thomas t Posted October 15, 2013 Group: Senior Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 46 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 944 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 170 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/05/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/20/1980 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Dear fellow members, in another thread we saw a discussion about dating methods. I thought, it's useful to open up a new thread, since the old one was big and had a slightly different topic. What do we expect scientific dating to look like? Take the six days out of the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2. * Which kind of soil do we expect God to have used when he made the plants on day 3? A brand new two days old sand? To my knowledge, plants prefer older soils. And in Genesis 2, we see God making the garden. In my opinion, that happened at one of the first six days, because in Gen 2:4 it says "in the day". And it was a good garden, just paradise. Did God use brand new soils there, as well? I've learned in school that the best soils contain dead material. Just consider scientists would have analysed soils in the garden on day 6: would we expect them to draw to the conclusion that this soil is stemming entirely from like two days before containing dead material that is dead for no longer than a day? * When God made animals on days 5 and 6, did he leave out carrion-eating animals? * When God made the stars on day 4, do we really expect him to have let the first star appear 5 years later? The nearest star is still some 5 light years far from earth (wikipedia). "Adam, Adam, look! A strange light on the firmament! I never saw this!"... just kidding. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, Gen 1:17 My interpretation of that one: it was instant light. So my conclusion is: dating methods are bound to indicate the wrong age, in my opinion. However, they still are scientific, I think. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted October 15, 2013 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted October 15, 2013 So God made everything look like it was billions of years old, but it isn't really, and there's no way you could tell the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas t Posted October 15, 2013 Group: Senior Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 46 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 944 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 170 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/05/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/20/1980 Author Share Posted October 15, 2013 So God made everything look like it was billions of years old, but it isn't really, and there's no way you could tell the difference? Hi Alpha, I have no idea about everything there is in the world so I just can't answer that. It seems to me that God created a world that was (hopefully this is not getting too oxymoronic), at least in parts, old or old looking. Whether everything was old or not the day it came into being - I don't know. Another example would be Adam and Eve themselves. As the biblical creation account goes, they seemed to be at least young adults already the day God made them. Have a good day, Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas t Posted October 16, 2013 Group: Senior Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 46 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 944 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 170 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/05/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/20/1980 Author Share Posted October 16, 2013 (edited) Thomas when you said " In my opinion, that happened at one of the first six days, because in Gen 2:4 it says "in the day" are you saying you believe in a six day Creation where Yom means a literal 24 hour period? And when you say "I've learned in school that the best soils contain dead material. Just consider scientists would have analysed soils in the garden on day 6: would we expect them to draw to the conclusion that this soil is stemming entirely from like two days before containing dead material that is dead for no longer than a day?" What you actually learned was limited biased opinion. God certainly used the very best of soils which included just the right amount of each necessary element and condition, that including dead matter in more recent times attempts to achieve or mimic. When God made animals on days 5 and 6, did he leave out carrion-eating animals? No of course not, death was only not natural for man. Man was commanded to keep and dress the garden which would obviously include pruning (thus causing dead leaves and branches)...there is nothing in the Scriptures to imply lower creatures and plants were not to follow His designed, pre-determined, and implemented natural order. "When God made the stars on day 4, do we really expect him to have let the first star appear 5 years later? The nearest star is still some 5 light years far from earth" You said it... Dating methods were determined by the ever used (still to this day) "line of best guess" where amidst the many (and sometimes broad) variances a statistical line of most probability is assumed. The problem here is a desired pre-conceived conclusion (called the human element or human factor) can influence the accepted and/or published date our school kids rely on as truth (like the dating of Nutcracker man) and the true fact could be in an area of the variance not considered...we just cannot know for sure! interesting, Paul, It seems likely to me that day in Gen 2:4 means the same as what was meant by day when this word was used before. I see no reason to give it another explication than for what it's used before. In Gen.1, we had the desciption of evening and morning to make it clearer what day meant... So you think that carrion-eating animals had to wait how long to get their food? What would a scientist have said, in your opinion, concerning the age of Adam on day 6? What age could Adam have attributed to all the animals when God brought them to him in the garden? All tigers just little cute baby tigers, aged just a few seconds? Thomas Edited October 16, 2013 by thomas t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas t Posted October 17, 2013 Group: Senior Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 46 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 944 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 170 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/05/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/20/1980 Author Share Posted October 17, 2013 As for the word day (Yom), Moses, who was given this to write, uses the word to mean a literal day, a season, a lifetime, an indefinite length of time, and more (I can provide examples if you'd like)...in the day (Yom) the Lord MADE (yatzar) the heavens and the earth, can stand for as long as He decided to take (our language symbols or Sun/earth relative experience notwithstanding)...the creation/formation process is initially described as 7 Yom...perhaps after the Sun and the planet earth were formed we can speculate 24 hour periods as meant but before? I cannot say...a day unto the Lord IS AS 1,000 years unto man (which means it is like forever). Good day Paul, my suggestion to interpret scripture: if there is no reason to change the tranlation of a word according to what has been said before, leave it the way it was. What you try to estyblish here is to take possible meanings of a word it has had after the passage and apply it to the earlier one. In my opinion, the Bible is there to be understood from little children: but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” Mt 19:14 If you want Bible interpretation to be such a Sisyphean task in that you have to have any usage of a single word in mind be it 10, 100 or 1000 pages after the passage, which child would be able to understand? The moment sun and moon were introduced in Gen 1. the use of day remained unchanged. The wording in its context did not change whatsoever. And the evening and the morning were the third day. Gen 1:13 KJV And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Gen 1:19 KJV So I think there's no reason to think that day meant anything else than day I cannot say...a day unto the Lord IS AS 1,000 years unto man (which means it is like forever). That was said subsequently. A child that starts reading .... at Gen 1, doesn't necessarily have this passage in mind. Why should God start the creation account using a huge metaphor? I don't think that God wanted to have a metaphorical meaning of a word right from the start. Moreover, there is no reason stemming from Gen 1 to think he did, in my opinion. Even if you still want to apply this to Gen.1, it would be totally unclear what morning and evening could mean, besides. Evening of thousand years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas t Posted October 18, 2013 Group: Senior Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 46 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 944 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 170 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/05/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/20/1980 Author Share Posted October 18, 2013 Hello Gerald, glad to see you back. [...] and eventually that we are all sinners in need of redemption. Whether the universe is 13.7 billion or 6,000 years old has no bearing on that. yeah. IOW, if the universe really is 13.7 billion years old, are humans no longer sinners in need of salvation? they are. Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted October 18, 2013 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted October 18, 2013 I realize it was a theory....but the hearer in Moses time might have understood this application where the first word "day" included the 7 days (as in remember the time, or when we say "back in the in the day")....I just think the "in the day the Lord Made" means in or time that the Lord made, but I could be totally in error..but God did not start creation with a metaphor, He started it with "Let there be Light and there was light..." What light? What light before the sun or other stars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted October 19, 2013 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted October 19, 2013 I realize it was a theory....but the hearer in Moses time might have understood this application where the first word "day" included the 7 days (as in remember the time, or when we say "back in the in the day")....I just think the "in the day the Lord Made" means in or time that the Lord made, but I could be totally in error..but God did not start creation with a metaphor, He started it with "Let there be Light and there was light..." What light? What light before the sun or other stars? We have discovered the lasting reflection of a pre-Star light pervading the entire universe everywhere we look (which is visible at 3 Kelvins) believed by many to be the afterglow of the Big Bang...this is the source of many ideas claimed under the name "dark radiation" and "dark matter" (believed by many to be like anti-matter and by others possibly the source of matter)...and He said (sound), let there be light and there was light (this strange form of electro-magnetic radiation)...they were simultaneous and instantaneous and are the "STUFF" the universe and all its inter-dependent forms, functions, forces, etc., were made out of when He spoke the worlds into being. Also called Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation....see http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cbr.html Cosmic background radiation is strong evidence for the Big Bang. It's highly isotropic and homogeneous, suggesting that the visible universe at some point in its early past was all spatially close enough to be in an equilibrium. This is blackbody radiation that has been redshifted due to the subsequent expansion of the universe (it's also 2.7 K). It's not strange. It's easily explainable in this way. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean? : ".this is the source of many ideas claimed under the name "dark radiation" and "dark matter"" Dark radiation? contradiction in terms. Are you confusing that with dark energy? Dark matter we know exists because of the gravitational affects it has on galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Dark energy is inferred to exist from the expansion rate of the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DRS81 Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 Genesis 1:1 In the BEGINNING, GOD created the heavens and the EARTH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted October 19, 2013 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 596 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,064 Content Per Day: 7.55 Reputation: 27,815 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted October 19, 2013 lets support Worthy first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.7803ec9e3f1e9eeba0a93e6ebdacb0e3.jpg)
Recommended Posts