|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 9/6/2009 5:45:27 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4622
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
What is described are commanded processes which to have meaning require extended periods of time. In view of the very specific meaning of "day" given in Genesis 1:3-5, why do the creative "processes" as you call them (unscriptural, BTW) have to be extended periods of time in order "to have meaning"?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 9/6/2009 6:06:24 PM
|
|
|
Frontporch
Posts: 234
Joined: 6/28/2007
Status: offline
|
First, the processes aren't "unscriptual" they are right there in the text..."Let the land produce", Let the waters under the sky be gathered..", etc. these are processes that involve time. The verse does not say "let there be dry land and it was so. It states the process and as noted the fulfillment was certain. The creation was God's fiat nothing else was required but for His command to unfold...a process. The fulfillment is not in question because there is no uncertainty in what God has instructed/commanded.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 9/6/2009 6:19:36 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4622
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Well, I guess that's your interpretation of the text, if you wish, Fp. Verse 3a, 6, 9a, 11a, etc tell me that God described what He would do instantaneously in His commands and His creative acts occurred instantaneously according to verses 3b, 7, 9b, 11b, etc. There was NO process involved with "there was light"! He spoke and light existed.
Do you have any comment regarding the very specific definition of "Day" in Genesis 1:3-5 which clearly gives meaning to the term throughout chapter 1?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 9/6/2009 6:28:57 PM
|
|
|
Frontporch
Posts: 234
Joined: 6/28/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Do you have any comment regarding the very specific definition of "Day" in Genesis 1:3-5 which clearly gives meaning to the term throughout chapter 1?
Day means exactly day...24 hours!
I have a problem with understanding how "Let the land produce..." and other such verses equate to instantaneous? Clearly the text implies that God imbued His creation to produce/bring forth. It does not say "Let there be living creatures and it was so" but clearly "Let the Land".
Must run will catch up later or tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 9/6/2009 6:33:34 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4622
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Day means exactly day...24 hours! So you consider one day to be an extended period of time? Interesting concept!
quote:
Clearly the text implies that God imbued His creation to produce/bring forth. Perhaps, but that still does not necessarily require a process of extended periods of time!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 9/6/2009 7:46:35 PM
|
|
|
Frontporch
Posts: 234
Joined: 6/28/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
So you consider one day to be an extended period of time? Interesting concept!
Sorry I wasn't clear. The days are 24 hours - 6 days. It is the fulfillment that can extend through time. The 6 days are fiat days but do not have to be consecutive and the fulfillments can overlap.
Again, "And God said" is the all sufficent operative force of creation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 9/7/2009 9:17:22 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4622
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Sorry I wasn't clear. You still aren't. 
Why did God need 24 hours to speak a handful of words and then have to wait around to see how they would be "fulfilled through time"? Do you have any other examples of "fiat days" used by Moses in writing the Pentateuch?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 9/7/2009 12:52:09 PM
|
|
|
Frontporch
Posts: 234
Joined: 6/28/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why did God need 24 hours to speak a handful of words and then have to wait around to see how they would be "fulfilled through time"?
The main point is the structure of the creation account in Genesis, no suggestion that the command required 24 hrs. "And God said" what then follows requires no further effort on God's part. The fiat was all sufficient for the creation events. The day, one - two - etc. - denotes the creative command set forth.
On the other hand I don't assume that it required 24 hours of effort on God's part to accomplish the creative events for that day. As Psalms, Hebrews, and John state it was by the word of God that all things were made. Therefore what follows "...God said..." involves the fulfillment of the command. We know too that what God commands will come to His intended completion.
I appreciate that we don't agree on the wording but from my perspective it is clear that God "energized"* the Land, waters, etc. to produce natural results. Again, "Let the land - Let the waters - clearly implies natural processes. As to verse 11 it does not say -Let there be living creatures and it was so - but rather "let the land produce..." that strongly suggests something other then instant creation. Further the Bible references in many places "dust" for example in Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 suggesting the role of the "land" if you will.
*Taylor Lewis 1855 - speaking of Genesis and opposing the notion of instantaneous creation - "There is evidently conveyed by it the thought of a process of some kind, longer or shorter. There is that which looks like causation, a train of sequencesor, in other words, an energizing of natural powers producing natural results."
Further he writes:
"Each day, as a beginning by itself contains the incipient powers and elements of it's peculiar work but does not exhaust those energies."
Being that God is eternal I doubt that waiting is a problem...He has certainly put up with mankind for long enough...including me!!!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 9/7/2009 1:45:07 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4622
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Being that God is eternal I doubt that waiting is a problem Thank you for your clarification, Fp. However, since God created finite time and defined "day" on day 1, He chose to create by entering finite time. Thus the notion of "fulfillment that can extend (indefinitely) through time" is incompatible with the plain sense reading of the historical account, in my judgement.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 9/7/2009 7:12:33 PM
|
|
|
Frontporch
Posts: 234
Joined: 6/28/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Thus the notion of "fulfillment that can extend (indefinitely) through time" is incompatible with the plain sense reading of the historical account, in my judgement.
Well it doesn't extend indefinitely ...but then time, A-theory/B-theory - tense/tenseless, only serves to give me a headache!
Thanks for taking time to peruse my beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 9/7/2009 8:34:27 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4622
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Well it doesn't extend indefinitely Sure it does, if the fulfillment of God's creative acts "extend through time" as you said. Is there a Scripture passage that provides any "definite" duration of time for this concept? If not, then it must have extended indefinitely according to your use of "fiat days".
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 9/7/2009 11:44:25 PM
|
|
|
Oseas2
Posts: 99
Joined: 7/31/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: StephenJ
Why don't you take the early part of Genesis literally?
Please explain.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The answer is simple. The letter kills, so the interpretation tends to be wrong. And the men, wise or ignorant, confound existence with creation or mix the two things.
BTW, it is written that the earth was formless. Now, now, what do the men understand about this?
And also the earth was empty. Again, what do the men understand about this?
I know a man, a man of God evidently, who really understood this so well. His name is Isaiah, and he said with great wisdom that " the earth was not created empty".
OTOH, God has good questions for you. The question is: "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding". Yea, where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth, and ALL THE SONS OF GOD shouted for joy?
I remember you that the LORD Jesus was with/by Him and He was as One brought up with Him: and He was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him.
Rejoicing IN THE HABITABLE PART OF HIS EARTH; and His delights WERE WITH THE SONS OF MEN or with the makind. This things happened much much time before the APPEARANCE of Adam, that is before the changing of nature of the sons of God which KEPT NOT THEIR FIRST STATE, that is their ANGELICAL STATE and left their own habitation. THEN APPEARED ADAM, that is they become human gender, a mortal being.
Now, yea, even now, in this millennium, there will be the restoration of all things, now the process will be in inverse way, the corruptible shall have put on incorruption and the mortal shall have put on immortality.
Satan will be cast down into the bottomless pit that he should deceive the nations NO MORE, and THE LAST ENEMY, that is the death, will be defeated.
In Christ JESUS, KING of the kings and LORD of the lords
Oseas
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 9/8/2009 3:08:47 PM
|
|
|
Frontporch
Posts: 234
Joined: 6/28/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
If not, then it must have extended indefinitely according to your use of "fiat days".
Let me put it another way - indefinite to us but not to God. Again, we know that what God commands will come to pass but we aren't, from our prespective, sure of the time frame - therefore indefinite to us. We believe in the 2nd coming of Christ but when? Indefinite to us but not to God, same with other prophecies.
The span between Gen. 1:27 and 2:22 clearly suggest a much longer period involved than one day. Further one can contend about the "death" issue but the "plain sense" reading of 2:17 seems clear that Adam should have died within the day from eating of the fruit yet he lived for hundreds of years more. The fulfillment was not in doubt but the time frame was extended. I'm sure from Adam's perspective it was indefinite but not from God's.
Natural processes do extend through time, some rather definite some not so.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 9/8/2009 3:26:01 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4622
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Again, we know that what God commands will come to pass but we aren't, from our prespective, sure of the time frame - Well, given that creation is a done deal, I'm perfectly sure that "evening and morning, the first through sixth day" represented a 144 hour time frame from earth's perspective! It could not have been written any more clearly than this...
quote:
Further one can contend about the "death" issue but the "plain sense" reading of 2:17 seems clear that Adam should have died within the day from eating of the fruit yet he lived for hundreds of years more. Then why not contend that the "plain sense" reading of Genesis 2:4 states that God created everything in one day? The same usage of yom is found in both verses 4 and 17 and is best translated "when" in the modern versions. We cannot have it both ways, Fp.
quote:
Natural processes do extend through time, some rather definite some not so. Of course, but creation ex nihilo is NOT a natural process by defintion!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 9/8/2009 4:35:59 PM
|
|
|
Frontporch
Posts: 234
Joined: 6/28/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'm perfectly sure that "evening and morning, the first through sixth day" represented a 144 hour time frame from earth's perspective!
I'm pretty sure as well that the quintessential point of the creation narrative is "And God said". (Heb. 11:3, John 1:3, 2 Peter 3:5) On six days God commanded all of the natural laws upon which the entire creation depends. The fiats were all sufficient nothing more needed to be done but to allow the processes (laws) to bring forth "the various phenomena which they have produced, and are still producing today".
quote:
Then why not contend that the "plain sense" reading of Genesis 2:4 states that God created everything in one day?
You brought up "plain sense" previously and as you are aware there is much more involved. Also suggesting that more is required then a "plain sense" reading of the narrative with regards to God's creative commands.
quote:
Of course, but creation ex nihilo is NOT a natural process by defintion!
No but the ongoing natural processes continue from creation and why would they necessarily be different time-wise or other-wise? I would be certain that the duration of a pregnancy was approximately 9 mos. then as it is now.
I know I'm a broken record on this point but the text clearly states God giving a command not to anything other then to the land, water, etc. God created the natural processes so that all of the sciences are simply an attempt to understand these laws, actions, and interactions. I'm further suggesting that Genesis 1 is an account of God creating these laws and actions.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 9/8/2009 6:55:30 PM
|
|
|
Oseas2
Posts: 99
Joined: 7/31/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
drmark
There was NO process involved with "there was light"! He spoke and light existed.
Yes, notice that there was only darkness, blackest darkness, then God said: "Let there be light, and there was light". Here is wisdom. GOD IS LIGHT. With His imperative and omnipotent voice or His powerful words God meant: Let there be knowledge of myself. Be myself known of peoples, nations, multitudes and tongues, did you understand? I remember you that the Word of God is eternal, so the expressed Word of God saying “Let there be light” continues working until today and will continue for ever, did you understand? The LIGHT shines in darkness, and the darkness comprehend it not. Even so, the message continues the same, that is: Let there be light.
Notice also that the Spirit of God moved upon the face of waters. Here is wisdom. As was revealed, there was only the blackness of the darkness but the Spirit of God moved upon the waters (who has the gift of wisdom knows that the Spirit of God was not moving upon H2O, evidently), but as was revealed by the angel of the LORD in Revelation, “the waters which you sawest…are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues”.
And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, as the voice of many waters… saying: Alleluia! For the LORD God Omnipotent reigns.
Amen! Alleluia!
In Christ Jesus, KING of the kings and LORD of the lords
Oseas
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 9/11/2009 11:43:13 PM
|
|
|
Decibel33
Posts: 52
Joined: 8/7/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: StephenJ
Why don't you take the early part of Genesis literally?
Please explain.
Because it's not meant to be taken literally. Genesis chapter 3:
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,
3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "
This bit of text would not only have us believe that snakes can talk, but that Adam and Eve would die if they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Well, did they die? Eventually, yes. But the text makes it sound like they would die as a direct result of simply touching the forbidden fruit. But that didn't happen. Not only did Adam and Eve touch the fruit, they ate it. So, if the death God talks about is not literal, I'm betting the days a couple of chapters earlier aren't literal either.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/1/2009 9:54:44 AM
|
|
|
PrimorisRes
Posts: 7
Joined: 10/1/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: StephenJ
Why don't you take the early part of Genesis literally?
Please explain.
Am I correct in presuming that by literal, you mean a six calendar-day creation that occurrence between six and ten-thousand years ago? I am new here so I am inferring this from the thread.
One of my problems with this interpretation is that I can observe starlight that took longer than the above period to reach me. The speed of light is known. Using proper instrumentation an observer on earth can calculate distances to visible stars. When I zoom in from astronomy to the what I know of radioactive decay I encounter other problems. The universe and elements in it are clearly older than ten-thousand years.
My own opinions are currently up in the air but there are alternative ways to read the Genesis text that fall within the bounds of theologically orthodox Christianity. Augustine's "Literal Interpretation of Genesis" is one. Hugh Ross' progressive creation model at Reasons to Believe ( www.reasons.org ) is another. There are others at the American Scientific Affiliation site ( http://asa3.org ).
< Message edited by PrimorisRes -- 10/1/2009 10:11:08 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/1/2009 1:17:54 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4622
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
One of my problems with this interpretation is that I can observe starlight that took longer than the above period to reach me. The speed of light is known. Using proper instrumentation an observer on earth can calculate distances to visible stars. When I zoom in from astronomy to the what I know of radioactive decay I encounter other problems. The universe and elements in it are clearly older than ten-thousand years. Welcome to the Forums, PR!
Are you aware that many creation scientists have developed reasonable theories for dramatic changes in light velocity and radioactive decay rates during the first half of creation week? It is a faith-based assumption that these so-called constants have been truly constant throughout the history of the universe.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/1/2009 1:29:15 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4576
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
One of my problems with this interpretation is that I can observe starlight that took longer than the above period to reach me. The speed of light is known. Using proper instrumentation an observer on earth can calculate distances to visible stars. When I zoom in from astronomy to the what I know of radioactive decay I encounter other problems. The universe and elements in it are clearly older than ten-thousand years. Welcome to the Forums, PR!
Are you aware that many creation scientists have developed reasonable theories for dramatic changes in light velocity and radioactive decay rates during the first half of creation week? It is a faith-based assumption that these so-called constants have been truly constant throughout the history of the universe.
Reasonable???? I have yet to see any such "theory" stand up to peer review.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/1/2009 8:05:57 PM
|
|
|
PrimorisRes
Posts: 7
Joined: 10/1/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Are you aware that many creation scientists have developed reasonable theories for dramatic changes in light velocity and radioactive decay rates during the first half of creation week? It is a faith-based assumption that these so-called constants have been truly constant throughout the history of the universe.
These constants can be utilized in experimentation and observation yielding reproduceable results. That's not faith. Faith is "the hope of things not seen."
Do these theories yield testable predictions?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/2/2009 7:42:31 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4622
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I have yet to see any such "theory" stand up to peer review. And who would you consider to be the "peers" of YEC scientists, benelchi?
quote:
These constants can be utilized in experimentation and observation yielding reproduceable results. Only during the last hundred years or so! Who was around 14.5 billion years ago (or even 6000 years ago) to experiment, observe, and test the velocity of light or radioactive decay rates. It takes faith to assume that these have remained constant since the origin of the universe!
quote:
Do these theories yield testable predictions? Absolutely! Creationism is emminently testable. Evolutionism is not at all testable.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/2/2009 9:42:34 AM
|
|
|
PrimorisRes
Posts: 7
Joined: 10/1/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
It takes faith to assume that these have remained constant since the origin of the universe!
Please present your evidence that the speed of light and rates of radioactive decay have changed.
quote:
Absolutely! Creationism is emminently testable. Evolutionism is not at all testable.
We aren't talking about Evolution. We are talking about the age of the earth. What testable predictions have young earth theories made?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/2/2009 10:20:58 AM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 269
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: schtumpy
No.
No.
No.
Good science is supposed to stem from the evidence.
You form your beliefs based upon the evidence, not upon pre-conceived notions.
I love this! Thanks schtumpy, for so clearly distinguishing our beliefs.
This is an ancient dichotomy, going back as far as Socrates and Plato (that we know of). Socrates believed that knowledge started with the "ideals", through which the "particulars" could only then be correctly discerned through reason and experience. Plato believed that the "ideals" could be "built up" from the "particulars" using pure reason and experience. It was a dichotomy of whether knowledge flows from the top down, or from the bottom up.
The Socratic Method, for which he was credited, is really our interpretation of records of Socrates asking such questions of those who professed faith in "reason" as to point out that reason can prove nothing. He argued all such "derived" morals and beliefs were wrong-headed, a heresy for which he was eventually killed.
A biblical worldview clearly sides with Socrates on this dicotomy. "The fear (respect) of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." This should clearly tell us that the Word of God should be the starting point for all of our interpretations of our experiences.
Today, the limits of reason and empirical interpretation are more thoroughly documented. There is no such thing as knowledge derived from "pure reason". All logical arguments ultimately rest upon presuppositions that are taken on faith. Most people are not even aware of what their presuppostions are. They simply use them as naturally as breathing.
However all worldviews not based upon God's Word are inherently self-contradicting. Erroneous presuppositions can be used to construct small "islands" of supposedly consistent logic, but ultimately will not comport with an overall view of the world. Questions, such as Socrates did, can usually show such an individual that they are irrationally using a completely different set of presuppositions is different areas of life, even though they may claim to be "ruled by reason".
< Message edited by demolay -- 10/2/2009 10:29:12 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: To all Christian "Old Earth" followers. - 10/2/2009 10:33:09 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4622
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Please present your evidence that the speed of light and rates of radioactive decay have changed. Please present your evidence that anyone but God was around at the beginning of the universe to observe such changes...
quote:
We aren't talking about Evolution. We are talking about the age of the earth. If one has evidence for (macro)evolution, then one has evidence for an old earth.
quote:
What testable predictions have young earth theories made? There are dozens of testable predictions related to YEC. THIS LINK can get you started if you wish to explore some of them further.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
