Why not deep time?

[Truthseeker]

Klaus, had I opened this thread in Apologetics, would you have subscribed to it? If not, why you're welcome to unsubscribe, even right now. Just click on "Thread tools" and click on "unsubscribe."

Still here? May I bore you with a reason why I opened this thread? It's that it seemed to me that many people, including Jorge, might have misinterpreted Genesis. So, I asked, why not deep time? Thanks to Quantum Uncertainty, we now have a reason to think Genesis does mean deep time: Yom can mean an indefinitely long period of time, depending on the context.

All right! Your turn to pontificate.

[klaus54]

Klaus, had I opened this thread in Apologetics, would you have subscribed to it? If not, why you're welcome to unsubscribe, even right now. Just click on "Thread tools" and click on "unsubscribe."

Still here? May I bore you with a reason why I opened this thread? It's that it seemed to me that many people, including Jorge, might have misinterpreted Genesis. So, I asked, why not deep time? Thanks to Quantum Uncertainty, we now have a reason to think Genesis does mean deep time: Yom can mean an indefinitely long period of time, depending on the context.

All right! Your turn to pontificate.

The evidence for deep time is a clear as Lucite. It's called "science".

My background is in geology, and all it takes is a couple of field trips (with nifty camp-outs!) to the White Mountains or Tennessee Appalachians or the Rockies to be overwhelmed by Earth history.

And, well, and astronomy has... err... some data too.

Now enjoy trying to retrofit a modern understanding of the Genesis stories to please Van Til Presuppostionalist Apologists like Jorge, JR, BrainStem987, and "Mr." Black.

Don Quixote had more success.

K54

[shunyadragon]

Klaus, had I opened this thread in Apologetics, would you have subscribed to it? If not, why you're welcome to unsubscribe, even right now. Just click on "Thread tools" and click on "unsubscribe."

Still here? May I bore you with a reason why I opened this thread? It's that it seemed to me that many people, including Jorge, might have misinterpreted Genesis. So, I asked, why not deep time? Thanks to Quantum Uncertainty, we now have a reason to think Genesis does mean deep time: Yom can mean an indefinitely long period of time, depending on the context.

All right! Your turn to pontificate.

The science of deep time, quantum Mechanics and evolution all depend on the Law of non-contradiction of objective observation concerning the nature of our physical existence. The principle of the uniformity and consistency of our universe is also firmly grounded in the Law of non-contradiction. If one believes in God, I do, the Law of non-contradiction would lead one naturally to the conclusion that God Created our physical existence uniform and consistent.

The argument that the Bible, could be interpreted as there existing 'deep time' instead of the literal 7 days of genesis is plausible, but 'could be interpreted' is Tuesday morning quarterbacking of the failures and successes of the weekend football games. It is problematic to try and make sense and force fit ancient literature by jerry rigging it to fit contemporary science. It fails to deal with the bottom line issues that: (1) Those that wrote these ancient texts of the Tanakh believed them to be literally true. (2) Those that wrote the gospels and other texts of the NT believed them to be true, and based their view of God, Creation, and their relationship to God on it being true. (3) Doctrine and Dogma over the Millennia is based on them being literally true.

Trying to make things fit from ancient literature to modern knowledge requires rational humanist revisionism, and in religion, scripture and the claim of Revelation will trump it every time. The result is more different churches.

[klaus54]

The science of deep time, quantum Mechanics and evolution all depend on the Law of non-contradiction of objective observation concerning the nature of our physical existence. The principle of the uniformity and consistency of our universe is also firmly grounded in the Law of non-contradiction. If one believes in God, I do, the Law of non-contradiction would lead one naturally to conclusion that God Created our physical existence uniform and consistent.

The argument that the Bible, could be interpreted as there existing 'deep time' instead of the literal 7 days of genesis is plausible, but 'could be interpreted' is Tuesday morning quarterbacking of the failures and successes of the weekend football games. It is problematic to try and make sense and force fit ancient literature by jerry rigging it to fit contemporary science. It fails to deal with the bottom line issues that: (1) Those that wrote these ancient texts of the Tanakh believed them to be literally true. (2) Those that wrote the gospels and other texts of the NT believed them to be true, and based their view of God, Creation, and their relationship to God on it being true. (3) Doctrine and Dogma over the Millennia is based on them being literally true.

Trying to make things fit from ancient literature to modern knowledge requires rational humanist revisionism, and in religion, scripture and the claim of Revelation will trump it every time. The result is more different churches.

Spot on!

[jordanriver]

(2) Those that wrote the gospels and other texts of the NT believed them to be true, and based their view of God, Creation, and their relationship to God on it being true..

was it "believed"
I think it was "knew" , either that , or outright "they lied"

Paul, (who wrote in 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness")
claims a literal encounter with the post-crucifixion Jesus

That's not "believed", he either did or he made it up.

Peter wrote in his 2nd Epistle, in verse 16 "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty."

so that is not a matter of "believed" ...he and his fellows were either "EYEWITNESSES" , or else he outright lied.
.......or somebody else wrote it and outright made it all up.


and John also, (John the writer of the 1st Epistle/John the Evangelist/the Divine) wrote in his 1st Epistle , verse 1 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life"

again, this isn't "believed"

He and his fellows either saw the events they recorded WITH THEIR EYES
......OR he is making this up
.........or somebody else wrote it KNOWING FULL WELL , that they were making up a story.

Shunyadragon, in your worldview, is it all just made up. Is the Christian's Bible just made up?

[klaus54]

JordanRiver,

Acquiesce. Christ died for your sins. The Logos visited Earth (the Emmanuel). It doesn't matter how old the universe is or how humans became moral agents.

In view of that, scientific method has well established that deep time (Gigayears -- NOT Terayears) is a fact Fact FACT! And that the history of life leading to humans is a result of natural selection, genetic diversity -- the natural order of things. This is true whether you believe modern humans are a result of the evolutionary process or made directly from the adamah from YHWH Elohim's "hands and breath".

Just sit back and enjoy creation.

And if we find a lithified cast of a Coney in the Cambrian, then celebrate with non-alcoholic Kool-Aid and Spanish Rice with your Baptist friends.

It's all good, dear.

K54

[Truthseeker]

Klaus and Shuny, you do no better than stringing together a series of mere assertions and opinions. In what way or ways may Whitefield may have made a mistake or mistakes? I believe you have not done the research necessary to show that. If that is not true, please show me up in detail.

[shunyadragon]

was it "believed"
I think it was "knew" , either that , or outright "they lied"

Paul, (who wrote in 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness")
claims a literal encounter with the post-crucifixion Jesus.

That's not "believed", he either did or he made it up.

I consider it believed.

I consider it believed in reference to belief in Adam and Eve, the Flood and a literal Creation, which is the topic of the thread.

Separate subject. I believe that Paul had a vision and an encounter. By the scripture I am not certain it qualified as a literal 'encounter' with the resurrected Christ. I do not believe at the time he described it this way. Interesting thread topic to start. What did Paul See?

quote] Peter wrote in his 2nd Epistle, in verse 16 "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty."

so that is not a matter of "believed" ...he and his fellows were either "EYEWITNESSES" , or else he outright lied.
.......or somebody else wrote it and outright made it all up.

At this point in this thread no comment on this broad of a discussion. I do believe that the Apostles believed in a literal Genesis and a literal flood.

and John also, (John the writer of the 1st Epistle/John the Evangelist/the Divine) wrote in his 1st Epistle , verse 1 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life"

Claims of what they saw would be the subject of a different thread.

again, this isn't "believed"

He and his fellows either saw the events they recorded WITH THEIR EYES

......OR he is making this up
.........or somebody else wrote it KNOWING FULL WELL , that they were making up a story.

Another subject as to what was claimed as to what they witnessed. My only contention here is what the believed concerning the story of Creation in Genesis.

Shunyadragon, in your worldview, is it all just made up. Is the Christian's Bible just made up?

In the present thread, I am referring specifically to what was believed concerning the Creation and flood of Genesis.

If you wish to discuss whether those who wrote the gospels were the apostles, first person witness, please start that thread. I do not believe the gospels were written by the apostles nor within the generation of the life of Christ. I believe that the ancient literature of the Bible was written by sincere believers, not necessarily made up. Being sincere, does mean their accounts are true nor accurate.

As for Genesis, the rest of the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and part of the other books of the Tanakh are evolved texts from Canaanite, pre Babylonian and Babylonian (Akkadian) sources and compiled and edited in the present form at some time after 600 BC. (good topic for a thread).

[klaus54]

Klaus and Shuny, you do no better than stringing together a series of mere assertions and opinions. In what way or ways may Whitefield may have made a mistake or mistakes? I believe you have not done the research necessary to show that. If that is not true, please show me up in detail.

No, not "stringing together" anything -- unless that's the term you apply to scientific consilience.

"Truth cannot contradict Truth" --- do you agree with this?

K54

[Mr. Black]

phank, I'm short on time, so I'll make this quick.

But wait! I have a book here that claims the answer to all the secrets of the universe is 42! How do YOU answer THAT challenge?

Oh? Do you now? Let's look below and see how strongly you would hold to this claim of yours...

More directly, I really don't care what your magic book says.

Whether or not you "care" is irrelevant. What matters is what's true.

It's a work of fiction.

A claim you have not proven, nor can you as per your admission below.

And while everything I know could be wrong,...

Thank you for that honest answer. You just gave up the debate, and reduced everything you've ever done, said and thought, to absurdity.

...I also regard much of it as supported by pretty exhaustive reserarch.

Research which, according to your own admission, could be dead wrong. In fact, by what you just admitted, you can't even be sure that research ever occurs, or that it could occur, much less that it did occur. Completely absurd. In order to know anything to any degree of certainty, you must have a standard of absolute certainty by which to measure the respective probabilities of a given claim. But since you admit that you could be wrong about everything you claim to know, you have no such standard in your worldview, and thus no way to perform such a measuring.

Thanks for playing.

[Mr. Black]

Phank, Klaus, Norm, Mr. Black, and others that I forget, please carry on your war not in this thread but that (new) thread: "Mr. Black (Van Til's approach) and his critics" http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post101290

Since the subject of that thread would better fit into apologetics, me thinks that would have been a better place for it.

Hopefully you and I can continue our conversation someday, TS. I've yet to see how an OEC reconciles the OT timescale with major Christian doctrine.

[klaus54]

"Mr. Black", if you want to worship a Genesis interpretation instead of God, be my guest.

But I do pity you.

K54

[shunyadragon]

Since the subject of that thread would better fit into apologetics, me thinks that would have been a better place for it.

Hopefully you and I can continue our conversation someday, TS. I've yet to see how an OEC reconciles the OT timescale with major Christian doctrine.

I actually agree. I think I made the recommendation very early in the game. Actually post #54. Interesting thought on OEC. Technically my view is OEC, though more BEC; Billions of years Creationism.

Moderator please move thread.

[klaus54]

Agreed.

And "Mr. Black" needs to consider historical criticism and alternatives to whatever lithified 18th century Genesis interpretation to which he ascribes.

Because the physical evidence ain't on his side.

K54

[jordanriver]

I consider it believed.


I consider it believed in reference to belief in Adam and Eve, the Flood and a literal Creation, which is the topic of the thread.

At this point in this thread no comment on this broad of a discussion. I do believe that the Apostles believed in a literal Genesis and a literal flood.

.

ok, that was a reasonable answer. They weren't there , so they have to take somebody's (Scripture) word for it, the same as me.
That part, the Genesis account, is BELIEF.

Claims of what they saw would be the subject of a different thread.


Another subject as to what was claimed as to what they witnessed. My only contention here is what the believed concerning the story of Creation in Genesis.


In the present thread, I am referring specifically to what was believed concerning the Creation and flood of Genesis.

this is the thread where you said those who wrote the gospels and other texts of the NT believed them to be true, and while you are only concerned with the Creation and Genesis flood accounts, there is one witness in the NT ,
....OR someone who claims to be the "I AM" (before Abraham)

SO,
while those who wrote the NT didn't EYEWITNESS Creation or the Genesis flood, they were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ and the miracles He performed before the crucifixion.

So as far as the resurrection event is concerned, it is not a matter of "believed" but a matter of "know"

They either know or they made this up.

AND it matters, because if Jesus rose from the dead after three days and three nights in the tomb, it lends credibility to His God-claims.

And His God claims include corroboration of Moses' in John's Gospel

John 5:45-46
45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

so , it matters if the writer claims to be an eyewitness of the resurrection.

That writer does not merely "believe", that writers KNOWS , that writer knows if he saw the resurrected Christ
or that writer knows if he is just making it all up.

So the question remains, do you believe the writer who claims Jesus was buried dead for 3 days and 3 nights and later rose from the dead

or is that writer making it up.

If you wish to discuss whether those who wrote the gospels were the apostles, first person witness, please start that thread. I do not believe the gospels were written by the apostles nor within the generation of the life of Christ. I believe that the ancient literature of the Bible was written by sincere believers, not necessarily made up. Being sincere, does mean their accounts are true nor accurate.

IOW, you simply reject The Bible.


.....if you reject The Bible, why bother debating what it says or how it is interpreted?