Preterism & Creationism

[Guest]

Steve7150,

I've been enjoying reading this thread, and I'd like to respond to some various points that you have raised and ask for your comments. This will have to be long because I haven't had the time to write many posts as this discussion has progressed. I look forward to your response and any corrections you or others might have.

If he establishes oceans and they get filled with fish and vegatation is it over a natural timetable or does God just ignore his laws of nature and create mature things immediately? ... [Guest] said God often overrode his laws of nature but that was after sin came into the world and distorted these laws. Of course God can but would he before sin?

Why would God not have used miraculous intervention in the creation of the world? As it was noted already, throughout the scriptures God regularly sets aside the normal laws by which the world operates in order to accomplish some task or miracle. So, it would seem to me reasonable to contend that while God was creating the universe that he used his power to miraculously sustain it until it was fully assembled.

It seems that your premise is that in a perfect world God would not have to intervene in the regular laws He established. First, I don't see any particular reason from the text itself to accept the premise, but let me ask this: why assume that God would not intervene miraculously to sustain his creation in a world that remains incomplete?

Also note that throughout the account, it seems that God is making miraculous interventions. The text states in a number of places God saying 'Let there be...', and 'it was so'. Here, it seems that God is directing the actions specifically through his spoken word, rather than by natural processes.

Adam probably could'nt really name all the animals in 24 hours.

Actually, I think that the old earth view has a more significant problem with the naming issue than the 24 hour YEC view. Consider the following: First, Adam did not have to name all of the animals, for the verse qualifies the list to be a subset of the animals such as the beasts of the field. Insects and marine creatures would not have been named so this excludes 98 or 99 percent of todays species from the naming process. Second, it seems reasonable to contend that there were fewer species at the beginning than there are now, for speciation occurs relatively quickly. Third, nothing about the verse seems to prevent Adam from having the named the animals at a broader level (i.e. genus) as opposed to the species level. With these considerations it is possible for Adam to complete the naming process in a few hours.

On the other hand, the Old Earth view generally involves the idea that animals of various types were spread throughout the earth. If this is so, then question is then did Adam travel to each continent to name the animals, or did the animals travel to Eden to be named? The answer would seem to require either miraculous transport (which violates the presupposition that God uses only natural laws during the creation week as above), or a great deal of trans-oceanic traveling.

Thus, IMO, the 24 hour view is more reasonable.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c001.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... naming.asp

I also think when God created the heavens "in the beginning" that included the sun and moon and the light referred to as greater and lesser lights on the 4th day are the ability of these lights to be seen from earth after the waters of the firmament were separated by that below and that above. Originally the firmament around the earth was much thicker and denser and blocked light from coming through until God separated it. So on day 4 it's never said that the sun and moon are created but that the lights can be seen IMHO.

I'll quote John Sarafti for convenience here: "The Hebrew word asah means "make" throughout Genesis 1, and may be used interchangeably with "create" (bara), e.g. in Genesis 1:26-27. It is pure desperation to apply a different meaning to the same word in the same grammatical construction in the same passage, just to fit in with atheistic evolutionary ideas. If God had meant "appeared", then He would have used the Hebrew word for appear (raah), as when the dry land "appeared" as the waters gathered in one place on Day 3 (Genesis 1:9). This is supported by Hebrew scholars who have translated the Bible into English. Over 20 major translations were checked, and all clearly teach that the sun, moon and stars were made on the fourth day." http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.asp

In addition, Andrew Kulikovsky makes to further arguments against this view in his thesis. He says, "First, the phrase at verse 14 describing Gods creation of the luminaries, ``Let there be'' is indication of a creative act. The subsequent reference to the sun, moon and stars grammatically relates to verse 14. Second, If the creation of sun, moon and stars were not on the fourth day, then was the fourth day unique in that nothing was made?" http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics

See also: http://www.ldolphin.org/waw.html

I think there is evidence of a dense atmosphere in Gen 1.6 we read "Let there be a firmamemt in the midst of the water,and let it divide the waters from the water." Here we see that there was water above the atmosphere and below the atmosphere.

I disagree with this point on the following basis. The assumption has been made here that the firmament is the atmosphere. This does not agree with the subsequent text which states that the Sun, moon and stars are placed 'in' the firmament. E.J. Young's view that the firmament is the atmosphere and interstellar space seems to be the only view that agrees with the text.

Back to the 24 hour belief ,this 24 hour relationship is based on the relationship of the earth to the sun ,yet the light of the sun did'nt reach the earth until the 4th day so until then we "literally" did'nt have 24 hr days.

Indeed the sun is not made until day 4, but consider the following selected text from Genesis 1. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ... Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light ... God called the light day, and the darkness he called night ... [day 4] God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night."

With one assumption, namely a rotating earth, this can be easily understood. Notice that the terms day and night are defined by light and darkness. It is known from the text that some portion of the universe is dark and some portion is light. Thus a rotating earth provides a morning, day, evening, night cycle. Later in the text, the sun and moon are given the role of providing light at the appropriate times. In my opinion it seems reasonable to assert that days 4-6 are ordinary days for the sun has been created, and days 1-3 are similar in duration because of the equivalent presentation of these days in the text.

As for the expansion of the universe , isn't it expanding at the speed of light?

My understanding of BB theory is that it is actually expanding much faster than the speed of light. Apparently, however, since it is space itself is expanding it is not a violation of the 'nothing can move faster than the speed of light' rule.

I am studying the creation account and it seems to me that there is no basis to assume that God created everything with the look of age built into it

I Agree.

... which would have to be the case for the 24hour creation day to square with nature. God gave us scripture but he also gave us nature and the two should reconcile about everything. Science is not evil, it's a tool God gave us to use to learn about what he created for his glory yet because of the fear of evolution i think we are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I agree that nature and God's revealed word cannot contradict. However, our understanding of nature is fallible and because of our errors in our understanding a contradiction with God's word can arise.

According to science the universe is about 14 billion years old and using a day-age creation day Genesis can be squared with science without coming up with elaborate explanations.

I think one should not be quick to exclude 'elaborate explanations' for origins and cosmology, for God has made a very complicated world! The scientific establishment has changed from Newtonian ideas (where things are simple) to ideas based on Einstein's theory of relativity (where things are VERY complicated) in less than the last 100 years. If you accept that Einstien's equations are legitimate and perfect descriptions of the Laws that God created (which IMO is reasonable) then any derived cosmological view will, of necessity, be very elaborate and complicated. The Big Bang theory, White hole cosmology, and any other relativistic theories are not different in quality or complexity for these are based on the same physical laws. So far as I am aware, the difference between these theories is only in arbitrary assumptions made about the initial conditions.

The main point is this: Both the white hole cosmology and big bang theory are viable scientific theories. The biblical text does not work well with long ages. Thus, IMO it is better to take the biblical text in a straight forward way (young earth) rather than compromise on either principals of interpretation or scriptural inerrancy.

(P.S. The 14-16 billion year age is contingent on the validity of the BB theory, an ordinary 24 hour view is consistent with white hole cosmology.)

Regards,
Pete

[Guest]

Pete, I'll be back asap to specifically respond but if you or anyone is interested in a lively debate on this topic check out JohnAnkerberg.com and radio shows and the topic called "Is the universe billions of years old or 6,000 years old?"

[Guest]

Pete said:

Why would God not have used miraculous intervention in the creation of the world? As it was noted already, throughout the scriptures God regularly sets aside the normal laws by which the world operates in order to accomplish some task or miracle. So, it would seem to me reasonable to contend that while God was creating the universe that he used his power to miraculously sustain it until it was fully assembled.

I submit that the very idea of creation was a miraculos intervention. Just think, as if it were possible for us, of the ageless time of eternity past before the creation. That was the norm and anything which came from creation was outside of the norm.

[Guest]

Pete, First of all the old earth theory has nothing to do with an atheistic evolutionary viewpoint. I neither am an atheist nor do i believe in macro evolution. However with the advances in radio telescopes and measuring technology i don't think analysing the age of the universe should be called arbitrary assumptions. We can not only see stars but stars at different ages and stages like dwarf stars which are dying and star explosions and galaxys at different stages of life and death and black holes. Unless these things are illussions then they have been around for far more then a few thousand years and the time is coming when bible believers have to accept what God is showing us in nature and stop reacting to the emotional fear of evolution.
Now let's be honest, answersingenesis is a 24 hour/day site and they will interpret from their viewpoint and my source is old earth and will do the same. I can answer each of your points but you won't accept it. For example Gleason Archer says "bara" means to create out of nothing which is different then "asah" which is to bring forth. On the 4th day God could have said he created the sun and moon and that would have cleared that up but he did'nt. He said he made the "greater light" to RULE the day and "the lessor light" to RULE the night. The lights were the subject and the purpose was to rule the day and night. On day 1 God created the heavens which include the sun and moon unless otherwise stated.
Regarding firmament it does generally mean atmosphere and God created water ABOVE it and BELOW it therefore it must mean atmosphere. That's where most of the water for the flood came from ,the water encased in something above the atmosphere.
We can already clearly see in Gen 2.4 the word "day" does not mean 24 hours. Gen 2.4 " This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created ,in the DAY that the Lord God made earth and heaven." This was an account of all 6 days and it's called "in the day" meaning more then 24 hours. Then in Gen 2 this account continues with a description of the important events that happened in the day of creation. Now on this 6th day it seems a lot of stuff happened. God created man and God spoke to man and God put man in a deep sleep and created Eve. God put man in Eden to cultivate it. How much cultivating do you think he accomplished on this day? God brought every beast and bird to Adam to name them on this day. There had to be at least thousands. In ancient times something was named because of some charactoristic it had therefore requiring some thought to be put into it. Is there time to cultivate the garden, talk to God,be put into a deep sleep,have Eve created and carefully and thoughtfully name thousands of animals and birds that Adam knows nothing about , all in 24 hours? No there simply is not. I've heard answers like God took Adam outside of time or God made time stand still but that's reading things into the text that are'nt there.
The ability to measure the age of the universe is vastly superior to where it was just 10 years ago and even a few years ago. This is not a conspiracy by atheist scientists to disprove scripture. Many astronomers are Christians or orthodox jews or diests and usually the hardened atheists don't even like the big bang because since it's an effect it points to a cause. The died in the wool atheist will usually try to say that the universe has existed eternally thereby eliminating the need for a Creator.

[Guest]

The gap theory appears to be inconsistent with the following statement:

Romans 5:12 Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned—

The verse states that sin came into the world through one man. That would be Adam. And death came into the world through sin. Presumably, that would be through Adam's sin. Prior to that, there was not sin and no death in the world. But the gap theory was invented early in the twentieth century to allow for the long ages which are necessary for the evolution theory. If that were true, there must have been plenty of death prior to Adam and Eve ---- contrary to the verse quoted above.

[Guest]

Adam's sin brought sin and death to all men. Satan's sin existed before Adam and animals and plants were always subject to death prior to Adam because sin existed. Even in the 24 hour day scenerio there would have some type of animal or plant death. Btw i was'nt referring to any gap only day-ages of creation.
The day-age theory is not meant to accomodate evolution it's meant to reconcile scripture with the scientifically measured age of the earth and universe. Evolution is an unproven theory with no proven DNA connections or fossil connections between man and animals. It has nothing to do with this.

[Guest]

One more thing. Why would God not just miracleously intervene and create the universe in 6 24 hour days instead of letting it develop by the laws of nature and physics over 14 billion years?
This is just my thought but here goes. God let the Israelites languish in Egypt for 400 years before they invaded Canaan so that the EVIL of the Cananites could fully ripen before it was destroyed. Why did God wait,why not invade right away? I think that's a picture of the evil God wants to fully destroy in this universe and for some reason to fully destroy evil in this universe God has let everything develop within the laws of nature as much as possible. And in fact that could be the reason that God does'nt intervene regularly because possibly that intervention slows down the timetable of the destruction of evil. Just a thought ,don't jump on me if you disagree.

[Guest]

Not to distract from the original thread because I have enjoyed reading and posting but in regards to Steve’s last post Genesis 15:16 says why God didn’t judge those in the land right away. I realize you may take this in the negative that God was waiting to fully destroy evil. But I seem to see it more in the positive that God was demonstrating His mercy to the Amorites and those in land by giving them time to repent and change (another example is Nineveh). I see this as being true today in that the reason that we haven’t been judged in a final sense yet is because God is a God of mercy (2 Pet 3:9)…any ways back to the creation discussion.

Erich <><

[Guest]

God is certainly merciful but he said evil had to ripen and re the flood they were evil all the time and probably the same in Sodom. This age is referred to as "this present evil age" several times i believe and in the wheat and tares God says to let the tares grow until the harvest and then the tares get burned up. Is there a pattern here? Maybe for heaven to be pure, evil has to ripen in this evil age first then destroyed or it will return and that's why God allows evil, for a greater good.
Anyway it's just a thought hope we can get back to the topic.

[Guest]

That was my previous post. Steve7150