[_ Old Earth _] Except that it didn't...

[jasonc]

Sure, but what do you think about the point I was making about how Genesis 1 describes a day as "morning and evening" when there was no sun to mark morning and evening? Those two words only having meaning in the context of sun rise and sun set, and yet Genesis 1:5 uses those words to describe a day before the sun existed. Obviously something is missing in the standard, 24 hour day interpretation.

god can say that. surely he sets the tempo. if you think to disagree then why is the shabat not longer then one day? on the seventh day god rested. which day Is which then? when do we get to decide what day is a literal day then?

the way does do all feasts and religious days is based on this literal viewing.

 

[john darling]

god can say that. surely he sets the tempo. if you think to disagree then why is the shabat not longer then one day? on the seventh day god rested. which day Is which then? when do we get to decide what day is a literal day then?

the way does do all feasts and religious days is based on this literal viewing.

I'm not suggesting that we should decide how long a day is. I'm suggesting that there could be more to the creation story than a literal 24 hour day x 7 days interpretation.

Would you mind responding to the comments I made about the use of "morning and evening" referring to a day when there was no sun to denote morning and evening?

 

[jasonc]

I'm not suggesting that we should decide how long a day is. I'm suggesting that there could be more to the creation story than a literal 24 hour day x 7 days interpretation.

Would you mind responding to the comments I made about the use of "morning and evening" referring to a day when there was no sun to denote morning and evening?

I did, god set the time. sometimes we don't need to know and that is how I see it. sometimes the simple things is what we need to know. if you want to see it otherwise. then if its not a literal day then how can it be not a week when its a longer and shabat Is based on that? food for thought. the shabat is the sole reason isreal has the right to that land as the rabbis say. if you don't see that is possible then I cant help you. that is part of the torah. central to the way and what day the Hebrews worshipped and also when they did the feasts. all at sundown . which reminds me, peshac draws nigh. I need to find a temple to do that. its a week long feast. I don't think any of the messianic jews do that hear.

if there is no sun or stars then where is the gap that you imply that isn't mentioned? this I aslo why I don't believe in the 70 week as taught by futurism, no pause Is mentioned.i don't pretend to fully understand it. it like this. jesus was a baby. fully god and fully alert and yet also that. so he didn't know what his mother was thinking and saying around him or joseph? he left his diety? he said no man, not even HIM knows the hour. yet he is fully god and didn't lose his God nature. some things are hard to grasp and we aren't meant to know.

 

[john darling]

sometimes we don't need to know and that is how I see it.

This is basically the same argument knotical made a few posts earlier when he/she talked about time being man made and how god operates outside of time. And my response to you is the same; Is this a consistent argument, in that you are suggesting the creation story could be one of those "sometimes we don't need to know" situations in the context of not needing to know if it was a literal 7 x 24 hour period?

then if its not a literal day then how can it be not a week when its a longer and shabat Is based on that?

I beg your pardon?

all at sundown

Which did not exist for the first 4 days. You're using a description of "shabat" to define what a day is, but that description is inconsistent with how the genesis version describes a day. There was no "sun down" for the first 4 days. That's the point I've been asking you to address.

if there is no sun or stars then where is the gap that you imply that isn't mentioned?

I don't understand what you mean by "gap"? What gap did I imply wasn't mentioned?

 

[jasonc]

This is basically the same argument knotical made a few posts earlier when he/she talked about time being man made and how god operates outside of time. And my response to you is the same; Is this a consistent argument, in that you are suggesting the creation story could be one of those "sometimes we don't need to know" situations in the context of not needing to know if it was a literal 7 x 24 hour period?



I beg your pardon?



Which did not exist for the first 4 days. You're using a description of "shabat" to define what a day is, but that description is inconsistent with how the genesis version describes a day. There was no "sun down" for the first 4 days. That's the point I've been asking you to address.



I don't understand what you mean by "gap"? What gap did I imply wasn't mentioned?

language and words mean something. show me via any fluent Hebrew scholar that in context that word yom after the word one or two, is the word age. good luck the Hebrew doesn't allow for that. so that is my answer. you want consistency and understand you cant have that in the harder section to grasp in the bible which is creation and end times. it wasn't meant to. god sets the time. so god lied then and told moses to write a day when it wasn't really a day? what if god said that too him to show that it took that long? we don't have even set days by the sun. we can do it as the mayans do which they don't use the sun but some other star. if I remember right or understand it right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_calendar

the Hebrew calendar is shorter then the Gregorian calendar. the reason I use shabat as that is how moses would see it since he wrote the books we call the torah. notice at the end of the creation week he says and on the seventh day god rested. so was it really day seven then? which is it the third? day four is when the sun appeared. so you must then ask yourself that one.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Ah, so you allow for the frame-work hypothesis, which has been considered a heresy, and should be dismissed entirely.

Time is an invention of man in order to measure events, not something God ordained. God exists outside of time and has no use for it. Therefore, since time is a human invention it is inherently flawed, including, but not limited to, our understanding of the speed of light.

Oh man, as they say, give it up. That's so untrue about time. God works within the framework of time as evidenced by prophecy and feast days mentioned in the bible.

And no, our understanding of the speed of light is not flawed. I already gave an example using the radio antenna lengths, which if our understanding was flawed, then they would not work. Do you need another example? How about the fact we can measure how fast it takes for a laser to reflect off mirrors on the moon. It is used to measure the exact distance, but the formula can be reversed because we already knew the distance more coarsely before that. Distance/time transpired is velocity.

You really have to see God, the bible, and the universe beyond your limited scope. I know its hard to admit error, but it's critical to move ahead in truth, otherwise one is just locked forever and never learning in an imaginary and subjective world.

 

[Pizza]

Well, considering the bible is God breathed, and everything in science was developed by man, which would you put more stock in?

I would argue that Science is not developed by man - it is discovered by man. Man learns science, but he does not develop or invent any laws or formulas - he DISCOVERS laws and formulas that always existed, and always applied, with or without his knowledge. True, there are many things we don't know. And true, men of science change their mind quite often, as they learn more and more about the world around us. But it is wrong to make the jump that, because of this, we cannot trust science at all. While science DOES, often, suffer corruption due to politics or other human factors, the foundations of science don't change all that much over time.

I find it amusing that so many Christians take a few verses in the Bible and INSIST that God "explained it all", as if God OWES us an explanation. The Bible CLEARLY tells us that God did it - but I refuse to go along with the idea that those few verses are telling us how and when He did what ever He did. He owes me no explanation.

I also find it odd that God, in His infinite, uh, infinite-ness, would be so easy to grasp that even His work of creation could be broken down into such easily understood human terms as a 6,000 year old earth. I can understand 6,000 years. But I cannot grasp 13 billion years.

Issiah 55:9 - King James Bible
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

13 billion years is way higher than 6,000.

 

[john darling]

language and words mean something.

Sure. Do you know that we also breath air?

show me via any fluent Hebrew scholar that in context that word yom after the word one or two, is the word age. good luck the Hebrew doesn't allow for that.

How does this relate to the Genesis account where "morning and evening" are used to describe a day when there is no sun to denote morning and evening? It seems like you are avoiding this issue, but maybe I'm just not getting all your complicated explanations about what Hebrew words are supposed to mean. Are you suggesting the KJV (which I'm using) somehow missed the point? It's really unclear what point you are trying to make.

you want consistency and understand you cant have that in the harder section to grasp in the bible which is creation and end times.

It sounds like you are suggesting the accounts of creation and endtime cannot be consistent. No wonder your answers have been confusing and inconsistent so far.

so god lied then and told moses to write a day when it wasn't really a day?

No, I'm suggesting that your understanding could be flawed. I've made that pretty clear several times now and given examples.

we don't have even set days by the sun. we can do it as the mayans do which they don't use the sun but some other star. if I remember right or understand it right.

The words "morning and evening" are only relevant in the context of sun rise and sun set. I'm open to an alternative interpretation here, but I don't think you've provided any reasonable alternative, so we're still in a situation where the Bible uses language (words which are important, remember) which does not appear to be consistent (i.e. morning and evening with no sun). I'm not suggesting the Biblical account is wrong, but that our understanding of what is being communicated could be wrong.

 

[john darling]

And no, our understanding of the speed of light is not flawed. I already gave an example using the radio antenna lengths, which if our understanding was flawed, then they would not work. Do you need another example? How about the fact we can measure how fast it takes for a laser to reflect off mirrors on the moon. It is used to measure the exact distance, but the formula can be reversed because we already knew the distance more coarsely before that. Distance/time transpired is velocity.

I think you are right that we can accurately measure the speed of light, at least in some cases. However, perhaps a more accurate word than "flawed" is "incomplete". There really could be aspects to the speed of light which we don't yet understand and which could account for a much younger universe at the same size.

It think it's good to be open to the possibilities.

 

[Barbarian]

The problem for that, is that the speed of light is tied to so many other physical constants that a significant change in the speed of light would make the universe uninhabitable by beings like us. For example, a much greater speed of light would require much more rapid radioactive decay, which would fry all living things on Earth.

 

[Barbarian]

I'm not suggesting the Biblical account is wrong, but that our understanding of what is being communicated could be wrong.

That is what most Christians believed before the modern era. St. Augustine, for example, concluded that the "yom" were categories of creation, presented in a way to make it understandable. No one at the time thought to argue otherwise against him, and his views were widely circulated in the Christian world, from the Middle East, to Africa, to Britain.

 

[JohnD]

So God created a star rushing away from us, as though it actually passed through the solar system, but it was merely set up to make it look that way?

I believe God must have a sense of humor, but I don't think He sets up hoaxes.

How old did Adam appear on day one?

 

[JohnD]

The problem for that, is that the speed of light is tied to so many other physical constants that a significant change in the speed of light would make the universe uninhabitable by beings like us. For example, a much greater speed of light would require much more rapid radioactive decay, which would fry all living things on Earth.

If the atoms of living things were millions or billions of miles across. Sure. A slower c. would make a difference.

 

[tim-from-pa]

I think you are right that we can accurately measure the speed of light, at least in some cases. However, perhaps a more accurate word than "flawed" is "incomplete". There really could be aspects to the speed of light which we don't yet understand and which could account for a much younger universe at the same size.

It think it's good to be open to the possibilities.

You are being rather vague here. Could you give an example what you mean by an aspect of the speed of light we don't understand? Are you saying, for example that the speed changes, and where or why? Everything man has done here or in space he has found the speed is constant.

 

[john darling]

You are being rather vague here. Could you give an example what you mean by an aspect of the speed of light we don't understand? Are you saying, for example that the speed changes, and where or why? Everything man has done here or in space he has found the speed is constant.

I'm suggesting that we don't know everything there is to know. I'm suggesting that there should be more openness to admitting to this. I'm not against expressing confidence but I think it does need to be applied in moderation. For example, I'm confident that God wants us to love him. I think there is never any situation in which God would not want us to love him. This is something I can argue with the confidence to say I know that I know that I know that I know etc...

But when it comes to something like the speed of light can we really say that we know that we know that we know that we know there is never any circumstance or context in which light ever travels at any speed other than what our current understanding allows?

I'm not suggesting that our current understanding of how light works is wrong, but rather that it could very well be incomplete. I think our best method for understanding the truth in creation is to start with the understanding that God can do anything, no matter how unbelievable, wild, ridiculous or contrary to our understanding it may be. And then we work from there sorting through the various possibilities into categories not of possible or impossible, but likely or unlikely, always on the understanding that even the most unlikely is still open to consideration.

 

[Barbarian]

How old did Adam appear on day one?

Even if you rework Genesis to make it a literal history, Adam wasn't there on day one.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The problem for that, is that the speed of light is tied to so many other physical constants that a significant change in the speed of light would make the universe uninhabitable by beings like us. For example, a much greater speed of light would require much more rapid radioactive decay, which would fry all living things on Earth.

If the atoms of living things were millions or billions of miles across.

You don't get it. The rules governing radioactive breakdown depend on the speed of light. Doesn't matter how big atoms are.
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/geology/adam-eve_toast.htm

Sure. A slower c. would make a difference.

Always does. It's written into creation that way. Faster speed of light, more rapid nuclear breakdown. You can't escape it any more than you can escape God's universe.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Yes, Barbarian, I concur regarding the speed of light. Too many scientific principles and formulas explaining the physics of "c" that to suggest the speed of light changes will likewise suggest that certain laws of nature will likewise change.

Now... for the rest who can't admit that the 6000 year old creation is a myth, I'm willing to meet in the middle by suggesting the possibility that the Genesis story is really a recreation of certain things on the earth after the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. We can equally read those two verses "1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and 2) the earth became a waste and a desolation....." So we had space, everything in it, and also the earth, then some sort of cataclysm.

The end time prophecy predicts a similar occurrence. Revelation calls it a new heaven and earth. It's renovated yet again. It's going to be burned up with fire (perhaps a meteor hit? Who knows?) and this lake of fire will burn up all the wicked and the devil and his angels will be thrown in too, so that as Malachi says will be ashes under one's feet. Once the fire goes out, the earth will again be made a paradise, and God will be living amongst men. I don't believe in "dying and going to heaven" Rather, heaven is coming to earth.

 

[Free]

Yes, Barbarian, I concur regarding the speed of light. Too many scientific principles and formulas explaining the physics of "c" that to suggest the speed of light changes will likewise suggest that certain laws of nature will likewise change.

Now... for the rest who can't admit that the 6000 year old creation is a myth, I'm willing to meet in the middle by suggesting the possibility that the Genesis story is really a recreation of certain things on the earth after the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. We can equally read those two verses "1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and 2) the earth became a waste and a desolation....." So we had space, everything in it, and also the earth, then some sort of cataclysm.

The end time prophecy predicts a similar occurrence. Revelation calls it a new heaven and earth. It's renovated yet again. It's going to be burned up with fire (perhaps a meteor hit? Who knows?) and this lake of fire will burn up all the wicked and the devil and his angels will be thrown in too, so that as Malachi says will be ashes under one's feet. Once the fire goes out, the earth will again be made a paradise, and God will be living amongst men. I don't believe in "dying and going to heaven" Rather, heaven is coming to earth.

I believe that a 6000 year old creation has the weakest support in the Bible. But there really isn't strong support for any position and we need to be careful in making the Bible say more than it does. Having said that, an old Earth seems to best fit what the Bible says, with a time gap between the actual creation of the Earth and then the other things that follow, beginning with day 1.

And there certainly is no reason to then posit that the Genesis account is some sort of recreation. To do so opens the door to an endless cycle of creation/recreation.

 

[tim-from-pa]

I believe that a 6000 year old creation has the weakest support in the Bible. But there really isn't strong support for any position and we need to be careful in making the Bible say more than it does. Having said that, an old Earth seems to best fit what the Bible says, with a time gap between the actual creation of the Earth and then the other things that follow, beginning with day 1.

And there certainly is no reason to then posit that the Genesis account is some sort of recreation. To do so opens the door to an endless cycle of creation/recreation.

Well, FREE, the way I came to believe that about creation (i.e. recreation) is by looking to the future prophecied in the bible mirrors what happened in the past, and the past mirrors the future. The bible is a coded book rich with ideas and symbolism regarding the events throughout the ages. There's a repetitious pattern foreshadowing the next age. It is often said (insightfully BTW) that Revelation is Genesis in reverse.

But if we miss the biblical thought and patterns in prophecy, then subjects like this become 'stand alone' without an apparent relation to the rest of God's plan. This is to say, He just decided to create things this way, sort of forgotten about it and then moved on. No. Instead this 'creation' has everything to do with the end as well.

To be more specific, the reason for the "waste and desolation" and subsequent "recreation" is because Lucifer was originally given authority over this earth, messed up, so then God decided to create a being in his image to take over. This was meant to begin with, but until then Lucifer had control. Likewise, man in his fallen state had dominion, but as with Lucifer it has to be destroyed again and a new heaven and earth. So unless that prophetic pattern is seen, then a person will say (as you did) that "there certainly is no reason to then posit that the Genesis account is some sort of recreation. To do so opens the door to an endless cycle of creation/recreation." No, not endless, but perhaps a few times until things are right. The bible tells us how many times, and why.