Not an excellent question. A ridiculous one.
God would never do that to deceive.
I don't get what this making God out to be a liar business is. It's just another manipulation technique to try to force people to accept that kind of reasoning and back them into a corner to force acceptance of a certain point of view.
The problem is, the whole premise is wrong. God is not a deceiver so He would never do something like that for that reason. Therefore there must be another reason for Him to have done it that way.
Did it not ever occur to you that man's interpretation of what he sees is wrong?
If you believe that God created the universe and man, then tell me, how old was Adam on the DAY he was created? Was he not created as a man, implying that he was a grown adult? Did God do that to deceive or as a matter of practicality?
Looking at a grown man, what conclusions would science have reached about his age? And if the creationist said that Adam was only a few hours old, what do you think that any scientists reaction would be?
Creating the universe and earth with the appearance of age would be nothing more than a matter of practicality. The earth needed to be habitable for man and that demands that certain conditions MUST exist.
I fail to see why whenever there's a conflict between science and Scripture, it's presumed that Scripture is wrong by default and that what man observes and concludes is the absolute truth.
So, scientifically speaking, how old would science estimate a grown man to be just by appearance? Who would have been right about Adam's age? The creationist who believed God or the scientist who analyzed the man?
This sort of hair-splitting KJV text-proofing is begging for embarassment.
If one doesn’t believe that “yom” must always mean 24 hours of Earth-standard frame of reference, one certainly doesn’t need to believe “adam” means always specifically a full-grown individual in his mid-20s.
Good post metmom- You bring up some goodp opints-
[[I don’t get what this making God out to be a liar business is. It’s just another manipulation technique to try to force people to accept that kind of reasoning and back them into a corner to force acceptance of a certain point of view.]]
Bingo- A dirty little tactic to say hte least-
I concur that God would not create a hoax. So what’s with dinosaur fossils?
Your premise that we shouldn’t trust our own eyes is ridiculous to me.
Where did the creation story come from? Which prophet revealed it? I’m no theologian, but of all the times in the Bible when God spoke directly to someone, I don’t think it ever included specifics about creation. In the New Testament, our Lord refers to it almost not at all. That tells me that the “hows” of creation simply aren’t that important.
Having said that, let’s assume that God did sit down some wise men 6000 years ago and explain specifically how he made the Heavens and Earth. Their frame of reference would certainly be so limited that their retelling would be simplistic to say the least.
I’m not choosing science over scripture, because I don’t see any conflict.
This is a fine question, so let's look at the appearance. There are 13 year olds that are 6' and 180 lbs., but they are not men.
Let's do an exam.
-We X-ray the man and he has several healed broken bones that are indicative of having healed while he was still growing.
-His teeth are worn down in a manner than usually takes 40 years.
-He has arthritis in his hands.
-His vision has progressed so that he is now far sighted.
-His skin is wrinkled.
-He is mostly bald.
Could God create such a man? Of course he could, but why would He?
I fail to see why whenever there's a conflict between science and Scripture, it's presumed that Scripture is wrong by default and that what man observes and concludes is the absolute truth.
...
Did it not ever occur to you that man's interpretation of what he sees is wrong?
I agree with you 100%, metmom. God could have created the universe in an instant just the way it is today. But the record that God has left us in his creation tells us that he did not do that.
There is no disagreement between an old universe and the Bible. The notion that it has to be science or the Bible is a false choice promoted by certain very vocal groups of Christians. God did not lie to us in the Bible or in his creation.
It is certainly possible, and even probable, that man's interpretation of what we see is wrong. But how wrong? A little bit wrong or totally off the wall wrong?
Suppose you have a tree in your backyard and you ask 12 different people to measure its height. Each of the 12 people use different methods to measure the heigh. One person uses a crane to lift them to the top of the tree and drop down a measuring tape. Another uses the shadow method. Another uses a clinometer. Another uses a height stick, and so on.
If all 12 tree height measurement results ranged from 77'-3'' to 77'-6'', you would be happy with the agreement of the measurements and believe that you have a pretty good idea of how tall the tree is.
If one person told you that the tree was 12 feet tall, another that the tree was 23 tall, another that the tree was 157 feet tall and so on, you would be right to doubt the measurements.
Scientists don't use just one method to determine the age of the earth or the age of the universe. They use a number of methods from many different, unrelated branches of science to do so. See here for a partial listing. And by partial, I mean really, really partial. All of the many measurement methods are in close agreement. If the different methods yielded widely varying results, then we would have have reason to doubt.
We know the following:
The Bible does not claim that the universe is only 6,000 years old or that it was created in six, literal 24-hour days. That is a wrong, human interpretation of scripture. I'm not going to be divisive among Christian denominations, but look at how different groups have split over the interpretation of scripture. Obviously not all interpretations are correct.
I could show you many, many other Bible word and passage studies that strongly suggest an old earth. For example, Psalms 90:2 says that the mountains were "born" after God "brought forth" the earth. Being born is a process that takes time and involves a lot of change.
Christians have rejected science in the past because they believed that it contradicted God's word. Galileo was condemned by Christians because of his theory that the earth revolved around the sun. Christians used scripture to support their belief that the sun revolved around the earth! I'm not a big fan of citing Wikipedia, but whoever wrote the article did a pretty good job.
If Christians have wrongly interpreted scripture in the past when it comes to science, isn't there at least a good likelihood that some Christians today are wrongly interpreting scripture regarding scientific discoveries?
- God does not deceive us through his creation or his word. He does not lie to us in any way.
- God's creation shows us that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 14 to 15 billion years old. Yes, there are discrepancies, but they are minor. If all these different ways of measuring the age of the earth and the universe are in close agreement, and they do not contradict the Bible, shouldn't we accept them?