I guess you don't really understand what the wager was? It only applies to non-believers as believers have NOTHING to lose in his formula.aspen said:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager#Formulation
Old Earth
- Thread starter pom2014
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager#Formulation
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Com'mon StanStanJ said:
You are quibbling again.....
If Pascal's wager is used to try to convince people to join the team - those who decide to do so because of the wager, still use it to justify their decision to join.
Of course none of this has anything to do with my observation of your statement.
Well now you've lost me. How is it my quantifying or clarifying something you say is quibbling but your posts aren't?aspen said:
In any event not a big issue so I'll just leave it.
You're right. It is a fallacy of logic for a non-scientist to declare that the Bible contains a complete scientific explanation of something. They are not qualified to make such statements, as you just pointed out...lforrest said:
So you are suggesting mankind being old is fine? Neanderthal man etc?JimParker said:
Would you mind explaining 1. how natural selection is not evil? How God is exempt of this evil? and 2. Why it took God 293 000 years to choose Abraham / the start of His plan for our redemption? (if intelligent mankind is 300k years old, however you want to see it 30k - 300k or 800k).
I am suggesting that the age of mankind is irrelevant.KingJ said:
Again, the Bible is NOT a text book on natural history.
Natural selection has absolutely no moral content. Is the variety of dog "breeds" evil? Is the fact that horsed were once the size of poodles evil? Is the fact that wooly mammoths are extinct evil?
Please explain how you arrived at the notion that God has to be evil if natural selection is an accurate description of natural processes.
<< Please explain...2. Why it took God 293 000 years to choose Abraham / the start of His plan for our redemption? >>
What are you talking about???? How did you come up with 293,000 years?
And God's plan of redemption was "put into action" with the words "let there be light". Christ was slain before the foundation of the earth. (Rev 13:8 KJV)
Instead of just parroting what you have been told are questions and which will silence everyone who does not ascribe to your (apparent) young earth creationism, please state the facts on which you conclude those those questions are based. "Where are you coming from?"
Exactly how did you come to the conclusion that natural selection necessarily makes God evil?
1. Well that explains the blur.JimParker said:
Mankind has to be young. Otherwise the bible is recent fairytale dogma. Where is the missing scripture?
2. You really see it like that? You believe there was a time of animals eating / dominating animals outside of Adam's sin? God in His great love and goodness ordained that monkeys evolve with selfishness and brutality? When we have scripture that says....there is no darkness in God at all. Scripture that speaks of lambs lying with lions in God's presence.
Natural selection is evil, just ask the weaker party.
3. Well evolutionists suggest intelligent man is 30k - 300k - 800k years old. What I usually do is take 300k less 2000 years to Abraham and quote 298k.
4. Yes, Jesus was planned before He created man. Because He knew that a creation just beneath the angels / with X amount of intelligence will sin.
So long as you interpret what it says correctly based on all available evidence both in scripture and without.KingJ said:
Ex. Earth is immovable by scripture (1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.")
Earth, right now, is in a fixed route around the sun.
The earth is always fixed under your feet, due to gravitational forces.
The scripture stands up, IF you use the available evidence as presented by the scope of human perspective.
When we use scripture in a way that counters all known evidence, we are misusing it.
1. Yes, man is pretty late coming onto the cosmic scene. If we compress it to a year since the big bang, Man came about in the last minute of the last day of the year. That's pretty new. On that scale the universe doesn't even know we exist yet. (Which is what I tell all the new age nutters when they claim the universe will listen to you.)KingJ said:
2. Evolution has never, will never say that homo sapien sapien came from monkeys or apes, but a COMMON ANCESTOR. Not really the same and is often used by people that hate evolution to denounce it.
3. Adam and Eve was the telling of the lineage from them to David to Mary to Christ. Not everyone on the planet. If this were true everyone would have some form of Semitic markers in their genetic code. This is patently not true.
A. fascinatingly, science also at present, supports a form of eve. Mitochondrial Eve is a common ancestor of homo sapien sapiens. This is based on available data currently.
Aspen's statement made a generalization that made no sense when one considers the OT was to the Jews and with crystal clear commandments to the Jews. A crystal clear history record of the Jews. Not sure why you posting this as a reply to mine.pom2014 said:
I am backing up the general idea that the OT was correct in what it says when we use it in context.KingJ said:
Not only in light of that conversation with Aspen, but in all things.
Absolutely, and as far as I can tell, nobody of THAT ilk has. People of faith on this site, for the most part, don't have a scientific degree as far as I can tell, but neither do the ones supporting this so-called science.DogLady19 said:
I am on one site that does have a few scientists that are people of faith, and they rip apart people like you and River, so my faith again is proven once again.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
I am certainly not a scientist, but I am interested in science and do recognize it as a legitimate discipline. I believe River Jordan is a biologist and a Christian. KingJ, I am not sure what generalization you are talking about - not denying it, just can't remember
You have chosen to view the Genesis accounts as natural history. That is an error. It is not natural history. It is the story of "who we are" for the Israelites, the sons of Jacob.KingJ said:
The creation account of Gen. 1 is a literary device; a genealogy. Specifically, it is the genealogy of the heavens and the earth, of plants and animals and of man. That device was standard in ancient near eastern literature. It is used to introduce the story which follows and there will be some form of genealogy between each subsequent story.
In choosing to view the scriptures for something that they are not, you have also chosen to view scientific data as false. That just makes you appear foolish and, to some people, stupid.
The Bible is not a history book or a science book. To read it as such is to pervert its purpose. The result of doing so is to believe nonsense like the universe is less than 10,000 years old.
Please explain how all the astrophysicists are wrong in their calculations of the age of the universe which is 13.7 billion years. The most distant objects observed are 13.7 billion light years away. That means that it took 13.7 billion years for the light from those objects (galaxies) to reach earth. If the universe were only 10,000 years old then the farthest object could only be 10,000 light years away. That is not the case.
Google it. Educate yourself.
Then explain exactly where their calculations and/or observations/measurements are wrong using math and science, not your view of scripture as a timeline drawn by God.
Where is their math and science wrong? (not their theology)
To answer the question from the OP, if the world is old, what changes about God and His sovereignty? I would say nothing changes. Why? Because as it is written:
Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Scripture makes it clear, God does not change.
I believe the best approach to creation views within Christianity is the same approach that should be used with eschatological views within Christianity. There are differing views on how and/or why God created the universe and there are differing views on how and/or why God brings about end times eschatology. Remember, that Jesus did not tell Christians to go out into the world and preach creation views or eschatological views. He told us:
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. That Gospel is that Christ died according to the Scriptures, that he was buried and that he rose again according to the Scriptures. (1 Cor 15).
If someone is looking for spiritual truth regarding how and/or why God created things or explanations into why the Universe began or why anything exists in the first place, then I believe a good Christian response would be to claim that there are varying creation views throughout the history of Christianity and to take each view and fully explain it (even if one does not personally agree with certain specific creation models), explain each Creation models strong points and weak points; where it succeeds and where it fails and then let the person asking the question decide for themselves as to what they believe is the best model. As you know these views include scientific based Creation approaches, exegetically based Creation approaches and Creation approaches that use both science and exegesis which include :
Day Age Creationism
Theistic Evolution Creationism
Progressive Creationism
Scientific Creationism
Ruin/Reconstruction/Gap Creationism
Cosmic Temple or Framework Creationism
Young Earth Creationism
Historical Creationism
Apparent Age Creationism
Punctuated 24-hour Creationism
And probably a few other lesser-known creation models I can't think of at the present moment.
I believe taking this approach would reduce a lot of argument within Christendom about beginning and end time views that are not salvation or fellowship issues whatsoever and yet still keep active a healthy debate between new Christians, long time believers and nonbelievers IMHO.
My own personal creation stance is ruin/reconstruction also known as Gap creation, which is an Old Earth model of creation which I believe is the most comprehensive and cohesive of the creation models. Most criticisms of this creation model are based on the understanding of Exodus 20:11, that the LORD made the heavens and the earth in six days.
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
From a ruin/reconstruction/Gap perspective, the six days that are being spoken in the above verse are the first six days of the Second heaven and Earth Age. The ruin/reconstruction model claims that there are three ages. The first age which lasted for billions of years and due to Lucifer's rebellion was destroyed by God. The second age which we are presently living in which begins at Genesis 1:3 and the third age or the age yet to come, spoken of by Peter in 2 Peter 3:13; the new heaven and earth.
Another criticism of the ruin/reconstruction model is that it claims that there was death before the fall which seemingly contradicts Romans 5:12:
Romans 5;12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
However, if the context, especially the subject of Romans 5:12 is to be taken seriously, the subject is that death, specifically human death, resulted from sin. Not necessarily the death of plants and animals.
The Bible's description of Lucifer says some very interesting things. Namely:
1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
And
Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Over the years, I have looked at literally every exposition regarding that phase, "him that had the power of death". I came to the conclusion a number of years ago, that what it is signifying is that Lucifer had the power to cause things to die. I believe God gave him that power but he misused it to corrupt God's creation. If we take the fossil record on this planet and look at it as evidence of an Old Earth, we can conclude that for hundreds of millions of years, plants and animals lived. And then they died. Why? Because a 1 John 3:8 stipulates, the devil sinned from the very beginning.
Another criticism of the ruin/reconstruction model, is that it simply cannot be true because the Hebrew word, "Yom" as found in the Genesis account,transliterated as our English word "Day" means exactly what it means. A 24 hour day.
But in truth, there are at least 5 different meanings for the Hebrew word for Day.
1: In Genesis 1:5, God called the light Day. Compare to John 11:9 where Jesus claims, 'Are there not twelve hours in the day?". A 24 hour day is not the view here. What it is signifying is "Daytime".
2: The second time the word day is is used is again at the end of the same verse, Genesis 1:5, where there was evening and morning the first day. This certainly does signify a 24 hour day.
3: The next day we need to pay special attention to is the account of the Seventh day in Genesis 2:2. There is no mention of evening and morning. If we ask how long God rested from his work, then Augustine's suggestion that God sanctified the Seventh day, making it an epoch of an unspecified time that extends towards eternity makes sense.
4: Another meaning of "Day" is found in Genesis 2:4, "in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,". This is used as a figure of speech, combining all the days of creation into one phrase, "in the day", which does not refer to a 24 hour day but which clearly refers to periods of undefined lengths of time, such as the phrase, "the last day".
5: Finally, there is the word day as used in 2 Peter 3:8:
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
This word for day here compares one of the Lord's days with either a thousand human years or that a thousand years is used as a very long period of time. At the same time, it claims that a thousand years are "as" one day with the LORD, simply meaning in my opinion, that time means nothing to God.
I think it would be very closed-minded for any Christian to claim that the meaning for the word Day means the same thing throughout all of Scripture.
I think it would be to everyone's advantage if they picked up professor John Lennox's book, 'Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science.' I found it to be a thoroughly educational and entertaining book.
I hope that helps.
Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Scripture makes it clear, God does not change.
I believe the best approach to creation views within Christianity is the same approach that should be used with eschatological views within Christianity. There are differing views on how and/or why God created the universe and there are differing views on how and/or why God brings about end times eschatology. Remember, that Jesus did not tell Christians to go out into the world and preach creation views or eschatological views. He told us:
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. That Gospel is that Christ died according to the Scriptures, that he was buried and that he rose again according to the Scriptures. (1 Cor 15).
If someone is looking for spiritual truth regarding how and/or why God created things or explanations into why the Universe began or why anything exists in the first place, then I believe a good Christian response would be to claim that there are varying creation views throughout the history of Christianity and to take each view and fully explain it (even if one does not personally agree with certain specific creation models), explain each Creation models strong points and weak points; where it succeeds and where it fails and then let the person asking the question decide for themselves as to what they believe is the best model. As you know these views include scientific based Creation approaches, exegetically based Creation approaches and Creation approaches that use both science and exegesis which include :
Day Age Creationism
Theistic Evolution Creationism
Progressive Creationism
Scientific Creationism
Ruin/Reconstruction/Gap Creationism
Cosmic Temple or Framework Creationism
Young Earth Creationism
Historical Creationism
Apparent Age Creationism
Punctuated 24-hour Creationism
And probably a few other lesser-known creation models I can't think of at the present moment.
I believe taking this approach would reduce a lot of argument within Christendom about beginning and end time views that are not salvation or fellowship issues whatsoever and yet still keep active a healthy debate between new Christians, long time believers and nonbelievers IMHO.
My own personal creation stance is ruin/reconstruction also known as Gap creation, which is an Old Earth model of creation which I believe is the most comprehensive and cohesive of the creation models. Most criticisms of this creation model are based on the understanding of Exodus 20:11, that the LORD made the heavens and the earth in six days.
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
From a ruin/reconstruction/Gap perspective, the six days that are being spoken in the above verse are the first six days of the Second heaven and Earth Age. The ruin/reconstruction model claims that there are three ages. The first age which lasted for billions of years and due to Lucifer's rebellion was destroyed by God. The second age which we are presently living in which begins at Genesis 1:3 and the third age or the age yet to come, spoken of by Peter in 2 Peter 3:13; the new heaven and earth.
Another criticism of the ruin/reconstruction model is that it claims that there was death before the fall which seemingly contradicts Romans 5:12:
Romans 5;12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
However, if the context, especially the subject of Romans 5:12 is to be taken seriously, the subject is that death, specifically human death, resulted from sin. Not necessarily the death of plants and animals.
The Bible's description of Lucifer says some very interesting things. Namely:
1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
And
Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Over the years, I have looked at literally every exposition regarding that phase, "him that had the power of death". I came to the conclusion a number of years ago, that what it is signifying is that Lucifer had the power to cause things to die. I believe God gave him that power but he misused it to corrupt God's creation. If we take the fossil record on this planet and look at it as evidence of an Old Earth, we can conclude that for hundreds of millions of years, plants and animals lived. And then they died. Why? Because a 1 John 3:8 stipulates, the devil sinned from the very beginning.
Another criticism of the ruin/reconstruction model, is that it simply cannot be true because the Hebrew word, "Yom" as found in the Genesis account,transliterated as our English word "Day" means exactly what it means. A 24 hour day.
But in truth, there are at least 5 different meanings for the Hebrew word for Day.
1: In Genesis 1:5, God called the light Day. Compare to John 11:9 where Jesus claims, 'Are there not twelve hours in the day?". A 24 hour day is not the view here. What it is signifying is "Daytime".
2: The second time the word day is is used is again at the end of the same verse, Genesis 1:5, where there was evening and morning the first day. This certainly does signify a 24 hour day.
3: The next day we need to pay special attention to is the account of the Seventh day in Genesis 2:2. There is no mention of evening and morning. If we ask how long God rested from his work, then Augustine's suggestion that God sanctified the Seventh day, making it an epoch of an unspecified time that extends towards eternity makes sense.
4: Another meaning of "Day" is found in Genesis 2:4, "in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,". This is used as a figure of speech, combining all the days of creation into one phrase, "in the day", which does not refer to a 24 hour day but which clearly refers to periods of undefined lengths of time, such as the phrase, "the last day".
5: Finally, there is the word day as used in 2 Peter 3:8:
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
This word for day here compares one of the Lord's days with either a thousand human years or that a thousand years is used as a very long period of time. At the same time, it claims that a thousand years are "as" one day with the LORD, simply meaning in my opinion, that time means nothing to God.
I think it would be very closed-minded for any Christian to claim that the meaning for the word Day means the same thing throughout all of Scripture.
I think it would be to everyone's advantage if they picked up professor John Lennox's book, 'Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science.' I found it to be a thoroughly educational and entertaining book.
I hope that helps.
And I might add that the earth is moving away from the sun, and it moves around the galaxy too!pom2014 said:
I think there's too much eisegesis going on among students of the Bible these days. It would behoove us all to dig into a hermeneutic study of scripture. There are different literary and language styles to consider, then whether a particular passage is descriptive, instructive, prophetic, etc.
You are not dealing with arguments raised.JimParker said:
You still harping on age of earth. It has already been discussed that the bible caters for an old earth. The only discussion I want to have is the age of mankind / dealing with the nonsense in evolution. Because that undermines Gods character, the cross and all of scripture. The age of the earth....undermines absolutely nudda except for taking ''six days'' as literal.
You are missing the entire point of why they need the earth to be billions of years old in the first place. It is the very idea of an old earth that allows for the input of evolutionary ideas that undermines the very foundation of scripture. This is why the age of the earth is so important to its supporters. Undermining the six day creation is the beginning of undermining the rest of the creation account. Without "billions of years", the evolutionist has nothing going for it, because it is time that is the magic wand of evolution.KingJ said:
Similar threads
