Page 2 of 8

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

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:29 pm
by sandy_mcd
Forum Monk wrote:
sandy_mcd wrote:Why couldn't God have created a universe 6000 years ago that today looks 6000 years old?
I don't follow your point. Firstly, we all agree God can do anything, secondly, according to what we DO know scientifically, the sun does not look 6000 years old. So where does that leave us?

(1) The sun IS actually 6000 years old and everything we know about astrophysics is wrong.
(2) It is actually 6000 years old but he made it 'mature' much like he created Adam and Eve as adults and not children
(3) It is billions of years old.

:)
We have an apparent conflict:
1) Most scientists believe the sun is billions of years old.
2) Many people believe the earth is ~6000 years old (based on the Bible).

One resolution is (2) quoted above.

But why is there this apparent conflict?
If the Bible stated that the sun was billions of years old, there would be no apparent conflict. That would be an easy resolution.
If the sun were created 6000 years ago, and scientific evidence was interpreted by most to agree with that age, there would be no apparent conflict. On the surface, this appears to be a more difficult resolution. It has been stated that the natural laws do not allow a 6000 year-old-earth - at that point in scientific history, it would be too inhospitable for life. Again, this leads to (2) above.
But why couldn't we have a different set of natural laws that allow for a 6000 year old earth? God certainly has the power to create a universe with purple skies, green unicorns, 6 different electric charges, etc, as well as a set of natural laws to be discovered by man with which all these phenomena are consistent and explainable.

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

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:28 pm
by Forum Monk
sandy_mcd wrote:But why is there this apparent conflict?
If the Bible stated that the sun was billions of years old, there would be no apparent conflict. That would be an easy resolution.
If the sun were created 6000 years ago, and scientific evidence was interpreted by most to agree with that age, there would be no apparent conflict. On the surface, this appears to be a more difficult resolution. It has been stated that the natural laws do not allow a 6000 year-old-earth - at that point in scientific history, it would be too inhospitable for life. Again, this leads to (2) above.
But why couldn't we have a different set of natural laws that allow for a 6000 year old earth? God certainly has the power to create a universe with purple skies, green unicorns, 6 different electric charges, etc, as well as a set of natural laws to be discovered by man with which all these phenomena are consistent and explainable.
It appears several times you suggest (2) is a reasonable position but in the end you lament why can't we have (1).

sandy_mcd - are you asking because you don't know or because you want to know what I believe? What do you believe?

(I think if you have seen my other postings you would know what I believe)

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:35 pm
by zoegirl
What she seems to be saying is that if God wanted a 6000 yr old sun, he could have made the universal laws such that a mature sun could be 6000ys old. (although please, Sandy, correct me if Im wrong)

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:56 pm
by Forum Monk
Maybe I am being really dull but I'm not getting that from her posts.

In keeping with this thread, let me ask anyone:
Is it accepted that God created Adam and Eve as mature individuals without requiring a set of natural laws which are different than those our scientists have discovered?

I mean, if Adam and Eve were created mature, their literal age would have been one day old even if their physical age was greater.

If that is accepted, then why could the same idea not be applied to the sun? Same natural laws, actual age 1 day old when created 6000 years ago, physical age 8 billion or whatever the latest belief happens to be.

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:03 pm
by zoegirl
Forum Monk wrote:Maybe I am being really dull but I'm not getting that from her posts.

In keeping with this thread, let me ask anyone:
Is it accepted that God created Adam and Eve as mature individuals without requiring a set of natural laws which are different than those our scientists have discovered?

I mean, if Adam and Eve were created mature, their literal age would have been one day old even if their physical age was greater.

If that is accepted, then why could the same idea not be applied to the sun? Same natural laws, actual age 1 day old when created 6000 years ago, physical age 8 billion or whatever the latest belief happens to be.
Not everyone accepts this, I have heard some say otherwise...I have no problem with this.

But why must this be applied to all of the universe? WE are discussing living organisms that are designed to give a great deal of parental care, not mountains, galaxies, ...the universe, that coud have been established and allowed to develop according to His plans.


SImply because God might have created Adam and Eve full grown, we mustn't assume that this was the method for everthing.

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:17 pm
by sandy_mcd
zoegirl wrote: if God wanted a 6000 yr old sun, he could have made the universal laws such that a mature sun could be 6000ys old.
Precisely. Much clearer and more succinct than my post.

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

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:43 pm
by sandy_mcd
Forum Monk wrote:sandy_mcd - are you asking because you don't know or because you want to know what I believe? What do you believe?
I am going with 'billions of years'. [Although this is of course in practice indistinguishable from 'created 6000 years ago with appearance of age'.]

The point I was trying to make was that the statement "it can easily be argued that it was absolutely necessary for God to create the earth, the planets and the stars with age" is based on an unstated assumption [the physical laws we have are the only ones God can work with]. If this assumption is true, it limits God's powers. If the assumption is false (which I think most here would believe to be the case) then the conclusion that 'an appearance of age is necessary' no longer follows.

Let me try an analogy. Mapquest says it is 2100 miles by road from Seattle to Chicago. Ignoring the effects of traffic and assuming that all speed limits are obeyed, can the trip from Seattle to Chicago be made in under 24 hours? [A 24 hour trip would require an average speed of 87 mph.]

Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:30 am
by tj rich
In genesis God creates a flat earth with water around and possibly below it, the sky is a dome and the sun and moon just lights in the sky. Was it deceptive of God to then make the earth appear spherical and orbit the sun? Why do we accept scientific opinion when it contradicts the bible in this instance but not on the age of the earth. Cherry picking again?

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

Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:10 pm
by Canuckster1127
archaeologist wrote:it was mentioned that creation with age would be a deceptive practice but i disagree. we know that to be practical and to sustain life, that many things had to be created with age: the sun, moon, stars, original species, adam and eve etc.

what doyou think? and why?
I don't profess to be in a position to judge God.

So, no. If God chose to create and give an appearance of age for the express purpose of deceiving us so that we would need to exercise faith, then God is the creator and I am the creation and I have no right of position to judge God.

That said, I believe God is internally consistent and I would have a great deal of diffilculty believing or accepting that God would pusposely deceive.

Nevertheless, there have been many issue is the past where Man has deceived himslef on issues that he attributed to God.

Geocentirsm is an easy one. Man read the Bible in terms of what appeared to him to be self evident, that the earth was the center of the universe.

We know better now. It wasn;t God deceiving. It was us deceiving ourselves by becoming dogmatic on some verses in the Bible and our then confusing interpretation of men with inspiration from God.

Interestingly enough I personally believe this is what the some of the YEC movement is based on today, but I understand that this is a current issue and not as clear as the geocentism heresy was in the past.

If Christ tarries in his return, perhaps we will live to see it made as clear but the issue is much more complicated and may remain in dispute to varying degrees for a long time to come.

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

Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:52 pm
by Forum Monk
sandy_mcd wrote: If the assumption is false (which I think most here would believe to be the case) then the conclusion that 'an appearance of age is necessary' no longer follows.
The assumption that is false, is the assumption that God was constrained by natural or physical laws which did not exist until the creation existed. My original wording may have been poorly chosen and conveyed to you a different meaning than intended.
tj_rich wrote: In genesis God creates a flat earth with water around and possibly below it, the sky is a dome and the sun and moon just lights in the sky. Was it deceptive of God to then make the earth appear spherical and orbit the sun? Why do we accept scientific opinion when it contradicts the bible in this instance but not on the age of the earth. Cherry picking again?
Genesis does not teach that God created a flat earth so your entire statement is baseless. In addition, the geocentrism argument (in case you want to bring it up later) does not apply to Genesis either. I address these below.
Canuckster1127 wrote:So, no. If God chose to create and give an appearance of age for the express purpose of deceiving us so that we would need to exercise faith, then God is the creator and I am the creation and I have no right of position to judge God.

That said, I believe God is internally consistent and I would have a great deal of diffilculty believing or accepting that God would pusposely deceive.

God does not give us many details about those first six days, but if God chose to create something in a certain way or with a certain appearance, it is blasphemous in my opinion to claim his purpose was deception. His purpose is clearly to provide us what was necessary for our lives and to help us discover him.
Nevertheless, there have been many issue is the past where Man has deceived himslef on issues that he attributed to God.

Geocentirsm is an easy one. Man read the Bible in terms of what appeared to him to be self evident, that the earth was the center of the universe.

We know better now. It wasn;t God deceiving. It was us deceiving ourselves by becoming dogmatic on some verses in the Bible and our then confusing interpretation of men with inspiration from God.
Geocentrism and flat earth ideas are used by athiests today to discredit the bible, and demostrate it as unreliable. My opinion is that we as christians and they, look at certain scriptures which are taken out of context and apply a scientific intent to them when clearly that is not their intent. In all of the classic texts which critics use to claim "oh look, the Bible is saying the earth is flat or the center of the universe" the language is undeniably allegorical and cultural and is not meant to explain what God created. A larger lesson or truth is being conveyed. I have not taken the time to examine these here to prove my point. But if you look at them, you will understand that some other point is being made. The only "cherry picking" is by those who wish to discredit the Bible. Not even the most strict literalist believes everything in the Bible is word for word literal because there are many figures of speech, stories, illustrations, and so on which must be properly analyzed.
Interestingly enough I personally believe this is what the some of the YEC movement is based on today, but I understand that this is a current issue and not as clear as the geocentism heresy was in the past.

If Christ tarries in his return, perhaps we will live to see it made as clear but the issue is much more complicated and may remain in dispute to varying degrees for a long time to come.
In my opinion as I have stated many times, man approaches the Bible from the basis of his knowledge rather than spiritual eyes. Man refuses to believe that his world-view is possibly incorrect, skewed or he is deceived. But we are told to think in a different way, with renewed minds. How are christians today setting themselves apart from world opinion by adopting the same lines of thought as secularist? Not only adopting them, but justifying them.

Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 4:22 pm
by Canuckster1127
God does not give us many details about those first six days, but if God chose to create something in a certain way or with a certain appearance, it is blasphemous in my opinion to claim his purpose was deception. His purpose is clearly to provide us what was necessary for our lives and to help us discover him.
We are agreed. I do not believe God is deceptive. I believe that all the Bible is truth. I do not believe that all truth is in the Bible however and science is a legitimate means to examine the creation and in some instances to understand and infer some understanding of the creator too. The scripture itself confirms this. I agree that in many cases apparent conflict between Scripture and Science arised more from eisogesis or reading into scripture what is not explicitly there or drawing some inference from a text that is contextually addressing some other broader issue.

Interestingly enough, the exegetical principle of perspectival observation is one that was added in the aftermath of the whole geocentrism fiasco.

I agree that atheists and others use these instances to attempt to discredit the Bible. That fact in and of itself does not mean that all interpretations of Scripture which atheists disagree are therefore correct. That is a form of artificial dualism that assumes too much in my opinion.

Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 5:26 pm
by Forum Monk
Canuckster1127 wrote:I believe that all the Bible is truth. I do not believe that all truth is in the Bible however and science is a legitimate means to examine the creation and in some instances to understand and infer some understanding of the creator too. The scripture itself confirms this. I agree that in many cases apparent conflict between Scripture and Science arised more from eisogesis or reading into scripture what is not explicitly there or drawing some inference from a text that is contextually addressing some other broader issue.
We are in agreement if you, like I, believe that science is a legitimate way to understand scripture and infer understanding of the creator, but it is not a method of exegesis. The principles of hermeneutics demand that the text be intepreted based on the cultural and historical context in which it is written, internal consistency, and knowledge of the semantics and syntax of the authors. Applying modern interpretation is the source of many greivous errors and permits all kinds of aberrant teaching to emerge, such a the biblical support of slavery, oppression of women, etc. This is also the principle reason to balk at applying modern scientific understanding to the scripture. It is outside of the context of scripture.
I agree that atheists and others use these instances to attempt to discredit the Bible. That fact in and of itself does not mean that all interpretations of Scripture which atheists disagree are therefore correct. That is a form of artificial dualism that assumes too much in my opinion.
Correct. But when Christians use the same arguments as atheists in order to support their world-view something is seriously wrong with the mind set in my opinion.

Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:21 pm
by Canuckster1127
We are in agreement if you, like I, believe that science is a legitimate way to understand scripture and infer understanding of the creator, but it is not a method of exegesis. The principles of hermeneutics demand that the text be intepreted based on the cultural and historical context in which it is written, internal consistency, and knowledge of the semantics and syntax of the authors. Applying modern interpretation is the source of many greivous errors and permits all kinds of aberrant teaching to emerge, such a the biblical support of slavery, oppression of women, etc. This is also the principle reason to balk at applying modern scientific understanding to the scripture. It is outside of the context of scripture.
I think we are reasonably close and agreed in general, although it appears we are of different opinions in terms of the conclusions of this approach, as I am an Old Earth Creationist and it appears to me (and please correct me if I am not reflecting your position accurately) that you believe correct Biblical exegesis demands a Young Earth position.

First, I don't necessarily believe science is an appropriate means to exegete scripture. The scientific method itself is de facto materialistic and I don't believe that only that which is physical and subject to that method is the sum of all truth. In fact, I believe a great deal of the age of the earth debate is the result of lifting scripture out of the context of its original human authorship, the understanding of its original audience, and in fact seeks to force some elements of Genesis into a context it was never intended to reside.

The context of Genesis when I look at it is not to give a scientific discourse. I believe the overriding context and message of Genesis is found in the original author (Moses under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) is addressing the Nation of Israel in the early stages of the Exodus to reintroduce them to the history and their nation and covenant relationship with God. Genesis 1 - 11 provides a the backdrop and preparation for chapter 12 - 50 which focus on Abraham, Isaac and Joseph.

I believe there are scientific claims present that are relevant to examine but their are important things to be aware and important to any Christian whether young earth or old earth or some other variant.

1. Hebrew at that time was not a language designed or specialized to give technical precision to the degree read in (in my opinion) by those seeking to find scientific specificity.

2. The Hebrew culture would not have asked the question in these passages as to the time periods covered. The primary point they were deriving from this narrative was along the lines of "We are God's people, created for a purpose by God which ties into His plan which was present from the very beginning of this world."

3. That said it is reasonable to believe that God's purpose and inspiration may have extended beyond the context of the immediate time, language and culture and therefore included us. It is dangerous however, to push that to a degree that overrides or goes beyond the original text and context and when moving in that realm, dogmatic interpretation is going to run a large risk of overstating positions.

Modern scientific understanding is by its very nature fickle and subject to change as more data is accumulated and more theories devised to explain it. It certainly is an unreliable means to attempt to meld Scripture to for the reasons cited.

That said, when we attempt to utilize Scripture to predict scientific conclusions there are some things that bear some analysis.

God is the author of Scripture as well as the creator of the universe. Therefore where truth lies in both areas, addressing a common element, the two should be in perfect accord. Where it is not, there are only a few options to consider.

1. Scripture may be incorrect. As a Christian who believes in inspiration, I cannot entertain this option and I do not.

2. Our interpretation or exegesis may be incorrect. This is not the same as option 1. Unfortunately, some Christians fail to make that distinction and in so doing they actually elevate their theology to the level of Scripture itself which is dangerous and wrong and in a subtle way equates to a form of arrogance and spiritual pride.

3. Science may be incorrect. This is always possible and history demonstrates it in many instances. That said however, it is a cop-out to simply argue it must be wrong when there is a disagreement with Scripture or more likely, the applicable theology or exogesis, (eisogesis maybe even ;) ) in question. The greater the preponderace of data and work done in science that confirms something, the more basis there is to consider that it may be reflecting a truth found in nature which also finds its source in God as creator and the process sorted out.

It's an uncomfortable process but a profitable one if it is worked through by the Christian without compromise to the inspiration and inerrency of Scripture but also extreme care to not try and apply that standard to our interpretation of the text which may need to be adjusted.

In terms of scientific age of the creation, as I believe that is a very minor part of the whole purpose and context of the Genesis account anyway, I think we've overall (myself included) really strained at some gnats and perhaps have swallowed some camels and missed the main point.

So I think we have a lot in common here, but I think maybe these are the areas where there is some difference of approach.

What do you think?

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

Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:17 am
by Leonov
archaeologist wrote:it was mentioned that creation with age would be a deceptive practice but i disagree. we know that to be practical and to sustain life, that many things had to be created with age: the sun, moon, stars, original species, adam and eve etc.

what doyou think? and why?
I am new here and have been considering exactly this issue for some time. Whilst I agree with you that some things need to be created "with age" to make it all work it is fallacious to extend that to everything that exists. There is no reason why God needs to create a universe in which the light appears to have been travelling from other galaxies for more that a million years. If we never saw those galaxies what would it matter?

Now I can several possible explanations for that but in any case I have to say that I can see no reason for God to do it unless he wanted it to make the universe look like it is old. Why would God want to do that?

A later poster says that God is not deceiving us but we are misinterpreting the evidence and to correctly interpret the evidence you need to believe that God exists and live by faith.

What then does it mean to deceive if not making someone believe something that is contrary to other evidence or beliefs? Are magicians any the less deceptive because the people in the audience don't understand how it was done? As far as I can see, if you set out to make someone believe something contrary to what they would otherwise believe then you are deceiving them and hence a deceiver.

I believe in God but I cannot see how we can retain the idea of Creation at the same time as believing that God does not lie. If that is the case then I would rather let go of a recent creation than a truthful God.

L

Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:52 am
by Canuckster1127
Leonov,

Welcome to the forum!

I think your post catches some of the conflict in this area. God is not a deceiver in the negative sense of that word, but there certainly are consistent themes within Scripture that show that God chooses to hide things and not make them evident. I tend to believe that this is in the area of Spiritual truth and not the physical creation but others can have other views about it I'm sure.

I don't think it is necessary to adopt an Old Earth position as a compromise to avoiding rejecting Scripture. I personally believe that the Scriptures present things in a manner that exegetically allows for and promotes an Old Earth position. The fact that modern science is pretty strongly demonstrating an Old Earth is something I would expect if the Scriptures and an Old Earth hermeneutic are accepted as truth. But science has been wrong to varying degrees or reinterpreted radically as new data and observations are made and I think it is entirely possible that this debate will continue to be reframed as changes take place in the field.

I think God created the universe to "look old" because it is old. When you think in terms of the infinite attributes of God, ideas of degree such as "old" or "young", or "Large" or "small" pretty much have no meaning. Relative to us they certainly do. But to an infinite God outside of time and space these comparative terms mean nothing.

Why is the universe so vast? I honestly don't know. It could be that God's purposes go well beyond us and our planet. There's no reason I can see that God couldn't have simply chosen to create on this scale because it pleased Him to do so as an expression of His creative power and to demonstrate to us the vastness of his power.

What need of efficiency or conservation is there for an infinite God? We're finite and pretty much see things from the location of the surface of the earth and imagine, based on our experience and understanding that we'd do things differently. So what? We lack the ability to understand entirely, let alone judge, the plans and actions of God in this regard.

Certainly, it is an expression of the image of God within us that we will seek to understand and that is fine as far as I can see. I think we need to take outselves and those efforts a little less seriously, however, if we imagine we've reached a point where we can draw any meaningful conclusions and on that basis pass judgement upon God.

My thoughts anyway and I'm still very much a work in progress.

I'd encourage you to look at our main board and read some of the articles with regard to the Old Earth position. You'll find that it is not simply a reaction to or a compromise with science and that there are sound exegetical positions rooted in Scripture and Church history present.

Blessings,

Bart