Radiometric Dating and Creation Science

[teddyv]

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Here is the biggest hindrance to creation science.  Science is the study of the natural world around us.  Creation was a supernatural event.  It didn't conform to any mechanism found in the natural world.  The earth was formed in its mature form in a single day at the direction of the Creator.  Science will never be able to replicate this process.  The truth of the creation lies not within the creation itself, but with the Creator.

The earth was not formed in its mature form in a day. The reading has it a ball of chaos from which God makes the earth, universe and life on several days. I know you know this; I'm being slightly pedantic here.

The initial spark of Creation was no doubt supernatural - that is plain enough for any Christian: YEC, TE, or Gapper. We disagree on the mechanics, not the agent.

No Christian, be they YEC, TE or Gapper would deny the last sentence. In fact, that's a profound statement because it gets at the heart of the creation story, especially when stacked up against the competing ANE stories and worldviews.

[DeighAnn]

1 hour ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

@DeighAnn Thank you for your thoughtful, beautifully written response.  I read through it twice because there is so much "meat" included in your prose.

To a certain extent, the first verse in the Bible is the "meat" that most Christians misunderstand. 

In Genesis 1:1
God clearly states that “God created the heaven and the earth.”  The word heaven , as you can see, is singular.  This distinction separates those who have faith in the preservation of the English text from Hebrew scholar wannabes.  The Hebrew word can be correctly translated in different contexts as either heaven or heavens .  And, most modern English versions translate this passage as heavens .  However, a Bible-believing study of Genesis One and the doctrine of heavens in the scripture show that heaven in the singular is the only possible correct translation.  [David Reagan]

Christians who desire a deeper understanding of God's word must begin with a sound, unshakable foundation. 

Hi Saved, 

Thank you for that, appreciated but I don't understand the 'preservation of the English text' and what that means to you  (or why it scared me as it did)

'Heavens' is the more accurate rendering as attested by the Hebrew word 'shamayim' which is a plural form isn't it? And isn't it ALWAYS plural in the Hebrew?  Do you know if one of the other 3 is 'singular' and could have been used to fit the bill, so to speak?  I admit I am tired and am not looking to take on a research project tonight but most likely will tomorrow depending on your answers.  I did go grab my Interlinear and it is rendered 'heavens' there.  This is usually my 'final' authority.  I don't think it has ever failed to be accurate before this as it is from the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus, where do I go from here? Do you disagree with the source as being accurate in any way?  Is there anything other than how you perceive the context to render it singular?  fits the narrative when the plural doesn't?  
What other places did you find this word to be used in a singular fashion?  Any?  Again, thank you   d

[DeighAnn]

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

The reading has it a ball of chaos from which God makes the earth, universe and life on several days. I know you know this; I'm being slightly pedantic here.

Hi teddy,

Where did this chaos come from?  I have lots of questions maybe you could answer for me. I would sure like to find someone who has other places to back up what they put forth and refute what I do.  Everyone tells me I am wrong but won't lead me to where they are standing. All started out with heavens and earth.  Then you give Gods words showing HEAVEN WAY before earth and 

 

[R. Hartono]

The creation in Genesis doesnt necessarily mean 6 literal days = 6 x 24 hours.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, DeighAnn said:

Hi Saved, 

Thank you for that, appreciated but I don't understand the 'preservation of the English text' and what that means to you  (or why it scared me as it did)

I quoted from a website that I'm not as familiar with and I certainly don't agree with the idea of maintaining the 'preservation of the English text' as a translation goal.  You're right to bring that to my attention and it is a mistake on my part.  Thanks.

2 hours ago, DeighAnn said:

'Heavens' is the more accurate rendering as attested by the Hebrew word 'shamayim' which is a plural form isn't it?  And isn't it ALWAYS plural in the Hebrew? 

Before the Latin and Greek, there is the Hebrew word, which is always in plural and is but a renaming of the overhead protection from the waters above. (Genesis 1:8 when "rakia" is renamed "shamayim").  Rabbinical writings, such as the Talmud (tractate Pesachim and other places), go into detail trying to determine its thickness, among other attributes of shamayim (which they never considered a place where the souls of the dead reside).  When used in Genesis 1:1, it is referring to the object that will be introduced in the following verse: the upper surface of “the deep [waters]” (what will later become “the upper waters”), which is covered by a layer of darkness.

Evangelist / Pastor David Reagan of Lamb and Lion Ministries is a well know Christian Evangelist.  He sees it as singular in Genesis 1:1, plural elsewhere in Genesis which changes the meaning to allow for multiple creation beginnings.  Since I am studying the Bible in the context it was written and to whom it was written, I am not basing any assumptions based on our modern understanding.  He determines Heaven here is singular based his understanding of text around it.  In my study, this is the first time I was ever presented with an argument for understanding Heaven in this verse as singular.  I'm still thinking about it trying to reconcile it with the Gap Theory.

2 hours ago, DeighAnn said:

Do you know if one of the other 3 is 'singular' and could have been used to fit the bill, so to speak? 

The Bible teaches the number of heavens in 2 Corinthians 12:2 where the Apostle Paul relates this experience: “I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.”  This is God’s heaven; the highest heaven. Therefore, there are three heavens.

The heavens are built in stories (Amos 9:6).  Compare the heavens to the three stories on Noah’s ark (Genesis 6:16).

• The first heaven is the atmosphere or the atmospheric heaven. It is called the “open firmament of heaven” (Genesis 1:20) because it is the one we access and it is open to the heaven above it. It was created on the second day of the six days of creation (Genesis 1:6-8).
• The second heaven is the starry heaven or out space. It is called “the firmament of the heaven” (Genesis 1:14-19) and was created on the second day (Genesis 1:6-8).
• The third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:4) is simply heaven or God’s heaven (1 Thessalonians 4:16). It is sometimes called the “heaven of heavens” (Nehemiah 9:6); (Psalm 148:4) or “paradise” after the resurrection and ascension of Christ (2 Corinthians 12:4). It was created in Genesis 1:1 in the beginning. That is why Genesis 1:1 refers to “heaven” while Genesis 2:1 refers to the “heavens.”  Only one heaven had been created in the very beginning. There had been no separation between heavens as there it today. The heaven of Genesis 1:1 must refer to God’s heaven—one that was not created during the six days of creation but had an earlier existence.

Source: Dr. David Reagan - Lamb and Lion Ministries

2 hours ago, DeighAnn said:

I admit I am tired and am not looking to take on a research project tonight but most likely will tomorrow depending on your answers.  I did go grab my Interlinear and it is rendered 'heavens' there.  This is usually my 'final' authority. 

I have two Interlinear Bibles, if I remember, KJV and NASB.  I don't use them much preferring the 50+ Commentaries I have.  My favorites are Unger's Two Volume Commentator on the OT and Bible Knowledge Commentary in two volumes.

2 hours ago, DeighAnn said:

I don't think it has ever failed to be accurate before this as it is from the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus, where do I go from here? Do you disagree with the source as being accurate in any way?  Is there anything other than how you perceive the context to render it singular?  fits the narrative when the plural doesn't?  
What other places did you find this word to be used in a singular fashion?  Any?  Again, thank you   d

I tend to read from a variety of translations.  When I was saved, I read the Dake KJV almost exclusively.  I then switched over to the NASB (for study) and NIV (for reading).  Now I mostly read and quote from the ESV and HCSB.  The NENT is interesting, as are the YLT, NKJV and Amplified.  When available, I like to refer to texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

It's been a pleasure talking to you even if you dismiss everything I wrote. 

Edited November 8, 2021 by Saved.One.by.Grace

[teddyv]

1 hour ago, DeighAnn said:

Hi teddy,

Where did this chaos come from?  I have lots of questions maybe you could answer for me. I would sure like to find someone who has other places to back up what they put forth and refute what I do.  Everyone tells me I am wrong but won't lead me to where they are standing. All started out with heavens and earth.  Then you give Gods words showing HEAVEN WAY before earth and 

 

I don't think I can rattle off a bunch of sources for you, as much of my understanding has been gleaned over the years from other Christians on various fora, personal readings, sermons, and what have you. I don't read the Creation narrative as an historical document. I see it as a story for the Israelites, the original audience, as part of learning their identity after leaving Egypt. There are transcendent truths in the story that are completely relevant today as they were in the Bronze age - completely independent of cosmology.

I'm not sure if this is what you are asking about, but the sea, for example, was often seen as the representative of chaos and the home of Leviathan, a chaos monster. In Genesis 1, the spirit of God hovers over the waters (chaos). The Enuma Elish has very similar imagery (and the Egyptian stories have similar themes). In Genesis though, the narrative completely ignores all the cosmic battle nonsense and simply has God create the heavens and the earth out of the chaos. It elevates God as the sole creator and creates humans as His image bearers, rather than out of the remains of other gods like in the Enuma Elish. From my understanding, this is pretty unique.

[RV_Wizard]

22 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The earth was formed in its mature form in a single day at the direction of the Creator. 

Allow a correction here.  The earth was not completed until day three.  It was solid enough to block out the light, causing an evening and morning, but the waters and land were not separated until the third day.

[RV_Wizard]

12 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

There is no such thing as creation science that is supported by science.  Creation science tries to explain away science.

Creation science is the study of God's great creation.  It does offer proof, for example, that evolution is not and has never been observed; and that adaptation is a conservative process.  Increasing complexity and the spontaneous addition of new traits through benevolent mutations is quite simply science fiction.  Will it convince non-believers?  No.  Will it sustain the faith of believers?  To an extent, but it's a losing battle.  The forces of evil will become so pervasive that true believers will be a small minority.  Science is neither good nor evil. It's what people do with it that counts.  The medical breakthroughs we have achieved through science have extended our lives, but they have also brought us Covid 19 and other man made viruses.

[Amigo42]

Maybe we can all just say that we truly don't know.  There are so many mysteries that we simply will never be privy too in this life and in this world in our current state.  The rest is pure speculation.  Did an almighty create make us?  Yes?  Was a literal six days? Was there another creation event prior to mankind.  Was the earth already formed prior to creation?  I don't know.  Questions that really don't impact the Gospel message either way.  God knows the truth, and one day all may know it, but for now no need to strain our brains to find answers we may never have in this life.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Creation science is the study of God's great creation.  It does offer proof, for example, that evolution is not and has never been observed; and that adaptation is a conservative process.  Increasing complexity and the spontaneous addition of new traits through benevolent mutations is quite simply science fiction.  Will it convince non-believers?  No.  Will it sustain the faith of believers?  To an extent, but it's a losing battle.  The forces of evil will become so pervasive that true believers will be a small minority.  Science is neither good nor evil. It's what people do with it that counts.  The medical breakthroughs we have achieved through science have extended our lives, but they have also brought us Covid 19 and other man made viruses.

I believe in an Old Earth Creation as the Bible and science show.  I do not believe in Evolution in any way, shape or form.  I have repeatedly stated that in all my science based posts.