at one time - give me a break dude. Are you going to blame Catholics for belief at one time in the Phoenix?

Fact is...Christians once thought the Earth was flat, and when it was demostrated definitively that it was round, the Bible suddenly took on new interpretations. So why didn't Jesus enlighten everyone about a round Earth? Want to tackle that one - I noticed you dodged that bullet.

Please provide me any historical data that the Biblical culture within which those Biblical texts are found used such phrases to mean the earth was flat? The Dark Ages provides historical evidence that Roman Catholic scholars interpreted such phrases that way and such a interpretation continued into the Reformation.

I have no idea what mean by keeping more civil? I have not called you any names or made any assertions about your person.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I wanted to at least respond on this point. First and foremost - the fact that I mentioned a precedent for literal vs symbolic, ie, 'eat my flesh', etc... is NOT to argue for Gen 1 details. It just demonstrates how we too draw a line in the sand with our interpretations regarding what is literal and symbolic, poetic, etc, whatever. All things are not black and white, and if it was so simple brother - there wouldn't be the thousands of splinters we see today in Christianity.

Did you ever wonder, really really wonder WHY Jesus prayed his last prayer for unity in the garden so ferverently and with such pure passion? I think he saw us all coming.

If writers use symbolic, allegorical, figurative language and the context does not make it obvious then they have wasted their time and are poor writers. Look at the book of Revelation and the symbols and figures are contextually obvious and indeed spelled out in many cases.

In contrast there are no contextual indications that Genesis 1 and the six days of creation are given in allegorical, symbolic or figurative terms. Neither did Jesus or Paul interpret the language of the creation account as allegorical, symbolic or figurataive.

Only a Evolutionary bias read into the context (eisgesis) demands that such language must be taken allegorical, figurative or symbolical as no contextual evidence supports it at all.

For example the phrase "the evening and the morning" is the normal Jewish way of defining literal 24 hour days. Nowhere else in scripture is this phrase used metaphorical, allegorical, symbolical or figurative.

 

[Eric B]

You have disproved the very argument you continue to advance. Sin and thus decay did not enter until after the fall (Rom. 5:12) and therefore appearance of age does not involve decay at all as Adam and Eve were created with full appearance of age without decay, without sin until after their fall.

"continue" to advance? I don't remember arguing on this particular point before.

But as I tried to indicate, I was not really talking about Adam and Eve. I meant other parts of nature. A lot of what we call "age" is based on decay. So then you're saying God basically simulated decay without an actual process of decay, before there was any decay in the world. Why would he simulate decay.

 

[shodan]

Calvin's Perspective

Many Christians turn to Christian ministries like AIG, ICR, etc There they can find materials ranging from the scientific to the pseudo-scientific.

But for all the claims about the authority of Scripture, who ever starts there? Instead of reading about science, read about Scripture. Read commentaries.

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void and darkness covered the face of the deep…”

“….And God said, ‘Let there be light’…

How much time elapsed in the age of the earth between “darkness” and “Let there be light”? We have no clue in Scripture.

Day One and the days that follow are the week in which God sets his creation in order for the creation of man.

“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.” Deu. 20

This verse is often wrongly used. Here, speaking of that week, “the LORD made” not created as in Gen. 1:1. “Made” has the same connotation as our “making” our bed. We set in order what is already there.

John Calvin, ages before evolution arrived, made many great comments on Genesis: “He who would learn astronomy…let him go elsewhere….”


Calvin: ”Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God.”











Gen 1:1 is not a preface, it is an absolute statement; "heavens and earth" is a merism, a figure of speech that signifies the whole, ie. "the universe"

v. 2 tells us the state of the earth following that act; Calvin said something like 'the earth was not perfected' at its beginning.
NICOT: "Verse 2 then, describes the situation prior to the detailed creation that is spelled out in vv 3ff.

Three conditions of the earth are described, the last being 'darkness' for which God provides the remedy in v. 3, "Let there be light..."

And in the following verses he provides the remedies for the other two conditions.

There is a wonderful symmetry here: Days one to three have been called, "Days of Preparation" and the last three, Days of Filling or from the general to the particular . e.g. Day one has 'light' ; day four has sun/moon set in order. Day two has sky and day five has birds of the sky, etc.

IN these verses "heaven" and "earth" are used in a limited sense. "The dry land he called earth" [not the planet] The heavens, here, as the NIV translates it, is our "sky."

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void and darkness covered the face of the deep…”

“….And God said, ‘Let there be light’…

How much time elapsed in the age of the earth between “darkness” and “Let there be light”? We have no clue in Scripture.

Day One and the days that follow are the week in which God sets his creation in order for the creation of man.

“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.” Deu. 20

This verse is often wrongly used. Here, speaking of that week, “the LORD made” not created as in Gen. 1:1. “Made” has the same connotation as our “making” our bed. We set in order what is already there. [ie the remedy for the condition described in verse 2]

Thus the verse in Deu. is parallel with the "days" of the week...heavens, earth, sea, and all that is in them [It does not reflect on the creation of the universe but on that of setting the earth in order]

 

[Dr. Walter]

"continue" to advance? I don't remember arguing on this particular point before.

But as I tried to indicate, I was not really talking about Adam and Eve. I meant other parts of nature. A lot of what we call "age" is based on decay. So then you're saying God basically simulated decay without an actual process of decay, before there was any decay in the world. Why would he simulate decay.

What most argue to be "decay" found in geological layers is post-creation and due to the flood. However, the argument about a pre-Adamic race and decay is directly contradicted by Romans 5:12.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Many Christians turn to Christian ministries like AIG, ICR, etc There they can find materials ranging from the scientific to the pseudo-scientific.

But for all the claims about the authority of Scripture, who ever starts there? Instead of reading about science, read about Scripture. Read commentaries.

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void and darkness covered the face of the deep…”

“….And God said, ‘Let there be light’…

How much time elapsed in the age of the earth between “darkness” and “Let there be light”? We have no clue in Scripture.

Day One and the days that follow are the week in which God sets his creation in order for the creation of man.

“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.” Deu. 20

This verse is often wrongly used. Here, speaking of that week, “the LORD made” not created as in Gen. 1:1. “Made” has the same connotation as our “making” our bed. We set in order what is already there.

John Calvin, ages before evolution arrived, made many great comments on Genesis: “He who would learn astronomy…let him go elsewhere….”


Calvin: ”Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God.”






Gen 1:1 is not a preface, it is an absolute statement; "heavens and earth" is a merism, a figure of speech that signifies the whole, ie. "the universe"

v. 2 tells us the state of the earth following that act; Calvin said something like 'the earth was not perfected' at its beginning.
NICOT: "Verse 2 then, describes the situation prior to the detailed creation that is spelled out in vv 3ff.

Three conditions of the earth are described, the last being 'darkness' for which God provides the remedy in v. 3, "Let there be light..."

And in the following verses he provides the remedies for the other two conditions.

There is a wonderful symmetry here: Days one to three have been called, "Days of Preparation" and the last three, Days of Filling or from the general to the particular . e.g. Day one has 'light' ; day four has sun/moon set in order. Day two has sky and day five has birds of the sky, etc.

IN these verses "heaven" and "earth" are used in a limited sense. "The dry land he called earth" [not the planet] The heavens, here, as the NIV translates it, is our "sky."

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void and darkness covered the face of the deep…”

“….And God said, ‘Let there be light’…

How much time elapsed in the age of the earth between “darkness” and “Let there be light”? We have no clue in Scripture.

Day One and the days that follow are the week in which God sets his creation in order for the creation of man.

“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.” Deu. 20

This verse is often wrongly used. Here, speaking of that week, “the LORD made” not created as in Gen. 1:1. “Made” has the same connotation as our “making” our bed. We set in order what is already there. [ie the remedy for the condition described in verse 2]

Thus the verse in Deu. is parallel with the "days" of the week...heavens, earth, sea, and all that is in them [It does not reflect on the creation of the universe but on that of setting the earth in order]

The so-called "gap" theory is what you are advancing here and it is no better supported by Scripture than theistic evolution. Romans 5:12 and The fourth commandment do not support the "gap" theory and the distinction between "made" and "created" does not support it as the material substance of the universe was created in verse 1 on day one and then that substance was formed and filled (v. 2) in the following five days. The filling and forming of the created substance on days two through six was when the world was "made" into its final form.

Both Theistic Evolution and the gap theory include the effects of sin in creation prior to the entrance of sin into the world by Adam. Both ignore the effects of the flood in the geological surface of planet earth and both contradict scripture.

 

[shodan]

The so-called "gap" theory is what you are advancing here and it is no better supported by Scripture than theistic evolution. Romans 5:12 and The fourth commandment do not support the "gap" theory and the distinction between "made" and "created" does not support it as the material substance of the universe was created in verse 1 on day one and then that substance was formed and filled (v. 2) in the following five days. The filling and forming of the created substance on days two through six was when the world was "made" into its final form.

Both Theistic Evolution and the gap theory include the effects of sin in creation prior to the entrance of sin into the world by Adam. Both ignore the effects of the flood in the geological surface of planet earth and both contradict scripture.

My quote has NOTHING to do with the 'Gap Theory.' It is a straightforward reading of the text.

What you describe is not a straightforward reading of the text.

For those who do not know what the gap theory is--it is a 19th Century idea [long after Calvin]. One version proposes that the state of the earth in v. 2 is the result of God's judgement as a result of the fall of Satan. Thus the following verses are a re-creation. As Dr. Walter points out, the gap theory has no basis in Scripture.

 

[Eric B]

What most argue to be "decay" found in geological layers is post-creation and due to the flood. However, the argument about a pre-Adamic race and decay is directly contradicted by Romans 5:12.

I had more in mind stuff like the layers of a tree. I figured that had to do a bit with some form of death or decay (and rebirth or healing).

http://www.icogitate.com/~tree/treerings.ac04.htm

Maybe that's not the strongest example, but that's what just came to mind, and there seem to be many more, that I'm just not thinking of now.

Also, that much of the "light in transit" arriving at us shows the death and decay of stars and galaxies.

I would think YEC's best argument on light would be a theory you hear once in awhile, that light once moved faster (perhaps infinite speed), and then slowed down (as apart of the decay of the universe).

Also, isn't Flood Geology something that has been disproven? Though I guess, YEC'ers would never buy any claim of disproving.
I'm actually rather undecided on this question, because I see both sides tossing around all of this "hard evidence" that's supposed to disprove the other side, and it then begins to sound like "he said, she said". It's like one would have to become a geologist and prove one side or the other for themselves.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I had more in mind stuff like the layers of a tree. I figured that had to do a bit with some form of death or decay (and rebirth or healing).

http://www.icogitate.com/~tree/treerings.ac04.htm

Maybe that's not the strongest example, but that's what just came to mind, and there seem to be many more, that I'm just not thinking of now.

Also, that much of the "light in transit" arriving at us shows the death and decay of stars and galaxies.

I would think YEC's best argument on light would be a theory you hear once in awhile, that light once moved faster (perhaps infinite speed), and then slowed down (as apart of the decay of the universe).

Also, isn't Flood Geology something that has been disproven? Though I guess, YEC'ers would never buy any claim of disproving.
I'm actually rather undecided on this question, because I see both sides tossing around all of this "hard evidence" that's supposed to disprove the other side, and it then begins to sound like "he said, she said". It's like one would have to become a geologist and prove one side or the other for themselves.

Can you provide an example of any tree with rings that was not buried by the flood with more than 2000 years of rings or any living tree with more than 4000 years of rings?

 

[Dr. Walter]

My quote has NOTHING to do with the 'Gap Theory.' It is a straightforward reading of the text.

What you describe is not a straightforward reading of the text.

For those who do not know what the gap theory is--it is a 19th Century idea [long after Calvin]. One version proposes that the state of the earth in v. 2 is the result of God's judgement as a result of the fall of Satan. Thus the following verses are a re-creation. As Dr. Walter points out, the gap theory has no basis in Scripture.

Your reading into the text an assumption. You are assuming that verse 1 describes a different creation than found in the six days of creation. You are assuming what is found in verse 1 is created in contrast to what is found in verses 3-31 which is "made." You are placing a "gap" of time between verse 1 and six days. That is a "gap" and it is part of the "gap" theory.

My position assumes verse 1 is the creation of the substance and verses 2-31 is the formation and filling of the substance all within six days.

Your posit of a "gap" between what is found in verse 1 and what is found in verses 3-31 based merely on the distinction between "created" and "made" contradicts other clear scripture as no New Testament writer posits such a "gap" or refers to any previous creation. Such a position requires destruction of life and thus contradictory to Romans 5:12 and many other scriptures that trace sin and decay to one man Adam and the garden of Eden.

 

[Eric B]

Can you provide an example of any tree with rings that was not buried by the flood with more than 2000 years of rings or any living tree with more than 4000 years of rings?

True... Bad example, then.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Creation: Believe It or Not, Part 1

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/90-208 Does not get any better than this!:wavey:

 

[billwald]

from the url:

"You can either believe what Genesis says or not."

Genesis doesn't "say" anything.

On the other hand, Genesis claims, reports, that Isaac took Rebecca into a vacant tent the first time he saw her and the two of them married each other all by themselves. That, I accept as probable and useful in the current discussions about marriage.

 

[Dr. Walter]

from the url:

"You can either believe what Genesis says or not."

Genesis doesn't "say" anything.

Intellectual nonsense! You know very well what MacArthur means by the word "says"! The Book of Genesis is a report, a record given by Moses of the creation of heaven and earth. You can't refute MacArthur so you play the intellectual nonsense games.

 

[chadman]

First chapter of Romans infers that we can learn something about God by observing the universe. If the appearance of the universe does not reflect reality then what do our observations tell us about God?

Yeah exactly.

20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:

So what I am hearing on this forum from some, is that we in reality, cannot observe all that God has created around us as Romans states, and learn the 'invisible' things of God.

When we observe gravity, we can see the effects and even test them. Gravity is God's creation even though it kills people when they fall - maybe the 'sudden stop' is what actually kills, LOL.

We can observe light - and it's speed - and it's relation to time and space which are ALL Gods wonderful creation. We can find minerals God has created, and observe fire, and how it can change things natural form - to make...glass, and how it can be ground into a lens to observe more of God's creation - Stars and planets, and ......MORE LIGHT. And we learn of Red Shift - we learn how the universe is expansing still - learn the distance starts are from Earth.

But the great caveat I am hearing here is this: Physics, Light, Time Dating of materials, geological decay and age relations - all the natutural things God has created and uses in our daily lives as part of the universal cycles of life - are to be discounted once we hit 6000 yrs ago. At that time, God suposedly (not in Scripture mind you...) created FAKE AGE. He created 'appearances of age' not realities of age in all of His creation. This is what I am hearing.

 

[InTheLight]

But the great caveat I am hearing here is this: Physics, Light, Time Dating of materials, geological decay and age relations - all the natutural things God has created and uses in our daily lives as part of the universal cycles of life - are to be discounted once we hit 6000 yrs ago. At that time, God suposedly (not in Scripture mind you...) created FAKE AGE. He created 'appearances of age' not realities of age in all of His creation. This is what I am hearing.

Yes, it's bothersome to me to think that God intentionally deceives us by creating a universe with the appearance of age. Not just a few centuries, but millions of years. God cannot lie.

Titus 1:2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began,



And let's not forget Psalms 19, which states that observing God's creation reveals knowledge.

1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.
2 Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.

So,

1. God cannot lie.
2. Observing His creation tells us the earth is much older than 6,000 years old.

YECers have never had an adequate explanation for the speed of light problem. If we observe a star going super nova, according to YECers, that means that God created the light of an exploding star within 6,000 light years away from earth. So if God faked the light of an explosion that never happened, and since Psalm 19 says that observing the heavens reveals knowledge about God, doesn't that mean that we can't know anything? What other observed phenomena has God faked?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Yes, it's bothersome to me to think that God intentionally deceives us by creating a universe with the appearance of age.

Titus 1:2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began,


Not just a few centuries, but millions of years.

And let's not forget Psalms 19, which states that observing God's creation reveals knowledge.

1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.
2 Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.

YECers have never had an adequate explanation for the speed of light problem.

There is a difference between God decieving you and SELF-deception and yours is the latter not the former.

Every living thing was created with appearance of age as every living thing was created MATURE. That is not deception on God's part that is intentional design on God's part.

Much of what evolutionist claim as "age" is nothing but the consequences of the flood. When you find a tree upright through several geological layers and each layer is aged by evolutionists as millions of years different than the other layers - you know something is wrong especially when the tree rings only allow for hundreds or a few thousand years. Geological evolution is a make believe game based upon circular reasoning.

 

[chadman]

Theistic evolution finds its advocates primarily among liberals not conservative bible believing Christians.

I haven't ONCE mentioned theistic evolution. Why do you keep bringing this up? I am going to have to go out and study up on this one, since I must have something in common with them according to you.

My argument was not based on what God "could have" done but upon the literal rendering of the context. Upon the literal rendering of the context both night light and day light were created instantly apart from the light bearers on day one and the light bearers were not created until day four.

I grew up as you brother. Literal as they come. Problem is it isn't true that we can be that literal and not insert assumptions. You think God created with the appearance of age, not real age. That isn't stated in Genesis - it is you inserting your assumptions if you were completely honest. This is just one place in the Bible of very very many where we choose to be literal or not based on what we hope is right.

So yeah, God 'could have' created fake age - but the Bible doesn't actually say that does it? So you too, and all of us, insert our interpretation or bias into the reading of the text. Just be honest. I am.

Please provide me any historical data that the Biblical culture within which those Biblical texts are found used such phrases to mean the earth was flat? The Dark Ages provides historical evidence that Roman Catholic scholars interpreted such phrases that way and such a interpretation continued into the Reformation.

Are you hinting that there was some secret Trail of Blood thing where this super Biblical group held a Round Earth view before Galileo? Before we get into disregarding known history...which I somehow feel coming, do you have some card up the sleeve to show on an early round earth belief? If you do just say it. For now I propose most of the educated world, not just Christians only believe in a flat Earth before it was disproven by astronomy. I mean if not please enlighten a little. Cat and mouse makes me tired.