Chris-M Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Eh. That's cool an all' date=' Yves, but honestly I can't take anything philosophy (especially metaphysics) says about science too seriously. I had to endure an advanced philosophy of science course(that for some reason is necessary for me to graduate) last semester, and the entire time I was asking "why is any of this important?". Science will thrive as it is whether or not people continue to sit in their armchairs ask questions about it.[/quote'] Oh sure. I just don't see the continuation of science as being particularly more noble than, say, the continued sophistication of accounting methods. It's all cool stuff, whether it's empirical, abstract, or unconsciously adaptive :3 My personal preference just happens to involve non-scientific fields. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SinningSaint Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I would ask that you read this article about carbon (c14) dating with an open mind. I could explain it myself, but not with near as much detail as this. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ItsBrian Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Not to impune Steven Boyd, but what makes him qualified to understand the intent of a text almost to the point of certainty when he himself was not the author? Scripture, if we believe it is inspired has both a human and divine authorship; what the writer wrote may have been clear to the human writer, but the implications of what the human writer was writing and its latent meaning may have only been understood by the divine author Himself. Boyd has not proven anything other than the linguistic aspects of what he is saying, and I am sure there are other scholars who would vary in opinion, he may know what he knows, but he does not know the mind of God, and the intention of the divine author with certainty. Probability has nothing to do with it, probalitiy is used to try and understand the liklihood of something occurring when the outcome is uncertain; well in this case, either genesis is literal or it isn't, the outcome is certain, our understanding of it is not. Using our God given reason it has become readily apparent to us that the universe is nearly 14 trillion years old, not 6,000. Either we have a God who is deceiving us, or maybe we have simply misunderstood the scriptures opting for the most simple of meanings rather than trying to comprehend the wealth of knowledge and wisdom that God could have concealed inside of them. The universe has been reliable enough for us to observe and learn from in every aspect, why should it all of the sudden be unreliable when it comes to circumstances such as these? Why should you believe any part of the Bible is a historical narrative then? Using our God given reason, it has become readily apparent to us that people don't rise from the dead after 3 days, 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread don't feed 5,000 people with extra left over, water doesn't turn into wine, cripples don't instantly get healed, seas don't part in half leaving dry ground, pigs don't get possessed by demons, donkeys don't talk, pillars of fire don't lead people to new lands, sticks don't turn into snakes, chariots of fire don't carry people to heaven, people don't turn into salt, water doesn't turn into blood, ax heads don't float, people don't die from touching boxes, people can't survive in working furnaces, people can't speak languages they've never studied, and people can't walk on water. If Genesis is not to be taken literally (when it's written like it is) why should the rest of the Bible be taken literally? Genesis is a truth, just like the rest of the Bible. Did you ever consider that it was not Genesis that was misinterpreted, but the observations of nature? All dating methods are based on untenable assumptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronald Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Why should you believe any part of the Bible is a historical narrative then? Using our God given reason, it has become readily apparent to us that people don't rise from the dead after 3 days, 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread don't feed 5,000 people with extra left over, water doesn't turn into wine, cripples don't instantly get healed, seas don't part in half leaving dry ground, pigs don't get possessed by demons, donkeys don't talk, pillars of fire don't lead people to new lands, sticks don't turn into snakes, chariots of fire don't carry people to heaven, people don't turn into salt, water doesn't turn into blood, ax heads don't float, people don't die from touching boxes, people can't survive in working furnaces, people can't speak languages they've never studied, and people can't walk on water. If Genesis is not to be taken literally (when it's written like it is) why should the rest of the Bible be taken literally?Genesis is a truth, just like the rest of the Bible. Did you ever consider that it was not Genesis that was misinterpreted, but the observations of nature? All dating methods are based on untenable assumptions. All of these comparisons are true, they don't do all of these things on their own. But if God was to create the Universe in seven days He wouldn't leave ample amounts of evidence that shows the Earth and the Universe's age can go into the trillions. Again, some of the Stars that we see in the sky no longer exist, but the lightyears it takes to reach Earth is only showing now. It's as if God is trying to trick us with all of this evidence that points to a much older Earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Towels Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Why should you believe any part of the Bible is a historical narrative then? Using our God given reason, it has become readily apparent to us that people don't rise from the dead after 3 days, 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread don't feed 5,000 people with extra left over, water doesn't turn into wine, cripples don't instantly get healed, seas don't part in half leaving dry ground, pigs don't get possessed by demons, donkeys don't talk, pillars of fire don't lead people to new lands, sticks don't turn into snakes, chariots of fire don't carry people to heaven, people don't turn into salt, water doesn't turn into blood, ax heads don't float, people don't die from touching boxes, people can't survive in working furnaces, people can't speak languages they've never studied, and people can't walk on water. If Genesis is not to be taken literally (when it's written like it is) why should the rest of the Bible be taken literally? Well if we work from the assumption that God can do anything, even perform miracles, then none of the miracles in the Bible necessitate being explained away as metaphor. And there is certainly no need to paint with a broad brush stroke, saying that since Genesis should not be taken literally, therefore nothing should. The Bible contains various types of writing in various different books each with their own specific intents both immediate and in the big picture, and it would be unwise in my opinion to just say that only one method of interpretation exists for every book, because that concept itself is not scriptural, it comes from a desire to simplify things so that we can grasp a firm handle on what it is we are reading rather than simply acknowledge that maybe an omniscient and omnipotent God made scripture so profound that maybe we need to look deeper than what is on the surface. But you didn't respond to my point about the 120 years Genesis 6:3 [3] And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. I presume you take this literally, so how do you explain people living longer than 120 years, such as Jeanne Calment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment) who lived 122 years, and only just died in 1997? Genesis is a truth, just like the rest of the Bible. Did you ever consider that it was not Genesis that was misinterpreted, but the observations of nature? All dating methods are based on untenable assumptions. Everything in life is based on assumptions. When I get out of bed every morning I assume that gravity won't spontaneously cease to exist and I will fly away into space. The natural world has a reliability that makes it possible for us to make assumptions about it. The question becomes whether or not the assumption makes sense, and whether or not that assumption if it is questionable (when concerning the natural and observable world) is supported by evidence. And these assumptions about the age of the universe are certainly not untenable, if they are untenable, then our assumptions about gravity are untenable as well, and yet I doubt you have a constant anxiety that you will spontaneously fall off the face of the earth, because you do recognize the reliablity of the universe even when it is just an assumption about it. Our assumptions about the age of the universe are based on the best evidence we have, evidence we gather in the simplest of ways and that is by sight, looking at things with our own two eyes. The concept of a light-year, is a unit of distance not time, and it is the distance light can travel in one year (in our concept of year) So when we see a galaxy that is 7 Billion light years away, what we are really seeing right now, is something that is 7 Billion years in the past and that light took 7 Billion years to reach us, which of couse necessitates at least 7 Billion years of existence for that light to reach us. And we know this because the speed of light can be measured as a constant ( 299,792,458 m/s in a vaccum) and then we take the investigation from there by determining the distance between us and other stars or galaxies and then finding out how long it would take light to reach us. This alone is evidence enough to show that the universe is older than 6000 years, and determining the age of the universe as 13.7 Billion* years is based on this method and corroborated by other means which you can readily look up if interested. Denying this requires us to deny the most basic laws of the universe such as the constancy of the speed of light, and I just don't see how it makes any sense for us to turn our backs on these concepts and pretend they don't exist when they affect how we live everday! The most likely explanation to me concerning Genesis, is that people are simply misinterpreting genesis by reading it in the most literal of senses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigsnedeker Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I believe in a young earth because I believe in God, and Genesis is not a story, it's fact. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (Gen 2:7) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SinningSaint Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Well if we work from the assumption that God can do anything, even perform miracles, then none of the miracles in the Bible necessitate being explained away as metaphor. And there is certainly no need to paint with a broad brush stroke, saying that since Genesis should not be taken literally, therefore nothing should. The Bible contains various types of literature in various different books each with their own specific intents both immediate and in the big picture, and it would be unwise in my opinion to just say that only one method of interpretation exists for every book, because that concept itself is not scriptural, it comes from a desire to simplify things so that we can grasp a firm handle on what it is we are reading rather than simply acknowledge that maybe an omniscient and omnipotent God made scripture so profound that maybe we need to look deeper than what is on the surface.But you didn't respond to my point about the 120 years Genesis 6:3 [3] And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. I presume you take this literally, so how do you explain people living longer than 120 years, such as Jeanne Calment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment) who lived 122 years, and only just died in 1997? Everything in life is based on assumptions. When I get out of bed every morning I assume that gravity won't spontaneously cease to exist and I will fly away into space. The natural world has a reliability that makes it possible for us to make assumptions about it. The question becomes whether or not the assumption makes sense, and whether or not that assumption if it is questionable (when concerning the natural and observable world) is supported by evidence. And these assumptions about the age of the universe are certainly not untenable, if they are untenable, then our assumptions about gravity are untenable as well, and yet I doubt you have a constant anxiety that you will spontaneously fall off the face of the earth, because you do recognize the reliablity of the universe even when it is just an assumption about it. Our assumptions about the age of the universe are based on the best evidence we have, evidence we gather in the simplest of ways and that is by sight, looking at things with our own two eyes. The concept of a light-year, is a unit of distance not time, and it is the distance light can travel in one year (in our concept of year) So when we see a galaxy that is 7 Billion light years away, what we are really seeing right now, is something that is 7 Billion years in the past and that light took 7 Billion years to reach us, which of couse necessitates at least 7 Billion years of existence for that light to reach us. And we know this because the speed of light can be measured as a constant ( 299,792,458 m/s in a vaccum) and then we take the investigation from there by determining the distance between us and other stars or galaxies and then finding out how long it would take light to reach us. This alone is evidence enough to show that the universe is older than 6000 years, and determining the age of the universe as 13.7 Trillion years is based on this method and corroborated by other means which you can readily look up if interested. Denying this requires us to deny the most basic laws of the universe such as the constancy of the speed of light, and I just don't see how it makes any sense for us to turn our backs on these concepts and pretend they don't exist when they affect how we live everday! The most likely explanation to me concerning Genesis, is that people are simply misinterpreting genesis by reading it in the most literal of senses. So our God who can rise from the dead. Can not have made the light to instantaneously reach our earth? He is God after all. Also, carbon dating, is not correct. It is biased around the belief of how old they thing the earth is. (read this http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Towels Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I believe in a young earth because I believe in God, and Genesis is not a story, it's fact. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (Gen 2:7) Then you can appreciate the metaphor in the very verse you quoted, "he breathed" ... well God doesn't literally breathe, because he has no body with which to breathe. So this metaphor is obvious; that the breath of God is not literal, but a metaphor for giving life to man. (And by the same token I would say forming man from the dust of the ground is a metaphor for evolution, but I don't want to cause a spitstorm ) Something can be true in the meaning it was intended to convey, without being explicitly factual in every other way people choose to read it. So I would say you have to acknowledge at least one use of metaphor when it comes to God breathing yea? Someone can say: "I know in my heart that the 49ers will win the super bowl" And then skpetics can criticize the sensibleness of this by saying that one can't know anything with their heart, because the heart doesn't process information. And then, someone playing the role of a Young earther can insist (contrary to reason and what we know to be true) that the heart actually does process information; whereas someone such as myself understands that heart is a metaphorical term used to describe the personal conviction of the speaker's attitude about 49ers chances in the Super Bowl (if they get there) This same type of stuff rings true for the Bible. ---------- Post added at 04:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 PM ---------- Also, carbon dating, is not correct. It is biased around the belief of how old they thing the earth is. (read this http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible ) First of all, what does Carbon dating have to do with anything? I never brought it up. Carbon dating is of no use when dating the Earth, and certainly of no use when dating the universe. radioactive carbon dating cannot be used to date the Earth because it only lasts on a scale of thousands of years, and it only applies to the remains of once living organisms. Instead we use other methods to determine the age of the Earth through radioactive decay such as uranium-lead dating, potassium-argon dating, and rubidium-strontium dating, all of which can be used to determine the ages of rocks. And through these methods it has been determined that the oldest rocks on the planet are around 4.5 Billion years old or so, so it would stand to reason that no rock on earth precedes the existence of Earth meaning that it is a reasonable estimation to say the Earth is around 4.5 Billion years old. So our God who can rise from the dead. Can not have made the light to instantaneously reach our earth? He is God after all. Ok, so God can perform miracle X (The Ressurection), therefore since we can't explain Y, God performed a miracle to bring about Y? This a totally unnecessary conclusion, especially when taking into account the fact that our universe has always been reliable and condusive to observation, measurment, experimentation and forming true conclusions fairly accurately. So why, all of the sudden, should the universe break its own laws arbitrarily?(on a massive scale, I'm not talking about miracles) You are basically insinuating that light is moving faster than light because God said so; well why? Is God trying to create the illusion of a universe governed by certain laws and constants? That would seem the only conclusion from your point of view, because what you are asserting goes beyond the miraculous, it changes the entire way the universe exists if it's true, which it is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SinningSaint Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 God has defied the natural laws of physics and science many times. So would it be to much to reckon, you could have done that? Btw, have a read of this. http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talek Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I would ask that you read this article about carbon (c14) dating with an open mind. I could explain it myself, but not with near as much detail as this. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible God knows just what He meant to say, and His understanding of science is infallible, whereas ours is fallible. So we should never think it necessary to modify His Word. As Matt has already pointed out carbon dating has nothing to do with this discussion, but let me just respond to that quote from the Answers in Genesis article you linked with a link of my own. This alone is evidence enough to show that the universe is older than 6000 years, and determining the age of the universe as 13.7 Trillion years is based on this method and corroborated by other means which you can readily look up if interested. I like your posts in this thread and I was going to let this go, but you keep saying it; the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. I know it's of little consequence but I just had to say something... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Towels Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I like your posts in this thread and I was going to let this go, but you keep saying it; the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. I know it's of little consequence but I just had to say something... rofl, major brain spasm thank you! I did know that, I went a little Dr. Evil with my numbering:laugh: which is now fixed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p3d1c4t1o Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Ok, so God can perform miracle X (The Ressurection), therefore since we can't explain Y, God performed a miracle to bring about Y? This a totally unnecessary conclusion, especially when taking into account the fact that our universe has always been reliable and condusive to observation, measurment, experimentation and forming true conclusions fairly accurately. So why, all of the sudden, should the universe break its own laws arbitrarily?(on a massive scale, I'm not talking about miracles) You are basically insinuating that light is moving faster than light because God said so; well why? Is God trying to create the illusion of a universe governed by certain laws and constants? That would seem the only conclusion from your point of view, because what you are asserting goes beyond the miraculous, it changes the entire way the universe exists if it's true, which it is not. I am not sure whether miracles should be regarded as breaching or suspension of physical laws. Someone once said, what's the point of making all this physical laws, only to break it? Maybe he's right. Maybe miracles don't break the laws of physics. Rather, it is our primitive understanding of science that misleads us so. Besides, if you think that miracles necessarily involves the breaching of physical laws, then isn't that too easily countered with a " why not? " ? So why, all of the sudden, should the universe break its own laws arbitrarily?(on a massive scale, I'm not talking about miracles) WHY NOT? If God can break universal laws on certain occasions (miracles), why can't He do it again when He was creating the Earth? After all, if creation is what the creator known for, than shouldn't this grandest act of masterpiece be the most miraculous of all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Towels Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I am not sure whether miracles should be regarded as breaching or suspension of physical laws. Someone once said, what's the point of making all this physical laws, only to break it? Maybe he's right. Maybe miracles don't break the laws of physics. Rather, it is our primitive understanding of science that misleads us so. I was writing under the assumption that most here see miracles as the breaking of natural laws as I do. Besides, if you think that miracles necessarily involves the breaching of physical laws, then isn't that too easily countered with a " why not? " ?WHY NOT? If God can break universal laws on certain occasions (miracles), why can't He do it again when He was creating the Earth? After all, if creation is what the creator known for, than shouldn't this grandest act of masterpiece be the most miraculous of all? The issue is not whether God can or can't do anything, the issue is why God would or would not do something from our understanding of Him as Christians. So could God manipulate the speed of light? Yes (If He can't then He is not God), but to what end and what purpose? And keep in mind, I said what you quoted with the caveat that such a thing was done arbitrarily meaning that such a miracle would be done without the purpose we normally see with miracles in the Bible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p3d1c4t1o Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 So could God manipulate the speed of light? Yes (If He can't then He is not God), but to what end and what purpose? And the point in making them, in order to break them is that you would in fact being making a statement to those who witnessed it. The ressurection for example; whether or not you believe in it, in the Bible the concept is that one aspect of having that miracle performed ignites the faith of the apostles which was previously shaken; it offers them a reason to believe. Is it not obvious? The function of miracles is to obliterate all existing paradigms of reality in order to shock, discombobulate and awe disbelievers into believing. If that's true, then what's more mind-blowing than to find out that, against all odds, the universe was created just as genesis described? Because we all know that there's nothing like sending a perfectly rational skeptic into a mental asylum to convert him. So, again, the simplest of all objections—the "why not?"—haunts you. And taunts you to shed away the intellectual inhibition arbitrarily known as sanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Towels Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Is it not obvious? The function of miracles is to obliterate all existing paradigms of reality in order to shock, discombobulate and awe disbelievers into believing. If that's true, then what's more mind-blowing than to find out that, against all odds, the universe was created just as genesis described? Because we all know that there's nothing like sending a perfectly rational skeptic into a mental asylum to convert him. So, again, the simplest of all objections—the "why not?"—haunts you. And taunts you to shed away the intellectual inhibition arbitrarily known as sanity. Haunts me? Hardly. The question of "why not?" is all speculative, we can speculate and ask the "why not?" or the "what if?" all day long, but that doesn't change how things really are, and the universe is simply not 6,000 years old. Some people find reconciling their faith with science an impossibility and so they drop one in favor of the other, and I don't happen to fall on either end of the spectrum in that manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p3d1c4t1o Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 But everything is speculations. You can't really prove how things really are. Based on the evidence that you have, you come up with the best plausible scenario that would fit best with the evidence you've gathered. Science, as formidable as it is with its precise rules of measure and stuff, is based on the metaphysical non-falsifiable assumption that you are not living in a dream world (like in The Matrix). There's no guarantee that the sun will rise tomorrow, gravity will continue to function an hour from now or you will NOT be abruptly woken up from this strange dream world. How far astray would you let science lead you? Based on our understanding of medical science, the know-it-all man of science would say virgin birth is impossible, death is irreversible, and all other boring tripe devoid of magic, wonder and imagination. Is he even right? Why does he have to be? He is not God, he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, so who gives him the right to mandate your sanity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigsnedeker Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Because the Universe is older than 7000 years, that's the most obvious reason to me. That's not a very legit reason. Why should you believe any part of the Bible is a historical narrative then? Using our God given reason, it has become readily apparent to us that people don't rise from the dead after 3 days, 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread don't feed 5,000 people with extra left over, water doesn't turn into wine, cripples don't instantly get healed, seas don't part in half leaving dry ground, pigs don't get possessed by demons, donkeys don't talk, pillars of fire don't lead people to new lands, sticks don't turn into snakes, chariots of fire don't carry people to heaven, people don't turn into salt, water doesn't turn into blood, ax heads don't float, people don't die from touching boxes, people can't survive in working furnaces, people can't speak languages they've never studied, and people can't walk on water. If Genesis is not to be taken literally (when it's written like it is) why should the rest of the Bible be taken literally?Genesis is a truth, just like the rest of the Bible. Did you ever consider that it was not Genesis that was misinterpreted, but the observations of nature? All dating methods are based on untenable assumptions. Excellent point. I agree 100%. Again, some of the Stars that we see in the sky no longer exist, but the lightyears it takes to reach Earth is only showing now. It's as if God is trying to trick us with all of this evidence that points to a much older Earth. God made the stars to show on earth, they weren't newborn stars. Just like adam was a man when God created him, not a boy. Genesis 6:3 [3] And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. Seeing how, when God said that, people lived to be 900 years old, 120 years was probably a "give or take" situation. Obviously, he can make people live longer if he wants. I can't explain it further than that. because he has no body with which to breathe How do you know? Just curious. Remember, God walked with Adam. Adam saw god physically, so God probably wasn't a cloud of smoke.. after all life was perfect, flawless. No need to come to Adam in another form. Of course, He could if he wanted to, I just don't see why he would in a sinless world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Towels Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Seeing how, when God said that, people lived to be 900 years old, 120 years was probably a "give or take" situation. Obviously, he can make people live longer if he wants. I can't explain it further than that. Then by your very own admission here, you have established a non literal interpretation of Genesis. You have added the caveat of a "give or take" situation. How do you know? Just curious. Remember, God walked with Adam. Adam saw god physically, so God probably wasn't a cloud of smoke.. after all life was perfect, flawless. No need to come to Adam in another form. Of course, He could if he wanted to, I just don't see why he would in a sinless world. I believe this is the case because if you are going to say that God, with all the attributes we attribute to Him has by His nature a body, then He cannot be God. The idea of God having a body is distinctively a Mormon idea, not a Christian one. And I say He cannot be God, because if God has a body, than He is in a sense limited spatially by His nature, and in addition to this, having a physical body composed of things occuring in nature (as all our bodies are) then God is in a very really sense subject to nature itself And if we believe in a God who is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, the idea of Him having a body by nature is incompatible with this because God in order to be God cannot be restricted spatially, and cannot be subject to anything and certainly not a nature of His own making, and if you say regardless of being natural God is not subject to nature, then that opens the door for a type of pantheism or panentheism which is certainly not a Christian concept because if God is composed of things in nature, then either that nature IS God or all nature has some sort of divine character to it, and we certainly do not view nature in that way as Christians. God walking with Adam is metaphorical; we constantly hear people talk about their "walk with God" as a reference to their spirituality, and this is no different. God making Himself perceptible to Adam in some sense does not mean God has a body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronald Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 That's not a very legit reason. To me it is the most legitimate reason to take Genesis metaphorically. God made the stars to show on earth, they weren't newborn stars. Just like adam was a man when God created him, not a boy. Assuming that the stars created by our Lord that are, "X" light-years away but due to observation no longer exist show it's light to earth now, how can we explain the light just showing to Earth now? After observing these stars there are certain things we do know: 1. The stars no longer exist 2. The light from the stars is just reaching earth. (And will continue to be shown on earth for millions of years, if the Earth lasts that long.) 3. The stars used to exist billions of years ago, but due to the time it takes light to travel (light-years) we only get to see the stars now. Had Earth existed billions of years ago, we would not see these stars. 4. The light will continue traveling past Earth, and if there was life on planets a longer distance away, these stars would be viewable from those Planets. So now we have a problem, it seems that if all of this is true, God placed the stars light-years away and yet makes it look scientifically that they existed billions of years ago. No one can deny that we can see the stars, no one can deny that the stars no longer exist, and no one can deny that mathimatically that makes the stars billions of years old. Now perhaps God put the stars there to "look like" they existed billions of years ago, but really there were never really stars there, just evidence of stars. But would this not seem like God is using physical science and mathimatics to trick us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigsnedeker Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I believe this is the case because if you are going to say that God, with all the attributes we attribute to Him has by His nature a body, then He cannot be God. The idea of God having a body is distinctively a Mormon idea, not a Christian one. And I say He cannot be God, because if God has a body, than He is in a sense limited spatially by His nature, and in addition to this, having a physical body composed of things occuring in nature (as all our bodies are) then God is in a very really sense subject to nature itself And if we believe in a God who is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, the idea of Him having a body by nature is incompatible with this because God in order to be God cannot be restricted spatially, and cannot be subject to anything and certainly not a nature of His own making, and if you say regardless of being natural God is not subject to nature, then that opens the door for a type of pantheism or panentheism which is certainly not a Christian concept because if God is composed of things in nature, then either that nature IS God or all nature has some sort of divine character to it, and we certainly do not view nature in that way as Christians. God walking with Adam is metaphorical; we constantly hear people talk about their "walk with God" as a reference to their spirituality, and this is no different. God making Himself perceptible to Adam in some sense does not mean God has a body. Point taken. No one can deny that we can see the stars, no one can deny that the stars no longer exist, and no one can deny that mathimatically that makes the stars billions of years old. Now perhaps God put the stars there to "look like" they existed billions of years ago, but really there were never really stars there, just evidence of stars. But would this not seem like God is using physical science and mathimatics to trick us? God isn't trying to trick anyone. And I never denied the stars are that old, I'm just saying God created them a million years old when he created the earth, so the light would already reach earth. Also, He could have created stars that had light just a few thousand years away from Earth so we could see some new stars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p3d1c4t1o Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Genesis 6:3 [3] And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.I presume you take this literally, so how do you explain people living longer than 120 years, such as Jeanne Calment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment) who lived 122 years, and only just died in 1997? So -L- 's only objection seems to be that a human being managed to live to 122 years. That's problematic because it's definitely more than 120 years and not exactly 120 years. There is not much different between 122 and 120. This hair-splitting is insane. Here's why. Does -L- genuinely believe that Jesus fed exactly 5,000 people? Seriously? Does -L- think that there was a human being then who had totally nothing better to do than actually count the entire crowd to amount to exactly 5,000 people? What if Jesus only fed 4,097 people in reality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronald Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 God isn't trying to trick anyone. And I never denied the stars are that old, I'm just saying God created them a million years old when he created the earth, so the light would already reach earth. Also, He could have created stars that had light just a few thousand years away from Earth so we could see some new stars. It is true that God could have created a complete Universe including, Stars, Planets, Light, Evolution, Fossils and the ability for us to discover these things and the mathimatical estimated age of these things. However, all this does is cause confusion. It seems strange that God would create everything in a way that mathimatically proves the Universe's age is much higher than 7000 years if that isn't actually the case. What is the purpose for this? For generations to come children will be taught that the Earth is "X" years old, they will learn about the Universe, it's expansion and everythings continual, consistant evolution. I'm not sure what things are like in some parts of the states, as I have not seen the Kindergarten classes there. But as a Kindergarten teacher I notice our books about dinosaurs talk about how they lived 65,000,000 years ago. If it is as you say, why would God create fossils of dinosaurs dating back 65,000,000 years from now at creation? What purpose does this serve? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p3d1c4t1o Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I think the entire "why would God deceive us?" argument is rather half-baked. Yes, God made the stars, planets, fossils and stuff to appear to our scientific understanding like it's definitely way, way more than 6,000 years old. So what? He also had Jesus resurrect the dead (Lazarus) and had Jesus himself resurrected, even though God made our scientists and doctors think that death is a strictly non-reversible process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Towels Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 So -L- 's only objection seems to be that a human being managed to live to 122 years. That's problematic because it's definitely more than 120 years and not exactly 120 years. There is not much different between 122 and 120. This hair-splitting is insane. Here's why. Does -L- genuinely believe that Jesus fed exactly 5,000 people? Seriously? Does -L- think that there was a human being then who had totally nothing better to do than actually count the entire crowd to amount to exactly 5,000 people? What if Jesus only fed 4,097 people in reality? We were talking about the interpretation of Genesis in the context of someone who believes in a 6,000 year old universe. I do not believe it is literal, some in this thread do, and I am asking them to account for the bit about the 120 year age limit because if they are committed to a literal interpretation then it is perfectly reasonable to ask for an explanation. This has nothing to do with the New Testament, the gospel accounts themselves say that it wasn't just 5,000 people, but that women and children were not even counted so your point... well I don't even know what point are attempting to make here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronald Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I think the entire "why would God deceive us?" argument is rather half-baked. Yes, God made the stars, planets, fossils and stuff to appear to our scientific understanding like it's definitely way, way more than 6,000 years old. So what? He also had Jesus resurrect the dead (Lazarus) and had Jesus himself resurrected, even though God made our scientists and doctors think that death is a strictly non-reversible process. With this arguement we must then ask, "why would God do this then?" If it is as you say, simply a miracle, God showing to us all that He can create everything 6000 years ago and yet make it appear much, much older, then why? All it does is cause mass confusion and as our knowledge of this Earth grows, it will cause a greater confusion. You could argue that we simply don't know the answer, but then basically you will be saying, "God makes the Earth appear way older, there is no proof of this, we don't know why, but it's true because the Bible says so." Which in my opinion is a weak arguement. Also, you could argue that God did this to test our faith, but again I must say I believe such an arguement has very little strength. Or, you could argue a metaphorical approach to Genesis which then fits all Science and in my opinion gives greater validity to Christianity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.