Philosophical question of the day: Define time.:smilewinkgrin:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Do We Interprete genesis 1/2 as being Literal, Myth, or metaphorical then?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
- Status
Philosophical question of the day: Define time.:smilewinkgrin:
From my perspective, we can read the first two chapters first with the thought that they weren't written in chapter form and second with an open view of what they mean.
The first point is important. It seems obvious that the first creation account extends beyond 1:31 and ends at 2:3. When Archbishop Langton, in the 1200s, put the present chapter and verse structures in place he made numerous mistakes. This one is a doozy. By extending the first creation account to the proper framing we see it is a different kind of literature an a modern, scientifically evidenced empirical account of creation. (As someone who has done the translation work from the Hebrew) It seems obvious that the nature of the literature in 1:1-2:3 is a poetic form and polemical in nature. It is replying to pagan myths of creation contemporary of the writers of the Old Testament. The second creation account changes the language and form and talks specifically about the nature of the mankind's creation. It is different from the first. That's okay.
We don't need to formalize the first two chapters of Genesis beyond what they, themselves already do. When we try to force them into a Cartesian scientific modernism we deny that they are written in a completely different time and with a completely different aim.
The second point is that, just like other parts of the Bible, we need to look at reading difficult passages with grace and humility. It seems to me that the Young Eather quest is, while certainly a noble and pure one, rooted in an epistemological context mightily different from that of the original framers. We need to be careful at holding tightly an interpretation that hasn't been uniformly believed, even by the church fathers, and thus damage our faith on a point that could reinforce it.
This goes for other passages...I'm looking at you Revelation.
I believe that the earth, and creation, appears to be very old. I believe the creation accounts in Genesis are authentic, honest recountings of God's mysterious work. I believe that they are accurate, but that my understanding might not be. Finally, I believe God creates with age and there is too much empirical evidence one has to overcome to convince me that the earth, and creation, doesn't appear to be very, very old.
isn't the MAIN reason there would HAVE to be an old aged UNiverse/earth be either one is an Anthiest who bought into Evolution, so Long periods of time must have happened, or else one is a Christian Theistic Evolutionist!
Creationist does not require extreme age to be valid!
humblethinker
Active Member
Previous explanations granted, the idea that star light would take over 1 billion years to reach us seems good enough reason to me to see the obvious conflict.
quantumfaith
Active Member
That is an EXCELLENT philosophical question. Even the question of exactly "what time is" is excellent question. If you would like to experience some Sincere thinking into this, I would highly recommend:
"Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to time".
Wonderful book somewhat technical in places, helps one to understand the fundamental ideas of Relativity, quantum mechanics etc and their mathematical and philosophical relationships to time.
For "we created beings", I am convinced that time began at the instant of creation....the big bang (God's spoken word of creation). This "event" created the time-space continuum and dimensionality of our universe.
One can philosophically argue that "time" existed even prior to this, it would all be in whatever your precise definition of time might be.
I guess what you see as a fall back position I see as stepping away from our finite thinking and understanding. As humans, at times we "need" certain evidences and things to fit in order to believe and understand them. This is purely finite reasoning, particularly where science and Bible appear to clash. We have to understand the author of the Bible created science!
Does it seem like "good reasoning" that a human less than 24 hours old would be post pubescent and appear as a 30 year old nudist?
Is it good reasoning that this day old man was created from dirt...or that his wife came from his rib? Does it pass the reasoning test that the Creator of these people would eventually take the scorning, humiliation, punishment and place of His creation?We cannot always view things needing evidence and human reasoning. Many things in Scripture cannot be comprehended by our puny minds, and I believe the creation account is such a thing.
Last edited by a moderator:
humblethinker
Active Member
I guess what you see as a fall back position I see as stepping away from our finite thinking and understanding and how we "need" certain evidences and things to fit in order to believe and understand them. This is purely finite reasoning.
Does it seem like "good reasoning" that a human less than 24 hours old would be post pubescent and appear as a 30 year old nudist?
We cannot always view things needing evidence and human reasoning. Many things in Scripture cannot be comprehended by our puny minds, and I believe the creation account is such a thing.
I think I understand and agree with what you are saying. I don't think someone is necessarily wrong to believe something for which we do not have adequete evidence (I am that someone!). However, I am ready and willing to trade my less informed belief for a more informed belief, even if it meant admitting that my prior belief might have been inaccurate. I think you would agree, no?
I would only agree if man's science is not used to disprove the Bible, something I thing the OE'rs rely on too much, particularly on dating methods. Many things like a global flood are not taken intoo consideration, and the fact is we have no way of measuring how such an event hinders the dating process. If you can try to find the archaelogic find of a fossilized worm through a couple of layers of sediment. Without seeing the worm one scientist dated each one inch layer at 20k years old(or some similar outrageous number). Using such evidence and reasoning, that would mean the worm died and was fossilized over 60k years!
quantumfaith
Active Member
Webdog,
I am not in agreement that this is accurate. Science, in particular dating methods were in absolutely no way designed or hypothesized for the primary purpose of "disproving YE". While it is true, some agenda driven proponents of science do everything they can to use such as "whipping sticks", you must also consider their agenda. Dating techniques were designed with solid scientific and mathematical reasoning and research. If you might be so inclined to understand them and the theories and research behind them a bit (no sarcasm here), the following is a wonderfully informative informational link.
What might be of particular interest is pages 19 and following.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html
In other words, time is the description of a sequence of events.
That's a good, very basic definition of time as we experience it. However, when you start taking into account Einstein's theories of time and space (which have been demonstrated, up to this point, to be very accurate), it is clear that time does not progress at the same rate for everyone.
I do not think we know if time is rooted in God's Being ("in Him we live and move and have our being") or if it is a created thing distinct from Him.
quantumfaith
Active Member
:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
Discussion of this is detailed in William Lane Craigs book, "Time and Eternity: Exploring God's relationship to time.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Sorry I misunderstood your intent. Obviously, I am not YE, but I also would never say or claim to attempt to be "trumping" scripture.
quantumfaith
Active Member
As Christians it is of great importance that we understand God's word correctly. Yet from the middle ages up until the 1700s people insisted that the Bible taught that the Earth, not the Sun, was the center of the solar system. It wasn't that people just thought it had to be that way; they actually quoted scriptures: "The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved" (Psalm 104:5), or "the sun stood still" (Joshua 10:13; why should it say the sun stood still if it is the Earth's rotation that causes day and night?), and many other passages. I am afraid the debate over the age of the Earth has many similarities. But I am optimistic. Today there are many Christians who accept the reliability of geologic dating, but do not compromise the spiritual and historical inerrancy of God's word.
As scientists, we deal daily with what God has revealed about Himself through the created universe. The psalmist marveled at how God, Creator of the universe, could care about humans: "When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have set in place, what is man that You are mindful of him, the son of man that You care for him?" (Psalm 8:3-4). Near the beginning of the twenty-first century we can marvel all the more, knowing how vast the universe is, how ancient are the rocks and hills, and how carefully our environment has been designed. Truly God is more awesome than we can imagine!
As scientists, we deal daily with what God has revealed about Himself through the created universe. The psalmist marveled at how God, Creator of the universe, could care about humans: "When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have set in place, what is man that You are mindful of him, the son of man that You care for him?" (Psalm 8:3-4). Near the beginning of the twenty-first century we can marvel all the more, knowing how vast the universe is, how ancient are the rocks and hills, and how carefully our environment has been designed. Truly God is more awesome than we can imagine!
Tom Bryant
Well-Known Member
You ought to copywrite that!
This is what I believe.
God wanted man to see the stars. So He created them with the light having made it to earth. Easy peasy for God!
I've been meaning to get a copy of that book. Sounds like it would be very helpful.
Yes, webby.. with a byline...
My interpretation of GEN 1,2:
"Whomp there it is"! ~ God
Alive in Christ
New Member
I believe the earth, and the entire universe, is somewhere between 6,000 to 10,000 years old.
I came to that view primarily through a tape series, and a couple of books I read, back in the 1980's.The book and tapes were very well done, and were quite convincing.
The men involved were scientists, and also evangelical christians.
I came to that view primarily through a tape series, and a couple of books I read, back in the 1980's.The book and tapes were very well done, and were quite convincing.
The men involved were scientists, and also evangelical christians.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status