Why not deep time?

[Jorge]

I think this sums it up pretty succinctly.

Yes, it does. You finally got something right.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I wonder. After all, there's no question that Kurt Wise is scientifically knowledgeable, technically capable, and fully understands the evidence. Not knowing better doesn't seem to be the problem. And as Kurt Wise wrote, IF the physical evidence is accepted, then much of scripture is eviscerated, and the rest becomes dubious or untrustworthy -- almost as though we were dealing with primitive myths, misunderstandings, and superstitions. And for some people, that prospect is unthinkable. I mean, literally unthinkable. ANY scriptural interpretation consistent with overwhelming evidence unavoidably does fatal insult to the scripture itself.

What Jorge is telling us is that in order to hold to his beliefs, reality simply cannot be countenanced. Reality MUST be a "bad argument". Otherwise, Jorge would be wrong.

In the last post I wrote that you finally got something right.
Now you're back to your usual standard : W-R-O-N-G.
You simply haven't got a clue - plain, simple, period!

Jorge

[phank]

In the last post I wrote that you finally got something right.
Now you're back to your usual standard : W-R-O-N-G.
You simply haven't got a clue - plain, simple, period!

Jorge

Actually, I kind of gave you a compliment there. I said you were not stupid and not ignorant. I compared you to Kurt Wise. And it was Kurt Wise who wrote

I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.

[Roy]

The vast majority of data that is floating around today is questionable/flimsy.

If this is true, providing an example or two should be easy. But...

This relates to the issue of what science is including distinguishing between origins (or historical) science and operational science. A great deal of ideology / religious beliefs is and must be included in the former yet that is rarely stated explicitly (in fact, it is concealed).

No data there.

A few examples: (1) asked how did the universe come to be, many people today would respond, "The prevailing theory is a 'Big Bang' of some kind."

That's not data, its a theory which may or may not be supported by data.

(2) Asked if there is life (any kind) or intelligent life elsewhere in the universe we find that our society is bombarded day and night by the "fact" that there "must be".

That's not only not data, it's not even true. No-one has ever said that life elsewhere is a "fact".

(3) Asked how did life come to be the answer given at most centers of "higher learning" is that chemicals and energy slowly combined over eons.

Still not data.

(4) Asked how you got here once again those centers of "higher learning" will answer that you are the product of descent with modification of a common ancestor that first emerged several billion years ago.

Which is a conclusion based on the available data, not the data itself.

A great deal of what today is regarded as "factual data" is not.

Yes, you said that before. But since you can't produce even a single example, why on earth should anyone believe you?

Roy

[Jorge]

It is true that Ps 104:21 is not talking about the Garden. But neither are the Isaiah passages. They seem to be talking about the Millennium, which is different from both the Garden and the present age.

Yes sir, I agree. That was precisely my point - it referred to the FALLEN world, not the one created originally by God and to which God shall restore all things after this 'Age' is past. So, following your own logic: if God is speaking of the Millennium - in which God has restored things to their originally created state - then how could that originally created state be red in tooth and claw when here God clearly speaks of the lion and lamb lying together as vegetarians? How could there have been pain, suffering and death before Adam and then God will restore things to that state? Can you now see why gigayears doesn't hold any water UNLESS Scripture is distorted into some ungodly form?

The fallen angels, like Adam, are created beings who sinned, fell, and were punished with spiritual death. The fallen angels will be sent to a fiery pit for all of eternity. How can this not be "suffering"? How can their current banishment from heaven not be "suffering"?

I agree with your first sentence. Same for the second sentence. But notice your very own words above : you speak in the future tense (which is correct because this will happen at some future date).

As for your last question: you may recognize the words that "it is better to rule in hell than serve in heaven." Until Jesus Christ returns and (S)atan and his followers are cast into the lake of fire for all eternity, those evil-doers are in their hayday. Today Satan is a "prince" of this world exercising power and having a host of 'followers' - implicitly and explicitly. So at this time Satan et al. are not "suffering" - they are actually 'enjoying' themselves in rebellion and defiance of the will of God. They are wallowing in their own sin and in those that they tempt into sin and they will never repent. These are the things that will land them in Hell for all eternity.

You imply that pain is the most important factor in this discussion. I doubt that insects, worms, and grubs feel pain. Does this mean that these animals could have died in the pre-Fall Garden?

No, I don't think that pain is the most important factor. The most important factor is the "final enemy" - death. Could insects, worms and grubs have died in the pre-Fall Garden? I don't think that anyone knows the answer to that question with absolute, Bible-based certainty. However, if I had to guess I'd think about the biblical concept of "life with blood" and conclude (tentatively) that if a living thing had blood then it did not die prior to the Fall. Plants, of course, do not have blood and so eating plants was not "killing" nor did plants ever "die" as per God.

["Pain" is a complex concept because it comes in many forms - physical, spiritual, emotional, psychological (just ask me, I've suffered them all!). The "pain" that you speak of above (grubs, insects, etc.) is one kind of "pain" - felt when electrical impulses travel through a biological system into a receptive "brain" that translates these signals as "pain". Cut/block the communication channel and that "pain" 'disappears' (this can be done in humans quite easily). Yet the original signal was produced just the same. Interesting stuff ... but I digress.]

Jorge

[klaus54]

Jorge,

You haven't addressed my comment that the Garden was separate from the rest of Earth (eretz). Therefore, a "normal, modern" biosphere would have existed outside the Garden. This is implied strongly by the Man and Woman being prevented from re-entering the Garden by Cherubim with flaming swords.

Thanks in advance for your deep and thoughtful response!

K54

[Truthseeker]

there is no way that there can be "millions or billions" of years without having to radically re-write/re-interpret God's Special Revelation to man. <snip> In short, in the decades that I've been at this I have not encountered a single good/compelling argument against the "6,000-year" position but I have encountered plenty of bad arguments, mostly in that they distort God's Word one way or another.

Those statements are based on your interpretation, which I doubt is correct. For one thing, you accept as definite statements in the Bible that actually may be indefinite. An unspecified span of time may be, to use your phrase, gigayears as well as 24 hours. Shall I give you an example from Genesis?

[Kbertsche]

Yes sir, I agree. That was precisely my point - it referred to the FALLEN world, not the one created originally by God and to which God shall restore all things after this 'Age' is past. So, following your own logic: if God is speaking of the Millennium - in which God has restored things to their originally created state - then how could that originally created state be red in tooth and claw when here God clearly speaks of the lion and lamb lying together as vegetarians? How could there have been pain, suffering and death before Adam and then God will restore things to that state? Can you now see why gigayears doesn't hold any water UNLESS Scripture is distorted into some ungodly form?
...
Jorge

You state that the Millennium is a restoration of all things "to their originally created state". I have two problems with this:

1) you implicitly equate the state of things in the Garden with the entirety of the original creation. But the Garden was a special, divinely-prepared, localized place, different from the non-Garden. Scripture tells us essentially nothing about how things functioned outside the Garden before the Fall.

2) where is your biblical evidence for this notion of "restoration"? I don't believe there is even a hint of this in Scripture! The Millennium will be very different from the Garden. Humans will not be sinless as Adam and Eve were in the Garden; they will be descendants of fallen Adam so will be born as sinners. People will live longer, but there will still be death, as someone has already mentioned in this thread. God's enemies will be stricken and killed (Zech 14:12ff). There will not be just one small people-group in a Garden, but many different nations living all over the earth, making an annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to worship the King (Zech. 14:16ff).

And if you still insist (with no biblical support) that the Millennium is a "restoration" of either the Garden or the entire original creation, you shoot yourself in the foot and destroy your own argument. As shown above, there will be death of man in the Millennium. And many Bible teachers maintain that animal sacrifices will be re-instituted in the Millennium, in which case animals would die in the Millennium, also. If the "original creation" was like the Millennium, then there would have been death in the "original creation".

[The biblical picture that I see of the Millennium is not a "restoration" of Eden, but is rather a demonstration of how human government should have and could have been done if people had only obeyed God.]

[Jorge]

Actually, I kind of gave you a compliment there. I said you were not stupid and not ignorant. I compared you to Kurt Wise. And it was Kurt Wise who wrote

While Kurt is certainly correct on many important points and his heart certainly seems to be in the right place, from what I have seen he has sometimes failed to realize the ammunition that he provides his (our) ideological enemies by saying some of the things that he has said in the past. Maybe he has expanded/explained elsewhere, in places I am unaware of, but if not then he ought to.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Those statements are based on your interpretation, which I doubt is correct. For one thing, you accept as definite statements in the Bible that actually may be indefinite. An unspecified span of time may be, to use your phrase, gigayears as well as 24 hours. Shall I give you an example from Genesis?

I'm fairly certain of what you're referring to but go ahead, give your example (or more than one if you wish).

Jorge

[klaus54]

Jorge,

You haven't addressed my comment that the Garden was separate from the rest of Earth (eretz). Therefore, a "normal, modern" biosphere would have existed outside the Garden. This is implied strongly by the Man and Woman being prevented from re-entering the Garden by Cherubim with flaming swords.

Thanks in advance for your deep and thoughtful response!

K54

Jorge???

K54

[TheLurch]

The vast majority of data that is floating around today is questionable/flimsy. This relates to the issue of what science is including distinguishing between origins (or historical) science and operational science.

Data is data; it's not especially flimsy or solid. The ice cores show what they show, regardless of whether you like the implications of that or not. Your argument is with the mainstream scientific perspective on that data, in that you feel it doesn't comport with your preferred biblical narrative.

[klaus54]

Data is data; it's not especially flimsy or solid. The ice cores show what they show, regardless of whether you like the implications of that or not. Your argument is with the mainstream scientific perspective on that data, in that you feel it doesn't comport with your preferred biblical narrative.

Some data are stronger than others. The history of geologic episodes, star systems in various stages of formation, and the phylogeneic tree derived from genome analysis is overwhelming.

The main point that Jorge (I believe intentionally) misses is the new cuss word for YEC -- consilience.

OTOH, YEC data are mostly PRATTs or niggling points that amount to shooting spitwads at a King Tiger tank.

K54

[Truthseeker]

The author of "Genesis One and the Age of the Earth" Rodney Whitefield says of the Hebrew word yom יוֹם -- often translated "day," meaning 24 hours from sunup to the next sunup -- that it does not really have that meaning. Look at the original passages in ancient Hebrew for Genesis 18:1; yom in there is used to indicate that the event is taking place when the sun is up. In Exodus 34:28, yom is singular and does not include the night: 40 yom and 40 night. Note the word translated by the KJV translators as "nights" is actually singular. 40 yom and 40 night. Deuteronomy 9:25 has the same phrase with both yom and night singular. Interestingly, Numbers 3:1 refers to the events of Exodus 34:28 (above) as "in the yom," meaning the entire 40 yom and 40 night period. That introduces yet another meaning of yom: an indefinite period of time except when context indicates a definite period. For example, Isaiah 23:15 appears to equate "in that yom" with seventy years. I think, but am not sure, that in that context, it means a time in the future or in the past.

So, your translation of yom as meaning sunup to the next sunup is not correct, unless the context does indicate that period of time. The only time in the Bible such a context occurs is with the Sabbath, and festivals and ceremonies that include a remembrance of the Exodus. Regarding the festivals and ceremonies, the night of the Passover and then the yom representing the departure (Exodus) are in view.

I have more to say if you still refuse to read the PDF, but I will pause here to see what you have to say about the above essay.

[Quantum Weirdness]

The author of "Genesis One and the Age of the Earth" Rodney Whitefield says of the Hebrew word yom יוֹם -- often translated "day," meaning 24 hours from sunup to the next sunup -- that it does not really have that meaning. Look at the original passages in ancient Hebrew for Genesis 18:1; yom in there is used to indicate that the event is taking place when the sun is up. In Exodus 34:28, yom is singular and does not include the night: 40 yom and 40 night. Note the word translated by the KJV translators as "nights" is actually singular. 40 yom and 40 night. Deuteronomy 9:25 has the same phrase with both yom and night singular. Interestingly, Numbers 3:1 refers to the events of Exodus 34:28 (above) as "in the yom," meaning the entire 40 yom and 40 night period. That introduces yet another meaning of yom: an indefinite period of time except when context indicates a definite period. For example, Isaiah 23:15 appears to equate "in that yom" with seventy years. I think, but am not sure, that in that context, it means a time in the future or in the past.

So, your translation of yom as meaning sunup to the next sunup is not correct, unless the context does indicate that period of time. The only time in the Bible such a context occurs is with the Sabbath, and festivals and ceremonies that include a remembrance of the Exodus. Regarding the festivals and ceremonies, the night of the Passover and then the yom representing the departure (Exodus) are in view.

I have more to say if you still refuse to read the PDF, but I will pause here to see what you have to say about the above essay.

Not so sure. The example that I saw was from evening to evening, not from morning to morning. And personally, I'm not so convinced about 24 hour yom existing (at least in the OT).