Evidence for God from Science

Canuckster1127 wrote:

VicToR wrote:I dont know if anyone has pointed this out..

Exodus 20:9
Six days you shall labour and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God.

11For in six days the LORD made the heavens and earth, but he rested on the seventh day.

I'm confused about the theory of creation taking thousands or even millions of years..

Welcome Victor.

That has been discussed and it is indeed one of the stronger arguments textually that I am aware of. I've concluded for now that it is not deciding however and for my part, I've decided on Old Earth Creationism as the best explanation of all the competing possibilities.

The 6 periods followed by a day of rest in this regard is an appeal to pattern, not necessarily a definition of the "days" alluded to within the Genesis Passage as 24 hours in the context of Genesis itself.

The author is the same in both, Moses. However, even within Genesis 1 & 2 the Hebrew Word "yom" is used in at least 2 of it's 3 contexts and the argument to be deciding, in my mind, needs to come from the text in question itself, although parallel passages are helpful.

A parallel passage in the opposite direction would be Psalm 90, which interestingly enough, is a psalm of Moses and shows that he understood and used the Hebrew word "yom" to mean either the daylight portion of a solar day, a solar day, or an extended period of time.

Glad you are here and welcome to the discussion.

Before getting access to this website, I used to be suspicious about Old-Earth theory but tons of scientific findings abound like fossils and dating-testing I think they must be God's revelation to us to have a better understanding about His words which had been obsure before these scientific findings emerged.

Exodus 20:9-11 , I think, probably refers to two folds:

(1) the interpretation of "day" is likely to be "long period of time" - underpin quite much by other fellows here and this website; i think they present good speech.

(2) "for in six days the Lord made the heavens and earth". This "heavens and earth" is probably the new heavens and earth. I am excited to learn from another threads which quote 2 Peter 3:4-8:

"They will say, 'Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."

But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. [was it the first creation which became formless and void in Genesis 1:2?]

By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgement and destruction of ungodly men. [was it the second creation (Re-creation) in the 7-day creation?]

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousands and a thousand years are like a day..." [it supports the day-age theory and the concept of difference between God's time frame and human beings' time frame]

So it explains why Exodus 20:9-11 poses no problem to me to accept day-age theory and old-earth validity. It smoothes out the conflict with scientific findings.

Any thoughts?

Ashley,

No real objections to what you're saying here.

The issue in Exodus 20 is that within THAT passage the appeal to a seven day week is indeed literal 24 hour days and is shown to be in the context of the seventh day being the sabbath day.

Young earth creationists often point to the appeal hear to the 7 days of creation and reason that if there are 24 hour days here then they must have been 24 hour days in Genesis.

Of all the arguments I have seen from YEC proponents, I think this is one of the strongest.

The problem with it in my mind, is that yom has three different possible meanings, the daylight portion of a day, a 24 hour day or a longer period of time. The most important context is first and foremost how it is used in Genesis and I believe you have to take the primary passage first and foremost at face value.

There are many internal problems within the Genesis passage itself that rule against 24 hour days. The more common ones is the fact that a 24 hour day would not be possible as we know it naturally before the 4th day if these were 24 hour consecutive days. Further the 6th day itself has more happening than possibly could have happened in a 24 hour day.

The passage in Exodus 20 certainly is appealing to 24 hour days but it is not primarily in the context of creation. It is a pattern of 6 days (yoms) and then a day of rest. The appeal I see there is a pattern, not a parallel.

Genesis has to be interpretted on its own first and 24 hour days just doesn't fit, so there's no doubt really to have to appeal to the exodus passage and it is no more valid in that regard than Psalm 90 which is also attributed to Moses and clearly there yom is not a 24 hour day.

I don't have a problem with how most people think about this issue,
but I do know that moon rock is found at a depth of only 2 feet so
that would make the earth around 6,000 years old or the moon not
as old as the earth. I for one think that it does not really matter what
I think or what you may think about how old the earth is remember Gods
ways are not our ways. Just my two cents worth if that much.

Canuckster1127,

It's fine. I appreciate much of your kind response; actually I am much aroused by the information in this site. It is great website. It answers pretty much challenges my friends hurled on me when they knew my belief. One of their challenges they had was the 6-day creation which virtually conflicts with the scientific findings.

Now I feel good when people challenge me with the same question; it is wonderful this webiste can quote biblical passages to support which mean my apologetics is not without substance and bears divine instruction.

As regards the interpretation of yom in context in different pages in bible, I agree with you that they may bear different meanings and the YEC may interpret too much on specific passage without regard to the bible on the whole.

Generally speaking, you seem to derive with ground the exegetical meaning on the context themselve to reflect how God reveals His meaning; my basis bears only slight difference from yours, only that I look at the passage with fundamental principle - bible is God's breath.

No matter who the writers were that wrote the bible, they were inspired to reveal God's words or God's instruction, instead of the writers' own self's. Therefore I figure that, if 2 Peter 3:8 did say, God looks at the time not the same manner as mankind do, it truly means that. In other words, even though it does not infer that 2 Peter 3:8 upholds or repudiates certain meaning of "days" throughout the bible, God's interpretation (not ours) of "day" may vary from verses to verses.

thus I think it is inappropriate that the YEC use Exodus 20:11 to refute old-earth theory and support their view: "literal day should be always 24-hour" throughout the whole bible, while there can possibly be two calendars as the Lord Himself has revealed so, as indicated in 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90 as you quoted.

I think YEC neglects the logics below:

(1) YEC always use one calendar only, and presume that God's time is the same as mankind's time, neglecting the fact that bible is written not with human hands, but divine hands. There are two parties involved in everything - God and mankind, not one party alone - mankind.

(2) I am not saying that gap theory is right or wrong; but if bible indicates that there have been two "heavens and earth" in 2 Peter 3:3-8, (quite clear and difficult to refute on the face of the words), YEC should state clearly, which of the two "heavens and earth" in Exodus 20:11 is talking about?

(3) scientific skepticism is sharp enough to make its own system perfect in deriving the age of earth which we should not deny, unless the world trend favor the flip side of it. Scientists criticise each other sharply so in case there should be any new findings e.g. the dating methods are idiotic , the old methods must be quickly fading out, a self-regulating system that we should trust.

(4) scientific findings are also God's revelation. Our intelligence comes from God. If we are smart enough to discover law of nature in this universe, it tells us that God allows us to know the law of nature; it is quite weird to interpret with our own wit starting with bible to refute what God allows us to discover. If we do, we are trying to prove that God is a liar. The law of nature is God creation. How come we claim to be successful in quoting biblical passages - which are actually God's words - to falsify his creation? it doesn't make sense.

What do you think about time.Was time created by God for God or was time created for just us. I think that God has no use for time I also think that when God created all things that time had not entered the picture as yet I think time entered about the same time as sin...

Frankie Mitchell wrote:What do you think about time.Was time created by God for God or was time created for just us. I think that God has no use for time I also think that when God created all things that time had not entered the picture as yet I think time entered about the same time as sin...

I believe you are wrong in that

Genesis 1:14

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,

It would seem that the Seasons, Days and Years were created at this time. I would say it is more likely that Time was created then. However I believe it was created when he said

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth
A beginning has to be apart of time therefore I would imagine Time Began when God created the Heavens and the Earth or what we like to call the Big Bang

Frankie Mitchell wrote:What do you think about time.Was time created by God for God or was time created for just us. I think that God has no use for time I also think that when God created all things that time had not entered the picture as yet I think time entered about the same time as sin...

I am presenting my thought which may not be correct, quite subject to open discussion. I think what you said support my view.

You agree that time is created by God, so God always overpower everything even time.

So when biblical passage speaks of time parameter, God, being the creator of time, have infinite room to reveal his meaning, which, we should humbly admit that we will never know.

So I think we should never try to use our wit (we are living in finite world and we are the creature, not the creator) to interpret what God said.

What I would like to point out is: I am not trying to define what God means when biblical passages speak of time parameter; I want to highlight just one piece of fact:

there is always mystery about God's revelation, which we should not absolutely fix the meaning. We have to admit such mystery always prevails.

I know that I might be misleading you when I use the term "God's timeframe" ; God should not be restricted by and confined in time; I just want to highlight mankind and God is situated in different levels and nature. Using mankind's parameter to interpret God's words while God is beyond all measure is doomed to be futile.

Ashley,

I believe completely in the inspiration of Scripture as does this site. There are different views as to what that means and how God accomplished it.

What I hold to is often referred to as Verbal Plenary Inspiration. It recognizes that God fully inspired Scripture, but it also recognizes that God did not turn off the personality, vocabulary and experience of the person whom He used to write any particular portion of Scripture. So it is legitimate to look at passages when you are seeking to understand and interpret them to other portions of Scripture. There is especial significance though when the human author is the same because it provides insight into the way that person used language as well as other factors.

Frankie,

God, by definition, is outside of time.

This is a part of how Science can help us to understand better how God created the world and what it means.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity shows that time is part of the fabric of this universe and it ties and relates to factors such as gravity, mass and the speed of light. In order for there to be a universe, as we understand it, and apparently as God made it, there must be time.

I don't have any reason to believe that time was started with the fall. Nor is there anything I am aware of in Scripture that indicates this to be the case.

Interestingly enough though, because of the fact that time is relative, there are some Christians who believe that YEC and OEC can be reconcilled because of the relativity of time. It frankly boggles my mind to see how this might be that case, but my inability to understand it doesn't invalidate it as a possibility.

Do you have a scriptural reason for what your suggesting or is it just a passing fancy?

Bart

I agree with you but I still think time was for the most part created for human kind. I just got a phone call and I have to leave for a while any way I have really liked this and seems you are an informed person I'll write more later thanks.

what i want to highlight is:

God and mankind are on different levels and virtually two different things.

I think we should not use mankind rulers to understand God's words, unless He reveals to us.

while time is created by God, time inself is also a creature. So, on itself, your statement: "time is created by God for mankind" smacks a "beginning" which has shown some "time factor" in its meaning.

To expand it, "time is created and pre-destined by God for mankind" sounds more accurate if God lives beyond time measure, but it is still highly insufficient. If God has His own calendar, what if God actually fixes our fate just pending the course of events over us to proceed, while the proceeding of events themselves alters in human calendar anytime anywhere, alters back what God had fixed about our fate? complicated? To elaborate, if time is static in our calendar, (time always goes from past to present but not reverse direction), imagine the scenario time is dynamic in God's eyes. it is quite amazing.

To elaboarte, a story comes:

- suppose Ashley loves Lucy, God pre-destines us to get married 3 years later. (sure Ashley and Lucy do not know such destiny, but God knows)
- on the 2nd year, Ashley changes his heart to another girl than Lucy, in view of this, God pre-destines Ashley from "get married" to "die in a car crash" after 1 year. (sure Ashley himself does not know)

See I tend to think that God is hovering around in the future on our time scale (not his)

See, while God live beyond time measure, there are two destinies for Ashley, quite dependent on how Ashley does in the course of time. (because Ashley has his free will)

You can see, based on this foundation, it is quite vulnerable to error to iinterpret the time parameter in bible passages with our measure.

I am not saying that God thinks in this way. (I receive no revelation from Him). I just liken what I think to a story to make things easier to get what I mean.

Frankie Mitchell wrote:I don't have a problem with how most people think about this issue,
but I do know that moon rock is found at a depth of only 2 feet so
that would make the earth around 6,000 years old or the moon not
as old as the earth. I for one think that it does not really matter what
I think or what you may think about how old the earth is remember Gods
ways are not our ways. Just my two cents worth if that much.

Frankie,

I'm sorry I missed this post earlier.

With all respect, this is an old argument that has been floating around for a long time and it's been discredited. Even Young Earth Creation sites ask their adherants not to use it anymore.

Here's some links telling more about it.

This is from out main site, and we are Old Earth:

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dust.html

This is a list of arguments on Answers in Genesis, a Young Earth site, that includes this argument as one they recommend should not be used.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... nt_use.asp

So you see, it's really not an effective argument when informed representatives from both sides of the argument agree it's not valid.

Just for curiosity sake, do you mind me asking where you heard it?

Thanks,

Bart

I have read books and what I am doing now learning from you, I do not totally agree or dis-agree with any of you some of what I'm saying is passing fancy but for the most part to get a reaction from you people so I can process your information There fore learning more myself. I would not dicuss this with a new christian then again maybe more of how Science Nature and God back each other up needs to be taught in the church. I thank you for your info and maybe along the way myself and others that read what you write, can expand their knowledge.

Frankie Mitchell wrote:I have read books and what I am doing now learning from you, I do not totally agree or dis-agree with any of you some of what I'm saying is passing fancy but for the most part to get a reaction from you people so I can process your information There fore learning more myself. I would not dicuss this with a new christian then again maybe more of how Science Nature and God back each other up needs to be taught in the church. I thank you for your info and maybe along the way myself and others that read what you write, can expand their knowledge.

Frankie,

No problem. Obviously, I am a pretty firm Old Earth Creationist and I have given it a great deal of thought and study. It's not an issue however that is cardinal for a Christian. Salvation doesn't ride on how we believe in this area.

I think it is important because how we view the world we live in and where we came from and how, is vital in terms of our world view and philosophy.

It also makes a difference as Christians as to how we treat the Bible and interpret it.

It's also a huge issue for evangelism as many people openly state that if the Bible is not reliable in the area of origins and science then how can it be trusted in other areas?

All valid concerns and well worth studying, praying and working through.

You're welcome to browse and ask questions and present your own views.

Welcome, and I'm glad you are here.

Blessings,

Bart

narek33 wrote:If evolution does happen, then you can trace back into the origins of everything that exists.

No, we can't begin to do that at all. All evolution is, is a creation trait that was a lot faster in the far past. It started from God creating all things, including us, no bacteria created anything!

So as long as you believe in evolution, then you have to believe in evolultion from bacteria to what we have now.

In no way. It was created.

However, if you do believe that evolution started only 6000 years ago, then how do you explain everything before that.

There was nothing before that.

Please consider what you are implying because it does not seem to make any sense. And I do not appreciate making the term evolution apply only to a given time interval, the definition of evolution "a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form" emphasis the word gradual and even God will tell you that 6000 years is not consider to be gradual.

The ability to adapt, and evolve started in Eden! Look at the serpent, it went on it's belly in a hurry. (as God ordered) Only in the present is it gradual because the present is different. I think the fabric and fundamentals of the universe changed about 100 years after the flood of Noah.