• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Satan

Seth

Seth

Member
I'm not much of a word scholar, for those of you out there who are, let me know what you think of this translation :)
Send this to your friend with his own translation of Genesis Curtis, and let me know what he thinks, hehe.
This entire period of prehistoric angelic existence, the devil's revolt and first earthly reign, and God's subsequent judgment upon the earth are summarized in a mere two verses in the book of Genesis, or, more correctly stated, fall into the "gap" between Genesis 1:1 (which speaks of the original creation) and Genesis 1:2 (which describes the earth subsequent to judgment and prior to the seven days of re-creation):

Before all else, God created the heavens and the earth [original creation]. But the earth came to be ruined and despoiled – darkness lay upon the face of the abyss while God's Spirit brooded over the surface of its waters [all as a result of God's judgment in response to the devil's revolt].
Genesis 1:1-2

The ruination and destruction of the earth under Satan's pre-historic rule is aptly described by the Hebrew phrase tohu wa-bhohu (i.e., "ruined and despoiled": תהו ובהו). Many creative (and misleading) translations have been offered in an effort to remove the difficulties caused by a literal translation of this phrase. For the description of earth in this devastated condition causes obvious problems for the summary-statement interpretation of verse one: how and when could the earth have been so ravaged if no gap is to be understood between verses one and two? Moreover, the words tohu and bhohu always refer to "emptiness", "uselessness" or, "worthlessness", that is to say, a confused, chaotic state, inevitably the result of some cataclysm, and usually one that has been brought on by divine judgment (cf. Deut. 32:10; 1Sam.12:21; Job 6:18; 12:24; 26:7; Ps.107:40; Is.40:17; 41:29; 44:9; 45:19; 49:4; 59:4). Finally, the state of the earth in Genesis 1:2 described as in "darkness" is really only understandable when a judgment of this sort is assumed to be the source of the darkness. For God is a God of light (1Jn.1:5), and everything He creates is perfect, while darkness is synonymous with evil (Eph.5:11; 6:12; 1Jn.1:6; 2:11), and is a characteristic result of divine judgment (Is.5:30; 8:22; Ezek.32:7-8; Acts 13:11).
 
Interesting point, Seth. I assume you've seen the vast amounts of what has been written about the so-called "Gap Theory", both in the various Hebraic midrashes and other sources as well.

While I find them interesting, and perhaps even plausible, my own opinion remains simply that there isn't enough information in what we have preserved in Scripture to know. But I certainly do agree that the particular Hebrew phrase used there is fascinating...


(It's a bit like the situation with Adam -- among many other obvious examples in Genesis alone. Was he really the First Monogamist, as I like to joke with the double-minde? Or is Scripture simply silent* on any alternatives - because God chose not to Write it out for us?)


------------------------
* Some may even have heard of the "Lilith" traditions or lore. Interesting, but certainly not persuasive!
 
I don't know about all those midrash thingy's you mentioned, Mark, but had heard of the possibility or likelihood of a gap.

This theory, as expressed here, may make sense of something that has bothered me since childhood.

If God is light, then what is with this idea that He CREATED light during creation week?

But what if it's all a matter of perspective, in this case the standpoint being the surface of the earth? Say the air was filled with volcanic ash from the massive destruction of the previous age? Then God speaks, and regulates the speed at which the globe spins, and/or causes the air to clear? From the perspective of this globe's surface, light would be created. I notice that it said that darkness was upon the FACE of the deep. Not that the universe was without light.

Ok, these bumbling thoughts probably only half make sense to you smart guys, but it sure is interesting. And nice to see how some "hunh?" passages might make sense after all.
 
Mark,

I am in total agreement with you here. When I was a new believer, I came to believe in the Gap theory. I think more because I found it fascinating than because I found it truly supported in the Scriptures. After I came to believe solidly in creation science, I totally rejected the Gap Theory. From what I can remember, the Gap Theory was motivated by those who were trying to tie together early evolutionary thought and Scripture. Thus, in their mind, they were helping believers embrace evolution - especially the so-called "geological ages - while keeping them believing Scripture! The main thesis of the theory is that an indefinate span of time exists between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 which could have been millions of years. The theory includes the idea that a cataclysmic judgment was pronounced upon the earth during this period as the result of the fall of Satan, thus requiring a re-creation of the earth from this chaotic state. If I remember right, I believe it is also contained in the Schofield Study Bible! Here is a little information about the beginning of this theory: http://www.allaboutcreation.org/gap-theory.htm
 
I have always found the first seven Hebrew words in B'resheit ("In the Beginning", aka Genesis) to be among the most spectacularly interesting in all of Scripture.

(For example, literally THERE, in the exact center of that phrase, is the "Word", and the Word is את , and that Word is With Him (Elohim,אלהים ) and the Word is the "alef tav" -- literally the "Beginning" and the "End".)

There's plenty to marvel about there in any event - with or without a 'gap' !

And, Cecil - your comment reminded me of a great T-shirt I recall from my college days:

On the front, it said in Big Bold Letters:

And God said:

(here followed the elliptical integral from of Maxwell's Equations - the four famous complex expressions of the Laws of Electromagnetism that every senior physics and electrical engineering student knew all too well - but which I cannot readily reproduce here due to font limitations!)

But the last line was a wonderful statement of Good Theology:

And there was LIGHT!


What still fascinates me about this bit of nerd humor is the Truth within:

Much of our knowledge of God and His creation is difficult to express in English. At one time, I thought that the language of mathematics was probably superior, since (as Maxwell et al showed) it employed a set of symbols which succinctly express concepts otherwise hard to put into words.

Now I realize that Hebrew -- arguably His Original Language -- is far better still!







PS> Here's a link (or two) if you're really curious:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... maxeq.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations
 
12 "Son of man, take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre, and say to him, 'Thus says the Lord GOD: "You were the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;
...
14 "You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.
15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, Till iniquity was found in you.
...
17 "Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor; I cast you to the ground, I laid you before kings, That they might gaze at you.

I think that these verses would be hard to overcome if I were a gap proponent. These verses place the serpent in the Garden before rebellion, doing away completely with the gap theory.
The gap theory also has the adversary ushering in destruction and death, which contradicts various scripture references:

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned –

1 Corinthians 15:
21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

And no matter what anyone says regarding Peter’s words, “a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day”, the Exodus passages are so simple and clear:

Exodus 20:
8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.
11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

The six days of creation was not for God’s benefit, but for man’s. God could have created everything in an instant. However, God used a week to set the example for man. Six days we work and on the seventh, we rest. God worked to show us what is best for us. God rested to show us what is best for us. The Sabbath comes directly from God’s example. How do millions of years fit into this? Even the historic Jewish day was fashioned after God. To the Jew, the day began in the evening and ended in the evening. That is why the Jews wanted Jesus off the cross by six in the evening. That is when the Sabbath began. The Bible plainly states that the evening and the morning were the 1st – 7th days. Why would God define the day as evening and morning if it were symbolic of a time period other than a 24-hour day?

I have never met anyone that believed in the gap theory that did not also believe in evolution, but that might not be the case in this circumstance.
 
Just for a fun side note, I do not personally embrace the Isaiah nor the Ezekiel passages as doctrine concerning satan. Although this is certainly very popular, it is personally hard for me to make a doctrine out of Typology. In my mind, this is what causes so much confusion in the church world today. Doctrine should always be based upon solid and clear Scripture! I agree with F.F. Bruce and Robert Mounce that the popular Evangelical view of Satan owes more to John Milton than to the teachings of Scripture!
 
Great points, guys. The "popular" conception of Hasatan has always bothered me a bit, too, Randy (even without the pitchfork and horns variant).

I've always found the Orthodox Jewish interpretation interesting as well. I recall the first time, a number of years ago, when I had a discussion on-air with a rabbi (who has since become a good friend) when the topic came up, and he informed me, "Mark, the common traditional view of Hasatan (he was amused that I used the Hebrew-ism) is different from the Christian perspective."

After a bit of discussion, in response to my obvious questions, he put it this way.

"He's a company man!"

While there's much more that could be said, I find that summary quite succinct. Even if it's not quite complete, it's worth remembering. "The Accuser" is -- in some respects -- much like a slick, expensive tailored suit-wearing, corporate liar, er - lawyer. He's an "officer of the court" -- even if he seems like the enemy.

It is important that we not forget (and this is a part of the lesson of the story of Job that I have always found one of the most enigmatic in all of Scripture) that he is ALLOWED to do what he does by the King. (Who can make war with the Beast?)

Company man, indeed.
 
I do agree that we should be careful regarding forming doctrines that are not clearly or easily stated in scripture. I agree that typology should not be "doctrine" and that there is definately a heirarchy and power is and action is bound by what the Almighty allows. I think that the gap theory does this more than reading the Ez and Is passages regarding the adversary, the passages are clear that he was a created one that was in a high place, a creature of God, that rebelled, and that he was in the Garden before he was cast out or fallen.

I hope that we apply the same logic to the gap theory, and not be so quick to believe an entire creation and destruction of the world, and a rebellion that is not described in Genesis. Especially when doing so seems to come against the verses quoted above. The sabbath reference is the best refutation as far as I am concerned.

Mark, I do like the word info, the "letters to Joseph Priestly" has some good stuff in there about the name of Jehoshuah, but I do not know how to write the hebrew stuff when I post, maybe a thread that details how you do that is warranted.
 
Mark...maybe a thread that details how you do [Hebrew text] is warranted.
Click to expand...



Thanks, Paul -- it's simple!

I cheat. ;)

I just go to BlueLetterBible.com to find the quote I want, and then use the "C" button on the verse to pull up the Hebrew concordance. Then copy the Hebrew text into the "post" window. You can use 'preview' to make sure it looks OK.

(As to another thread, I'd have to think where to put that which would be readily accessible, since they seem hard-to-find once they fall off the "active topic" list!)
 
The Gap Theory

Seth said:
I'm not much of a word scholar, for those of you out there who are, let me know what you think of this translation :)
Send this to your friend with his own translation of Genesis Curtis, and let me know what he thinks, hehe.
This entire period of prehistoric angelic existence, the devil's revolt and first earthly reign, and God's subsequent judgment upon the earth are summarized in a mere two verses in the book of Genesis, or, more correctly stated, fall into the "gap" between Genesis 1:1 (which speaks of the original creation) and Genesis 1:2 (which describes the earth subsequent to judgment and prior to the seven days of re-creation):

Before all else, God created the heavens and the earth [original creation]. But the earth came to be ruined and despoiled – darkness lay upon the face of the abyss while God's Spirit brooded over the surface of its waters [all as a result of God's judgment in response to the devil's revolt].
Genesis 1:1-2

The ruination and destruction of the earth under Satan's pre-historic rule is aptly described by the Hebrew phrase tohu wa-bhohu (i.e., "ruined and despoiled": תהו ובהו). Many creative (and misleading) translations have been offered in an effort to remove the difficulties caused by a literal translation of this phrase. For the description of earth in this devastated condition causes obvious problems for the summary-statement interpretation of verse one: how and when could the earth have been so ravaged if no gap is to be understood between verses one and two? Moreover, the words tohu and bhohu always refer to "emptiness", "uselessness" or, "worthlessness", that is to say, a confused, chaotic state, inevitably the result of some cataclysm, and usually one that has been brought on by divine judgment (cf. Deut. 32:10; 1Sam.12:21; Job 6:18; 12:24; 26:7; Ps.107:40; Is.40:17; 41:29; 44:9; 45:19; 49:4; 59:4). Finally, the state of the earth in Genesis 1:2 described as in "darkness" is really only understandable when a judgment of this sort is assumed to be the source of the darkness. For God is a God of light (1Jn.1:5), and everything He creates is perfect, while darkness is synonymous with evil (Eph.5:11; 6:12; 1Jn.1:6; 2:11), and is a characteristic result of divine judgment (Is.5:30; 8:22; Ezek.32:7-8; Acts 13:11).
Click to expand...

Hi Seth,

Growing up I was exposed to a number of creation theories and studied the subject since I was knee-high to a grasshopper. At this point I believe the Gap Theory to be the correct theory for many, many reasons.

However, I am not opposed to the Young Earth creation theory, either, depending upon what is discovered about quantum physics and the way the Universe works. But there are difficulties with the Young Earth creation theory that seem to be irreconcilable with what we currently know about the Universe.

In any case, in the past I have spoken to and corresponded with a number of famous creationists like Ken Ham, Henry Morris, Hugh Ross, and others. Ken Ham and I discussed the use of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as a creationist position (which I am opposed to), and I presented to him a theory of my own about animal mimics and how they are impossible to explain under the Theory of Evolution, which he has since used in his materials. Hugh Ross invited me to present information about the Gap Theory on his radio show back in 2001. In other words, I'm not new to this subject.

The first thing to consider is that the Gap Theory does not have to include any "Satan's Flood". I learned about the supposed "Satan's Flood" from a study Bible by Finis Jennings Dake way back when I was a child. My father is still a great proponent of that viewpoint, I believe.

In any case, the Gap Theory doesn't hinge upon Satan's Flood.

Genesis 1:1 starts out by specifying that it was God that created the heavens and the Earth.

When we get to Genesis 1:2, though, we see something a bit strange... "But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the water." The Hebrew tells us it was "desolate and empty" (Heb., tohu va bohu).

Now, if God is infinitely powerful, and always made things perfect, then why did He create the earth in such a state, rather than creating it complete in the first place? Mind you, this is not necessarily my argument, and holes can be poked in it, but it's a valid question.

The next thing God does is say, "Let there be light," and there was light (vs. 1:3). This doesn't necessarily mean that light was created at this point, but only that it appeared. The same Hebrew phrase would be used in either case.

God then divided the light from the darkness (vs. 1:4). We don't know what exactly happened, but it could be that this is simply a description of Him removing whatever was obscuring the light from the Sun.

Then we get to another strange part, if God has created this "ex nihilo" (out of nothing). We are told in Genesis 1:6 that God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water, and let it be a division between water and water." Why did God not create it with the waters already divided where they should be? Again we are left with an odd question about this "creation".

We could keep going like this, but there's just more of the same type of questions to come.

Here's a theory, the Gap Theory (without Satan's Flood) to account for everything:

God created the heavens and the Earth in the distant past, several billion years ago. They started out complete and perfect as a "seed" for the Universe that was to grow from a "Big Bang" into what we have today. In that time He made the stars from the interstellar hydrogen, created planets, and eventually made the Earth. The Earth cooled to the appropriate state and He added all the things necessary for life. At some point He created various types of life as experiments or for fun or for whatever reason God does things.

These ancient creatures lived and died millions of years ago. The dinosaurs rose and fell. God destroyed them through some event that obscured the Sun from giving sufficient light to the Earth. I propose that this was the ancient meteorite that supposedly wiped the dinosaurs out. This destruction caused a vast cloud cover (i.e. waters above), which effectively killed just about everything on Earth other than some deep sea fishes (like the coelacanth).

Then God said, "Let light appear!" and the cloud cover cleared enough to allow light and heat back onto the Earth. He raised the cloud cover off the ground, then He raised the ancient supercontinent from the waters and called it "dirt" or "ground" and called the waters "seas". The supercontinent was later divided into the continents of today. (We can see how they fit together pretty easy.)

After this He proceeded to create plants and animals...

There were six days of re-creation, not original creation. Instead, the Earth is billions of years old, and many generations of creatures lived and died before the Six-Day Re-Creation.

This type of Gap Theory completely accounts for everything. It recognizes that God created the things mentioned in six literal days.

Some may ask why didn't God tell us what happened in the billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. The answer: It has nothing to do with us. We have no need to know about it, so God didn't tell us. There are lots of things that He hasn't told us.

Incidentally, there are many "gaps" throughout Scripture. For instance, we really have very few details about what happened between the creation and the Flood, other than the names of a few people in the genealogies. We know a few stories, but there's around a 1000-year gap in there with no detail. Why? Because it isn't important to us (even if we might be curious).

This is just a theory, mind you, and ALL of these creation theories are destined to remain theories until God tells us which is correct. As for me, I'm going to prefer the Gap Theory, because it fully accounts for what Scripture says and for our scientific knowledge of the Universe. It doesn't require imagining that light traveled slower in the past (for which there is no evidence), nor that God created light from the stars "in transit" (which would be deceptive on God's part, as it gives the appearance of age without age), nor that all the radioactive and other dating methods are way off, nor any of the other hundreds and thousands of indicators of an old Earth are false.

There is a possibility also that the Six-Day Creation Theory is true, in that God may have created the Universe in six days, but that the design of the Universe allows it to change with our observation of it (which is supported by quantum physics, whether the Universe is old or young), and that WE humans have modified the Universe by our beliefs to have an old appearance, even though it is, in actuality, young. Personally, I think that's a stretch, but it is a serious possibility.

I can't promise that I didn't make some errors in my presentation, as I was trying to watch a movie and type this at the same time... If something doesn't make sense or is out of order, feel free to ask...


John for Christ
 
I do not have a problem with a gap theory. Every gap theory I have heard is a little different then another. It is a theory and God left us enough information to make us ask questions. Gap theories are cleaner and account for more data. The instant (6 days seems fairly instant to me) creationists idea seems to more easily account for faith and miracle creation power. If the purpose of gap theory is to account for more of the way we observe the universe then that is fine, but if it is a way to minimize God's creation power as original cause then it will not work. Gap theories may/must take the universe back 6 billion years or however long. At that earlier time we still have no choice but to present God as speaking it all into existence.
As a simple example, I call the tree in my front yard to testify. If I cut it down and use it for firewood I would probably count 30 to 50 rings in the stump. This observation of course means that the tree was around 30 to 50 years old. However, now that I cut it down I might want it back this summer for shade. I do not ask God to do it, but if God wanted to make another brand new shade tree appear for my comfort in the front yard then that tree would also appear to be 30 to 50 years old if I cut it down again and counted the rings. (If I did it a third time God would probably cut it down Himself with a lightning bolt as I approached with my chain saw). But of course we would know that a miracle caused the appearance of instant age. So....no matter what tuesday (sorry, I mean Sunday) that God started creation it would have looked like it had been there the day before (which of course would appear that God had worked on the day before Sunday which would have been Saturday or the Sabbath, which opens up a can of.....oh never mind).
Anyway, no matter when it happened, God spoke it and this makes the first part of the first chapter of John fit with the first chapter of the Torah. I agree that first part of the Torah (Genesis) is better comprehended if reading the first part of John at the same time. I guess we find another example of how the Torah needs the New Testament if we are going to get anything finished.
 
welltan said:
I do not have a problem with a gap theory. Every gap theory I have heard is a little different then another. It is a theory and God left us enough information to make us ask questions. Gap theories are cleaner and account for more data. The instant (6 days seems fairly instant to me) creationists idea seems to more easily account for faith and miracle creation power. If the purpose of gap theory is to account for more of the way we observe the universe then that is fine, but if it is a way to minimize God's creation power as original cause then it will not work. Gap theories may/must take the universe back 6 billion years or however long. At that earlier time we still have no choice but to present God as speaking it all into existence.
As a simple example, I call the tree in my front yard to testify. If I cut it down and use it for firewood (which makes sense right now in Missouri, frigid) I would probably count 30 to 50 rings in the stump. This observation of course means that the tree was around 30 to 50 years old. However, now that I cut it down I might want it back this summer for shade. I do not ask God to do it, but if God wanted to make another shade tree appear for my comfort in the front yard then that tree would also appear to be 30 to 50 years old if I cut it down again and counted the rings. (If I did it a third time God would probably cut it down Himself with a lightning bolt as I approached with my chain saw). But of course we would know that a miracle caused the appearance of instant age. So....no matter what tuesday (sorry, I mean Sunday) that God started creation it would have looked like it had been there the day before (which of course would appear that God had worked on the day before Sunday which would have been Saturday or the Sabbath, which opens up a can of.....oh never mind).
Anyway, no matter when it happened, God spoke it and this makes the first part of the first chapter of John fit with the first chapter of the Torah. I agree that first part of the Torah (Genesis) is better comprehended if reading the first part of John at the same time. I guess we find another example of how the Torah needs the New Testament if we are going to get anything finished.
Click to expand...

Hi Welltan,

I don't think there is enough information to know for certain what happened, except that there were Six Days of creation and all the things stated in Genesis (and other such passages) did happen as Scripture says. However, we don't have details, so we can't know for certain exactly what happened.

My issue with the Young Earth creation is that the Universe has an obvious appearance of age. It seems to me that God would be deceptive to give us the impression of age if it were not old. The Scriptural description indicates that all the modern plant life and animal life is young--about 6000 to 10,000 years old--and everything points to the truth of that. Nevertheless, the rocks, the stars, fossils, and other things seem to show that Earth and Universe is old. To reconcile the two--the appearance of both young and old--the Gap Theory seems to make the most sense to me.

That doesn't mean that I don't have respect for other beliefs on creation. We simply don't have enough data to make a clear-cut decision in my opinion.


John for Christ
 
Its way too much Buffy the Vampire Slayer for me. And nothing appears that old, they just make it up to be by extrapolating assumptions many millions of times. To give long ages any credence you must have absolute faith in ideas such all light, everywhere and forever having a constant speed. Radioactive decay must follow exactly the theoretically extrapolated pattern and no event ever could possibly have interfered with it. Random knuclebones must be enough to prove without a doubt that entire species existed for untold ages of time.

It seems to me that God would be deceptive to give us the impression of age if it were not old.
Click to expand...

Weather its Molech, Baal, the Parthenon or Saint worship every age has its form of idolatry that is very popular and convincing. Look at what our ages idolatry has you say 'God would be deceptive' if their idea wasn't true. 'God would be deceptive' if what he said didn't line up with their ideas. Remember you only get the impression of age from believing in them and their philosophies and conjectures. God didn't give us the impression of age, the new idolatry did. Do you think any of those idolatress I listed didn't have convincing theories and skilled proponents to make people believe them?

If you didn't first believe in the work evolutionists had done how would you think the universe had an appearance of age? You believe in them first then their conclusions are obvious to you because they are an obvious extension of your first true faith.

You say you've studied history, look across the world and see great lizards written about, crafted in stone, observed. Yet you believe dinosaurs are real and existed an untold time before man based on modern assumptions and guesswork, yet you believe dragons are a myth and the wide variety of great lizards told about by independent cultures at different times are all what? Lies? Mutual hallucinations? Irrelevant co-incidences? Man, the great masses of people are more easily fooled by a big lie than a small one.
 
i personally believe in the gap theory. but of course none of us will really know until we see Jesus. It is one of those things that can be debated to death and really has no bearing on salvation. fun to talk about, fun to think about, but not something to get my feathers ruffled about.
 
in my opinion the whole idea that the universe looks old and therefor is old kinda leaves out one important point
that is; that adam seems to have been created as an adult, with the appearance of having lived for a number of years past what a newborn would look like
a "grown-up" universe could have been created at any stage of age

personally, i think that (to miss-quote dory) all of the conjecture has no bearing on truth. i am prepared to be very surprised to find out how He really did things and how His skimpy description of it in Gen. fit together.
He has such a sense of humor and loves to see us get all puffed as we figure out stuff that just aint so
 
Its way too much Buffy the Vampire Slayer for me. And nothing appears that old, they just make it up to be by extrapolating assumptions many millions of times. To give long ages any credence you must have absolute faith in ideas such all light, everywhere and forever having a constant speed. Radioactive decay must follow exactly the theoretically extrapolated pattern and no event ever could possibly have interfered with it. Random knuclebones must be enough to prove without a doubt that entire species existed for untold ages of time.
Click to expand...

Hi Tlaloc,

Well, I disagree with your opinion that it doesn't appear that old. Extrapolations from known information and rates of change for several hundred years indicate great age. We can never know that rates of change did not occur, but we have no reason to suppose they did without further information about the past. We can only work from the information we've been given, both on Earth and in Scripture.

Nevertheless, things like changes in the rate of the speed of light change EVERYTHING. If lightspeed were to change, then radioactivity would differ, stars would either burn faster or die, etc. You can't just change the physical constants of the Universe without expecting changes that would be fatal to life. But, let's suppose that God would do so. There still isn't an explanation why modern life shows evidence of being young versus other things being old, when using the same tests.

There could be variation in the various evidence that the Universe was old, but not to the extent you seem to think.

It seems to me that God would be deceptive to give us the impression of age if it were not old.
Click to expand...

Weather its Molech, Baal, the Parthenon or Saint worship every age has its form of idolatry that is very popular and convincing. Look at what our ages idolatry has you say 'God would be deceptive' if their idea wasn't true. 'God would be deceptive' if what he said didn't line up with their ideas. Remember you only get the impression of age from believing in them and their philosophies and conjectures. God didn't give us the impression of age, the new idolatry did. Do you think any of those idolatress I listed didn't have convincing theories and skilled proponents to make people believe them?
Click to expand...

That's an unfair characterization. One could just as well call the Six Day Creation Theory a form of idolatry, since its proponents practically worship it.

I would argue that God unmistakeably DID give the Universe the appearance of age. Astronomy disagrees with you vociferously. We've observed exploded stars and galaxies and more. They are clearly in a state that indicates that they started out exploding, then exploded at rates that reveal them to be millions of years old (unless they exploded well beyond the speed of light). There are literally hundreds of indications of age, that nobody would believe for a second would fit into a Young Earth/Universe Creation.

Again, this is a legitimate issue on which many fully intelligent Christians disagree from one end of the spectrum to the other.

If you didn't first believe in the work evolutionists had done how would you think the universe had an appearance of age? You believe in them first then their conclusions are obvious to you because they are an obvious extension of your first true faith.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "evolutionists"? If you mean biological evolution, I've never believed in that for a moment. If you mean "stellar evolution" then I did not at first believe in it. However, physics is not something that is really open to opinion. There are some things that must be, given existing conditions and historical conditions. God could certainly do anything He wanted at any time, but there's not the slightest evidence that He did in regards to creation.

You say you've studied history, look across the world and see great lizards written about, crafted in stone, observed. Yet you believe dinosaurs are real and existed an untold time before man based on modern assumptions and guesswork, yet you believe dragons are a myth and the wide variety of great lizards told about by independent cultures at different times are all what? Lies? Mutual hallucinations? Irrelevant co-incidences? Man, the great masses of people are more easily fooled by a big lie than a small one.
Click to expand...

Okay, you've made the claim, so prove it. Where are "great lizards written about, crafted in stone, observed"???

As for dragons, there's absolutely no reason to draw any association between dragons and dinosaurs. There are plenty of existing lizards that people could have drawn upon for their inspiration. Dragons really don't look much like dinosaurs at all, not to anyone who may have seen a dinosaur. Many of the ancient dragons were drawn with horse-type heads and had mammalian characteristics. That's nothing like a dinosaur. You might as well ask why I don't believe in fairies, unicorns, etc. Unicorns, for instance, appear by historical evidence to have come from a combined confusion with rhinoceroses and narwhal. Don't imagine a fantastic explanation when a normal one will do...

Also, the idea that these things came from independent cultures has to be proven. Very few cultures that wrote about dragons were independent. China had limited contact with Europe, so that could have come from either direction or developed independently from crocodiles in both areas. You should note that no North or South American natives ever mentioned dragons.


John for Christ
 
in my opinion the whole idea that the universe looks old and therefor is old kinda leaves out one important point
that is; that adam seems to have been created as an adult, with the appearance of having lived for a number of years past what a newborn would look like
a "grown-up" universe could have been created at any stage of age
Click to expand...

Hi Steve,

Well, Adam was created as a complete adult, but not necessarily with the appearance of age in the sense of being rundown and worn out. The Universe appears exactly like that. We have exploded stars, damage and destruction everywhere we look.

personally, i think that (to miss-quote dory) all of the conjecture has no bearing on truth. i am prepared to be very surprised to find out how He really did things and how His skimpy description of it in Gen. fit together.
He has such a sense of humor and loves to see us get all puffed as we figure out stuff that just aint so
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't think we can possibly know the whole think unless He reveals it. My only concern is to understand how what is fits with what was written. To me, the Gap Theory is the best choice. Let everyone choose their own. If one thinks it worth discussing in order to prove the idea of one over another, I'm willing to listen--as long as they are also.


John for Christ
 
No matter how it happened, it happened and we give glory to God for doing it.

Remember that forum comments are to be directed at subjects and topics and not at individuals. Scripture road rage topics will be ticketed with a note such as this and if needed the comments hauled in and/or topics locked up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top