Hyper velocity stars like LMC runaways ...

[rogue06]

Scripturally, faith is supposed to have its foundation in evidence.

Agreed. It is a matter then, of working out what role miracles and evidence play in faith.


To those who chose to believe, these things were considered a creditable witness.


I find a more likely explanation to be that God does not act independently of those whom he appoints to make him known.


And yet, miracles were performed under the very noses of those who opposed Christ, and still they did not accept the witness of the Holy Spirit . They considered the miracles to be evidence of sorcery that Christ had learnt in Egypt - and in this age "unexplained natural causes" would replace the allegations of sorcery.


The evidence does not contradict the existence of a creator: scientism, not science, makes that claim.


But God did make his presence and care known, and moreover, while God criticised Job, Job was nonetheless declared by God to be in the right. Adversity (im)proves faith - it doesn't have a lot to do with establishing faith.


Again - we are given cause to trust by the evidence and experience (both direct and indirect) that God is trustworthy.

Exactly. JPT appears to be confusing having faith for what is known as "blind faith" or blind acceptance. They are not synonyms.

An actual definition for the type of faith we talk about can be found in an old edition of Noah Webster's Dictionary

FAITH: 3. In theology, the assent of the mind or understanding to the truth of what God has revealed. Simple belief of the scriptures, of the being and perfections of God, and of the existence, character and doctrines of Christ, founded on the testimony of the sacred writers, is called historical or speculative faith; a faith little distinguished from the belief of the existence and achievements of Alexander or of Caesar.

The "blind faith" concept that atheists always assume that we mean is actually not biblical. Pistis, the Greek word translated as "faith," actually is defined as a conviction based on the facts. "Without faith, it is impossible to please God” (Heb 11:6) We couldn't please God unless our minds can accurately discern the facts.

Our faith is based upon the evidence provided. Paul praised the people of Berea in northern Greece because they "received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so" (Acts 17:11). For looking at the evidence and seeing for themselves that it was true -- not accepting it blindly.

Paul even explicitly told us that we should check to see if something is true or not which is the exact opposite of blind faith.

Scripture Verse: 1 Thessalonians 5:21

but test everything; hold fast what is good.

© Copyright Original Source

Likewise John gives very similar advice - to test things to see if they are true or not and not to blindly accept what you're told

Scripture Verse: 1 John 4:1

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

© Copyright Original Source

In fact Proverbs 14:15 demonstrates that the Bible argues directly against blind faith when it informs us that "The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps."

Christ offered evidence that He had Risen and didn't demand blind acceptance:

Scripture Verse: Luke 24:38-39

And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

© Copyright Original Source

And as Paul explains, the material body of the resurrected Son of God is what Christianity hinges on. If Christ has not really raised from the dead, then faith is in vain.

Scripture Verse: I Cor. 15:13-14

But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

© Copyright Original Source

And as Peter puts it

Scripture Verse: II Peter 1:16

For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

© Copyright Original Source

This is what we Christians mean by having faith. A faith that is rooted in reality and truth, and not blind faith.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim,

I have no investment in either approach - I meant exactly what I said - I don't see a Scriptural justification for a reliable dating system and I'm equally unconvinced by systems that rely on extrapolations based on assumptions. I don't know or care how old the Earth/universe are - it's theologically unnecessary and beyond my expertise otherwise.

And I'm perfectly good with 'not a text book, get over it' so long as we don't go totally to the other extreme of 'it's all metaphor'.

I get that you have cause to accept the old universe dating systems - nor do I argue that they are necessarily wrong. Again, beyond my scope. However, the biggest mistake we make sometimes is assuming too much about what we 'know' - and forgetting that certainty is a scale, not a point. To omit the possibility that there's something you missed is not a good plan - and neither is obsessing over that possibility when it seems remote. For personal effort, skip the unlikely - perfectly reasonable choice. But to omit it from debate is poor argumentation - even if it's nothing more than a bullet point in the list.

Personally, I find JPT's argument - awkward. But I haven't had time to dig through all of this thread so he may be doing much better and I just didn't get it. If it's based in the idea that God intended to deceive, that I reject as theologically untenable. I think it's more 'God doesn't have to play by your rules' which is true but pointless. Like I said, I'm not sure enough about his argument.

It's a big, cool, universe - my hope is that we get to play explorers in the New Creation. I just doubt its age will mean much then, either.

Understood. As for JPT's argument, I don't think you missed much. But if you do find his argument sufficient to counter the implications of willful deception I'd be interested in hearing why.

For me - these issues became a significant struggle of faith - hence at least part of my strong interest in them. At this point though more over what I see as their destructiveness in relation to both faith and science.

Early on I was not too concerned, I'd been raised in a way that did not see science and faith as incompatible. Then I entered a phase where my sense of the Reality of God's presence and the Truth of scripture became greatly reinforced, but with it also came the more traditional/convervative view of Genesis and the Bible in general. Running head-on into the conflicts between that approach and science, as well as seeing -both in myself and many others - the negative effects of that approach misapplied to child rearing and interpresonal relationships has pushed me back to a somewhat different view of the text and how God reveals. A recognition that the attempt to use scripture to 'find all the answers' and 'eliminate all the questions' through a very rigid literal reading almost always tends to lead to arrogance and many times to hatefulness. Similar to what Jesus preached against in the Pharisees.

Jim

[Just Passing Through]

Exactly. JPT appears to be confusing having faith for what is known as "blind faith" or blind acceptance. They are not synonyms.

An actual definition for the type of faith we talk about can be found in an old edition of Noah Webster's Dictionary

FAITH: 3. In theology, the assent of the mind or understanding to the truth of what God has revealed. Simple belief of the scriptures, of the being and perfections of God, and of the existence, character and doctrines of Christ, founded on the testimony of the sacred writers, is called historical or speculative faith; a faith little distinguished from the belief of the existence and achievements of Alexander or of Caesar.

I wonder why you would choose that definition of faith and apply it to me. It refers purely in thinking certain historic facts are true, whether biblically based or historically based or scientifically based. It has nothing to do with that belief being blind, unless belief in Alexander’s existence is blind. Thus it applies to your belief in historic facts just as much as mine. You should have checked definition 4:
4. Evangelical, justifying, or saving faith is the assent of the mind to the truth of divine revelation, on the authority of God's testimony, accompanied with a cordial assent of the will or approbation of the heart; an entire confidence or trust in God's character and declarations, and in the character and doctrines of Christ, with an unreserved surrender of the will to his guidance, and dependence on his merits for salvation. In other words, that firm belief of God's testimony, and of the truth of the gospel, which influences the will, and leads to an entire reliance on Christ for salvation.

Not just a belief, but a trust in divine revelation, divine authority, confidence in God’s character and declarations, as a facet of complete trust in salvation.

The "blind faith" concept that atheists always assume that we mean is actually not biblical. Pistis, the Greek word translated as "faith," actually is defined as a conviction based on the facts.

I’d be very curious where you got that definition. My lexicons all say things along the lines of “state of believing on the basis of the reliability of the one trusted, trust, confidence.” Our trust in God in general may be grounded on the fact that he has always been trustworthy in his care and in his promises. But faith itself is always blind in that it has as its object the things we cannot see and does not wait until we see them before it confidently expects them. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” That is, the only evidence we need for things not seen is our confidence that God is trustworthy.

"Without faith, it is impossible to please God” (Heb 11:6) We couldn't please God unless our minds can accurately discern the facts.

Now you’re just setting up straw men. It is impossible to please God without faith because we must a) know who he is by his own revelation of himself, and b) put our trust in his goodness because what pleases him in our deeds is the motivation of our hearts, a relationship and bond of love and trust.

Our faith is based upon the evidence provided. Paul praised the people of Berea in northern Greece because they "received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so" (Acts 17:11). For looking at the evidence and seeing for themselves that it was true -- not accepting it blindly.

Do you realize that you are making my point here? The only evidence they looked for was whether God said it was so. If Paul had told them the world evolved over millions of years, and they then searched the Scriptures to see if it was so, they would have rejected Paul as a false prophet, regardless of how much worldly evidence he gave in support of his theory.

Paul even explicitly told us that we should check to see if something is true or not which is the exact opposite of blind faith.
Scripture Verse: 1 Thessalonians 5:21

but test everything; hold fast what is good.

Again, my point. He didn’t say to check if something the Bible said was true or not (and reject it if God’s word turns out to be untrustworthy), but to test the spirits, the self-professed worldly sources of knowledge and truth. Check God’s word to see if it’s true, and if God’s word says it isn’t, then reject it. “Hold fast what is good.” To paraphrase Jesus, “Why do you call science good? There is only one who is good.” Listen to him.

Likewise John gives very similar advice - to test things to see if they are true or not and not to blindly accept what you're told

Scripture Verse: 1 John 4:1

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

And if you had continued with verses 2-3, “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.” This is entirely a spiritual test that ascertains the truth by comparing every message with God’s word. I missed the part that tells us the scientific experiment that we should use to test every spirit.

In fact Proverbs 14:15 demonstrates that the Bible argues directly against blind faith when it informs us that "The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps."

The same book of Proverbs that tells us that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and that urges the simple to gain prudence by accepting Wisdom’s invitation, not by getting a PhD in paleontology.

Christ offered evidence that He had Risen and didn't demand blind acceptance:

Scripture Verse: Luke 24:38-39
And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

And a week later he said, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Seeing was good, but blind faith was better.

And as Paul explains, the material body of the resurrected Son of God is what Christianity hinges on. If Christ has not really raised from the dead, then faith is in vain.

Scripture Verse: I Cor. 15:13-14
But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

But we have neither seen his resurrection for ourselves nor a single shred of scientific evidence that it took place. By your rejection of “blind faith” we ought to reject the resurrection. Science argues against it, and all we have is God’s word that it is true, the same word that says God created the world in six days.

And as Peter puts it

Scripture Verse: II Peter 1:16
For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Seeing was good, but he goes on to say “And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
Don’t just believe because Peter said he saw it with his own eyes (eyewitnesses can be mistaken). Believe because it was the fulfillment of divine prophecy, which is absolutely true and certain because it is the word of God.

I’ll just conclude by saying that people are characterizing my idea as “God was deceptive.” I’d characterize it as, “God was true in what he said. He may not communicate what he did or how he did it within the domain of modern science.” If there was deception, it was aimed at the self-deluded minds of the final days, but I don’t know that there was any. I only say that God had a lot more latitude in the ways he could act, in full harmony with his righteousness, judgment, and grace, than people are willing to grant him, and they set themselves up as God’s judges, and that’s not a safe place to be.

[Teallaura]

I'm just curious as to what assumptions you consider to be in operation for various methods of dating.

Radiometric dating. The assumption is that the composition was 100.% at some point.

It is a fair question and deserves an answer but my life is falling apart so I am bowing out where I don't have much to offer like this thread.

[oxmixmudd]

Do you realize that you are making my point here? The only evidence they looked for was whether God said it was so. If Paul had told them the world evolved over millions of years, and they then searched the Scriptures to see if it was so, they would have rejected Paul as a false prophet, regardless of how much worldly evidence he gave in support of his theory.

This is circular reasoning JPT.

1) The Bible does in fact state that a thousands years is as a day to God in the Psalms - in the context of the age of the mountains.
2) The Bible does in fact state that God commanded the Earth to make life, and it then responded and did so.
It also says that God made man from the dust of the Earth.

Evolution is just a mechanism that happens to be consistent with 'days' not being literal 24 hour periods and the Earth responding to God's command.

Further, the Jewish tradition, far more than the Christian, has a deep intellectual approach to the scripture with a strong recognition of the fact that what the surface reading might be does not necessarily imply that is in fact the intended or deeper meaning of the text.

The issues you raise are not the trouble spot theologically. The trouble spot is death in mankind prior to the Fall. But if we allow for some sort of miraculous transition from the natural to the spiritual in man (God breathed in the breath of life to the physical body) in the Garden then there had been no death to a spiritually alive man prior to the garden, only the potential for death in the coming challenge of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. And then there is the issue with the Tree of Life and its capacity to give eternal life even to fallen man that raises the question theologically of whether the physical form of mankind was in fact immortal prior to that event. The Tree of Life is wholly unnecessary if man's mortal form in the garden was immortal - but a necessary part of what could have transpired had man not fallen. And - in fact - God told them not to eat of EITHER tree.

It is not a slam dunk JPT that what we see through science is necessarily in conflict with scripture. It is only necessarily in conflict with a specific interpretation of scripture.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Radiometric dating. The assumption is that the composition was 100.% at some point.

It is a fair question and deserves an answer but my life is falling apart so I am bowing out where I don't have much to offer like this thread.

I am sorry to hear about that description of what is going on in your life Teal. I hope and pray it improves.

If you at some later point find the time, you might want to study a bit more about Radiometric dating from standard sources, or sources that have taken into account some of the misleading YEC claims about it. For example, the assumption is not that the composition was 100% at some point. In fact, there are specific ways to assess the original composition of radiogenic and non-radiogenic components at the formation of the sample (isochrons).

Jim

[Teallaura]

Understood. As for JPT's argument, I don't think you missed much. But if you do find his argument sufficient to counter the implications of willful deception I'd be interested in hearing why.

For me - these issues became a significant struggle of faith - hence at least part of my strong interest in them. At this point though more over what I see as their destructiveness in relation to both faith and science.

Early on I was not too concerned, I'd been raised in a way that did not see science and faith as incompatible. Then I entered a phase where my sense of the Reality of God's presence and the Truth of scripture became greatly reinforced, but with it also came the more traditional/convervative view of Genesis and the Bible in general. Running head-on into the conflicts between that approach and science, as well as seeing -both in myself and many others - the negative effects of that approach misapplied to child rearing and interpresonal relationships has pushed me back to a somewhat different view of the text and how God reveals. A recognition that the attempt to use scripture to 'find all the answers' and 'eliminate all the questions' through a very rigid literal reading almost always tends to lead to arrogance and many times to hatefulness. Similar to what Jesus preached against in the Pharisees.

Jim

I would love to discuss this aspect. As I told Lurch, I think I have hit the productive limit of what I can contribute here. I would like to start a new thread - would that be okay with you?

[TheLurch]

Radiometric dating. The assumption is that the composition was 100.% at some point.

It is a fair question and deserves an answer but my life is falling apart so I am bowing out where I don't have much to offer like this thread.

Sorry to hear your life is falling apart. If you're ever in a place to discuss it, let me know. There's more to it than just assumptions.

[Teallaura]

I am sorry to hear about that description of what is going on in your life Teal. I hope and pray it improves.

If you at some later point find the time, you might want to study a bit more about Radiometric dating from standard sources, or sources that have taken into account some of the misleading YEC claims about it. For example, the assumption is not that the composition was 100% at some point. In fact, there are specific ways to assess the original composition of radiogenic and non-radiogenic components at the formation of the sample (isochrons).

Jim

Jim, I got that (finally) from the science side of the fence. I had a heck of a time getting any explanation of the justification.

FYI, I am paraphrasing but I think I fairly represented the explanation.

I do try to get a fair view of both sides.

Gotta run

[Teallaura]

Oh, and thank you.

[Teallaura]

Sorry to hear your life is falling apart. If you're ever in a place to discuss it, let me know. There's more to it than just assumptions.

Thank you.

I know there's more to it than just assumptions - but my understanding is that it does boil down to an extrapolation based on an assumption. I'd love to discuss it - not debate, not qualified.

Maybe once I have things together (more together, anyway) I can start a discussion thread. I don't have a dog in this fight and I'm not willing to argue things I know I don't fully understand, but I'm perfectly willing to listen and learn.

[rogue06]

As far as I know the only church fathers who equated the days of creation with a thousand years were layering an allegorical meaning on top of the literal. They believed a literal and historic six 24-hour days referred allegorically to six thousand years of subsequent history, the world’s current activity, that would be followed by a still future thousand years of rest.

You are in error. Those who thought that the days mentioned in the creation account were each a thousand years long obviously did not think that they were 24 hours long they thought they lasted a thousand years.

As St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote in his Treatises, "As the first seven days in the divine arrangement containing seven thousand years."

And Victorinus as well in his On the Creation of the World: "Wherefore to those seven days the Lord attributed to each a thousand years."

And as I said they had different reasons for believing that each day took a thousand years. Some cited Psalms 90:4; cf. II Peter 3:8 where it says that to God "a thousand years is as one day, and one day is as a thousand years" for their basis.

St. Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, and Irenaeus in Against Heresies (185AD) employed Adam’s death at nearly a thousand (930 actually – Genesis 5:5) and the curse that said "on this day ye shall surely die" (Genesis 2:17) as support for their belief that each day of creation was a thousand years long.

The use of Adam and his death "on this day ye shall surely die" that was centuries later can also be seen the Book of Jubilees 4:29-31 which explains that "one day" is equivalent to a thousand years and thus Adam died within that same "day":

29 which the Lord hath cursed.' And at the close of the nineteenth jubilee, in the seventh week in the sixth year [930 A.M.] thereof, Adam died, and all his sons buried him in the land of his creation, and he　
30 was the first to be buried in the earth. And he lacked seventy years of one thousand years; for one thousand years are as one day in the testimony of the heavens and therefore was it written concerning the tree of knowledge: 'On the day that ye eat thereof ye shall die.' For this reason he　
31 did not complete the years of this day; for he died during it. At the close of this jubilee Cain was killed after him in the same year; for his house fell upon him and he died in the midst of his house, and he was killed by its stones; for with a stone he had killed Abel, and by a stone was he killed in

And those who said it was instantaneous or outside of time would have simply meant, “What’s time to an eternal God?” Since there were no people around to experience those days the conscious and temporal flow of time could be meaningless.

Well Augustine, who is well known for his belief that the entirety of creation took place instantaneously wrote in De Genesi ad literam (Literal Meaning of Genesis):

"Thus, in all the days of creation there is one day, and it is not to be taken in the sense of our day, which we reckon by the course of the sun; but it must have another meaning, applicable to the three days mentioned before the creation of the heavenly bodies."^[1]

And he expanded upon this in De ciuitate Dei (City of God):

"But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!"

He didn’t hold to six literal 24 hour long days because, possibly influenced by the Apocryphal book Sirach/Ecclesiasticus ("He who lives forever created all things at once"), he held that everything was created simultaneously.

Further, in City of God he famously said "What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!" which strongly indicates he was not holding to literal 24 hours long days.

Also worth noting was Martin Luther's lament given in his lectures on Genesis from 1535: "Hilary and Augustine, almost the two greatest lights of the church, hold that the world was created instantaneously and all at the same time, not successively in the course of six days."

Saying that God’s perspective on time is incomprehensible is hardly equivalent to tossing out the whole story as myth.

Absolutely nobody is saying that. It appears that you are equating the creation account with the Creationist account. Just because a particular woodenly interpretation of what was written can be shown to be in error does not somehow automatically mean it is just a myth.

He acknowledge that it was difficult to know how to interpret Genesis from a scientific perspective, but affirmed that the proper reading was literal and historic. He rejected vast ages for the earth: “They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.” [City of God, 12:10]

You left out something very important here. While Augustine does indeed say that "not 6000 years have passed since the creation of man" he also quite clearly states that:

"I own that I do not know what ages passed before the human race was created, yet I have no doubt that no created thing is co-eternal with the Creator."

So this definitely leaves room for an old earth but a young human race. And of course nobody today is claiming that that the earth is eternal.















1. IIRC Augustine also maintained that the 7th day of creation continues (saying something about it having no evening or morning because God sanctified it for everlasting continuance) in his Confessiones (Confessions). This is yet another indication that he did not view them as being literal 24 long days.

[oxmixmudd]

I would love to discuss this aspect. As I told Lurch, I think I have hit the productive limit of what I can contribute here. I would like to start a new thread - would that be okay with you?

Sure. It would make sense and I think be an enjoyable conversation.

Jim

[Just Passing Through]

Cyprian’s quote is too short to be decisive, but he is simply listing all the sevens in Scriptures to say that fullness and perfect exist within that number. So the full 7000 years of history is contained (allegorically) in the 7 days of creation. In the same treatise he mentioned earlier that the world was approaching the end of 6000 years, so he was expecting Christ’s rest to come soon.

Did you bother reading Victorinus in context?

To me, as I meditate and consider in my mind concerning the creation of this world in which we are kept enclosed, even such is the rapidity of that creation; as is contained in the book of Moses, which he wrote about its creation, and which is called Genesis. God produced that entire mass for the adornment of His majesty in six days; on the seventh to which He consecrated it . . .In the beginning God made the light, and divided it in the exact measure of twelve hours by day and by night,...And thus in the sixth Psalm for the eighth day, David asks the Lord that He would not rebuke him in His anger, nor judge him in His fury; for this is indeed the eighth day of that future judgment, which will pass beyond the order of the sevenfold arrangement. ... And in Matthew we read, that it is written Isaiah also and the rest of his colleagues broke the Sabbath Matthew 12:5 — that that true and just Sabbath should be observed in the seventh millenary of years. Wherefore to those seven days the Lord attributed to each a thousand years; for thus went the warning: In Your eyes, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day. Therefore in the eyes of the Lord each thousand of years is ordained, for I find that the Lord's eyes are seven. Zechariah 4:10 Wherefore, as I have narrated, that true Sabbath will be in the seventh millenary of years, when Christ with His elect shall reign.

St. Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, and Irenaeus in Against Heresies (185AD) employed Adam’s death at nearly a thousand (930 actually – Genesis 5:5) and the curse that said "on this day ye shall surely die" (Genesis 2:17) as support for their belief that each day of creation was a thousand years long.

Don’t you see? Adam was created on the sixth day, God rested on the seventh day, and everything was still perfect. Adam and Eve sinned at some point after that. Then they lived 930 years and had children. If the days of creation were each a thousand years long, then Adam would have to have been between 2 and 3 thousand years old. Or 2 to 3 days old, one or the other. So it wasn’t meant to prove the days of creation were a thousand years long, but that we are justified in seeing within those days the allegory of a thousand years of subsequent history.
What Irenaeus says is

For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works. Genesis 2:2 This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; 2 Peter 3:8 and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.

As for those who compressed creation down to an instant in time, I don’t really care. None of their fanciful theories results in death before sin. None of them deny that God actually created all things, plants, stars, fish, birds, animals, and man, as described.

You left out something very important here. While Augustine does indeed say that "not 6000 years have passed since the creation of man" he also quite clearly states that:

"I own that I do not know what ages passed before the human race was created, yet I have no doubt that no created thing is co-eternal with the Creator."

So this definitely leaves room for an old earth but a young human race. And of course nobody today is claiming that that the earth is eternal.

Augustine is not talking about an ancient world, but the impossibility to comprehend the ages of eternity before creation, arguing against those who speculated that God wouldn’t just sit around idly for eternity before deciding to create man, so there must have been endless cycles of creation to fill up all of God’s eternal spare time.

[oxmixmudd]

As for those who compressed creation down to an instant in time, I don’t really care. None of their fanciful theories results in death before sin. None of them deny that God actually created all things, plants, stars, fish, birds, animals, and man, as described.

Not one of the Christians here that accepts the Theory of Evolution supposes that God did not create. We only accept that God used evolution in the creation process. The description in Genesis 1 is, as I pointed out earlier, wrapped up in the terminology and conceptions of the creation that were part of that time. So to attempt to extrapolate some sort of meaningful and accurate temporal progression or physical process from that is foolish - and ends up ascribing to the text an element that renders it false. And for those that accept the inspiration of scripture, any interpretation of the text that renders it false is flawed. We must recognize we have failed to properly understand the point of the text.

As an example, consider the interpretations common in Galileo's day which led to Galileo's house arrest. In that day, they thought that when the scripture spoke of the Sun being still in the sky on Joshua's long day that the scriptures were TEACHING that the Sun orbited the Earth. But we don't accept that today at all. We see that as simply a description that came from the author's observation coupled with what he thought (based on his culture) about why the sun travelled across the sky each day. We have to take a step back and recognize that God did not correct the author's understanding of how the sun moved across the sky, nor did God go to any lengths at all to make the author's description reflect with any scientific accuracy the process by which the miracle took place. Otherwise the author might have said - "And God stopped the progression of time for all but those in battlefield for at time", or he might also have said "And God stopped the rotation of the Earth for a time ..." and so on. But no, that wasn't important to the telling of the story or to the truth of the scripture or to the inspiration of the text. And so God left it to the Author as to how to describe the miracle.

The same is true in Genesis. The text speaks of a hard, strong surface dividing the waters above from the waters below. It places the sun moon and stars in that surface. It puts windows or gates into that surface to let waters and manna come from heaven to the Earth. And it describes the birds as flying before the face of that water dividing surface (Heb רָקִ֫יעַ or "raqia"). This is NOT the physical structure of the world. It is not in any way scientifially accurate, but it does reflect very much what the peoples at the time of writing understood the sky to be. And science gives us the information we need to understand that. The scriptures themselves are not what clarifes this simple point. In fact, the only other descriptive use of רָקִ֫יעַ in the scriptures reinforces the idea this is some sort of dome (Ezekiel 1:22-26, 10:1) Likewise the timeframe is described in days. Yet in the Psalms great periods of time (1000 years in this case) are said to be but like a day to God. And likewise also we know the time description is not accurate scientifically. And so what we must accept is that the purpose of this text is NOT scientific, and though it is describing God's act of creation, it is not doing that in scientifically valid terms.

And this is fine, as long as the purpose of the text is not to teach us the literal process and time-frame of creation.


To me there are a good many more important lessons from that text, especially in the context into which it was given. What about you?


Jim