------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

†Caleb†

------------------
"True friendship is not characterized by the absence of conflict, but by the ability to resolve conflict."

All I can say is, 10 dimensions...wow...and that is a hypothesis from the 13th century even...

"The ascription of all changes in form to chance has long caused raised eyebrows. Let us not dally with the doubts of nineteenth-century critics, however; for the issue subsided. But it raised its ugly head again in a fairly dramatic form in 1967, when a handful of mathematicians and biologists were chattering over a picnic lunch organized by the physicist, Victor Weisskopf, who is a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and one of the original Los Alamos atomic bomb group, at his house in Geneva. `A rather weird discussion' took place. The subject was evolution by natural selection. The mathematicians were stunned by the optimism of the evolutionists about what could be achieved by chance. So wide was the rift that they decided to organize a conference, which was called Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution. The conference was chaired by Sir Peter Medawar, whose work on graft rejection won him a Noble prize and who, at the time, was director of the Medical Research Council's laboratories in North London. Not, you will understand, the kind of man to speak wildly or without careful thought. In opening the meeting, he said: `The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought of as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory. This dissatisfaction has been expressed from several quarters."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 4.

A milestone meeting was the Wistar Institute Symposium held in Philadelphia in April 1966. The chairman, *Sir Peter Medawar, made the following opening remark:

"The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory . . These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I think, make light of them."—*Peter Medawar, remarks by the chairman, *Paul Moorhead and *Martin Kaplan (ed.), Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Monograph No. 5.

A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute. They clearly refuted neo-Darwinianism in several areas, and showed that its "fitness" and "adaptation" theories were tautologous—little more than circular reasoning. In contrast, some of the biologists who spoke at the convention could not see the light. They understood bugs and turtles, but could grasp neither the mathematical impossibilities of evolutionary theory nor the broad picture of how thoroughly defunct evolution really is.

For example, one of the mathematicians, *Murray Eden of MIT, explained that life could not begin by the "random selection," which is the basic pillar of evolutionary teaching. Yet he said that if randomness is set aside, then only "design" would remain—and that would require purposive planning by an Intelligence.

*C.H. Waddington, a prominent British evolutionist, scathingly attacked neo-Darwinism, maintaining that all it proved was that plants and animals could have offspring!

The 1966 Wistar convention was the result of a meeting of mathematicians and biologists the year before in Switzerland. Mathematical doubts about Darwinian theory had been raised; and, at the end of several hours of heated discussion, it was agreed that a meeting be held the next year to more fully air the problems. *Dr. Martin Kaplan then set to work to lay plans for the 1966 Wistar Institute.

It was the development of tremendously powerful digital computers that sparked the controversy. At last mathematicians were able to work out the probability of evolution ever having occurred. They discovered that, mathematically, life would neither have begun nor evolved by random action.

For four days the Wistar convention continued, during which a key lecture was delivered by *M.P. Schutzenberger, a computer scientist, who explained that computers are large enough now to totally work out the mathematical probabilities of evolutionary theory—and they demonstrate that it is really fiction.

*Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (1012) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells).

Hemoglobin has two chains, called alpha and beta. A minimum of 120 mutations would be required to convert alpha to beta. At least 34 of those changes require changeovers in 2 or 3 nucleotides. Yet, *Eden pointed out that, if a single nucleotide change occurs through mutation, the result ruins the blood and kills the organism!

*George Wald stood up and explained that he had done extensive research on hemoglobin also,—and discovered that if just ONE mutational change of any kind was made in it, the hemoglobin would not function properly. For example, the change of one amino acid out of 287 in hemoglobin causes sickle-cell anemia. A glutamic acid unit has been changed to a valine unit—and, as a result, 25% of those suffering with this anemia die.

For more information on the 1966 Wistar Institute, we refer you to the book quoted above, by *Moorehead and *Kaplan. For much more on mathematical problems confronting evolutionary theory. (See DNA and Cells).

The 1969 Alpbach Meeting
A follow-up meeting was held in 1969 at Alpbach, but it only resulted in fruitless discussions in defense of evolution, angry words by some, desperation by others desiring some kind of "evolutionary" solution that scientists could ably defend, and additional presentations of evidence that evolutionary theory was unscientific. Although it was an important meeting, little space was given to it in the public press.

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless. When Arthur Koestler organized the Alpbach Symposium, in 1969, called `Beyond Reductionism,' for the express purpose of bringing together biologists critical of orthodox Darwinism he was able to include in the list of participants many authorities of world stature, such as Swedish neurobiologist, Holgar Hyden; zoologists, Paul Weiss and W.H. Thorpe; linguist, David McNeil; and child psychologist, Jean Piaget. Koestler had this to say in his opening remarks: `. . invitations were confined to personalities in academic life, with undisputed authority in their respective fields, who nevertheless share that holy discontent.

"At the Wistar Institute Symposium in 1966, which brought together mathematicians and biologists of impeccable academic credentials, Sir Peter Medawar acknowledged in his introductory address the existence of a widespread feeling of skepticism over the role of chance in evolution, a feeling in his own words that: `. . something is missing from orthodox theory.' "—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), pp. 327-328.

THE 1980 NEW YORK MEETING
For decades, men had to silently accept evolutionary theory in order to graduate with a doctorate and enter a field of science. Everywhere they turned in their chosen field, they see evidence of creation, not evolution. An ever-increasing explosion of knowledge in the sciences only added to the massive weight of evidence in favor of creation science. But, at last, careful researchers were beginning to openly scoff at evolutionary theory in professional journals. Leading paleontologists, such as *Gould and Stanley, were brazenly flaunting the foolishness of Darwin's legacy; but, unfortunately they were substituting strange new fairy tales that were utterly opposed to reality, common sense, genetics, mutational studies, or mathematical probabilities. Something had to be done.

In October 1980, the world's leading evolutionists met in Chicago in a special Evolution Conference.

"The central question of the Chicago conferences was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution."—*Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," in Science, November 21, 1980.

"Microevolution" is change within a species, but this is adaptation and not evolution, as most experts will admit. "Macroevolution" is change between species, and must always lie at the heart of evolutionary theory. Without macroevolution, evolution does not occur. At the 1980 Chicago meeting:

"In October 1980, . . a conference was held in Chicago on one of the hottest issues in evolutionary studies. The respected magazine, Science, organ of the American Association of the Advancement of Science, called it `a historic conference' which `challenges the four-decade long dominance of the Modern Synthesis.' `We all went home with our heads spinning,' said one participant. `Clashes of personality and academic sniping created palpable tension in an atmosphere that was fraught with genuine intellectual ferment,' Science reported."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 55.

Open attacks were hurled at evolutionary theory, and men desperate for solutions sought for answers.

"Feuds concerning the theory of evolution exploded . . Entrenched positions, for and against, were established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from either side."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 12.

Yes, arguments took place, even some shouting. The conclusion of the majority was that there is no evidence of evolution, and we have no way of demonstrating that it is occurring now or has ever occurred.

"At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No."—*Roger Lewin, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 12.

*Newsweek for November 3, 1980, carried an article on the Chicago meeting. You may wish to read it for yourself. The large majority of evolutionists at the conference agreed that the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection could no longer be regarded by professionals as scientifically valid or tenable. Neither the origin nor the diversity of living creatures could be explained by evolutionary theory.

A year later, *Robert Jastrow, a leading scientist wrote:

"To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened . . Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

Of the scientists attending that meeting, some in desperation decided that the only solution was to join *Gould and *Stanley in viewing hopeful monsters as the means by which species change occurred! To coin a phrase that might be worthy of Shakespeare: "Ah, desperation, thou hast made men mad."

The 1980 meeting was held in Chicago's Field Museum and was attended by 160 of the world's top paleontologists, anatomists, evolutionary geneticists, and developmental biologists.

"[Evolution] is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years . . Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy among biologists . . No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight [at the meeting]."—*Boyce Rensberger, "Macroevolution Theory Stirs Hottest Debate Since Darwin," in The Riverside (California) Enterprise, p. E9; *Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory under Fire," Science, November 21, 1980, pp. 883-887.

It was decided that no record would be kept of the sessions, in order not to give ammunition to the creationists. The rapid accumulation of evidence against evolutionary theory had brought a crisis of such proportions that most of those in attendance decided to repudiate a cardinal Darwinian doctrine; they agreed that small changes from generation to generation within a species could never accumulate to produce a new species.

In its place, the Alice-in-Wonderland theory of "punctuated equilibria" was given prominence. This view teaches that sudden massive mutations produced "hopeful monsters"—and made all our modern species. It was at the 1980 meeting that the majority of leading scientists present decided in desperation to adopt the basic "hopeful monster" theory of *Goldschmidt, *Stanley, and *Gould.

Men act as if they are chained to a cart and must go wherever it carries them. They dare not get off of it, for to do so is admit a terrible fact which they do not wish to consider.

"According to an article in Newsweek (November 3, 1980), at a conference in mid-October at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History, the majority of 160 of the world's top paleontologists, anatomists, evolutionary geneticists, and developmental biologists agreed to abandon Darwinian evolution in favor of punctuated equilibria, otherwise known as the hopeful monster theory.

"Apparently, Darwin's theory had become indefensible to them, citing particularly the absence of intermediate fossils as the conflicting fact. The hopeful monster theory is a retreat to what appears to be reliable geological evidence, namely, the general stringing-out of fossils from `simple' to `complex' in the rock strata."—Randall Hedtke, "Asa Gray Vindicated," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1981, p. 74.

1984 CAMBRIDGE MEETING
The following year, still another important meeting of evolutionists was held. At this meeting, held at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, *Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, in a paper that he presented to the assembly, declared before his peers that evolution was "positively anti-knowledge," and added that "all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth."

The same year another scientist wrote this:

"An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."—*Michael Ruse, "Darwin's Theory: An Exercise in Science," in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 828.

Commenting on the crisis that had come to the evolutionary camp, *Niles Eldredge, head of the Department of Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, later wrote this:

"The doubt that has infiltrated the previously smug confident certitude of evolutionary biology's last twenty years has inflamed passions . . There has been a total lack of agreement even within the warring camps . . Things are really in an uproar these days . . Sometimes it seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary] theme as there are individual biologists."—*Niles Eldredge, "Evolutionary Housecleaning," in Natural History, February 1982, pp. 78, 81.

1) As mentioned in the article the Hebrew word for "day" doesn't refer only to a 24-hour day, but also a long, but finite period of time.

2) The fact that God established the Sabbath as every 7th solar day doesn't really prove anything in my mind. He also established a Sabbath year every 7 years -- it's a symbol, not necessarily to be taken literally.

3) Whole bit about einstein -- time is affected by acceleration and gravity -- however to say that time _has_ mass, for example, is the same as saying length has mass. It doesn't make much sense.

4) Space possesses electromagnetic properties, so can't contain "nothing". Yes space posseses these properties ... and it's possible to calculate them assuming a perfect vacuum. In fact, this is a pretty good proof that space IS INDEED a vacuum. The energy of the univers (I believe) is caused by _space itself_ rather than anything _in_ the space. Modern scientific theory holds that space doesn't extend any further than the edge of matter -- so as the universe expands, space is in fact, being "streached out". It's still (mostly) empty though.

(Aside: If a vacume didn't have a electric? permitivity and magnetic? permiability (I forget which is which), the speed of light would be infinite -- since the speed of any electromagentic wave, in any medium is 1/(ue)^0.5 -- where e is the permitivity and u is the permiability of the medium.)

5) Architecture of the solar system -- their "standard theory of the solar system" is indeed implausible... because it isn't what scientists think. This isn't to say that God didn't have a hand in creating our solar system -- He most certainly did. However a few of the objections given in the article can pretty easily be explained using the standard model. For example, the outer planets are bigger because they formed further away from the sun, where it was colder, and many of the things which remained in gaseous form further in could condense and help form the outer planets. similarly for a few of the other points.

6) Earth being created before the heavens -- the explanation I've heard here goes back to Genesis 1:1-2. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth ... And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters". The alternate interpretation I've heard here is that God had _already_ created the entire universe, including the sun, moon, and stars. The rest of Genesis 1. is describing the creation of the Earth -- Apparently the Hebrew (someone can probably correct me here) isn't as strict with verb tenses -- so when it's translated in English "And God made" -- it can also mean "And God _had_ made" ... as someone moving with the Spirit of God upon the face of the waters would become aware of what God had _already_ made. In other cases, such as when He seperated the earth from the water, the account is detailing the creation event itself.

-- Keith

quote:

---

Originally posted by nfektious:

All I can say is, 10 dimensions...wow...and that is a hypothesis from the 13th century even...

---

Well, the current guess is anywhere from 7 to 27 I think, with one prominent theory pegging it at 11. But yeah... you can find evidence for some pretty funky (and right!) physics in the Bible.

If you thought it was crazy enough here -- there's going to be a whole _new_ set of laws when we get to heaven! There's no way the New Jerusalem could exist in this universe, for example. It's too big and would end up looking more like a sphere than a square.

quote:

---

1) As mentioned in the article the Hebrew word for "day" doesn't refer only to a 24-hour day, but also a long, but finite period of time.

---

There's no indication that the intended usage was for a long day, though.

quote:

---

3) Whole bit about einstein -- time is affected by acceleration and gravity -- however to say that time _has_ mass, for example, is the same as saying length has mass. It doesn't make much sense.

---

I think I missed that part - where does the article say that?

"4)" Maybe you should read more about zero-point energy (called ZPE from here on) . . .

quote:

---

(Aside: If a vacume didn't have a electric? permitivity and magnetic? permiability (I forget which is which), the speed of light would be infinite -- since the speed of any electromagentic wave, in any medium is 1/(ue)^0.5 -- where e is the permitivity and u is the permiability of the medium.)

---

OUCH. Hate to break it to you, but the speed of light would NOT be infinite if ZPE were gone. The speed of light is limited by Einstein's equations, not by ZPE. Hate to break it to you, but Einstein's equations trumps the one you just gave. When I have time, I'll look for the Einsteinien equivalent of the equation you just gave.

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - Planning, writing GFX basecode.

[This message has been edited by CobraA1 (edited December 04, 2003).]

quote:

---

[quote]
quote:
1) As mentioned in the article the Hebrew word for "day" doesn't refer only to a 24-hour day, but also a long, but finite period of time.

---

That's my point. There's no indication either way within the biblical text.

quote:

---

[quote]
3) Whole bit about einstein -- time is affected by acceleration and gravity -- however to say that time _has_ mass, for example, is the same as saying length has mass. It doesn't make much sense.

---

At the beginning of the section "Nature of Time"

quote:

---

"4)" Maybe you should read more about zero-point energy (called ZPE from here on) . . .

---

Done. I see what they're getting at now... I still didn't find any research showing that permiability and permitivity of free space were caused by ZPE. Could you provide some references (if you have them)?

quote:

---

[quote]
quote:
(Aside: If a vacume didn't have a electric? permitivity and magnetic? permiability (I forget which is which), the speed of light would be infinite -- since the speed of any electromagentic wave, in any medium is 1/(ue)^0.5 -- where e is the permitivity and u is the permiability of the medium.)

---

OUCH. Hate to break it to you, but the speed of light would NOT be infinite if ZPE were gone.
[/quote]

The above has nothing to do with ZPE -- (see above). as far as the equation being incorrect... do you want me to provide you with the derivation, starting at Maxwell's Laws? (Which are consistent with Einstein's theory and still held as correct, as far as I was told last year at university).

------
-- Keith
3rd year Engineering Physics student

I can say the sun is green but that don't make it so.

Color. Can someone explain how color is perceived in space?

The evidence of color on earth is relatively simple to explain - considering the bending of light in the atmosphere and how objects reflect light to look a certain color (to those who can see color, that is; whether an object is actually a perceived color...consider it for a moment and boggle your intellect).

But, in space, considering light is allegedly traveling in a vacuuous environment, is the sun actually what it appears like from earth? from photos taken in space, even?

Perhaps those who are color-blind are not actually at a visual loss at all?

I recently heard (forget where) that the speed of light is not a constant as it has been assumed to be over the years past. If someone can find where that information is I'd be grateful as I'd like to read the article.

I also remember hearing that scientists have discovered recently (within the last year or two) that there is a "dark matter" in space that can be likened to black water...again, I don't recall the source...but I think it was something presented on NOVA sometime.

I don't put much value on the scientific community on issues of this magnitude. It isn't that I don't accept fact, but that fact seems to be mixed with the glory of discovery, creating a detrimental bias to the search for even small truths. The wisdom of man is not anything to build on - as scripture mentions in so many different ways. I do enjoy reading the theory and hypothesis, however, and that is really my only interest in such things. When it all ends, understanding modern human thought in relation to Science only means that we have accepted what someone else believes to be true. Sure, some people can spend their whole life proving theorems and such about life in the here and now (or even the then and was), but what does that really matter when conscious thought is gone from your body?

Sorry to go into "sermon mode" It is interesting to read about, but I don't see much reason to rely on what really is nothing more than sophisticated conjecture. Maybe I'm being pessimistic or antagonistic...or maybe I'm just tired and need to go home heheh...Later.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nfektious:
[B]Color. Can someone explain how color is perceived in space?

The evidence of color on earth is relatively simple to explain - considering the bending of light in the atmosphere and how objects reflect light to look a certain color (to those who can see color, that is; whether an object is actually a perceived color...consider it for a moment and boggle your intellect).

But, in space, considering light is allegedly traveling in a vacuuous environment, is the sun actually what it appears like from earth? from photos taken in space, even?

Perhaps those who are color-blind are not actually at a visual loss at all?

I recently heard (forget where) that the speed of light is not a constant as it has been assumed to be over the years past. If someone can find where that information is I'd be grateful as I'd like to read the article.

I also remember hearing that scientists have discovered recently (within the last year or two) that there is a "dark matter" in space that can be likened to black water...again, I don't recall the source...but I think it was something presented on NOVA sometime.

B]

---

1. Color is perceived the same on Earth as in space since our eyes do not deal with anything but the visible spectrum in electromagnetic radiation. The reason for the blue appearace of the sky is that the blue wavelength scatters the most when the sun is directly overhead.

2. The reason physicists want to change the speed of light in a vacuum is because there is a huge hole within the Big Bang model. Instead of changing the model they'd rather change the laws of physics and just say "light just happened to work differently during this certain period of time so our beliefs don't have to be changed, mmmkay?".

3. When calculating the movements of visible galaxies astronmers calculations were off due to a lack in mass. They have assumed there are non-light emitting regions of space containing "dark matter" that would make up the difference in mass. Instead, recent empirical data from a space probe (Pioneer I think?) points to the strength of gravity being slightly stronger than Newton thought. Calculating with the old Newtonian physics worked fine up until the galactic scale, where the lack of precision became noticeable. Oddly enough, many astronomers still persist with the dark matter idea (I guess I wouldn't want to call my own many years of work a total waste of time either).

------------------

quote:

---

That's my point. There's no indication either way within the biblical text.

---

When I say that I'll turn in my essay in five days to my teacher, I usually don't indicate what meaning I'm using either - it's implied.

"And there was evening, and there was morning" seems to be an indication anyway. I think the burden of proof rests on those who want to say it's a longer period.

quote:

---

At the beginning of the section "Nature of Time"

---

Is this what you're talking about?

quote:

---

we now know that time is a physical property and is subject to mass, acceleration, and gravity.

---

quote:

---

as far as the equation being incorrect... do you want me to provide you with the derivation, starting at Maxwell's Laws? (Which are consistent with Einstein's theory and still held as correct, as far as I was told last year at university).

---

*does some research*

OK, you're correct (found Maxwell both in my physics book and online) - but I lost my train of thought - why was this important again?

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - Planning, writing GFX basecode.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/faqs.shtml?main#young_earth_vs_old_earth

In particular, there's a word study of Genesis 1 there (which I guess you can check with a concordance)

Apparently, the Hebrew words translated evening and morning in English here can also mean ending and begining. My real point here is that the Bible allows either interpretation AFAIK, but old earth creationism seems to fit better with scientific evidence.

quote:

---

2. The reason physicists want to change the speed of light in a vacuum is because there is a huge hole within the Big Bang model. Instead of changing the model they'd rather change the laws of physics and just say "light just happened to work differently during this certain period of time so our beliefs don't have to be changed, mmmkay?".

---

I havn't heard this. Do you have some references? (As an asside, the article given in the OP used the supposed change in the speed of light as evidence for a young earth, 6 24 hour day creation)

quote:

---

Originally posted by CobraA1:
*does some research*

OK, you're correct (found Maxwell both in my physics book and online) - but I lost my train of thought - why was this important again?

---

Oh, the article just used the permitivity, permiability and impedance of free space as evidence that it wasn't really "empty" -- there is other evidence (ZPE), but as far as I've heard, permiability, permitivity and impedence arn't evidence. Correct me if I'm wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nfektious:
I don't put much value on the scientific community on issues of this magnitude. It isn't that I don't accept fact, but that fact seems to be mixed with the glory of discovery, creating a detrimental bias to the search for even small truths. The wisdom of man is not anything to build on - as scripture mentions in so many different ways. I do enjoy reading the theory and hypothesis, however, and that is really my only interest in such things. When it all ends, understanding modern human thought in relation to Science only means that we have accepted what someone else believes to be true. Sure, some people can spend their whole life proving theorems and such about life in the here and now (or even the then and was), but what does that really matter when conscious thought is gone from your body?

---

*shrug* But if we _can_ understand the heavens (through science), and it _reaffirms_ that they were created by God, isn't that better? As far as what does it really matter... well, if scientific evidence brings people to a personal faith in Christ... I think it matters once you're dead

I do not put much stock in Reasons to Believe's interpretation of the original Hebrew, for not just in Genesis it clashes with many other experts I've read. Also, I disagree entirely with two of RTB's ideas; two of which I can remember this early in the morning. One, that Noah's flood was just localized and not global. Two, the more serious allegation, is that certain human races of the world native to Australia and Africa are NOT truly human, lacking a spirit, and are basically animals. I believe that the information for the second is one of Ross's books; just can't remember which. I also have a friend who considers himself an old world creationist and even he disagrees with many things on RTB's site.

Now for my own beliefs/biases: I am incline to believe the young earth stance but I consider myself open-minded, meaning that if enough solid proof is presented for an old earth I'll consider it. This means I usually do not get into arguments related to dating and timelines; except maybe to point out obvious errors. I do take one thing into consideration, that of dating the Earth based upon the Jewish genealogies. The problem is that the ~6500 years figure derives from a strict father-to-son, father-to-son reading of the Bible. Apparently, this method of dating may be off considering the Jewish writing habit of only listing people they consider important. This means there may be gaps of succeeding generations going on for who knows how many years, with the larger gaps likely to be inbetween Adam and Noah and other areas where not many important events occurred. Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify this since all the relevant records were destroyed in 70AD. Of course, considering Jewish history, with the nation constantly being taken over, etc, even those records may not help since Luke and John would have used these publicly available resources. The Jews themselves cannot date exactly when they were in Egypt and started their own calendar after their freedom from Babylon (do I remember that right? Been years since I've read that information.) Even so, I would hesitate to stretch the genealogies further than a million years, for even 100,000 years seems to be pushing it.

[This message has been edited by Gump (edited December 05, 2003).]

quote:

---

*shrug* But if we _can_ understand the heavens (through science), and it _reaffirms_ that they were created by God, isn't that better? As far as what does it really matter... well, if scientific evidence brings people to a personal faith in Christ... I think it matters once you're dead

---

i see science like trying to hack a black box API, and really this universe is like the most complicated undocumented interconnected API, so with trail and error we can put in cetian inputs and get certian outputs (though we might only see an aspect of that output), and from that we can make certian deductions, discoveries, marvel at the wonder of this API, however there are certian combinations of inputs that just perplex us, and all the time we discover the black box not neccisarily behaving how we would expect it to based on our previous 'reverse engineering'..
Science is wonderful, and can shwo God's glory in creation, His amazing ability, the details of a designer. But in the end i will trust not in my ability or any other brainy dudes ability to hack the black box, but trust the maker of this black box, who designed it, as well as me, who holds the universe together, who keeps my heart beating, he knows the number of hairs on my head, and knows the thoughts and needs of every one of the 6 or so billion people on this earth - all at once , plus more..
(considering if i could give just 1 second of my time and love to each person on this world would take about 200 years or so)

in faith i believe in a young earth, but i hold that belief to me much less important than the fundamentals of the gospel. i read the bible and accept it. I like reading different christian interpretations of how the current understanding of science could make it happen that way. i understand that those are theories , just like the secular ones, and even if one is right, it won't be completely right, as nobody will ever come close to completely understanding the marvels of God's creation, even with modern physics, genetics, we are just scratching the surface.

I also understand that new things come up that blow your equations and udnerstandings, i.e a 2d geometrist would swear till he was blue in the face that the angles of a triange add up to 180 degrees.. however go out into a large park and measure out a triangle and then measure the degrees, adn low and behold it is different. its just that the 2d geometrist didn't take into account 3d space, and concave and convex aspects - this is simple example, but in God's amazing creation its all like this, again and again. so i trust God who made it all, understands it all.

----------
gump , interesting abotu the geneologies, does the generations of jesus in matthew work out right amount of time generation wise between say Jesus and David? I believe though that the geneologies are quite correct , if so just because of the prophetical aspects, i.e the names of Adam to Noah put into a sentence in hebrew is a prophesy about the messiah in great detail.

-----------

Here are some questions?

I believe that God could have used something like evolution in his creation, How do i a human know how he did it?, but i believe the bible, and God creates by Saying things, He speaks things into being, and in other cases - it just happens. for example adam was made as an adult. (and if you looked at him on day too, you would have thought he had a history, that he was 30 years old or something, we look at the earth, and because of the history of the earth since, we think it must have had a history before. but things can be created with the apperance of a history from our perspective. i.e lets say i make a program that caculates primes, just keeps on going.. but i actually hard code in the first 1000 primes, before i RUN the program, but in the program it shows all the primes the first 1000, plus what has been calculated over hte history of the program running, an observer would look at my numbers, assume that it started from zero, calculate the length of time my program has been running by how long it takes to calculate a certian amount of primes (ok, lets say calculating a prime number is equal amount of time - bad example)

---------------------
also having woman made from a Rib is definately not evolutionary

what about the questions of the dinosaurs, most people, including christians assume they were before Humans, and were wiped out and died out before. I've heard so many theories, from them being created by genetic expiriments of the antedeluvians (but i believe the array of species is too broad for that), that they were created by the devil to menace humanity (but i believe that God is the creator not the devil) and so many things. But most people again believe that they are before man.

that belief i believe stems from a long earth, EVOLUTIONARY mindset.

the main reason i cannot accept evolution as a tool for creation, and the dinosaurs before man, is because evolution is based on life, death cycles.

Before Man sinned, creation was perfect, there was no death. It was like what the bible says the new earth will be like, with lions and lambs sitting down together, without the lion eating flesh, so there were no preman flesh eating dinosaurs - period. it was Sin that caused all that. i believe sin changed everything, even the laws of our universe - weeds, diseases are a result of the curse resulting from sin, every since entropy has been causing the universe to decay.. the bible says all creation is groining under the pressure of the results of sins, waiting for the redemption of mankind for its redemption also.
its a mystery how a vegeterian lion became a flesh eating lion, how overnight weeds and such came out. God knows these things. our science can never really explain it, as we exist in the post fall period, though of course there is nothing wrong trying to understand all we can, as long as we do it in a way to glorify God.

Karl

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papillon:
As far as if the days in Genesis are ages or 24-hour days, check out:

In particular, there's a word study of Genesis 1 there (which I guess you can check with a concordance)

Apparently, the Hebrew words translated evening and morning in English here can also mean ending and begining. My real point here is that the Bible allows either interpretation AFAIK, but old earth creationism seems to fit better with scientific evidence.

---

Well, it just happens that I have a couple of concordances with me - A "PC Study Bible" software, and www.blueletterbible.com.

According to the "PC Study Bible":

6153 `ereb (eh'-reb);

from 6150; dusk:

KJV-- + day, even (-ing, tide), night.

According to blueletterbible.com:

1) evening, night, sunset

a) evening, sunset

b) night

. . . I'm afraid his interpretation of "beginning" for 'ereb seems to be off, I'd question it. Sorry, I'd have to question the word study - I think it's purposely biased towards a certain interpretation.

In any case, simply showing that "it's possible to interpret it that way" and showing that "that's the meaning the author intended" are two different things. So, the question is: Why should I not use a literal translation in this particular passage? It seems that when there's more than one interpretation possible, the default should be a straightforward reading.

quote:

---

but old earth creationism seems to fit better with scientific evidence.

---

At issue is the correct interpretation of a biblical passage, not whether it fits scientific evidence.

Heh, this demonstrates a slight difference in philosophy: I look at tbe Bible first, then science, but you seem to look at science first, then the Bible.

So, the question is:

Do we use science to interpret the Bible? Why or why not?

The problem with using man's interpretations is that man is often flawed, and sometimes contradictary - one person's interpretation often is different from another's. I prefer to let the scripture and the history surrounding the scripture interpret itself - I've got a self-study Bible, which has lots of cross-references all over the place.

Which means I don't neccessarily look to science to interpret the scriptures, especially since science is never a static field - it's always changing, and therefore unreliable at best to help explain the Bible.

quote:

---

Oh, the article just used the permitivity, permiability and impedance of free space as evidence that it wasn't really "empty" -- there is other evidence (ZPE), but as far as I've heard, permiability, permitivity and impedence arn't evidence. Correct me if I'm wrong.

---

I'm not sure it's relevant to this discussion anyway, so I'll just leave this issue as it stands.

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - Planning, writing GFX basecode.

Edit: Fix bad UBB tags . . .

[This message has been edited by CobraA1 (edited December 05, 2003).]

As far as the other issue -- do we use the Bible to interpret science, or science to interpret the Bible...

I don't know about you, but I'm of the oppinion that science and the Bible can coexist... so if we understand science correctly, and the Bible correctly, then the two will be in perfect harmony. Unfortunately, I don't think that _anyone_ completely understands _either_ (or is it possible to understand either completely before we reach heaven), thus we are stuck trying to reconsile our imperfect understanding of science with our imperfect understanding of the Bible.

Getting back to the question of "fitting the Bible to science", or "fitting science to the Bible", I would say that any scientific theory which directly contradicts the Bible (such as evolution), should be rejected. However, if a theory purports to have elements which can be tested scientifically, and those scientific tests fail, that theory should also be rejected.

At the end of the day though, does it really matter if one believes that God created the universe in 6 ages rather than 6 24 hour periods? My original post was to point out some perceived errors in the referenced article... not really to debate 24-hour vs ages. Although I'm still doubtful about the claims of the article, it doesn't mean that other evidence doesn't exist, or another type of 24-hour day creation isn't true...

-- Keith

P.S. The main thrust of my original post was that although the article purports to be scientific, the science doesn't match what I've been taught. And since they don't provide references to their scientific sources, it's hard to verify.

quote:

---

that belief i believe stems from a long earth, EVOLUTIONARY mindset.

---

Whoa, whoa, whoa... back up...

old earth != evolution

Even given the timeline for an old earth, evolution is still impossible, and thus should be rightly rejected.

As far as your other points, check out the RTB website... I don't want to re-iterate it all here

quote:

---

Two, the more serious allegation, is that certain human races of the world native to Australia and Africa are NOT truly human, lacking a spirit, and are basically animals.

---

What he's refering to here are neandrathals and such...the species evolutionists consider "missing links" between apes and humans... NOT any human races which exist today.

quote:

---

I don't know about you, but I'm of the oppinion that science and the Bible can coexist...

---

So am I . . .

I guess we just disagree whether a young earth is possible then . . .

quote:

---

Whoa, whoa, whoa... back up...

old earth != evolution

---

AFAIK, the reason for having old earth theories is to back up Evolution, which requires long periods of time to work. Without Evolution, I really don't see any reason to blindly follow old earth ideas.

Without Evolution, why keep old Earth?

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - Planning, writing GFX basecode.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gump:
Actually, you're wrong on that.

---

Read (an email exchange between AiG and RTB)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0704rtb.asp#rana1

I believe it's addressed in there.

(The main discussion is RTB alleging that AiG misrepresenting their theories. Also covered though is how "missing links" are related to modern humans, and whether they have souls).

[This message has been edited by Papillon (edited December 06, 2003).]

quote:

---

So am I . . .

I guess we just disagree whether a young earth is possible then . . .

---

*nod*

quote:

---

Originally posted by CobraA1:
AFAIK, the reason for having old earth theories is to back up Evolution, which requires long periods of time to work. Without Evolution, I really don't see any reason to blindly follow old earth ideas.

Without Evolution, why keep old Earth?

---

No... check out the article which was copy-and-pasted into this thread (not the original article). I believe all that is _assuming_ an old earth.

The reason for keeping an old Earth is it seems to agree better with scientific observations (astronomy, geology, etc.)

In fact, I think there's reasonable evidence that even given an _infinite_ amount of time, spontanious generation of life and evolution is impossible... I don't have any references for this though, so I'm not going to insist.

Maybe I'm just half asleep (it's late right now), but which article? Posted by whom?

quote:

---

The reason for keeping an old Earth is it seems to agree better with scientific observations (astronomy, geology, etc.)

---

Depends on who you ask - most people say the scientific observations agree with their side. Ask young-earthers, they'll say scientific observations agree with a young earth. Ask old-earthers, they'll say scientific observations agree with an old earth. Amusing, yes, but it doesn't really get us anywhere.

Give two people with two different views a piece of any of any "evidence" and they will both be able to explain it and fit it into their views quite nicely.

The problem won't go away, and there's a logical explanation why:

If P, then Q
Q
therefore P.

Seeing as you're in engineering, you should probably recognize this: It's affirming the consequent, and should be recognized as fallacious. Problem is, that's how we try to make things work:

"If my theory is true, then the evidence should agree"
"The evidence agrees"
"Therefore, my theory is true"

oops . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Believe me, the debate about the evidence will go on. And on, and on, and on . . .

quote:

---

In fact, I think there's reasonable evidence that even given an _infinite_ amount of time, spontanious generation of life and evolution is impossible... I don't have any references for this though, so I'm not going to insist.

---

Well, geez, since we agree that spontaneous generation of life didn't happen, there's not much to argue about.

But I suppose I could give some advice: If somebody claims infinite time, ask them where they get infinite time. I mean, really, where in the world do they get infinite time from? The Big Bang was supposed to be a long time ago, but still a finite time. Usually, they resort to some sort of theory about infinite universes, but the truth is we can't see beyond our own universe, much less know about other universes - in the end, the "infinite amount of time" theories all rest on something that can't be measured by science.

But yes, I agree that spontaneous generation of life is impossible.

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - Planning, writing GFX basecode.

quote:

---

Maybe I'm just half asleep (it's late right now), but which article? Posted by whom?

---

Posted by grump -- it's not a link, just inlined text.

As far as scientific evidence agreeing with young/old earth --

The young-earth people reject a lot of "main-stream" physics (radiometric dating comes to mind) -- of course, we all reject a lot of "main-stream" biology (such as evolution), so I'm not sure that this is the best argument.

As far as circular reasoning -- please refrain from making accusations for which you have no evidence. People have their own pet theories, but unless you have proof please don't speculate.

-- Keith

-- Keith

[This message has been edited by Papillon (edited December 08, 2003).]

quote:

---

The young-earth people reject a lot of "main-stream" physics (radiometric dating comes to mind)

---

It's not physics itself, it's the application we question .

quote:

---

of course, we all reject a lot of "main-stream" biology (such as evolution), so I'm not sure that this is the best argument.

---

Take care not to let it get to you - it's only a small piece we're really rejecting, not the whole thing . I accept the idea that my hair color is determined by my genes. That's simple genetic variation. It's the idea that this somehow means everything has a common ancestor that I reject.

quote:

---

As far as circular reasoning

---

. . . . . . ?

Maybe I'm not the only one half-asleep ? I never said anything about circular reasoning . . .

Are you talking to me, or somebody else?

From Gump's posted article:

quote:

---

*Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it!

---

Yes, I would say it's safe to assume that they did indeed account for long periods of time in their calculations . . .

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - Planning, writing GFX basecode.

I don't have access to any resources here, so I havn't tracked it down... and have no idea of the reliability/slant of the authors. Thought I'd just throw it up here though.

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - Planning, writing GFX basecode.

1) Evidence that the speed of light isn't constant: they pointed me to
http://www.setterfield.org
http://www.khouse.org/6640/technical/BP078.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/07/1028157961167.html

also
http://www.ldolphin.org/bowden.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/bowden/centj.html

2) They'd also talked about some 10^12 factor which reduced 16 billion years to 6 days. I asked where this factor came from -- no answer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gump:
Considering some of them have co-written books with Hugh Ross it's obvious where their bias lies.

---

And since most people who come to the conclusion that the earth is young are in the young-earth creationist camp it shows where their bias lies too. Your point?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gump:
You said you had "no idea of the slant of the authors", which is why I pointed that out. I interpreted "slant" as to meaning "bias".

---

http://www.nature.com/nsu/031215/031215-2.html

"'Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing,' answered Holmes thoughtfully; 'it may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different' . . . 'There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.'" --Sherlock Holmes, "The Boscombe Valley Mystery"

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - Planning, writing GFX basecode.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papillon:
What he's refering to here are neandrathals and such...the species evolutionists consider "missing links" between apes and humans... NOT any human races which exist today.

---

That has been my understanding of what Ross has said as well.. I haven't seen anything about aborigines or the like being sub-human.. just Neandertals.

------------------
A must read: http://www.christiancoders.com/cgi-bin/articles/show_article.pl?f=christiancaleb01112002.html

------------------
So if I stand let me stand on the promise that you will pull me through, and if I can't let me fall on the grace that first brought me to you. And if I sing let me sing for the joy that has born in me these songs, and if I weep let it be as a man who is longing for his home.
(Rich Mullins)

quote:

---

Originally posted by crptc_prgrmr:
Just to continue,
A strong pointer, Hugh Ross doesn't know Hebrew. I know a guy who attempted to speak to him in it and he couldn't understand a word. In a book of his a made a major mistake with his claims about the days of genesis. The original language is pretty clear, so study for yourself.

---

My two cents, since I'm trying to learn Hebrew right now: This is hardly conclusive for a number of reasons. 1) There are at least two major ways to pronounce Modern Hebrew (I've also seen references to a minor variation... a sort of 3rd seminary version as well), and your friend could be pronouncing it according to one dialect and Ross __may__ understand a different one. (Think of the biblical example of siboleth vs. shiboleth.. and that was native speakers!) 2) Many linguists will argue that there is a significant difference between spoken and written fluency. It is very possible that Ross can read/write far better than he can speak/listen. In fact, it is often easier to read a language than to write it. 3) The pronunciation of Hebrew is very important for the understanding of it.. is your friend fluent.. at a native speaker level? Or self study such as myself? That can have a BIG impact. 4) Even if he doesn't know the language, he can do what so many other people (esp. pastors!) do and use a concordance and lexicon.

So in short, I feel that a lot of assumptions are being made about Ross' abilities that are not warranted based on the information available.

Ok.. given that.. here are areas that I think are legitimate questions (of course there could be others) wrt to Ross' position:
1) Long day interpretation. In particular evening and morning may be problematic (I don't think Yom is problematic because of Gen2.6). If his reference is biased, this could undermine his interpretation. In particular, for me to be satisfied w/ his reference, I'd have to know of at least one unambiguous case either in the OT or in ancient Hebrew texts that use the "evening / morning" words as beginning and end of time period.
2) Global vs. local flood. I know his arguments, and even find some of them to be acceptable, but some I do not.

Slightly related:

I ask that people who are argueing against Ross' position not ascribe beliefs to him that are not on the record at his website. If you wish to disagree, there is plenty there already.. but just because (respected young earther) X says Ross believes something doesn't mean it is true. Go to the original source and see for yourself. (Or if you prefer Reagan's saying: Trust but verify.) Otherwise, it is gossip and innuendo.

------------------
A must read: http://www.christiancoders.com/cgi-bin/articles/show_article.pl?f=christiancaleb0 1112002.html

[This message has been edited by torial (edited March 02, 2004).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gump:
What Ross says doesn't autmatically equate to what all Old Earth Creationists believe.

---

Certainly true.. I differ w/ Ross in some areas.

quote:

---

As an example, ALL of my old earth believing friends think Ross has some pretty anti-Biblical ideas and disagree on his Bible translations...

---

Out of curiousity, who do your friends find to be more Biblical? Even MacArthur gives Ross credit for being more orthodox than most old-earth proponents...

------------------
A must read: http://www.christiancoders.com/cgi-bin/articles/show_article.pl?f=christiancaleb01112002.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gump:
Main disagreement : Days = ages. They believe the literal translation that God 7 literal days for creation, yet, at the same time, believe it is set further back in time than most young earth estimates based upon geneologies (sp?). There's more they disagree with but it's been a while since we've discussed it and I would have to ask them again.

---

Thanks for the reply.

Hm.. I've heard of something similar: is it along the lines of maybe the earth/universe is 20k to 70k years old instead.. and the reason is that the genealogies may not be complete (e.g. Luke has one name that Genesis doesn't)?

------------------
A must read: http://www.christiancoders.com/cgi-bin/articles/show_article.pl?f=christiancaleb01112002.html

1. why is Genesis 1 the only place in the Bible that the meaning of the word DAY is questioned? Why not Jonah being in the whale? maybe he was there 3 millions years? Maybe Jesus took 3000yrs before raising from the dead?

Could it be because it contradicts evolution?

2. Thorns are a result of the curse. That's a fact
Fossilised Thorns have been found. That's another fact

If evolution is true and earth is millions of years old and thorns existed for millions of years then what did the curse do to the earth?

--------------

A question for everyone.
If you took NO outside information. NO scientists, NO theologians and took the Bible ALONE! NOTHING ELSE. No preconceptions or ANYTHING.

If you did that would you get the idea that the earth is millions of years old? Or would you get the idea that the earth is only thousands of years old?

But no, my Old Earth friends tend to think the Earth is millions if not billions of years old, though they are not hard set on a date like 4.6 billion years. They actually have no problem with only a couple million years, but they tend to be more biased toward larger amounts of time. There is a limit though. After all, around 14 billion years for the universe is all that Hubble's Constant will allow. If evolutionists could push it higher, they would.

Also, skynes, fossilization does not take millions of years. In the right conditions, it can occur in less than a month.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skynes:
A couple of points:

1. why is Genesis 1 the only place in the Bible that the meaning of the word DAY is questioned? Why not Jonah being in the whale? maybe he was there 3 millions years? Maybe Jesus took 3000yrs before raising from the dead?

Could it be because it contradicts evolution?

---

A few reasons come to mind:
1) The context mixed with our experiences and understanding of the examples you give doesn't lend itself to that interpretation. For instance nobody believes that a man or a whale would live 3 million years.. the oldest age in the Bible for a man is about 960 years. The context doesn't make sense, because if Jonah was some period of time longer than a few decades in the belly, there would be no way the length of the Assyrian empire known in history wouldn't match the Biblical interpretation. So that caps the ambiguity someone might propose to about 30 years;-) Jesus raising 3000 years : first the example is given to us in the greek, which doesn't use YOM for day, second, the disciples wouldn't be alive when Jesus was risen (unless some unspecified further miracle took place.. let alone Pontius Pilate!.. Why would God keep him alive 3000 years to be alive during Jesus' resurrection?).

For some or many people (depending on who you ask), the Genesis account has a lot more contextual flexibility than the accounts you listed above. 1)Only the introduction of man is involved in Gen1, so interpreting YOM to be age doesn't do crazy things with the age of man. 2)Depending on whether there is any unambigious usage in Hebrew of evening and morning as beginning and end of age, there may be a consistent interpretation of Genesis as describing ages that the earth and universe went through.

2) I'd say because it contradicts what physicists [Big Bangers] claim about the age of the universe, not because of what biologists [Evolutionists] claim about the age of the universe. In terms of old earthers' beliefs, my guess is that the overall importance of Genesis 1 (wrt to any kind of faith question) is: "Is God in charge? Did He make the universe, earth, and man?". Old earthers, such as Ross, seem to delight in pointing out how physics shows that only a loving designer could explain the existence of the universe. This is definitely not a move to placate evolutionists.

3) The interpretation of a long day could also be faithful to Scripture. Consider:

quote:

---

But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (II Peter 3:8)

---

quote:

---

2. Thorns are a result of the curse. That's a fact
Fossilised Thorns have been found. That's another fact

If evolution is true and earth is millions of years old and thorns existed for millions of years then what did the curse do to the earth?

---

Upon what scripture are you basing that claim? I've never heard or seen it before. I did a google search and found a site making the same claim, from this scripture(taken from their website, I don't have a clue as to the version)

quote:

---

Gen. 3:17-18 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;

---

quote:

---

A question for everyone.
If you took NO outside information. NO scientists, NO theologians and took the Bible ALONE! NOTHING ELSE. No preconceptions or ANYTHING.

If you did that would you get the idea that the earth is millions of years old? Or would you get the idea that the earth is only thousands of years old?

---

To be honest, I don't know. Does it depend on my Bible version? Am I a native speaker of Hebrew in this hypothetical arena? To ask a counter question, since we are assuming readings without ANY preconceptions, how would you interpret this Scripture?

quote:

---

"And in that day there shall be a Root of Jesse,
Who shall stand as a banner to the people;
For the Gentiles shall seek Him,
And His resting place shall be glorious."
It shall come to pass in that day
That the LORD shall set His hand again the second time
To recover the remnant of His people who are left,
From Assyria and Egypt,
From Pathros and Cush,
From Elam and Shinar,
From Hamath and the islands of the sea.
He will set up a banner for the nations,
And will assemble the outcasts of Israel,
And gather together the dispersed of Judah
From THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH.
(Isaiah 11:10-12, New King James Version)

---

Modern physics and research tell me the earth is round, if you were reading your english version, without preconcieved notions of Nasa pictures, or people circling the earth (after all that is extra-biblical), would you believe in a round earth if you took this verse literally in the english?

My point in asking this question is that even what is the most natural reading to me could be dead wrong. I have such a different culture and context than what Jews and Greeks had that I invariably will not account for nuances in the culture and language.. and so my reading of Scripture will not be perfect. I have a hard time believing that anyone reading Scripture at this point in time will be able to understand all the intricacies of the language and nuances of the culture.

Please don't mistake this for something I am NOT saying: that because there is imperfection in our ability to contemplate and understand Scripture, that it is not worthwhile to try to do so. I believe the opposite, but think some humility [realizing that our own understanding is not nec. a good picture of how things really are]should be applied when reading the Bible.

------------------
A must read: http://www.christiancoders.com/cgi-bin/articles/show_article.pl?f=christiancaleb0 1112002.html

[This message has been edited by torial (edited March 05, 2004).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by skynes:
The word 'begat' in the OT doesn't mean "Is the father of" it menas more along the lines of "Became the ancestor of"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gump:

Exactly, which is where the debate comes in. We know some sections are direct lineages of fathers and sons (like from David to Solomon), so if there are gaps where are they and how large?

---

This would be very interesting to seek how big the gaps in the genealogies are when compared w/ other genealogies in the Bible. I think it would be useful for approximating a gap rate.. and even possibly extrapolating the time period of Adam and Eve more accurately.

The only gap I can think of off hand is the one where Luke has Cainan and Genesis does not.

------------------
A must read: http://www.christiancoders.com/cgi-bin/articles/show_article.pl?f=christiancaleb01112002.html