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

[DHK]

DHK, you can put me down for holding similar positions, in that, what I often "see" put forth here in BB land, seems to ignore the human element involved in the revelation of scriptures. There is no great "heresy" for one to acknowledge that the Bible is most certainly the record of God's revelation while also acknowledging the human involvement in that endeavor. The Bible is Truth, but it is not a volume of the sum total of ALL truth. (IMHO)

I agree with that statement, and have no problem with it. His interpretation of Creation is one I have never heard before (not in my own personal study, nor on this board), that everything revolves around a "sabbath theology" is what I was mostly referring to.

 

[quantumfaith]

I agree with that statement, and have no problem with it. His interpretation of Creation is one I have never heard before (not in my own personal study, nor on this board), that everything revolves around a "sabbath theology" is what I was mostly referring to.

FWIW, my favorite writer in the realm of the creation event, science, i.e. integrating the biblical record with our current and best scientific evidence is Dr. Gerald Schroeder. (Genesis and the The Big Bang....The Science of God)

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

EWF, I recorded a PBS program entitled, "How Beer Saved the world", there were actually some compelling arguments provided in the program.

Ahhh, how refreshing to see God providing a gift to mankind that leads to the development of man's civilization.......God indeed loves us & wants our happiness....:laugh: :godisgood: Think on that next time you have a cold one:thumbs:

 

[Dr. Walter]

Prove it. Everyone I heard espouse what I've proposed believe in the inspiration of the bible.

You need to get out more. I have had plenty of one on one encounters with professors in well known seminarys (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky; Lexington Theological Seminary, Lexington Ky) as well as the position by professors of other SBC seminaries who rejected plenary verbal inspiration when I attended Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary in Memphis Tn. One of the primary arguments presented by all of these professors was that Jesus and Biblical writers were primarily interested in conveying the truth of salvation and that is the real value of the scriptures rather than science, historical or doctrinal accuracy.

I sat down one on one with the President of Lexington Theological Seminary in 1978 and asked him if the New Testament taught some doctrines that I had listed. He responded unhestantly that it did. I asked him why he does not believe and practice them then. He responded without hesitation that the Bible was no more inspired than Shakespear and what was expressed was the personal opinions of men living in that cultural context rather than truth. He went on to say that the value of the Bible and the primary intent behind the giving of the Bible and its preservation was to present the simple facts of salvation.

The people I know who deny the inspiration of the bible suggest that its all false. That Genesis was written during the babylonian captivity. That Jesus May or May have not existed but certainly not the way the bible portrays it. That Jesus' body was thrown in a pit eaten by dogs. I have not suggested any of these things. Nor have the people I know who hold the view I propse. These are the ideas which people who don't believe in the inspiration of the bible hold.

You need to get out more. Those you are referring to are EXTREME rejectors of the Bible as God's Word and can be classed with atheists, agnostics and infidels.

There is a vast host of "Bible" scholars who do not reject everything the Bible teaches but reject the miracles of the Bible, creation account and its historical accuracy in all matters while claiming to be Christians.

The view I propose is held by people who hold to the legitamacy of the inspiration of The Holy Scriptures.

I have attended three different Bible institutions, I have a large library of reference works, I have read widely in school and out of school and I have never heard or read the PRECISE position you are taking. I have read those who take theistic evolution, gap theory and believe the Genesis account is in the same class as the Babylonian epic. I have read plenty of men who spiritualize the Genesis account. I would say that your PRECISE position is not held among "Bible" believing scholarship.

And second saying that Jesus was conserned with Salvation rather than science DOES NOT "reduce him from God in the Flesh to deceived and errant common man" but in fact it DOES show that God speaks to us truthfully on a level by which we can understand him.

You are talking about someone who claims "I AM THE TRUTH" and yet you charge him with only truthfully conveying cultural errors rather than transcending cultural error and teaching the truth. In contrast, when TRADITIONAL thinking was attempted by the elders to be passed off as "truth" Jesus rebuked it, corrected it. Jesus handled the Genesis account as historical and literal and not once treated it any other way.

For instance Ezekiel may not understand what he saw but he certainly reported what it was he viewed from his perspective otherwise he would have a narrative of explination the spiritual and physics of what he saw. But no he didn't fully understand the revelation so he described it as he saw it.

You are confusing apples with oranges. Ezekiel uses the terms "like" and "as" in his account because he is attempting to explain it from his own visual perspective. Genesis 1-2 is being described in factual literal langauge without any "like" or "as" human visual perspective involved. Jesus never attempts to describe the Genesis account from his own perspective but rather quotes the direct langauge and quotes it as a literal and historical fact in order to CORRECT false traditions concerning marriage.

You are allowing bias rather than Biblical scholarship form your position and approach. Again, I will follow Jesus and deal with Genesis precisely how he approached it and treated it - literal and historical as a basis to correct FALSE HUMAN OPINIONS - like yours. You have Genesis 1-2 cultural and human in perspective and thus have Christ CORRECTING a false human perspective about marriage by using another human perspective that is not historically or literally correct. Thanks any way.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are talking about someone who claims "I AM THE TRUTH" and yet you charge him with only truthfully conveying cultural errors rather than transcending cultural error and teaching the truth. In contrast, when TRADITIONAL thinking was attempted by the elders to be passed off as "truth" Jesus rebuked it, corrected it. Jesus handled the Genesis account as historical and literal and not once treated it any other way.

There is no such thing as a "Cultural Error" something is either a "Cultural Perspective" or not. The "Cultural Error" is a created device of your own making. God Relays a truth in a way people understand it. The sun rises and sets for instance. From our persepective the sun does in deed rise and set however the actual event is beter explained that the sun remains motionless and the earth rotates on its axis with one side facing the sun and the other away from the sun giving the illusion that the sun moves accross the sky. Has God lied when he said the sun rises and sets? No, but its not scientifically accurate either.

 

[Dr. Walter]

There is no such thing as a "Cultural Error" something is either a "Cultural Perspective" or not. The "Cultural Error" is a created device of your own making. God Relays a truth in a way people understand it. The sun rises and sets for instance. From our persepective the sun does in deed rise and set however the actual event is beter explained that the sun remains motionless and the earth rotates on its axis with one side facing the sun and the other away from the sun giving the illusion that the sun moves accross the sky. Has God lied when he said the sun rises and sets? No, but its not scientifically accurate either.

Since when is it from human perspective to describe the creation of the woman from the rib of a man? What is scientifically inaccurate about the words "after its kind"? What is scientifically inaccurate about the words "evening and morning" to describe a twenty four hour day? When are the words "evening and morning" ever used by Bible writers for anything other than a 24 hour day? How is the description of marriage in Genesis 2 scientifically inaccurate?

How can Jesus use the Genesis account to correct wrong views of marriage and Paul refer to it in order to present the doctrine of sin if the Genesis account provides only explanations from the human perspective?? Does not Jesus claim that what "God" has joined and therefore accredits the genesis account of marriage to God? He is quoting God's words and God's intent for marriage rather than Moses or cultural perspectives?

There is absolutely no basis to read the Genesis account as figurative, metaphorical or merely from a human perspective rather than literal and historical except to fit an unproven and unprovable THEORY.

 

[quantumfaith]

FWIW,

The Hebrew word for evening, Erev has as its more basic, root meaning chaos The Hebrew word for morning, Boker has as its root meaning order, clarity.

 

[Dr. Walter]

FWIW,

The Hebrew word for evening, Erev has as its more basic, root meaning chaos The Hebrew word for morning, Boker has as its root meaning order, clarity.

Usage not etymology determines meaning! Find where this phrase is used for anything other than a literal 24 hour period in scripture.

 

[quantumfaith]

Usage not etymology determines meaning! Find where this phrase is used for anything other than a literal 24 hour period in scripture.

At the moment, (I mean at this point) I am not arguing that it is anything different than 24 hour days. At this point, I certainly accept such, but also feel it is entirely possible that the rate of time passage is not equivalent to the rate of time passage that you and I experience. I am confident that you understand enough science to KNOW that time is not constant in our universe, in our galaxy, not even in our own solar system.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

There is a Big Bang, but the evolutionist's have it wrong. They have the Big Bang at the beginning of time, when the Bible places it at the end of time...

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

 

[Crabtownboy]

There is a Big Bang, but the evolutionist's have it wrong. They have the Big Bang at the beginning of time, when the Bible places it at the end of time...

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Have you ever considered there might be two big bangs?:smilewinkgrin:

 

[quantumfaith]

Have you ever considered there might be two big bangs?:smilewinkgrin:

Crabtownboy,

That second "bang" to which Fred refers, could be the big "crunch" which Dr. Hawkings originally proposed. However, since his proposal, a great deal of evidence (science) has not supported that concept. The measured velocities and calculation of "dark energy" hint that the universe will continue to expand until such time God acts and creates the New Heaven and New Earth.

I understand the "angst" that many believers have toward science and scientists, but personally I find the "big bang" and subsequent inflation without contradiction to scriptures record of the creation event(s).

I thank you for being a reasoned voice of faith.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Crabtownboy,

That second "bang" to which Fred refers, could be the big "crunch" which Dr. Hawkings originally proposed. However, since his proposal, a great deal of evidence (science) has not supported that concept. The measured velocities and calculation of "dark energy" hint that the universe will continue to expand until such time God acts and creates the New Heaven and New Earth.

This is not an area where I have a great deal of knowledge. When Hawkings coined the term big crunch was he referring to the theory of an oscillating universe where, in time, the expansion would stop and a contraction begin until all was 'crunched' until another big bang would begin the expansion again? I believe that has pretty well been rejected as you indicate above. Certainly the universe is continuing to expand.

I understand the "angst" that many believers have toward science and scientists, but personally I find the "big bang" and subsequent inflation without contradiction to scriptures record of the creation event(s).

I thank you for being a reasoned voice of faith.

I agree. I can see no contradiction in this topic either. I have a hard time understanding the fears expressed by many Christians in areas such as this. Science, IMHO, does show how God created and continues to create. Christians should have no fear here. Bad science is when science tries to state why God created in such and such a way. Bad religion is when religion tries to state how God created.

Should I duck? :laugh:

 

[Eric B]

I am glad that you believe in the inspiration of the Bible. I believe your statement here, because quite frankly, you are the only one I have ever heard that has ever espoused such a theory. Thus "everyone I heard espouse what I've proposed," probably just includes you. It is your opinion that you are posting, not the theological position of any others.

I first encountered this theory years ago, in a book entitled Understanding Scripture, which is by Mickelson & Mickelson and published by Hendrickson, which is a mainstream evangelical publisher.
seemed to make the most sense.

I did later find out somewhere that the idea came from Catholicism, or at least was widespread there.

 

[quantumfaith]

This is not an area where I have a great deal of knowledge. When Hawkings coined the term big crunch was he referring to the theory of an oscillating universe where, in time, the expansion would stop and a contraction begin until all was 'crunched' until another big bang would begin the expansion again? I believe that has pretty well been rejected as you indicate above. Certainly the universe is continuing to expand.



I agree. I can see no contradiction in this topic either. I have a hard time understanding the fears expressed by many Christians in areas such as this. Science, IMHO, does show how God created and continues to create. Christians should have no fear here. Bad science is when science tries to state why God created in such and such a way. Bad religion is when religion tries to state how God created.

Should I duck? :laugh:

Real, and true science unpolluted by agendas is and should be as intellectually pure as theology in that it searches out and seeks to uncover any absolute truth that God places within our reach of understanding. Theology seeks to understand the the attibutes of God and His relationship with creation, particularly humankind. While science seeks insight into His physical creation looking for principles and properties which can impact our "stewardship" of the natual created order.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Real, and true science unpolluted by agendas is and should be as intellectually pure as theology in that it searches out and seeks to uncover any absolute truth that God places within our reach of understanding. Theology seeks to understand the the attibutes of God and His relationship with creation, particularly humankind. While science seeks insight into His physical creation looking for principles and properties which can impact our "stewardship" of the natual created order.

Very well said. I completely agree.

 

[shodan]

Calvin on Creation

John Calvin's learned assessment still gives the best picture of the disussion here:

"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."

 

[billwald]

No such thing as "pure science." Everything is contaminated by religion and sin.

 

[shodan]

A couple quotes gleaned from my reading tonight that are pertinent to this and all discussions:

"There is no effrontery in burning to know, out of faithful piety, the divine and inexpressible truth that is above us, provided the mind is fired by the grace of our creator and savior, and not inflated by arrogant confidence in its own powers"--Augustine

"If we leave certain questions to God, we shall preserve our faith and remain free from peril."--Irenaeus

 

[quantumfaith]

No such thing as "pure science." Everything is contaminated by religion and sin.

Bill, the same could be said of theology as well.