Age of the earth

[quantumfaith]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...cience+of+God&hl=en#docid=2846284361709250986

 

[Marcia]

I dont see anything in Gen 3 that indicates that there was no physical death prior to Adam and Eve, if fact I dont see any statement that indicates Adam and Eve were created to physically live for ever, after all, God in his omniscience knew exactly what the course events were going to be.

I was referencing Gen 3 and Rom 8 regarding how the fall affected creation. Romans 5 is the place that says sin brought death.

Once again, if there was death before Adam and Eve, then Gen 1 is wrong that creation is good, or 1 Cor is wrong that death is the enemy and Rev 20 is wrong that death is thrown into the lake of fire. I am pretty sure the lake of fire is not an indication of God's favor.

 

[pinoybaptist]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...cience+of+God&hl=en#docid=2846284361709250986

Interesting video and lecture. At least, if he is a reliable source (and I have doubts about every human being regardless of their title, including myself, who am without title), he answered why the Bible only mentions the creation of the sun on which we base time on the fourth verse of Genesis.
However, there are some elements that he was not discussing. Here is Genesis verses 1 and 2: "1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

His discussion seems to be about the age of the universe (the open ended word he pointed out in the lecture), while the Bible in Genesis clearly says it is EARTH that was without form and void and the Spirit of God was moving upon (up on) the face of the waters. Since he mentions the big bang or compares this coming into being into a big bang resulting into orderliness, is he saying the earth came into existence because of a big bang which God caused in the beginning, before there was a day one ?

Truthfully, I have not finished the video, but will come back to it in an hour or so.

But right now, I will take what he is saying with a big spoonful of salt.
I have found that those who try to make the Bible and science fit together are a poor comparison to unschooled country preachers who just take the word of God for what it says.

 

[pinoybaptist]

also, notice that God's first act, and first words recorded in the Bible, was and were, to say "Let there be light", and then His second act was to separate light from darkness, and that was why there was a Day one (agreeing that the term "first day" is relative, if there is to be no "zero" which in a number line is where the number one is relative, positively or negatively).
Therefore, mightn't we say that order comes from there being light in darkness ?

 

[quantumfaith]

Interesting video and lecture. At least, if he is a reliable source (and I have doubts about every human being regardless of their title, including myself, who am without title), he answered why the Bible only mentions the creation of the sun on which we base time on the fourth verse of Genesis.
However, there are some elements that he was not discussing. Here is Genesis verses 1 and 2: "1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

His discussion seems to be about the age of the universe (the open ended word he pointed out in the lecture), while the Bible in Genesis clearly says it is EARTH that was without form and void and the Spirit of God was moving upon (up on) the face of the waters. Since he mentions the big bang or compares this coming into being into a big bang resulting into orderliness, is he saying the earth came into existence because of a big bang which God caused in the beginning, before there was a day one ?

Truthfully, I have not finished the video, but will come back to it in an hour or so.

But right now, I will take what he is saying with a big spoonful of salt.
I have found that those who try to make the Bible and science fit together are a poor comparison to unschooled country preachers who just take the word of God for what it says.

Yes, that is exactly "what he is saying" that science had determined and "does not violate" the tenets of scripture, the "big bang" was the initialization of God's creative act, from that point of singularity, all that there is (physical universe, us included) and will ever be, was "initialized" in that instant. The protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks, leptons, gluons, hadron particles, Higgs-Boson particles were created at that instant.

 

[quantumfaith]

also, notice that God's first act, and first words recorded in the Bible, was and were, to say "Let there be light", and then His second act was to separate light from darkness, and that was why there was a Day one (agreeing that the term "first day" is relative, if there is to be no "zero" which in a number line is where the number one is relative, positively or negatively).
Therefore, mightn't we say that order comes from there being light in darkness ?

From the scientific perspective, the creation of light occured momentarily (very brief) after the big bang during an "inflation" event, the instant in physics in known as the instant of "quark confinement". Before quark confinement, light could not "exist" and break forth.

Again, all of this, responds directly from the ex-nihlio creative word and act of Yahweh.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Yes, that is exactly "what he is saying" that science had determined and "does not violate" the tenets of scripture, the "big bang" was the initialization of God's creative act, from that point of singularity, all that there is (physical universe, us included) and will ever be, was "initialized" in that instant. The protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks, leptons, gluons, hadron particles, Higgs-Boson particles were created at that instant.

I guess I won't have any problem with that then, for as long as the final cause of it all is God.
I don't care whether the universe is billions of years old or thousands, because I think that is also relative to where you are at in measuring the age considering that universal distance (for want of a scientific term) is eventually measured in light years which makes his age example of his daughter sensible.

 

[quantumfaith]

I guess I won't have any problem with that then, for as long as the final cause of it all is God.
I don't care whether the universe is billions of years old or thousands, because I think that is also relative to where you are at in measuring the age considering that universal distance (for want of a scientific term) is eventually measured in light years which makes his age example of his daughter sensible.

Just an interesting thought, my own intellectual musing.....

Science has firmly established that the rate of the passage of time is not a constant value. We, (science) know that at least two variables, namely, velocity and gravity fields, affect the rate of the passage of time.

My musing.....

I John 1:5.... "God is light, in him there is no darkness at all.

For me, good theological support for the fact that "time" is irrelevant to God, the creator of time. Omnipresence means that He is at all points at any and all times t.

 

[olegig]

Once again, it comes down to how you interpret "imago dei" of which volumes has been written, for me, created in the "image" of God means created with rational thought and free will.

Is not this the crux of the matter???? How one interprets something, or better yet whose interpretation does one follow.........
And how do we decide which interpretation is true????
It seems almost annually some man puts out a new version of his "interpretation" and calls it a Bible.
Does this give us license to make up our own interpretation, or at some point do we say "God has done it" and now it is up to us to decide which interpretation is true?

IMHO we should let the Bible interpret itself, in other words if our private interpretation disagrees with other parts of scripture; then perhaps we should re-examine our interpretation.

I certainly agree man has the ability of rational thought and free will; but I also feel when man was created, he was without death because man was the image of God.

However in Gen 5:3 we see Seth was in the image of fallen Adam, not in the image of God; so what is different?
Although Adam was created in the image of God, we need to understand man is not in that image now; but in the image of fallen man through Seth.
But praise God, some day through the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross we will again obtain the image of God.

Again, IMO, the difference is found in Rom 5:12 which says sin by one man brought death into this world.
It does not say death upon this earth, but into this world.

I see no conflict in scripture if one feels there was death on the earth before God created this present world in 6 days.

 

[pocadots1990]

Is not this the crux of the matter???? How one interprets something, or better yet whose interpretation does one follow.........
And how do we decide which interpretation is true????
It seems almost annually some man puts out a new version of his "interpretation" and calls it a Bible.
Does this give us license to make up our own interpretation, or at some point do we say "God has done it" and now it is up to us to decide which interpretation is true?

IMHO we should let the Bible interpret itself, in other words if our private interpretation disagrees with other parts of scripture; then perhaps we should re-examine our interpretation.

I certainly agree man has the ability of rational thought and free will; but I also feel when man was created, he was without death because man was the image of God.

However in Gen 5:3 we see Seth was in the image of fallen Adam, not in the image of God; so what is different?
Although Adam was created in the image of God, we need to understand man is not in that image now; but in the image of fallen man through Seth.
But praise God, some day through the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross we will again obtain the image of God.

Again, IMO, the difference is found in Rom 5:12 which says sin by one man brought death into this world.
It does not say death upon this earth, but into this world.

I see no conflict in scripture if one feels there was death on the earth before God created this present world in 6 days.

There is a conflict in scripture because there was no death on the earth until Adam ate the fruit in Genesis 3. I believe that if Adam and Eve never did eat of the fruit they would still be perfect and living, but because they ate fo the fruit, death came upon the whole earth, not just man.

Death came upon people, Adam died spiritually because he sinned. The animals lived in harmony with each other until sin entered into the world. To say there was no death before the earth before creation is incorrect.

Also, God created the world out of nothing. So it nothing exists, then how can death have occurred before the earth was created? Let me answer my own question. IT CAN'T.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Just an interesting thought, my own intellectual musing.....

Science has firmly established that the rate of the passage of time is not a constant value. We, (science) know that at least two variables, namely, velocity and gravity fields, affect the rate of the passage of time.

My musing.....

I John 1:5.... "God is light, in him there is no darkness at all.

For me, good theological support for the fact that "time" is irrelevant to God, the creator of time. Omnipresence means that He is at all points at any and all times t.

I read a book by a mathematician before in refutation of claims by certain atheists that God cannot be omnipresent where he proved that God is not bound by time and can go back in time and forward using certain principles of quantum physics.
Forgot the title but will look it up.

 

[quantumfaith]

I read a book by a mathematician before in refutation of claims by certain atheists that God cannot be omnipresent where he proved that God is not bound by time and can go back in time and forward using certain principles of quantum physics.
Forgot the title but will look it up.

If you are ever intested, not assuming that you are, but I have many good titles of books which deal with the Science/God debate. I prefer to think of it as the integration of what man is discovering about what and how God has done things. As much is possible that is, within the context of mans limited and finite intellect.

 

[pinoybaptist]

If you are ever intested, not assuming that you are, but I have many good titles of books which deal with the Science/God debate. I prefer to think of it as the integration of what man is discovering about what and how God has done things. As much is possible that is, within the context of mans limited and finite intellect.

very kind of you.
yeah.
pm me some, but bear in mind I am 63 years old and have a brain almost drying up (just take a look at the avatar).:laugh:

 

[kyredneck]

very kind of you.
yeah.
pm me some, but bear in mind I am 63 years old and have a brain almost drying up (just take a look at the avatar).:laugh:

Heheh, Pinoy, there's nothing wrong with your brain; and you are dead on spot about the 'unlearned country preachers'.

I agree with Pink; there was a gap, the account given in Genesis 1 is a restoration, and there's a wonderful type/allegory that lies therein:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1458172#post1458172

 

[quantumfaith]

very kind of you.
yeah.
pm me some, but bear in mind I am 63 years old and have a brain almost drying up (just take a look at the avatar).:laugh:

The Science of God (Dr Gerald Schroeder)
The Hidden Face of God (Dr. Gerald Schoeder)
Belief in God in an Age of Science (Dr. John Polkinghorne)
Modern Physics and Ancient Faith (Dr. Stephen Barr)
Many good books by Dr. William Lane Craig
Many good books by Dr. John Polkinghorne, keep in mind, Polkinghornes books can be highly technical at times, and being briitish, his command of language is quite extensive.

If you have interest, I would also suggest searching the topic on Amazon, there are always great reviews written about books there, and you can get a good idea if a particular book is of interest to you or not.

 

[pinoybaptist]

The Science of God (Dr Gerald Schroeder)
The Hidden Face of God (Dr. Gerald Schoeder)
Belief in God in an Age of Science (Dr. John Polkinghorne)
Modern Physics and Ancient Faith (Dr. Stephen Barr)
Many good books by Dr. William Lane Craig
Many good books by Dr. John Polkinghorne, keep in mind, Polkinghornes books can be highly technical at times, and being briitish, his command of language is quite extensive.

If you have interest, I would also suggest searching the topic on Amazon, there are always great reviews written about books there, and you can get a good idea if a particular book is of interest to you or not.

many thanks.

 

[olegig]

There is a conflict in scripture because there was no death on the earth until Adam ate the fruit in Genesis 3. I believe that if Adam and Eve never did eat of the fruit they would still be perfect and living, but because they ate fo the fruit, death came upon the whole earth, not just man.

Death came upon people, Adam died spiritually because he sinned. The animals lived in harmony with each other until sin entered into the world. To say there was no death before the earth before creation is incorrect.

Also, God created the world out of nothing. So it nothing exists, then how can death have occurred before the earth was created? Let me answer my own question. IT CAN'T.

Again, I would tell you the same. Your argument is with the scriptures, not me.

Please note in the following it does not say "earth" as do you; but it says "world".

Romans 5:12 (King James Version)
12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

The Bible is very specific in its wording and IMO we do well to "split the hairs" of its terminology.
The basic point I am making is from scripture we learn "earth" and "world" do not mean the same thing, they are not interchangeable to suit our private interpretation.
Just as there is a Gospel of Grace which differs from the Kingdom Gospel, there is an "earth" and there is a "world", each with its own Biblical meaning.

IMO the Bible does not cause confusion, only man's rewriting of the scriptures to suit himself does that.

 

[Alive in Christ]

I believe the earth (and the entire universe) is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old

 

[Marcia]

Refuting the Gap Theory:

This article, after giving why some believe in the Gap Theory, then expounds on each of the points below, refuting those reasons:

1. The Gap Theory is false because of the mental gymnastics necessary to force its strained argumentation to agree with the actual biblical text.

2. The Gap Theory is false because it is based on an incorrect distinction between God’s creating (bara) and making (asah).

3. The Gap Theory is false because, in the context of Genesis 1:2, there is no justification for translating the verb “was” (hayetha) as “became.”

4. We reject the Gap Theory because tohu wabohudoes not mean only “something once in a state of repair, but now ruined.”

5. The Gap Theory is erroneous because there is no evidence for the claim that Satan’s rebellion was on the Earth, or responsible for any great “cataclysm.”

6. We reject the Gap Theory because its proof-text (Isaiah 45:18) is premised on a removal of the verse from its proper context.

7. The Gap Theory is false because it implies death of humankind on the Earth prior to Adam.

Sourcehttp://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/442

Also, see
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-gaptheory-problems.html

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache...f+gap+theory+refuted&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/gap-theory.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v10/i1/gaptheory.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v3/i3/gaptheory.asp