Evolution in any form in the Bible?

[matt wade]

Since when did believing in creation require a belief in an earth that is only a few thousand years old? I am a creationist but I don't see where that requires a very, very young earth.

I think the Biblical requirement is to have faith in God as our Creator, not to have faith in a timeline or a particular age of the earth or the universe.

So do you think that all those lineages and ages in the Bible are just made up?

 

[KenH]

No.

Are you sure there was no time between God creating the earth and the universe and then the six days of separating the water and the land, and putting the lights in the sky, and creating life on the earth?

 

[Grasshopper]

So do you think that all those lineages and ages in the Bible are just made up?

Could not man have been created at the end of the 6th day?

Do you believe the speed of light to be constant?

Is the universe much smaller than "science" tells us?

 

[matt wade]

No.

Are you sure there was no time between God creating the earth and the universe and then the six days of separating the water and the land, and putting the lights in the sky, and creating life on the earth?

Yes, I'm sure.

"The Gap Theory" is just an invention of man. Genesis 1:1-5 is one day. I guess I'm one of those crazy fundamentalists .

 

[KenH]

I have no problem with you believing that.

I don't think that the age of the earth, per se, should be a test of fellowship, or a test of salvation, or used to put down a fellow Christian(and, no, I am not accusing you or anyone else of having done so).

Personally, I don't know how old the earth or the universe are, and I really don't care how old the earth or the universe are.

 

[OldRegular]

Do you believe the speed of light to be constant?

I believe there is some recent scientific evidence that the speed of light is not constant.

 

[gb93433]

Genesis 1:1-5 is one day. I guess I'm one of those crazy fundamentalists .

Some would contend that the day changed in time due to the fact that the mass of water shifted toward the earth and conserving momentum.

 

[Creyn]

Since when did believing in creation require a belief in an earth that is only a few thousand years old? I am a creationist but I don't see where that requires a very, very young earth.

I think the Biblical requirement is to have faith in God as our Creator, not to have faith in a timeline or a particular age of the earth or the universe.

I wanna qualify my next remark by saying it only applies to the young-earthers I know personally and not necessarily to those who've made their case here, so no one should take offense...

The young-earthers I know, cling to that belief because of an irrational fear that Old Earth proves Evolution which proves God does not exist. neither of those is true.

My contention would be that Eden was a timeless place. Death didn't come to man until the fall, so there's no telling how many eons passed before Adam and Eve got thrown out, aged, then died. Certainly they could've been in harmony with God in that special place for long enough for the Dinosaurs and more to come and go outside eden, in the time-frame and manner that Science has laid out.

I mean, the Bible doesn't spell that out, but there's a lot we know about the natural world that's not in the Bible. DNA, microbes, vaccines...

Maybe God left them out to keep us in a state of awe, as inquiring minds perpetually discover more details of His amazing work. Just a thought.

 

[Alcott]

Genesis 1:1-5 is one day.

If to God, a thousand years is as one day, and one day as a thousand years, and man, who reckons a day as a constant divided into 24 parts called hours... how do you know it was the 24-hour definition if there was no man to witness it? With 1000 years = one day, that means it could be 1000 years or 86 1/2 seconds. But that double equivalency really means that God has no time boundaries, and he could call any phase a day, using it like Grandma Walton ["In my day....."]

I have written on this in the old Science forum. Why would God not create and then take was we call "time" to enjoy his creation without all the nonsense, vanity, and stubbornness of the creatures he had always intended to create that are like himself, who think they can take his words and then know everything, like when Jesus told his disciples to beware the Pharisees' yeast and they thought he was talking about bread?

 

[Allan]

If to God, a thousand years is as one day, and one day as a thousand years, and man, who reckons a day as a constant divided into 24 parts called hours... how do you know it was the 24-hour definition if there was no man to witness it? With 1000 years = one day, that means it could be 1000 years or 86 1/2 seconds. But that double equivalency really means that God has no time boundaries, and he could call any phase a day, using it like Grandma Walton ["In my day....."]

I have written on this in the old Science forum. Why would God not create and then take was we call "time" to enjoy his creation without all the nonsense, vanity, and stubbornness of the creatures he had always intended to create that are like himself, who think they can take his words and then know everything, like when Jesus told his disciples to beware the Pharisees' yeast and they thought he was talking about bread?

Because God delineated the time Himself. Evening and morning were 'one day'. And THAT is the term and definition God gave in describing the time He took to create. God used it before He created light and when He created light used it to establish what He meant regarding time. Are we to believe that God has no concept of time and that He was just throwing out words because He couldn't think of anything better even though He is the very creator of it?

The phrase a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day, does not mean that one day IS a thousand years to God. It simply means that time, with regard to eternity in which God dwells, has no meaning. Just as when a person in great fellowship with God, whether in prayer or study, and it seems like only a matter of minutes but in fact it is hours, or like when it seems you have been before the Lord for hours and in fact it has been only minutes. Thus the contruct of the sentence, specifically in the usage of word 'like' makes it a simile.

 

[Allan]

Could not man have been created at the end of the 6th day?

Wouldn't matter since he was created 'on' the sixth day, so at anytime 'on' the sixth day is still making man on it.

Do you believe the speed of light to be constant?

Not according to science.
However even if it was, and we know that the universe is expanding (as scripture even states concerning God stretching out the heavens) then source of light will be moving away from the object toward which the light is traveling making the distance greater than just what the light travels.

Science also tells us there were most likely times when the universe possibly expanded faster and slower at times. So if God made the light (suns) and then stretched them out away from each other, then you would have light upon the earth and seen even as it was moved away from it. So it would not be billions of years but in fact only one day. Remember God first made light and then He made the sun and stars. So using it to determine how old something the universe is borders on silly, especially when it is presumed by science that the universe is expanding at varied rates of speed through out time. Some faster and some slower. Even the distance they claim it is continuing to expand currently is hypothetical with no real certainty. Most of science anymore is postulation with no real observation.

Is the universe much smaller than "science" tells us?

Science only guess at the largeness of the universe. It could be much larger or even smaller. We only know what we can see, beyond that is simply guessing with mathmatical probabilities.

 

[OldRegular]

The phrase a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day, does not mean that one day IS a thousand years to God. It simply means that time, with regard to eternity in which God dwells, has no meaning. Just as when a person in great fellowship with God, whether in prayer or study, and it seems like only a matter of minutes but in fact it is hours, or like when it seems you have been before the Lord for hours and in fact it has been only minutes. Thus the contruct of the sentence, specifically in the usage of word 'like' makes it a simile.

I am going to print this for future use, particular in the discussion of 2 Peter 3.

 

[Alcott]

Are we to believe that God has no concept of time and that He was just throwing out words because He couldn't think of anything better even though He is the very creator of it?

No, we're to believe he was telling a bunch of human jerks an answer to the time immemorial questions: "Where did it all come from?" and "What's the meaning of it all?"

It simply means that time, with regard to eternity in which God dwells, has no meaning.

And what's the difference between that and my phrase, "God knows no time boundaries?"

 

[Alcott]

Quote:
Do you believe the speed of light to be constant?
Not according to science.

Before any arguing of this point, what is our reference for this? [or did you just dream it up?]

 

[preachinjesus]

I suggest you are wrong.

lol, how do expect someone to even begin to reply to this with a straight face?

Many scholars smarter than me disagree with that point!

Okay. I don't find too many young earthers out there in academic circles but I am sympathetic to the belief. I just find it difficult given the observable evidence available.

 

[preachinjesus]

Since when did believing in creation require a belief in an earth that is only a few thousand years old? I am a creationist but I don't see where that requires a very, very young earth.

I think the Biblical requirement is to have faith in God as our Creator, not to have faith in a timeline or a particular age of the earth or the universe.

I'm right here with you. We agree in this area.

I believe the Bible is the revelation from God and is without error in its teaching. I also happen to believe in an old earth position. It is troubling that so many have made such preferial issues tests for faithfulness.

 

[matt wade]

Okay. I don't find too many young earthers out there in academic circles but I am sympathetic to the belief. I just find it difficult given the observable evidence available.

What does the observable evidence tell you about the ability for someone to come back from the dead? Does science and observable evidence tell you that it is impossible? I assume you believe that Christ died and was resurrected? Why can you put your faith in God in one area, but not the other?

 

[preachinjesus]

I believe there is some recent scientific evidence that the speed of light is not constant.

I'd like to see actual citations of this. The belief was held by older scientists (i.e. Francis Bacon) before more formal measures were available. Yet in recent years this belief, as far as I have read, has been dismissed (when light is transmitted in unfiltered or unobstructed free space.)

Just curious for more tha speculation in this regard. :1_grouphug:

 

[preachinjesus]

My contention would be that Eden was a timeless place. Death didn't come to man until the fall, so there's no telling how many eons passed before Adam and Eve got thrown out, aged, then died. Certainly they could've been in harmony with God in that special place for long enough for the Dinosaurs and more to come and go outside eden, in the time-frame and manner that Science has laid out.

I mean, the Bible doesn't spell that out, but there's a lot we know about the natural world that's not in the Bible. DNA, microbes, vaccines...

Maybe God left them out to keep us in a state of awe, as inquiring minds perpetually discover more details of His amazing work. Just a thought.

This is where I'm at in all of this. I believe creation happened just as the Scriptures report but it is not attached to as linear a timeline given that the creation narrative applies to the Garden of Eden particularly and the rest of this generally.

Also I completely agree that Eden was timeless. I would add that more than likely several hundred thousand, if not million, years might well have passed between the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall.

It wasn't a Saturday "here we are!" and Monday "oops."

Also given the unique nature of the Hebrew used in the narrative it is difficult to suggest that there is such a linear timeline associated with creation.

I'm not alone in this. One significant profoundly evangelical scholar who backs this up is Dr. John Sailhammer. :thumbs:

 

[Creyn]

What does the observable evidence tell you about the ability for someone to come back from the dead? Does science and observable evidence tell you that it is impossible? I assume you believe that Christ died and was resurrected? Why can you put your faith in God in one area, but not the other?

But the resurrection of both Lazarus and Jesus are miraculous! Of course His abilities to heal in His time on earth are indefinable by science.

What we're talking about is whether science can determine a correct age for God's Creation, which is also a miracle, but age-definable nonetheless. It is not a question of lack of faith, but the ability to recognize that not everything is spelled out in the Bible. If God put the details of all His creation into words, the Bible wouldn't be just one tome, small enough to carry to church Sunday morning... it would be HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS... more than all the Science books ever written, because not every detail of His work is yet discovered and detailed by scientists.

So is Genesis the truth? Yes. Is Genesis the whole story? No.