Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

‘But the New Testament does not make a big deal out of the Age of the Earth …’
CMI ^ | March 26, 2009 | Peter Milford

Posted on 03/26/2009 7:20:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-250 next last
To: Buck W.; Alamo-Girl; xzins; enat; GodGunsGuts; D-fendr; starlifter; OneWingedShark
We have the reasoning ability to deduce from observation that God has brought us into being via an evolutionary process.

Again you are confusing observation with circumstantial evidence. There is absolutely no observational evidence that man was brought into being by some evolutionary process. None. Were you there? Did you witness it?

No what we have is a scientific method that from the outset excludes the possibility of intelligent design or creation and then after making the a-priori assumption that God could not possibly have actually created man or life or frogs or anything else, attempt to fathom an explanation for how it all got here.

In that sense Evolutionary science categorically denies God's role in his own creation.

Now I freely admit that my analysis starts with the a-priori assumption that God created the heavens and the earth and that we are a product of supernatural intelligent design and not chance.

But I think I can prove both scientifically and statistically that creatures evolving from slime to man is an impossibility beyond our wildest comprehension.

The honest Evolutionist will admit that life itself is a statistical impossibility, but then they claim that EVOLUTION MUST HAVE HAPPENED because we are here. When a Christian claims that CREATION MUST HAVE HAPPENED because we are here, they are ridiculed and referred to as Neandrathals or fanatics.

151 posted on 03/27/2009 3:24:33 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

One moment you’re declaring that we cannot ust the Bible as science; the next you’re demanding that God’s word conform to your definition of terms for science sake.

Hypocrisy is the word that comes to mind.


152 posted on 03/27/2009 3:31:43 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: starlifter; Fichori; editor-surveyor; xzins
I merely asked for a citation to support your assertion. I would think a person as learned as you about things Biblical would be happy to provide the reference. Yet you seem upset that I asked and are curiously unwilling or unable to provide it. I wonder why.

I think you have already been given the cites.

The reason I asked whether or not it would make any difference before providing the cites is because I wanted to know if you would actually be willing to modify your beliefs if you were presented with evidence that God himself had made the claim that he created the heavens and the earth in 6 days.

If not, then the cites were irrelevant.

If so, then I would have provided them.

But now I see that you were provided with the cites even before you answered the question. Cest la vie.

Now that you have the cites, does it help you?

Are you willing to reconsider your position?

153 posted on 03/27/2009 3:31:56 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

“Don’t believe your lyin’ eyes” ;o)


154 posted on 03/27/2009 3:34:44 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
No what we have is a scientific method that from the outset excludes the possibility of intelligent design or creation

By the requirements of its use.

Scientific method, by necessary and self-imposed rules is valueless. It is not equipped to answer questions of purpose or absolute values. It's useless for this.

Why either side keeps trying to make science speak on something that it is most purposefully mute about is the mystery.

155 posted on 03/27/2009 3:36:11 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Actually, my post stands. You seem to believe that “evolutionists” are monolithic in all attributes, including their atheism. That’s simply not true. This Christian “evolutionist” (to use your term) beleives that Christianity and evolution are perfectly compatible. In a sense, evolution provides the “how” to the bible’s “what”.

And yes, there is plenty of observational evidence for evolution. Science collects data and draws conclusions. Most importantly, science will change or abandon a theory as the evidence or analysis demand. The fact that creationism will never duplicate that part of the process will forever keep it from the realm of science.


156 posted on 03/27/2009 3:40:13 PM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

Not much of a mystery.

People recognize that science has POWER.

Some wish to utilize that power in areas that it is not at all applicable in order to ‘score points’.

Creationists are not content to call themselves Creationists. They think that by criticizing Science that they do not understand they are “Creation Scientists”.

Similarly militant atheists are not content to have a reasonable explanation whereby things can form from natural processes; they must claim that the existence of these natural processes somehow exclude the possibility of God.

The fact that stars and planets form by gravitational attraction in no way removes God as the creator of the heavens and the Earth.

Similarly the fact that species diverge from one another by natural selection of genetic variation in no way removes God as the creator of all living things.


157 posted on 03/27/2009 3:41:09 PM PDT by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
That does not answer my question nor support your assertion.

Though I did find this interesting citation, perhaps you are familiar: Exodus 20:16

158 posted on 03/27/2009 3:46:01 PM PDT by starlifter (Sapor Amo Pullus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

No hypocrisy is promoting a standard I don’t believe applies to me. This applies in all logical and scientific endeavor.

The “demand” is a basic logical and scientific requirement.

If you say evolution contradicts kind reproducing with kind, you have to first say what kind means in evolution theory or vice/versa. Else there’s not enough common terminology to use.


159 posted on 03/27/2009 3:49:10 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; Fichori; editor-surveyor; xzins
“Are you willing to reconsider your position?”

What is my position?

160 posted on 03/27/2009 3:49:58 PM PDT by starlifter (Sapor Amo Pullus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
You seem to believe that “evolutionists” are monolithic in all attributes, including their atheism.

Atheisim is the end of the road. Theistic Evolutionists are merely traveling on the slippery slope to Godless atheism. Maybe not all of them will end up there, but IMHO they are all on that road.

And yes, there is plenty of observational evidence for evolution.

You are confusing circumstantial evidence for observational evidence.

Name one person who was actually present at the creation or evolution of man and we will ask him whether or not man evolved or was specially created on the 6th day of a creation week.

161 posted on 03/27/2009 3:50:29 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

Keep on squirming!

You’re your own worst enemy in debate.


162 posted on 03/27/2009 3:50:34 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: starlifter
What is my position?

You tell me.

I gathered from your posts that you did not believe that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days?

Am I misinformed?

163 posted on 03/27/2009 3:51:58 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: starlifter

Cute, but irrelevent to the question.

Now that you’ve read the results of your search, and found no avenue of further attack, what next?


164 posted on 03/27/2009 3:53:58 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Based on your Christian scorecard, I guess I failed the Christian test.

And I am confusing nothing.


165 posted on 03/27/2009 3:54:46 PM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
You’re your own worst enemy in debate.

It could be more enjoyable if you would join me.

166 posted on 03/27/2009 3:55:40 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

My kids had a Wack-a-Mole game.

I found it depressing to watch.


167 posted on 03/27/2009 3:57:52 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

If you’re offering to switch to Doin’ the Dozens, I’m not good at it.

The offer of continued discussion and debate is still open, however.


168 posted on 03/27/2009 3:59:19 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
Based on your Christian scorecard, I guess I failed the Christian test.

We all backslide my FRiend. We all need Christ to keep us on the narrow road.

And I am confusing nothing.

Do you understand the difference between circumstantial evidence and observed (eyewitness) evidence?

169 posted on 03/27/2009 4:01:01 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Here, I try again, to illustrate.

What in evolutionary theory do you see as a violation of kind reproducing with kind?

Other than artificially I’m not aware of any kind not mating with kind - in fact it doesn’t work if their not kind enough. (double entendre intended).


170 posted on 03/27/2009 4:06:18 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

Trying to parse a word like ‘kind’ just doesn’t rise to the level of debate. If that’s debate, then greasing a wheel bearing with a power ram is a grand global conversation.


171 posted on 03/27/2009 4:07:58 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
To the contrary, I am struggling to find any result that remotely supports your fantastic assertion that there are over 100 citations saying “specifically that the evolution process was prevented...”

You made a specific assertion and yet cannot not support it with a single citation, much less the “more that 100” that you claim.

There is no attack - you made a wild claim and got called on it.

172 posted on 03/27/2009 4:09:02 PM PDT by starlifter (Sapor Amo Pullus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
This is my position:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven:
[bow during the next two lines:]
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

173 posted on 03/27/2009 4:10:59 PM PDT by starlifter (Sapor Amo Pullus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: starlifter

Yea, right - After their own kind is a perfect fit with evolution


174 posted on 03/27/2009 4:13:37 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: starlifter
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.

That is a good start.

Now do you believe that he made it the way Moses wrote that he made it? Remember, Jesus said that you can't be expected to believe His words if you don't believe the words of Moses.

175 posted on 03/27/2009 4:13:56 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: starlifter

salvation directed to you through a proxy, eh?

I’m glad that I got mine direct!


176 posted on 03/27/2009 4:15:40 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Standby, I'm still doing a word search for “evolution” in the Bible. Can't seem to find anything...

I think “after their own kind” more than supports the theory of evolution, since reproduction necessarily involves variance, occasional random chance (with both good and bad outcomes) and adaptation.

Thank you for pointing this out to me.

177 posted on 03/27/2009 4:19:28 PM PDT by starlifter (Sapor Amo Pullus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
I'm happy for you.
178 posted on 03/27/2009 4:20:58 PM PDT by starlifter (Sapor Amo Pullus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Trying to parse a word like ‘kind’

It's agreement of terms. If I came to you as a surveyor and said survey that land over there a ways...

You use "kind" as a variable descriptor; evolutionary sciences uses taxonomy. You get nowhere in any worthwhile discussion until you map terminology and agree on terms.

If you want to do science, you have to use science.

179 posted on 03/27/2009 4:25:15 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

You refer to “circumstantial evidence” as though it is invalid and uncorroborated.

And my scorecard comment was meant to be sarcastic.


180 posted on 03/27/2009 4:28:09 PM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Here, I’ll try to illustrate. Let’s examine what gives us the closest map to Scripture.

If we read it to say Kind reproduces with Kind, we are close to a scientific description:

This defines species fairly closely. Those animals who mate and whose mating produces offspring are of the same kind.

But how is species determined? By the ability to reproduce successfully within it.

So we have a tautology: A specie consists of only those who can mate and successfully reproduce among individuals. Those who can mate and reproduce successfully are called a species.

By definition evolutions says species (kind) reproduce with kind.

So we haven’t gained much here, other than to see how the two could map onto each other.

I do understand your mapping is different. I’d appreciate hearing it, if you wish. My statements previously on the perils for both of us notwithstanding.


181 posted on 03/27/2009 4:28:21 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I don’t think so, there is nothing separating the creation of the heavens and the earth from creation week.

What Genesis 1:2 states describes an untold unnumbered amount of 'days' literal or figuratively.

182 posted on 03/27/2009 4:34:45 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

Specie, as you define it is simply not a reasonable nor scientific term. You have very subjectively, arbitrarily, and capriciously chosen a parameter of cross reproduction that is not necessary for “replenishment” of the ‘kind.’

Perhaps it was God’s will that cross reproduction be limited. I can think of several possible reasons, preservation of the ‘artistic’ quality of fur patterns being the one that came immediately to mind.


183 posted on 03/27/2009 4:36:40 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
They think that by criticizing Science that they do not understand they are “Creation Scientists”.

Which if it means theology determines scientific result, they are not scientists. It's the same in the other direction.

Scientists who infer religion from science, Scientistic Religionists, do not understand they've disqualified themselves.

You can't reduce God to science. Whatever science says is "scientifically known to be God" is by definition false. Proper science cannot see God.

One side abuses their knowledge by trying to reduce it to science; the other abuses logic by saying what it cannot see does not exist.

184 posted on 03/27/2009 4:47:12 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
You can use the precise scientific definition of specie if you wish. I don't see how it changes my post.

You have very subjectively, arbitrarily, and capriciously chosen a parameter of cross reproduction that is not necessary for “replenishment” of the ‘kind.’

I believe a more precise description of the term specie will solve this. And I didn't choose it capriciously.

We're looking at what successfully mates and reproduces. I believe this is the intent and the letter of the biological science term "specie".

If your analysis supports a different taxonomy, which would it be?

185 posted on 03/27/2009 4:53:12 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Here's the species, natural science textbook description:

"groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups"

Here's the idiomatic or common use definition:

Idiom:
in specie
1. In coin.
2. In a similar manner; in kind: repaid the offense in specie.
3. Law In the same kind or shape; as specified.

186 posted on 03/27/2009 5:02:51 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

I’m saying that the commonly used definition is unscientific, due to its subjectivity. Its designed to turn something into “evolution” when it clearly is not.


187 posted on 03/27/2009 5:05:01 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
I cannot agree with you more on that point.

Anyone foolish enough to claim that there can be a scientific determination either for or against the existence of God are engaging in shoddy theology and definitely not science.

That is my main objection to the Incompetent Design conjecture, it attempts to remove faith with certitude by engaging in unsupported postulation about things being irreducibly complex.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

188 posted on 03/27/2009 5:09:44 PM PDT by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Ok, I think I understand your objections more.

I think this is the micro vs. macro debate, perhaps.

With reference to the commonly used definition for specie - I think the focus on defining by ability to reproduce aligns almost surprisingly well with kind, in both scientific and common usage.

We have to bear in mind that there isn’t a unique flag on each different specie. Science can’t agree on the number of different specie. So for science this is an ongoing attempt at the best classification system.

But in the general sense, both science and Scripture seem to be talking describing the same thing: successful sexual reproduction.

Beyond this example, I think your quarrel may be more similar to mine that you think: My pet peeve is science pontificating about religion.


189 posted on 03/27/2009 5:30:48 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.; xzins; enat
You refer to “circumstantial evidence” as though it is invalid and uncorroborated.

No I don't. Circumstantial evidence can be very good evidence... depending on the circumstances. :-)

But circumstantial evidence is not observational evidence. You have to be there when it happens to collect observational evidence.

And my scorecard comment was meant to be sarcastic

Nobody beats me at sarcasm.

Well.... maybe enat.

190 posted on 03/27/2009 5:52:28 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; Buck W.; xzins

The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above average.


191 posted on 03/27/2009 6:07:06 PM PDT by enat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Thanks for the exchange—it’s been fun.


192 posted on 03/27/2009 6:15:21 PM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; xzins; enat

FWIW, if someone were to ask me how old the earth is, I would have to say “I don’t know”. And if someone were to ask me how long it took God to create the heavens and the Earth and all that is within then, I can confidently say “SIX DAYS.”


193 posted on 03/27/2009 6:16:34 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
Thanks for the exchange—it’s been fun.

I just knew we'd end up FRiends.

194 posted on 03/27/2009 6:19:11 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Yeah, I always find it interesting that the literalists are so selectively literalist. I mean how much clearer could God be than “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”?


195 posted on 03/27/2009 6:37:54 PM PDT by piytar (Obama = Mugabe wannabe. Wake up America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: piytar
“I always find it interesting that the literalists are so selectively literalist” [excerpt]
Its called hermeneutics.

196 posted on 03/27/2009 8:00:57 PM PDT by Fichori (The only bailout I'm interested in is the one where the entire Democrat party leaves the county)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Precisely so, dear brother in Christ, precisely so. That is the point.
197 posted on 03/27/2009 8:14:10 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
I liked your post and I accept it as a possibility even with my limited understanding. I have three questions though.

By my understanding, the first three chapters of Genesis are written from the Creator’s perspective:

When making the calculations of time with respect to different perspectives, there must be a change in the location between the two perspectives. How do they find how fast we move relative to God?

Since I perceive Genesis 1-3 speaking of both the spiritual and physical realms, and Adam being created in the spiritual realm and banished to the physical realm

Would you say that Adam had to be born again?
2 Cor 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
Isn't the spiritual man the second man?

Seven
198 posted on 03/27/2009 9:41:01 PM PDT by Seven_0 (You cannot fool all of the people, ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Seven_0; xzins; P-Marlowe
Thank you so much for your encouragements and for your questions, dear Seven_0!

When making the calculations of time with respect to different perspectives, there must be a change in the location between the two perspectives. How do they find how fast we move relative to God?

It is not how fast we move in relation to God, but rather how fast this space/coordinate moves away from its inception, i.e. "the" beginning.

From Gerald Schroeder's website, emphasis mine:

The way these two figures match up is extraordinary. I'm not speaking as a theologian; I'm making a scientific claim. I didn't pull these numbers out of hat. That's why I led up to the explanation very slowly, so you can follow it step-by-step. Now we can go one step further. Let's look at the development of time, day-by-day, based on the expansion factor. Every time the universe doubles, the perception of time is cut in half. Now when the universe was small, it was doubling very rapidly. But as the universe gets bigger, the doubling time gets exponentially longer. This rate of expansion is quoted in "The Principles of Physical Cosmology," a textbook that is used literally around the world.

(In case you want to know, this exponential rate of expansion has a specific number averaged at 10 to the 12th power. That is in fact the temperature of quark confinement, when matter freezes out of the energy: 10.9 times 10 to the 12th power Kelvin degrees divided by (or the ratio to) the temperature of the universe today, 2.73 degrees. That's the initial ratio which changes exponentially as the universe expands.)

The calculations come out to be as follows:

* The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.

* The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.

* The third day also lasted half of the previous day, 2 billion years.

* The fourth day - one billion years.

* The fifth day - one-half billion years.

* The sixth day - one-quarter billion years.

When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?

But there's more. The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of those days. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world, and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I'll give you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine.

By the way, the speed limit of the universe - the speed of light - does not apply to comoving coordinates. There was a phase in the inflation of the universe, when space/time itself expanded faster than the speed of light.

Another example of the effect of space/time on our perception of time would be a star a billion light years away sending a photon to us at the speed of light which we do not receive until ten billion light years later. The photon did not slow down, for it no time elapsed (null path) but space/time itself expanded while it was en route. Many stars observed via telescope no longer exist.

As another example, a person near the edge of a black hole might experience a week passing while on earth forty years elapse.

Would you say that Adam had to be born again?

Every mortal must be born again.

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. - John 3:5-7

Of course I cannot say where Adam "is" - but the warning God gave was clear:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. – Genesis 2:17

The "surely die" is translated from the Hebrew phrase "muwth muwth" which is literally "death death."

I understand this to be not merely physical death, but the second death as well. In other words, the penalty was not just physical death for Adamic man (all of us) but also the second death.

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death. - Revelation 2:11

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. - Matthew 10:28

And "day" to God was literally understood to be a thousand years to man (Sanhedrin 97a; Avodah Zarah Sa).

And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. – Genesis 5:5

For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. – Psalms 90:4

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. - 2 Peter 3:8

That was also the Christian understanding for hundreds of years, and by extension (e.g. Epistle of Barnabas) that Adamic man was appointed 7,000 years - a week. The last day, a 1000 years is the Lord's Sabbath, His 1,000 year reign on earth.

Isn't the spiritual man the second man?

Adam was made a living soul by the breath of God. Christ is the quickening Spirit.

So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. – I Corinthians 15:42-45

And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. - Genesis 2:7

To explicate further, there are four types of soul/spirit in Scripture:

1. nephesh – the will to live, the animal soul, or the soul of all living things which by Jewish tradition returns to the “earth” after death. In Romans 8, this is seen as a whole, the creation longing for the children of God to be revealed.

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. - Genesis 1:20

For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. - Romans 8:19-22

My musing is that the life which is in an amoeba, anthrax spore, daffodil, fish, etc. is in the physical Creation and not the spiritual Creation. There is not an afterlife for each of these autonomous living biological entities but rather as a whole, there will be a new heaven and new earth.

2. ruach - the self-will or free will peculiar to man (abstraction, anticipation, intention, etc.) – by Jewish tradition, the pivot wherein a man decides to be Godly minded or earthy minded.

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. - Genesis 2:3

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. - Romans 8:5-6

My musing is that this is man's conscience, will and mind which sets him apart from other forms of life. He has a sense of right and wrong and he chooses. Among all of life forms, man chooses to honor or dishonor the dead. And he is especially willful and self-serving.

3. neshama - the breath of God given to Adam (Genesis 2:7) which may also be seen as the “ears to hear” (John 10) - a sense of belonging beyond space/time, a predisposition to seek God and seek answers to the deep questions such as “what is the meaning of life?"

And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. - Genesis 2:7

And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. – John 10:4-5

My musing is that these are the elect chosen from the foundation of the world. The ones Christ is bringing "home" to be members of His family forevermore. Every man has ruach but not every man has neshama.

And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. – John 6:65

4. ruach Elohim - the Holy Spirit which indwells Christians – the presently existing in the “beyond” while still in the flesh. This is the life in passage : "In him was life, and the life was the light of men..." (John 1)

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. - Genesis 1:2

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:9

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. - Colossians 3:3

To God be the glory!

199 posted on 03/27/2009 10:30:23 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Thanks for your post. It has been many years since I studied this subject in college and I have followed many of the links you've given over the years to try to stay current.

By the way, the speed limit of the universe - the speed of light - does not apply to comoving coordinates. There was a phase in the inflation of the universe, when space/time itself expanded faster than the speed of light.

I don’t know what this means or who could have observed it. I remember doing problems where we had to calculate times and distances from different points of view. As you increase your speed, distance shrinks. That’s part of the speed limit.

The "surely die" is translated from the Hebrew phrase "muwth muwth" which is literally "death death."

I understand this to be not merely physical death, but the second death as well. In other words, the penalty was not just physical death for Adamic man (all of us) but also the second death.

I did not know this. Perhaps there is another explanation. Perhaps Christ’s death on the cross was so we would not go through the second death. When Christ dismissed the spirit, did he also dismiss the body?

Seven
200 posted on 03/27/2009 11:58:06 PM PDT by Seven_0 (You cannot fool all of the people, ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-250 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson