Posted on 02/17/2009 8:38:53 AM PST by mnehring
The universe was created in 6 24hour days, using the frame of reference of the entire cosmos. It has been about 6000 years since then.
Both are absolutely true. Science and God are not mutually exclusive. God created the laws of the universe.
One must have an appreciation of the Law of Relativity and the Law of Special Relativity. Time is not a constant, it depends on the frame of reference, gravity, velocity. In the beginning, one cannot have a frame of reference of the earth - it didn't exist. The only frame of reference has to be that of the entire universe.
Applying Einstein's laws will show that the universe being 13.7 billion years old and was created in 6 24 hour days are both the same and consistent.
“the god of an old earth is not the God of the Bible”
The Earth is 4.5 billion years old AND it is 6000 years old. If you can’t wrap your head around that then you have no business discussing the issue as if you know what you are talking about.
Some believe the “bondage to decay” is the earth’s present service as a graveyard of the dead. They suggest Paul’s metaphor of the creation’s groaning is drawn from Isaiah 24-26–an apocalyptic picture of the earth as a graveyard awaiting the resurrection of the dead. Isaiah states “the earth mourns” because it has been made to “cover her slain.”13. This does seem to fit the context of Romans 8 that speaks of the earth being set free from bondage when the children of God are glorified.
Death, Leviathan and the Martyrs. Worth a read.
Human death is not the same as animal death. To say that it is would be to buy into an evolutionary mindset.
A very interesting article and an interesting thread of replies it has generated.
I do not know but I am guessing that this HAM believes that the HAM of Noah’s flood represents a specific race.
IF this later day HAM knew his Bible he would know that there is nowhere in the whole of the Bible that gives one hint or clue or statement claiming this earth is anything but very very old.
Adiaphora
Scott Clark's concept of QIRC -- the "Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty". See here.
Clark first supports his thesis that the dearth of rootedness in modern Reformed Christianity has come about through two interconnected false approaches to theology and piety, which he has called the quest for illegitimate religious certainty (QIRC) and the quest for illegitimate religious experience (QIRE). Falling into the former category would be both the impulse to make a litmus test for orthodoxy such issues as have not historically borne the weight of sine qua non for Reformed doctrine, such as a literal period of seven twenty-four hour days in the first chapter of Genesis; and also, the impulse to formulate doctrines that are in contradiction to essential Reformed tradition, such as the recasting of justification in accordance with the ideas of covenant moralism. Falling into the latter category would be the strains of piety that have come down from Anabaptist traditions, and the revivalism of Edwards and Whitefield, which Clark sees as organically connected to the revivalism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
(Gotta get me that book, one of these days.)
I do not know but I am guessing that this HAM believes that the HAM of Noah’s flood represents a specific race.
I suspect not. I've heard Ken Ham say repeatedly we should do away with the concept of race, as it is more Darwinian than biblical.
“I don’t know why some people insist on putting God in a box with narrow little rules.”
It is because of pride, ignorance and egotism.
Exactly HOW does one do away with the concept of race? DNA a non-Darwin concept demonstrates there is race.
Where is the center of the universe, MahatmaGandu?
So far as God is concerned it is found in each and every human soul.
So, for you, the center of the universe actually is Earth, since that's where you are?
No, for me the center of my universe is wherever I happen to be.
If Adam and Eve never really existed, then what was the original sin?
Is it heretical to reject the doctrine of original sin?
If there was no original sin then why was Christ's death necessary?
The idea that sin (rejection of God’s rightful authority) began with Adam’s rebellion in Eden ignores the fact that at least in one context the fall into sin predates Eden. Satan clearly fell into sin before he entered Eden to beguile Eve. Exactly how much before that time the fall of Satan occurred is unclear. Job 38:7 states that the angels watched as God laid down the foundations of the Earth. Therefore, Satan likely existed at the time when Earth was formed some 4.6 to 3.9 billion years ago. His rebellion against God could have occurred either before or after this event. IE, original sin predated Adam and was a component of the spiritual world, not constrained to the physical world.
On Earth, in other words?
Did Christ die to save the immortal soul of Satan the devil and atone for his sins?
It’s a matter of perception.
It is the origin of sin. We went into a spiritual rebellion. Sin is not animal nature, God didn’t send Christ for the animals, it is a rebellion of our spiritual nature. Satan’s rebellion was sin, but God didn’t send Christ to redeem him. It does beg the question though, where did sin come from with a perfect God, how did imperfection originate in a perfect, omnipotent system? It seems the entire spiritual system is far more complicated than our human minds can understand and to try to constrain it to descriptions based on our limited experience is pretty flawed.
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.