Why not deep time?

[firstfloor]

Lewis Black explains a few things about the Old Testament.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g

[Jorge]

I found a way to put the Hebrew text in, but I do wonder about Jorge. He seems unwilling to really engage any argument for deep time in the Bible. Take for instance this abridged passage:I have only begun to start. How would Jorge know what sort of argument I would produce? In particular he accuses me of a "very serious error," the failure to take context into account, when I have yet to produce a complete argument. Second, at least a while ago, Jorge seemingly looked at the PDF file "Genesis One and The Age of The Earth." His Septuagint attack made me suspect he only looked through the file cursorily, like he couldn't be bothered to produce a compelling argument or is too busy.

I will wait until I see that the thread has been moved before starting the debate on the PDF argument--ask Jorge about this or that. Or perhaps he will come up with a dissertation after all.

You quoted Genesis 1:1-2 in isolation as a possible place where deep time may exist. I did not have to wait any more after that. Nonetheless, when you do post something I'll have a look. Mind you, I doubt very, very much that you will present something that I haven't already seen hundreds of times before. The deep time theological arguments are relatively few, recycled often, and fail to incorporate the entirety of Scripture. That's why most 'deep-agers' focus on what they refer to as "definitive scientific evidence", namely, because they know that theologically (as far as orthodox Christianity is concerned) they stand on quicksand.

Jorge

[klaus54]

This thread should be moved to a theology forum.

Deep Time and History have been established for over two centuries, starting with geology. You can't travel through a mountainous area with road cuts and not realize that, even with no geology background.

Now, trying to force fit Deep Time and History into some sort of concordist or hyper-concordist Biblical exegesis is a completely different issue.

K54

[Truthseeker]

This thread should be moved to a theology forum.

I favor Biblical Languages, because that's the kind of argument I am going to use. We have to know ancient Hebrew. Grammar, vocabulary.

[Truthseeker]

You quoted Genesis 1:1-2 in isolation as a possible place where deep time may exist. I did not have to wait any more after that. Nonetheless, when you do post something I'll have a look. Mind you, I doubt very, very much that you will present something that I haven't already seen hundreds of times before. The deep time theological arguments are relatively few, recycled often, and fail to incorporate the entirety of Scripture. That's why most 'deep-agers' focus on what they refer to as "definitive scientific evidence", namely, because they know that theologically (as far as orthodox Christianity is concerned) they stand on quicksand.

Jorge

Oh, come on. You need not wait for my argument. You have the PDF link. You can now point out some of the parts of the Bible that militate against the claim of deep time.

[klaus54]

I favor Biblical Languages, because that's the kind of argument I am going to use. We have to know ancient Hebrew. Grammar, vocabulary.

Glenn Morton might want to get in on the discussion in the moved thread. He has an interesting, I would call hyper-concordist, view of the Genesis stories and also has the science background which is necessary for concordism.

K54

[Jorge]

Oh, come on. You need not wait for my argument. You have the PDF link. You can now point out some of the parts of the Bible that militate against the claim of deep time.

How many times am I to explain the same thing? I have stated numerous times that the problem of deep time is first and foremost theological, not 'scientific'. The scare quotes around 'scientific' is because many of the 'science' claims aren't what we Biblical Creationists would accept as scientific facts but rather as one out of several interpretations of certain observations. In addition -- and maybe it's just me but -- the account given to us by God Himself (through a human writer) trumps the accounts given to us by men based on fallible theories and often with agenda-filled goals. You think, maybe?

Your asking me for "the parts of the Bible that militate against the claim of deep time" tells me that you aren't paying attention or not giving this enough thought. You need to consider the entirety (that's about the 6th time so far that I've used that word) of Scripture, not just an isolated part. ANY isolated part of the Bible may be 'shot down' with an ad hoc interpretation or via some other mechanism such as classifying it as "poetic / allegorical / figurative" language. So, do you now see why your question is ill-posed?

Deep time would mean pain, suffering and death for many millions of years before the Original Sin occurred. So, are you saying that there was pain, suffering and death before that Sin? If so, then why does God say (in Revelation) that after His return things shall be restored? "Restored" to pain, suffering and death - is that it? That's just one issue - there are others.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

How many times am I to explain the same thing?

Once would be enough if you could back it up instead of just bluster.

I have stated numerous times that the problem of deep time is first and foremost theological, not 'scientific'. The scare quotes around 'scientific' is because many of the 'science' claims aren't what we Biblical Creationists would accept as scientific facts but rather as one out of several interpretations of certain observations.

The scientific community doesn't have any problem with deep time. Most religions in the world don't have any problems with deep time. Even most Christians don't have any problem with deep time. Seems the problem lies entirely with your personal religious beliefs which are directly contradicted by empirically observed reality.

[klaus54]

How many times am I to explain the same thing? I have stated numerous times that the problem of deep time is first and foremost theological, not 'scientific'. The scare quotes around 'scientific' is because many of the 'science' claims aren't what we Biblical Creationists would accept as scientific facts but rather as one out of several interpretations of certain observations. In addition -- and maybe it's just me but -- the account given to us by God Himself (through a human writer) trumps the accounts given to us by men based on fallible theories and often with agenda-filled goals. You think, maybe?

Your asking me for "the parts of the Bible that militate against the claim of deep time" tells me that you aren't paying attention or not giving this enough thought. You need to consider the entirety (that's about the 6th time so far that I've used that word) of Scripture, not just an isolated part. ANY isolated part of the Bible may be 'shot down' with an ad hoc interpretation or via some other mechanism such as classifying it as "poetic / allegorical / figurative" language. So, do you now see why your question is ill-posed?

Deep time would mean pain, suffering and death for many millions of years before the Original Sin occurred. So, are you saying that there was pain, suffering and death before that Sin? If so, then why does God say (in Revelation) that after His return things shall be restored? "Restored" to pain, suffering and death - is that it? That's just one issue - there are others.

Jorge

Then you've got REAL TROUBLE, Friend.

Because Deep Time and History IS a fact-Fact-FACT, as you YEC propagandists like to call it.

Why do so many Christian denominations have no theological problem with DT/H?

Why is your "denomination" (or TRUE(tm) Christians?) so committed to a theology that makes the Creator a deceiver?

What makes you so arrogant that only YOUR Bible interpretation is correct? And you're even one of those nutty KJV-onlyers. You don't even trust more accurate translations.

Poor, pitiful, brainwashed Jorge...

K54

[Truthseeker]

Your asking me for "the parts of the Bible that militate against the claim of deep time" tells me that you aren't paying attention or not giving this enough thought. You need to consider the entirety (that's about the 6th time so far that I've used that word) of Scripture, not just an isolated part. ANY isolated part of the Bible may be 'shot down' with an ad hoc interpretation or via some other mechanism such as classifying it as "poetic / allegorical / figurative" language. So, do you now see why your question is ill-posed?

Why do you think I would use such mechanisms! Oh, yeah, long bitter experience! Ah, poor Jorge!

Deep time would mean pain, suffering and death for many millions of years before the Original Sin occurred. So, are you saying that there was pain, suffering and death before that Sin?

Genesis 1:20-31 appears to say that animals existed for a while before man did. It doesn't matter how deep, there is that time before man anyway. Once we have that time, the door opens for deep time. Also, it seems as though there was no pain, suffering, death according to that passage.

If so, then why does God say (in Revelation) that after His return things shall be restored? "Restored" to pain, suffering and death - is that it?

Answered above; also, restoration to what, the time in Eden--Eden!--just before Eve and Adam bit into the apple?

[klaus54]

Quick question for you, Jorge. Do you believe that if the Woman and Man (Ish and Ishah) had not eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that YOU would have been born?

I say this in response to your bellyaching about suffering in Nature. Pain is a USEFUL part of Nature. It's a warning and defense mechanism.

What would Earth be like without pain? For one, there'd be a LOT of amputees.

If you say bacteria and fungi are a result of the Fall, then how would nutrients be recycled through the biosphere?

If people never died, and yet reproduced, would Earth be able to hold all of them?

You YEC Garden of Eden/Fall fantasyists have NO IDEA how to explain any of this.

You imagine a cosmos where nature and human can't exist.

K54

P.S. And here's the coup de grace for you guys: Jesus of Nazareth was born of Mary, a human woman. This means in His physical body He took on the evolutionary history of Earth and the Cosmos.

Ponder THAT for awhile.

[klaus54]

...

Genesis 1:20-31 appears to say that animals existed for a while before man did. It doesn't matter how deep, there is that time before man anyway. Once we have that time, the door opens for deep time. Also, it seems as though there was no pain, suffering, death according to that passage.


...

And Genesis 2:7 implies that Adam was made from the Adamah before the animals, and certainly before the Woman.

This demolishes the old YEC Mark 10:6 argument.

Also, The Garden concept is interesting. It was a Paradise, but apparently there was eretz OUTSIDE of it, since Adam and (slightly later named) Eve were booted out of the Garden and kept out by the flaming swords of the Cherubim.

Even if is totally historically accurate, it demolishes the argument that Creation was initially "perfect".

Of course the Jorgian YEC will ignore the fact that "perfect" and "very good" are not the same concept. The Hebrew word for perfect (or "complete") is NOT used in the Creation stories.

Funny that...

K54

P.S. Like I said, YEC is bad SCIENCE as well as bad THEOLOGY.

[Kbertsche]

Why is your "denomination" (or TRUE(tm) Christians?) so committed to a theology that makes the Creator a deceiver?
...

K54

I'm sure that Jorge doesn't see his interpretation as making God a deceiver. And if the issue were only "apparent age", he might have an argument. We see biblical examples of "apparent age", such as Jesus' first recorded miracle, the turning of ordinary well water to well-aged wine in John 2. (Though if Jorge is as fundamentalistic as he appears, he might think this is fresh grape juice! )

Unfortunately for Jorge, the record of nature not only gives evidence of apparent age, it also gives evidence of apparent history. For example, look at the Hawaiian Island and Emperor Seamount chain. This is a chain of volcanic islands in the Pacific Ocean; the islands become progressively older as one goes west. it is consistent with a "hot spot" under the present-day active volcano in Hawaii and with the satellite-measured westward motion of the Pacific Plate. In other words, this island chain is giving us a detailed picture of earth history. (BTW, this also shows the lie of the YEC claim that "historical science" should be dismissed because it cannot be repeated. This is an example of the same experiment being repeated many times in history.).

While YECs may be able to argue that apparent age does not make God a deceiver, it is much harder to argue that apparent history in the record of nature does not make God a deceiver.

[tabibito]

Also, The Garden concept is interesting. It was a Paradise, but apparently there was eretz OUTSIDE of it, since Adam and (slightly later named) Eve were booted out of the Garden and kept out by the flaming swords of the Cherubim.

Yep - When Adam was created, he was immediately transferred to the Garden of Eden. The tree of life is still in Eden, according to Revelation .... and nothing indicates that Eden was moved.

[rogue06]

I'm sure that Jorge doesn't see his interpretation as making God a deceiver. And if the issue were only "apparent age", he might have an argument. We see biblical examples of "apparent age", such as Jesus' first recorded miracle, the turning of ordinary well water to well-aged wine in John 2. (Though if Jorge is as fundamentalistic as he appears, he might think this is fresh grape juice! )

Unfortunately for Jorge, the record of nature not only gives evidence of apparent age, it also gives evidence of apparent history. For example, look at the Hawaiian Island and Emperor Seamount chain. This is a chain of volcanic islands in the Pacific Ocean; the islands become progressively older as one goes west. it is consistent with a "hot spot" under the present-day active volcano in Hawaii and with the satellite-measured westward motion of the Pacific Plate. In other words, this island chain is giving us a detailed picture of earth history. (BTW, this also shows the lie of the YEC claim that "historical science" should be dismissed because it cannot be repeated. This is an example of the same experiment being repeated many times in history.).

While YECs may be able to argue that apparent age does not make God a deceiver, it is much harder to argue that apparent history in the record of nature does not make God a deceiver.

You bring up the problem which is there is a difference between a world created with an appearance of age and one created with an appearance of history. In the former case these would include things necessary to function while in the latter they are unnecessary features that give a false indication of great age.

An appearance of age, as noted, may be necessary. An oak tree, to be fully mature, has to at least be fairly tall with a full spread of branches. An appearance of history, however, is not necessary and this is where YECs who propose it makes God out to be a deceiver. That tree would have no need of such things as annual growth rings, woody knots (which exist at the site where a limb had previously broken off and was grown over) or signs of healed damage. They are not necessary for the functioning of the tree and only serve as a record of the history of the tree's existence.

Another example is a river. Today, the water gets to the mouth of the river by having flowed down from upstream. Now, if God were to create a river instantaneously, it would have water at its mouth (because it would by necessity have to be there for the river to be complete and fully functional), which suggests an age at least equal to the length of time it takes for the water to reach that point. That is a necessary appearance of age. However, and this is the part where YECs again make God a deceiver, there would be absolutely no need for the river mouth to have any sediment that appears to have eroded from the headwater region of the river. That would be appearance of history.

There are other examples.

For instance, a deeply buried impact crater from a meteor strike that displays all the signs of having lithified and later eroded doesn't have an ecological function or purpose but it unerringly leads to conclusions that for all of this to have taken place implies a great deal of time – far more than a few thousand years.

The same thing goes for things like buried river channels, valleys, signs of prolonged extensive volcanic activity, the erosion of high mountains and even the appearance of billions of years of radioactive decay in rocks. They have no function and serve no purpose other than to provide false testimony concerning the age of the planet if it is indeed only a few thousand of years old^[1].

Until YECs can explain why God would created the world with a false appearance of history, the only conclusion is that God must have lied to us in the fingerprints He left in the real world. To me, as a Christian, that is an untenable position.

And that is why I reject the concept that God created a young creation that bears the marks of an ancient one in that this would be deceptive and God does not deceive those who believe in Him. To the contrary, God invites us to know Him and seek Him out through the natural world^[2], and this invitation makes no sense if we would arrive at the wrong conclusions doing so. Why would God tell us to go look at natural history to learn about His Godly nature and power if natural history didn't record real history?

From Romans we find that we are held accountable by the evidence of nature:

Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse --Rom. 1:20

God has shown himself to all men through His creation so that men are without excuse in rejecting God. Had an artificially dated planet been palmed off on us by a clever bit of sleight-of-hand, we would not be "without excuse" – instead we’d have a great excuse! How ironic it would have been for God to have commanded us, "Thou shalt not bear false witness," and then have expected us to adhere to a criterion that He would have violated from the very beginning.

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.”(Ps 19:1-2). Job says that the creatures of the earth, and the earth itself, declares that all creation is the work of God (12:7-10). The psalmist also declares that, “truth springs from the earth.” (85:11), and that “the word of the Lord is upright; and all his work is done in faithfulness” (33:4). Finally, the Psalmist tells us that the universe declares God’s righteousness (Ps 50:6; 97:6). The Bible says that God does not lie to us (Num 23:19; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18). Therefore, from the Bible, we can conclude that God does not lie or deceive, either from His word or from His record in nature. A false appearance of history must therefore be rejected.







1. And not just earth. Light from distant stars demonstrate that the universe is far more ancient than 6000 years old.

2. Romans 1:20 says that God is to be “understood from what has been made.” The appearance of age claim says that we can’t trust what he made!