|
Post by mfox on Dec 14, 2019 23:35:02 GMT
The entire world was flooded not just local areas Genesis 7:17-20 17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Noah was saved on the ark now Jesus has become our ark through which we are saved Short of an incredible number of enormous miracles, The Universal Flood view is impossible, and not supported by the evidence. On the other hand, if we consider the "universal" language in the Scriptural account to be expressing the view of a person witnessing the event, a Local Flood still meets the criteria for being the event seen. In other words, if I stand in the middle of a region and its civilization and watch an enormous flood rise and destroy the people and animals living there, I would describe it exactly as the Scriptures describe it. The "whole earth" would be covered. "No land" would be seen." "All animals" would die. All of "mankind" would die. The language of universalism can apply to the phenomena witnessed in a limited environement. "All" of the animals *within a region* died. The qualifier "within a region" did not need to be said because in Noah's time they had no world maps, and wasn't, at any rate, concerned about anywhere but "all the earth" where they lived. There was no escape for those living in that region because the Flood was large enough not to afford the time and distance to escape. Not only could Noah not fit all of the species of animal, bird, and insects into the ark, but maintaining them would be impossible. The destruction of the entire earth would destroy fish, bird, animal and vegetable life, forcing God to recreate them all, which is contrary to the account of creation. And yes, even the fish would die. Many species depend on shallow areas, which would be disrupted by an enormous Flood. It's likely that "all the mountains" that were covered referred to lowland areas beyond the higher ranges themselves. There simply isn't enough water in our world to provide enough water to cover high mountains--not even if the earth became more level, and the sea depths are raised higher. And there would be a problem with disposing of that much water after the Flood. Randy you are containing God by the standards of science God created science not the other way around God has the ability to do miracles. Let’s read what the words says genesis 7:1-4 The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.” God said that Noah took some of every animal that He had made and that He wouldn’t destroy every other living creature from the face of the earth and I believe Him. Fish are not mentioned nor are that creatures that live on land We can’t always decipher the bible from science if we did then there would be no universe or people
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 15, 2019 3:49:49 GMT
Randy you are containing God by the standards of science God created science not the other way around God has the ability to do miracles. Let’s read what the words says genesis 7:1-4 The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.” God said that Noah took some of every animal that He had made and that He would destroy every other living creature from the face of the earth and I believe Him. Fish are not mentioned because they live in the water. I think that Noah would of taken the smaller young animals We can’t always decipher the bible from science if we did then there would be no universe or people Im not sure what the point of saying that it wasn’t the whole earth here No, brother, I'm not doing that. I'm not limiting God, who made the universe and who sustains it presently by His word of power. He's the God who still does miracles, and brings the deeds of all men under judgment. What I don't want to do, out of the fear of God, is speak unwisely and try to fit Scientific Knowledge into my "biblical interpretations." Anything is possible, except that what God has said about the Flood and Creation must not be contradicted. Destroying all animal and plant life on earth would require that God recreate them. But God said He rested from His work on the 7th Day. So He isn't going to recreate them, meaning that He couldn't have completely destroyed them, with the exception of a relatively small number of animals in the ark. So we need to be sensible about explaining things, and not just explain things as a "miracle" when it is an unnecessary interpolation into what otherwise can be explained more naturally. What we don't know is anything more than the data gives us. And we have a lot of scientific knowledge about the ancient past, due to fossils and geological dating, as well as other dating methods. If I try to claim the earth is flat just because it is my theological assumption, then I'm trying to deny scientific fact, and make it fit into my theological presumptions. Again, my point is that everything you read above that "sounds universal" can actually fit into a Local Earth scenario, in which everything dies "within the scope of a local region." If I say "everything died on earth," then my presumption is that the "earth" refers to a "globe." But I'm not saying that. And I'm not denying that. What I'm saying is that this is a presumption that "the earth" refers to a "globe." In reality, the language describing "the earth" can equally refer to a local region. Consider the following two statements: All the animals died on the earth. All the animals died on the land. The 1st statement sounds like "the earth" is the "globe." The 2nd statement could be anything, because the land could be a local region or the whole earth. My claim here is that the word in Hebrew for "the earth" can refer to either the globe or the land. And it is more likely "the land," because at that time men did not realize that the earth was a globe. When they referred to "the whole earth" they meant "all the land within sight." So all the animals within sight died. That does not mean all animals across the whole earth were annihilated. If so, then every animals, bird, fish, and insect would've had to have been preserved on the ark, because the Scriptures indicated that Noah kept alive representative samples of his region (not the whole globe). But he could not have kept bugs alive, and he could not have met all of the needs of the various creatures, which are extremely diverse, from one creature to another. Again, you're creating the need for a humongous miracle, and then defending that purely with the claim that your interpretation is the "biblical" one. But I'm saying that we have science and history, which accords with the Local Flood theory. It doesn't discount God's intervention in human affairs, nor His miraculous powers. But it does fit the record of geological history and scientific principles. And God used the language of natural phenomena to explain how the Flood took place, and how the animals were preserved. Certainly, we may not agree on this, and you may feel the need to defend "biblical literalism," etc. But this matter does not concern "biblical literalism" for me. It is rather a matter of language and biblical interpretation, and presenting that along with the scientific data.
|
|
|
Post by mfox on Dec 15, 2019 4:23:36 GMT
No, brother, I'm not doing that. I'm not limiting God, who made the universe and who sustains it presently by His word of power. He's the God who still does miracles, and brings the deeds of all men under judgment. What I don't want to do, out of the fear of God, is speak unwisely and try to fit Scientific Knowledge into my "biblical interpretations." Anything is possible, except that what God has said about the Flood and Creation must not be contradicted. Destroying all animal and plant life on earth would require that God recreate them. But God said He rested from His work on the 7th Day. So He isn't going to recreate them, meaning that He couldn't have completely destroyed them, with the exception of a relatively small number of animals in the ark. So we need to be sensible about explaining things, and not just explain things as a "miracle" when it is an unnecessary interpolation into what otherwise can be explained more naturally. What we don't know is anything more than the data gives us. And we have a lot of scientific knowledge about the ancient past, due to fossils and geological dating, as well as other dating methods. If I try to claim the earth is flat just because it is my theological assumption, then I'm trying to deny scientific fact, and make it fit into my theological presumptions. Again, my point is that everything you read above that "sounds universal" can actually fit into a Local Earth scenario, in which everything dies "within the scope of a local region." If I say "everything died on earth," then my presumption is that the "earth" refers to a "globe." But I'm not saying that. And I'm not denying that. What I'm saying is that this is a presumption that "the earth" refers to a "globe." In reality, the language describing "the earth" can equally refer to a local region. Consider the following two statements: All the animals died on the earth. All the animals died on the land. The 1st statement sounds like "the earth" is the "globe." The 2nd statement could be anything, because the land could be a local region or the whole earth. My claim here is that the word in Hebrew for "the earth" can refer to either the globe or the land. And it is more likely "the land," because at that time men did not realize that the earth was a globe. When they referred to "the whole earth" they meant "all the land within sight." So all the animals within sight died. That does not mean all animals across the whole earth were annihilated. If so, then every animals, bird, fish, and insect would've had to have been preserved on the ark, because the Scriptures indicated that Noah kept alive representative samples of his region (not the whole globe). But he could not have kept bugs alive, and he could not have met all of the needs of the various creatures, which are extremely diverse, from one creature to another. Again, you're creating the need for a humongous miracle, and then defending that purely with the claim that your interpretation is the "biblical" one. But I'm saying that we have science and history, which accords with the Local Flood theory. It doesn't discount God's intervention in human affairs, nor His miraculous powers. But it does fit the record of geological history and scientific principles. And God used the language of natural phenomena to explain how the Flood took place, and how the animals were preserved. Certainly, we may not agree on this, and you may feel the need to defend "biblical literalism," etc. But this matter does not concern "biblical literalism" for me. It is rather a matter of language and biblical interpretation, and presenting that along with the scientific data. Genesis 6:7-8 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. Hebrews 11:7 7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith. Randy please read the verses above it wasn’t about a region it was much deeper it was about God starting the whole over again and giving the whole world another chance all other life had to end. God stated that He regretted that He made them do you think that God only regretted that He made them in that region? How would you explain how the Grand Canyon was carved out?
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Dec 15, 2019 6:18:53 GMT
Thank you for your very profound post Ted. I sure hope it isn't as Ted suggested, a matter of "divided brothers." If I disagree with you on some minor points of doctrine or subject, it hardly means we're spiritually divided! I derive a lot of fulfillment from discussing things, and generally learn from differences among brothers and sisters. I’m with you on discussion between brothers and sisters Randy. We all learn from one another, besides that is the point of forums. I was thanking Ted for his comments concerning science.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 15, 2019 16:38:10 GMT
No, brother, I'm not doing that. I'm not limiting God, who made the universe and who sustains it presently by His word of power. He's the God who still does miracles, and brings the deeds of all men under judgment. What I don't want to do, out of the fear of God, is speak unwisely and try to fit Scientific Knowledge into my "biblical interpretations." Anything is possible, except that what God has said about the Flood and Creation must not be contradicted. Destroying all animal and plant life on earth would require that God recreate them. But God said He rested from His work on the 7th Day. So He isn't going to recreate them, meaning that He couldn't have completely destroyed them, with the exception of a relatively small number of animals in the ark. So we need to be sensible about explaining things, and not just explain things as a "miracle" when it is an unnecessary interpolation into what otherwise can be explained more naturally. What we don't know is anything more than the data gives us. And we have a lot of scientific knowledge about the ancient past, due to fossils and geological dating, as well as other dating methods. If I try to claim the earth is flat just because it is my theological assumption, then I'm trying to deny scientific fact, and make it fit into my theological presumptions. Again, my point is that everything you read above that "sounds universal" can actually fit into a Local Earth scenario, in which everything dies "within the scope of a local region." If I say "everything died on earth," then my presumption is that the "earth" refers to a "globe." But I'm not saying that. And I'm not denying that. What I'm saying is that this is a presumption that "the earth" refers to a "globe." In reality, the language describing "the earth" can equally refer to a local region. Consider the following two statements: All the animals died on the earth. All the animals died on the land. The 1st statement sounds like "the earth" is the "globe." The 2nd statement could be anything, because the land could be a local region or the whole earth. My claim here is that the word in Hebrew for "the earth" can refer to either the globe or the land. And it is more likely "the land," because at that time men did not realize that the earth was a globe. When they referred to "the whole earth" they meant "all the land within sight." So all the animals within sight died. That does not mean all animals across the whole earth were annihilated. If so, then every animals, bird, fish, and insect would've had to have been preserved on the ark, because the Scriptures indicated that Noah kept alive representative samples of his region (not the whole globe). But he could not have kept bugs alive, and he could not have met all of the needs of the various creatures, which are extremely diverse, from one creature to another. Again, you're creating the need for a humongous miracle, and then defending that purely with the claim that your interpretation is the "biblical" one. But I'm saying that we have science and history, which accords with the Local Flood theory. It doesn't discount God's intervention in human affairs, nor His miraculous powers. But it does fit the record of geological history and scientific principles. And God used the language of natural phenomena to explain how the Flood took place, and how the animals were preserved. Certainly, we may not agree on this, and you may feel the need to defend "biblical literalism," etc. But this matter does not concern "biblical literalism" for me. It is rather a matter of language and biblical interpretation, and presenting that along with the scientific data. Genesis 6:7-8 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. Hebrews 11:7 7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith. Randy please read the verses above it wasn’t about a region it was much deeper it was about God starting the whole over again and giving the whole world another chance all other life had to end. God stated that He regretted that He made them do you think that God only regretted that He made them in that region? How would you explain how the Grand Canyon was carved out? I believe in an old earth. It would take a very long time for erosion to create the Grand Canyon. It would take many millions of years. An Old Earth view does not, I believe, contradict the biblical account. According to archaeology and gelogical dating, animal life is much, much older than human life, and that is how the biblical account depicts it. We do not have to read "6 days" as literal 24 hour periods. They may represent "periods of time," or "phases," which is what a "day" presents to us in the metaphorical sense. I don't believe in macro-evolution, but I do think God may have created the animals over a long period of time, prior to the creation of Man. Just to reiterate, when I read "the earth," or "the world," in the Flood account, I read "the land." Man did not view the earth as a globe when the author of Genesis offered his account of the Flood. God's disappointment with Man in general was focused on that local region and with that particular civilization in the Middle East. What happened to Noah's society reflected, overall, God's view of sinful humanity, and what He did in judging them was intended to send a message to Man for all of history. In other words, it was an all-encompassing statement, even if it took place in a local region. I find the words "human race" unfortunate in the text because I don't think the connotation there is correct. God wiped out humanity within the confines of the entire land of *that region.* He did not wipe out the "human race."
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Dec 15, 2019 16:55:47 GMT
I see in this thread two sides of the discussion that are very prominent in the Church. Both are backed by many well meaning brothers and sisters. It is good to air both sides for all to read and consider. Any other opinions on this subject?
|
|
|
Post by mfox on Dec 15, 2019 21:23:21 GMT
Genesis 6:7-8 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. Hebrews 11:7 7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith. Randy please read the verses above it wasn’t about a region it was much deeper it was about God starting the whole over again and giving the whole world another chance all other life had to end. God stated that He regretted that He made them do you think that God only regretted that He made them in that region? How would you explain how the Grand Canyon was carved out? I believe in an old earth. It would take a very long time for erosion to create the Grand Canyon. It would take many millions of years. An Old Earth view does not, I believe, contradict the biblical account. According to archaeology and gelogical dating, animal life is much, much older than human life, and that is how the biblical account depicts it. We do not have to read "6 days" as literal 24 hour periods. They may represent "periods of time," or "phases," which is what a "day" presents to us in the metaphorical sense. I don't believe in macro-evolution, but I do think God may have created the animals over a long period of time, prior to the creation of Man. Just to reiterate, when I read "the earth," or "the world," in the Flood account, I read "the land." Man did not view the earth as a globe when the author of Genesis offered his account of the Flood. God's disappointment with Man in general was focused on that local region and with that particular civilization in the Middle East. What happened to Noah's society reflected, overall, God's view of sinful humanity, and what He did in judging them was intended to send a message to Man for all of history. In other words, it was an all-encompassing statement, even if it took place in a local region. I find the words "human race" unfortunate in the text because I don't think the connotation there is correct. God wiped out humanity within the confines of the entire land of *that region.* He did not wipe out the "human race." The Grand Canyon was carved out from water. You also have to figure out how the water was so deep covering mountains in one area would defy gravity and not spread out over the rest of the earth Weather old earth or young earth what is most important than the details is the message. This message is from God who is the author of Genesis who through mosses tells us that all humans except for Noah conformed to the ways of the world and the faithful to God would of ceased to exist when Noah died. God then had to preserve Noah and his family’s life while He whiped out all of mankind and start over again. This is also a message for the church today to stay faithful to God and not conform to the world. Sadly it will one day happen when the gospel becomes corrupted and the church conforms and God will then once again destroy our world before it fully conforms because Jesus promised that the gates of hell will never overcome the church
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2019 0:31:30 GMT
Points noted Randy. If you wish to read an excellent book on Noah's Flood and Creation in general from God's point of view and a world wide flood, have a look at "In The Beginning" by Dr. Walt Brown. It is available on the internet for free the last time I checked. I do have a hard copy as well and it is one of my favorite books.
And he does address the issues of having to regenerate the earth, not having enough space on the Ark and where did the water disappear to when the flood was over. I'll see if I can find a link.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2019 0:37:17 GMT
I'm pretty sure that this is it. If not, it will get you in the general direction.
There is one thing that I have noticed though with books like this - if you go on line to see book reviews, it is very easy to see who the evilutionists are. They have nothing nice to say about it or any other Christian book.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 16, 2019 2:28:29 GMT
I'm pretty sure that this is it. If not, it will get you in the general direction.
There is one thing that I have noticed though with books like this - if you go on line to see book reviews, it is very easy to see who the evilutionists are. They have nothing nice to say about it or any other Christian book.
Yes, evolutionists have nowhere to go if they reject God as the Creator. They have to create myths without scientific basis to hypothesize a process that could not be accomplished without some kind of blueprint or intelligent design. No matter how they wish to have it, their theory still demands God as the Creator. But the damage they cause is significant. There appears to be a diabolical reason behind their otherwise scientific inquiry, since evolution is an attempt to bypass religious matters. The result is that there is no moral responsibility apart from humanism, which in itself is a very weak base for producing characteristics like love and kindness. On the matter of Young Earth theory and the Universal Flood doctrine, I began with these assumptions. I read Henry Morris' Creation Research material. When I tried to play "devil's advocate" to defend Young Earth ideas on internet forums perhaps 20 years ago, I got trounced by a Jewish intellectual whose brother was a scientist. I really respect the guy. I didn't become agnostic, and he didn't become a Christian, but I learned to check out more facts. Otherwise, my testimony to Christian truth will be weakened, and not taken seriously by those who are smarter than me. Don't get me wrong. I didn't lose all of the arguments. But I learned a valuable lesson about not thinking I'm always in command of all the facts. Humility precedes success is my motto now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2019 2:44:57 GMT
As I see it, the long agers have nowhere to go either until they can explain Matthew 19:4-5 where Jesus Himself says that man and woman existed from the beginning. Again, as I see it, by denying this vey important statement, they are basically calling Jesus a liar.
or is there an explanation that I have overlooked?
|
|
|
Post by mfox on Dec 28, 2019 7:13:51 GMT
As I see it, the long agers have nowhere to go either until they can explain Matthew 19:4-5 where Jesus Himself says that man and woman existed from the beginning. Again, as I see it, by denying this vey important statement, they are basically calling Jesus a liar. or is there an explanation that I have overlooked? Well said gator
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 28, 2019 8:26:14 GMT
As I see it, the long agers have nowhere to go either until they can explain Matthew 19:4-5 where Jesus Himself says that man and woman existed from the beginning. Again, as I see it, by denying this vey important statement, they are basically calling Jesus a liar. or is there an explanation that I have overlooked? Well said gator My brother, whose interest is in linguistics, would love this question. He's interested in words, more than in the underlying theological presupposition. He wants to know what the word means. I don't know where he would stand on this issue. But let's surmise that the word "beginning" is a reference to the *beginning of human history.* If so, then man existing from the beginning did not mean man existed from the beginning of the universe. It did not mean Man existed during the the 1st five days of Creation. So then we have to ask ourselves, are these six days of Creation a literal week? Or, are these "days, evenings and mornings," a metaphor for a category of time in which God constructed, in His mind, certain things and creatures? If so, we don't know precisely when God created things--just the orders in which He conceived of them. The result was that they began to display existence on the earth, and we may not know how long this took apart from measuring the geological age of the earth. God certainly gave modern scientists the capacity to measure the age of rocks, by uranium testing. And there many other means of measuring time on the earth. Why would God confuse Man with false data? Or perhaps He designed it precisely so that we could understand God's process in creating the world?
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Dec 28, 2019 9:15:47 GMT
A well reasoned and interesting post Randy. There are many things in this world that we will not know precisely until we are in the presence of The Lord.
|
|
|
Post by mfox on Dec 28, 2019 18:01:33 GMT
My brother, whose interest is in linguistics, would love this question. He's interested in words, more than in the underlying theological presupposition. He wants to know what the word means. I don't know where he would stand on this issue. But let's surmise that the word "beginning" is a reference to the *beginning of human history.* If so, then man existing from the beginning did not mean man existed from the beginning of the universe. It did not mean Man existed during the the 1st five days of Creation. So then we have to ask ourselves, are these six days of Creation a literal week? Or, are these "days, evenings and mornings," a metaphor for a category of time in which God constructed, in His mind, certain things and creatures? If so, we don't know precisely when God created things--just the orders in which He conceived of them. The result was that they began to display existence on the earth, and we may not know how long this took apart from measuring the geological age of the earth. God certainly gave modern scientists the capacity to measure the age of rocks, by uranium testing. And there many other means of measuring time on the earth. Why would God confuse Man with false data? Or perhaps He designed it precisely so that we could understand God's process in creating the world? But then again God created the earth for man so why would it be around so long before man. God also had Adam name the animals
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2019 18:16:28 GMT
OK next question then Randy. And your brother might have some interest in this one too. Here’s the preamble.
The Bible states in Genesis 1 that the fish of the sea and the birds of the air were made on day 5. It then states that the land animals AND MAN were created on the sixth day.
As I understand it, the question is “ Did the animals (specifically the prehistoric land animals) live before man was created?” My answer is “Yes they were - but only by a few hours.”
I really do not understand how you can inject millions of years into such a straight forward statement.
Your turn.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2019 21:55:16 GMT
Another interesting thought Randy. Can I then assume that you are assigning a different meaning to the word "day" for the first little bit of Genesis? That is to say, does the meaning of that word change as we progress through the Bible from say Genesis 1 to the New Testament?
I take Jesus words when He says "from the beginning" to mean from the beginning. Period.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 30, 2019 22:29:14 GMT
My brother, whose interest is in linguistics, would love this question. He's interested in words, more than in the underlying theological presupposition. He wants to know what the word means. I don't know where he would stand on this issue. But let's surmise that the word "beginning" is a reference to the *beginning of human history.* If so, then man existing from the beginning did not mean man existed from the beginning of the universe. It did not mean Man existed during the the 1st five days of Creation. So then we have to ask ourselves, are these six days of Creation a literal week? Or, are these "days, evenings and mornings," a metaphor for a category of time in which God constructed, in His mind, certain things and creatures? If so, we don't know precisely when God created things--just the orders in which He conceived of them. The result was that they began to display existence on the earth, and we may not know how long this took apart from measuring the geological age of the earth. God certainly gave modern scientists the capacity to measure the age of rocks, by uranium testing. And there many other means of measuring time on the earth. Why would God confuse Man with false data? Or perhaps He designed it precisely so that we could understand God's process in creating the world? But then again God created the earth for man so why would it be around so long before man. God also had Adam name the animals I don't have a clue. I believe that God created the earth not just for man, but also for the animals, the creatures, and the plant life. Ultimately, God had planned all this for man, yes. Why should God take so long to get to the object of His creation? I don't know. But then again, what difference does it make to God how long He takes? The truth is, God gave us all this geological data and the means of dating rocks, along with many other methods of dating things on earth and in the universe. Some of it depends on the theory that science has remained basically the same throughout the time of the universe. But if we do not have this uniformitarian model, anything is possible.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Dec 30, 2019 22:43:27 GMT
Another interesting thought Randy. Can I then assume that you are assigning a different meaning to the word "day" for the first little bit of Genesis? That is to say, does the meaning of that word change as we progress through the Bible from say Genesis 1 to the New Testament?
I take Jesus words when He says "from the beginning" to mean from the beginning. Period.
Yes, I do respect your view, and it's certainly possible with a God who knows no limitations. The basis of my argument is the science of dating rocks, period. If God allowed us all to be fooled by that, I guess that's what He anticipated? But in the Scriptures God said, "Come let us reason together." That indicates to me that God is a reasonable God, and appeals to things like fact, whether scientific facts or facts of religious experience. After all, the field of apologetics depends on things like historical facts, right? If we got it all wrong on history, then the basis of our faith on the fact of Christ's historical death for our sins falls apart. Yes, I do see the word "day" used differently in Genesis 1, because elsewhere it is used for a 24- hour day. But we have to admit that the word "day" used in the days of Creation is a very different context than the word "day" used *after* Creation! If on the 1st day we have light, but no sun, then what kind of "day" is this? It cannot be effected by the rotation of the earth in proximity to the sun simply because there is no sun yet, right? So on the 1st through the 3rd days we do not have solar days, but some other kind of metaphorical "day," in my view. They refer to a category of time when there has yet to even be a sun! It's a category defined by the boundaries of the things being conceived of by God's word. That is, the 1st day would be defined by bookends surrounding the creation of light. The evening and the morning of the 1st day would thus be "bookends" to identify an important element in Creation overall, as God focused in on certain things that He made.
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Dec 31, 2019 7:29:48 GMT
A good point well worth considering.
|
|