Evidence for God from Science

IRQ Conflict wrote:The very idea that Gen 1 was refering to long or undefined periods of time undermines the doctrine of sin /death /redemption.

How so? Btw Scripture is clear God created "everything". If true then this would include death and pain.

Kurieuo

But one must show that death is a thing and not the abscence of something else. I do believe this is how Augustus got around the so called problem of evil. And I'm hijacking the plane. Allah Akbar.

No dispute on pain with you though...

IRQ Conflict wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:With you're own words... Please explain to me how Adam did this in 24 hours. See what I mean about selective hermeneutics?

I cannot. AiG suggests that the animals Adam named were in fact less tha what I had thought, as in the hundreds perhaps? I thought he named all the species, but apparently not, I'll have to look into this further. Can you explain to me how it was that Christ raised himself from the dead? How can you explain the mental prowess of certain savants? Asking questions that have no answers to them prove nothing.

Regarding your previous post, I have a good sense of humour. Please don't hesitate to use yours, I won't be offended.

All your statements seem wonderfull and we all appreciate your time. But without substance they mean nothing. That is I need links or Scripture(s) to study, to know what your saying has any factual basis to them whatsoever or is it just thoughts from yourself.

One BIG concern I have with your train of thought is the doctrinal issues that seem to arise from this. Such as was pointed out at AiG-

now if the garden were sitting on a fossil record of dead things millions of years old, then there was the shedding of blood before sin. This would destroy the foundation of the atonement. The Bible is clear: the sin of Adam brought death and suffering into the world. As Romans 8:19—22 tells us, the whole of creation 'groans' because of the effects of the Fall of Adam, and will be liberated 'from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God' (verse 21). Also, bear in mind that thorns came into existence after the Curse. Because there are thorns in the fossil record, it had to be formed after Adam and Eve sinned.

link

The very idea that Gen 1 was refering to long or undefined periods of time undermines the doctrine of sin /death /redemption.

Well, I suspect you are more familiar with these than what you let on. As to my prior post, it has more to do with history than that which can be proof texted. Why don't you tell me what you're having difficulty seeing or accepting and I'll focus on that.

As for your general statement, it's kind for you to speak for everyone else on this bulletin board. Why don't you try dropping the "Royal we" and again speak for yourself and let me know what specifically you're having trouble with.

As to your comments relating to death, my answer is simple. The hebrew concept of death equated with separation from God. The answer is tied into the same answer that I suspect you would give if someone were to ask why when God told Adam and Eve they would die when they ate the fruit. Did they die instantly? Obviously the answer is both yes and no. Yes, they experienced immediate spiritual death as evidenced by their shame in God's presence. I believe death entered into human existence in that moment as well physically, but later on. Over 900 years later on as far as Adam and eve were concerned.

Death in the natural order in the plant and animal kingdom was already present. The word used for the beasts created in Genesis in the Creation account, contextually in the Old testament is overwhelmingly used of carnivores. Do you believe carnivores were created separately after the 7th day? You have to if you hold to your theory. The idea of not physical death whatsoever does not arise in the Genesis accountby itself. It is a tking of Genesis 1:29-30 combined with Rom 5:12. By itself, it does seem to say what you claim, but it fails to be consistent with the rest of the Bible in the larger context.

I don't claim to understand all things nor do I expect you to do so. Equating the problem of the 6th day and Adam naming all the animals with the resurrection however is pretty disingenuous. You're the one making a restrictive claim for 24 hours and claiming the Bible "Clearly and plainly states it." If that's the case then the contradictions thatgives rise to are your responsibility to reconcile. If you can't, then maybe a little humility and willingness to accept that your position gives rise to specific problems "within the text itself" is in order.

I certainly have strong beliefs in this area. I've moved to them over the years as a result of wrestling with the text and the problems that a YEC views creates, in the text itself.

I certainly do have questions that arise from science and that helped to lead to my asking the questions. The bottom line however is that I've rejected YEC because it is bad hermeneutics. Further, it raises a stumbling block (and this stumbling block is not Christ) in terms of the witness of the Gospel to the rest of the world. Christianity is certainly ultimately accepted by faith, but it is a reasonable faith. YEC equeates Christianity with intellectual suicide.

KMart wrote:But one must show that death is a thing and not the abscence of something else. I do believe this is how Augustus got around the so called problem of evil. And I'm hijacking the plane. Allah Akbar.

No dispute on pain with you though...

Sorry, I originally posted this thinking you were IRQ.

Still, death is the "taking of life" rather than "absense of life", for "death" presupposes that something has existed which no longer exists. Thus, "life and death" is a different category to that of "good and evil".

So my logic would be if God created everything, then God created the laws which govern our world including those of entropy which bring about the deterioration of things. God created living creatures with the intention of them to one day die, for this is how God designed the physical laws of our world to work. To say anything less is to take away from God's "all-knowing" attribute, or makes God out to be "powerless" to create the world a certain way. So my argument would be:

1) If God intended there to be no death or pain.
2) There is death and pain.
3) Therefore God intended there to be death and pain (for which there must be a good reason if God is good and He loves us).

Also this is somewhat irrelevant now since I thought I was replying to IRQ... but if it is accepted that God created pain, then I see that such a person would not really accept all of what AiG (and many YECs) say. For AiG believe in a "perfect" creation (whatever that means i.e., isn't only God perfection?). Within this "perfect" creation there existed no pain for it is believed a "good" God would not create pain. Yet if God created everything and God is good and loves us, there must be good reason why God created the laws which produce pain and death as apart of His creation.

Kurieuo

Canuckster1127 wrote:As to your comments relating to death, my answer is simple. The hebrew concept of death equated with separation from God. The answer is tied into the same answer that I suspect you would give if someone were to ask why when God told Adam and Eve they would die when they ate the fruit. Did they die instantly? Obviously the answer is both yes and no. Yes, they experienced immediate spiritual death as evidenced by their shame in God's presence. I believe death entered into human existence in that moment as well physically, but later on. Over 900 years later on as far as Adam and eve were concerned.

Canuckster,

Just thought you might be interested to read over the exchanges on this topic at http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... c&start=15.

Kurieuo

Canuckster1127 wrote:As to your comments relating to death, my answer is simple. The hebrew concept of death equated with separation from God. The answer is tied into the same answer that I suspect you would give if someone were to ask why when God told Adam and Eve they would die when they ate the fruit. Did they die instantly? Obviously the answer is both yes and no. Yes, they experienced immediate spiritual death as evidenced by their shame in God's presence. I believe death entered into human existence in that moment as well physically, but later on. Over 900 years later on as far as Adam and eve were concerned.

So, you put the death of all the animals over millions of years (unsupported by the geologic column) squarely on the shoulders of how ancient Hebrews view death?

Did I read that right? or do I need to come down off my throne?

God created living creatures with the intention of them to one day die, for this is how God designed the physical laws of our world to work.

Where is this written?

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Kurieuo wrote:

IRQ Conflict wrote:The very idea that Gen 1 was refering to long or undefined periods of time undermines the doctrine of sin /death /redemption.

How so? Btw Scripture is clear God created "everything". If true then this would include death and pain.

Kurieuo

1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

Mar 3:24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

Also this is somewhat irrelevant now since I thought I was replying to IRQ...

Hear that Kmart? Your chopped liver dood!

IRQ Conflict wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

IRQ Conflict wrote:The very idea that Gen 1 was refering to long or undefined periods of time undermines the doctrine of sin /death /redemption.

How so? Btw Scripture is clear God created "everything". If true then this would include death and pain.

Kurieuo

1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

Mar 3:24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

Have you not heard the saying, "never read a Bible verse?" Isn't Paul talking within the context of being freed from God's judgement via the resurrection? He writes:

• 1 Cor 15
  21For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
  22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

I agree that death isn't apart of God's "bigger picture" as Revelation 21:4 explains: "[God] will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." Yet, in the "[current] order of things" God has created death and pain as apart of His plan.

I wonder what you make of Paul's words which express a positive light on death: "23But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better; 24yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake." (Philippians 1:23-24) Or of Isaiah 57:1-2 which treats death as a friend wherein peace is found: "The righteous perish, and no one ponders it in his heart; devout men are taken away, and no one understands that the righteous are taken away to be spared from evil. Those who walk uprightly enter into peace; they find rest as they lie in death." And even further passages which tell us that the death of the righteous is a good thing:

• Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of His godly ones. (Psalms 116:15)
  
  And I heard a voice from heaven, saying, "Write, 'Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on!'" "Yes," says the Spirit, "that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow with them." (Revelation 14:13)

Now I read God created everything: Isaiah 44:24; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Ephesians 3:9; Revelation 4:11.

Furthermore, God Himself is implicated as being responsible for death. First, it is reasonable to conclude God killed to clothe Adam and Eve after the fall with animal skins (Genesis 3:21). He then killed many animals during the flood (Genesis 7). God set up the system of animal sacrifice for atonement for sin (Exodus 23:18). In addition, Scripture actually tells us that God created carnivores on day 6, and also provides food such carnivorous animals (condoning the death of some animals for the survival of others):

• "Who prepares for the raven its nourishment, When its young cry to God, And wander about without food?" (Job 38:41)
  
  "Can you hunt the prey for the lion, Or satisfy the appetite of the young lions, [God speaking] (Job 38:39)
  
  The young lions roar after their prey, And seek their food from God. (Psalms 104:21)
  
  There is the sea, great and broad, In which are swarms without number, Animals both small and great... They all wait for Thee, To give them their food in due season. (Psalms 104:25, 27)
  
  Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. (Luke 12:24)

If one states that death is evil God becomes a perpetrator of evil since we find within Scripture that God is responsible for death. Such a viewpoint makes God wicked—something every Christian should vehemently deny.

Kurieuo

Furthermore, God Himself is implicated as being responsible for death.

I would be carefull with this.

Yom, an interesting topic. As I've seen this thread develop with the different views, I've been quite fascinated. All seem to be concerned with 'how long a yom is'. I'd like to throw my penny into the pot if I may. I really believe that we can and do learn from one another, both giving and receiving, that's what we're suppose to do for each other. So, if you'll bear with me, here goes.
I see here that some believe that yom = a firm unbending 24hr time frame while others seem not so sure as to what they believe it is, whether it be weeks, months, years or millennia. Is this right?
I'd like to pick up on one point for a moment:

Canuckster1127 wrote: God did create Time. Further, God is outside of the constraints of time. If Day 1, 2, and 3 were absent any celestial bodies how then do you assert that they are literal 24 hour days? Evening and morning in this context might mean any length of time which are roughly equal in light and darkness.

Now, it seems that sequentially the 1st day follows the 2nd day & 2nd day follows the 3rd day etc. Secondly, I think (a supposition) we'd all agree with Canuckster1127 from the quote above that the “length of time which are roughly equal in light & darkness”.
So... simply it could be stated that there is an equal part of light & darkness in each 'yom' as laid out in Genesis. Okay, if that's actually how it is, then any amount of time attributed to “each” of these days (yom) in this progression of events must have ½ light (day) ½ darkness (night) constituting an 'evening and a morning' in each 'yom' time period whether the time frame of the 'yom' is 24hrs, weeks, months, years or millennia. So now we have approx 12hrs of light & 12hrs of darkness in the 24hr concept or 500yrs of light & 500yrs darkness in the 1000yrs concept and…… you get the idea.
Now my question is, since the days fall sequentially, in Gen 1: 12-13 it says on the 3rd day 'yom' that God created grass, herbs & trees. What would happen to these things (grass, herbs & trees) lets say in the thousand year concept, during the 500 years of darkness before the next day arrived? As far as I know, without light green plants cannot photosynthesize and make their food, they will stop growing and will wither and die. The other thing I would like to know is how do they survive without the heat of the sun for that length of time? Can anyone clarify this for me?
One more question. Someone said:

“First, let's look at what evening and morning are not. They are not actual evening and mornings, as this requires a sunrise and sunset. According to young earth theory, the Sun was not created until Day Four, thus there could be no sunrise or sunset for the first three days of creation. However, God uses the terms evening and morning for those first three days. Therefore, they cannot be actual evenings and mornings.”

I'm not sure if I'm just missing something here but the above quote says “let's look at what evening and morning are not. They are not actual evening and mornings, as this requires a sunrise and sunset”. I don't understand what you mean that they are not actual 'evenings & mornings'? What are they then? Gen 1:4-5 says: “And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day”. God says He divided the light from the darkness and said “the evening & the morning were the first day”. Why is this disputable? Why does this require 'sun'rise & 'sun'set”? He says he simply divided the light that He said to “be” from the darkness and then on the 4th day He made 2 great lights, the greater light to 'rule' (- משׁל dominion or power to rule) the day, and the lesser light to 'rule' (- משׁל dominion or power to rule) the night. They (the great lights) were given the job of maintaining what God had already done on the the 1st day to ensure the continuation of evening and morning? I'm trying but I can't understand your comment. Could you please elaborate?

IRQ Conflict wrote:

Furthermore, God Himself is implicated as being responsible for death.

I would be carefull with this.

We are being careful with it. Also Biblical. Do you have a Biblical response other than repeating your linking of Genesis with Romans 5:12? The Hebrew concept of death is far different than the understanding I think you are superimposing on the text. Should we accept what you see as a plain understanding in English despite the problems it raises throughout the rest of Scripture or should we seek to understand it in the context that the original hearers understood it and grasp what they understood death to mean?

If you're going to be consistent with your application in this broader context, then it's fair to ask, Did Christ die for animals? Or is the context of Romans 5:12 primarily aimed at Spiritual death which is separation from God and directed primarily to man?

Shortcake wrote:Yom, an interesting topic. As I've seen this thread develop with the different views, I've been quite fascinated. All seem to be concerned with 'how long a yom is'. I'd like to throw my penny into the pot if I may. I really believe that we can and do learn from one another, both giving and receiving, that's what we're suppose to do for each other. So, if you'll bear with me, here goes.
I see here that some believe that yom = a firm unbending 24hr time frame while others seem not so sure as to what they believe it is, whether it be weeks, months, years or millennia. Is this right?
I'd like to pick up on one point for a moment:

Canuckster1127 wrote: God did create Time. Further, God is outside of the constraints of time. If Day 1, 2, and 3 were absent any celestial bodies how then do you assert that they are literal 24 hour days? Evening and morning in this context might mean any length of time which are roughly equal in light and darkness.

Now, it seems that sequentially the 1st day follows the 2nd day & 2nd day follows the 3rd day etc. Secondly, I think (a supposition) we'd all agree with Canuckster1127 from the quote above that the “length of time which are roughly equal in light & darkness”.

_______________________________________

You're quoting me accurately, however, I'm not certain that the evening and morning necessarily translates clearly in this manner. My point is, that if you accept a similar hermenuetic in Young Earth Creationism you have to explain the basis for a 24 hour day before day 4 when there are not the ingredients to make that measurement.

It terms of the evening and morning formula, (which is remarkably Psalm-like in it's use) we do some similar things in English when we speak of the "dawning of a new age." Obviously the "literal" sense of that phrase does not imply a 24 hour literal day. When we torture the hermeneutics to take a literal sense of a metaphore then we run the risk of absurdity.

For instance, when Jesus looks over Jerusalem and states (quick paraphrase from memory) "How often would I have gathered you to me as a hen gathers her chicks" we are not to understand that God or Jesus is a big chicken.

I know the Genesis passage is not that clear and there are legitimate problems. The problem with my own rhetorical statement above is that if we accepted equal light and darkness in the context of a large age, we might violate many physical laws if that light is associated with heat. Of course, God could have done something outside of the physical laws we currently understand. Once we adopt that posture however then all reason leaves. We may as well argue that the Earth is 5 minutes old and we were all placed here with contrived memories.

There are problems on both sides. We all need to approach it with some humility and willingness to admit we don't understand everything. Once we make an assertion however, it behooves us to defend it and face the implications that posiition gives rise to.

Bart

Shortcake wrote:I'm not sure if I'm just missing something here but the above quote says “let's look at what evening and morning are not. They are not actual evening and mornings, as this requires a sunrise and sunset”. I don't understand what you mean that they are not actual 'evenings & mornings'?

Without a Sun until day four (as YECs interpret Genesis 1) there can be no end or beginning of day—there can be no day. As Rich explains: "The Hebrew word ereb, translated evening also means "sunset," "night" or "ending of the day." The Hebrew word boqer, translated morning, also means "sunrise," "coming of light," "beginning of the day," or "dawning," with possible metaphoric usage. (Biblical Evidence for Long Creation Days—recommend!)

Additionally it is often only YECs who believe the Sun was created on day 4. For an alternative interpretation of Genesis 1 I'd recommend reading http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

Kurieuo

Canuckster1127 wrote:With you're own words... Please explain to me how Adam did this in 24 hours. See what I mean about selective hermeneutics?

Please explain with the Bible's Words how you know it was done in 24 hours.