is it deceptive for God to create with age/ why?

[sandy_mcd]

I presume you mean a 24 hour solar day then? How do you explain the measure of such a day when the Sun was not created until the 4th day?

This has been covered before. The distance from Jerusalem to Bethlehem 2000 years ago can be stated in kilometers despite the fact that kilometers were not defined until much later. So the period of time in extant equal to the 24 hours of a day exists independently of the unit of measurement. This is not a problem with interpreting yom as a day. [It would be more appropriate perhaps to ask which day, as the length of a day increases with time.]

[Forum Monk]

This is a very confusing statement by you Monk.. Where does this leave us? Where does this lead to your understanding of the Bible? Please explain your position more throughly... Also God does not deceive, but people can screw God's word to fit their demeanor.

Hi Gman,
I apologize for being ambiguous, Gman, but when I sit here to post I do not think in terms of OEC//YEC. I have not really decided what my position is, quite frankly because there is some room within the most strict literal interpretation, for an old earth. This is not the issue. In and of itself, without coloring by world-views, the reading of Genesis is clear. God created...let it be...and saw that it was good. A child understands it. But the problem arises, because we are not children we begin to color the meanings with our individual world views.

In the post-modern world in which we live, the call, loud and clear in science circles has been to reject God, reject religion and build a view of the world based on logic and science. It is been remarkably successful since the industrial revolution. I think the premise is, science must be free of cultural and religious bias and so has built in safe-guards in its methodology to help assure that premise. It has gotten so bad, Gman, that revisionists are busily writing the bible out of all history. Many archaeologists and historians are claiming, the exodus never happened, the patriarchs and Moses were fictional, the united kingdom of Israel never existed, the tales of Joshua, Gideon, Elijah, are just fictionalized accounts, the entire bible was written during the Babylonian exile, the flood was a redaction of Akkadian mythologies, Jesus (if he even existed) never performed miracles and he certainly did not rise from the dead.

Further, all of the popular theories which explain the how and why we are here, fail to mention God, intelligent design or theological reasons for existence. The contention I make, therefore, is science is critically flawed. How can anything which rejects God so thoroughly and completely become the basis for my world-view? It can not be corrected using God to fill in the gaps and deficiencies. It is wrong from the beginning, the foundations are faulty.

That is what its all about, Gman. We need a new approach to science. A way to discover Gods creation which does not reject him but rather builds Him into the most fundemental methodology. Because this doesn't exist, OEC fails and YEC fails because both try to solve the problems using anti-christian disciplines. Many here think they are doing this by back-filling the holes in science with God. It isn't working. Canuckster, speaks somewhere about not subjecting the word of god to ridicule (a paraphrase of Augustine). Who here thinks the revised science of OEC is not doing that? Look at what the skeptics and atheists are saying about OEC and YEC science. They are laughing it to scorn.

Do you think I am here as a lone voice crying out against this because I am having fun getting beaten up? I am calling for reason from both sides. Its time to go back to child-like thinking. Its time to start over. Its time to repent.

[Canuckster1127]

In the post-modern world in which we live, the call, loud and clear in science circles has been to reject God, reject religion and build a view of the world based on logic and science. It is been remarkably successful since the industrial revolution. I think the premise is, science must be free of cultural and religious bias and so has built in safe-guards in its methodology to help assure that premise. It has gotten so bad, Gman, that revisionists are busily writing the bible out of all history. Many archaeologists and historians are claiming, the exodus never happened, the patriarchs and Moses were fictional, the united kingdom of Israel never existed, the tales of Joshua, Gideon, Elijah, are just fictionalized accounts, the entire bible was written during the Babylonian exile, the flood was a redaction of Akkadian mythologies, Jesus (if he even existed) never performed miracles and he certainly did not rise from the dead.

These are certainly serious and important issues, however they are hardly new nor do they tie into the post-modern era as anything particularly new, although you could argue the the post-modern era is in part the fruits of this modern-skepticism which finds its roots more in the 1800's with it strengthening through the 1900's.

I think perhaps there may be some confusing of "science" circles with the overall push in western intellectualism toward materialistic atheism. Science is a word that is used broadly and in different contexts can be used by some to encompass this greater movement that moves beyond pure physical science and extends its materialistic assumptions into metaphysics, religion and philosophy and in so doing challenges the very existence of God.

Science in the narrower sense as a method designed to better understand the physical world is a very effective tool and in fact was developed and influenced to a very great extent by Christians who rejoiced in the knowledge it gave and saw it as a wonderful reflection upon the genius and wisdom of God in how he created and set this world in motion.

Liberal Biblical Criticism certainly has contributed to this sad development. Again, though, this is not a particularly new development.

That is what its all about, Gman. We need a new approach to science. A way to discover Gods creation which does not reject him but rather builds Him into the most fundemental methodology. Because this doesn't exist, OEC fails and YEC fails because both try to solve the problems using anti-christian disciplines. Many here think they are doing this by back-filling the holes in science with God. It isn't working. Canuckster, speaks somewhere about not subjecting the word of god to ridicule (a paraphrase of Augustine). Who here thinks the revised science of OEC is not doing that? Look at what the skeptics and atheists are saying about OEC and YEC science. They are laughing it to scorn.

If you examine the history of science and its development the issue isn't with science itself which again, narrowly defined is simply a method based in logic to better understand the physical universe around us. As such it provides knowledge which in an of itself is value neutral. It is what we do with that knowledge that determines the impact it will have on people, the creation itself and whether we bring glory to the God who created us.

For example, nuclear physics can produce a bomb of such magnitude that millions of innocent people can be killed, or it can drive a power plant that provides energy on the same scope. The determining factor as to what it will do is in the hands of the people who decide how to apply it.

The idea of sealing off from the world in the manner I think I am hearing here is not particularly new. The evangelical Church in the western world pretty much followed this strategy from the 1920's in the wake of the Scopes Trial when the Church was subjected to a huge amount of ridicule in the media and society (despite winning the court case) and it wasn't until the 1970's that the Evangelical Church began to seek to influence the society around us again in such areas as politics and education. Francis Schaeffer is one of the voices that has helped to lead many away from this retreat mode.

We're currently in a mode where Evangelicals are beginning to exert influence in some of the areas that were abdicated from earlier, and not surprisingly it is not being met with favor from those who have had the field to themselves and exercised control and influence over our education system, political system and other culteral mores.

My appeal to the Augustinian quote is not to advocate compromise to avoid all ridicule or criticism. That would fly counter to what Christ himself has told us that as His followers we will face persecution and ridicule and even martyrdom. Where I believe Augustine's caution applies is to exercise Biblical and Godly wisdom to recognize those issues that are cardinal from those that may be important but which allow for and maybe even require some flexibility to determine whether new information requires some adjustment in a rigid hermeneutic.

That is always a dangerous and difficult time for the Church because rightly, there is a resistance to change in these types of matters. We should not be quick or eager to retreat from that which the Church has traditionally understood the Bible to say. We should however seek to be discerning to be sure it is the Bible actually saying something and not our prooftexting a common belief when the Bible itself, when delivered and understood may have been asserting no such thing.

The best historical example I can offer of similar issues relates to Galileo and the result of that was that the Church added a new hermeneutic which allowed that there was an element of perspective that had to be recognized in some of the passages that previously were taken to support the idea that the sun rotated around the earth. It recognized that from the surface of the earth it appears to the case and so the idea of the sun rising and setting and moving was an accurate portrayal of how it appears, but that it was wrong to apply that language to make a scientific conclusion.

So, I am sympathetic to much of what you have to say, but for me there is a significant amount of tempering to that position based upon the context of how we arrived at this point.

It's one thing to say all the complexity of the arguments and the implications require simplifying the issues and getting back to spiritual and Biblical basics. It's quite another thing as to how you establish what those are.

The most common error (and I'm using that word carefully) that I observe is one of calling for a simple literal hermeneutic and to read the text for what it says, or as you are saying here I think, as a child might read it grasping on to the simple truth of the Bible and the Gospel.

I praise God that the Gospel message is that simple and can be grasped by a child. That's why I append the last quote that I do in my signature by the way. "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so." That's the most important thing and it requires only childlike faith to receive.

When you begin to speak of issues like the age of the earth, I think diligence, study and wisdom are all required in approaching the text.

Reading for the simple literal meaning in an English Bible that is translated from another language and separated by 2,000 years or more from its historical and cultural context requires some care to be sure what we are reading and taking from the text is in fact what is there and that we are not reading our own preconceived biases inadvertantly into the text.

I'm sure you're familiar with many examples where this can happen.

When Jesus speaks of it being easier for an camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven, we get an immediate picture of what that means. Our picture however is very different from what those listening to Jesus at that place and time would get. For them, the eye of a needle could be a sewing or a surgical needle, but it also was the common term for a small opening gate in the Jerusalem Wall where pedestrians could walk into the city. A camel would be too large if it were encumbered with packs so the only way for that camel to go through would be to take all the things of and come through unencumbered.

That's an example where the meaning isn't lost completely without that understanding, but certainly it illustrates why it is important for us as Evangelicals who hold the Word of God high, to seek to learn and know these things so that the message is not compromised.

Unfortunately in the past, Evangelicals have looked at things like Biblical criticism (and I mean criticism in the sense of tools, not a plan to tear the Bible down), science, philosophy and they've seen how they've been used by many to tear down faith and God and they conclude it's better to just retreat into the Church and not engage.

I don't believe that is to be our response.

Christ met people where they were in all areas of their lives. Paul went into the marketplaces and the major areas of discourse and presented the Gospel and applied his learning and knowledge to make a case for the Gospel.

In the end, it is the power of the Word of God itself and the Holy Spirit that accomplishes God's purposes. But we have a part to play and if we hold that Bible to be true we should be unafraid to test it and try it and see that it is true. We must be careful however, to delineate between those issues that are cardinal and not to be compromised and those areas where important issues may be in play but not to overstate what the Bible itself doesn't say.

I wish I had a perfect measure to know where all of that is, but I don't. I do have the Bible itself, the presence of the Holy Spirit and the wisdom of other Christians today and in History to use and every tool should be used properly.

I for one am not seeking to beat you up. I think we may be speaking past one another in some regards though and maybe this will help to clarify.

Blessings,

Bart

[Canuckster1127]

I presume you mean a 24 hour solar day then? How do you explain the measure of such a day when the Sun was not created until the 4th day?

This has been covered before. The distance from Jerusalem to Bethlehem 2000 years ago can be stated in kilometers despite the fact that kilometers were not defined until much later. So the period of time in extant equal to the 24 hours of a day exists independently of the unit of measurement. This is not a problem with interpreting yom as a day. [It would be more appropriate perhaps to ask which day, as the length of a day increases with time.]

I understand that Sandy. The question to be asked is whether that was the understanding and intent of Moses as inspired by God. The fact that the original audience would not have made that distinction puts it in question for me. The analogy breaks down quite a bit in that it's not just a matter of physical time but the actual dynamics which create that measure.

A Kilometer is a standard unyielding measure.

A day in the sense of a 24 hour day is dependent upon the components of the system that yield that measure.

[sandy_mcd]

Hmm. I didn't understand the last time and I don't understand now. Perhaps you could suggest an alternate wording? Assume (not as true, but merely for the sake of defining terms) that each creation day was the same length and that length was a standard earth day. [Or is there a problem with this assumption?] The latter days could be described as a "day" since there were clearly days then. What words would you use to describe the length of the first time interval? [This is sort of intriguing since it doesn't seem like such a difficult concept, but I cannot grasp what you are getting at.]

The question to be asked is whether that was the understanding and intent of Moses as inspired by God. The fact that the original audience would not have made that distinction puts it in question for me. The analogy breaks down quite a bit in that it's not just a matter of physical time but the actual dynamics which create that measure.

A Kilometer is a standard unyielding measure.

A day in the sense of a 24 hour day is dependent upon the components of the system that yield that measure.

The original audience would not have made what distinction? Are you saying that there is a difference between saying something took 24 hours and saying something took a day? That perhaps day automatically implies that there is an earth spinning around a sun? [I don't know any Hebrew but I don't believe that implication automatically follows in English.][Actually the kilometer was originally defined as a fraction of the earth's circumference so the value does depend on the earth.]

[Canuckster1127]

Hmm. I didn't understand the last time and I don't understand now. Perhaps you could suggest an alternate wording? Assume (not as true, but merely for the sake of defining terms) that each creation day was the same length and that length was a standard earth day. [Or is there a problem with this assumption?] The latter days could be described as a "day" since there were clearly days then. What words would you use to describe the length of the first time interval? [This is sort of intriguing since it doesn't seem like such a difficult concept, but I cannot grasp what you are getting at.]

The question to be asked is whether that was the understanding and intent of Moses as inspired by God. The fact that the original audience would not have made that distinction puts it in question for me. The analogy breaks down quite a bit in that it's not just a matter of physical time but the actual dynamics which create that measure.

A Kilometer is a standard unyielding measure.

A day in the sense of a 24 hour day is dependent upon the components of the system that yield that measure.

The original audience would not have made what distinction? Are you saying that there is a difference between saying something took 24 hours and saying something took a day? That perhaps day automatically implies that there is an earth spinning around a sun? [I don't know any Hebrew but I don't believe that implication automatically follows in English.][Actually the kilometer was originally defined as a fraction of the earth's circumference so the value does depend on the earth.]

I'll try and explain what I'm saying to be clearer.

The use of the word "yom" in the Hebrew can be understood as the daylight portion of a solar day, an entire 24 hour day or it can be used figuratively as a period of defined time, but not specifically measured. We do a similar thing in English when we speak for instance of the "Day of the Romans". An example of this in the Old Testament would be in Zechariah where it speaks of the "Day of the Lord" to speak of the coming of God's judgement or the coming of the Messiah.

It may be a legitimate explanation to state that because Genesis was written after the establishment of a solar day that it should be understood in that context.

What seems to me to be different in the analogy you offered with a meter, is that a meter is a fixed measurement rooted with one variable. A solar day however is dependent upon an entire system including the presence of the sun, moon, and the motion inherent in the system. It seems odd then that the first 3 days would be tied to this system when the system itself did not exist if you take the 4th day to be the creation of the sun.

It appears to me that the context of the text doesn't demand such a definition of day, for at least the first 3 days for reasons that are internal to the passage and the dynamics at work in the text. It requires a presumption of God's time table to an arbtrary standard which is tied to an arbitrary perspective tied to the time of the writing of the account rather than the event itself.

Does that help or am I confusing the matter more?

[Gman]

Further, all of the popular theories which explain the how and why we are here, fail to mention God, intelligent design or theological reasons for existence.

Ok, this is an issue I was trying to address with you earlier so I will need to repeat this message since I didn't get a straight answer before.. I'm still not sure how you see how the case for ID degrades God or the existence of God in relation to Biblical theology..

Also doesn't using the word "God" alone specify a designer? A friend of mine is often called "a God" of cars since he knows them well.. In fact NO one really knows how God's true name should be pronounced in the Old Testament as "YHWH" (the Tetragrammaton) unless you are a Jehovah's witness of course...

And what about all the different names that are attributed to God in the OT? He is also called Elohim or creator God or designer... According to someone's exact description of God, what name should we use to specify God? Who has the correct name for God? Do we only trust those who use the correct pronunciation of God?

The sames goes for Jesus..

Quote Rich: "Many people do not know that "Jesus" is not the "real" name of the Savior. His real (Hebrew) name is "Yeshua," which is usually translated into the English as "Joshua." The Greek transliteration is "iaysous." In fact, in three verses of the New Testament (Luke 3:29, Acts 7:45, and Hebrews 4:8 ), iaysous is translated into the English as "Joshua," since the text refers to the Old Testament saint. In addition, the word "Christ" is not Jesus' last name, but His title. The Greek word "christos" (translated "Christ" in the English) means "Messiah," the "anointed one." This is why the New Testament letters often refer to Jesus as "Christ Jesus," which means "Messiah Jesus." Other languages have different pronunciations of the name of Jesus. However, God is able to understand whom we are talking about and save us no matter what we call the name of the Savior. In addition, Job, from the Old Testament, was saved even though he did not know the name of the Savior. Therefore, although it is true that Jesus is the only way to get into heaven, you don't necessarily have to know His name to get there."

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/neverheard.php

On top of this the pharisees also used the name "God" too.. The only problem is what they attributed God... They were way off according to Jesus.. Matt 23:13-29. So it's not really the name that matters, it's what you attribute to God that matters and it should be God alone who will judge our true character and stance..

The contention I make, therefore, is science is critically flawed. How can anything which rejects God so thoroughly and completely become the basis for my world-view?

Again how does ID reject God? Are we wrong to presume that this world was intelligently designed? If not, then the only other alternative is to presume that it came about using naturalistic means.. A process that has never been verified yet in our modern world..

It can not be corrected using God to fill in the gaps and deficiencies. It is wrong from the beginning, the foundations are faulty.

Is it wrong or ludicrous to confess that these deficiencies are mysteries? Honestly.. Does anyone have the blueprints how life was created? How was it created? Was is a little bit of evolution or a little bit of magic? If someone thinks it was a little bit of evolution with God, is that person now somehow an enemy of God now? Why? Please explain in detail...

That is what its all about, Gman. We need a new approach to science.

I guess it is how you interpret science.. Either God created it or he didn't.. I wasn't aware that there are other roads to this..

A way to discover Gods creation which does not reject him but rather builds Him into the most fundemental methodology. Because this doesn't exist, OEC fails and YEC fails because both try to solve the problems using anti-christian disciplines. Many here think they are doing this by back-filling the holes in science with God. It isn't working.

And Darwinian evolution IS working? Please explain how it works... I wasn't aware that it was factual in today's perspective..

Canuckster, speaks somewhere about not subjecting the word of god to ridicule (a paraphrase of Augustine). Who here thinks the revised science of OEC is not doing that? Look at what the skeptics and atheists are saying about OEC and YEC science. They are laughing it to scorn.

What do you suggest is the correct interpretation of Genesis? Was it a combination of both OEC and YEC views?

Do you think I am here as a lone voice crying out against this because I am having fun getting beaten up? I am calling for reason from both sides. Its time to go back to child-like thinking. Its time to start over. Its time to repent.

Repent from what? I don't understand...

[Forum Monk]

Ok, this is an issue I was trying to address with you earlier so I will need to repeat this message since I didn't get a straight answer before.. I'm still not sure how you see how the case for ID degrades God or the existence of God in relation to Biblical theology..

Gman, I am sorry that you missed the point. I was not attacking ID: the theory. I was stating how secular theories of origins do not mention God or intelligence as the source of origin for the universe and life. As for ID, (which is off-topic in the thread, my argument with ID (beside the fact it needs work in many areas, and beside the fact it is not falsifiable and beside the fact it makes no predictions, is simply, it fails to name the integillent one, and so leaves the door open to aliens or other such baloney as the source of human life. Why not just say God created/designed life? Its the truth.)

Again how does ID reject God? Are we wrong to presume that this world was intelligently designed? If not, then the only other alternative is to presume that it came about using naturalistic means.. A process that has never been verified yet in our modern world..

I made no remarks about "ID: the theory" in this thread until now. I believe life was intelligently designed, myself. I don't believe it came about through naturalistic processes and so, at least as far as that goes, we agree.

Does anyone have the blueprints how life was created? How was it created? Was is a little bit of evolution or a little bit of magic? If someone thinks it was a little bit of evolution with God, is that person now somehow an enemy of God now? Why? Please explain in detail...

You have the blueprints in Genesis. People who believe God may have used evolution are NOT, repeat NOT, the enemies of God and there is nothing wrong with being curious about the natural world and how God did what He did. And really at this point, I should clarify one thing. Science in an of itself is not evil. It is how we interpret evidence which is flawed, corrupt and the result of deception. Evolution is a theory that explains how life spontaniously emerged and eventually expanded into the plethora of species and diversity alive today. It does not mention God nor require God. It has never been proposed as model for how God accomplished creation. Only christians, recently, have attempted to make this supposition and secular science rejects it.

I guess it is how you interpret science.. Either God created it or he didn't.. I wasn't aware that there are other roads to this..

Its more how you interpret the scriptures in my opinion. Yes science intepretation is important, but the interpretation of scripture is more so.

And Darwinian evolution IS working? Please explain how it works... I wasn't aware that it was factual in today's perspective..

I suppose you stated this thinking I was defending Darwinism. I was not so I hope its clear now.

What do you suggest is the correct interpretation of Genesis? Was it a combination of both OEC and YEC views?

It is the recognition that God performed a miraculous work, without the aide of a process, or in correspondence with our scientific views, but rather in a manner which testifies to his power and glory. Something so unique it would leave no doubt to believer and unbeliever that God is God. I guess in these last days, doubt has still managed to overcome many.

[zoegirl]

It is the recognition that God performed a miraculous work, without the aide of a process, or in correspondence with our scientific views, but rather in a manner which testifies to his power and glory. Something so unique it would leave no doubt to believer and unbeliever that God is God. I guess in these last days, doubt has still managed to overcome many.

without the aid of a process.....hmm I think here you are imposing your own ideas of humans using a process. If I say I used gel electrophoresis to isolate pieces of DNA, using this "process" and being human, I am really only operating within a system and thereby I am really not in control of the process, simply operating within the rules that have been given to me. I know that if I do X and Y, then Z follows. HUmans using a process simply means that we understand the universe enough to predict events and then use them to develop a method or machine.

It seems that anyone objecting to the idea that God used a process implies that this somehow limits His glory.

I have stated this before in previous threads, and I know you are aware of my views, but I feel the need to say it again. IF God "used a process" (indeed created the process) this is no way diminishes His glory. Anybody who remotely understands the ridiculous levels of complexity in nature would understand (if they were to concede the idea of a creator) that this creator must be omnipotent beyond our levels of pathetic, finite, understanding. Do we really think that by saying He didn't poof things into existence like Jeanie in the TV show, then we are saying He isn't all-powerful?

God didn't just use the natural laws to create, He crafted the laws and forces and matter and energy and interactions....He didn't use DNA that was already there, He wrote the DNA code, myriads of lines of code, with such compelxity (and yet such elegant simplicity) that boggles the mind....

"In a manner that testifies to His power and glory...." ? !? The very fact that He could/can call upon any of His creations and they will obey Him would not testify to His glory and power? Gee...He's only the creator of the universe!! Come on! AS much as biochemistry used to drive me nuts, the very idea that God created mitochondria, chloroplast, the Calvin cycle, the Kreb's cycle, ATP synthase!!! reveals His glory and power! I find it stunning that you would demand that He create in only one way simply because you think any other way diminishes His glory...If He choose to create in a series of acts that to use seems like a process, then so be it. The absence of statements to that effect in scripture does not negate the possibility.


"something so unique to believers and unbelievers"... Again, creation of the universe....creation of the physical laws....creation of all biological processes...creation of time....elements...matter...energy...these aren't unique to you? HOW He did these things is just as amazing as the fact that He DID. I know I got into this with archaeologist, but my symphony example still works here. If God developed the universe like a grand symphony, it doesn't diminish His power and glory....He is GOd!!


"doubt has managed to overcome many" rather offensive, this statement, I have never been so cemented in my faith as when I am observing the processes he has created and thinking about how He created these processes. I don't doubt God did it, I don't doubt that He did it by pure will, I don't doubt that He could have created in 6 days, 6 milliseconds, instantaneously, whatever....the question still remains to observe what He did and possibly how He did it.

[Forum Monk]

z/g,
Wow. I sense some real frustration in that response.

I am not Arch. And whereas you took his comments personally, there is no need to take mine the same way. I thought I said before (if not I say it now) that if I have ever accused you of lack of faith, I apologize. You need not assume, if I say "many", I automatically mean you because clearly I named no names nor was I thinking about you when I made the post.

If you break it down, really, isn't the offending line "without the aid of a process"? That is really the difference between your view and mine. Simply put, you believe in progressive creationism. I do not. In my view, the correct interpretation of Genesis and other supporting scripture, excludes progressive creationism. Progressive creationism, evolution, big bang; there are processes based on our scientific understanding which I say is based on improper interpretation of the evidence. Bottom line.

[zoegirl]

z/g,
Wow. I sense some real frustration in that response.

I am not Arch. And whereas you took his comments personally, there is no need to take mine the same way. I thought I said before (if not I say it now) that if I have ever accused you of lack of faith, I apologize. You need not assume, if I say "many", I automatically mean you because clearly I named no names nor was I thinking about you when I made the post.

If you break it down, really, isn't the offending line "without the aid of a process"? That is really the difference between your view and mine. Simply put, you believe in progressive creationism. I do not. In my view, the correct interpretation of Genesis and other supporting scripture, excludes progressive creationism. Progressive creationism, evolution, big bang; there are processes based on our scientific understanding which I say is based on improper interpretation of the evidence. Bottom line.

I take issue with the criticism on God's possible use of a process. I doubt we really want to revisit that again

If an analogy may be used here? If you watched that video
http://aimediaserver.com/studiodaily/vi ... height=520

it stuns me everytime I watch it....it is like watching a sculptor work in clay, or a musician writing a stunning composition. But unlike the artists or musicians that may start something only to scribble it out, this sculptor or musician always has His moves planned, intended. And what we may see as scribbles or perceive as wrong notes may be because we have not the ears or eyes to truly perceive His magnificence.


But do we think of God as a magician that simply "poofs" every thing here (He certainly could do so, of course, why even use 6 days?), or rather can we see HIm as the author, creator, engineer, artist who patiently brought together every force, every element, every particle, every molecule to create a gorgeous symphony of molecular and cellular movements? So powerful His elements obey Him, His molecules obey him, going where He tells them.

Sometimes we limit God unintentionally, thinking that He could only use sudden appearance as the way to create. Whether He created a beautiful new symphony from another symphony, it is still HIS symphony and He is the one writing the music. And He intended that new symphony from the beginning.

God said He did it, God said it was through His will, God said it was in HIS order, God said that what He planned, He accomplished. We see nothing in HOW God created it.

But yes, I also dislike your statment that we have let doubt take over and that we must repent....strong statements and yes, there is frustration. I actually have absolutely no problem with those who do not believe in progressive creation. Nor would I think we have it all figured out. But those of us who wonder and think of the possibilities are said to be doubting, in line with the evolutionists, and in need of repentance?
And you are surprised at my frustration?

I am not taking things personally (ie, I don't think you are attacking me) but I do take issue with the doubting and the repenting.

[Forum Monk]

But yes, I also dislike your statment that we have let doubt take over and that we must repent....strong statements.

Strong statements, and I stand by them. I am not saying it from a position of superiority or arrogance. I am guilty also.

[Forum Monk]

Since the thread deals with deception I thought it useful to know, what does the dictionary say?

• 1. deceptive -- 'likely to make you believe something that is not true.'
  
  2. deception -- 'the act of deliberately making somebody believe something that is not true'
  
  3. deceive -- 'to make someone believe something that is not true'

Having established that God would not deceive and faced with what I believe to be overwhelming evidence that God created all things in the exact manner in which he claims, miraculously in six ordinary days, it is fair to ask, who is deceiving who since obviously there seems to be evidence of a great age in creation. Further we have acknowledgement that science is imperfect, does not reveal all truth, does not acknowledge God in its foundational beliefs, does not seek nor can it prove God exists. Further we can conclude that the natural laws which exist today did not exist until there was a creation to rule over. Where is the deception?

I reiterate. It appears that we are deceived in what we see, and what we think we know. Why is that so impossible to believe? And why are we so willing to capitulate to the deception? Not just willing, but we feel we must in order to harmonize the scriptures and deception.

[zoegirl]

Since the thread deals with deception I thought it useful to know, what does the dictionary say?

• 1. deceptive -- 'likely to make you believe something that is not true.'
  
  2. deception -- 'the act of deliberately making somebody believe something that is not true'
  
  3. deceive -- 'to make someone believe something that is not true'

Having established that God would not deceive and faced with what I believe to be overwhelming evidence that God created all things in the exact manner in which he claims, miraculously in six ordinary days, it is fair to ask, who is deceiving who since obviously there seems to be evidence of a great age in creation. Further we have acknowledgement that science is imperfect, does not reveal all truth, does not acknowledge God in its foundational beliefs, does not seek nor can it prove God exists. Further we can conclude that the natural laws which exist today did not exist until there was a creation to rule over. Where is the deception?

I reiterate. It appears that we are deceived in what we see, and what we think we know. Why is that so impossible to believe? And why are we so willing to capitulate to the deception? Not just willing, but we feel we must in order to harmonize the scriptures and deception.

Atheist scientists do not acknowlege God, science is neutral.

You claimed that all we are doing is whitewashing over atheist science. I disagree...we are recapturing truth. We are deciding what is true NOT BASED ON REJECTING WHAT THE ATHEIST BELIEVES BUT RATHER WHAT WE ARE OBSERVING IN BOTH THE CREATION AND SCRIPTURE.

Do not proclaim our motives in examining and deciding on ideas.

[godslanguage]

My opinion on this whole issue is rather neither or, this is why I answered with a maybe. First off, I know alot of science has gone into determining how old x is and using y type of method for determining that. But, quite frankly, I couldn't care less what science has to say about the age of the earth, the question is how does this affect the present state? If I knew how or cared how old the earth is or how long it took for God to create, would that affect my faith in Jesus Christ, would that pose a threat? Many other questions such as these pop up and this is just my honest opinion. However, this is the only reason I choose not to engage in this type of debate, simply that I know that God created and I could care less how long he took to do it.

Very unscientific, perhaps, but IF for some reason we had very strong evidence for a young earth, then people would look for new debates and ask why it took God 6 days and not 6 seconds to create...and vice versa.