-
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 you believe that there has been millions and millions of years?
- Thread starter Alive in Christ
- Start date
- Status
I finally decided to look up and paste my post from the old Science Forum, in which I explained why I don't have a definite position on this:
The only firm “position” I espouse on the Young Earth Creationist v. Old Earth Evolutionist ongoing debate is that I wish it didn’t exist. Both sides would probably agree with that, but both would still be unwilling to concede one letter.
Why I am not a young earth creationist: The Bible does not give us the details of creation that YEC’s have a yearning to claim. “God said let there be light, and there was light”… light exists because God said to let it happen. We can’t necessarily conclude that light was inevitable unless He kept it from happening, even though a strict understanding of the wording might suggest that. But we can be quite certain no details about energy production, photons, light’s finite speed and the universal speed limit are included because they are beyond our understanding; certainly of ancient times, but most likely also today if He really told us these things. Maybe even in the world to come to have a grasp of what was really happening in the world we knew may require a doctorate that takes centuries to achieve.
But at any rate, it doesn’t seem to be hard to accept the “let it happen” explanation in regard to light. So what about life then? “Let the earth bring forth every living thing…” That living things are made up of the same substances of mineral earth is not part of the debate, fortunately, except where the element carbon is involved in its unique natural property of forming large and virtually unlimited compounds which react in unique and virtually unlimited ways. Just as God had determined the properties of light before He said “Let there be light,” He must have determined the chain-forming property of carbon before he said “Let the earth bring forth…living things.” Considering the location of the earth in relation to its main light, the abundance of water, and the tendency of carbon to form large molecules with other abundant elements, perhaps life was also inevitable unless He deliberately kept it from happening. But even with all these qualities present to nurture life and make life forms which depend on other life forms, the “inevitability” question depends on time, and that for me is the essence of this whole topic.
To think that God created the idea of day with the set figure of what we know as 24 hours (an arbitrary division thereof, at any rate) does not do justice to an almighty creator. Scripture itself disproves that day=24 hours and not more nor less in the story of Joshua’s answered prayer for the sun to remain visible for 22 hours, making that particular day about 34 hours altogether. A day can be anything God determines it to be, and that is not even exclusive of a period of time. I don’t profess to know Hebrew, but the abundance of information appears reliable that “day” does have the multiple meanings of sun appearing to sun disappearing, era, or emphasis. In English it does foster the same connotations… “In my day…”,”There is a new day dawning,.. “—these figures of speech can mean an indefinite time or an era characterized by something in relation to something else. If God has literally all the time in the world, why wouldn’t He use it to create and enjoy His creation? Most of us have seen computer models speculating how mountain ranges and canyons were formed over the eons. If God had a “front-row seat” to watch the real thing actually happening resulting from His own predetermined natural laws and He could just watch it for millions of years, then who are we to say he couldn’t have done that because of His own time scale. That would compare to Moses and Aaron refusing to make that bronze serpent He told them to make because of His own law, “Thou shalt not make any graven image…” Literalism can go amuck if it compels us to limit God by His own laws or His own time.
Why I am not an old earth evolutionist: While I don’t know if I made any kind of positive impression on the “old earthers” who post in this forum with my explanation of why I am not a “young earther,” this part will unquestioningly make a negative one. My question to young earthers, “Why wouldn’t God take pleasure in enjoying His creation” in a step-by-step way eras and eons before the man/sin/redemption “day” came, can be translated to old earthers as “Why would He…?” Why would He, for instance, create the planet earth and not fast-forward through the first billion or 2 years to see life begin? That’s not to ask why would He not have slow-motioned it either, of course, but why must the earth and it’s life forms be as old as our best dating methods indicate? But perhaps more important, why would He give us in His Word deliberately misleading language about the creation of Adam and the first woman [if man did evolve, it seems nonsense to really believe the first woman was formed of a ribectomy]? And then to include these accounts in conveying the message of salvation to us? As young earthers limit the scope of what God could have done by subjecting Him to His own laws He proclaimed for us, then you limit God by declaring what He must have done because our investigations into the processes thus indicate. Did He create carnivorous predators to eat the comparatively gentle herbivores for no other reason for millions of years but to watch the “show” of His creation? I don’t know. It’s only in recent years that we have come to get a grip on our sympathies for when we watch a coyote chase down and kill a harmless furry rabbit. The explanation of non-theists to this question is simple: nature is indifferent to the wishes or feelings of any being which has them. You have to substitute God for “nature” here if you are “theistic evolutionist.” God simply lets His creatures be violently killed and eaten, or occasionally trapped by rocks or trees or burned to death by a wildfire or a lava flow. On the other hand, He did create the natural violence of this world and He does today treat it with indifference; so the issue of the “justice” or “fairness” of all this is out of scope; if it happens today, it could have happened millions of years ago. But it must not be assumed that it must have thus happened because going that far is out of our scope.
I see scientific theories never as facts, but as useful foundations. It may not be true that an electrical current flows negative to positive, but that is a useful foundation of so many implements that we use daily. Newton’s gravitational theory is another useful foundation, even though modern physics requires a bit of an adjustment thereto. The theories of the development of the universe, the solar system, the earth and our life forms are all useful. They can serve us to perform many useful endeavors. But we still may have them wrong; certainly in the way God ‘engineered’ them. There could literally be “nothing new to discover” if all things were within our understanding. But “man’s wisdom is foolishness to God.” That’s what I believe on that.
In summary (and I hope this short concluding paragraph is not the only part read by many in this long post), both young earthers and old earthers underemphasize the power of God. What did happen can happen, but what can happen did not necessarily happen; but what can’t happen still may have happened with an all-powerful God. This is why I have no definitive position on this matter, and why I wish there were not such a conflict.
The only firm “position” I espouse on the Young Earth Creationist v. Old Earth Evolutionist ongoing debate is that I wish it didn’t exist. Both sides would probably agree with that, but both would still be unwilling to concede one letter.
Why I am not a young earth creationist: The Bible does not give us the details of creation that YEC’s have a yearning to claim. “God said let there be light, and there was light”… light exists because God said to let it happen. We can’t necessarily conclude that light was inevitable unless He kept it from happening, even though a strict understanding of the wording might suggest that. But we can be quite certain no details about energy production, photons, light’s finite speed and the universal speed limit are included because they are beyond our understanding; certainly of ancient times, but most likely also today if He really told us these things. Maybe even in the world to come to have a grasp of what was really happening in the world we knew may require a doctorate that takes centuries to achieve.
But at any rate, it doesn’t seem to be hard to accept the “let it happen” explanation in regard to light. So what about life then? “Let the earth bring forth every living thing…” That living things are made up of the same substances of mineral earth is not part of the debate, fortunately, except where the element carbon is involved in its unique natural property of forming large and virtually unlimited compounds which react in unique and virtually unlimited ways. Just as God had determined the properties of light before He said “Let there be light,” He must have determined the chain-forming property of carbon before he said “Let the earth bring forth…living things.” Considering the location of the earth in relation to its main light, the abundance of water, and the tendency of carbon to form large molecules with other abundant elements, perhaps life was also inevitable unless He deliberately kept it from happening. But even with all these qualities present to nurture life and make life forms which depend on other life forms, the “inevitability” question depends on time, and that for me is the essence of this whole topic.
To think that God created the idea of day with the set figure of what we know as 24 hours (an arbitrary division thereof, at any rate) does not do justice to an almighty creator. Scripture itself disproves that day=24 hours and not more nor less in the story of Joshua’s answered prayer for the sun to remain visible for 22 hours, making that particular day about 34 hours altogether. A day can be anything God determines it to be, and that is not even exclusive of a period of time. I don’t profess to know Hebrew, but the abundance of information appears reliable that “day” does have the multiple meanings of sun appearing to sun disappearing, era, or emphasis. In English it does foster the same connotations… “In my day…”,”There is a new day dawning,.. “—these figures of speech can mean an indefinite time or an era characterized by something in relation to something else. If God has literally all the time in the world, why wouldn’t He use it to create and enjoy His creation? Most of us have seen computer models speculating how mountain ranges and canyons were formed over the eons. If God had a “front-row seat” to watch the real thing actually happening resulting from His own predetermined natural laws and He could just watch it for millions of years, then who are we to say he couldn’t have done that because of His own time scale. That would compare to Moses and Aaron refusing to make that bronze serpent He told them to make because of His own law, “Thou shalt not make any graven image…” Literalism can go amuck if it compels us to limit God by His own laws or His own time.
Why I am not an old earth evolutionist: While I don’t know if I made any kind of positive impression on the “old earthers” who post in this forum with my explanation of why I am not a “young earther,” this part will unquestioningly make a negative one. My question to young earthers, “Why wouldn’t God take pleasure in enjoying His creation” in a step-by-step way eras and eons before the man/sin/redemption “day” came, can be translated to old earthers as “Why would He…?” Why would He, for instance, create the planet earth and not fast-forward through the first billion or 2 years to see life begin? That’s not to ask why would He not have slow-motioned it either, of course, but why must the earth and it’s life forms be as old as our best dating methods indicate? But perhaps more important, why would He give us in His Word deliberately misleading language about the creation of Adam and the first woman [if man did evolve, it seems nonsense to really believe the first woman was formed of a ribectomy]? And then to include these accounts in conveying the message of salvation to us? As young earthers limit the scope of what God could have done by subjecting Him to His own laws He proclaimed for us, then you limit God by declaring what He must have done because our investigations into the processes thus indicate. Did He create carnivorous predators to eat the comparatively gentle herbivores for no other reason for millions of years but to watch the “show” of His creation? I don’t know. It’s only in recent years that we have come to get a grip on our sympathies for when we watch a coyote chase down and kill a harmless furry rabbit. The explanation of non-theists to this question is simple: nature is indifferent to the wishes or feelings of any being which has them. You have to substitute God for “nature” here if you are “theistic evolutionist.” God simply lets His creatures be violently killed and eaten, or occasionally trapped by rocks or trees or burned to death by a wildfire or a lava flow. On the other hand, He did create the natural violence of this world and He does today treat it with indifference; so the issue of the “justice” or “fairness” of all this is out of scope; if it happens today, it could have happened millions of years ago. But it must not be assumed that it must have thus happened because going that far is out of our scope.
I see scientific theories never as facts, but as useful foundations. It may not be true that an electrical current flows negative to positive, but that is a useful foundation of so many implements that we use daily. Newton’s gravitational theory is another useful foundation, even though modern physics requires a bit of an adjustment thereto. The theories of the development of the universe, the solar system, the earth and our life forms are all useful. They can serve us to perform many useful endeavors. But we still may have them wrong; certainly in the way God ‘engineered’ them. There could literally be “nothing new to discover” if all things were within our understanding. But “man’s wisdom is foolishness to God.” That’s what I believe on that.
In summary (and I hope this short concluding paragraph is not the only part read by many in this long post), both young earthers and old earthers underemphasize the power of God. What did happen can happen, but what can happen did not necessarily happen; but what can’t happen still may have happened with an all-powerful God. This is why I have no definitive position on this matter, and why I wish there were not such a conflict.
Marcia said:
I did in fact point out that this is Scientific Genesis, which scientific skeptics tell me refutes Biblical Genesis - I don't believe it does.
If I wanted to play word games too I could ask why you think God is a mindless organism?
no more word games if you wish a serious response - but I don't think that's going to happen
if you want word games you're on your own
God bless
Marcia
Active Member
Anthony said:
Nobody is playing word games. Why do you say that? You said that to someone else you disagree with, too.
Where in the world did I say God is a mindless organism? I got the word "mindless" from what you posted.
You make assertions but don't seem to want to defend them. Sin brought death but in the scenario you posted, death came before man existed, and man came from mindless organisms.
gb93433 said:
As a matter of fact, YES. :laugh: :laugh:
From Adam until Jesus was Four thousand years, 4 days at a thousand years per day.
and the "Seventh day" is "three days later", 5th, 6th, 7th or MK, which is when the bible says the "first resurrection" will take place.
a single Prophecy can/does have a "DUAL APPLICATION",
one "Spiritual" to cover Jesus first coming,
one "literal" to cover his second coming.
now read the following prophecy, "TWICE".
the first time apply the 24 hour day, (first coming) and the second time apply the thousand year day. (second coming)
Ho 6:2 After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.
http://i25.tinypic.com/1znaptj.jpg
and there are many more such prophecies.
Alcott said:
Somehow I managed to miss the one intelligent response.
I've had enough of Literalists - when they start I leave. Literalism has its place in preventing free-for-all heresy but they take it too far.
This Days argument is a source of conflict and like you I hold no concrete position.
I have one of them demanding that I defend a position I CLEARLY stated wasn't mine - they just don't listen to a thing you say.
I've yet to hear a Literalist explain where the people in Nod came from.
Did God create them so Cain could have a wife?
Yet God tells us there were people in Nod - and that Cain was afraid "men" would kill him - yet the only other man was Adam.
Adam was deathless in Eden - how long was he there? Hundreds, thousands of years?
Adam was a special creation of God, protected from the rest of the world.
Did Adam name the whale? The octopus?
It's these questions that skeptics want answers to, and the attitude of Literalists drives them off.
Even if the Lord did do creation in 6 human days there is a lot of other things he did, told us about, but not when or where he did it.
That had to happen after creation.
Satan was there in Eden! I suspect he may have been doing a little experimenting with creatures who existed before Adam; that he rigged up to compete with God's work - that wasn't part of God's creation.
Nephilim mated with humans, humans were there elsewhere when Adam was, so Satan could have mated with them.
God made Adam to replace those forbidden creatures.
No one knows how long Adam was in Eden - time gap of unknown length.
Believe it or not that would leave Genesis - as written - totally intact!
God may have made lesser humans to tend his works as Adam did Eden - but they weren't the ones he would create in HIS image.
Talking to Literalists is like talking to a stone wall - there is no point in it and it only brings conflict. Let them do what they want, think what they want.
Joshua?
Why did God need to lengthen a day to defeat them?
As with Gideon it was God, not Joshua who defeated those opponents.
Why lengthen a day? To show us he could, and that a day is not limited to 24 hours for HIM - only for us.
Why would he need to lengthen a day to defeat foes he could have stricken with fear until they surrendered - or simply opened the ground under their feet?
I figured you deserved a reply to your serious post, but I am not going to spend any more time on these others. These are my last words on the topic.
God bless
You do know that these questions HAVE been answered by literalists, right?Anthony said:
They were Adam and Eve's children, and their childrens childrens, ect...
No, not in the same manner as God did Eve. She was part of his own family lineage. Actaully more like a neice.
Yep, still no problem biblically. What you don't have the age of Cain when all this transpired. And since men at that time lived well past 500 years you can bet the house was getting a little small.
Since Adam was obedient to what God said, and the fact the he and Eve were married, we can pretty much guess that they were there less than 9 months.
Probably 'much' less.Scripture says that God brought the animals which He had made "out of the ground" to Adam and thus Adam named all these animals.
Does this state that Adam named all the animals in the seas or Oceans or the land?
The answers have been given them and I don't know of any that have been driven off becauase of attitude but more because they don't believe what scripture actaully states is true. They say it must be a myth because we can not concieve such a thing happening.
Why?
Satan is not a creator nor does scripture even ascribe to him the power to create.
But there were no 'creature' prior to Adam other than animals.
The only substance to this position is that of conjecture. There is nothing in scripture which substantiates the claim that other humans existed when Adam was created.
Another point - fallen angels could not have 'mated' with humans or Jesus was liar. He said that they can not 'reproduce'. Also in accordence with God's decree all things reproduce 'after their own kind'. A spirit has no substance whereby to procreate with any way. Thus Jesus own statement when His disciples thought He was a spirit. He said basically - touch me and feel the scars. You can not touch a spirit but me you can. (no substance).
Where does scripture state this?
True, but we can place a pretty sure bet it was not longer than 9 months at most!
Then you misunderstand the work 'mankind' and 'man' and 'Adam'.
Great point. He made the day stand still. He didn't make the sun go down and come back up in the same day. In other words, there was no span of "evening and morning" in Joshua's long day.
Yes, and the answer he gave you was that he used 24 hour days. That's what the Hebrew says, and the HEbrew construction God inspired means nothing else than a 24 hour day anywhere in Scripture.
That's absurdity. It is like making a "round square" or a "square circle." A year, by definition, is 365 days. A day is 84,600 seconds. That's why God established the sun, moon, and stars ... to be markers for days and year and seasons.
The Bible says that with God "a day is as a thousand years." It does not say a day is a thousand years. Those are two very different statements. The point there is that God does not see time the way we do.
There was an evening and a morning. There was a separation of light and dark which constituted an evening and a morning. And there was a first day.
- Status