Genesis....Fact or fiction?

[RLeighB96]

Exactly, Stan. Carbon dating has been wrong before, at least other scientist have said such. Look at it this way, "recent study shows processed meat gives you cancer" Okay, without getting into that topic, you know that in ten years another study will come out saying that one was wrong. This happens all the time. Personally, I think a lot of science is particular people pushing agendas.

Here's the problem we keep running into. Which scientist are correct and which are false? All scientist claim their work is correct. But no one really knows. So, they throw all their works into a book and call it science and preach it in schools and everywhere else. The Big Bang Theory is taught instead of God creating the earth. Evolution is taught instead of God creating all the animals and people. But here's what stumps me. Carbon dating is taught. They use carbon dating to determine the age of rocks and fossils and such. Geologically, the Bible teaches that the earth was created by God, slightly less than 6000 years ago. However, scientists say they can trace how old various layers of dirt and rock are (carbon dating). Claiming the earth is millions of years old.

"Geologically" is nothing more than a measure based on concepts of MANs invention. Used to compare and describe. Geologically, indeed, there may be rocks we can measure to be over 500,000,000 years old-according the scale of MANs invention-but that doesn't prove the Bible wrong. It merely provides and arbitrary measure of "age" as compared to other objects against a scale made by MAN. If an object were created and given intended characterists, then when it is measured against MANs invented scale, it would measure a certain age (even a million years old). But then you have no way of really knowing your scale was "THE" scale unless you knew the original scale in advance, which you don't (because it's God's scale). People have been giving MANs scale too much authority that it doesn't deserve. The scale is good for comparison between objects but not for extrapolation outside its limits.

So we have this scale called carbon dating, but it contradicts evolution. According to evolution everything came from the same organism. So, in a way everything should be the same age. Do you see what's wrong with science?

As for the original question, yes, I believe the earth was created in 6 days. The same rules for man don't apply to God. That is why He is God. However, because God is God, time does not matter to him. So we're still not sure whether they were 24 hour days or not.

Exodus 20:11 ESV
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

 

[River Jordan]

Here's the problem we keep running into. Which scientist are correct and which are false? All scientist claim their work is correct. But no one really knows.

Actually, there are very good ways of telling who is correct and who isn't. With something like carbon dating, we can check the results against known events. For example, scientists can date artifacts from the known time of a volcanic eruption and check their results; they can calibrate their results with other dating methods (e.g., tree rings, lake varves, stalactites).

So, they throw all their works into a book and call it science and preach it in schools and everywhere else. The Big Bang Theory is taught instead of God creating the earth. Evolution is taught instead of God creating all the animals and people.

That's because in the US, the government (public schools) aren't supposed to be teaching religion in science classes; they're supposed to teach science.

But here's what stumps me. Carbon dating is taught. They use carbon dating to determine the age of rocks and fossils and such.

Actually, C-14 dating isn't used on rocks and is only useful for formerly-living things that lived less than ~45,000 years ago. Other methods are used for older objects and rocks.

Geologically, the Bible teaches that the earth was created by God, slightly less than 6000 years ago.

Not really. That's just one interpretation among many.

"Geologically" is nothing more than a measure based on concepts of MANs invention. Used to compare and describe. Geologically, indeed, there may be rocks we can measure to be over 500,000,000 years old-according the scale of MANs invention-but that doesn't prove the Bible wrong. It merely provides and arbitrary measure of "age" as compared to other objects against a scale made by MAN. If an object were created and given intended characterists, then when it is measured against MANs invented scale, it would measure a certain age (even a million years old). But then you have no way of really knowing your scale was "THE" scale unless you knew the original scale in advance, which you don't (because it's God's scale). People have been giving MANs scale too much authority that it doesn't deserve. The scale is good for comparison between objects but not for extrapolation outside its limits.

I don't understand. Why would God have a different "scale" of time than us? And if what you say is true, doesn't that mean a "day" to God is on a different scale than ours?

So we have this scale called carbon dating, but it contradicts evolution. According to evolution everything came from the same organism. So, in a way everything should be the same age. Do you see what's wrong with science?

No. I'm sorry, but what you said doesn't make sense. Basically what you're saying is since me, my cousins, and my sisters all are descended from the same organism (my grandmother) we should all be the same age. :blink:

Exodus 20:11 ESV
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Clearly the point of that passage is to stress the importance of the Sabbath, not to describe the scientific details of the creation of the universe.

 

[Barrd]

All righty then.

Just between you and me, I think we are possibly several thousands of years off...of course, I could be wrong. It's not based on anything in particular....just a feeling I have.

Science is merely the best means we've come up with to study God's creation, so it doesn't have to be a matter of having to choose between the two. It wasn't that long ago when Christians were totally convinced scripture depicted a stationary earth that was orbited by the rest of the universe, but once science showed that to be wrong, we went back and re-examined our interpretations.

I think I mentioned that.
Frankly, I think we ought to have learned from this mistake, but sadly, it seems that some of us are determined to repeat it.

As far as God leaving behind evidence, I can't think of any reason why God would go through the trouble of covering his tracks.

Well, other than that He seems to want us to believe in Him by faith...

Oh sure. My point was merely that posting links to a website with no further comment isn't very compelling.

And your point is taken.

No doubt. Who knows what's out there?

Intriguing thought, isn't it?
Perhaps God has other flocks, elsewhere in the universe...

Oh, sweetie....you have no idea. You should see some of the crap that's been thrown my way about that.

I can well believe it, River.
However, didn't Jesus mention that the world would know His disciples by the love that they have for others?
I do believe that we can recognize one another by the same sign.

No love=not a Christian....no matter how "devout" they may seem.
By that criteria, it seems to me that there are not nearly so many Christians in the world as one would have thought... :unsure:

 

[River Jordan]

Well Barrd, it looks like we find ourselves in agreement yet again.

 

[StanJ]

Whoa, now my faith is called into question, because I do not believe that the "six days" of Creation must of a necessity be six earth-time days?
There is not one iota of doubt in my mind that God created the universe.
Note....that would include the entire universe...not just this one tiny bit of it.
And there is not one iota of doubt in my mind that He could have done it in an instant of time, had He chosen to do so.
It is a ridiculous argument from the start, because God is not limited by either time or space.

No. I don't see that. The question is, "Do you rely solely on God's Word, or do you only accept God's word when it is NOT contradicted by the science you follow?"
It has been well documented that the word YOM in Gen 1 is a literal 24 hours/period lunar day. The Hebrew/context/textual criticism, supports that. Also, so does Exodus 20:11 & 31:17 confirms that YOM in Gen 1 is a literal day.
Acts 4:12 deals with ALL creation, so yes we are sole inhabitants of this universe.
No He is not, but He created it for US, and limits Himself to it those realities as He interacts with us.

 

[RLeighB96]

Actually, there are very good ways of telling who is correct and who isn't. With something like carbon dating, we can check the results against known events. For example, scientists can date artifacts from the known time of a volcanic eruption and check their results; they can calibrate their results with other dating methods (e.g., tree rings, lake varves, stalactites).

No, there's not. Every scientist is correct to different eyes. A person who believes in Stephen Hawking doesn't mean he is correct. That person believes he is. I don't believe in his work about the Big Bang Theory. So no, no one can truly demine whether or not a specific scientist has the correct answers. But that's what they're hear for, isn't it? To test the limits and discover things. Not everyone has to agree with them.

That's because in the US, the government (public schools) aren't supposed to be teaching religion in science classes; they're supposed to teach science.

And I believe this is crap. If the government is going to be preaching contradicting evidence in science, they should teach something along the lines of creationism. It doesn't necessarily have to be religion, but something else to counteract evolution and the Big Bang Theory.

Actually, C-14 dating isn't used on rocks and is only useful for formerly-living things that lived less than ~45,000 years ago. Other methods are used for older objects and rocks.

My point was, we use scales of MANS invention to determine the age of things. Rocks and/or fossils.

Not really. That's just one interpretation among many.

Everyone has their own interpretation of everything.

I don't understand. Why would God have a different "scale" of time than us? And if what you say is true, doesn't that mean a "day" to God is on a different scale than ours?

I see you don't understand. Why would God have a different scale? You are putting man before God. God has been here, always and forever. HE created the scale way before we did. We do not know the original scale because God created it. And if what I say is true, than yes. A "day" to God is on a different scale. His scale. We created our own scale to comprehend the world around us. To help explain things we're unsure of. We do not know God's scale. Therefore, we do not know how long those 6 days were to God.

No. I'm sorry, but what you said doesn't make sense. Basically what you're saying is since me, my cousins, and my sisters all are descended from the same organism (my grandmother) we should all be the same age. :blink:

In 1859 Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution in his book On the Origin of Species. The theory actually consisted of two distinct parts: First, species are descended from other, earlier species. There is currently no scientific disagreement with this part. The second part concerned the way evolution works. Survival of the fittest was an elegant yet simple explanation for the mechanics of evolution. Anyone looking at a giraffe or even a tulip could easily identify hundreds of organism design characteristics that clearly aided in surviving or reproducing, that is, in increasing evolutionary fitness.
However, Darwin’s critics immediately noticed a nagging inconsistency. Different organisms, even very similar ones, had dramatically different life spans. Each species appeared to be designed to have a particular life span that was specific to that species.

What I'm trying to get at is mostly rocks, but the point above works just as well. If The Big Bang Theory happened and evolution happened, then wouldn't all the rock layers be the same age? Everything should be able to date back to origin of the evolution when the first organism was "created".

Clearly the point of that passage is to stress the importance of the Sabbath, not to describe the scientific details of the creation of the universe.

No, it was to stress that the Bible specifically says, God created the universe in 6 days and on the 7th (The Sabbath) he rested. Therefore, a week passed.

 

[River Jordan]

No, there's not.

Yes there are; I just described some of them to you. You just saying "Nuh uh" isn't at all meaningful.

Every scientist is correct to different eyes. A person who believes in Stephen Hawking doesn't mean he is correct. That person believes he is. I don't believe in his work about the Big Bang Theory. So no, no one can truly demine whether or not a specific scientist has the correct answers.

Um.....yes we can. If one scientist says the earth is flat and another says it's spherical, we can figure out who's correct. I'll give you a hint....it's the one whose hypothesis best matches reality (observations, measurements, data).

And I believe this is crap. If the government is going to be preaching contradicting evidence in science, they should teach something along the lines of creationism. It doesn't necessarily have to be religion, but something else to counteract evolution and the Big Bang Theory.

Why? Do you think every subject should be treated this way? If we teach the Holocaust, we have to teach Holocaust denialism/conspiracy theories? If we teach a spherical earth, we have to teach a flat earth too? :wacko:

I see you don't understand. Why would God have a different scale? You are putting man before God. God has been here, always and forever. HE created the scale way before we did. We do not know the original scale because God created it. And if what I say is true, than yes. A "day" to God is on a different scale. His scale. We created our own scale to comprehend the world around us. To help explain things we're unsure of. We do not know God's scale. Therefore, we do not know how long those 6 days were to God.

Exactly. Adopting your argument means we can't say how long those 6 days were.

In 1859 Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution in his book On the Origin of Species. The theory actually consisted of two distinct parts: First, species are descended from other, earlier species. There is currently no scientific disagreement with this part. The second part concerned the way evolution works. Survival of the fittest was an elegant yet simple explanation for the mechanics of evolution. Anyone looking at a giraffe or even a tulip could easily identify hundreds of organism design characteristics that clearly aided in surviving or reproducing, that is, in increasing evolutionary fitness.
However, Darwin’s critics immediately noticed a nagging inconsistency. Different organisms, even very similar ones, had dramatically different life spans. Each species appeared to be designed to have a particular life span that was specific to that species.

If you're going to copy from an outside source, at least give them credit.

What I'm trying to get at is mostly rocks, but the point above works just as well. If The Big Bang Theory happened and evolution happened, then wouldn't all the rock layers be the same age? Everything should be able to date back to origin of the evolution when the first organism was "created".

Because different rocks form via different mechanisms in different ways. Some rocks are volcanic in origin, so their date of origin will coincide with that eruption. Then another eruption happens 5,000 years later, and the date of origin for those rocks will coincide with that eruption.

You should read this to get the basics down:
http://sci-culture.com/advancedpoll/GCSE/rockformation.htm

No, it was to stress that the Bible specifically says, God created the universe in 6 days and on the 7th (The Sabbath) he rested. Therefore, a week passed.

But just above you insisted that we can't know how long those six days were, since they were on "God's time scale". :huh:

 

[Barrd]

No. I don't see that. The question is, "Do you rely solely on God's Word, or do you only accept God's word when it is NOT contradicted by the science you follow?"
It has been well documented that the word YOM in Gen 1 is a literal 24 hours/period lunar day. The Hebrew/context/textual criticism, supports that. Also, so does Exodus 20:11 & 31:17 confirms that YOM in Gen 1 is a literal day.
Acts 4:12 deals with ALL creation, so yes we are sole inhabitants of this universe.
No He is not, but He created it for US, and limits Himself to it those realities as He interacts with us.

So, do you also question my faith because I do not agree with this assessment?
Again, it wasn't that long ago that the church stood firm against science, insisting that the earth was the center of the universe, and that everything else revolved around it.
I think we know how that came out.
It looks a whole lot as if the church is setting herself to make fools of Christians once again, and that is very sad.


The verses you quoted do not prove that the six days of Creation just had to be six earth time days.
Evidence proves that the earth is a good bit older than Creationism insists that it must be....that is a fact, and we must deal with it.
Does it really matter that much?
Acts 4:12 certainly does not state that we are alone in the universe. What it actually says is that Jesus is the only Savior that there is. What that has to do with whether or not there is other life in the universe is totally beyond me.
Just to satisfy my curiousity, do you have any kind of notion why God created so many suns and so many planets if He had no intention of putting life there? Of course, it is His universe, and He can do whatever He wants with it...but it just seems to me that He generally has good reasons for the things He does.

Now, it doesn't bother me at all that we do not agree on these things. You are, of course, entitled to believe whatever you wish, and I seriously do not think that these details have anything at all to do with whether we are saved or not.
I am, however, a bit shocked and kind of hurt that because I do not believe the same way, my faith is called into question. This seems quite unreasonable to me.

 

[Born_Again]

So, do you also question my faith because I do not agree with this assessment?
Again, it wasn't that long ago that the church stood firm against science, insisting that the earth was the center of the universe, and that everything else revolved around it.
I think we know how that came out.
It looks a whole lot as if the church is setting herself to make fools of Christians once again, and that is very sad.


The verses you quoted do not prove that the six days of Creation just had to be six earth time days.
Evidence proves that the earth is a good bit older than Creationism insists that it must be....that is a fact, and we must deal with it.
Does it really matter that much?
Acts 4:12 certainly does not state that we are alone in the universe. What it actually says is that Jesus is the only Savior that there is. What that has to do with whether or not there is other life in the universe is totally beyond me.
Just to satisfy my curiousity, do you have any kind of notion why God created so many suns and so many planets if He had no intention of putting life there? Of course, it is His universe, and He can do whatever He wants with it...but it just seems to me that He generally has good reasons for the things He does.

Now, it doesn't bother me at all that we do not agree on these things. You are, of course, entitled to believe whatever you wish, and I seriously do not think that these details have anything at all to do with whether we are saved or not.
I am, however, a bit shocked and kind of hurt that because I do not believe the same way, my faith is called into question. This seems quite unreasonable to me.

My discontent is the weak theology.. well its not even theology. You compared geology studies to medicine studies.. Apples and oranges. Next, no, we do not know why He created other planets. But in case you haven't noticed, the others in our solar system could not be habitable. And why do I question your faith? Well, you have faith in God and acknowledge He is the creator, yet you cannot consider that the God of all creation could pull it off in 6 days.... "Oh what a wonderful God He is and Oh how I love Him... but there is no way He could have pulled it off in 6 days" You seem to hold Science on some pedestal and that is mildly disturbing. Yes, there are area's of science that have done wonderful things i.e. medicine, but to claim that all science is accurate because of that? Man is fallible, God is not. . and btw, sorry I spelled your name wrong. I did not need a small essay on why your name is why it is.. I simply do not care.

Matthew 18:3
3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

On one last note. I am not trying to change your mind about any of this. I am simply astonished by your theology or whatever it is.

BA

 

[StanJ]

So, do you also question my faith because I do not agree with this assessment?
Again, it wasn't that long ago that the church stood firm against science, insisting that the earth was the center of the universe, and that everything else revolved around it.
I think we know how that came out.
It looks a whole lot as if the church is setting herself to make fools of Christians once again, and that is very sad.

The verses you quoted do not prove that the six days of Creation just had to be six earth time days.
Evidence proves that the earth is a good bit older than Creationism insists that it must be....that is a fact, and we must deal with it.
Does it really matter that much?
Acts 4:12 certainly does not state that we are alone in the universe. What it actually says is that Jesus is the only Savior that there is. What that has to do with whether or not there is other life in the universe is totally beyond me.
Just to satisfy my curiousity, do you have any kind of notion why God created so many suns and so many planets if He had no intention of putting life there? Of course, it is His universe, and He can do whatever He wants with it...but it just seems to me that He generally has good reasons for the things He does.

Now, it doesn't bother me at all that we do not agree on these things. You are, of course, entitled to believe whatever you wish, and I seriously do not think that these details have anything at all to do with whether we are saved or not.
I am, however, a bit shocked and kind of hurt that because I do not believe the same way, my faith is called into question. This seems quite unreasonable to me.

Did I not say I don't see that? He didn't question your faith, he questioned your resolve to accept God's word.
This type of straw man is not helpful Barrd. Eratosthenes knew the earth was a sphere 200 years before Jesus was born, so if you don't think that is NOT long ago, then I don't know what is. I have no idea what you mean by ~" the church is setting herself to make fools of Christians once again"? The church IS the Christians.

The verses I quoted show that they were normal days, as all the other references in those passages of days mean. You say evidence shows the earth is older than the Bible says, so you show you believe man's science over God's word. That is the problem.
There is NO proof that science has it right, it's called THEORY.
Acts 4:12 states; "there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved.” Now I can't make you think, but think....if Jesus is the ONLY name under heaven and He was ONLY here, then how would life on other worlds be saved? I think you've been watching way to much Star Trek.
I don't question God Barrd, I accept His word by faith. You acknowledge that God is unfathomable, but then use your own human reasoning to justify your rational. How exactly do you juxtapose diametrically opposite points of view to make then work? They don't.
You either serve God or you serve mammon, as Jesus said in Matt 6:24. You can't have two masters.
You perceive what you want, but the bottom line is God's word says one thing, that He created the universe in 6 literal days, as you have been shown, or you believe the so-called science. That is important IMO, and if you advocate for everything else the Bible says as fact, but in a clearly literal section you balk at the facts and insist science is right and God is wrong, then what are we to presume?
A day is A day and God created the universe in 6 of those days.

 

[Barrd]

My discontent is the weak theology.. well its not even theology. You compared geology studies to medicine studies.. Apples and oranges. Next, no, we do not know why He created other planets. But in case you haven't noticed, the others in our solar system could not be habitable. And why do I question your faith? Well, you have faith in God and acknowledge He is the creator, yet you cannot consider that the God of all creation could pull it off in 6 days.... "Oh what a wonderful God He is and Oh how I love Him... but there is no way He could have pulled it off in 6 days" You seem to hold Science on some pedestal and that is mildly disturbing. Yes, there are area's of science that have done wonderful things i.e. medicine, but to claim that all science is accurate because of that? Man is fallible, God is not. . and btw, sorry I spelled your name wrong. I did not need a small essay on why your name is why it is.. I simply do not care.

Matthew 18:3
3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

On one last note. I am not trying to change your mind about any of this. I am simply astonished by your theology or whatever it is.

BA

The only part of this that I am going to address is the remark "Well, you have faith in God and acknowledge He is the creator, yet you cannot consider that the God of all creation could pull it off in 6 days.... "Oh what a wonderful God He is and Oh how I love Him... but there is no way He could have pulled it off in 6 days", which is pure bovine excrement.
Again, I will say that God could have done it all in a moment of time, or that He could have lingered lovingly over His creation for millions of years. The point is that God, unlike mere mortals, is not limited by time, or by space. Time, as we know it, did not exist before He created it. I know that is hard to wrap our tiny minds around, but it is a fact, never the less.

As to the rest of your comment....pbht

 

[Barrd]

Did I not say I don't see that? He didn't question your faith, he questioned your resolve to accept God's word.

Stan, I totally accept God's word. I just do not agree that a day is the same length all over the universe, let alone in the realm of God, where there is no time at all.

This type of straw man is not helpful Barrd. Eratosthenes knew the earth was a sphere 200 years before Jesus was born, so if you don't think that is NOT long ago, then I don't know what is. I have no idea what you mean by ~" the church is setting herself to make fools of Christians once again"? The church IS the Christians.

And the church made fools of Christians once before, when she fought....uselessly, as it turned out....against Galileo's concept that the earth revolved around the sun. We now know that Galileo was right...and the church was wrong.
Did we learn from this foolish mistake?
Nope. Here we are, set once again to fight against science, and over what? Over how old the universe is? Imho, this is even a more ridiculous battle than the first one.

The verses I quoted show that they were normal days, as all the other references in those passages of days mean. You say evidence shows the earth is older than the Bible says, so you show you believe man's science over God's word. That is the problem.
There is NO proof that science has it right, it's called THEORY.

I don't see any conflict between God and science.
After all, God invented science. All that science really is is a tool to help us to understand the universe that we live in.
The only real conflict is between big-headed scientists who think that they hold all the secrets of the universe, and equally over-stuffed theologians who are quite sure that they know just how God did it all.
The truth of the matter is that neither group has as much as scratched the surface.

Acts 4:12 states; "there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved.” Now I can't make you think, but think....if Jesus is the ONLY name under heaven and He was ONLY here, then how would life on other worlds be saved? I think you've been watching way to much Star Trek.

Where does it say that He was ONLY here? Can you show me where God actually says that there is no other life out there, or that Jesus only came to this one planet?
LOL, you got me! I was a Trekkie when Trekkies weren't cool...

I don't question God Barrd, I accept His word by faith. You acknowledge that God is unfathomable, but then use your own human reasoning to justify your rational. How exactly do you juxtapose diametrically opposite points of view to make then work? They don't.

Are you sure it is not you that is trying to use his own human reasoning to explain the workings of God?
I'm pretty sure that God did tell us not to lean on our own understanding, and not to be wise in our own eyes...

You either serve God or you serve mammon, as Jesus said in Matt 6:24. You can't have two masters.

That's a bit over the top. Just because I don't agree with you about how long a day is for God, doesn't mean that I am serving two masters.

You perceive what you want, but the bottom line is God's word says one thing, that He created the universe in 6 literal days, as you have been shown, or you believe the so-called science. That is important IMO, and if you advocate for everything else the Bible says as fact, but in a clearly literal section you balk at the facts and insist science is right and God is wrong, then what are we to presume?
A day is A day and God created the universe in 6 of those days.

How long is a day at the North Pole?
Or how long is a day at the equator?
The point is, a day is not 24 hours everywhere even on this one planet, let alone throughout the universe.
To try to hold God to such an arbitrary measurement, imho, is just foolishness.
And again....God could have done it in a moment of time, or He could have lingered lovingly over His creation for millions of years...God is not bound by limits of space and time, neither of which existed before He created them.
God is omnipotent. Do you believe that? I do.
God is omniscient. Do you believe that? I do.
God is omnipresent. Do you believe that? I do.

Once before, I said that trying to explain the nature of God is like trying to explain quantum physics to a dog.

Trying to explain the timing of Creation is a lot like trying to explain to a frog about Friday....

 

[StanJ]

Stan, I totally accept God's word. I just do not agree that a day is the same length all over the universe, let alone in the realm of God, where there is no time at all.

And the church made fools of Christians once before, when she fought....uselessly, as it turned out....against Galileo's concept that the earth revolved around the sun. We now know that Galileo was right...and the church was wrong.
Did we learn from this foolish mistake?
Nope. Here we are, set once again to fight against science, and over what? Over how old the universe is? Imho, this is even a more ridiculous battle than the first one.

I don't see any conflict between God and science.
After all, God invented science. All that science really is is a tool to help us to understand the universe that we live in.
The only real conflict is between big-headed scientists who think that they hold all the secrets of the universe, and equally over-stuffed theologians who are quite sure that they know just how God did it all.
The truth of the matter is that neither group has as much as scratched the surface.

Where does it say that He was ONLY here? Can you show me where God actually says that there is no other life out there, or that Jesus only came to this one planet?
LOL, you got me! I was a Trekkie when Trekkies weren't cool...

Are you sure it is not you that is trying to use his own human reasoning to explain the workings of God?
I'm pretty sure that God did tell us not to lean on our own understanding, and not to be wise in our own eyes...


That's a bit over the top. Just because I don't agree with you about how long a day is for God, doesn't mean that I am serving two masters.

How long is a day at the North Pole?
Or how long is a day at the equator?
The point is, a day is not 24 hours everywhere even on this one planet, let alone throughout the universe.
To try to hold God to such an arbitrary measurement, imho, is just foolishness.

And again....God could have done it in a moment of time, or He could have lingered lovingly over His creation for millions of years...God is not bound by limits of space and time, neither of which existed before He created them.
God is omnipotent. Do you believe that? I do.
God is omniscient. Do you believe that? I do.
God is omnipresent. Do you believe that? I do.

Once before, I said that trying to explain the nature of God is like trying to explain quantum physics to a dog.

Trying to explain the timing of Creation is a lot like trying to explain to a frog about Friday....

Of course not, because the Bible was written for man ON earth, where the days have always been the same. Time is constant here and it is what God created to put man into.

You speak of the church, when it was the RCC, not the same thing, and Galileo proved his science IN his lifetime. NOT the same thing.
So in your opinion science is right and God's word is wrong?

God didn't invent science, man did, and everything man does is flawed in one way or another. Everyday comes with NEW science that contradicts OLD science that contradicted OLDER science. Are you sure the current science is all correct? How do you KNOW?

You're not believing what the Bible says is a day, nor are you believing what credentialed Hebrew scholars say it means, so who do you believe, and in believing, who is your master?

Really? You want to support science yet don't believe what science says about TIME on earth? You don't know about UTC or how time zones work? There is NOTHING arbitrary about it, and there never has been. You're now just grasping at straws.

The point is NOT what God could have or can do, it's about believing what He DID do, and apparently even though you voice that God is not something to be fully comprehended, you seem to have to have what He DID do make sense to you.? Rather contradictory of you. The Omni attributes of God are NOT at issue here so please don't defect down rabbit trails.

Yes you did, but apparently you think you're not a dog in your analogy?

Nothing to explain, but lots to believe as recorded in God's Word, unless you don't really want to believe it. I've seen your ability to properly divide God's word, but in this case you are hell bent, for some reason, to not use that ability to reason in this matter?

 

[River Jordan]

It's fascinating to watch the black-white thinking of fundamentalism in action.

 

[Barrd]

Of course not, because the Bible was written for man ON earth, where the days have always been the same. Time is constant here and it is what God created to put man into.

No, my precious brother, that is just my point....time is not constant on this planet. How long is a day at the North Pole? A day can last as long as six months! (Hey, maybe that's how old Santa gets it all done in one night! )
And a day may be longer or shorter depending on the time of year. Isn't that why we have "daylight savings time"?

You speak of the church, when it was the RCC, not the same thing, and Galileo proved his science IN his lifetime. NOT the same thing.
So in your opinion science is right and God's word is wrong?

That is a good point, of course, Stan, but I have to wonder....if you had been there, would you have accepted Galileo's theory? Or would you have sided with the Church?
Of course, science is not always right, nor does science being right prove that God's Word is wrong. However, in this particular case, I think some folks are taking literally what was never meant to be taken literally.
There is no time in the realm of God, nor did time exist at all before He created it. That is a fact. Therefore, holding the Creator of the Universe to an earth day, when a day isn't even the same length of time all over the earth or all during the year is just foolishness.
At least, that's the way I see it.

God didn't invent science, man did, and everything man does is flawed in one way or another. Everyday comes with NEW science that contradicts OLD science that contradicted OLDER science. Are you sure the current science is all correct? How do you KNOW?

Of course, God invented science. Gravity existed long before that apple fell on Newton's head, didn't it? And the physics that govern the revolution of the planets...that's been in place since the beginning of time, hasn't it? Sure, it took man a long time to figure these things out, but man did not invent them. God did.
And if science is right about the age of the earth, that doesn't change the fact that God created it. It just means that we misunderstood His time.
Of course, I'm not sure science is all correct. But I'm pretty sure that the universe is a good bit older than six or seven thousand years, or so. It is closer to 14 billion years old.

You're not believing what the Bible says is a day, nor are you believing what credentialed Hebrew scholars say it means, so who do you believe, and in believing, who is your master?

I think this is one time, my precious brother, when your "credentialed scholars" have let you down.
Of course, we both know my opinion of such "scholarship". I will always trust God before I will trust some "scholar".

Really? You want to support science yet don't believe what science says about TIME on earth? You don't know about UTC or how time zones work? There is NOTHING arbitrary about it, and there never has been. You're now just grasping at straws.

Are you talking about "Coordinated Universal Time"? Now, that would be a joke to someone living in Alaska....
To most of us, night is night and day is day, no matter what time NASA or whoever says it is...

The point is NOT what God could have or can do, it's about believing what He DID do, and apparently even though you voice that God is not something to be fully comprehended, you seem to have to have what He DID do make sense to you.? Rather contradictory of you. The Omni attributes of God are NOT at issue here so please don't defect down rabbit trails.

What God DID do was create the universe, and everything in it....and if, as some scientists think (but I do not necessarily agree) there are any other universes, then God created those too.
What God DID NOT do was give us technical details about how He did it, or how long it took?

Yes you did, but apparently you think you're not a dog in your analogy?

Yes, Stan, I am. And so are you, and so are your credentialed Hebrew scholars, etc.
For that matter, so are all scientists.
All we are doing is trying to find the ball that our Master has thrown....

Nothing to explain, but lots to believe as recorded in God's Word, unless you don't really want to believe it. I've seen your ability to properly divide God's word, but in this case you are hell bent, for some reason, to not use that ability to reason in this matter?

I like and respect you, too, Stan my man....but in this particular instance, I do think that you are mistaken.

 

[Barrd]

It's fascinating to watch the black-white thinking of fundamentalism in action.

Labels from a liberal, sis?

Did you have something you wished to contribute to the conversation?

 

[River Jordan]

Well, Stan has me on ignore (at least he used to) because he couldn't stand our previous go-rounds on this issue. Just like he's doing with you, he questioned my faith, claimed I was favoring "man over God" (while hypocritically citing his own human authorities, i.e., Hebrew scholars), and refused to consider the issue in any other terms than "It's either God or man".

There's been a few psychological studies of fundamentalists, and one of their most consistent traits is black-white thinking. Stan exhibits that in spades, especially on this question. So that's my contribution....it's fascinating to see things you read about actually come to life. B)

 

[Barrd]

Well, Stan has me on ignore (at least he used to) because he couldn't stand our previous go-rounds on this issue. Just like he's doing with you, he questioned my faith, claimed I was favoring "man over God" (while hypocritically citing his own human authorities, i.e., Hebrew scholars), and refused to consider the issue in any other terms than "It's either God or man".

There's been a few psychological studies of fundamentalists, and one of their most consistent traits is black-white thinking. Stan exhibits that in spades, especially on this question. So that's my contribution....it's fascinating to see things you read about actually come to life. B)

Psychological studies of fundamentalists....how interesting.
Have there been any such studies done of liberals?

And who does these studies, and what, exactly, are they looking for?

I, for one, do not trust such "studies" since I do not believe that there is a "one size fits all" psychological definition for any particular groupl

And did you know?
Psychology admits that it is not an exact science. How could it be? Science can't even locate the mind, let alone examine it!

 

[Barrd]

I do not think that Stan is questioning my faith at all.

He is just questioning my reasoning on this particular issue. I can deal with that. There is no rule that says that we must agree on everything...only that we are to love one another as our Lord has loved us.

 

[River Jordan]

Psychological studies of fundamentalists....how interesting.
Have there been any such studies done of liberals?

Of course. Liberals tend towards nuanced thinking, as opposed to the black-white thinking of fundamentalists. They've also found that conservatives are more loyal and value sanctity, whereas liberals place a higher value on accuracy and objectivity. It's not that one is better than the other either. They're just different ways of going about things.

And who does these studies, and what, exactly, are they looking for?

Various researchers who are looking for tendencies to help explain differences and behaviors.

I, for one, do not trust such "studies" since I do not believe that there is a "one size fits all" psychological definition for any particular groupl

That's good, since these sorts of studies are never couched in "one size fits all" terms. Instead, they are specifically described as tendencies.

And did you know?
Psychology admits that it is not an exact science. How could it be? Science can't even locate the mind, let alone examine it!

Well, it's not so black-white ( ) where either they exactly know everything, or they know nothing. There is plenty of room between those two extremes.

I do not think that Stan is questioning my faith at all.

You seemed to think that earlier.

There is no rule that says that we must agree on everything...only that we are to love one another as our Lord has loved us.

Nope, there sure isn't.