[_ Old Earth _] Give Me A Break

[Sparkey]

I'd be interested in hearing what you're thinking in greater detail. For instance, how exactly would the "appearance of age" dismiss Romans 1:20?

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made..."

Since you've brought it up, please tell us of those "invisible things" that you clearly see and understand. Are they the very same invisible things that the Apostles clearly understood? Notice that Romans 1:20 speaks of the invisible things of Him...

Maybe you have something else in mind like the age of the moon? I read the Scripture to be speaking of Him and the "invisible things" mentioned apply to God, not to creation. As such, the assertion is not "dismissive" because Romans 1:20 simply does not apply except as I have previously stated, to show how Great is our God.

Here then is the ESV translation
Romans 1:20 ESV
English Standard Version
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

 

[Jamsie]

Sparrowhawke - I'd be interested in hearing what you're thinking in greater detail. For instance, how exactly would the "appearance of age" dismiss Romans 1:20?

I see "power" (dynamis) as His creation/sovereignty/miraculous displays and His "divine nature"(Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent,immutable - holy, good, love, merciful, etc.) as all encompassing. As I would attribute to God all of our reason/logic/mental capabilities so I would include science. As relating to Genesis 1 my view entails both a theologic and scientific perspective, though in no way suggesting the Bible as a comprehensive scientific treatise.

Romans 1:19 should have been included, my mistake, the question remains - why should we seek to learn anything of God's creation if in fact it is not a true history from our perspective? How would not the "appearance of age" be deceptive if the object studied contains a false history? I should think it would leave reason/logic/knowledge/observation/etc. questionable as to their "apparent" value.

 

[Barbarian]

God would not do anything that mislead people about His creation. If a counterfeiter makes an absolutely perfect $20 bill, we don't commend him for his honesty.

The fact that Romans 1:20 also rules out any faking of age by God pretty much seals it.

 

[Barbarian]

Clearly, Paul is saying that what we see in this world is evidence for God, which has been there since the creation. That is entirely inconsistent with God faking anything at all.

 

[Lewis]

And the only groups claiming otherwise are the ones that have a vested interest in proving that the earth is billions of years old, because without that, their theories fall apart.

The TOG​

Thank you

 

[jeff77]

I know that we have theistic evolutionist and atheistic evolutionist. I personally believe in creation but not YE or anything like that. If someone were to ask me what mechanism God used to create the Earth I would say I don't know. It seems like if someone was actually able to say evolution is how God created us then it would be a big victory for Christians yet many atheist use it to prove there is not a God. I would like to know how the theistic evolutionist make the link between God and evolution, or how can you prove that it was definitely God that used this specific way to create us?

 

[Barbarian]

I would like to know how the theistic evolutionist make the link between God and evolution

I have trouble imagining how a universe in which such wonders can happen, was the result of dumb luck. I'm not saying God sat down and figured out how to make it like this; the idea of a "designer" god is an insult to the Creator. But a universe in which things like sentient beings can evolve, is a pretty wonderful thing.

Nevertheless, we don't ever have absolute proof of God. I figure that free will is important to Him, and if He made Himself unambigously evident, who would truly be free to reject Him?

or how can you prove that it was definitely God that used this specific way to create us?

Science can't prove anything. It merely gives you confidence to the degree of evidence. Atheism was possible before science, and it's still possible.

I do note that abiogenesis (not evolution) is nicely described in Genesis, in a non-technical way.

 

[Sparkey]

God would not do anything that mislead people about His creation. If a counterfeiter makes an absolutely perfect $20 bill, we don't commend him for his honesty.

The fact that Romans 1:20 also rules out any faking of age by God pretty much seals it.

What did Adam look like on day one? Was he a baby? Or did he have the appearance of age? Was Adam born or was he formed of the dust of the earth?

[Gen 2:7 KJV] 7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

He did not "fake" adam.

 

[Jamsie]

Jeff77 - I would like to know how the theistic evolutionist make the link between God and evolution, or how can you prove that it was definitely God that used this specific way to create us?

Ecclesiastes 3:11 expresses my overall thoughts on our capabilities, actually the limits. "Prove" and "definitely" may be a reach however we are capable by inference, extrapolation, etc. to arrive at a reasoned belief as concerns creation. Though I term myself, if I must, as a Command/Fiat Mediate Creationist I see no problem with evolution as God's means of creation. A sufficiently delicate (GKC) reading of Genesis 1 not only allows for various processes but strongly implies such.

 

[Jamsie]

Jeff77 - It seems like if someone was actually able to say evolution is how God created us then it would be a big victory for Christians yet many atheist use it to prove there is not a God.

There is a considerable difference between "evolution" as a process and "Evolution" as an all encompassing worldview. As a worldview "Evolution" is perhaps an extrapolation to the extreme where as "evolution" is a process that can best explain a dynamic creation.

 

[Jamsie]

Sparrowhawke - Was Adam born or was he formed of the dust of the earth?

I believe that we are all made from the dust of the earth? Is there a difference between the appearance of age and the appearance of history?

 

[Sparkey]

Hebrews chapter 11 speaks to us about the faith that was demonstrated by those who died not having received the promises:

• Cain and Able
• Noah
• Abraham
• Jacob and Isaac
• Sarah
• Moses and Pharaoh's daughter
• Jericho
• Rahab, the harlot
• Samson, David & the Prophets

[Hbr 11:3 KJV] Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

We, of this age, have been given a greater understanding of the basis of that same faith. The Holy Spirit spoke through John instructing us that Jesus "... was in the beginning with God." We are told clearly that "all things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.…"

It is through faith that we understand that "things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

The famous and oft quoted Scripture clearly shows faith to be the very substance of things unseen (see Hebrews 11:1):

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Thank you

Except that maintaining such a conspiracy theory for such a ludicrous reason would make zero sense. For the CI and many apologists it makes sense why they stick to a young earth model, but scientists purposely fudging the age of the earth to go against a religion is just stupid. Especially since a big chunk of the research is used in many other aspects of science and engineering.

 

[Jamsie]

It is through faith that we understand that "things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
The famous and oft quoted Scripture clearly shows faith to be the very substance of things unseen (see Hebrews 11:1):
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

Sparrowhawke - I'm a bit unclear, are you suggesting that Heb. 1:3 contradicts or conflicts with Romans 1:20?

 

[Barbarian]

There is a considerable difference between "evolution" as a process and "Evolution" as an all encompassing worldview.

In science, it's a phenomenon. Evolution as a worldview, is a myth perpetuated by the professional creationists, and not found elsewhere.

It is true, a Ecclesiastes points out, that change is a constant in God's creation, but that doesn't mean God has an evolutionary worldview. It's just the way He does things in this world.

 

[Barbarian]

What did Adam look like on day one?

Even if you interpret Genesis as a six-day process, Adam wasn't there on day 1. The usual understanding is that the days represent categories of creation, not literal 24-hour days.

Was he a baby?

As all humans are. He was no different than we, except that he was the first to be given an immortal soul.

Or did he have the appearance of age?

If God shows you something with the appearance of age, you can be sure that it has age. God is truth, after all.

Was Adam born or was he formed of the dust of the earth?

Yes he was. Hence, the "from dust you came, to dust you return" when the casket is lowered into the ground.

[Gen 2:7 KJV] 7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

My point, exactly.

He did not "fake" adam.

Of course He didn't. Adam was born, just as we are.

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian said:

Adam was born, just as we are

I'm thinking that's incorrect, i my opinion neither Adam or Eve had an umbilical cord, you can only have an umbilical cord if your born of woman..

tob

*edit: he was created not born

 

[Barbarian]

I'm thinking that's incorrect, i my opinion neither Adam or Eve had an umbilical cord, you can only have an umbilical cord if your born of woman..

Here, you're assuming what you propose to prove. Scripture doesn't say anything like that.

 

[Sparkey]

Both sides assume what they propose to prove. Neither were there to witness. The only witness we have is that which the Holy Spirit gives us.

 

[Barbarian]

Both sides assume what they propose to prove.

N

This would be true, if all we had was Genesis, which has very little detail as to how He did it. However, as St. Paul makes clear, we have God's testimony in creation, which is also authoritative.

either were there to witness. The only witness we have is that which the Holy Spirit gives us.

We also have His work to examine, from which we can learn much that is not in Scripture.

It deepens and strengthens my faith in Him.