Age of the Universe

[chbrooking]

Well, my question has sparked a good discussion. Thanks guys. If you are wondering, as one who is in the initial stages of wrestling with this question, I don't think Brian's (Withnell) opposition has dealt adequately with his case.

While I recognize that only a minuscule portion of the earth has been excavated, it is, you'd have to admit, odd that the animals change as we move deeper and deeper -- and where are the men? If the flood is responsible for the fossil record -- why is there a sequence evident, and where are the people? Further, what about the supernova that Brian mentioned? I would have no problem with a mature creation. But, to be trite, I think it would be wrong for God to put a belly button on Adam, or rings in the trees of the garden -- if they were created mature. James is explicit that God cannot lie. Since creation is revelation, that there is an appearance of great age hasn't been adequately rebutted in your discussion, In my humble opinion gentlemen.

Again, just my two cents, as an observer. Thanks for the discussion. It is enlightening.

-----Added 6/26/2009 at 08:20:56 EST-----

As for using natural revelation to interpret scripture -- what would you say to the church's adjustment to their interpretations that came with the Copernican revolution?

 

[Peairtach]

Well, my question has sparked a good discussion. Thanks guys. If you are wondering, as one who is in the initial stages of wrestling with this question, I don't think Brian's (Withnell) opposition has dealt adequately with his case.

While I recognize that only a minuscule portion of the earth has been excavated, it is, you'd have to admit, odd that the animals change as we move deeper and deeper -- and where are the men? If the flood is responsible for the fossil record -- why is there a sequence evident, and where are the people? Further, what about the supernova that Brian mentioned? I would have no problem with a mature creation. But, to be trite, I think it would be wrong for God to put a belly button on Adam, or rings in the trees of the garden -- if they were created mature. James is explicit that God cannot lie. Since creation is revelation, that there is an appearance of great age hasn't been adequately rebutted in your discussion, In my humble opinion gentlemen.

Again, just my two cents, as an observer. Thanks for the discussion. It is enlightening.

-----Added 6/26/2009 at 08:20:56 EST-----

As for using natural revelation to interpret scripture -- what would you say to the church's adjustment to their interpretations that came with the Copernican revolution?

But what if God made the world and universe appear old (general revelation) and then told us it wasn't so old (special revelation). Any scientist examining Adam would think he was mature and had developed through various natural processes for 18-21 years (?). But then they would read the Bible or ask Adam and find out they were wrong. God wasn't lying.

Was Christ lying to the governor of the feast when He ordered the water changed into wine to be presented to him?

Miracles are out in naturalistic science. Some would say science by definition is naturalistic or should be naturalistic. Yet miracles can speed up (by pass?) natural processes that would ordinarily take a longer time. An evangelical view of the creation of the universe involves miracles. I'm not saying that this answers all the difficulties.

 

[ChristianTrader]

-----Added 6/26/2009 at 08:20:56 EST-----

As for using natural revelation to interpret scripture -- what would you say to the church's adjustment to their interpretations that came with the Copernican revolution?

I think there has been bad interpretations of natural revelation as their have been bad interpretations of special revelation.

CT

-----Added 6/26/2009 at 09:12:24 EST-----

Just in case anyone cares: R. Humphrey's newest paper on time dilation, can be found here: http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j22_3/j22_3_84-92.pdf It is supposed to have key updates to what was put forth in 94 in his starlight and time book.

 

[caoclan]

Well, my question has sparked a good discussion. Thanks guys. If you are wondering, as one who is in the initial stages of wrestling with this question, I don't think Brian's (Withnell) opposition has dealt adequately with his case.

While I recognize that only a minuscule portion of the earth has been excavated, it is, you'd have to admit, odd that the animals change as we move deeper and deeper -- and where are the men? If the flood is responsible for the fossil record -- why is there a sequence evident, and where are the people? Further, what about the supernova that Brian mentioned? I would have no problem with a mature creation. But, to be trite, I think it would be wrong for God to put a belly button on Adam, or rings in the trees of the garden -- if they were created mature. James is explicit that God cannot lie. Since creation is revelation, that there is an appearance of great age hasn't been adequately rebutted in your discussion, In my humble opinion gentlemen.

Again, just my two cents, as an observer. Thanks for the discussion. It is enlightening.

-----Added 6/26/2009 at 08:20:56 EST-----

As for using natural revelation to interpret scripture -- what would you say to the church's adjustment to their interpretations that came with the Copernican revolution?

Brother, please examine the Answers in Genesis website. They have scientists more knowledgeable in these areas than any on this board. They present their material in an easily grasped and compelling manner. God said he did it in 6 days, period. And He said so in more than one place, in more than one book (and genre). The serpent said "Hath God said?..."

The AIG website has free online videos from biologists, astrophysicists, geologists, and others. Someone is interpreting the data wrongly (either the naturalist scientists or the creation scientists), but only one group is looking at natural revelation through the lens of special revelation.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

The genealogy from Genesis has many holes in it. If it is counted chronologically you have Adam dying with the people drown in the flood at only 1,000 years. When gaps are taken into account we do not now how many generations have been left out and we do not know how long Adam and Eve lived without sin. I would imagine that if it was around 100,000 years the earth would look pretty old since that is still a long period of time.

Just a few notes of correction...

First, Scripture tells us how old Adam was when he died, 930, not 100,000 years.

Second, the geneology in Genesis is narrated and constructed in such a way that it is almost impossible to avoid the set timetable, or have alleged gaps and holes. I'm aware of only one such gap, after the flood, where Luke follows the LXX order (without the dates) instead of the Masoretic text and includes only one more name than the order listed in Genesis. The narrative in Genesis, records the age of the father, and the age at which the descendant was born. You can't poetically avoid such precision.

Third, at least according to my math, Adam died long before the flood. Noah was born 1056 years after Gen 5 begins, about 126 years after Adam dies. The flood occurred 1,656 years after the clock starts in Gen 5. Noah's own father, Lamech, would have died 5 years before the flood came. His grandfather Methuselah would have died the same year of the flood, perhaps even in the flood.

Fourth, when Jesus speaks about Adam and Eve, he speaks about their marriage, and the murdering and lying activity of Satan as "in the beginning." Such language does not lend itself to huge amounts of time before the Fall, (100,000 years is a much longer time period than we have existed since the Fall.) And do you really want to argue that Adam and Eve had no children after living 100,000 years in Eden? Commanded to be fruitful and multiply, and unable to do so even after all the blessings God had bestowed on them, without any curse? There's some implications there that you may want to work out...

It's much easier to re-exegete the facts of science than it is to re-exegete such otherwise clear historical narrative language in Genesis.

 

[Brian Withnell]

Thanks for replying Brian. In your response to point #1: The Lord stated: "For in six days..." It doesn't appear to be a figurative statement in that legal context. Also, Israel did actually commit adultery against the Lord.

Response #2-5: I didn't think you believed Adam and Eve were figurative, I am using them as an illustration to challenge when the figurative nature of Genesis 1 begins and ends.

My question to you is when does the literal section of Genesis begin, does it begin from the account of day 6?

I'd say the transition starts in 2:4 ... the text at 2:4 says

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.

Up to that point, there is a unique structure, the days are enumerated yet they don't seem to be there as a chronology (the 4th day problem). In verse 2:2-3 the sabbath is established and rather than parallel thoughts (formed/filled) the culminating day, unlike all the others has no end. The seventh day is sanctified and different from the rest (no pun intended). God is in a sense still in that day (he is still resting from creation in that he is not creating any more).

At 2:4, there is a very obvious cut in thought. Even if you accept a 144 hour creation, 2:4 is not in chronological order, and so it marks a change in the text. At the very least it is going back to before man existed and retelling the creation of man. So there is a clear distinguishing cut between 2:3 and 2:4 no matter what the interpretation of 1:1 - 2:3 one takes.

The creation account in 2:4 and following seem much more detailed in the particulars (thus not pointing to figurative interpretation). The details of "day 6" from chapter 1 and the creation of man, followed by the animals, then by woman in Ch 2 also could be taken as pointing to a figurative Ch 1 (see 1:24 - 26, the order implied is all the animals, then man; 2:18 - 25 seem to point to a more detailed and different order of creation). If Moses were relating a chronology in Gen 1, then you would not expect him to have man created after the animals when just a few lines later he says the animals were created after man, but before woman. Again, it points clearly to a figurative Gen 1.

2:4 is clearly a break, and what comes after is certainly not just a continuation of what came before. When Moses penned it, he clearly thought the two sections were different. So a very plausible break would be the figurative creation account with culminates in God resting for the rest of this age from his work of creation and then moving to the account of the actual order (chronology) that things were done.

 

[brianeschen]

As for using natural revelation to interpret scripture -- what would you say to the church's adjustment to their interpretations that came with the Copernican revolution?

I would still say that it is not proper to use natural revelation to interpret special revelation. I believe the Westminster Confession is correct that the infallible rule to interpret Scripture is Scripture.

 

[Brian Withnell]

It's much easier to re-exegete the facts of science than it is to re-exegete such otherwise clear historical narrative language in Genesis.

Just a couple of thoughts: Augustine did not re-exegete Genesis in order to fit science ... there was no science ... and he clearly saw Gen 1 as a figurative six days. Given the "order" in Gen 1 is different from Gen 2 for the 6th day creation (animals then man in Gen 1; man, animals, then woman in Gen 2) how do you reconcile them without one or the other being figurative?

If Gen 1 is a chronology, why would Moses have stopped on day 7 (which he never closed out) and go back to day 3 (or day 2 ... no plants at the start of Gen 2 creation) and add detail, but leave out great chunks?

Why is there no account of rain in Gen 1, when clearly God did not bring forth plants until there was rain (2:5)?

From what I can see, there is a clear difference in the character of the account in Gen 1 and the account in Gen 2. Moses had something in mind when he separated the two accounts of creation, so what was the difference? The detail of Gen 2 seems to point clearly to a non-figurative account. (Moses names names, gives reasons for the order things were done.)

The day 1 - 6 account calls for the birds of the air to be created on day 5 (ahead of man if it is a chronology) and 2:19 certainly implies a different order. A simple reading would either say there is a contradiction, or that one or the other is figurative.

Notice that *everything* I've pointed out here is in the text. It is not looking to science to interpret scripture, it is looking at scripture to interpret scripture. It is looking at what other great men (Augustine) saw in scripture. Even if science came out tomorrow and said the earth was only about 6000 years old, I would *still* say Gen 1 is figurative because of the passage itself. The apparent age of the earth has very little to say about how to read Gen 1. It isn't that it has nothing to say about Gen 1 ... because if Gen 1 is to be taken figuratively, then we might be able to see that a literal interpretation would conflict with the book of God's work.

While it might be possible for some to say they interpret scripture through the lens of science ... they therefore would err often as man finds more that he doesn't know about the creation ... it is also true that some will look at scripture and occasionally find that even those that do things the wrong way might by God's providence conclude what is correct.

-----Added 6/27/2009 at 12:51:58 EST-----

As for using natural revelation to interpret scripture -- what would you say to the church's adjustment to their interpretations that came with the Copernican revolution?

I would still say that it is not proper to use natural revelation to interpret special revelation. I believe the Westminster Confession is correct that the infallible rule to interpret Scripture is Scripture.

Brian, what do you do with the change in the churches intepretations that came with the heliocentric theory of the solar system? While what you answered is tangential to the question, it did not specifically answer the question.

My answer to the question is that sometimes we get interpretation wrong because we are fallible. Sometimes we find evidence that we have gotten our interpretation wrong by looking out the window. If looking out the window shows me something that would call into question my interpretation of scripture, could I not be looking at what God has said (out the window) to correct my false interpretation of what he said in scripture?

It would not be the normative means of looking at scripture ... but clearly the words on the pages of scripture come about because of the "out the window" experience we have that allows us to form language. In a real sense, we have to use at least the tools of language to interpret scripture, and those tools of language are not formed in abstract, they are formed by looking at the world (general revelation) around us.

Do you think the earth is flat and the center of the solar system? If not, why?

 

[Johan]

The problem with the "created light" idea is the 1970A supernova. If this hypothesis were true, the star that was observed to explode actually never did--the image of its explosion was created in transit, and behind it was a supernova remnant the whole time. In other words, we saw an event that never happened. I personally don't think God would create a deception like that; it seems inconsistent with His nature.

I understand your concern, but that doesn't rule out the fact that God did that. And certainly I wouldn't dream of classifying his ability or right to do such a thing as a deception. It seems as if you dismiss the ability (or probability) of God to create the universe with the appearance of age out of hand, as it doesn't support the supposed evidence interpreted by secular scientists, whose presuppositions are to eliminate or deny the supernatural.

(1) Why will God create a universe with an apparent age? I agree with Skyler that it is inconsistent with His nature.

(2) There is absolutely no denial of the supernatural in having a 13.7 billion year old universe!

 

[Puritan Sailor]

It's much easier to re-exegete the facts of science than it is to re-exegete such otherwise clear historical narrative language in Genesis.

Just a couple of thoughts: Augustine did not re-exegete Genesis in order to fit science ... there was no science ... and he clearly saw Gen 1 as a figurative six days. Given the "order" in Gen 1 is different from Gen 2 for the 6th day creation (animals then man in Gen 1; man, animals, then woman in Gen 2) how do you reconcile them without one or the other being figurative?

I for one am not convinced that Augustine denied the traditional view. To quote Matthew Winzer from another lengthy creation thread:

"Augustine was far from clear in his presentation on this subject. He wrote four different works which espoused at least three different theories. First, an allegorical approach; second, revelation to angels approach, which some mistakenly liken to the framework theory; third, in the City of God, a literal historical approach, in which he vaguely states that it is not for us to say what the days were. In this last work he takes at least the chronology of the days literally because he argues when the angels must have been created in relation to them. He also espouses the Eusebian chronology of history from the creation of the world, which is essentially the same methodology as that employed by young earthers."

In the City of God, Bk11 (and his sermon on Ps 67), he espouses what we consider the traditional view, along with a "young earth" chronology, following Eusebius. In his commentary on Genesis 1, he seems to argue for an instaneous creation and an allegorical approach to explaining/presenting the work of creation in Gen 1. It may be that we just don't have enough information to nail Augustine down, or it may be that Augustine shifted or was unclear himself regarding his view. The other problem is that people who try to rally Augustine's support for a non-literal view are not adopting an Augustinian cosmology either, which is clearly a young earth cosmology. And for Augustine, it is likely that the lines between his historical and allegorical interpretations were probably not so distinct as we would hold today, because the historical events could have an allegorical purpose for him as well.

If Gen 1 is a chronology, why would Moses have stopped on day 7 (which he never closed out) and go back to day 3 (or day 2 ... no plants at the start of Gen 2 creation) and add detail, but leave out great chunks?

Why is there no account of rain in Gen 1, when clearly God did not bring forth plants until there was rain (2:5)?

He stopped on day 7 because the week was done. Plus there's some typology going on too, as indicated in Hebrews. Then he moved into a differently structured narrative with a different purpose. But it was the same Moses who wrote in Ex 20:11 that it was in fact created in 6 days and that God rested the seventh day. He interprets himself, and both accounts occur in narratives not poetry.

The problem of "plants" is resolved in at least two ways:
First, they were days of ordinary length, not days of ordinary providence. The same God who created light from nothing has no problem sustaining his plants for a few hours without sun or rain.
Second, it says there was no "plant of the feild", not "no plants at all." The fact that “it had not yet rained” and there was “no man to till the ground” are indications of a time before the curse when man ate from the fruit trees rather than tilling the ground to eat the "plants of the field," which after the Fall man was required to do (Gen 3:17-18).

From what I can see, there is a clear difference in the character of the account in Gen 1 and the account in Gen 2. Moses had something in mind when he separated the two accounts of creation, so what was the difference? The detail of Gen 2 seems to point clearly to a non-figurative account. (Moses names names, gives reasons for the order things were done.)

The day 1 - 6 account calls for the birds of the air to be created on day 5 (ahead of man if it is a chronology) and 2:19 certainly implies a different order. A simple reading would either say there is a contradiction, or that one or the other is figurative.

Yes, there is a different focus in the narratives, but neither is figurative. In Gen 2, the chronology is not stressed. Note how many times Adam is "put in the garden". The structure of the narrative is changed in focus. It assumes the creative activity of Gen 1. It doesn't need to explain those details further, but instead is unfolding all those relevant details in how they relate to God's special dealings with Adam. There is no contradiction when the intent and context of the narratives are considered, just as there are no true contradictions between the 4 Gospels despite clear differences in their carefully constructed presentations of Christ’s earthly ministry. Just because you tell a story differently on two occasions, doesn't mean that one version is figurative and one is not. It means you are fashioning the details of each version to communicate what you think is relevant for your audience to know about the event.

Notice that *everything* I've pointed out here is in the text. It is not looking to science to interpret scripture, it is looking at scripture to interpret scripture. It is looking at what other great men (Augustine) saw in scripture. Even if science came out tomorrow and said the earth was only about 6000 years old, I would *still* say Gen 1 is figurative because of the passage itself. The apparent age of the earth has very little to say about how to read Gen 1. It isn't that it has nothing to say about Gen 1 ... because if Gen 1 is to be taken figuratively, then we might be able to see that a literal interpretation would conflict with the book of God's work.

I've already commented on Augustine above. But, in order to interpret the passage figuratively, you have to have some indication in the original language that it should be interpreted that way, and there is none. It's not poetry because there is no parallelism. Every indication in the Hebrew grammar screams historical narrative. You have the waw conversive used frequently (narrative trademark), you have parameters for the days, the days are numbered (always indicating ordinary days in Hebrew). And Moses says it was 6 days of work with a seventh of rest in Ex 20:11, grounding our duty in God's own historic example. I don't know what else you need to kill a figurative interpretation.

I agree with you about the supernova stuff. If it happened it happened. I don't think God created a fake supernova or created any light not corresponding to actual events. My objection to the naturalistic explanations about astronomical events is from the simple fact that from our little sliver in the universe, they are making huge assumptions about "age," how the universe works and has always worked, all without any scientific verification which they so arduously claim is needed to prove anything. The simple fact is that God has intervened and altered properties in the universe on multiple occasions (i.e. miracles), including global climate change, and even messing around with the sun and stars. We don't know the ripples that such activity has caused, and how that should affect our interpretation of general revelation. And even in science, with all the research in relativity, light, and gravitation, the paradigms keep shifting and are unreliable. Yet, special revelation has always been clear.

Sorry a little long...

 

[chbrooking]

With all due respect to you and to them, Sean, I won't visit the AIG website for this simple reason: I took a class in college that was straight out of their 'research'. I learned all kinds of things that got me all excited. Then, when I took them into the real world, I found they just didn't stand up. Take as only one example, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which was touted as the be all end all proof against evolution. It simply doesn't apply! Not being a scientist, I swallowed it whole. But when I began to do my own research, I found that that wasn't what the 2nd law taught at all.

So, while I'm not naturally a cynic, I just don't trust their science.

Incidentally, a much more solid argument against evolution is a theological one -- and that's an area I'm competent to comment on. When it comes to advanced science, I'm just stuck with he says versus she says. And since both authorities have disappointed me, I'm reluctant to rely on either side's "science".

Well, my question has sparked a good discussion. Thanks guys. If you are wondering, as one who is in the initial stages of wrestling with this question, I don't think Brian's (Withnell) opposition has dealt adequately with his case.

While I recognize that only a minuscule portion of the earth has been excavated, it is, you'd have to admit, odd that the animals change as we move deeper and deeper -- and where are the men? If the flood is responsible for the fossil record -- why is there a sequence evident, and where are the people? Further, what about the supernova that Brian mentioned? I would have no problem with a mature creation. But, to be trite, I think it would be wrong for God to put a belly button on Adam, or rings in the trees of the garden -- if they were created mature. James is explicit that God cannot lie. Since creation is revelation, that there is an appearance of great age hasn't been adequately rebutted in your discussion, In my humble opinion gentlemen.

Again, just my two cents, as an observer. Thanks for the discussion. It is enlightening.

-----Added 6/26/2009 at 08:20:56 EST-----

As for using natural revelation to interpret scripture -- what would you say to the church's adjustment to their interpretations that came with the Copernican revolution?

Brother, please examine the Answers in Genesis website. They have scientists more knowledgeable in these areas than any on this board. They present their material in an easily grasped and compelling manner. God said he did it in 6 days, period. And He said so in more than one place, in more than one book (and genre). The serpent said "Hath God said?..."

The AIG website has free online videos from biologists, astrophysicists, geologists, and others. Someone is interpreting the data wrongly (either the naturalist scientists or the creation scientists), but only one group is looking at natural revelation through the lens of special revelation.

 

[ChristianTrader]

As for using natural revelation to interpret scripture -- what would you say to the church's adjustment to their interpretations that came with the Copernican revolution?

I would still say that it is not proper to use natural revelation to interpret special revelation. I believe the Westminster Confession is correct that the infallible rule to interpret Scripture is Scripture.

I would disagree here. I think that general or natural revelation is part of the stuff that you bring to scripture when you begin to interpret it. If you bring the wrong view of it when you look to scripture, then you will probably read the wrong stuff out of it.

Also Westminster does not imply that general revelation is any less clear than special revelation. They both can be distorted to ones own destruction.

CT

 

[chbrooking]

Patrick,

When the text says that God created the sky "between the waters, separating the water above from the water below", what does that mean -- literally? Is there a cosmic ocean? In Genesis 7, when "the windows of the expanse/sky were opened" and "the great springs of the deep broke forth", are we to understand from that that, as the ancients certainly did, that we have ocean above and ocean below? I'd love to read Genesis 1 literally. I'm just struggling to do so.

 

[caoclan]

Patrick,

When the text says that God created the sky "between the waters, separating the water above from the water below", what does that mean -- literally? Is there a cosmic ocean? In Genesis 6, when "the windows of the expanse/sky were opened" and "the great springs of the deep broke forth", are we to understand from that that, as the ancients certainly did, that we have ocean above and ocean below? I'd love to read Genesis 1 literally. I'm just struggling to do so.

The waters below, obviously is the ocean, lakes, etc. The waters above, I believe refer to the atmosphere, there is water in the atmosphere. the great springs of the deep refer to the subterranean water, which exists to this day, but existed in more volume prior to the flood.

 

[shackleton]

First, Scripture tells us how old Adam was when he died, 930, not 100,000 years.

Third, at least according to my math, Adam died long before the flood. Noah was born 1056 years after Gen 5 begins, about 126 years after Adam dies. The flood occurred 1,656 years after the clock starts in Gen 5. Noah's own father, Lamech, would have died 5 years before the flood came. His grandfather Methuselah would have died the same year of the flood, perhaps even in the flood.

I know this, this is the point I was trying to make. Some say that the earth is only 6,000 years old, according to Usher's dates but if that were the case then Adam would have died in the flood.
There is not much indication that the genealogy includes everyone that existed from Adam to Noah.

I was not saying that Adam and Eve lived in the Garden for 100,000 years before the fall, I was saying that there could be a large, unknown time frame between Creation and the Flood. There is no indication as to how old the earth is, the bible was not written for that purpose. 100,000 is just a number I threw out there. All we really know is that scientists say that the earth looks old and they conclude, according to their atheistic beliefs that it would have taken billions of years for things to get to look the way they are, they logically deduced this based on their preconceived ideas.
The only reason we are discussing this is because we are trying to reconcile what science believes with what the bible clearly teaches.

 

[chbrooking]

So the sky is BELOW the atmosphere???? You see, it's just that kind of "reaching" / special pleading that isn't plausible or even intellectually respectable to me -- and I'm a believer.

Patrick,

When the text says that God created the sky "between the waters, separating the water above from the water below", what does that mean -- literally? Is there a cosmic ocean? In Genesis 7, when "the windows of the expanse/sky were opened" and "the great springs of the deep broke forth", are we to understand from that that, as the ancients certainly did, that we have ocean above and ocean below? I'd love to read Genesis 1 literally. I'm just struggling to do so.

The waters below, obviously is the ocean, lakes, etc. The waters above, I believe refer to the atmosphere, there is water in the atmosphere. the great springs of the deep refer to the subterranean water, which exists to this day, but existed in more volume prior to the flood.

 

[shackleton]

I would imagine Moses wrote Genesis the way he did because of beliefs of the surrounding pagan nations. Just like we are all discussing the "old" earth because of pagan scientists, I am sure the pagans back then had something they believed and Moses was writing against that, we just do not know what it was. Most of what the Jews were told to do or not do was the result of something the surrounding pagan nations were doing. God's people were to be set apart from the pagan nations and be separate, Holy.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

With all due respect to you and to them, Sean, I won't visit the AIG website for this simple reason: I took a class in college that was straight out of their 'research'. I learned all kinds of things that got me all excited. Then, when I took them into the real world, I found they just didn't stand up. Take as only one example, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which was touted as the be all end all proof against evolution. It simply doesn't apply! Not being a scientist, I swallowed it whole. But when I began to do my own research, I found that that wasn't what the 2nd law taught at all.

So, while I'm not naturally a cynic, I just don't trust their science.

I agree with you about AIG, Pastor Brooking. They have some good stuff, but they also have some ridiculous info that makes Christians look foolish when they try to argue with secular scientists.

Interestingly, as a Biology and Biochem double major from a secular university, I found it easier to reject Evolution the more I learned about it. There's no need to embrace weak "Christian" science - the Creation account (which I believe is figurative) stands up on its own just fine.

I for one am not convinced that Augustine denied the traditional view. To quote Matthew Winzer from another lengthy creation thread:


In the City of God, Bk11 (and his sermon on Ps 67), he espouses what we consider the traditional view, along with a "young earth" chronology, following Eusebius. In his commentary on Genesis 1, he seems to argue for an instaneous creation and an allegorical approach to explaining/presenting the work of creation in Gen 1. It may be that we just don't have enough information to nail Augustine down, or it may be that Augustine shifted or was unclear himself regarding his view. The other problem is that people who try to rally Augustine's support for a non-literal view are not adopting an Augustinian cosmology either, which is clearly a young earth cosmology. And for Augustine, it is likely that the lines between his historical and allegorical interpretations were probably not so distinct as we would hold today, because the historical events could have an allegorical purpose for him as well.

I love Rev Winzer and have learned a great deal from him on here, but to say Augustine did not deny the traditional view is a big stretch. In Confessions he is quite clear that he rejects the 24-hour view - he lays out 6 possible explanations of Genesis 1, and explicitly rejects the literal view. I don't have time to provide quotes now (maybe later today or tomorrow), but read Books 11-13 of Confessions and Augustine's position on the Creation account is clear.

 

[ChristianTrader]

First, Scripture tells us how old Adam was when he died, 930, not 100,000 years.

Third, at least according to my math, Adam died long before the flood. Noah was born 1056 years after Gen 5 begins, about 126 years after Adam dies. The flood occurred 1,656 years after the clock starts in Gen 5. Noah's own father, Lamech, would have died 5 years before the flood came. His grandfather Methuselah would have died the same year of the flood, perhaps even in the flood.

I know this, this is the point I was trying to make. Some say that the earth is only 6,000 years old, according to Usher's dates but if that were the case then Adam would have died in the flood.
There is not much indication that the genealogy includes everyone that existed from Adam to Noah.

Where are you getting it that it if Ussher was correct then Adam would have had to die in the flood? If taken in a straightforward manner, there are over 1600 years between the birth of Adam and the flood.

Also to be fair, the 6000 year figure did not begin with Ussher but was pretty standard throughout church history.

CT

 

[shackleton]

Ussher's theory puts only 1,000 years from creation to Noah and Adam lived to about 930, he may not have died in the flood but they would have been contemporaries and Noah would not have been the only righteous one in God's sight. Other righteous people in the line would have died in the flood as well.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Ussher's theory puts only 1,000 years from creation to Noah and Adam lived to about 930, he may not have died in the flood but they would have been contemporaries and Noah would not have been the only righteous one in God's sight. Other righteous people in the line would have died in the flood as well.

I just did some searching and everything I can find says that Ussher dates the flood at 2349 or 2348 BC. Which is over 1600 years from the date he placed on creation (4004 BC).

What is your source for your info?

As an aside: 1600 years from Creation to the Flood is easy to reconcile with 6000 year history of the earth. So it ends up being a moot point either way if one wants to challenge the pedigree of YEC.

CT

 

[Peairtach]

Quote from Clark
As for using natural revelation to interpret scripture -- what would you say to the church's adjustment to their interpretations that came with the Copernican revolution?

Apparently the church was influenced by Aristotleian cosmology (popularly held science of the time) in their interpretation of the Bible.

Anyway, where colloquial expressions such as "the sun rising" are used, this is just telling us about the colloquialisms of the time (some of which are still used today) and not using literal language. God is just accomodating to ordinary human speech.

The question of the Days of Creation is of a different order. When God chose to present the creation in this way was it a colloquial view that the creation was done in six days? Was God accomodating to what was already believed/said by Abraham, etc? Was God using a metaphor? Was He describing things as they happened to tell us that He did take six literal days to create? Those before Moses seem to have known about and held to the seven day week, which is the only unit of time that comes from special revelation rather than general revelation, unlike days, mo(o)nths and years.

There seems to be little evidence from the Bible that the days are to be taken metaphorically, apart from the fact that the sun wasn't made until the fourth day, and certain things in the Bible clearly go against the metaphorical/mythological view e.g. Exodus 20. Evangelicals have taken Genesis to be a literal and historical book (unlike much future prophecy) in accordance with the New Testament. If Genesis One is to be taken as metaphorical/mythological where will the unravelling of the evangelical (and biblical) interpretation of Genesis end?

If the Days are taken metaphorically - to help blend with currently popular science - theological problems arise, e.g. the curse being imposed before the first sin. Evangelical theology itself starts to unravel.

 

[brianeschen]

Brian, thanks for the questions, it is helping me think through these issues more thoroughly.

Brian, what do you do with the change in the churches intepretations that came with the heliocentric theory of the solar system? While what you answered is tangential to the question, it did not specifically answer the question.

To be more specific, the Copernican model did not necessitate a change in the way Scripture is interpreted. Copernicus could after all be wrong.

My answer to the question is that sometimes we get interpretation wrong because we are fallible. Sometimes we find evidence that we have gotten our interpretation wrong by looking out the window. If looking out the window shows me something that would call into question my interpretation of scripture, could I not be looking at what God has said (out the window) to correct my false interpretation of what he said in scripture?

It would not be the normative means of looking at scripture ... but clearly the words on the pages of scripture come about because of the "out the window" experience we have that allows us to form language. In a real sense, we have to use at least the tools of language to interpret scripture, and those tools of language are not formed in abstract, they are formed by looking at the world (general revelation) around us.

Do you think the earth is flat and the center of the solar system? If not, why?

I don't believe the earth is flat, but I don't believe that has been widely held by Christians at any point in history. I believe the issue with Copernicus was the earth being the center of the universe or not. The only way to tell if there are any fixed bodies in the heavens is to be outside the universe.

I agree with you that general revelation helps us understand special revelation. The concern I have is when the two get put on the same level in terms of authority. Written communication (especially something as precise as the Bible) is more clear than what we observe around us. If the two are in conflict which one governs the way we view the other? It is true that both general and special revelation speak with the same message, but I believe Scripture is more clear.

To bring it back to the age of the universe along with the interpretation of Genesis 1. It was not until the 19th century and the old earth geologists that the Church at large began interpreting Genesis as figurative. I find it hard to believe that the Church for the thousands of years prior had to wait for the geology of the 1800s to get it right.

Thanks for the interaction.

-----Added 6/27/2009 at 12:00:12 EST-----

As for using natural revelation to interpret scripture -- what would you say to the church's adjustment to their interpretations that came with the Copernican revolution?

I would still say that it is not proper to use natural revelation to interpret special revelation. I believe the Westminster Confession is correct that the infallible rule to interpret Scripture is Scripture.

I would disagree here. I think that general or natural revelation is part of the stuff that you bring to scripture when you begin to interpret it. If you bring the wrong view of it when you look to scripture, then you will probably read the wrong stuff out of it.

Also Westminster does not imply that general revelation is any less clear than special revelation. They both can be distorted to ones own destruction.

CT

Yes, I believe that is where the disagreement is. The Westminster divines make a distinction between general and special revelation in chapter 1 of the WCF (see 1:1). Why do you think that they did not include general revelation in 1:9? Or why in WLC Q&A 3 did they not include general revelation as an equally valid rule of faith and obedience? If general revelation is just as clear, why not use both?

Question 3: What is the Word of God?
Answer: The holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, the only rule of faith and obedience.

 

[shackleton]

To be honest I have not read much on Ussher nor am I very familiar with what he has written, but I have heard a lot of people reference him and 6,000 years but when reading the actual text of Genesis 5 it seems immediately cleat that there is room for extra years in there.

First of all, the genealogy skips Cain and Abel and starts with Seth who was born when Adam was 130. This at least means that from the time of creation, including the Fall and at least two children prior to Seth, is 130 years. Every sentence ends with, "and he had other sons and daughters," these are never named and are not considered to be important. This genealogy is only detailing the lives of the seed of the woman that Moses deems important. The line of Cain is never once mentioned.

Just from reading it seems plain that not everyone was mentioned so an accurate number of years from Creation to the Flood cannot be determined. Once again, it was not written to give the information we are trying to get out of it. All I am saying is that it is most likely more than 6,000 years but much less than the 4.7 billion evolutionists give it. We don't even know exactly what happened during the Flood, what all was entailed in that catastrophic event. There could have been volcanoes as well as water and earthquakes we do not know. I just do not think we should let scientists who have as an agenda to rule God out set the pace for beliefs in origins. They are looking at the same things we are but reading into it their view that however it happened, God did not do it. Our guess is as good as theirs.

 

[caoclan]

So the sky is BELOW the atmosphere???? You see, it's just that kind of "reaching" / special pleading that isn't plausible or even intellectually respectable to me -- and I'm a believer.

Patrick,

When the text says that God created the sky "between the waters, separating the water above from the water below", what does that mean -- literally? Is there a cosmic ocean? In Genesis 7, when "the windows of the expanse/sky were opened" and "the great springs of the deep broke forth", are we to understand from that that, as the ancients certainly did, that we have ocean above and ocean below? I'd love to read Genesis 1 literally. I'm just struggling to do so.

The waters below, obviously is the ocean, lakes, etc. The waters above, I believe refer to the atmosphere, there is water in the atmosphere. the great springs of the deep refer to the subterranean water, which exists to this day, but existed in more volume prior to the flood.

Is that a serious question? The expanse (the sky) does separate the oceans and land from the upper atmospheres, does it not? Or do you think you live in the stratosphere and the other layers, as pictured below:

Also, reread Genesis 1:6-8 for further reference:

6 And God said, d “Let there be an expanse [1] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made [2] the expanse and e separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were f above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven. [3] And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

 

[chbrooking]

First of all, Sean, where's the water? Where is the sky in relation to it? You said the water above the sky was the atmosphere. You must be using atmosphere in a different sense than is customary. Were our spaceships flying through a cosmic ocean? And if you say, "But there IS water in the stratosphere and above", I'm going to ask, so how does the sky separate the water below from the water above? And since the water below was pooled, it would seem to indicate that it's not in our atmosphere now (because it was liquid water that was in view). But there's more vaporous water in the troposphere than is in the stratosphere, and more water there than is in the mesosphere, etc.

I was raising a very serious interpretive question. Your dismissal of the question betrays the fact that you have not read the Genesis account closely. And who is using natural revelation to interpret scripture now? By interpreting the upper waters as a vapor canopy or something, you are not taking a natural reading of the text. The text seems to indicate that there was water (liquid water: where would you get that it was vaporous from the text?). Then God put a sky within the water, separating water above the sky from water below the sky. Then, he pulled the water below the sky into pools (seas, lakes, rivers, etc.). The water above the sky didn't change. That would be a 'literal' reading.

For those of you holding out for an earth-centric universe, you have not escaped the dilemma. Once again, if this were true, the laws of physics would be at odds with the truth -- in which case we're right back to what brought up the question -- deception.

Undoubtedly, advances in science have influenced our interpretation of the scriptures. And I don't see how that is at odds with special revelation governing general revelation. Special revelation does not have to give us all the details. It gives us a framework within which our interpretation of general revelation can be trusted. Special revelation prohibits me from interpreting general revelation without reference to God. It prohibits me from taking an autonomous view of science.

The only reason you are sure that "the sun rises" is a colloquial expression is BECAUSE of general revelation (examined with telescopes and such). We HAVE to look around us. There's no problem with doing so. The problem is if we look around us and think ourselves competent to evaluate and understand creation apart from special revelation and the God revealed there.

 

[brianeschen]

For those of you holding out for an earth-centric universe, you have not escaped the dilemma. Once again, if this were true, the laws of physics would be at odds with the truth -- in which case we're right back to what brought up the question -- deception.

The laws of physics do not disprove geocentrism. It is impossible to do. Both models work. NASA actually uses a geocentristic (not heliocentristic) model when it launches spacecraft.

 

[Theognome]

Okay, I'm gonna settle this once and for all-

The only person(s) who can say how old the universe is is someone that knows the universe's birthday. And, since no one on this thread seems to know when the universe's birthday is, y'all might as well give up now and save some face.

Theognome

 

[Mushroom]

All motion is relative to the observer- Einstein.

There is no 'center' of the universe that we can observe. The sun is the center of the solar system, yes, but it certainly is not the center of the galaxy, nor is it the center of Earth's system, which includes the moon. Centricity is just about motion of bodies relative to each other. This is NOT a heliocentric anything. We observe from Earth. It's just easier to track the solar system's movements using a heliocentric model. Try using that to track the moon's motion. It looks pretty wobbly from that perspective.

 

[chbrooking]

Okay, so the sun is swinging around us?

To say that NASA uses a geocentric system to launch shuttles isn't significant to the discussion. They used a lunar-centric calculation to slingshot Apollo 13 back to earth. Big deal. But physics does explain orbit -- otherwise we couldn't have satellites. And the earth orbits the sun. That pretty well gives the appearance that the earth isn't the center of the universe, since it's not even the center of our solar system. So, again, if the universe is truly geocentric, then deceptions seems to be involved. But we're getting a little off-topic.