OEC ... where do you get your belief

[Sher]

To avoid hijacking the other thead ...

OEC ... Where does your belief come from? What support in Scripture? IOW, what led you to that conclusion?

I don't care if this thread is YEC vs. OEC reasons, but let's keep it nice, okay?

We are all Creationists ... all theists ... no matter how we feel about the "other camp"

~ Sherry

[Waterrock]

Greetings SherBear,

I can't speak for all Old-earth/Old-Universe Creationists, but speaking for myself, the view that the universe is ancient does not originate in Scripture. It comes from scientific observations about the universe.

The valid challenge from YEC's to OEC, methinks, is not to say, "Show where your view is supported by Scripture." Many facts are not supported by Scripture. That doesn't mean they oppose Scripture; it just means that the Bible doesn't say anything about them. A more reasonable challenge would be to ask OEC's how their view harmonizes with various passages (such as Exodus 20:11) which have traditionally been used to support YEC.

Yours in Christ,
Waterrock

[FirstSunday33ad]

For myself my acceptance of OEC comes from science. I feel that if God did indeed create the universe recently, science would confirm this. I find it illogical that God and science would be in contradiction. This belief is supported by the fact that there is nothing in scripture that requires YEC.

[Sher]

Today @ 09:16 AM post located here
Waterrock:

The valid challenge from YEC's to OEC, methinks, is not to say, "Show where your view is supported by Scripture." Many facts are not supported by Scripture. That doesn't mean they oppose Scripture; it just means that the Bible doesn't say anything about them. A more reasonable challenge would be to ask OEC's how their view harmonizes with various passages (such as Exodus 20:11) which have traditionally been used to support YEC.

Heh ... You thunder-stealer, you

I'll come back later as I am working on supper ... but I wanted to add that quick comment

[Warcraft3]

Sherbear:

I will try to post a prelimenary defense of my position from scripture tomorrow.



Russ

[Sher]

Today @ 12:38 AM post located here
steadele:

Sherbear:

I will try to post a prelimenary defense of my position from scripture tomorrow.

Russ

Russ ...

No hurry ...

[Warcraft3]

I really wanted to post tonight but it will have to wait.

**Notice**
This will be my last post in this thread until sometime after June 22. I have to go away with the Reserves for two weeks and I need tonight and tomorrow to pack and get ready. So I will see you all when I get back.


Russ

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 09:49 PM post located here
steadele:

I really wanted to post tonight but it will have to wait.

**Notice**
This will be my last post in this thread until sometime after June 22. I have to go away with the Reserves for two weeks and I need tonight and tomorrow to pack and get ready. So I will see you all when I get back.


Russ

If you see this before yo0 leave ... be safe!

And thank you!

~ Sher ~

[Jezz]

SherBear:
OEC ... Where does your belief come from? What support in Scripture? IOW, what led you to that conclusion?

I think the universe is both 6-and-a-bit days old or 15 billion years old. While it may seem contradictory that I believe these simultaneously, that's actually not necessarily the case. Relativity teaches us that the flow of time depends on your point of reference.

Where I think that YEC people make the mistake in their exegesis is in assuming that the 7 days in Genesis 1 were measured from the same point of reference (hereafter POR) as the rest of the Bible (the Earth). A careful reading of the Bible will indicate that this is not the case.

Clearly, time in the second creation account and onward is measured from an Earth-based POR, as all topics discussed thereafter are discussed from an Earth-based perspective. Noone disagrees with this.

What about the 6 days of creation? Well, one thing we can conclude fairly decisively, is that whatever POR was for the 6 days, it was the same POR for the entirety of the 6 days, as there does not appear to be a switch anywhere. This leads us to an important conclusion - because the Earth did not exist for the entirety of the 6 days, then this is evidence that an Earth-based POR is not in mind for measuring those 6 days.

It is also worth noting that a day is normally understood as the time from sunrise to sunrise. But the sun wasn't created until day four. This is more evidence against a "real" day interpretation of Genesis.

It is also quite evident that the literary style of Genesis 1 is completely different to the rest of the historical parts of the Bible. This is further evidence that they are using different PORs for measuring time. The Bible quite clearly divides time into two categories: 1. the time since Adam, and 2. all the time before Adam.

Of course, the Bible has it's own version of the theory of relativity that OECers typically spout: For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. (Psalm 90:4). This also lends support to the argument that the 6 days are not what they seem.

What was the POR for the 6 days of Genesis, then? Well, given that it must have existed for the entire time of the 6 days, the only POR I could think of is a "universal" POR.

According to my interpretation, the 6 days of Genesis were actually 24 hours long each, but as measured from the universal POR. From this POR, we are currently living in the seventh day. This leads nicely into Genesis 2:3 - And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Remember, that the Sabbath is modelled after God's seventh day. Effectively, in my interprtation, we are living in God's Sabbath.

There are two key points here that tie in nicely with my OEC view:
1. God blessed time after the first humans appeared. This is consistent with the idea that God's concern is for humans. We continue to live in times blessed by God (for which we can be thankful - to live in a universe not blessed by God would, I think, be hell). In the YEC view, this day concluded 6000 years ago (from an Earth-based POR), so it would seem an insignificant detail to note that God blessed it. This point also ties in very nicely with Jesus' statement: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." God blessed the seventh day after his ultimate creation - humanity - was completed, so He declared it a Sabbath after man was made. In other words, He made the Sabbath for man.

2. God's Sabbath was, like ours, a day of rest. God rested on his Sabbath, so in my understanding, I take this to mean that God has been resting since the creation of humankind. "resting" would be taken to mean "not doing any of the work He did on the first six days" - ie, not doing any more creation. But just as Jesus showed us that "rest" didn't mean that we were not to do good and necessary tasks on our Sabbath, I interpret this to mean that although God is "resting" on his Sabbath (ie, during humanity's time in the world), He still does the necessary and good things in this universe as required.

I like my interpretation much better than the YEC position, because it makes more sense out of more of the Bible (eg, the seemingly useless "seventh day" suddenly has a new significance associated with it) and has less apparent contradictions in it (eg, measuring time from the Earth's perspective when the Earth did not yet exist).

So the above does not prove that the Earth is old. It does tell you that, even if you interpret Genesis as history, it does not automatically follow that the Earth is only 6000 years old. All that you can conclude from a literal reading of the Bible is that 6000 years have elapsed since God breathed life into Adam, and that there was time before Adam, but we can't be sure how that time was measured. Thus this is not proof of an old Earth, but proof that the Bible is not inconsistent with an old Earth. In fact, in my opinion, the Bible could easily be harmonised with any finite age of the universe greater than ~6000 years.

Note: despite what YECers will claim, this is not merely a revisionist examination of the text trying to force it to fit modern science. The idea that the Genesis 1's measure of time is different from the rest of the Bible predates both the Big Bang theory and Darwin by centuries. I am pretty sure there are ancient commentators that shared my interpretation.

If you want to try and calculate the age of the universe based on the above information, you need to have a guess at what the POR for Genesis was. I've seen one guy (a physicist by the name of Gerald Schroeder) do just that. He acknowledges that the POR for the 7 days must be a universal POR. So what in the universe is universal? The cosmic background radiation (CBR). Now, I'll gloss over some details, but basically what he does is take the CBR as a form of "universal clock", and assumes that this is the POR that the Genesis account's time is measured from. And because we can measure the CBR today, we can calculate how long would have passed in Earth-based time for a given amount of time in the CBR-clock POR.

Guess what? Using the above method, Schroeder calculated that in the time it took 6 days to pass on the Genesis clock, 15 billion years would have elapsed in Earth time.

Schroeder goes further. He proceeds to use the CBR-clock to calculate the length of time each individual day took. And I won't go into the details now, but there is a reasonably good match with modern cosmology, paelentology, and geology.

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:32 AM post located here
Jezz:

I think the universe is both 6-and-a-bit days old or 15 billion years old. While it may seem contradictory that I believe these simultaneously, that's actually not necessarily the case. Relativity teaches us that the flow of time depends on your point of reference.

Exactly -- that's what the Christian Dr Russell Humphreys points out -- the unsaved Kabbalist Schroeder has it completely back to front -- www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

Where I think that YEC people make the mistake in their exegesis is in assuming that the 7 days in Genesis 1 were measured from the same point of reference (hereafter POR) as the rest of the Bible (the Earth).

Then Moses made the same "mistake" in Exodus 20:8-11 when he compared the Creation Week to the ordinary working week.

A careful reading of the Bible will indicate that this is not the case.

A careful reading of the Bible shows that YEC is the case, and only compromise with so-called "science", backed up in Schroeder's case with Kabbalistic numerological hocus-pocus, can long ages be seen. See this critique of his flaky idea at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...ws8-1-2000.asp

Clearly, time in the second creation account and onward is measured from an Earth-based POR, as all topics discussed thereafter are discussed from an Earth-based perspective. Noone disagrees with this.

Clearly, there is no such thing as a "second creation account" -- this is Wellhausenian fantasy. There is a shift to a focus on the creation of man.

What about the 6 days of creation? Well, one thing we can conclude fairly decisively, is that whatever POR was for the 6 days, it was the same POR for the entirety of the 6 days, as there does not appear to be a switch anywhere. This leads us to an important conclusion - because the Earth did not exist for the entirety of the 6 days, then this is evidence that an Earth-based POR is not in mind for measuring those 6 days.

Come off it -- in the BEGINNING, God created the heavens and the Earth.

It is also worth noting that a day is normally understood as the time from sunrise to sunrise. But the sun wasn't created until day four. This is more evidence against a "real" day interpretation of Genesis.

Not at all -- it's evidence of supernatural inspiration, because pagans would have stressed the sun. Yet all you need for a day-night cycle is a rotating Earth and a light source, created on Day 1. It's the OECs who have the problem, because all billions-of-years views have the Sun existing before the Earth. Note that the text cannot possibly mean that the sun "appeared" on Day 4.

It is also quite evident that the literary style of Genesis 1 is completely different to the rest of the historical parts of the Bible.

It's really quite evident that Genesis 1 is written as historical narrative, because of the repeated waw consecutives.

Of course, the Bible has it's own version of the theory of relativity that OECers typically spout: For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. (Psalm 90:4). This also lends support to the argument that the 6 days are not what they seem.

So are you saying that a watch in a night is really a thousand years? Of course, this passage contrasts a short and long period of time to show that God is outside time, not that time is meaningless to us.

What was the POR for the 6 days of Genesis, then? Well, given that it must have existed for the entire time of the 6 days, the only POR I could think of is a "universal" POR.

According to my interpretation, the 6 days of Genesis were actually 24 hours long each, but as measured from the universal POR.

Back to front. They were 24 hours long measured from the Earth's reference frame, while in a galactic frame, billions of years might have passed.

From this POR, we are currently living in the seventh day. This leads nicely into Genesis 2:3 - And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

How does this mean that the seventh day continues, just because the rest continues? In Australia, we start a vacation on Saturday that continues to Monday. But this doesn't mean that Saturday continues to Monday.

In fact, in my opinion, the Bible could easily be harmonised with any finite age of the universe greater than ~6000 years.

And you miss all the problems, such as death before sin.

Note: despite what YECers will claim, this is not merely a revisionist examination of the text trying to force it to fit modern science.

And you show the opposite below

The idea that the Genesis 1's measure of time is different from the rest of the Bible predates both the Big Bang theory and Darwin by centuries. I am pretty sure there are ancient commentators that shared my interpretation.

Please find them then! The Church Fathers and Reformers were practically unanimous that the earth was <6000 years old.

Schroeder goes further. He proceeds to use the CBR-clock to calculate the length of time each individual day took. And I won't go into the details now, but there is a reasonably good match with modern cosmology, paelentology, and geology.

Which of course is his motivation for his outlandish eisegesis.

[Sher]

Jezz ... Great to see you over here

Today @ 11:32 AM post located here
Jezz:

I think the universe is both 6-and-a-bit days old or 15 billion years old. While it may seem contradictory that I believe these simultaneously, that's actually not necessarily the case. Relativity teaches us that the flow of time depends on your point of reference.

Where I think that YEC people make the mistake in their exegesis is in assuming that the 7 days in Genesis 1 were measured from the same point of reference (hereafter POR) as the rest of the Bible (the Earth). A careful reading of the Bible will indicate that this is not the case.

Clearly, time in the second creation account and onward is measured from an Earth-based POR, as all topics discussed thereafter are discussed from an Earth-based perspective. Noone disagrees with this.

Well, I think some do disagree ... in fact, I think Soc may cover that in his post following yours (but I haven't read all of his post yet at this point ... I scanned past it and saw the "fantasy" portion and thought I better come back to it).

I do personally believe that there was a second creation account ... not from two different authors ... but I think there is support that there was a creation of animals for Adam to name and plants mature enough to eat (I've actually been discussing this with Joe Alward in the Religion 101 section) and that this is a Biblically supported belief. I'm always open for gentle correction though

And while I see where you are going with the POR thing ... I disagree because the Bible was written for human consumption ... with the POR, as far as I have understood, consistant for the reader ... but shifting ... (see below where I attempt to clarify this strange statement)

What about the 6 days of creation? Well, one thing we can conclude fairly decisively, is that whatever POR was for the 6 days, it was the same POR for the entirety of the 6 days, as there does not appear to be a switch anywhere.

This leads us to an important conclusion - because the Earth did not exist for the entirety of the 6 days, then this is evidence that an Earth-based POR is not in mind for measuring those 6 days.

This is where we disagree. While I don't subscribe to any gap theories that might claim a difference in POR during the Creation ... there is a shift in POR from the heavens and the Earth being created to the things on earth being created ... but it is always from the POR of the reader in that it is written for us.

I don't see how you cannot see the shift. Think of it this way. If I build a house, then furnish that house ... there is a shift in POR from outside the house (while it was being built) ... to inside the house (while it was being furnished).

It is also worth noting that a day is normally understood as the time from sunrise to sunrise. But the sun wasn't created until day four. This is more evidence against a &quot;real&quot; day interpretation of Genesis.

I don't believe this is true. From day 1, God called it "Day" ... creation of the sun and moon, notwithstanding. I have thoughts on this ...

/ot ... ever wonder why the D in Day is capitalized there? If you want we can explore this in a different topic ... my thoughts on this ... as on many things ... are too lengthy to post on this thread ...

... but will move on.

It is also quite evident that the literary style of Genesis 1 is completely different to the rest of the historical parts of the Bible. This is further evidence that they are using different PORs for measuring time. The Bible quite clearly divides time into two categories: 1. the time since Adam, and 2. all the time before Adam.

Um ... I don't get you here. There are divisions like that throughout the Bible ... in fact, one much more noticable is the division before Christ ... during/after Christ .... walked the Earth.

Of course, the Bible has it's own version of the theory of relativity that OECers typically spout: For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. (Psalm 90:4). This also lends support to the argument that the 6 days are not what they seem.

Ack ... okay ... I'll leave that one alone for a moment ... I'm sure Soc provided a link or something

<snip>Remember, that the Sabbath is modelled after God's seventh day. Effectively, in my interprtation, we are living in God's Sabbath.

I agree ... except for the time frame. There is too much that has to be taken as "symbolic" about the Sabbath for this to correlate to other Scripture.

There are two key points here that tie in nicely with my OEC view: <snip>

I disagree ... but appreciate you sharing them. As I indicated above, the Sabbath becomes too symbolic in this interpretation. The Sabbath being the observance of the actual 7th day of rest is a prevalent theme .... even outside of Genesis.

Note: despite what YECers will claim, this is not merely a revisionist examination of the text trying to force it to fit modern science.

Heh ... You're not supposed to make our points for us

The idea that the Genesis 1's measure of time is different from the rest of the Bible predates both the Big Bang theory and Darwin by centuries. I am pretty sure there are ancient commentators that shared my interpretation.

I don't think so, really, though Jezz. I think it has been shown somewhere ... and again I'm betting Soc has a link in his post since I think he was involved in the conversation ... that the forefathers would in retrospect be considered YEC.

Thanks for a well thought out reply, even though I disagree.

In His Holy Name,
~ Sherry ~

[Sher]

Today @ 12:33 PM post located here
Socrates:

Exactly -- that's what the Christian Dr Russell Humphreys points out -- the unsaved Kabbalist Schroeder has it completely back to front -- www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

:: bookmarks yet another article to read ::

<snip>

Clearly, there is no such thing as a &quot;second creation account&quot; -- this is Wellhausenian fantasy. There is a shift to a focus on the creation of man.

... ... Oh, okay ... I saw fantasy ... and had to quick search the Wellhausenian part.

As I told Jezz above, (while I don't disagree about there not being two writers {how's that for a triple negative } ... which I assume is what you were getting at there) I do think that there are two creations ... one bigger and worldwide ... one lesser for a different purpose. The problem I see with this? Though I see support for it in the Bible ... as I outline in the discussion with Joe (link above) ... I am not sure yet how this answers the inevidible question of why? Why God didn't create everything else in front of Adam in the first place ... a/k/a why not humans on an earlier day? It isn't a complete theory yet ... but I do see Biblical harmonization to it.

Come off it -- in the BEGINNING, God created the heavens and the Earth.

Soc! I agree with your point ... but geeze ...

Not at all -- it's evidence of supernatural inspiration, because pagans would have stressed the sun. Yet all you need for a day-night cycle is a rotating Earth and a light source, created on Day 1. It's the OECs who have the problem, because all billions-of-years views have the Sun existing before the Earth. Note that the text cannot possibly mean that the sun &quot;appeared&quot; on Day 4.

I alluded to something with Jezz that is off-topic ... but what about Rev 22:5? This would seem to allow for a day 4 sun creation ... as it is, I think, the antithesis to Gen 1:3-5.

It's really quite evident that Genesis 1 is written as historical narrative, because of the repeated waw consecutives.

Explain please ... for those of us who don't read/understand Hebrew, it isn't "really quite evident" ...

... Doc

Back to front. They were 24 hours long measured from the Earth's reference frame, while in a galactic frame, billions of years might have passed.

Hey? Expound on this .... old universe theory? (or is it outlined in that link I haven't read yet?)

How does this mean that the seventh day continues, just because the rest continues? In Australia, we start a vacation on Saturday that continues to Monday. But this doesn't mean that Saturday continues to Monday.

And where Hebrews 4 speaks of rest ... this seems to be well supported.

Please find them then! The Church Fathers and Reformers were practically unanimous that the earth was &lt;6000 years old.

Hey! I was counting on you to provide the link. Where was that conversation?

~ Sher, who just knows someone is going to bust me as frootloopy on the Rev thing.

[Waterrock]

Dear SherBear,

Just to bring you up to speed on something: When Socrates refers to "Wellhausenian fantasy" he is alluding to the theory popularized by a scholar of generations past named Wellhausen, who proposed that what we know as the "Books of Moses" are actually a rather unelegantly thrown-together mishmosh of at least four compositions, none of which actually are as old as the time of Moses:
J - The Yahweh (or, in German, Jahweh) source,
E - The Elohim source,
P - the Priestly source, or "Priestly Code",and
D - the writings of"The Deuteronomist."

Wellhausen proposed that since Genesis 1 refers to God as "Elohim" and Gen. 2 refers to God as "Yahweh" (that is, in most English translations, "The LORD"), we are looking at narratives which were part of two separate works at some point.

Whereas Mosaic production of both narratives may be maintained by counter-proposing that
(a) This is just a typical example of an author using two names for the same divine entity; this sort of thing happened all the time in the ancient Middle East, or
(b) Moses intentionally chose to use different names for God when God was acting in different capacities, or
(c) Moses himself was relying on some ancient source-materials or oral traditions which the Spirit did not lead him to drastically alter; thus some of their features, reflecting the writing-style and vocabulary of their producers more than Moses' writing-style and vocabulary, have been preserved.

In other news, I don't think it would be profitable to consider any "It was 6 days but it was 13.7 billion years" sort of approach for any purpose other than entertainment. Though one could imagine that Godcreated everything in an incarnate form moving really, really fast, so that by the time He was finished, His incarnate form had aged six days. But that seem a way to shelve the problem rather than solve it, to me.

The universe appears to be very ancient. The Biblical texts appear to state that the earth is about 6,000 years old -- positing enormous gaps in the genealogies, let's say that 50,000 years = the outermost limits of a "youth earth" view (I'm not saying that such gaps can be justified; I just want to show the scope of the real problem.)

Since we believe that God speaks truthfully through nature and through the Word, one of those appearances must be *merely* an appearance. The question is, "Which one?" Astronomers could have some things wrong. Or, Biblical interpreters could have some things wrong. But they can't both be right, anymore than the earth can revolve around the sun and the sun can revolve around the earth at the same time.

A 6,000-year-old earth, or a 50,000-year-old earth, poses some profound problems for astronomers who assume that the speed of light is a constant. We should not be able to see any stars (or quasars, or galaxies, or anything else) more than 50,000 light years away if the universe is only 50,000 years old -- because the light would still be on its way here.

But we *do* see things 50,000 light years away, and much, much farther away than that. When astronomers see Type Ia supernovae explode in galaxies millions of light years away (when a particularly "hungry" star and a particularly "delicious" star meet, one could say), they do not assume that God created the light that communicates the idea that there was an explosion there just 50,000 years ago (or less). They assume that the light has traveled across millions of light years of space (i.e., taking millions of years to go from there to here at 186,000 miles per second).

They figure that any astronomer who does otherwise would be somewhat like a person who looks through a telescope across the city and sees two people kill each other, and assumes that no homicide has occurred -- what he has actually experienced was nothing but light-messages hitting his eyes, telling of an event which never happened.

Ultimately, that is the sort of thing which YEC'ers must say is in fact the case: the universe looks old, and it looks like things have happened in the ancient past (millions of years ago), and it looks like the visual echo of those events is still ringing in our ears (i.e., it looks like we can look into the distant past by looking over vast distances) -- but such is not actually the case. Why is that not actually the case?

Here views differ. Some YEC'ers would say that such is not the case because the astronomers are all wrong, and if they would only use better methods they would get the right results (for instance, if they would only say that the speed of light is not constant, or reject strontium-90 and mass spectrometry-dating methods and so on). Imho that approach will not be persuasive in the long run.

Other YEC'ers say that things do indeed appear to be millions, even billions, of years old, but that this is because God instantaneously willed into being a fully-formed universe, embedded with ubiquitous features which *look* like the result of age and history but which actually are the result of a Capital-M Miracle, making scientific observations about them entirely moot.

Any scientist, had there been one present 10 minutes after Jesus turned water to wine, would have said, "This wine could not have been water; clearly it is grape juice which has undergone a process of fermentation," and so forth. His completely-correct data on how the wine appeared *when he analyzed it,* though, would not be accurately. Miracles are immune to analysis that assumes a closed continuum (i.e., an absence of events which work beyond the laws of physics and nature). And if one thus concludes that if the creation of the universe occurred 6,000 years ago, and that it occurred in a way that is undedectable to scientific ananysis, the whole question becomes basically philosophical rather than scientific.

However, what is there to commend such a view more than the view that creation occurred 10 minutes ago, and God willed us all into being instantaneously with artificial memories, scars, etc.? For one thing, there's the Biblical account.

Which brings us back to the real question: what does the Bible really say/mean about the age of the universe and earth? Or to put it another way: does this mean what YEC'ers say it means?

(That's a cue for someone to bring up a specific passage or two for consideration. Genesis 1, Ex. 20:11 are the major ones.)

Yours in Christ,
Waterrock

[Sher]

Today @ 09:31 PM post located here
Waterrock:

Dear SherBear,

Just to bring you up to speed on something: When Socrates refers to &quot;Wellhausenian fantasy&quot; he is alluding to the theory popularized by a scholar of generations past named Wellhausen

Thanks Waterrock ... I'm sorry I wasn't clearer that I had actually found the information ... I didn't comment further because I agree that it is fantasy.

Whereas Mosaic production of both narratives may be maintained by counter-proposing that
(a) This is just a typical example of an author using two names for the same divine entity; this sort of thing happened all the time in the ancient Middle East, or
(b) Moses intentionally chose to use different names for God when God was acting in different capacities, or
(c) Moses himself was relying on some ancient source-materials or oral traditions which the Spirit did not lead him to drastically alter; thus some of their features, reflecting the writing-style and vocabulary of their producers more than Moses' writing-style and vocabulary, have been preserved.

From a Trinitarian standpoint, I'd go with the second option. I think that the Christophany (thanks Boom for the correct word!) is the reason for the differences in "title" ... Both God ... but delineated differently for a purpose.

But that seem a way to shelve the problem rather than solve it, to me.

Agreed

The universe appears to be very ancient.

I'm in the appearance "camp" ... Of course I have to "defend" often the "God doesn't deceive" arguments ... but I think there is an easy understanding here (which you also touched on in your post). I believe that science *does* support an old Earth ... 6,000 years is old after all ... it is only fallible man that has made fallible assertions that time has been around much longer than that.

But even if you look at it from the "appearance" of being much older, one has to presuppose the science of man as the final decision maker ... which we know is faulty both by definition and by past experience.

[mining your quotes out of sequence so my point continues ...] Any scientist, had there been one present 10 minutes after Jesus turned water to wine, would have said, &quot;This wine could not have been water; clearly it is grape juice which has undergone a process of fermentation,&quot; and so forth. His completely-correct data on how the wine appeared *when he analyzed it,* though, would not be accurately. Miracles are immune to analysis that assumes a closed continuum (i.e., an absence of events which work beyond the laws of physics and nature). And if one thus concludes that if the creation of the universe occurred 6,000 years ago, and that it occurred in a way that is undedectable to scientific ananysis, the whole question becomes basically philosophical rather than scientific.

In your example of the wine, if we take the Bible as the first (& final) authority, it would be used as the beginning information source to make a hypothesis ... We read that the wine was freshly made ... and seeing that Jesus liked to party ... it was for a wedding ... I think we can agree that the assumption is that it was not grape juice but fully fermented wine. If we *were* able to test that minutes afterward, we would determine it was "aged" ... but we would have *known* that Jesus just made it and that would figure into our understanding ... if one sees science happen before him, and concludes differently than the evidence of the truth ... the science is faulty, not the truth. I think that it is often the indoctornation in education that says if one sees A, it is B ... if one see B, it is C ... etc. If one learns from this, he will see what he has learned to see. However, if one embraces a different framework for a basis, not ignoring evidence that doesn't agree because of "religious biases" or "young earth biases", one will see the truth ... in true science.

Likewise, even without this intimate knowledge, *if* we accept that the Bible is true ... that God can not lie ... as Theists, we *must* use that authority as support for our science. I believe that there are many things that we cannot see for whatever reason ... past events that are not repeatable, our technology is insufficient, etc. But scientists can reasonably look at the same evidences, and come up with theories and laws from a Creationist perspective just as a secular scientist can ... it is only the interpretations that differ. One uses Biblical authority as a "tool" ... one denies that that "tool" is authoritative. I think Creationists (ack, I really hate labels like that to be honest ...) are better scientists for not ignoring the evidence of Scripture ... and I maintain that those who do, are purporting an incomplete science, garnered by incomplete evidence.

Likewise, I think the age of the earth dispute is resolved in YEC for the same reasons. OEC appear to me to be relying more on man's science than God's Word. I don't mean to be harsh ... but there it is ... and my reason for questioning where you guys "see" anything that refutes my understanding in Scripture ... something I may have missed.

And in re: to starlight ... AiG has some great info on their site ... you can find some of it linked through here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.../astronomy.asp There are scientists, far wiser than me, that have written some interesting articles on there (about 1/2 down the page for the links)

But they can't both be right, anymore than the earth can revolve around the sun and the sun can revolve around the earth at the same time.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but you aren't proposing here that the Bible claims that the sun revolves the Earth, are you? I'll let you answer first, in case I read this wrong.

They figure that any astronomer who does otherwise would be somewhat like a person who looks through a telescope across the city and sees two people kill each other, and assumes that no homicide has occurred -- what he has actually experienced was nothing but light-messages hitting his eyes, telling of an event which never happened.

I think this is a false conclusion to what you were saying here, I'm sorry. I don't think that scientists say that events didn't happen ... just that the time reference is incorrect ... that we misunderstand the theories drawn from presuppositions. But I'll let someone else grab that portion to answer more fully.

Which brings us back to the real question: what does the Bible really say/mean about the age of the universe and earth? Or to put it another way: does this mean what YEC'ers say it means?

I believe it does ... but I won't go on about YEC here because of the intent of this thread.

Thank you for a well thought out answer ... even though we disagree ()

~Sherry, who may not be as frootloopy as she thought she was

[Socrates]

06-06-2003 @ 06:10 AM post located here
SherBear:

As I told Jezz above, (while I don't disagree about there not being two writers {how's that for a triple negative } ... which I assume is what you were getting at there) I do think that there are two creations ... one bigger and worldwide ... one lesser for a different purpose. The problem I see with this?

This is problematic, since Jesus quoted both Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 t refer to the same man and woman (Matthew 19:3-6, Mark 10:6-9). And Genesis 2:4bff. has no mention of the creation of the heavenly bodies. So this is in line with common ANE literature patterns to provide a summary outline of the whole (Genesis 1:1-2.4a) and then focus in on one aspect (in this case, creation of mankind, Genesis 2:4b ff.). It could be that Genesis 2:4b was originally written by Adam under God's inspiration, while Genesis 1:1-2:4a was written directly by God.

Though I see support for it in the Bible ... as I outline in the discussion with Joe (link above) ... I am not sure yet how this answers the inevidible question of why? Why God didn't create everything else in front of Adam in the first place ... a/k/a why not humans on an earlier day? It isn't a complete theory yet ... but I do see Biblical harmonization to it.

I believe the correct harmonization is to interpret the wayyiqtol (waw consecutive) form of the verb "to mold" in Genesis 2:19 as the pluperfect "had molded". This is supported by expert Hebraists such as Keil and Delitzsch, Leupold and Jouon, and the NIV and Darby, as well as by AiG and Tektonics (see www.tektonics.org/tekton_05_03_03.html ) , and even by my debate opponent John Ransom (it says a lot when opponents agree on something!). The main opposition to this view comes from those who are determined to manufacture contradictions at all cost to maintain their faith in the Wellhausenian fantasy (which Waterrock has summarized correctly).

I alluded to something with Jezz that is off-topic ... but what about Rev 22:5? This would seem to allow for a day 4 sun creation ... as it is, I think, the antithesis to Gen 1:3-5.

You're right of course -- this shows that God does not NEED the sun to provide light to earth.

[Waw consecutives showing Hebrew narrative]

Explain please ... for those of us who don't read/understand Hebrew, it isn't &quot;really quite evident&quot; ...

I explain this in my post http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...9433#post49433

I don't think so, really, though Jezz. I think it has been shown somewhere ... and again I'm betting Soc has a link in his post since I think he was involved in the conversation ... that the forefathers would in retrospect be considered YEC.

I did, and Steadele, Wienerdog and Waterrock agreed that Ross overstated his case by claiming that a lot of them were day-agers -- see http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...3088#post53088