‘But the New Testament does not make a big deal out of the Age of the Earth …’

CMI ^ | March 26, 2009 | Peter Milford

[D-fendr]

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.

[Just mythoughts]

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.

[editor-surveyor]

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.

[D-fendr]

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.

[D-fendr]

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?

[D-fendr]

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.

[editor-surveyor]

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.

[allmendream]

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.

[D-fendr]

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.

[P-Marlowe]

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.

[enat]

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.

[Buck W.]

Thanks for the exchange—it’s been fun.

[P-Marlowe]

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.”

[P-Marlowe]

Thanks for the exchange—it’s been fun.

I just knew we'd end up FRiends.

[piytar]

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”?

[Fichori]

“I always find it interesting that the literalists are so selectively literalist” [excerpt]

Its called hermeneutics.

[Alamo-Girl]

Precisely so, dear brother in Christ, precisely so. That is the point.

[Seven_0]

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

[Alamo-Girl]

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!

[Seven_0]

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