I don’t believe I ever said it did. The poster I was responding to was talking about relying on the scientific knowledge of others though and I was commenting in regards to that. Not sure what your reply has to do with that.
Back on topic, there are a number of theories that get floated as to what happened with creation. The one that seems to dovetail with science and fundamentalism requires a look at the Hebrew.
God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form and void. All we know is that the heavens and the earth were created and the earth was not ready for man.
Then God pauses. We have no idea for how long or for what reason.
God then goes about the process of making the earth ready for man. After a period of darkness and light is established for the earth the word yom in Hebrew has been used to indicate day. The rest of the creation of the earth is wrapped up in 6 days.
A. Allow for the heavens and the earth to be billions of years old.
B. Mankind and animals as we know them in their current state to be in the order of 10,000 or so years old.
The Bible was never meant to be a science book though. The whole point was that God created the heavens and the earth. Moses wanted the Israelites to know that the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth was with them and would guide them through to the Promised Land and establish them as His people. If God can easily create, helping them get established and redeem them back to Him.
I believe in the creation , but I don’t believe it literally took a period of 6 days and that the earth 10000 years old.
In my opinion God transcends time, a typical day for God could span a period from a few hundred thousand years to millions. So I guess that makes me an old earth creationist. Maybe the creation story was written from the perspective of God instead of the perspective of man in which our day is based on 24 hours. Who knows?!?
I don’t understand why folks continue to have these debates. Why can’t creation, evolution and science coexist together?
And yet those questions don’t go away. The same holds true for biogenesis. There had to be a precise time when the spark of life occurred. Life from lifelessness, consciousness from life and then sentience from consciousness. This is evidenced by the fact that we are here.
Science can analyze the ingredients that a human being ( and all other life) is made of. Science can tell what percentage of what we are comprised of, yet science can’t take the ingredients of any living organism, assemble them and give that organism life. In fact, science can’t even take an organism that is already assembled and restore it to life when it has quit life.
The question about light is not new. I’ve heard theories about how we can see light from stars and galaxies from millions of light years away. Can I recall the theories and explain them in a coherent, scientific way? No, but I suspect no one in this forum fully understands relativity either and could do the math and then present it within the limitations of an online forum so that most forum members can understand too.
In another thread I put forth the idea that to God, time is a single, simultaneous point that he alone can see and access. Perhaps imagine your “singularity” here. Could God take that point and manipulate it in such ways that the universe is created in days, complete with life and the light from distant stars already in place to be visible from a young earth?
Someone in this thread posted that it is we, the fundamental Christians have made a conclusion and are working backwards. But I submit it is just the opposite. It is the evolutionists that start with the conclusion and are trying to work backwards and you all hit the same wall. I start with “IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH.” For me, everything goes forward from there. You guys start with WE’RE HERE, SO LET’S WORK BACKWARD TILL WE FIND THE BEGINNING. You never will with science. I believe your theories require as much or perhaps even more faith than mine do.
They can and they do. These arguments don’t really change anything. Everybody thinks they have it right and everyone who disagrees with them is wrong. It’s human nature. How do you think we ended up with all these different denominations to begin with?
Faith and the scientific method are incompatible despite what you believe. Even theories have to be proven before they become theories and they’re always subject to being disproven when new evidence comes along that contradicts the previous theory. Science adapts with increased learning. Religion? Not so much. Faith wouldn’t be faith if it could be changed based on evidence. Faith is literally believing something is true without having evidence to support it. I can’t actually see God, but I believe God exists. We can see how gravity works through observations and experiments. What experiments have been conducted or observations made to prove the existence of God?
I argue that James Ussher, (17th century) 1600s, thought he was being quite scientific in how he calculated the age of the earth. Other scientists at the time thought he had it correct, though a few argued he was off a few hours.
Unfortunately, these scientists did not understand that the Hebrew word ‘day’ could also extend to an age; that ‘generation’ could equally extend to many generations. ‘Son’ was also used for ‘descendant of’. The Hebrew language consists of just a few thousand words that do double duty, something that these scientists whose focus was merely numbers missed taking into account.
Young Earth Creationists are simply people who remain faithful to the scientific calculations made in the mid 1600s without considering the language errors that were made, by scientists, in the calculations back then–and ignoring the corrections scientists have made in the five hundred years since.
Yeah, I’m sure that’s their reasoning and not simply taking their version of the Bible literally or anything. We’re talking about people who don’t believe science, right? But they’re basing what they believe on science. Makes sense.
We are talking about people whose faith is in the Bible. I am simply pointing out that men in the seventeenth century used the Bible for a matter outside of faith, and in doing so made a mistake relating to science.
Meri, the Hebrew language had been around, virtually unchanged for thousands of years. How many other languages have that distinction? That fact and that the Hebrew religion has survived as foretold in scripture is a big reason I accept the truth of the Bible, and more specifically the KJV. To assume that there were not scholars and scientists who understood Hebrew and could produce an English translation that produced God’s intent and truth, I believe is more a Catholic vs. Protestant issue than science vs. faith.
I asked this question before, perhaps in the old forum, why would Moses lie? Why didn’t God just find and inspire Biblical authors who would write the truth about everything? If an omnipotent God can not successfully do something that even human beings can do, namely to get a book published that says what he wants it so say, he’s not much of a God is he?