Evidence for God from Science

Totally agree, and when I said about quibbling and cuddling, I was using the term openly not directly at anyone, not good writing on my behalf.

The "how" of salvation is beautifully simple as you said.

Starhunter wrote:It was a mistake to use what I had said contrary to what I intended. It is not a reflection of you.

Re to earth age/genealogies, I worked that out myself as a teenager. It's just my take on it, and if I'm wrong it does not necessarily make me a hypocrite.

A hypocrite is someone who pretends to be one thing and is really another, or says one thing and denies it.

Even so, the above actions don't prove someone is a hypocrite, they might just be tired or muddled up, which happens more as you get older, so if you called me a muddled up old man that's probably right on!

That's ok brother we all make mistakes and say things we don't mean, especially when tired.

I think at the end of the day creation theories are just a distraction from Christ.

No hard feelings bro.

Still beats watching TV!

Starhunter wrote:Still beats watching TV!

I agree unless it's Game of Thrones, I must say that show is my secret vice.

1over137 wrote:

Jac wrote:The fact is incredibly simple: if the eath is billions of years old, then Genesis 1-11 is literally wrong. We would then have to sit back and work out the hermeneutical and theological implications.

That would be?

The biggest thing is that we would have to reject notion of an objective understanding of Scripture. The meaning would no longer reside in what the text says but rather in broad themes, and we would have to give up on any real notion of historicity of the text. If Gen. 1-11 can be factually wrong, then we have to ask what it does teach. We would be forced to understand it mythologically, that the general idea is that God prefers order to chaos and that God is sovereign over all. We may as well then reject Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as historical figures. All of that could just as well be understood as ancient myth meant to give Israel a sense of being chosen. Of course, it would not be literally and historically true that Israel would have been actually chosen, since the choosing was a historical event that we are now reading mythologically. But there is some sense, again, of being "chosen"--probably the real idea should have been that Israel could rely on God. Furthermore, we probably shouldn't read this against the backdrop of either the Exodus or even the Conquest, since all of that would be most likely mythical as well. A purer history would be that the Israelites were an indigenous people who basically bred out the Canaanites (which is the dominant view among critical scholars).

All of that strongly suggests that the miracles in Scripture are mythical. Prophecy is thus mythical, too. In short, we end up with a "natural" Israelite religion. It's just standard deconstructionism. The methodological problem with all of this, though, is that there is no way to know what is historical and what isn't. The method undercuts itself. We're left saying that we have absolutely no idea what parts are historical and what isn't. Certainly there are some kernals of truth somewhere, but they have been so overlaid with myth and legend that they are unrecoverable. As such, the only thing we can really do is resort to B. Child's "Canon Criticism"--the idea that we ignore any questions about historicity and just interpret the Bible as we have it today, looking for its theological truths. And, of course, any truths that are to dependent on the historical event itself is to be rejected.

Not that I endorse any of that. I think Gen. 1-11 actually happened as written. I'm just saying that if you reject Gen. 1-11, there's simply no principled way you can attempt to read the Bible objectively. It's just reduced to a book of myths and stories that are more or less rooted in some historical events or persons.

---------------------------------------

Mazzy wrote:Jac I agree with you to some degree being that if OECs assert Genesis is not a 24 hour day then we are not taking the days of Genesis as 24 hours days as we know them here on earth at this time. However, before the earth was set in orbit and the physics of the universe put in full motion a day was not 24 hours. In fact scientists believe, the earth was much closer to the sun and had even shorter days. We are now slowly moving away fromthe sun and our days are getting longer.

In the early Carboniferous period some 350 million years ago an Earth year was around 385 days, ancient corals indicate, meaning not that it took longer for the planet to revolve around the sun, but that a day–night cycle was less than 23 hours long. Sedimentary rocks such as sandstone also testify to the quicker days of yore. As moon-spawned tides wash over rocks they deposit mineral specks, layer upon layer. In southern Australia, for example, these vertically accumulating tidal "rhythmites" have pegged an Earth day at 21.9 hours some 620 million years ago. This equates to a 400-day year, although other estimates suggest even brisker daily rotations then. In billions of years a single day could be 500 hours.

On other planets a day can be years, the bible says in 2 Peter and Psalms that a day can be as a thousand years, and we are told to not uphold myths and geneologies in the New Testament.

I suggest that these scriptures and current scientific understanding give OECs leave to still be identified as biblical literalists. It''s just that the world had no idea that a day could be literally any length of time depending on where you are, what period of time one lives in and what view point God was taking in inspiring the composing of Genesis.

Except OECs don't believe that the first days--literally, the first revolutions of the earth on its axis--took millions of years. And I don't think anybody would take such a suggestion seriously. They think that the first "days" are not "days" at all, but rather than yom refers to long, undefined periods of time. To the extent they try to do that, they are trying to be literalists. And there is good reason for them to make the attempt. If allow ourselves to be mythologists, then, as I noted above, the text doesn't really mean anything at all. The fact, however, is that yom does not and cannot mean "long undefined period of time."

----------------------------------------

RickD wrote:What about yom in Isa 30:8?
8 Go now, write it on a tablet for them,
inscribe it on a scroll,
that for the days to come
it may be an everlasting witness.

Isn't yom used there, to mean forever?

http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm

--------------

This article shows the exegetical support for an old earth.
http://godandscience.org/youngearth/six ... ation.html

No, "yom" there doesn't mean "forever." I'll provide you with an appropriate response in the next day or so. But the short answer to the article's question about this verse is that that "yom" is qualified by "forever and ever." No such qualifications exist in Gen 1. There are several different types of linguistic markers a writer can put on "yom" to show his meaning. Those markers are typical and present in Isa. 30:8, so it doesn't provide an example we can use to read a foreign meaning back into Gen 1.

Jac3510 wrote:

1over137 wrote:

Jac wrote:The fact is incredibly simple: if the eath is billions of years old, then Genesis 1-11 is literally wrong. We would then have to sit back and work out the hermeneutical and theological implications.

That would be?

The biggest thing is that we would have to reject notion of an objective understanding of Scripture. The meaning would no longer reside in what the text says but rather in broad themes, and we would have to give up on any real notion of historicity of the text. If Gen. 1-11 can be factually wrong, then we have to ask what it does teach. We would be forced to understand it mythologically, that the general idea is that God prefers order to chaos and that God is sovereign over all. We may as well then reject Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as historical figures. All of that could just as well be understood as ancient myth meant to give Israel a sense of being chosen. Of course, it would not be literally and historically true that Israel would have been actually chosen, since the choosing was a historical event that we are now reading mythologically. But there is some sense, again, of being "chosen"--probably the real idea should have been that Israel could rely on God. Furthermore, we probably shouldn't read this against the backdrop of either the Exodus or even the Conquest, since all of that would be most likely mythical as well. A purer history would be that the Israelites were an indigenous people who basically bred out the Canaanites (which is the dominant view among critical scholars).

All of that strongly suggests that the miracles in Scripture are mythical. Prophecy is thus mythical, too. In short, we end up with a "natural" Israelite religion. It's just standard deconstructionism. The methodological problem with all of this, though, is that there is no way to know what is historical and what isn't. The method undercuts itself. We're left saying that we have absolutely no idea what parts are historical and what isn't. Certainly there are some kernals of truth somewhere, but they have been so overlaid with myth and legend that they are unrecoverable. As such, the only thing we can really do is resort to B. Child's "Canon Criticism"--the idea that we ignore any questions about historicity and just interpret the Bible as we have it today, looking for its theological truths. And, of course, any truths that are to dependent on the historical event itself is to be rejected.

Not that I endorse any of that. I think Gen. 1-11 actually happened as written. I'm just saying that if you reject Gen. 1-11, there's simply no principled way you can attempt to read the Bible objectively. It's just reduced to a book of myths and stories that are more or less rooted in some historical events or persons.

---------------------------------------

Mazzy wrote:Jac I agree with you to some degree being that if OECs assert Genesis is not a 24 hour day then we are not taking the days of Genesis as 24 hours days as we know them here on earth at this time. However, before the earth was set in orbit and the physics of the universe put in full motion a day was not 24 hours. In fact scientists believe, the earth was much closer to the sun and had even shorter days. We are now slowly moving away fromthe sun and our days are getting longer.

In the early Carboniferous period some 350 million years ago an Earth year was around 385 days, ancient corals indicate, meaning not that it took longer for the planet to revolve around the sun, but that a day–night cycle was less than 23 hours long. Sedimentary rocks such as sandstone also testify to the quicker days of yore. As moon-spawned tides wash over rocks they deposit mineral specks, layer upon layer. In southern Australia, for example, these vertically accumulating tidal "rhythmites" have pegged an Earth day at 21.9 hours some 620 million years ago. This equates to a 400-day year, although other estimates suggest even brisker daily rotations then. In billions of years a single day could be 500 hours.

On other planets a day can be years, the bible says in 2 Peter and Psalms that a day can be as a thousand years, and we are told to not uphold myths and geneologies in the New Testament.

I suggest that these scriptures and current scientific understanding give OECs leave to still be identified as biblical literalists. It''s just that the world had no idea that a day could be literally any length of time depending on where you are, what period of time one lives in and what view point God was taking in inspiring the composing of Genesis.

Except OECs don't believe that the first days--literally, the first revolutions of the earth on its axis--took millions of years. And I don't think anybody would take such a suggestion seriously. They think that the first "days" are not "days" at all, but rather than yom refers to long, undefined periods of time. To the extent they try to do that, they are trying to be literalists. And there is good reason for them to make the attempt. If allow ourselves to be mythologists, then, as I noted above, the text doesn't really mean anything at all. The fact, however, is that yom does not and cannot mean "long undefined period of time."

----------------------------------------

RickD wrote:What about yom in Isa 30:8?
8 Go now, write it on a tablet for them,
inscribe it on a scroll,
that for the days to come
it may be an everlasting witness.

Isn't yom used there, to mean forever?

http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm

--------------

This article shows the exegetical support for an old earth.
http://godandscience.org/youngearth/six ... ation.html

No, "yom" there doesn't mean "forever." I'll provide you with an appropriate response in the next day or so. But the short answer to the article's question about this verse is that that "yom" is qualified by "forever and ever." No such qualifications exist in Gen 1. There are several different types of linguistic markers a writer can put on "yom" to show his meaning. Those markers are typical and present in Isa. 30:8, so it doesn't provide an example we can use to read a foreign meaning back into Gen 1.

Not to make too much of a point but there are so many scholars that disagree with you here.
I think it is rather presumptuous to state that one MUST take Genesis 1:11 as a factual scientific account of creation, to be read as a literal and concrete chronological account or that the WHOLE rest of the bible can NOT be taken as historical. If YOU choose to put your understanding on the bible and how YOU can accept its various books and letters based on one small part of it that we have no evidence for it being written AS a scientific account of all creation, then that is up to YOU.
To suggest that ALL must follow YOUR view or they can NOT reconcile the rest of the bible is just pain silly.
But to each their own.

Of course there are scholars who disagree with me, but first of all, we don't debate by stacking scholars one side vs. the other and tallying a vote. The question is whether or not the argument is right. And second of all, most of these scholars are talking outside of their field when they start talking about hermeneutical implications. And, worse, of those who are hermeneutical specialists, a great many of those are terribly, terribly wrong (even to the point of being self-refuting). To give you only one example, see Klein, Blomberg, and Craig's Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, which is one of the better philosophical hermeneutic textbooks but, in the end, is hopelessly self-contradictory and employs a visciously circular argument. Post-modernism influences, and al that.

Anyway, my argument is simple, and I think correct. It can be stated simply:

1. Either the Bible is true as it is written or it is not;
2. The Bible is not true as it is written in Gen 1;
3. Therefore, the Bible is not true as it is written

The only way to avoid (3) is to suggest that some parts are true as written and some are not. So you could suggest that SOME parts are literal and SOME parts are not. But then which parts are literal and which ones are not? Which ones are true as written and which ones are not true as written? What criteria do you supply to make a principled difference? I submit to you that there is no such criteria, and especially not at the textual level (and that's where the real debate has to be had). For the criteria for distinction must be found there and only there. Anything less is eisogesis, because it means that the necessary information to see the truth of the text was not available to the audience to whom it was written; and that would be to say that the audience to whom it was written was not able to see it's truth, which means the text was not revelatory to them.

You can call that presumptuous, I suppose. You can call it an opinion. I call it the necessary and inescapable conclusion and the only rational position to hold in light of the evidence.

Jac,

What about the link I posted that shows exegetical proof of OEC?

And,

Anyone that thinks the bible says the earth is around 6000 years old, is reading something into scripture(eisogesis) that isn't there. The bible makes no claims on the age of the earth.

The bible is a collection of books by different authors with different purposes in mind, with different literary genres.
To suggest that ALL must be read in a manner in which ALL are viewed as literal and concrete is just, well, it doesn't make any sense.
To suggest that unless you read them all as such the WHOLE is worthless makes even less sense.
How do we know which ones to take as literal? which ones as something else? which ones as literal and concrete?
Now, THAT is a very good question and I guess that is one that EACH believers must decide for themselves.

IMO, and using Genesis as an example, I do NOT believe we are to read it as a literal and concrete factual scientific chronological statement on the creation of the universe.
Why?
Because it doesn't seem to lend itself to that in how it was written.
EX:
How can the Earth be formless and void and YET have a surface of waters?
God created light and day BEFORE He created the sun, how is that possible?
How can there be evening and morning before the very thing (the sun) that decides when even and morning start and end?
God created heaven and earth but then again creates and expanse AFTER and calls that heaven, why?
Vegetation came to be BEFORE the sun was created, even though vegetation needs the sun.
God created man and woman in his image, does that mean God is male and female?

See, IF we read those passages as literal AND concrete ( that they are to mean EXACTLY what they say) then we have scientific, chronological and even theological issues with nature and even the rest of the bible.

RickD wrote:And,

Anyone that thinks the bible says the earth is around 6000 years old, is reading something into scripture(eisogesis) that isn't there. The bible makes no claims on the age of the earth.

In terms of time, at best, the bible lineages point only to how old the people decedent from Adam were.
And a some scholar point out, those number many not necessarily be 100% accurate NOR is there any reason to believe that the writer needed them to be 100% accurate.

Descendants of Adam

5 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created.

3 When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. 4 Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters. 5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

6 Seth lived one hundred and five years, and became the father of Enosh. 7 Then Seth lived eight hundred and seven years after he became the father of Enosh, and he had other sons and daughters. 8 So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years, and he died.

9 Enosh lived ninety years, and became the father of Kenan. 10 Then Enosh lived eight hundred and fifteen years after he became the father of Kenan, and he had other sons and daughters. 11 So all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years, and he died.

12 Kenan lived seventy years, and became the father of Mahalalel. 13 Then Kenan lived eight hundred and forty years after he became the father of Mahalalel, and he had other sons and daughters. 14 So all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten years, and he died.

15 Mahalalel lived sixty-five years, and became the father of Jared. 16 Then Mahalalel lived eight hundred and thirty years after he became the father of Jared, and he had other sons and daughters. 17 So all the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred and ninety-five years, and he died.

18 Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two years, and became the father of Enoch. 19 Then Jared lived eight hundred years after he became the father of Enoch, and he had other sons and daughters. 20 So all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years, and he died.

21 Enoch lived sixty-five years, and became the father of Methuselah. 22 Then Enoch walked with God three hundred years after he became the father of Methuselah, and he had other sons and daughters. 23 So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. 24 Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.

25 Methuselah lived one hundred and eighty-seven years, and became the father of Lamech. 26 Then Methuselah lived seven hundred and eighty-two years after he became the father of Lamech, and he had other sons and daughters. 27 So all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years, and he died.

28 Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and became the father of a son. 29 Now he called his name Noah, saying, “This one will give us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands arising from the ground which the Lord has cursed.” 30 Then Lamech lived five hundred and ninety-five years after he became the father of Noah, and he had other sons and daughters. 31 So all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and seventy-seven years, and he died.

32 Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

RickD wrote:Jac,

What about the link I posted that shows exegetical proof of OEC?

I'll have to offer something more substantive in the next day or so. I would like to point out that what both of your last two replies to me have done is point me to the text, and that is commendable. That's where the discussion needs to be had. The only problem with that is that fair responses take more than a quick fire-off!

I'll say in general that most of the article, though, does not offer exegetical support for OEC. There are some arguments that are rooted in the text of Gen. 1 itself, and those need to be dealt with. But far more than that are appeals to other passages of Scripture (which I deny their relevancy, and have on these boards for years, and that for methodological and not theological reasons) and refutations of YEC points.

But beyond all that, the fact still stands that yom does not, cannot, and never does mean "long undefined period of time." That by itself is enough to refute OEC as an interpretation. That's the central issue. Your job is not only to show that it CAN mean that (and, again, I insist it cannot), but then you have to show that within the text of Gen 1 itself it was intended to mean that by Moses himself. The first bar cannot be reached, the second bar is even further removed.

Once again, these are all assertions I need to back up, I understand. I'll just ask you to give me a little bit to put a proper response together.

RickD wrote:And,

Anyone that thinks the bible says the earth is around 6000 years old, is reading something into scripture(eisogesis) that isn't there. The bible makes no claims on the age of the earth.

And this is correct. The claim that the earth is 6000 years old, as we all know, comes from the assumption that the OT genealogies are complete. I don't think they are. But that doesn't mean that we can extend the earth back billions of years. If the genealogies are even halfway complete (which seems reasonable given other Hebrew genealogies), and if yom refers to a normal day, then it is logically impossible to fit billions of years into the biblical understanding of the origins of the earth. And since yom refers to a normal day, then OEC is out. Since we cannot suppor the Gap theory, billions of years are out. Since we are literalists and not allegorists or mythologists, we have to conclude that the earth is relatively "young."

PaulSacramento wrote:The bible is a collection of books by different authors with different purposes in mind, with different literary genres.
To suggest that ALL must be read in a manner in which ALL are viewed as literal and concrete is just, well, it doesn't make any sense.

It is the only thing that makes sense. To suggest otherwise is to be an allegorist or mythologist. Both views make the Bible completely and totally subjective sense, as you say . . .

How do we know which ones to take as literal? which ones as something else? which ones as literal and concrete?
Now, THAT is a very good question and I guess that is one that EACH believers must decide for themselves.

So YOU decide that one book is literal and another decides that it is figurative and still another that you are both wrong and that part is literal and part is allegorical. There is absolutely NO authority here. It all becomes preference, and worse yet, the deciding factor on what you believe is your own preexisting theology. As such, you use the Bible to teach what you want it to teach, and those parts that you don't agree with you explain away as allegory or figurative language. You don't get your theology from Scripture. Scriture just illustrates your theology.

And all that is just postmodernism. The good news for OEC folks is that most don't hold to your view. People like Rick actually claim that OEC is LITERALLY taught by the Bible. At least they are on the right track. The moment you start appealing to postmodern drivel to justify your beliefs, you've lost all credibility.

IMO, and using Genesis as an example, I do NOT believe we are to read it as a literal and concrete factual scientific chronological statement on the creation of the universe.

So you are an errantist. And so once again, you don't get your theology from Scripture, and therefore, all of the Bible is worthless.

Why?
Because it doesn't seem to lend itself to that in how it was written.
EX:
How can the Earth be formless and void and YET have a surface of waters?

Because "formless" doesn't mean "shapeless." A better translation is "uninhabited and uninhabitable."

God created light and day BEFORE He created the sun, how is that possible?

How will there be light in the New Earth where there will be no sun? If God can create the universe from nothing, He shouldn't have a problem creating light ex nihilo either.

How can there be evening and morning before the very thing (the sun) that decides when even and morning start and end?

Because a day is still a day whether there is a sun or not. A day is marked by night (the absense of light) and then day (the dawning of light). If God can create light ex nihilo, then there's no reason their can't be a day.

God created heaven and earth but then again creates and expanse AFTER and calls that heaven, why?

Because the heaven in v.6 is not the same as heaven in v.1. The former is part of the whole universe. The latter is that part that separated the waters from the waters here on earth. To suggest that they are the same would be to suggest that there is water outside of the universe, which is patently stupid. The text itself proves your question is meaningless.

Vegetation came to be BEFORE the sun was created, even though vegetation needs the sun.

No. Vegetation needs light, which was on the earth. And even if it did need the sun specifically, the sun came on the next day.

God created man and woman in his image, does that mean God is male and female?

No, because the word "image" means "a visible representation of that which is invisible." This means that BOTH males AND females represent God. Besides, this isn't a YEC problem. This is a creationism problem. It's ridiculous to say that YECs have a problem with this but that OECs dont, unless, of course, your version of OEC insists that there are errors in the text and that this is one such error.

See, IF we read those passages as literal AND concrete ( that they are to mean EXACTLY what they say) then we have scientific, chronological and even theological issues with nature and even the rest of the bible.

Not even close. You apparently have never actually studied what YECs actually teach if THAT is all you think it takes to overturn such a well studied position. That actually suggests a contempt on your part for the intellectual capacities of YEC scholars . . .

Jac, you are just simply stating YOUR interpretation as correct because in YOUR view no other is possible.
That's fine, I just disagree.
I am not referring to JUST the YEC position because by the way.
As for my contempt on YEC scholars, I only viewed them as closed minded and arrogant, not that they do NOT have a "leg to sand on".
My point is that those that DO take the bible as literal and concrete ALSO decide for themselves what parts are indeed literal and concrete based on their interpretations as well.
THEY may not see that of course, but they do.
As for this part:

So you are an errantist. And so once again, you don't get your theology from Scripture, and therefore, all of the Bible is worthless

.

Luckily YOU don't get to decide for ME what is or isn't worthless for ME about the bible.