Page 2 of 6

Re: Is Genesis History?

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:59 pm
by dwight92070
TK wrote:The problem with the "appearance of age" argument is that God knew that one day we would have technology using physics etc that God created and we would use these things to study the universe. There are a great number of Christian astrophysicists who say the evidence is overwhelming for an ancient universe.

If God created the universe with an appearance of age, with no explicit statements regarding this in scripture, He is, in effect, being deceptive.

Dwight: Why is God obligated to explain something supernatural that He did? Just so we won't accuse Him of being deceptive?
Isn't it obvious from the start that God is not deceptive, no matter what He does? His word tells us that "God does not lie".

That's why I don't buy that argument.

The bread analogy and the wine making at Cana (the wine had to be aged to be any good) are not the same thing because man already knew how to make wine and bread.

Dwight: I don't follow your reasoning. The miracles of Jesus are exactly the same thing. Jesus performs them without giving any explanation of how He did them. In Genesis 1 and 2, God performed many miracles without explaining how He did them. Just because it appears that He created things and persons that have the appearance of age, this does not make Him a prankster. Again, God's character is never in question, whether we get an explanation or not. He doesn't owe us that. Didn't Job say, "Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him."?

Adam and Eve being created at child bearing age is different than creating them with worn teeth, wrinkles, calluses on their feet, etc. Further, it's like saying God created the moon complete with craters from meteors that actually never struck the moon.
Dwight: Let's assume that God created the moon with craters already there. What's the problem? What moral standard has God violated other than your standard? He certainly has not violated His own standard. He is totally free to create the moon or the stars or man or plants however He wants. Just because we can't figure out how the light from the stars was instantly visible, even though they were millions of light years away, that's not God's problem, nor is it incumbent on Him to explain this to us.

Re: Is Genesis History?

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 8:20 pm
by Singalphile
TK,

I'm not talking about the "appearance of age". I'm speculating (with no evidence) that God could have "fast forwarded" time up to the time of His choosing. So the history is actually there and actually happened. The billions of years of time actually passed, but just not at the same rate of time as we currently experience. That's what I took robbyyoung to be talking about when he mentioned "accelerating plant growth, starlight, and life itself."

It's just speculation. It's not even my opinion. It's interesting, though. I see plenty of literary reasons to take the first few sections of what we call "Genesis" non-literally.

robbyyoung, I agree that it matters that God created everything. I agree with Paul in Rom 1:20. I just meant that it doesn't matter to me exactly how that was done or how long it took.

Re: Is Genesis History?

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:07 pm
by TK
Dwight -

The reason that God would not create the moon with craters that weren't made by meteors (even though they look exactly like impact craters) is because God knows we aren't stupid.

He knows that one day we would look at the moon and say "the moon is riddled by meteorite craters." It wouldn't matter if he is being deceptive to ants or lizards but it matters to man.

Re: Is Genesis History?

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 10:02 pm
by dwight92070
TK wrote:Dwight -

The reason that God would not create the moon with craters that weren't made by meteors (even though they look exactly like impact craters) is because God knows we aren't stupid.

Dwight: I remember hearing someone say: "Don't ever say, 'God would never (blank) or God will always (blank)'" Fill in the blank. I think that is correct. We can't put God in a box. Your statement that God would not create the moon ... etc. pretty much fits that. I know, you believe God would be deceptive if He did that and therefore, I would assume, that you would have no use for a God like that. I believe that it is entirely possible that He could have done just that, without any fault or flaw in His character, and therefore I would continue to love and serve Him.
He knows that one day we would look at the moon and say "the moon is riddled by meteorite craters." It wouldn't matter if he is being deceptive to ants or lizards but it matters to man.

Dwight: I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Re: Is Genesis History?

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:10 am
by TK
If you do not feel that deceptiveness is contrary to God's revealed character, that is certainly your prerogative.

What I am saying is that if an explanation of something (a moon made to look like it has been riddled by craters, e.g.) relies on the idea that God was in some degree being deceptive, then perhaps it is wise to look for an alternate explanation.

Re: Is Genesis History?

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:14 am
by dwight92070
TK wrote:If you do not feel that deceptiveness is contrary to God's revealed character, that is certainly your prerogative.

Dwight: Of course deceptiveness is contrary to God's character, I never said otherwise. I disagree that the scenario discussed would be deceptive on God's part. He is free to make something look anyway He wants it to. Where we can get tripped up is if we think God is trying to fool us or deceive us, because He made something a certain way. He could actually be testing us, to see if we will still trust Him. The Bible is clear that He does test our hearts.

What I am saying is that if an explanation of something (a moon made to look like it has been riddled by craters, e.g.) relies on the idea that God was in some degree being deceptive, then perhaps it is wise to look for an alternate explanation.

Re: Is Genesis History?

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:13 am
by TK
Where we can get tripped up is if we think God is trying to fool us or deceive us, because He made something a certain way.
If God creates something with an appearance of age (or cataclysms that never actually happened) then it is not that I THINK God is trying to fool us- He IS trying to fool us. Now you are right- if God chooses to do that he is certainly entitled to do so. The issue is whether in fact he actually DOES this.

Re: Is Genesis History?

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 3:47 pm
by Homer
How would it be any more deceptive for God to create an old looking moon than it was for Jesus to turn water into wine which I'm sure looked and tasted as though some length of time was involved, yet those who were there knew time had not passed?

No dog in this fight, just wondering.

Re: Is Genesis History?

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 4:06 pm
by john6809
TK wrote:
Where we can get tripped up is if we think God is trying to fool us or deceive us, because He made something a certain way.
If God creates something with an appearance of age (or cataclysms that never actually happened) then it is not that I THINK God is trying to fool us- He IS trying to fool us. Now you are right- if God chooses to do that he is certainly entitled to do so. The issue is whether in fact he actually DOES this.
I also don't have a dog in the fight but, why can't God create something with age built in, just because He likes it to look that way?

I've built a bit of furniture in the wood shop and used various methods to make it appear old and distressed. I have no intention of fooling anyone. I simply like the way it looks. If other's can't distinguish this, I am not at fault.

Is it possible that God's creation isn't always primarily there for us to see His purpose? Maybe it's mostly there for His pleasure and He has allowed us to enjoy it too.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Is Genesis History?

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:13 pm
by TK
Homer/John-

I think there is a distinction between the Cana miracle (I pointed out previously that the created wine had to taste aged or it would not be any good) and the creation of the baked bread because man knows these processes and was familiar with them. And they saw exactly where it came from.

If God created fully grown trees in Eden- that's fine. But would they have 40 or so tree rings inside, which would be indicative of 40 years of growth cycle?

If he created the polar ice fully formed, would he have also created thousands of years worth of yearly weather cycles that are seen in ice core samples?

I think the issue is whether God created brand new things with built in evidence of erosion, or age that would later be discovered.

A good example might be the huge crater monument in AZ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_Crater)

Would it be reasonable for God to create the earth with this crater to make it look like a meteor crater if a meteor had never actually hit it, just because he thought it looked cool?