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

CMI ^ | March 26, 2009 | Peter Milford

[GodGunsGuts]

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

by Peter Milford

...

The issue of the age of the earth parallels circumcision. In my experience, the first response from Christians who do not accept the age of the earth that the Scriptures indicate, is to say something like “The New Testament does not make a big deal out of the age of the earth” or “It is not the purpose of the Bible to give the age of the earth”. Their point is that (1) the issue of the age of the earth is a non-essential, and (2) therefore not something we should argue about. They believe we are free to hold whatever view our conscience permits. They are right in the first part. In and of itself, the age of the earth is not a central focus of Scripture. But the distortions a long-age view brings to the gospel message make them wrong on the second part...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply, dear Seven_0!

me: 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.

you: 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.

God alone could be the observer in the beginning and only He could have seen the big bang – the early phase in which the expansion of space/time would have exceeded the speed of light (inflationary model.)

The calculations you remember may have to do with Lorentz contraction and time dilation in Special Relativity. Here’s a link to my favorite graphic explanation of Special Relativity.

The essential difference between Special Relativity and General Relativity is that the former looks at space/time as an evenly distributed hypercube whereas the latter sees the structure of space/time as warped.

For instance, higher gravity regions (e.g. earth and sun) can be visualized as indentations in space/time. Thus a spaceship must achieve “escape velocity” to emerge from the well. Even light bends under the influence of these regions.

Centers of galaxies, black holes, etc. are particularly intense high gravity regions. The indentation of a black hole is so deep geometrically speaking that even light cannot achieve escape velocity. (Black holes do however experience entropy but that’s a different subject.)

The remaining critical density (75%) is the region between galaxies which is proposed by some to include negative gravity – or space/time “outdents” which would accelerate the expansion of the universe.

Following the equivalence principle, the higher the gravity, the deeper the indentation in space/time, the slower time moves for the observer. Conversely, the smaller the gravity, the smoother the space/time, the faster time moves for the observer. And of course, if gravity were negative, space/time would outdent causing the observer to be moved without acceleration.

Another way to visualize it would be to imagine yourself at rest, sitting there in the beginning when the big bang occurs. Suddenly space/time is created and rapidly expands creating space/time as it goes. You are moving even though you are doing nothing at all.

Conversely, if space/time were to fold with you sitting there at rest, doing nothing – suddenly you would find yourself at a different space/time coordinate, i.e. a different time and place.

I must also mention here that there are theories of additional dimensions of space and most notably, of time (Vafa, Wesson.) If the extra time-like dimension is expanded, then time which we experience as linear (past, present, future) would actually be a plane or volume.

In such theories, past present and future (from our perspective) are actually concurrent to an observer with extra-dimensional perception. IOW, whereas he would have remarkable perception to see the past and the future, he would still not be able to see "all that there is" all at once because he would still be "in" space/time.

Only God can see "all that there is" all at once. Timelessness applies in our mediation on His Name, I AM.

me: 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.

You: 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?

Everything that physically lives, physically dies. War does not cause death, it merely hastens it. Medical marvels do not save lives, they merely delay the inevitable.

Truly, it’s not “about” our physical bodies which must physically come to an end:

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. - Romans 8:2

And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness. - Romans 8:10

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

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. - Colossians 3:3

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. - Galatians 2:20

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. - John 1:12-13

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 3:6-7

It is “about” Christ’s body and His blood which was essential for our redemption and establishment as adopted children of God.

Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].

For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first [testament] was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This [is] the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

[It was] therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. – Hebrews 9:12-23

Thus, I would agree that when Christ dismissed the spirit He also surrendered His own body to that purpose. This was the necessary step in the reconciliation:

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.– Colossians 1:15-20

And because Christ is God, the sacrifice is timeless - it applies over all of time. He is always the Lamb of God and He is always the Lion of Tribe of Judah:

And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. – Revelation 5:5-6

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. – Revelation 13:8

Only God enfleshed as Jesus could accomplish this (Isaiah 53, Psalms 22):

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. – Isaiah 9:6

To God be the glory!

[betty boop]

I must also mention here that there are theories of additional dimensions of space and most notably, of time (Vafa, Wesson.) If the extra time-like dimension is expanded, then time which we experience as linear (past, present, future) would actually be a plane or volume.... In such theories, past present and future (from our perspective) are actually concurrent to an observer with extra-dimensional perception. IOW, whereas he would have remarkable perception to see the past and the future, he would still not be able to see "all that there is" all at once because he would still be "in" space/time.

What a glorious essay/post, dearest sister in Christ! Thank you so very much!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your encouragements, dearest sister in Christ!

[ChessExpert]

Does anyone know what Judaism has to say about the age of the earth?

[GodGunsGuts]

==Does anyone know what Judaism has to say about the age of the earth?

Judaism and Evolution

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewsevolution.html

[ChessExpert]

Thanks!

The best thing about FreeRepublic is the knowledge of its many contributors.

“Indeed, Maimonides, one of the great rabbis of the Middle Ages, wrote that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted.”

Or both.

It sounds to me as though there could be a lot of wiggle room on both counts. My greatest objection is to dogmatists of all stripes.

[GodGunsGuts]

==My greatest objection is to dogmatists of all stripes.

Doesn’t that make you dogmatic on dogmatism?

[ChessExpert]

True.

There was some exaggeration in my words. I was trying to express a general tendency. However, it isn't the case that everything is uncertain. It isn't the case that nothing is reasonably known.

Many of the topics (evolution, age of the earth) that you have posted have garnered a range of opinions from individuals who seem reasonable and intelligent. This applies to both the science and the religion. I think that I am reasonably familiar with the evolution debate. I've concluded that evolution "dogma" is not warranted by the evidence.

Some posters are too strident for my taste. Often their "evidence," scientific or scriptural, is more conclusive to them than it is to me. They are the ones who prompted my comment about dogmatism.

[OneWingedShark]

>If I might ask, have you allegorized the creation story sufficiently in your mind that you believe (based on the evidence of dry bones), that man was not a special creation of God, but that he descended from lower forms of life and ultimately from some simian non-human ancestor?

No.

Let me present a similar question: “Have you quit beating your wife yet?”

...

Do you see the problem with this sort of question? It operates on flawed assumptions, such as you having a wife at all. Also, no matter how you answer it (it is a simple yes/no question), you admit to beating your wife.

>>You are perpetuating a shame to Christ.
>By believing his words?

No, by behaving like a fool. Is it not a fool who answers questions as they are being asked, but before the sentence is out of the mouth? Is it not a fool who can offer a reason greater than seven wise men?

>It appears to me that you ARE seriously offended. BTW I don’t believe I have failed to answer any of your questions. You may correct me if I am wrong. Further, I don’t see where you have answered mine.

Ok, now, I am a programmer, I KNOW what literal means. I am also an amateur writer, I like to write and tell stories, so I know that mode of linguistics as well.

1) A day is defined as the rotation of the Earth in relation to the sun. How then is a day possible before the Earth was created?
1b) Using the definition from 1, how is it possiblel to have a day when the Earth existed but the sun had not yet been created?
2) First, The Hebrew word used to describe God’s creative work is “to stretch;” Second, We observe that relativistic time dilation DOES exist, meaning that the faster an object is going the slower time is experienced to a stationary observer. Third, given the first and the second, as God created the universe the edges He was stretching out would be moving at a greater speed then the center. Therefore, couldn’t the time experienced by some portions of the universe be millions of years, while some other place only experienced a day?

3) In the previous question we assumed that time was uniform, yet applied relativity to generate a question. (Meaning that even though time was slower at faster speeds, the same rate of speed would result in the same ratio of “slowness”.) Now, what if the assumption that time is uniform is false? This would mean that “patches” of the universe are experiencing time at different rates, which we can “sort of” get with relativity. How would a specific time-descriptive word adequately explain reality?

4) How can I offer a defense if I am already condemned, if you will not listen? (This relates to your yes/no question; I answered it by refuting the premises you were basing your question on, and yet you said I did not answer your question.)

Also, I asked if Jesus’s saying of “You must be born again.” to Zacheus was literal; you said “No”. So, if Jesus is God, and I assume we agree there, and He is using allegory and metaphor then isn’t it also reasonable to think that God might use metaphor as well?

If no, please explain the relation of marriage as an institute and a relationship and how Jesus relates to His church. It would be most interesting to see how someone could fail to see metaphor in marriage and Christ/church interaction.

>Did I accuse you of having a “weak faith”? I don’t believe so.

You did not, I merely saw the opportunity for you to do so and said “Before you accuse me of having a weak faith”... Perhaps this was unjust of me.

>You have accused me of many things on this thread; of not having faith, of being a fool, of perpetuating a shame upon Christ.

I have called you a fool. I have NOT said your faith was weak, nor have I said it was strong. I DID say you were perpetrating a shame to Christ, and as I explained, by acting like a fool.

>All I am doing is expressing my belief in his words.

And have I done anything different? Honestly? There are more ways to read than literal, and sometimes reading them literally makes no sense, as was the case of Zacheus and Jesus. (”What? How can a man be born again? Can he enter into his mother’s womb a second time?” is a perfectly valid question to the literal reading of Jesus’s words “You must be born again.”)

>I honestly don’t understand your visceral reaction.

Let me explain it to you, as best as I can with a story:
Today, I had breakfast with my father and, while eating, the alarm on my phone went off and I pulled it out of my pocket, turned it off and returned to breakfast. My father then asked; “Is that your phone? Is that your phone ringing?” I said “It’s my alarm. It’s nobody.” After answering “it’s my alarm.” I got yelled at about it being a yes/no question, so I answered ‘no’. I got yelled at because “I’m not stupid, I saw you pull your phone out of your pocket!”

What was I supposed to do? If I answered “yes” it would be true that it was my phone, but false that it was ringing; likewise, if I answered “no” it would be false because it WAS my phone, but false that it was a call.
Both answers were losing answers.

Do you now see why I dislike the treatment?

>If I say God created the Heavens and the Earth and all that is within them in 6 days am I perpetuating a Shame upon Christ.

Should that be a question-mark instead of a period? But that’s irrelevant, I did not say that a literal six 24-hr days was shameful. I said your treatment was.

>Weren’t those the same words that were inscribed by God on the Ten Commandments?

No, actually those would be “Have no other Gods before me”, “Do not blaspheme”, “Observe the Sabbath and keep it holy”, “Do not murder”, “Do not covet”, “Do not steal”, “Do not commit adultery” and so forth; there is nothing in the Ten Commandments that says anything about the creation.

>Was God perpetuating a shame upon Christ by inscribing them?

What? You seem to be thinking that I’m saying that I think you’re stupid/foolish because you are reading things literally. I never said that, in fact I wanted you to answer my questions regarding how you believe that they should be read literally. I never said that they WEREN’T 24-hr days; I just said that it makes more sense to me to read them as figurative days, after all the sun didn’t exist in the beginning, nor the earth, and those are what defines ‘day’. (Think about it this way, if the Earth rotated once in 28 hrs, would 28 hours then be a day?)

[OneWingedShark]

>>”If this righteous man was basically given the “And who are you to question me?” treatment, then shouldn’t we be a bit more cautious on these questions?”
>Apples and Oranges!

How so?

>Job had questioned God’s motives,

Which is still questioning God.

>while we, on the other hand, are being obedient in studying his ages and appointed times as he commanded us to do.

Reference Please. Also, see 2 pet 3:8
— http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20pet%203:8&version=31

>If you do not understand his times, how can you do the job that he has set forth for you to do?

Oh, I agree. But also we must understand what God is communicating, right? When Jesus said that the time of harvest had come and the fields were ready, did that indicate to his deciples that they should go into the fields and literally reap?

>How can you watch for his coming on the day that he told us he would come, if you don’t examine the evidence he gave us, and declare it to be irrelevant?

But “No man knoweth the hour” right? I’m not saying we shouldn’t be aware, but I am saying that we need to act intelligently.

[P-Marlowe]

No.

Good.

[P-Marlowe]

there is nothing in the Ten Commandments that says anything about the creation.

I guess you've never read them.

[backslacker]

And what is the LITERAL interpretation of “sunrise” and “sunset” on the “days” before the Sun was created?

There is no 'sunrise' or 'sunset' in Genesis chapter 1.

And the evening and the morning were the third day. --Genesis 1:13

[OneWingedShark]

>>there is nothing in the Ten Commandments that says anything about the creation.
>I guess you’ve never read them.

I have, and I stand corrected, they do mention them, I simply forgot. (here they are:)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ex%2020&version=31

Now, I ask you to answer my questions. I also ask how that keeping the sabbath precludes an literary reading.

[P-Marlowe]

I have, and I stand corrected, they do mention them, I simply forgot.

Now that you've read them and remembered them, will you now accept the FACT that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days?

Now, I ask you to answer my questions.

It is difficult to find your questions as they are buried so deeply among your insults. But I will try.

And have I done anything different?

Yes, you've insulted me and questioned my faith and accused me of being an insult to Christ.

Honestly?

Yes

What was I supposed to do?

Apparently your father asked two questions. Is that your phone... yes... Is that your phone ringing.... no.

Do you now see why I dislike the treatment?

No. I fail to see the comparison. The question I asked was a straightforward yes/no question and you continually refused to answer it. You finally did, but not before you insulted me, called me a fool and questioned my faith and called me an insult to Christ.

Think about it this way, if the Earth rotated once in 28 hrs, would 28 hours then be a day?

If, at the end of creation the earth was rotating once every 28 hours, then that would be a day (but then for the same reason we now have 24 hours, those 28 hours would be 24 hours.

I also ask how that keeping the sabbath precludes an literary reading.

I don't know what you are talking about.

[editor-surveyor]

But “No man knoweth the hour” right?

The total misunderstanding of the real meaning of this phrase is exactly what I'm getting at.

To a Jew living in Jerusalem at the time that the Lord uttered thoae words, they had a well known and very specific meaning, which is almost the exact opposite of what present day Christians take it to mean. - It was the traditional understanding, dating back to the time of Abraham, or earlier, To fixing the precise moment of the new moon. In this case, as is later illustrated by Paul in 1Cor 15, and 1Thess 5, it is referring to the new moon that marks the beginning of Yom Kippur, or "the Feast of Trumpets."

This is why we must delve into the minute details of each and every sentence of God's word, and there is no subject therein that is unimportant. I this case the modern, ignorant assumed meaning has turned the real meaning on its head.

[OneWingedShark]

I see what you are saying about reading details. However, I’m not sure about your claim that the opposite of the phrase is what is actually meant. I will take a look at the references you provide and think on it.

Let me ask another question though: is God concerned more about you having the correct understanding of what His word means, down to the minutia, or is He more concerned with where your heart is? (1 Cor 13)

Keeping that former question in mind, would God rather you were right about whether it is a literal/literary ‘day’ in the creation story, or would He rather that you showed His love to others? (See James, in addition to the answer of 1 Cor 13)

[OneWingedShark]

>>I have, and I stand corrected, they do mention them, I simply forgot.
>
>Now that you’ve read them and remembered them, will you now accept the FACT that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days?

I never rejected it. I simply wanted to argue, in the philosophical sense... to get a clearer/wiser understanding of the truth.

It seems to me that you do not love the truth so much as ‘being right’.

[P-Marlowe]

It seems to me that you do not love the truth so much as ‘being right’.

Another insult. Got any more?

[OneWingedShark]

>>It seems to me that you do not love the truth so much as ‘being right’.

>Another insult. Got any more?

That was an observation, not an insult... but if you REALLY want an insult, I can give you a couple.