Mature Universe Theory

[Tristen]

On 10/20/2024 at 11:47 PM, RV_Wizard said:

On 10/20/2024 at 10:05 AM, Tristen said:

Scripture does not state that the universe was created "mature".

Nor does it say the Holy Trinity, or Triune God

Right. Christians do not believe the “Trinity” because the Bible explicitly states, “God is a Trinity” (i.e. in those words) – but rather because scripture overwhelmingly, repeatedly, explicitly teaches the deity of God’s Messiah as distinct from God the Father wherein a single (i.e. monotheistic) God – throughout both Old and New Testaments - evidenced from the very first mention of God in the first verse of scripture.

That is not the case for a “mature” universe. Not only does the text not state that God made the universe “mature”, but this is not further taught throughout scripture. Though arguments can be made from scripture supporting this idea, scripture neither states nor teaches this concept. It is, therefore, an exaggeration/overstatement to claim such.

 

On 10/20/2024 at 11:47 PM, RV_Wizard said:

The Bible does not use the words discipleship

However, the Bible does explicitly teach that Jesus had disciples – and that the mission of the church is to disciple the nations.

By contrast, the Bible does not explicitly teach us that the universe was made “mature”. We can therefore legitimately say, “that is what we think happened” (for various stated reasons) – however, we cannot, being honest with the text, say that God creating a “mature” universe is the clear, unambiguous teaching of scripture. Such a claim goes beyond the limits of the evidence provided in the text.

 

On 10/20/2024 at 11:47 PM, RV_Wizard said:

or happiness

I don’t think this is relevant to anything being discussed.

 

On 10/20/2024 at 11:47 PM, RV_Wizard said:

The Bible does not identify the forbidden fruit Adam and Eve ate from

Correct - and anyone claiming the Bible teaches a specific fruit would be overstating what is in the text.

 

On 10/20/2024 at 11:47 PM, RV_Wizard said:

never says angels have halos, and there were three wise men, not kings

The fact that Christians sometimes believe things that are not in the Bible is a different topic.

 

On 10/20/2024 at 11:47 PM, RV_Wizard said:

The word bible is not in the Bible.

Sure – but the concept of God’s written Word is most certainly taught repeatedly, explicitly “in the Bible”.

 

On 10/20/2024 at 11:47 PM, RV_Wizard said:

That's why it is a theory, not doctrine; despite its conformity with Biblical teaching.

It is perfectly valid (and properly measured) for you to claim your preferred model is consistent “with Biblical teaching”. It’s when you claim your preferred model is ‘what scripture teaches’ that you go logically beyond the textual evidence.

 

On 10/20/2024 at 11:47 PM, RV_Wizard said:

Yes, it took three days to complete the formation of the earth.  There were trees bearing fruit by the end of the third day.

The point is that the earth was not simply created “mature” – but was rather created in a primitive form, then brought into a “mature” form over time via subsequent processes.

 

On 10/20/2024 at 11:47 PM, RV_Wizard said:

Show me another explanation that is biblical and I will consider it

The first problem here is that you are committing an Argument from Ignorance fallacy (i.e. the claim that your position must be true if no acceptable alternatives can be provided). That is a breach of logic.

Secondly, I provided another two YEC-consistent models in an earlier post to you.

Thirdly, even if no other models existed, it would still be an overstatement to claim your preferred model is what scripture teaches.

 

On 10/20/2024 at 11:47 PM, RV_Wizard said:

Keep in mind that an earth around 6,000 years must have plentiful oil, coal, diamonds, gold, and even lithium.  Since the creation was completed in six days, there is simply not enough time for these things to form as science claims they formed.

None of this is relevant – since you and I both agree God completed the creation during the creation week. That is not the topic you and I are debating.

 

On 10/20/2024 at 11:47 PM, RV_Wizard said:

To me, the best explanation is that God, being outside of time and knowing everything man would ever need, created those elements in the earth as part of the creation.

The claim that you have a personally preferred “explanation” is perfectly legitimate. It’s only when you amplify that claim to, ‘My preferred explanation is the clear teaching of scripture’ that you enter the realm of exaggeration.

 

[tim_from_pa]

On 10/12/2024 at 9:00 PM, RV_Wizard said:

The Mature Universe Theory (MUT), also called the Mature Earth View, or Mature Creation, asserts that God created Ex-Nihilo a young universe (YEC) approximately 6,000-10,000, years ago with "actual age." It observes that God created the universe with integrity in six (6) literal 24-hour Days with some age or maturity.
When properly understood, MUT explains why there "may be" things with actual age, older than 6,000-10,000 years old. God made the universe with wisdom (Prov. 8:23-27), which includes making things with maturity, not just with the appearance of age, but real actual age. When God created, he not only created the sun, moon, stars, plants, tree, animals, etc., but all the complex intersecting processes functionally complete right from the start. In other words, they were able to fulfill the purpose for which they were created in the Day they were created. God's evaluation of his own work was that his completed creation was "very good" (Gen. 1:31). God spoke and a mature universe happened (Psa. 33:6-9).

MUT is clearly the teaching of Scripture.  source

Many, MANY years before I ever heard of a thing called Mature Universe Theory I came to the conclusion that a mature creation was absolutely described in the first chapters of Genesis.  There is no mention of ANYTHING being young.  All things were created in their mature state, including the earth itself which already contained all of the elements man would need for his entire existence.

We know that the universe is very old.  How do we know this?  We know that the stars etc are vast distances, and we know the speed of light.  If nothing else, the very formula t=d/c tells us how old various space objects are. That's pretty straightforward to know the time something takes to travel is we know its distance and speed of light from it. Like many, I believe in a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It is important to note that there is no time given in the original creation and for that matter just exactly how God created life.  The Bible gives science adequate latitude to find the specifics.  The Bible seems to be more interested in the creation of man, or I should say, Adam's race onward and not as the start of things, but as the continuation of earlier history and judgment to replace the prior situation .   And even with that, the Bible does not specifically address that in detail, other than to mention tantalizing clues such as Jeremiah 4, Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28 and so forth. Again, maybe science can one day answer that, and there's no shortage of apocryphal works that "miraculously" survived, as if for a reason that explains this, and yet it does not directly affect what God wants us to know about sin and salvation so there's no (of should be no) doctrinal test on such things.

I find recently the annoying belief in a flat earth despite countless evidences to the contrary, but then again, I have said that if one has problems with space (I.e. the shape of something) we might as well have problems with the 4th dimension, time, and fit 100 lbs of ancient history into a 5-pound bag "to make it all fit". I say, go all the way and believe in a flat earth, too, in other words. 

[tim_from_pa]

On 10/12/2024 at 9:00 PM, RV_Wizard said:

The Mature Universe Theory (MUT), also called the Mature Earth View, or Mature Creation, asserts that God created Ex-Nihilo a young universe (YEC) approximately 6,000-10,000, years ago with "actual age." It observes that God created the universe with integrity in six (6) literal 24-hour Days with some age or maturity.
When properly understood, MUT explains why there "may be" things with actual age, older than 6,000-10,000 years old. God made the universe with wisdom (Prov. 8:23-27), which includes making things with maturity, not just with the appearance of age, but real actual age. When God created, he not only created the sun, moon, stars, plants, tree, animals, etc., but all the complex intersecting processes functionally complete right from the start. In other words, they were able to fulfill the purpose for which they were created in the Day they were created. God's evaluation of his own work was that his completed creation was "very good" (Gen. 1:31). God spoke and a mature universe happened (Psa. 33:6-9).

MUT is clearly the teaching of Scripture.  source

Many, MANY years before I ever heard of a thing called Mature Universe Theory I came to the conclusion that a mature creation was absolutely described in the first chapters of Genesis.  There is no mention of ANYTHING being young.  All things were created in their mature state, including the earth itself which already contained all of the elements man would need for his entire existence.

We know that the universe is very old.  How do we know this?  We know that the stars etc are vast distances, and we know the speed of light.  If nothing else, the very formula t=d/c tells us how old various space objects are. That's pretty straightforward to know the time something takes to travel is we know its distance and speed of light from it. Like many, I believe in a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It is important to note that there is no time given in the original creation and for that matter just exactly how God created life.  The Bible gives science adequate latitude to find the specifics.  The Bible seems to be more interested in the creation of man, or I should say, Adam's race onward and not as the start of things, but as the continuation of earlier history and judgment to replace the prior situation .   And even with that, the Bible does not specifically address that in detail, other than to mention tantalizing clues such as Jeremiah 4, Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28 and so forth. Again, maybe science can one day answer that, and there's no shortage of apocryphal works that "miraculously" survived, as if for a reason that explains this, and yet it does not directly affect what God wants us to know about sin and salvation so there's no (of should be no) doctrinal test on such things.

I find recently the annoying belief in a flat earth despite countless evidences to the contrary, but then again, I have said that if one has problems with space (I.e. the shape of something) we might as well have problems with the 4th dimension, time, and fit 100 lbs of ancient history into a 5-pound bag "to make it all fit". I say, go all the way and believe in a flat earth, too, in other words. 

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

FreeGrace said:

I probably missed that discussion

The place where I entered that discussion can be found here:

Before commenting on your comments, please note your post was made on May 12, 2023, and in a different thread, so I apologize for not having such a sharp memory as to remember a post that far back, and from a different thread.  

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/221659-ive-changed-my-mind-i-now-believe-the-earth-is-6k-years-old/?do=findComment&comment=3659377

I am unsurprised that you don’t remember this conversation – as your MO seems to be first ignoring any opposing argument, then simply repeating your own position over and over

In fact, I engage every poster with an opposing view, and show them from Scripture why I believe the points I do about earth age.  That's hardly ignoring arguments.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

– all the while claiming your position to be God’s truth

Hm.  My sole focus on earth age comes directly from the original language, Hebrew.  So to be accurate, it is God's truth that I believe.  I have not found the opp0sing view to have support from Scripture, other than what the English translations say.  But Moses didn't write in English.  So considering the Hebrew is how to understand the verse.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

– and thereby insinuating that anyone who disagrees with you is therefore disagreeing with God.

When Scripture is clear, it's not my argument.  The opposing view actually disagrees with what the Scripture says.  I have merely presented what the original Hebrew means by comparing the 2 words in Gen 1:2 with the only other 2 times they occur together in the OT.  And the context is very clear in those 2 other texts;  total destruction of the land.  Yet the YEC who I engage with simply ignore how "tohu wabohu" is used in the only other 2 texts, and insist that in Gen 1:2 the words describe the creation process.

However, we know from Psa 33:6 and 9 that God speaks whole things into existence.  When He spoke the earth into existence, it HAD form;  called a sphere.  In our 3 dimensional universe, EVERY object has form.  There is no such thing as an object without form.  The only way that word can be used legitimately is in a comparative way.  I've given examples but the YEC that engage with are the ones who just ignore all that.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

If people decide to disagree with God (a.k.a. you), then that’s their business – Lol.

I agree.  So why do they keep posting back?  As long as they do, I will keep reminding them of the facts.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

You have repeated this same pattern in this post.

I disagree with your opinion.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

For example, I quote you presenting Generalizations against YECs. I then criticize you for making Generalizations against YECs when you have the opportunity to engage with YEC honestly, directly in this thread. You outright claim you never made such Generalizations – then simply continue repeating the same arguments.

I can’t tell if you are trying to gaslight, or if you are sincerely blinded by bias from fair consideration of counter-arguments.

I assure you I shoot straight.  I never quote other people, or from articiles.  I've stuck directly with the Hebrew words that make Gen 1:2 clear.

I know that those who translate understand what words mean by seeing how they are used in other contexts.  

Having said that, There is an English translation of the Greek Septuagint.

Brenton Septuagint Translation
But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the water.

Here are few other English translations:
American Standard Version
And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
The Earth was chaos and empty and darkness on the faces of the depths and the Spirit of God hovered on the faces of the waters.

English Revised Version
And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Young's Literal Translation
the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,

none of these translations appear to be describing God creative abilities, with such words as "chaos" and "waste".

However, that's not even where I "lay my hat".  In your previous post of 17 months ago, you basically dismissed the point I made about Gen 1:2 and Isa 45:18 being contradictory.  

This is exactly what you posted:

 

"There is no contradiction between Isa 45:18 and Gen 1:2 - regardless of the translation.

According to the straight-forward context, Isa 45:18 speaks to intention and purpose - i.e. the earth was not created "to be" uninhabited (or "empty"). That does not mean (or even imply) that there was no part of the creation process when the earth was uninhabited.

Gen 1:2 simply states that immediately after the earth was brought into being, it was unformed and empty. The narrative then goes on to describe how God both formed and filled the earth.

Therefore, there is no logical contradiction between these two verses. When God created the earth, it was initially formless and empty, but He did notcreate it to remain that way."

What you did was provide your opinion about what each verse was about, rather than just dealing with the actual contradictory words.  You've attempted some kind of translation to equalize the 2 verses.

But here's the deal, just keeping the Hebrew word rather than any translated word for TOHU.

YEC Gen 1;1,2  "God created (bara) the earth and the earth was TOHU".

Isa 45:18 "God did not create (bara) the earth TOHU".

Either He did or He did not.  We know He intended to put man on it, but I don't see how anyone can get around the direct contradiction.  

And the 5 translations above translate TOHU in Gen 1:2 as something other than God's creative process.  I don't even accept "process" anyway, since Psa 33:6,9 tells us that God creates by speaking into existence, from the words "ex nihilo".  out of nothing.

God did use the dust (chemicals of the ground) to make (asah) Adam's physiological body, but the soul/spirit were not made "asah" but created out of nothing (bara).

And that's what made him a human being, rather than just another type of animal.

So the facts are not on the YEC side.  

1 TOHU WABOHU is used in the only other 2 texts to describe total destruction of the land.

2 There are 10 occurences of TOHU in the OT, and other than Gen 1:2 and Jer 4:23, all have very negative implications, certainly not anything close to God's creative ability.

3 there is no such thing as an object that is formless.  It's not even possible, so that alone shows the translation in English is in error.

4 there is nothing in Gen 1 that addresses God putting form into the earth.  What He did was decorate the earth.  It already HAD form.

If you are a YEC, please explain how Genesis 1 as a restoration negatively impacts anything.  Thank you.

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

The point is that the earth was not simply created “mature” – but was rather created in a primitive form, then brought into a “mature” form over time via subsequent processes.

I was casually reading through your reply to another poster, who is a YEC.  Most English translations translate TOHU as "formless/without form", but here, you mention that God created the earth "in a primitive form".  Isn't that STILL a 'form'?

Yes, it is.  As I have already pointed out, in this 3 dimensional universe that we live in, there is no such existence as an object that is "formless".  That is a very important point, that shows that most English translations are incorrect in how they handle TOHU.  

Could you point out any of these "subsequent processes" that you noted for the earth to be "brought into a 'mature' form?  When I read Genesis 1, all I see is God placing various things ON the earth.  I don't see how that "matures" the earth in any way.

Thanks.

[FreeGrace]

21 minutes ago, tim_from_pa said:

We know that the universe is very old.  How do we know this?  We know that the stars etc are vast distances, and we know the speed of light.  If nothing else, the very formula t=d/c tells us how old various space objects are. That's pretty straightforward to know the time something takes to travel is we know its distance and speed of light from it. Like many, I believe in a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It is important to note that there is no time given in the original creation and for that matter just exactly how God created life.  The Bible gives science adequate latitude to find the specifics.  The Bible seems to be more interested in the creation of man, or I should say, Adam's race onward and not as the start of things, but as the continuation of earlier history and judgment to replace the prior situation .   And even with that, the Bible does not specifically address that in detail, other than to mention tantalizing clues such as Jeremiah 4, Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28 and so forth. Again, maybe science can one day answer that, and there's no shortage of apocryphal works that "miraculously" survived, as if for a reason that explains this, and yet it does not directly affect what God wants us to know about sin and salvation so there's no (of should be no) doctrinal test on such things.

I find recently the annoying belief in a flat earth despite countless evidences to the contrary, but then again, I have said that if one has problems with space (I.e. the shape of something) we might as well have problems with the 4th dimension, time, and fit 100 lbs of ancient history into a 5-pound bag "to make it all fit". I say, go all the way and believe in a flat earth, too, in other words. 

Well said!

[RV_Wizard]

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

Not only does the text not state that God made the universe “mature”, but this is not further taught throughout scripture. Though arguments can be made from scripture supporting this idea, scripture neither states nor teaches this concept.

While the Scriptures do not use the word mature, given that everything which was created was mature and of reproductive age, and given that there are elements and minerals that scientists claim takes hundreds of millions of years to form, and given that the genealogies of the Bible add up to around 6,000 years, it is reasonable to presume that Bible details a mature creation.

[RV_Wizard]

2 hours ago, tim_from_pa said:

. Like many, I believe in a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It is important to note that there is no time given in the original creation and for that matter just exactly how God created life.

Have you ever actually read Genesis one?  When you look at what the Bible actually says, the idea that there could have been a long time between verses one and two is ludicrous.

Light was created in verse three, meaning that the earth previously had no source of light or heat.  How could anything live without air to breathe?

Dry land didn't exist prior to verse ten.  How did dinosaurs roam the earth before there was an earth to roam?

In Romans, we are told that sin and death came into the world because of Adam's sin.  How could there be millions of years of death and evolution when death didn't exist until the fall of man?

2 hours ago, tim_from_pa said:

I find recently the annoying belief in a flat earth despite countless evidences to the contrary

Straw man,  NOBODY believes in a flat earth.

[RV_Wizard]

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

there is no such thing as an object that is formless.

Definitions of formless adjective having no physical form
“belief in a world filled with... formless but often malevolent beings”
synonyms:
unbodied
having no body
adjective having no definite form or distinct shape
“an aggregate of formless particles”
synonyms: amorphous, shapeless
unformed

Something formless either has no definite shape, like fog or smoke, or lacks structure, like a formless movie that doesn't seem to have much of a plot.  source

This has been explained to you many times.  Your inability to comprehend something has no bearing on its existence.

[Tristen]

9 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

While the Scriptures do not use the word mature, given that everything which was created was mature and of reproductive age, and given that there are elements and minerals that scientists claim takes hundreds of millions of years to form, and given that the genealogies of the Bible add up to around 6,000 years, it is reasonable to presume that Bible details a mature creation.

The conclusion that God created the universe in a "mature" form is a perfectly "reasonable", rationally supportable (and therefore logically valid) position to hold.

My only issue has been with some of your earlier posts, where you claimed that a created-mature universe is the model taught in scripture. That claim about scripture is not accurate. Though God may very well have created a "mature" universe, scripture does not explicitly teach that the universe was created "mature".

My only complaint has been your overstatement. I have no problem with the model itself.