young earth / light from stars

[Scott]

"there is a vast difference between scars, false memories, developmental history and the creation with apparent age."

Why? Did Jesus' birth give the appearance that Mary had engaged in intercourse? Certainly many people think that she did and that the miraculous explanation is a lie.

 

[rmwilliamsjr]

Originally posted by Scott
"there is a vast difference between scars, false memories, developmental history and the creation with apparent age."

Why? Did Jesus' birth give the appearance that Mary had engaged in intercourse? Certainly many people think that she did and that the miraculous explanation is a lie.

a scar in the example of the virgin birth would be evidence of sexual intercourse like a torn hymen.

it is easier to look at a less sensitive miracle like the turning of water into wine to get an idea of the difference between miracles and developmental history.

if you had the technical ability, at the miracle of the water into wine, could you test the wine and locate trace minerals that would lead you to believe that it came from a particular field or vineyard? or was it generic wine without a developmental history? ie was there evidence that it had undergone a process not a miracle?

although i like the example of a scar on Adam's knee and the false memories of a childhood accident better.


.....

 

[Saiph]

Kevin, I agree with you.

Consider the following also:

The void as the ground for being is understood as the creative void: now we would have to take the question back beyond this void without reaching the beginning. The "nothingness" of the man in the middle, who does not know of the beginning, is the last attempt at explanation; it is the point of passage for what is. We call it the void which is brought to consummation, filled to the full and sovereign. The void between God's freedom and the creation is not an attempt to explain what is; it is thus not the matter out of which the world has then paradoxically come into being, the necessary point where what is comes through. Nor is it a thing, not even a negative thing. It is the definition which alone can express the relation of God's freedom to his creation. The void is therefore not a primal possibility, a ground for God himself. It is absolutely nothing; it occurs, rather in the action of God himself, and it always occurs as something already negated, no longer as the void which is happening, but rather as the void which has already happened. We call it the obedient void, the void that waits on God, the void whose glory and existence are neither in itself nor in its nothingness, but only in God's action. Thus God needed no link between himself and the creation.

The void contains no anxiety for the first creation. On the contrary, it is itself the eternal song praising the Creator who created the world out of nothing.

- Creation and Fall Temptation: Two Biblical Studies
by Dietrich Bonhoeffer p. 17

He does not need us men to prepare his glory; he creates worship himself from the silent world which slumbers, resting mute and formless in his will. "And darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters."

- Creation and Fall Temptation: Two Biblical Studies
by Dietrich Bonhoeffer p. 19

[Edited on 2-3-2006 by Saiph]

 

[Scott]

"a scar in the example of the virgin birth would be evidence of sexual intercourse like a torn hymen."

Hmmm . . . Birth seems like better evidence of intercourse than a torn hymen.

"although i like the example of a scar on Adam's knee and the false memories of a childhood accident better."

I don't know. Say God created Adam with a sacrred knee. He was still old. God created Adam that way for his own pleasure. The fale memories does not seem appropriate, as it deals with the human mind and direct evidence (a human directly perceived things). The structure and elements of the universe are all circumstantial evidence.