Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 73415 | ||
Not exactly. I concur with Dr. Ross that there is nothing in scripture that refutes our scientific understanding that the earth is very old and indeed, what scripture describes agrees with what nature itself has revealed to us through science. His argument is this: Our scientific understanding of nature is consistent with what the bible teaches, if the Genesis texts are understood from the perspective of an observer on earth at a time after the planet had formed. Ross suggests there is nothing in scripture that precludes this "observer perspective" and "system initial condition". I agree with him that this is a not a "non-biblical imposition" on the text. I say this because I believe this perspective is just as valid as the conventional interpretion unknowingly imposed by modern readers that the text was written from the perspective of a detached observer somewhere in the cosmos at or before the beginning of universal space-time. Nowhere in the text are we given information that refutes or supports either of these positions, so Ross' approach could be valid. A fellow committed Christian and PhD physicist with many years in advanced research once told me this: "If your television works, the earth is old." By this he means that the science that produces such demanding technology is the exactly same science that suggests an ancient earth, for both are derived from the same observations and reasoning. Regarding the many scientific dating methods, I agree that this forum is not an appropriate venue to dispel the fallacious arguments that have been put forth to discredit them. As far as I am concerned, they are as sound as any other scientific technique we use. Any errors in results are due to sample conditions that do not meet the requirements of the technique rather than any flaw in the method. For example, we cannot date a mineral that has melted after its original formation because the process of re-melting re-sets the ratio of isotopes that is used to mark time zero. Hence, we can only date the most recent melting. Peace, Parable |
||||||
2 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Lionstrong | 73649 | ||
Did God create the heavens and the earth in six day? (continued) Another point in the positive biblical support of an ordinary day is the act of creation itself. It was not a process. Processes require time. It was instantaneous fiat creation out of nothing. God commanded things into being and they were. There was no process; God spoke and it was. Several times in creation week it is recorded "And God said.... And it was so," not "began to be so." We not only have fiat creation in the immediate context but elsewhere in Scripture. Ps 33:6, "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host." Ps 33:9, "For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast." Heb. 11:3, "By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible." Now, so what? What difference does it make? I think both views would put one at odds with the world that wants nothing to do with a Creator God whether he took six days or six billion years to create. It still means that they owe him obedience as their Creator. And they will not and cannot do that (Rom. 8:7). I think it is a matter of scholarship and integrity and the glory of God. We must honestly deal with the Scripture even though it may seem to go against the prevailing doctrines of our day. If God's word is true, then that which is contrary must be false and we must re-examine the winds of doctrine of our day. Peace, |
||||||
3 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 73659 | ||
Yes, Lionstrong, I also enjoy sharing on this forum with you. I have learned much from your many postings and this one is no exception; your reply about the duration of creation events is cogent. However, I'd like to clarify a point. I said: "Our scientific understanding of nature is consistent with what the bible teaches, if the Genesis texts are understood from the perspective of an observer on earth at a time after the planet had formed. Ross suggests there is nothing in scripture that precludes this "observer perspective" and "system initial condition". In your reply, you said: "Positively let me start by saying that it is false that nowhere in the text are we given information that refutes or supports either a six-day creation or a many-years creation. The plain reading of the text supports a six-day creation." The point of the original question for this thread is about the order of events, not how long they may have taken. Ross' contribution is his explanation of how the order of creation events, as suggested by planetary geology, are the same as the order given in Genesis, if one adopts the perspective and initial conditions he describes, which to me are not unreasonable. In your conclusion, you said it well "we must honestly deal with the Scripture even though it may seem to go against the prevailing doctrines of our day." In this matter of creation sequence, Ross' exposition clearly demonstrates that God's word is indeed true. To me, it is a simple question of what is meant by "plain reading". I submit that Ross' reading is plain, but it just has a different perspective and initial condition than what most people impose on the text. Peace, Parable |
||||||