Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[SavedOnebyGrace]

The beginning of the universe: Apologist Robert Clifton Robinson Looks at the Beginning of Our Universe

This is a fine article for those who take the time to read it.

[Tristen]

A common strategy for those promoting the secular, long age, model, is to find a grammatical pause in the text, and insist that all that storytelling about time and evolution can be squeezed in between sentences. 

The only evidence that the first verses of Genesis should be understood differently (in any language) comes from those with an agenda to rewrite Genesis history to conform to their own preferred model of history.

 

Ironically, under the heading, "The evidence, the evidence…", no actual "evidence" is provided for scrutiny - only exaggerated, Unsupported Assertions.

"It is preposterous to state that the entire universe was created in six days and that every process necessary for life was completed in this period of time. Primarily because the text of Genesis 1:1 does not state this,"

The preponderance of historical literature on the subject teaches us that most people who have read Genesis 1:1-5 (including Hebrew readers) understand the passage in the same way - i.e. that the described events occurred on the first day of creation. So, apart from an ancillary agenda to rewrite the narrative, that is the most straight forward reading of the text. Therefore, claiming such a statement to be "preposterous" is purely rhetorical - an Appeal to Ridicule (fallacy).

"and secondly because scientists today are able to measure the age of the universe and conclude with certainty that nearly 14 billions years have passed since the original expansion of the universe began"

Here, the author's lack of scientific literacy is exposed. Not even experimental/operational science permits the ability to "conclude" anything "with certainty". That level of absolute confidence is simply not permitted by the logic governing the Scientific Method. It is therefore more absurd to suggest that "certainty" could be logically ascertained via the historical modelling method (a logical departure from the robustness of the Scientific Method).

 

I admire the effort - but all this article demonstrates to me is the degree to which someone who is compelled to support the secular narrative is prepared to go - tying themselves into logical pretzels, rather than simply accepting the most straight-forward reading of the text.

[JohnR7]

On 12/7/2022 at 6:31 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

The only way you can get the Bible to line up with Science is if each day is half the lenght of the previous say. So day one is 6 billion years, day two is 3 billion, day three is 1.5 billion and so on. 

[kwikphilly]

18 minutes ago, JohnR7 said:

The only way you can get the Bible to line up with Science is if each day is half the lenght of the previous say. So day one is 6 billion years, day two is 3 billion, day three is 1.5 billion and so on. 

Of course that is for those that believe the earth is billions of years

I believe the what the Word of God Says " literally" - 6 days period-Gods Word does not have to " line up"with science or anybody's logic or reasoning( for me)...

However I do think science has to " catch up" with God's Word, lol

With love in Christ, Kwik

 

 

[kwikphilly]

Hey SObG

I'm so happy to see you,I feel like it's been ages since we've chatted. ..

Don't mean to derail I just cracked up when I saw your " oi vey" - you probably remember I'm the one who suggested oi vey to George,it was one of my favorite sayings- newer people seem to think it's like an insult or something very negative- guess they never hadNYC Jewish friends with their Yiddish kvetching! 🤣Its just an audible eye roll,isn't it

Great to see you Brother,I've not frequented the science Forums like I used to when we had Oakwood around & Shiloh.....God Bless you,❤️

In His Love, Kwik

Edited December 10, 2022 by kwikphilly

[The_Patriot21]

The fact is you can't reconcile modern so called science with the Genesis account. It is why they're teaching evolution in schools and why they took the Bible out.

In English, there is absolutely nothing in scripture to suggest million of years or evolution. Absolutely nothing.

And if you say it was because translation... looking at the original Hebrew there is absolutely no way it mean anything other then a literal week made up of 7 consecutive 24 hour days. It is impossible to insert evolutionary science into the Bible.

Satan and the world knows this. They know that if they discredit Genesis they can discredit the rest of the Bible so that's what they went after.

And as an added bonus they knew that some Christians would try to reconcile man made science and the Bible, which discredits the christian, because it's blatantly obvious to the average Joe the two theories-biblical creation and evolution, are wholey incompatible.

[tim_from_pa]

On 12/7/2022 at 6:31 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

The beginning of the universe: Apologist Robert Clifton Robinson Looks at the Beginning of Our Universe

This is a fine article for those who take the time to read it.

Yes that is a great article.  As I always taught, that there are Earth ages.  Between Genesis 1:1-2 is the first Earth age. The Earth and Universe is very old (the stars were compared to spiritual children of Abraham which indicates their eternalness like the stars). The present or second Earth age was a "recreation" for Adam and Adam  was not the manlike creature in Satan's age when he was once over the Earth.  The Bible teaches that after the millennium is the final Earth age i.e. new heavens and Earth.

I teach "passive" vs "active" creation.  God did not need billions of years to make anything, but for whatever reason He allowed this long, long time.  Passive creation is when God makes Laws of nature.  Gravity causes matter to condense,  It heats up, nuclear reactions take place, we have a proto-star and eventually a star that all takes a long time like putting a clock in motion. But where scientist err is that they think life SHOULD form slowly the same way.  No it does not.  An example is that in all this universe you won't find a Seiko watch.  That takes DIRECT intervention of a conscious being to create it.  I call that "active" creation. The watch does not take many years to form, but quickly. However, active creation does not imply a transgression of the Laws of physics that allow for passive creation.  As a matter of fact, a watch USES the laws of physics to work.  The same with life. It's possible for a powerful Being to (re)create life in Adam in a short time without breaking the laws of biology He created.

If Christians would realize what I say, then the scientific, agnostic mouths would be stopped.  And the end result would be no contradiction of scientific laws whatsoever but yet support well the Biblical account. The fossil account was in the first Earth age when some living beings were similar to today. And again, scientists make the error that the first Earth age and the present age is one and the same.

[JohnR7]

5 hours ago, kwikphilly said:

Of course that is for those that believe the earth is billions of years

Maybe you better take this up with Kurt Patrick Wise. He would be the first to admit the scientific evidence. Even if it contradicts his YEC creation beliefs. He does not deny one to try to support the other. Also from God's perspective - time is relative because God is light and there is no time at the speed of light. The first word is "Beginning", so that is the perspective of Genesis chapter one. The "Beginning" was when God created the earth.  This was 4.5 billion years ago. The sun is 4.6 billion years ago. The universe is 13.7 years but that goes back a long distance from the beginning of the earth. 

I am a YEC also, but that just means Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden 6,000 years ago. There is abundant scientific evidence to show that they were real people living n ancient Mesopotamia at the time. Bishop Usshers book is a very accurate history of the last 6,000 years. That is why his book is still a leading authority 500 years after it was written, because it is so accurate. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise

Edited December 10, 2022 by JohnR7

[Guest]

2 hours ago, tim_from_pa said:

Yes that is a great article.  As I always taught, that there are Earth ages.  Between Genesis 1:1-2 is the first Earth age. The Earth and Universe is very old (the stars were compared to spiritual children of Abraham which indicates their eternalness like the stars). The present or second Earth age was a "recreation" for Adam and Adam  was not the manlike creature in Satan's age when he was once over the Earth.  The Bible teaches that after the millennium is the final Earth age i.e. new heavens and Earth.

I teach "passive" vs "active" creation.  God did not need billions of years to make anything, but for whatever reason He allowed this long, long time.  Passive creation is when God makes Laws of nature.  Gravity causes matter to condense,  It heats up, nuclear reactions take place, we have a proto-star and eventually a star that all takes a long time like putting a clock in motion. But where scientist err is that they think life SHOULD form slowly the same way.  No it does not.  An example is that in all this universe you won't find a Seiko watch.  That takes DIRECT intervention of a conscious being to create it.  I call that "active" creation. The watch does not take many years to form, but quickly. However, active creation does not imply a transgression of the Laws of physics that allow for passive creation.  As a matter of fact, a watch USES the laws of physics to work.  The same with life. It's possible for a powerful Being to (re)create life in Adam in a short time without breaking the laws of biology He created.

If Christians would realize what I say, then the scientific, agnostic mouths would be stopped.  And the end result would be no contradiction of scientific laws whatsoever but yet support well the Biblical account. The fossil account was in the first Earth age when some living beings were similar to today. And again, scientists make the error that the first Earth age and the present age is one and the same.

A [three year old] published study says that the building blocks for life appear in stellar nurseries -- areas in deep space where new stars are formed -- well before the stars actually form.

The research notes that organic molecules methanol and acetaldehyde have been found in these stellar nurseries "hundreds of thousands of years" before the stars actually form, according to a University of Arizona statement obtained by Fox News. This flies in the face of previous research, which says that proto-stars need to be present before complex organic molecules can be observed.

"These starless cores we looked at are several hundred thousand years away from the initial formation of a protostar or any planets," said the study's co-author and University of Arizona astronomy professor Yancy Shirley in a statement. "This tells us that the basic organic chemistry needed for life is present in the raw gas prior to the formation of stars and planets."

This tells me God had a plan.

SCIENTISTS DISCOVER DISTANT 'MIRROR IMAGE OF THE EARTH AND THE SUN

The study's lead author, Samantha Scibelli, notes that researchers have long debated where and how to look for the building blocks of life and how they end up on planets other than Earth.

"The exact processes at play are still being debated, because the theoretical models still don't quite match what we see," Scibelli added. "With this paper, we can better constrain the mechanisms of formation that might be taking place by telling the theorists how abundant these molecules are."

The findings have been published in The Astrophysical Journal.

One thing I find interesting that is only tangentially connected to this subject is fossils. Prehistoric fossils dug up will turn up must be protected from the weather once they are released from their rock prison. The rocks are acting as protection for the fossils because once they hit the atmosphere and winter weather they become one with the stone, gone forever.

Why this occurred to me now, I don't know just that I have a headache.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, kwikphilly said:

Hey SObG

I'm so happy to see you,I feel like it's been ages since we've chatted. ..

Don't mean to derail I just cracked up when I saw your " oi vey" - you probably remember I'm the one who suggested oi vey to George,it was one of my favorite sayings- newer people seem to think it's like an insult or something very negative- guess they never hadNYC Jewish friends with their Yiddish kvetching! 🤣Its just an audible eye roll,isn't it

Great to see you Brother,I've not frequented the science Forums like I used to when we had Oakwood around & Shiloh.....God Bless you,❤️

In His Love, Kwik

I miss Shiloh and our conversations as well. I don't post as much as I use to. I watched a YouTube video of Dr. Darrell Bock and Dr. Michael Heiser the other day centered on Heiser's book The Unseen Rhelm. Fantastic interview between two men I highly respect.