[__ Science __ ] Is John Lennox Right About the Age of the Earth?

[RandyK]

But I think what we all should be concerned with is how God understands those who call themselves His children not understanding or believing the basic truth of His testimony.

The trouble is, your "understanding" is not equal to "God's understanding." I accept God's testimony in the Scriptures. I do not necessarily accept "your understanding" of that testimony.

I really am not much interested in how you're going to judge people for unbelief. I want to concern myself with how God's going to judge people for unbelief.

Why don't you leave "judgment" to God?

Is that person an unbeliever? I mean, I see that as a valid question. God wrote a fairly clear and concise explanation to us and we don't believe it as it is simply written.

If you want to be "simple" with things that you wish to be simple, but are really more complex than that, then indeed it is *you* being simple, and not the testimony of Scriptures. It is *not* cut and dried that God meant a 24 hour day when he gave Mosess His "days of Creation." God was not on the earth experiencing solar days when He created the universe! You are guilty of humanizing God and misrepresenting what He was actually trying to say.

And those who believe the 6 days of creation transcended physical lines that mark out days may be showing disbelief in God's work in creation. Especially if that understanding also leads them to believe that man came about through some natural process of evolution rather than the direct creating by the hand of God and the breath of God as His testimony to us seems to pretty clearly explain.

An Old Earth theory does *not* require belief in Evolution!

I mean, you can throw all that other stuff out there, but if one doesn't believe that on the sixth day, of however you want to define the days, that God didn't actually create from the dust of the earth the first man and then that man's wife, I'd say that's where unbelief leads to error.

But I'm just explaining a position and again, each one is free to accept or not, my understanding, but you can't deny that everything I've posted is in line with what God's testimony tells us is the truth of this matter.

Yes I am indeed denying that what you're saying about the Creation account is in line with God's testimony. It is obviously more complex than how you wish to read "days."

But when you stop and take each understanding and set it out and match it to each one of the descriptors that God gave us about the event, there really doesn't seem to be any understanding apart from a worldwide flood that would fit all of what God has told us about it.

False, I recommend a great book "The Christian View of Science and Scripture" by Bernard Ramm. He was a genuine Christian with belief in God's power, and yet found that Science is not at odds with the Scriptures.

If we over-simplify things with respect to a non-scientific record then we don't look any farther than surface values of the words used. The Bible can be completely accurate without going into all of the science involved in the process.

Many say that it was a local flood. Ok, so how does a local flood remain in an area for months on end?

A universal Flood would destroy all life, animal, insect, plant--at least a massive number of species, all of which could not exist in the ark for a year. God would have to creat the world all over again after the Flood! But the Bible says that God rested on the 7th Day--so, He is done with Creation for now.

It makes much more sense that God made use of a very large region of the earth to show His wish to preserve Man and our creatures. Outside of this Local Flood, the world likely survived, which was beyond the point of the story. Within the area of the Flood, God caused animals of that region to be preserved in the ark, showing His love for Man despite His abject wickedness.

I mean unless some part of the earth is formed into some giant bowl, flood waters that gathered over 40 days is going to drain out through valleys within a matter of days.

The area near the Black Sea apparently was such a giant bowl. If one was in a boat on the Black Sea, and he looked in all directions, he could honestly say that the "whole earth" is covered by water. But the Flood obviously extended beyond the Black Sea to the "bowl" in which Noah's Civilization existed. And even high hills, sometimes called "mountains," would be completely covered in that bowl. It was, after all, an enormous Flood, whether you think it was universal or local.

We have geologic evidence of large floods, as I read it. You seem to want to use a lot of your own scientific logic in arguing for your positions. But I suggest you read some materials by genuine scientists who also are believers, and not just the Young Earth people.

You and I are not scientists, I assume. So we should benefit from the gifts God has put into the Church to learn the best we can, rather than try to be all those gifts ourselves. We need to work together, rather than judge those who have a different perspective than our own.

 

[miamited]

Hey RandyK

But you don't seem what a "day" means for God prior to the creation of planets and stars?

Ok, I'll bite. What does a day mean for God prior to the creation of planets and stars? Since you seem to think that I don't know, then that must mean that you do or you couldn't make that claim with any bearing of truth to support it. What have you got?

That is completely absurd.

No, it is literally the truth. The measure of the length of a day on any of the planets in our solar system has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of the sun. You can easily check that fact if you care to. Or not.

You're making up your own rules. You're not a translator--that's obvious. Words can have either literal or symbolic uses. It is context that is key.

Ok, I'm willing to look at your evidence that supports my being wrong. But just declaring with no evidence that I don't know what I'm talking about is the absurd idea. And no, I readily admit that I'm not a translator, but I can read. I do have a basic understanding of the majority of the English language. Yes, it's true that words can express literal and symbolic ideas. I mean again, that's literally what words do. But it's the determination of whether or not a group of words ARE expressing either a literal or symbolic point that needs to be determined. Just because they can doesn't mean that they are. That seems like a fairly simple concept to me. And again, I ask you, what symbolic interpretation do you understand from this particular and specific bit of the Scriptures that we are given in the Genesis account. I mean, you're going on and on about how I'm not taking these words as symbolic. Look, I'm an open minded guy willing to look at evidence. But just writing out a bunch of words that don't really present evidence to support some understanding or position isn't really evidence of anything to me. Maybe it is to you.

If others, who are good Christians, understand the message differently, and still believe in miracles, you aren't right to write them off as "heathen."

I'm not writing anyone off as heathen. That's your word that you've thrown in there to make your argument sound good to you. I'm merely, again, quoting God's testimony concerning us.


For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 2 Timothy 4:3

God says to us, waaaaay back in the days of Paul's teaching to the new believers that a time is coming when men will not put up with sound doctrine. That people in general will not use or understand the sound doctrine of the Scriptures. But instead they will surround themselves with a "great number of teachers" to tell them what their itching ears want to hear. That's all I did was quote that Scripture to you. So if you find that rude, you should probably bring it up before God in your prayers. He's the one that has caused it to be written about us.

 

[miamited]

Hello again RandyK

The trouble is, your "understanding" is not equal to "God's understanding." I accept God's testimony in the Scriptures. I do not necessarily accept "your understanding" of that testimony.

Again, just a bunch of words cobbled together that offer to evidentiary proof of the claim being made. From what I'm reading of your posts, no, you are not accepting God's testimony in the Scriptures. Do you accept that God created all that exists in this realm in 6 days? That's his testimony. Now whether you understand each day to be some billions of years or just a regular day as we have now experienced for some 6,000 years, do you accept that God made all that exists in 6 days?

Why don't you leave "judgment" to God?

I do. I'm just explaining points regarding the Scriptures. Just as most of the new covenant writers did. Paul went out and preached to at least several thousand people in his lifetime as a believer. When he told one group that they should cast out a man among them who was sleeping with his father's wife... was he making a judgment? And I believe that God fully expects His children to make judgments concerning right and wrong among the body of believers. I fact, Paul says so. That we are not to judge those outside of our body of the church, but those within it. So, again, there is Scriptural evidence, that you and I, as professed believers can make a judgment concerning what either one of us believes.

If you want to be "simple" with things that you wish to be simple, but are really more complex than that, then indeed it is *you* being simple, and not the testimony of Scriptures. It is *not* cut and dried that God meant a 24 hour day when he gave Mosess His "days of Creation." God was not on the earth experiencing solar days when He created the universe! You are guilty of humanizing God and misrepresenting what He was actually trying to say.

Again, I find that you are forgetting that God is writing this testimony to us, that Jesus referred to as the Scriptures, to communicate to us. Why would He not write as we understand things if He wanted us to understand what He was saying to us?

An Old Earth theory does *not* require belief in Evolution!

Again I will bite. Give it to me. How and when did the first man come to live upon the earth?

Yes I am indeed denying that what you're saying about the Creation account is in line with God's testimony. It is obviously more complex than how you wish to read "days."

More of "this is what I believe" without offering any evidence to support that belief. Me, I've given you the very quotations of God's words that we find in the Scriptures to support the understanding that I am proposing concerning this particular and specific issue. Yes, I know that you posted how Zechariah wrote the word day and it may not mean a literal solar day, but it also isn't written with the context that God gives us in the creation account. It is neither numbered nor explained as consisting of a morning and an evening. As I've agreed previously, the word 'day', even in the English language needs contextual evidence for one to understand what the one using the word means as to a length of time. God has done that. You know why? Because God is wiser than you or I could ever hope to imagine to be and He obviously, since He caused Paul to write it to us, knew that a time was coming when we would not put up with the sound doctrine that He has explained to us in His word and has known all along that a time was going to come when we would surround ourselves with very great number of wise and learned men to try and tell us things differently. That time is here. That time has been here for at least the last 2-3 hundred years. God has warned us that a time is coming when we won't put up with the sound doctrine of His testimony and that's exactly what you're seeing occur. That Scripture, as Jesus spoke to those in the synagogue when he began his ministry, is being fulfilled before your very eyes.

A universal Flood would destroy all life, animal, insect, plant--at least a massive number of species, all of which could not exist in the ark for a year.

Well, I disagree that it would destroy plant life. Seed can be buried for quite a while and still produce when the atmospheric conditions are right again. Fish and other water living creatures can certainly life in some greater abundance of water. But yes, God's testimony as to the other creatures you mention is that they were also destroyed. Everything that moved about the earth was destroyed. That does not include plants, as they don't move, but would include bugs and other animals. Although there are also a lot of bugs that can withstand living in and on water for a time. I remember being on the lake near my home and you have these little skeeters that just walk on water. And for the record, it's possible that a lot of bugs clung to the hull of the ark. A mosquito could easily have pestered those folks in the ark for long enough to get back to dry ground state some months later. But no matter, I go with God's testimony that He flooded the whole earth and all creatures that moved about the dry ground were destroyed. You don't and here again, you're unwilling to accept the plain truth of God's testimony. So, it isn't just the creation account for you, is it? I'm sorry, but I do chuckle at your account of the parting of the sea.

Anyway, enough of all this back and forth. If you've got evidence to support your understanding of the creation account and the flood and the parting of the sea, I'm happy to take a look.

 

[RandyK]

Do you accept that God created all that exists in this realm in 6 days? That's his testimony.

As I said, the question is whether you're using the words "6 days" properly, and I don't believe you are. So no, in my view your sense of *6 literal days* is not "God's testimony." You are believing something that is not being said.

Paul went out and preached to at least several thousand people in his lifetime as a believer. When he told one group that they should cast out a man among them who was sleeping with his father's wife... was he making a judgment?

There are different kinds of "judgment." There is God's judgment of sinners, which has to do with relegating them to eternal Judgment. There is also a discerning kind of judgment, where we declare that when someone is sinning that they are indeed sinning. When someone is murdered we judge it as a sin.

Jesus warned about judging "by appearances," because what may look like a sin may not actually be a sin. The external appearance of things doesn't always tell the whole story. There is also a danger of pre-judging someone, recognizing that perhaps they have sinned, but may still have room for repentance. If we relegate them to Hell in our minds, we may be "pre-judging" them.

So you have to talk about "judgment" as the word is used in context, rather than mixxing up one kind of judgment with another kind of judgment. When you judge Christians of being "opposed to God's word," when it is really a matter of how we see those words being used in context, you are "pre-judging" them, or may even be guilty of slandering them.

In fact, the very people who you claim reject God's "6 literal days" you also suggest are impiously rejecting creation, the supernatural, miracles, etc. even that is clearly false. That is the kind of "judgment" I suggest you refrain from.

Again, I find that you are forgetting that God is writing this testimony to us, that Jesus referred to as the Scriptures, to communicate to us. Why would He not write as we understand things if He wanted us to understand what He was saying to us?

I'm not "forgetting" and I'm not having trouble "understanding." But when I say we don't know everything I'm being honest. To oversimplify things makes things easier for your mind, but it doesn't make it right.

Again I will bite. Give it to me. How and when did the first man come to live upon the earth?

I have no idea. If the geneologies of the Bible do not skip, which sometimes they did, Man may only be about 4000 BC. But genealogies were created sometimes to preserve the most important figures, and not all of the less relevant figures. They were memory devices, as well, and prone to "rounding off." This was not "error," but methodology. I don't see the history of man, even by Science, as going back farther than 10,000 BC.

On the other hand, pre-human life, including animals, insects, and plant life existed, according to Science, for millions of years. And this perfectly accords with the biblical portrait, which saw plants, fish, birds, etc. preceding human life.

Just because we know God didn't have to take so long for things to be made doesn't mean He didn't have reasons for doing so. I personally believe God was painting out a drama that existed very early in creation, with the angelic rebellion in mind. That's why, I think, animals were carnivorous.

I think Eden was very real and yet may have existed in a protected environment within this "hostile" world. That "hostile world" was still viewed as created "good" by God because it was an object lesson for Man, so that he would name the animals and choose for the good, for the Tree of Life.

More of "this is what I believe" without offering any evidence to support that belief.

That's certainly not true, and I don't know why you would say this. Our whole discussion is predicated on the findings of Science. And rather than refer to the "theories" of Evolution I rely upon things like geological science, where tests are made that are pretty objective by any standard. And far from bein non-evidence, it is the best kind of evidence we have outside of claiming to have a direct revelation from God.

But as I said, we can mis-read what God has said in the Scriptures. And that is the problem I have with your claim to be "God's obvious statement about 6 days." It is obvious the context involves Creation, transcending human understanding of "days." So your understanding, as well as your claim, is faulty.

Me, I've given you the very quotations of God's words that we find in the Scriptures to support the understanding that I am proposing concerning this particular and specific issue. Yes, I know that you posted how Zechariah wrote the word day and it may not mean a literal solar day, but it also isn't written with the context that God gives us in the creation account.

That wasn't the point. The point was that a "day," Scripturally, is limited to a humanized version of the word "day."

It is neither numbered...

Being "numbered" is irrelevant except to your own measure of what is needed for a literal understanding. Since I reject the importance of "numbers" or the importance of "evenings and mornings" in this matter, your "proofs" are without biblical warrant.

nor explained as consisting of a morning and an evening. As I've agreed previously, the word 'day', even in the English language needs contextual evidence for one to understand what the one using the word means as to a length of time.

Yes, and the *context* for this use of "days" is Creation, which transcends our solar day. You should therefore take this *context* seriously and view these 6 days as features used by God to illustrate how these diverse acts of creation should be viewed.

God has warned us that a time is coming when we won't put up with the sound doctrine of His testimony and that's exactly what you're seeing occur.

This is the kind of unbiblical "judgment" I was talking about. And you shouldn't be doing it because it isn't true.

Well, I disagree that it would destroy plant life. Seed can be buried for quite a while and still produce when the atmospheric conditions are right again.

This isn't Science! Are you a gardener at all? Do you know how difficult it is, at times, to make some plants survive? And you would have us to believe that *all* plant life could survive, via "seeds," a year-long submersion?

Fish and other water living creatures can certainly life in some greater abundance of water.

Poor Science! Some fish are freshwater fish and would not survive in salt water. Many kinds of marine life, whether fish or crustaceans, would not survive an enormous weight of water.

Where would you have insects to survive? Earthworms, beetles?

But yes, God's testimony as to the other creatures you mention is that they were also destroyed. Everything that moved about the earth was destroyed.

So you have every species of bird and animal, including amphibians and reptiles, living on the ark? And insects, as well? Quite frankly, the habitats of animals are so diverse that the ark could not have accomodated them all. This has to be a representative sample from Noah's region!

That does not include plants, as they don't move, but would include bugs and other animals. Although there are also a lot of bugs that can withstand living in and on water for a time.

You are *not* talking about *some kinds of bugs.* Rather, you're talking about *all species of bugs!* Why not just believe the Bible is honestly describing a local environment? It is perfectly true if taken in this way!

I remember being on the lake near my home and you have these little skeeters that just walk on water. And for the record, it's possible that a lot of bugs clung to the hull of the ark.

I'm a lover of ponds. I love water-striders, giant diving beetles, whirlygigs and the like. But my backyard garden pond has none of these, whereas others that I had were full of them. The reason I don't have any insects in my garden pond is because I have more than a hundred goldfish, who eat them all when young.

For some years I had aquariums, and I know how fragile growing water plants can be in a controlled environment. A slight imbalance of PH can make the difference between survival and exctionction.

But we're talking here of a global catastrophe, destroying the necessary habitats and foods that all living creatures require. The Bible can be true and still agree with Science!

Anyway, enough of all this back and forth. If you've got evidence to support your understanding of the creation account and the flood and the parting of the sea, I'm happy to take a look.

I recommended "The Christian View of Science and Scripture" by Bernard Ramm. I am, like you, not a scientist, but do indulge in scientific questions. And we should welcome those because God made us the way we are. If we have questions we should ask with an open mind--God can give us real answers.

 

[RandyK]

Hey RandyK

Ok, I'll bite. What does a day mean for God prior to the creation of planets and stars? Since you seem to think that I don't know, then that must mean that you do or you couldn't make that claim with any bearing of truth to support it. What have you got?

Very simple. God is using an analogous use of the term "6 days" to express order and a means to parse out the distinctions. We can obviously identify with 6 days in our experience, even while knowing God wouldn't have the same human experience.

 

[miamited]

Hey RandyK

So no, in my view your sense of *6 literal days* is not "God's testimony.

I'm guessing the irony in that claim completely escapes you.

So you have to talk about "judgment" as the word is used in context, rather than mixxing up one kind of judgment with another kind of judgment.

Nor the irony in that one.

In fact, the very people who you claim reject God's "6 literal days" you also suggest are impiously rejecting creation, the supernatural, miracles, etc. even that is clearly false. That is the kind of "judgment" I suggest you refrain from.

Any chance you'd copy and paste me my comments that I've made on this thread that leads you to that conclusion? What I said was that any miracle that God does can not be explained by natural science. Not that anyone rejects all of the other miracles in the Scriptures. So no, that is not the "judgment" that you are suggesting that I refrain from because it wasn't a claim of judgment when it was made, except to say that science cannot explain any miracle of God. Yes, that's a judgment that I believe is true. Have you got a miracle that God claims to have done in the Scriptures that science has confirmed?

Look, as I've agreed, you're welcome to believe as you will and all the rest of your claims that I'm not a gardener or I'm not scientist or I'm not a translator are about the only true statements that you've made about be. But that doesn't make me any less able to understand the words that God has caused to be written to me to explain all the work that He has done that we humans have life upon the earth. I don't have to be a gardener or scientist or translator to understand His words.

 

[Free]

It does not matter what his opinion was/is, nor what he or anyone else said/says.
Only what God Says .

But that is fallaciously begging the question, since it's beginning with the assumption that one knows what God has actually said.

 

[miamited]

And we should welcome those because God made us the way we are.

So, it's your claim that God made us all sinners. Ok, I'm down with that, although I think He just gave us His law by which He knows that we can all live in peace with one another if we follow it. Our not following it, I don't believe, is on God. But you're welcome to see it that way if you like when you say that God made us all the way we are.

Do you recall what the fruit that Eve took and ate was to do in us? Do you find that when the Scriptures say that knowledge will increase as we get towards the end, which the Scriptures are pretty clear is going to be a time of rampant an unrepentant sin according to what Paul wrote to us in the opening verses of his letter to the Romans, that that increased knowledge is seen as some blessing from God?

While I understand that man has, for quite awhile now, said that all the medical discoveries and scientific discoveries are what God gave us, I'm not so sure that's how God sees it.

“When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."

So honest question for you, does it seem to you that God thought that our gaining wisdom was a blessing or a curse?

 

[RandyK]

Any chance you'd copy and paste me my comments that I've made on this thread that leads you to that conclusion?

No, because in my previous posts I already clearly pointed them out. Obviously, you don't accept the evidence. So, there's no use proving something to someone who refuses to be rational.

But in case you just read too fast and missed it, I could be willing to go back and point out precisely where I did state these things clearly, that you conflate unbelief in "6 literal days" with skepticism regarding Creation, with belief in Evolution, with stubborn unbelief in the miraculous, in the supernatural, and wish to favor Science over what you think is "God's word."

What I said was that any miracle that God does can not be explained by natural science.

No, that's a diversion. Everybody knows a "miracle," by definition, transcends scientific inquiry, or "test tube evidence."

One may view Science as showing "before and after" pictures of someone who had a broken leg and now suddenly has an unbroken leg. That is Science in some respects. But showing that God, who is transcendent, did the healing obviously is out of the picture, Science-wise.

Not that anyone rejects all of the other miracles in the Scriptures. So no, that is not the "judgment" that you are suggesting that I refrain from because it wasn't a claim of judgment when it was made, except to say that science cannot explain any miracle of God. Yes, that's a judgment that I believe is true. Have you got a miracle that God cl

Look, as I've agreed, you're welcome to believe as you will and all the rest of your claims that I'm not a gardener or I'm not scientist or I'm not a translator are about the only true statements that you've made about be. But that doesn't make me any less able to understand the words that God has caused to be written to me to explain all the work that He has done that we humans have life upon the earth. I don't have to be a gardener or scientist or translator to understand His words.

Not everybody handles the word of God properly. Just reading it isn't the problem. Just believing it isn't always the problem, though with some it is. The problem, in our case, is in understanding what God meant by showing Moses He made the universe in "6 days."

Since 6 days didn't exist when God did this, we must assume that He was using an ideal measure that we can relate to in order to understand the significance of progression in the Creation account, as well as the distinctions that come with separate and chronological days. The creation of these elements are separated for a reason, and the use of days, analogically, served the purpose of showing this.

 

[miamited]

Hey RandyK

But in case you just read too fast and missed it, I could be willing to go back and point out precisely where I did state these things clearly, that you conflate unbelief in "6 literal days" with skepticism regarding Creation, with belief in Evolution, with stubborn unbelief in the miraculous, in the supernatural, and wish to favor Science over what you think is "God's word."

Ok, I'd appreciate that. I'll look forward to your posting on the matter.

No, that's a diversion. Everybody knows a "miracle," by definition, transcends scientific inquiry, or "test tube evidence."

But it is what I said. You can call it a diversion if you like, but it is what I said concerning the matter.

Since 6 days didn't exist when God did this,

And why didn't six days exist when God did this? God's testimony is that He first created the earth. If, at the moment that He created the earth it was spinning on its axis as it seems to have been doing for at least the last 6,000 years, then why wouldn't six days pass as God was creating everything after He first created the earth? I think you're not willing to accept the simple definition of a day as the time it takes the earth to complete a full rotation upon its axis. Why not? We've been doing it for at least the last 6,000 years?

As I also encouraged before, look it up. Google how long a day is on Mars and how that length is determined. Google how long a day is on Venus and how that length is determined. It's a really simple process to find out how long days are on planets and how they are determined.

 

[RandyK]

God could've revealed to Moses precisely what order all plants and creatures were created in, and how many days and hours He waited between creating various things. But He didn't, and it's easy to understand why.

A simpler division into analogous "days" numbering "six" served the better purpose of giving all a brief outline of Creation's order and purpose. It is not important to know that a particular "day" of Creation lasted a million years or thousands of years. It was only important to know, for the many non-scientists in the world, that God created an order with a division into segments which in our experience is analogous to "days."

But God has allowed, in modern times, for there to be more understanding of how God created things, according to the geologic record. It does follow the biblical blueprint, although some scientists add their hypotheses as if they are fact. But over time, testing is improved, and despite a lack of objectivity in some, the truth tends to prevail in Science.

Like Doubting Thomas Jesus is even willing to give physical evidence for the truth of Scriptures. But it does no good to ignore objective evidence when it is proven to be true.

The world is likely 4.5 billion years old, as I see it. It doesn't change the order of Creation, as God made it. It just defines a "day" as an "era," encapsulating a particular element of Creation, and arranging it in an order that we needed to understand.

There is a heirarchy in Creation, with Man at the top, and rest/appreciation being the goal. "6 days" take us to that conclusion in the way that most people can comprehend it who have no interest in the minute specifics of scientific inquiry.

 

[miamited]

Hi RandyK

I wonder if, as you're writing out your responses to my posts, you ever stop and consider whether what you're writing addresses the claim or statements that I'm making. You responded to me:

God could've revealed to Moses precisely what order all plants and creatures were created in, and how many days and hours He waited between creating various things. But He didn't, and it's easy to understand why.

So, your defense to my claim that God did tell us when and how long the creation event that God wrote to us took place, is that God could've revealed to Moses precisely what order all plants and creatures were created and how many days and hours He waited between creating various things.

That's your defense. That God's not telling us down to the minutia of the order of His creating and the very minutes and hours that it took for His creative work that we then can't accept that He did tell us the overall order and the days that it took. Ok. Look I get it and I will repeat that your believing what you believe is fine with me, but God has answered the question as to how long the overall creating event took God to accomplish. And He did tell us, through the genealogies that follow, how long it was until the sixth day creation of the first man and another human being born later named Noah was, and how long it was after that until Abraham lived, and how long after that it took for the Hebrews to be enslaved in Egypt, and how long it was until He rescued them from Egypt, and then how long they wandered in the wilderness, and then how long the various judges and kings reigned. He did give us a testimony that addresses the overall timeframe of the creation event and how long the earth has existed from that event.

You don't think that's what God was doing and that's going to have to be what you believe.

You know, when Matthew laid out for us the genealogy of Jesus from Adam, he didn't include a single age of any of the fathers and sons. When God gave us the genealogies from Adam to Noah and then to Abraham, He didn't have to include those ages either... but He did. God could have just told us that Adam had a son named Seth and then Seth had a son named Enos and Enos had a son named Cainan... etc, etc. But He chose to give us the years of age from father to the son and then from that son's birth to the next son's birth. Have you ever considered in prayer why God wrote out those genealogies in that manner?

 

[RandyK]

Hi RandyK

I wonder if, as you're writing out your responses to my posts, you ever stop and consider whether what you're writing addresses the claim or statements that I'm making.

If you'll notice, my last post was *not* addressing you! So your protest is irrelevant. I did want to add some things for the benefit of *anybody* who follows our discussion, in case it becomes food for thought.

I've directly addressed nearly every post and point you made. Anybody who questions this simply has to go back and read our discussion.

You responded to me:
So, your defense to my claim that God did tell us when and how long the creation event that God wrote to us took place, is that God could've revealed to Moses precisely what order all plants and creatures were created and how many days and hours He waited between creating various things.

I don't believe I was making a "defense," or even answering your "claim?" I was generally addressing the question as to why God would reduce the language of the Creation, which took billions of years, down to just "6 days."

The answer is obvious to me. We're not all scientists, and not all of us are concerned with this, having other concerns that are more important for our own gifts. So God reduced the eras to "6 days" because that is all that was necessary to divide up the Creation into its component parts with respect to Man's place in Creation.

Man required a habitat 1st, and then he came to be manager over the earth. All of the creatures also required a habitat 1st. And the initial habitat was God's Light, Revelation, and Truth. The separation of Heaven and Earth was critical in placing us below God and below angels. Water was critical, initially, because it is the agent of purity, as well as of life itself.

All of these things were arranged into "days," even as it is immediately clear that these "days" are superficial constructs designed to give us a sense similar to our days on a calendar. But being that they are "days of God's creation" we recognize, logically, that for God they cannot be solar days. Nevertheless, for the purpose of our understanding they are, for God, literal "days," as He would define them.

That's your defense. That God's not telling us down to the minutia of the order of His creating and the very minutes and hours that it took for His creative work that we then can't accept that He did tell us the overall order and the days that it took. Ok. Look I get it and I will repeat that your believing what you believe is fine with me, but God has answered the question as to how long the overall creating event took God to accomplish. And He did tell us, through the genealogies that follow, how long it was until the sixth day creation of the first man and another human being born later named Noah was, and how long it was after that until Abraham lived, and how long after that it took for the Hebrews to be enslaved in Egypt, and how long it was until He rescued them from Egypt, and then how long they wandered in the wilderness, and then how long the various judges and kings reigned. He did give us a testimony that addresses the overall timeframe of the creation event and how long the earth has existed from that event.

Genealogies were not always given in order to track how much time there's been between Adam and now--we're never told that in the Bible. We are, nevertheless, given some notion of how much time was spent, logically. And we can use archaeological digs to confirm and challenge what the Bible has said taking place in these various eras. That's good in my estimation. It helps doubters.

You don't think that's what God was doing and that's going to have to be what you believe.

You know, when Matthew laid out for us the genealogy of Jesus from Adam, he didn't include a single age of any of the fathers and sons. When God gave us the genealogies from Adam to Noah and then to Abraham, He didn't have to include those ages either... but He did. God could have just told us that Adam had a son named Seth and then Seth had a son named Enos and Enos had a son named Cainan... etc, etc. But He chose to give us the years of age from father to the son and then from that son's birth to the next son's birth. Have you ever considered in prayer why God wrote out those genealogies in that manner?

Generally, I accept the genealogies as is. But that wasn't our central question. Our question was: what were the "6 days of Creation" in terms of length? Are they 24 hour days, or really "superficial constructs" designed to show segments of time for God just as they would be segments of time for Man, so that we can understand? I think the latter.

Again, I was not in the last post specifically addressing you. But thank you for responding.

 

[Indentured Servant]

John Lennox says, “You can believe the earth is young, but you don’t have to.” Is he right?

Continue reading...

I, (personally), would never tell someone who believes in a 'young earth,' that they are wrong... Even though I don't believe the earth is as young as 6000 years.

I do believe Adam was created 6000 +/- years ago, and that the seven days of creation are literal.

I accept that many believe that the planet was created 6000 +/- years ago, but this is due to a fundamental understanding of Genesis 1:1-2.

 

[miamited]

I accept that many believe that the planet was created 6000 +/- years ago, but this is due to a fundamental understanding of Genesis 1:1-2.

Hey Indentured Servant

Thanks for your vote of confidence, but for the record, the 6,000 years age comes from the genealogies found in Chap 5 and others. Genesis 1:1-24 merely allow that all of the work of God's creating was done in six days. Each one consisting of a morning and an evening. Then further confirmed in the law given to Moses. Neither of those references really give any hint as to when the events happened.

 

[miamited]

Hi RandyK

Generally, I accept the genealogies as is. But that wasn't our central question. Our question was: what were the "6 days of Creation" in terms of length?

While I allow that may have been the question that you brought forth to answer, the question of this thread is "is John Lennox right about the age of the earth?" Nothing in there about the six says of creation whatsoever. Although the age of the earth would include the six days of God's creative work in creating this realm in which we now live. We live in a created realm of God's handiwork. But I'm glad to see that you do agree that Adam lived about 6000 years ago as you accept the genealogies as written.

 

[miamited]

Genealogies were not always given in order to track how much time there's been between Adam and now--we're never told that in the Bible.

So, it's your belief that God's word gave us all that information of the number of years from father to son, but never expected anyone to be able to merely add them up and come to a number of total years that passed throughout those genealogies. I'm curious, since you do allow that genealogies were not always given for such purpose, why do you think these two accounts of genealogies included that information? God just needed to do a 1,000 word report and had to fluff it up a bit? It doesn't seem a bit odd to you that Matthew accounted those exact same genealogies without any reference to an accounting of years, but God did.

Just curious. Have you ever sat down and put a pencil to the numbers and figured out for yourself the number of years that God accounts to us from generation to generation all the way through to the Exodus from Egypt? I'd also ask if you've ever pondered in your mind 'why' God would have created Adam only 6,000 years ago, and yet seems to have created this realm of our existence some trillion/billion years ago. I've always allowed that God's purpose in creating this entire realm of existence was to get to the sixth day where He always knew that He was building a place for mankind to live. What are your thoughts on why God, I mean you do agree that He created all that is right, would have had some huge separation from day 5 to day 6 when He created Adam from the dust of the ground and blew the breath of life into his nostrils. I mean, God tells us that He created a garden on the earth for mankind, so it seems that His entire purpose of creating this realm was somehow all about mankind having a wonderful place to live and be with Him.

For me, the entirety of the Scriptures seems to be about God creating man, then working through man, to ultimately bring salvation to a group of mankind that would believe and trust in Him and then finally carrying that group of people into an eternal existence of a life of peace and security with Him and His Son in a new city created on a new earth. So honestly, why He would just have all the rocks and hills and animals and plants and stars twirl around for trillions or billions of years without man in the picture seems to be an honest question that a believer should seek for an answer. And then, of course, all of that apparently in pretty direct contradiction to His actual account of how and when and how long it took to do it.

 

[RandyK]

So, it's your belief that God's word gave us all that information of the number of years from father to son, but never expected anyone to be able to merely add them up and come to a number of total years that passed throughout those genealogies. I'm curious, since you do allow that genealogies were not always given for such purpose, why do you think these two accounts of genealogies included that information? God just needed to do a 1,000 word report and had to fluff it up a bit? It doesn't seem a bit odd to you that Matthew accounted those exact same genealogies without any reference to an accounting of years, but God did.

Just curious. Have you ever sat down and put a pencil to the numbers and figured out for yourself the number of years that God accounts to us from generation to generation all the way through to the Exodus from Egypt? I'd also ask if you've ever pondered in your mind 'why' God would have created Adam only 6,000 years ago, and yet seems to have created this realm of our existence some trillion/billion years ago. I've always allowed that God's purpose in creating this entire realm of existence was to get to the sixth day where He always knew that He was building a place for mankind to live. What are your thoughts on why God, I mean you do agree that He created all that is right, would have had some huge separation from day 5 to day 6 when He created Adam from the dust of the ground and blew the breath of life into his nostrils. I mean, God tells us that He created a garden on the earth for mankind, so it seems that His entire purpose of creating this realm was somehow all about mankind having a wonderful place to live and be with Him.

For me, the entirety of the Scriptures seems to be about God creating man, then working through man, to ultimately bring salvation to a group of mankind that would believe and trust in Him and then finally carrying that group of people into an eternal existence of a life of peace and security with Him and His Son in a new city created on a new earth. So honestly, why He would just have all the rocks and hills and animals and plants and stars twirl around for trillions or billions of years without man in the picture seems to be an honest question that a believer should seek for an answer. And then, of course, all of that apparently in pretty direct contradiction to His actual account of how and when and how long it took to do it.

Legitimate questions--don't know if they're "snarky" or not, but you've asked real questions. 1st, yes, one of the 1st things I did as a recovered Christian in my adolescence was draw up for myself a biblical genealogy, and took things as is.

A good number of years later I listened to Walter Martin talk about possible gaps in some of these genealogies, and having listened to him I knew that he was a good Christian, but had lots of resources not immediately available to me. So I, without knowing a lot of the details, accepted his word for it, that we should be cautious about seeing the genealogies as complete, even if they appear to be so.

My thought about the genealogies is that they were not given with the purpose that someone in the modern world could look back and count the age of human history. Rather, they were given to show ancestry, much as we do today, to show some of our important family backgrounds. And in Israel, various jobs were determined by a forefather, such as the Levites and the Davidic kings.

Important members of the family would've been noted, while those less important may simply be left out. Giving the time periods specifying a successor certainly creates a more exact lineage. But again, I'll leave such matters to the experts.

But the Why question as to a long preparatory period for the habitat of Man, I've already given somewhere in this thread, I think, my view. I believe Satan's rebellion preceded the creation of Man. He did not, I think, begin his rebellion by tempting Man in the garden, but was already a "snake in the grass."

So I think the carnivorous animal world was created by God as a kind of allegory showing the affects of Satanic rebellion, but was still viewed as "good" because it was instructive to Man who was given to "name them." That way, Man could recognize what appeared as "evil" and what appeared as "good" and even what appeared as neutral to animals and a responsibility for Man.

So a long preparatory time might be shown as an equivalency to the effects of Satanic rebellion--time is virtually meaningless to God, who is eternal. So there is no rush to accomplish Creation--only the wish to design things so as to capture truth.

If long-term development best shows the nature of God's way of undoing Satan's rebellion, that's what He would do, with ultimate patience. Satan's way is *now* with aggressive attack, while God's way is *in the proper time, in an appropriate exemplary timing." God's patience far exceeds any sense of human patience!

We may not know why precisely God took millions of years in creating a series of animal species, but it may better enable us to date the fossils to see how the process of creation progressed. The record does *not* show Evolution--it shows spontaneous, progressive creation of diverse species.

The only relationship between all animals is that they were created with the same elements that the earth is made of. Having similar DNA does not prove interactivity and relationship--only similar engineering by a common Engineer.

The fact we can "see" these things through rock dating may give Man a means of seeing in the geologic record evidence of the Creation story itself. Perhaps the long ages help us make the distinction as various species appear out of nowhere by the hand of God in a specific order? But this is just pure speculation.

You may seem amused as if God was "wasting His time" taking so long. But I'm just looking at the evidence of the way God may have done it. I do take Science seriously even though I recognize non-Christian scientists are prone not just to error but also to prejudice against religious truth.

 

[miamited]

Hey RandyK
Thanks for your response.