[_ Old Earth _] The Reliability of the Whole Bible Depends on Genesis as History

[Sparkey]

Who's the we though? The bible is certainly written for us as it is for everyone but its not written to us in the 21st century...

Who's the we? This is the same question that the Prophets had. What does the bible say about that?

Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.

 

[stovebolts]

Sparrowhawk,

C-14 dating is only good to 80,000 years based on the half life of C14 with the assumption that the earth was at equalibrium which is to say that C-14 was being produced at the same rate it was decaying. Rocks are dated with a diffirent method of radioactive decay and they also use several assumptions when dating rock as various methods produce radically different ages.

This three part series is actually very educational on the matter. I do hope you'll spend the time to view it.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/med...ng-fossils-and-rocks/dating-fossils-and-rocks

 

[cupid dave]

Hahaaaaaa....


That we are specifically told the Bible is a closed book is the one thing that reinforces the theory that the Bible is telling the truth about things which ancient readers would have never believed, hence the writings were dualistic in their possible meanings, or subject to interpretations that seemed to make sense in those times.

Dan 12 tells us that the book is closed until now, today, when knowledge abounds and men travel to and fro across the whole earth.
Then Rev 5:1-5 says that we are awaiting the lion of Judah who will open this book which is sealed.


So, I imagine that when that day comes, it will not be "an opening" that defies science nor says things about Genesis that we will have to continue to believe because of faith.


1Cor. 13:11 When I, (Modern Homo sapiens), was a child (in the Iron Age of Moses), I spake as a child, (and Torah likewise spoke to me), I understood (the realities of the Creation) as a child, I thought (in terms of myths, epics, and metaphysical ideas), as a child: but when I became a (21st Century) man (in the Age of Information), I put away childish things (even though many were traditional, from remote times).

 

[Sparkey]

Sparrowhawk,

C-14 dating is only good to 80,000 years based on the half life of C14 with the assumption that the earth was at equalibrium which is to say that C-14 was being produced at the same rate it was decaying. Rocks are dated with a diffirent method of radioactive decay and they also use several assumptions when dating rock as various methods produce radically different ages.

This three part series is actually very educational on the matter. I do hope you'll spend the time to view it.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/med...ng-fossils-and-rocks/dating-fossils-and-rocks

I'll have time to give your link a proper look after finals next week, but when I mentioned C14, it was with the idea of a possible anomaly -C-14 in samples that have organic material and are dated (by other methods) to be millions of years old. Seems that there should be no C-14 above what is termed "background levels" in such specimens.

Again, thanks for the links. My C-14 comment may potentially derail this thread, so our conversation may be better placed in your 10-16-2012 09:39 AM thread created in YEC forum, Carbon 14 Dating

 

[Barbarian]

So a question about the presence of carbon-14 in samples dated millions of years old, that exceeds "background levels" is not allowed?

Scientists ask that question constantly. For example, mollusks get most of their carbon from geological sources, so a C-14 test on a clam would falsely show it to be very old. Creationist websites use these cases to "prove" that radioisotope testing gives wrong answers. And then creationists wonder why many people assume they are dishonest. Most of them aren't dishonest, of course, they just don't know about those things. The people who put such things up on websites have no such excuse.

 

[Sparkey]

Scientists ask that question constantly. For example, mollusks get most of their carbon from geological sources, so a C-14 test on a clam would falsely show it to be very old. Creationist websites use these cases to "prove" that radioisotope testing gives wrong answers. And then creationists wonder why many people assume they are dishonest. Most of them aren't dishonest, of course, they just don't know about those things. The people who put such things up on websites have no such excuse.

Thanks, B. Noted: if the sample contains "mollusks" disregard. Okay, seems easy enough.

 

[stovebolts]

The reality is that biological evolution is not opposed in Genesis,

I want to look at this for a second.

evolution theory tells us that all things came from matter and by random chance became living organisms. Evolution states that everything evolved from a single cell organism.

Think about that for a second in terms of dna alone. That means that the single cell organism had to have the dna instructions to produce everything we see and as time went on, that dna would have lost information.

Let me explain.

We have different plant families. To keep it simple, lets say we have a flower family and a tree family. We have different types of flowers and we have different types of trees. But we don't observe flowers adding information to evolve into trees. Flowers do mutate into different flowers, but each mutation is counted as a loss of information, not a gain. For a flower to evolve into a tree, then information would have to be added and we don't have any observational science that affirms new information from any type of family, weather it be plants or animals.

In Genesis, God said that everything was created after it's own kind. And in Hebrew that's the same classification that we use today as Family. Simply put, biological evolution is not supported within the Biblical text.

 

[stovebolts]

thats right cupid.


That verse about the tax coins fits here.
When looked at indetail, it wasn't even spontaneous generation or luck. How many times canwe say "by chance" in evolution before it becomes clear it is almostimpossible to be that random.
The bible answers "what am I". leave the rest, to the rest.

Please see my post to cupid. BTW, what do you mean about the tax coin? Lost me there bud.

 

[Sparkey]

In Genesis, God said that everything was created after it's own kind. And in Hebrew that's the same classification that we use today as Family. Simply put, biological evolution is not supported within the Biblical text.

Greetings StoveBolts (whom I used to call SteveBolts, lol)

Here's something that I drew a long time ago. It has to do with the difference between technical terms that may be put to analytic use and the words found in Hebrew, which very often are to be spoken out-loud for the sounding meaning as well as the more graphical visual meanings contained therein.

 

[Arch Angle]

as history is fine.

But literal?

 

[stovebolts]

as history is fine.

But literal?

Can you give any example from science where new information is introduced to form a new family? It seems to me that science affirms creation.

 

[Arch Angle]

yes, science does show creationism. The earth was 'created".
I believe god had something to do with it.

Now we are discussing if god went "poof in 6 days"or did he go "poof there is evolution". We have to decide what "story" seems to be the most likely.

You list the animals that you see.

You list the animals that died.

Put them in some type of order and see if any patters showup.

Then we have to decide what "story" seems to bethe most likely. It is not about"god" or "no god". It is about how god did it.

I don't focus on what I don't have. I focus on what Ihave. If you would like to explore gapsin evolution and gaps in your literal bible, we can do that after this.

 

[stovebolts]

AB517, creation is more about something than that which was created. It is also how said item is created.

Let's look at a simple passage in Scripture.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

I've put in bold the word kind and kinds. Sparrowhawke made an excellent diagram to communicate the hebrew work kind as it is being used. Again, Kind is similar to the word Family in observational scientific terms.

For example. We have a dog family and we have a cat family. Within each family we have a variety of species but it is well noted that each species still falls under it's perspective family. In other words, we see may different species within both the cat and dog families. Through natural selection and adaptation a wide variety of species is observable within each family. Some species have become extinct and yet other species are emerging. However, what we don't see in observational science is where one family evolves into another family.

From this perspective, Science actually proves the creation account from a logical and observational perspective. Meanwhile Evolution tells us that "poof", a snail turned into fish that turned into a salamander that turned into a rat that turned into something else that turned into something else a thousand other times until man finally evolved. Observational science does not affirm this theory.

 

[Arch Angle]

and that's where we differ. It is at our axioms. It always gets down to them. Those base statements that drives everything else we chose.

... "if AB517, creation is more about something thanthat which was created. It is also how said item is created."...

for me it is not. It like the mechanic telling my wife that he fixed her car. She knows he did fixit. That's all she needs. She knows where to turn for help again... to christ.

If I asked him "how did you it", he would give mea different answer. If I asked him, "No, HOW did you do it?", I would expect him to describe how he removed the part, where he got the new part, and how did he reassemble it. What problems did he come across while doing it.

That's evolution.

When my first child was born I knew the seven day thing was incomplete. (Not wrong).

He may have rested on the seventh day, but on Monday he woke up and though "Oh my ME, they have to breed".

Later that afternoon, marsupials where created.

God is great. And we are in his image.
I just see us as the periodic table.
How do you see us?

 

[stovebolts]

and that's where we differ. It is at our axioms. It always gets down to them. Those base statements that drives everything else we chose.

What we are really talking about it the realiablitly of the data. My point is this. We can't observe historical science so it comes down to who we trust. If you want to trust in Science, then even science affirms from an observational perspective the logical creation as put forth in the Bible.

for me it is not. It like the mechanic telling my wife that he fixed her car. She knows he did fixit. That's all she needs. She knows where to turn for help again... to christ.

Your ignoring the plain reading of scripture. Scripture is clear that God created the animals after their type aka Family. So you see, God did give us a generalization on how he created them.

If I asked him "how did you it", he would give mea different answer. If I asked him, "No, HOW did you do it?", I would expect him to describe how he removed the part, where he got the new part, and how did he reassemble it. What problems did he come across while doing it.

God did tell us "How did you do it". He created the animals "after their own type". When you say, "No, HOW did you do it?" We can view that through observational science. Cat's produce cats and dogs produce dogs and the dna bears this out.

That's evolution.

Not really. No offence, but I'll bet your making the same mistake as a lot of other people where they take micro evolution and confuse it with macro evolution.

We see Micro Evolution within a species and even within a family. Macro Evolution to it's extreems shows a family forming a new family. Example would be a dinasour evolving into a bird. Within the dna record of every family there is potential for adaptation and mutations (micro evolution) which always results in a loss of dna information which is supported in obsrvational science. However the dna record does not support the complex addition of new information required to sprout a feather as Macro Evolution suggests. Observational Science does not support this idea.

When my first child was born I knew the seven day thing was incomplete. (Not wrong).

Of course it's incomplete from a scientific perspective. It wasn't written as a science book. I've done a fair share of study in ancient near eastern cultures and essentially I'd sumize that Gen 1 and 2 could be viewed as an apologetic response to the surrounding cultures.

He may have rested on the seventh day, but on Monday he woke up and though "Oh my ME, they have to breed".

Later that afternoon, marsupials where created.

You won't find that in the Bible. Marsupials were created on the 6th day according to the biblical texts. Granted, after the fall, mutations and adaptation started to occur (Micro Evolution).

God is great. And we are in his image.
I just see us as the periodic table.
How do you see us?

Well, I see us a little higher than the periodic table that's for sure.

 

[Sparkey]

Greetings StoveBolts (whom I used to call SteveBolts, lol)

Here's something that I drew a long time ago. It has to do with the difference between technical terms that may be put to analytic use and the words found in Hebrew, which very often are to be spoken out-loud for the sounding meaning as well as the more graphical visual meanings contained therein.

What I understand of your point might be communicated briefly with another picture:

 

[stovebolts]

What I understand of your point might be communicated briefly with another picture:

Pictures are worth a thousand words!

I would only add that I think both pictures hold some truth. Scripture states that all things came forth from the earth... That's a pretty big gene pool to start with.

 

[Arch Angle]

Yes, it comes down to trust.

Do I trust people like you that tell me the bible is literal? Or do I trustpeople that say it is not literal?

so I can start with looking at your micro vs macro evolution stance.

Is it more reasonable to suggest they support each other or is it morer easonable to suggest they don't support each other?

Then, lets look at this "historical" stance of yours. Again, your right, it gets down to trusting what we see and who we listen to. so ...

1) is it more reasonable to think that processes today can be used to make predictions for the past, present and future? Just, in the relative time frame and conditions we are talking about that is.

2) Or is it more reasonable to suggest that things do not operate the same way in the relative time frame and conditions we are talking about?

I think processes today can be used to make predictions for the past,present and future. But that is my theology. I guess i could be wrong.

Your theology is not offensive to me. Philosophy is just philosophy. I don'tget offended anymore. "Jesus" taught me, the fiber of his being was against literal religion.

so I'll side with jesus on this.

 

[Sparkey]

AB, may I call you that?

I'm not sure that I can understand (yet) what your saying. My apologies for not knowing you better but I'm working on that even as we speak. Still, I would agree that it is reasonable to form opinions based on Trust relationships. I do understand this from my own perspective from working with computers. One-way trust relationships are for reserved (and should be, in my opinion) to God only. For all others, it's a matter that may be adjusted. Slid from one side of the scale to the other over time.

As far as "Philosophy" goes, and without seeming to invite "at the person discussion" (let's leave that out) - are you speaking about those who assert their belief system above their care for others, or is there something I've missed?

By the way, thank you for your frank contributions so far. I find these things to be pleasant ways to occupy my mind, the natural struggle without the rancor.

 

[Arch Angle]

yes, call me whatever you want, I am nobody special. Just a squirrel trying to get a nut.

Maybe I am the one that is confused.

I had two major typo's in my last post. the word "can't" shouldhave be "can" in two critical locations. sorry, I am dope.

The earth as the "gene" pool ... Is totally reasonable to me. It is about "gene's" and not bodytypes. What determines body types?

are you guys 6-dayers? I thought youwere. sorry if I got that wrong.

maybe I am so stupid simple I confuse people.