Why not deep time?

[Truthseeker]

How do you know that 4004 BC plus 2014 years plus about 4000 years is the maximum? I can understand 4004 BC plus 2014 plus a few years is the minimum; I do accept that, but I confess I am unable to determine from the Bible that it sets a maximum. Is there a set of specific verses that could be used to support that?

[klaus54]

How do you know that 4004 BC plus 2014 years plus about 4000 years is the maximum? I can understand 4004 BC plus 2014 plus a few years is the minimum; I do accept that, but I confess I am unable to determine from the Bible that it sets a maximum. Is there a set of specific verses that could be used to support that?

YECs often cite Mark 10:6.

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

I am correct here, Jorge?

K54

[Jorge]

What data do you consider questionable/flimsy? I can't read your mind and know in advance.

I'm not expecting you to read my mind but I am expecting you to USE your own mind.

The vast majority of data that is floating around today is questionable/flimsy. This relates to the issue of what science is including distinguishing between origins (or historical) science and operational science. A great deal of ideology / religious beliefs is and must be included in the former yet that is rarely stated explicitly (in fact, it is concealed).

A few examples: (1) asked how did the universe come to be, many people today would respond, "The prevailing theory is a 'Big Bang' of some kind." (2) Asked if there is life (any kind) or intelligent life elsewhere in the universe we find that our society is bombarded day and night by the "fact" that there "must be". Billions of dollars and millions of man-hours have been spent in support of that belief. (3) Asked how did life come to be the answer given at most centers of "higher learning" is that chemicals and energy slowly combined over eons. (4) Asked how you got here once again those centers of "higher learning" will answer that you are the product of descent with modification of a common ancestor that first emerged several billion years ago.

A great deal of what today is regarded as "factual data" is not. It is an intermix of hard science with ideological beliefs, packaged together and sold as "100% pure scientific fact". A truly educated person has learned how to separate 'fact' (objective truth) from ideology (subjective beliefs).

Jorge

[Jorge]

Yes, "God's creation contained pain, disease, suffering and death before Adam's Original Sin". Death (of non-humans) before the Fall is not a problem--not for the gospel, not for the Bible, not for the character of God. In fact, Ps 104:21 praises God for feeding live animals to the carnivores. And even you believe in some amount of pain and suffering before the Fall, whether you recognize it or not; you believe that Satan and 1/3 of the angels sinned and suffered punishment before Adam's Fall.

Just as a cheap lawyer or politician, you conflate things so as to muddy-up the waters thereby making it easier to advance your objectives. Ps 104:21 speaks of things in a FALLEN world. Why do you fail to cite Isaiah 11:6 and Isaiah 65:25? Of course, you fail to do so because it would not advance your ideological agenda.

As for your "pain and suffering ... of Satan and 1/3 of the angels" -- that is a very deceptive switching strategy. Satan and the angels were NOT living in or subject to the (natural) creation of God. Satan and the angels are NOT spirit-filled flesh as man is. Satan and the angels CANNOT experience "pain and suffering" or a natural death as man can because Satan and the angels are spiritual beings, not flesh. How do you propose that a purely spiritual being feels "pain"? Through what nerves does this "pain" travel through? As for the punishment that these rebellious spiritual beings received, we cannot analyze events in a purely spiritual realm in the same way as events in a natural realm. I mean, come on - all of this is common sense 101!

In short, you are equating apples with nuclear submarines in an attempt to uphold / promote your anti-biblical religious ideology. Your tactics may work with your naive, immature acquaintances but you will have to work much harder if you want to bamboozle me.

Jorge

[Jorge]

How do you know that 4004 BC plus 2014 years plus about 4000 years is the maximum? I can understand 4004 BC plus 2014 plus a few years is the minimum; I do accept that, but I confess I am unable to determine from the Bible that it sets a maximum. Is there a set of specific verses that could be used to support that?

Speaking for myself, I am willing to grant the possibility (no more, no less than the possibility) that some amount of time may be unaccounted for. My only reason for the "possible additional 4,000 years" is that of consensus amongst orthodox Bible scholars that have put in far more time into researching the matter than I have.

Other than allowing for that possibility (so as to not come across as being fanatically dogmatic about it) I know of no reason for not holding to a circa 6,000-year time frame.

One thing is 100.000% certain - there is no way that there can be "millions or billions" of years without having to radically re-write/re-interpret God's Special Revelation to man. A true follower of Christ had better be extremely careful and fearful on this point.

In short, in the decades that I've been at this I have not encountered a single good/compelling argument against the "6,000-year" position but I have encountered plenty of bad arguments, mostly in that they distort God's Word one way or another.

Jorge

[phank]

In short, in the decades that I've been at this I have not encountered a single good/compelling argument against the "6,000-year" position but I have encountered plenty of bad arguments, mostly in that they distort God's Word one way or another.

Jorge

I think this sums it up pretty succinctly.

[HMS_Beagle]

In short, in the decades that I've been at this I have not encountered a single good/compelling argument against the "6,000-year" position but I have encountered plenty of bad arguments, mostly in that they distort God's Word one way or another.

Jorge

You've encountered plenty of verified physical evidence that the Earth and the life on it are way older than 6000 years. They may not be compelling to Jorge Fernandez but that's not because of the strength of the evidence. That's because Jorge Fernandez is scientifically ignorant, technically incompetent, and unable to understand the evidence.

[phank]

You've encountered plenty of verified physical evidence that the Earth and the life on it are way older than 6000 years. They may not be compelling to Jorge Fernandez but that's not because of the strength of the evidence. That's because Jorge Fernandez is scientifically ignorant, technically incompetent, and unable to understand the evidence.

I wonder. After all, there's no question that Kurt Wise is scientifically knowledgeable, technically capable, and fully understands the evidence. Not knowing better doesn't seem to be the problem. And as Kurt Wise wrote, IF the physical evidence is accepted, then much of scripture is eviscerated, and the rest becomes dubious or untrustworthy -- almost as though we were dealing with primitive myths, misunderstandings, and superstitions. And for some people, that prospect is unthinkable. I mean, literally unthinkable. ANY scriptural interpretation consistent with overwhelming evidence unavoidably does fatal insult to the scripture itself.

What Jorge is telling us is that in order to hold to his beliefs, reality simply cannot be countenanced. Reality MUST be a "bad argument". Otherwise, Jorge would be wrong.

[Kbertsche]

Just as a cheap lawyer or politician, you conflate things so as to muddy-up the waters thereby making it easier to advance your objectives. Ps 104:21 speaks of things in a FALLEN world. Why do you fail to cite Isaiah 11:6 and Isaiah 65:25? Of course, you fail to do so because it would not advance your ideological agenda.

It is true that Ps 104:21 is not talking about the Garden. But neither are the Isaiah passages. They seem to be talking about the Millennium, which is different from both the Garden and the present age.

As for your "pain and suffering ... of Satan and 1/3 of the angels" -- that is a very deceptive switching strategy. Satan and the angels were NOT living in or subject to the (natural) creation of God. Satan and the angels are NOT spirit-filled flesh as man is. Satan and the angels CANNOT experience "pain and suffering" or a natural death as man can because Satan and the angels are spiritual beings, not flesh. How do you propose that a purely spiritual being feels "pain"? Through what nerves does this "pain" travel through? As for the punishment that these rebellious spiritual beings received, we cannot analyze events in a purely spiritual realm in the same way as events in a natural realm. I mean, come on - all of this is common sense 101!

The fallen angels, like Adam, are created beings who sinned, fell, and were punished with spiritual death. The fallen angels will be sent to a fiery pit for all of eternity. How can this not be "suffering"? How can their current banishment from heaven not be "suffering"?

You imply that pain is the most important factor in this discussion. I doubt that insects, worms, and grubs feel pain. Does this mean that these animals could have died in the pre-Fall Garden?

[klaus54]

I wonder. After all, there's no question that Kurt Wise is scientifically knowledgeable, technically capable, and fully understands the evidence. Not knowing better doesn't seem to be the problem. And as Kurt Wise wrote, IF the physical evidence is accepted, then much of scripture is eviscerated, and the rest becomes dubious or untrustworthy -- almost as though we were dealing with primitive myths, misunderstandings, and superstitions. And for some people, that prospect is unthinkable. I mean, literally unthinkable. ANY scriptural interpretation consistent with overwhelming evidence unavoidably does fatal insult to the scripture itself.

What Jorge is telling us is that in order to hold to his beliefs, reality simply cannot be countenanced. Reality MUST be a "bad argument". Otherwise, Jorge would be wrong.

Like Jorge said, the argument for YEC is theological not scientific.

And, like Kurt Wise, I don't think JF is THAT ignorant that he doesn't understand that the evidence demolishes a 6-10Ka special creation (modulo the greatest deception that could ever be imagined.)

Their problem, repeated to them over and over and over and over and... again, is that they are expecting a set of 3000-1800 year old documents to be forced to explain the vast body of modern scientific knowledge (again which Jorge KNOWS is NOT weak! He is simply being mendacious).

Even through the history of Christianity, some scholars didn't expect this. Cf. Galileo, e.g. And even some of the Early Church Fathers didn't come up with the same "literal" reading as the Jorgian YECs.

The Jorgian YECs refuse to consider the historical/cultural contexts and the purpose of the books - i.e., interpretation. But they are so damnable arrogant that they CAN'T MAKE THEMSELVES EVEN CONSIDER the possibility.

This is the very definition of Fundamentalism -- KNOWING you're right and everyone else is wrong.

K54

[klaus54]

...

You imply that pain is the most important factor in this discussion. I doubt that insects, worms, and grubs feel pain. Does this mean that these animals could have died in the pre-Fall Garden?

And pain is necessary as a defense mechanism to prevent to damage to life and limb. Intentional pain is a act of human cruelty, sin if you will.

Jorge, what is your explanation for the existence of a Paradisaical Garden which was obviously not the entire eretz? This is obvious since the man and woman were kicked out of the Garden when they sinned and prevented from re-entering by the Cherubim with flaming swords.

K54

[rogue06]

Yes, "God's creation contained pain, disease, suffering and death before Adam's Original Sin".

Agreed. The idea that there was no pain or suffering in the world before the Fall is directly contradicted by God’s curse upon Eve (Genesis 3:16) -- specifically the part concerning His increasing or multiplying the pain of childbirth. If there was no pain before the Fall, there would be no pain that could be increased. You can’t increase what doesn’t exist in the first place. If you multiply zero by something you still get zero

Death (of non-humans) before the Fall is not a problem--not for the gospel, not for the Bible, not for the character of God. In fact, Ps 104:21 praises God for feeding live animals to the carnivores.

This is a Psalm that glorifies God and speaks of the goodness of His creation and as you point out where God takes credit for feeding the lions. Moreover a bit further, in verses 27-28, this feeding is described as "they are filled with good."

And even you believe in some amount of pain and suffering before the Fall, whether you recognize it or not; you believe that Satan and 1/3 of the angels sinned and suffered punishment before Adam's Fall.

God declared that Creation was very good, not perfect. Hence physical death is not ruled out. A strong indication that Creation was indeed not perfect was the existence of the "cunning" serpent, which tempted Eve, in Eden before the Fall in the first place.

[rogue06]

Just as a cheap lawyer or politician, you conflate things so as to muddy-up the waters thereby making it easier to advance your objectives. Ps 104:21 speaks of things in a FALLEN world. Why do you fail to cite Isaiah 11:6 and Isaiah 65:25? Of course, you fail to do so because it would not advance your ideological agenda.

Psalm 104 is regarded as a Creation psalm and describes the creation events although in very poetic terms. It is not supposed to be about the post-Fall environment despite some anachronistic language creeping in.

Isaiah 65 is most definitely not ruling out death during this

No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed. --Isaiah 65:20

So death shall still take place but life spans will be greatly increased.

And Isaiah 11 still describes strife and warfare taking place. For instance:

The jealousy of Ephraim shall depart, and those who harass Judah shall be cut off; Ephraim shall not be jealous of Judah, and Judah shall not harass Ephraim. But they shall swoop down on the shoulder of the Philistines in the west, and together they shall plunder the people of the east. They shall put out their hand against Edom and Moab, and the Ammonites shall obey them. --Isaiah 11:13-14

Revelation 21:4 demonstrates that suffering and death existed before the Fall

and He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.

Thus death, mourning, crying and pain are among some of the "first things."

[rogue06]

Reality dictates that there must have been death prior to the Fall.

While God commanded all life to be "Fruitful and Multiply" but as millions of species, including countless microbes, bacteria, insects, worms, rodents, etc. obeyed this command and reproduced unchecked (without physical death), the world would soon be enveloped in a terrible mass of exponentially exploding populations.

For instance, there are species of bacteria that reproduce roughly every 20 minutes. This means that a single bacterial cell, at about 10x2x2 microns, can grow to about 4.25x10^37 bacterial cells in 125 hours (just under 5 days and 5 hours), which would have a volume of about 1.70x10²¹ m³ (for comparison, the earth is about 1.08x10²¹ m³). Therefore, left unchecked the entire planet would be thickly covered in bacteria in a matter of days (and IIRC fill the universe in a thousand years or so).

As another example, one estimate has rabbits reproducing to the point that they would constitute a mass that outweighs the entire planet in 50 years. Even if it doesn’t get quite that bad you are soon faced with an extraordinary paradox in that very rapidly animals wouldn’t have any food to eat, nor space in which to live, and yet no ability to die. This is not only ludicrous logical paradox; it is directly at odds with God's stated plan for a "good" creation

[rogue06]

And pain is necessary as a defense mechanism to prevent to damage to life and limb. Intentional pain is a act of human cruelty, sin if you will.

This is a good point.

Pain, in itself isn't evil, and the capacity to feel pain is essential for humans and animals to survive. The ability to feel pain is a necessary protection mechanism that the body uses it to tell you something is wrong. If we never felt pain, we would regularly damage ourselves and not notice. When we touch something real hot we tend to move our hand away quickly. If we didn't have the ability to feel pain we probably wouldn't move our hand until we smelt the odor of charred flesh. Actually some people are born without the ability to feel pain but almost all die by early childhood. So obviously all pain isn't necessarily bad.