quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribbles

LoyalGypsy,

Your interpretation is taking 2 Peter 3:8 grossly out of context. If we were to follow that train of thought, then Christ was in the grave for three thousand years.

quote:

But if we have the capacity to think beyond the limits of time, Those 3 days or some 3000 years is when Jesus has also walked "before us"..

quote:

It is very possible that God created the universe in 144-hours or instantaneously. That would simply mean that what we see in His creation just appears older than it is. Some would argue that it doesn’t appear old to them and that’s fine, but it does to me.

I do agree with Augustine where he writes that “It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.”

Before being born-again, I was an agnostic astronomy buff and considered a young universe to be an incredibly absurd notion and would laugh those who spoke of such things to scorn. It wasn’t until I learned that alternative interpretations of Genesis’ creation account existed that I was willing to consider other “evidences” of a Creator and Savior. While I no longer consider a young universe an absurd notion from a theological viewpoint (nor do I laugh at those with that belief), I see many problems from geology, paleontology, and especially astronomy. Believe me, I would love to believe in a young universe. As it stands, I am kind of fearful that my “day-age” beliefs will be discovered by folks at my church (only a few know). Many there have been taught by YEC organizations that people with my type of beliefs border on the heretical if not outright heretics.

Let science describe the creation. I am confident that with the proper interpretation of both scientific discoveries and the bible, the bible will always be upheld. As has been mentioned before, biblical interpretations have changed to accommodate “science.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: ot4christ



Good point. I’ll have to give it some thought. If the creation week is 144-hours, then practically none of Genesis 1 makes sense to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribbles

quote:

But if we have the capacity to think beyond the limits of time, Those 3 days or some 3000 years is when Jesus has also walked "before us"..

I can't believe you're making that connection. Are you saying that, just as "day" in Genesis, in your views, represents 1,000 years, and so there was no literal 6-day creation, "day" in terms of Jesus' death represents 3,000 in Heaven after He ascended?

quote:

Are you saying that, just as "day" in Genesis, in your views

quote:

there was no literal 6-day creation, "day" in terms of Jesus' death represents 3,000 in Heaven after He ascended?

quote:

ORIGINAL: 7OFUS

If days six and seven were more than 24 hour periods this verse makes no sense to me.

quote:

You have to ask the Hebrews for that one

quote:

I am not sure what that means...

quote:

Basically, if you automatically equate the word "day" in Scripture with 1,000 years, you don't believe Christ spent any time in the grave - that, or He spent 3,000 years there.

quote:

However, a day in Hebrew could mean 1000 years or almost any other period of time which is why it is important to look at the context of the passage before deciding what it means.

quote:

ot4christ: As it stands, I am kind of fearful that my “day-age” beliefs will be discovered by folks at my church (only a few know). Many there have been taught by YEC organizations that people with my type of beliefs border on the heretical if not outright heretics.

quote:

quite agree. My beef comes when one uses a passage like "A day to the Lord is like 1,000 years, etc." to justify automatically equating the word "day" with 1,000 years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: demolay

quote:

ot4christ: As it stands, I am kind of fearful that my “day-age” beliefs will be discovered by folks at my church (only a few know). Many there have been taught by YEC organizations that people with my type of beliefs border on the heretical if not outright heretics.

Let me apologize for any YEC's that so erroneously accused you of such. YEC is not a salvation issue, although I believe it is an apologetic and perhaps even an evangelism issue today. We Christians really need to stop shooting our own.

I have spent some time on atheist blogs debating our faith, and have seen both YEC and OEC brothers join in the debates, I thought, rather well. However, whenever I saw an OEC make some naturalistic conscession about the age of the earth, or the reliability/authority of scripture _over_ man's fallible and ever-changing wisdom of nature as ultimate truth, I'd say "uh-oh, he's got about 2 moves left". Sure enough, a few posts later .... checkmate, logical absurdity.

There are atheists out there who get it. Our scripture as "inerrant truth" cannot be logically defended within a naturalistic framework of origins, even if only parts of that framework are incorporated. Even though YEC does not affect my salvation, I also want my children to be saved, and their children's children. I see my role in that as equipping them to be able to defend their faith against the ever more bold onslaught of the humanist naturalist teachings in our schools and universities.

quote:


According to Bishop James Usher's history of the world, whose calender has not been refuted IF you take scripture as the highest authority of truth

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribbles

quote:

However, a day in Hebrew could mean 1000 years or almost any other period of time which is why it is important to look at the context of the passage before deciding what it means.

I quite agree. My beef comes when one uses a passage like "A day to the Lord is like 1,000 years, etc." to justify automatically equating the word "day" with 1,000 years.

quote:

I quite agree. My beef comes when one uses a passage like "A day to the Lord is like 1,000 years, etc." to justify automatically equating the word "day" with 1,000 years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 7OFUS

quote:

It is very possible that God created the universe in 144-hours or instantaneously. That would simply mean that what we see in His creation just appears older than it is. Some would argue that it doesn’t appear old to them and that’s fine, but it does to me.

0t4christ
I'm curious why it would make Gen.1 no sense.
Adam was created a mature, fully functioning man. Had we been there- five minutes after he was created- we would have bet our last dollar he was 18 -30 years old.... We would be broke! Same thing when Jesus turned the water into wine at Cana. The best wine is aged. Yet He had just made it. I see our Creator and Savior in Gen.1 making a fully functioning Heaven and Earth. IMO This would be easy for Him considering who He is.
By the way, glad to read you're a believer.
Sometimes us YEC ers need to lighten up. It's good to be passionate about the Lord but not the arguement.

quote:

quote:

It is very possible that God created the universe in 144-hours or instantaneously. That would simply mean that what we see in His creation just appears older than it is. Some would argue that it doesn’t appear old to them and that’s fine, but it does to me.

0t4christ
I'm curious why it would make Gen.1 no sense.
Adam was created a mature, fully functioning man. Had we been there- five minutes after he was created- we would have bet our last dollar he was 18 -30 years old.... We would be broke! Same thing when Jesus turned the water into wine at Cana. The best wine is aged. Yet He had just made it. I see our Creator and Savior in Gen.1 making a fully functioning Heaven and Earth. IMO This would be easy for Him considering who He is.
By the way, glad to read you're a believer.
Sometimes us YEC ers need to lighten up. It's good to be passionate about the Lord but not the arguement.


The problem with things being made to appear old is that we are able to observe the occurance of cosmic events that likely happened very long ago. To use the wine analogy, we are watching the vines being planted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 7OFUS

quote:

quote:

It is very possible that God created the universe in 144-hours or instantaneously. That would simply mean that what we see in His creation just appears older than it is. Some would argue that it doesn’t appear old to them and that’s fine, but it does to me.

0t4christ
I'm curious why it would make Gen.1 no sense.
Adam was created a mature, fully functioning man. Had we been there- five minutes after he was created- we would have bet our last dollar he was 18 -30 years old.... We would be broke! Same thing when Jesus turned the water into wine at Cana. The best wine is aged. Yet He had just made it. I see our Creator and Savior in Gen.1 making a fully functioning Heaven and Earth. IMO This would be easy for Him considering who He is.
By the way, glad to read you're a believer.
Sometimes us YEC ers need to lighten up. It's good to be passionate about the Lord but not the arguement.


The problem with things being made to appear old is that we are able to observe the occurance of cosmic events that likely happened very long ago. To use the wine analogy, we are watching the vines being planted.

Yes, if I were to make the best wine I would plant vines and labor MANY years. My question to you is; how old was the wine Jesus made?

quote:

Even those who hold the view that the bible represents a 6000 year history of mankind do not agree on the calender. There is no one calendar accepted by all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: demolay

quote:

Even those who hold the view that the bible represents a 6000 year history of mankind do not agree on the calender. There is no one calendar accepted by all.

Quite true, many have taken their hand at the calculations themselves and arrived at slightly different dates, but the variance is relatively small. And, of course, none of the attempts can be proven better than others. I prefer to quote Usher simply because I've read his work. But the point remains, these calculations from the geneologies and histories come up with a current age of about 6000 years.

quote:

He basically created light that looks like a star going supernova. I have philosophical objections to this. That's why I prefer the gravitational time dilation hypothesis.

quote:

Only if you assume that we have the complete geological record,

quote:

ORIGINAL: demolay

quote:

Only if you assume that we have the complete geological record,

I don't know what age for man you support, whether 10,000, 100,000, or 500,000 years. But I grant you that there may be _some_ instances of what you say. I do not believe it is so common as to vastly expand the geneological record by even 1.5X what it appears to show. If so, then why did God even bother giving us such an incomplete record? To confuse us?

quote:

Ok Then what does it mean to you ...that Peter doesnt already know;

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
Yes, but ot4christ is correct in that, under the circumstances of the universe, most of the stuff that we're observing could not have never happened had the light simply escaped the galaxy and proceeded to earth in the normal fashion. You look at a star, and you watch it go supernova. That star never existed, and that supernova never happened. God just gave us a light show, like watching something happen on TV. He basically created light that looks like a star going supernova. I have philosophical objections to this. That's why I prefer the gravitational time dilation hypothesis.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ot4christ

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
Yes, but ot4christ is correct in that, under the circumstances of the universe, most of the stuff that we're observing could not have never happened had the light simply escaped the galaxy and proceeded to earth in the normal fashion. You look at a star, and you watch it go supernova. That star never existed, and that supernova never happened. God just gave us a light show, like watching something happen on TV. He basically created light that looks like a star going supernova. I have philosophical objections to this. That's why I prefer the gravitational time dilation hypothesis.

Dan, I gotta tell you that you are likely my second favorite (after my pastor) YEC ever:) Your tone is never combative (at least not that I've read) and unlike most YECs you face the scientific issues head on instead of simply dismissing them.

quote:


I checked out information on gravitational time dilation. Very interesting stuff. I'm still not clear on how that could account for billions of years. If anything, it would seem to slow down light.

quote:

ORIGINAL: demolay

quote:

He basically created light that looks like a star going supernova. I have philosophical objections to this. That's why I prefer the gravitational time dilation hypothesis.

I agree, a fake supernova light show would impune dishonesty to the heavens that are supposed to "declare the glory of God". Are you referring to the theory of Dr. Russell Humphreys? This is an interesting theory on how distant starlight may have reached us so quickly. Of course, our secular friends have a time-horizon problem too in trying to explain the almost constant background tempurature of the universe. To explain it, they have a story; a rapid acceleration and deceleration in the early universe expansion rates, with no testable science to support how that might happen. I find Dr. Humphreys theory, which depends solely upon the relative locations of galaxies within the universe, much more believable.

Of course, atheists ridicule his idea solely because that would imply that there was something "special" about Earth regarding location. An idea that is anathema to those that want to impress upon us that there is nothing special about us at all.