You can initiate a private message, and invite others to it, and it will not show up on the public boards but only to those invited.
- Now, I’ll post this message to you in the public thread, which is viewable by everyone, including Moderators and, therefore, subject to the “rules” governing public discourse.
- I just did, in order to show him what a private thread looks like and how to get out of one. There’s one thing I don’t know yet. I can remove myself from the private thread, and I know, from experience, that–as the initiator of that private thread, I can “remove” anyone I want to remove. But I don’t know if anyone else can remove me.
Schroeder’s both old and young universe model does work as far as the science is concerned. From the point of view of an observer travelling at almost the speed of light, the age of the universe could be six microseconds or six thousand years or any other value less than the age that would be measured by an observer at rest relative to a specific part of the universe, depending on the exact speed. For example, to get the earth to age only 6,000 years to you when an observer on earth would see 4.56 billion years go by, simply travel at 0.99999999999913434903047053945162 times the speed of light.
Exegetically, it is somewhat problematical to explain why Genesis 1 would be written from the point of view of traveling at close to the speed of light.
Note, however, that this model contradicts standard young-earth teaching. Usually it is claimed that science “properly understood from a young-earth perspective” indicates a young age for the earth, whereas Schroeder affirms that science indicates an ancient earth if you are looking from the viewpoint of someone on earth.
Schroeder has endorsed some incorrect claims about other aspects of creation though, such as repeating the lie that Cambrian fossils were hidden away because they posed a challenge to evolution. In reality, the Burgess Shale fossils were reported in numerous scientific publications and even National Geographic in the early 1900’s. The claim that these fossils are a problem for evolution is based on interpretations of their identity that began to be developed in the 1970’s as they were restudied with new techniques and based on improved dating in the 1990’s of the relevant layers that decreased the time involved for the Cambrian “Explosion”. No, Walcott did not hide the specimens in museum drawers because of claims about evolution that would be made decades later. And specimens were distributed to numerous museums. I actually have a fossil from the Burgess as a result of that.
The basic problem with faith being strengthened by young-earth teaching is what that faith is in. The more someone hears that young-earth claims are the best explanation for everything, the more they may trust in those claims. But that is not faith in Christ; it is faith in the traditions of creation science. The testimonies promoted in the YEC community tend to be “I used to be an evolutionist but now I’m a creationist”. But a Christian testimony is “I am repenting from my sin and trusting in the saving work of Jesus.” Creation science distracts from Christ.
It is also quite problematic that “science properly understood from a young earth perspective” is an incoherent mix of claims. There is not agreement within YEC about what that science looks like. Even within one individual’s claims, often there are contradictions. If someone is serious about promoting YEC, they need to pay attention to the quality of the arguments, rather than relying on quantity. There can be a range of views within a movement, but admitting to that range rather than claiming that my idea is the one and only YEC view is important for honesty and clarity.
7 Likes
Ehrman is a showman, picking titles and slanting things to get noticed. And while he does admit that 98% of variants can be resolved, he sure seems to want to give the opposite impression.
1 Like
I have never encountered anyone who actually studied science on a university level who would agree with the assertion here. What I have met is a fair number of people who don’t really understand science and thus can be convinced by the YEC proposals, along with YEC proponents who don’t actually understand the science either.
But that is precisely why I oppose YECism: while I have never seen anyone come to Christ due to YEC material I have seen many abandon their faith because they were raised with it and when they learned it was dishonest they did what YECists argue and concluded the entire Bible was unreliable (it is sad that they abandon their faith because YEC is shown to be wrong yet don’t take the next step and throw out the YEC reasoning that if the Earth isn’t a few thousand years old then the whole Bible is not trustworthy).
1 Like
Every time I’ve listened to him my mind has gone to the Well of Souls books by Jack Chalker where when the universe is reset from the “master computer” it takes only seven days to those in the control structure but billions outside.
Amen! That’s exactly what I observed with students who lost their faith due to their YEC upbringing.
One of the elders I knew at a Foursquare Gospel church made that observation about two retreats some of the church women had gone on: one group came back talking about the theme of their retreat while the other came back talking about Jesus. He posed the question about which retreat was money well spent.
People defending YEC ‘science’ not infrequently remind me of kids at the beach where a dam they built in a creek is leaking in multiple spots so they run back and forth throwing sand first here, then there, then over on the other end, frantically trying to plus holes with no thought to logical organization.
2 Likes
No. Our belief as Christians of the saving Grace of God through Jesus is enhanced is enhanced. Theistic evolution is when the Bible tells us that God created and science tells us how he systematically created. It is consistent with the interpretation of scripture( Reflections on Genesis in process). The omnipotence and omniscience of God is dramatically shown in the process. Deep time goes to the edge of creation before a timeless precreation and an outstanding statement in Ephesians. “Before the creation of the world God predestined that man would be found holy and plameless in his sight through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Think about that if you can, because the reality of a precreation stretches our minds when you add into it God’d plan of salvation was before there was a world, mankind, evil, sin and salvation. It seems God has a grand purpose here perhaps of cosmic proportions. I think that says a lot more about God than a young earth creation approach. Wish we had more time for this.
1 Like
@Christy You were asking about being misled; maybe this helps us understand we’re all learning. Are some people more afraid than others when they realize they are being misled by someone they trust? Or do some people find freedom?
I’m into evolution; I never believed in the six-day creation and am not sure how that came about, as written in the Torah Bible: six days. Was that a phrase they used back then?
Examples of phrases: I’ve noticed strange human-animals combinations in the Bible; it has meaning to those who learned about it, but to those who never learned, it might appear strange. Maybe the same about the six days of creation; it’s a language that may be used at one time but not meant to be taken literally; it’s a phrase they used back when.
Please read further below Christianity picture.
Example of language
Ezekiel 1:5-28 …‘Also from within it came the likeness of four living four living creatures creatures…
It has meaning for those who learned. It looks strange to those who don’t know. Because how is it that any creature looks like this? Yet it’s a phrase?
Phrases that has meaning yet appear confusing to those who don’t know
Here’s some examples phrases in English in this era.
-
Alright (when can I stop turning right) (Alright means yes)
-
Tomato (I only want one mato) (Tomato means tomato there’s no number)
-
German Shepherd (Where’s a German nationality person who’s a Shepherd guarding sheep?) German Shepard is a type of dog.
What phrases were used back when the Torah Bible was written that confused people later and/or caused a dependency taking phrases literally in order to continue with, or what - a threat if refused? If a threat, how fragile is Christianity, then? Jesus wasn’t a Christian yet how fragile was Jesus’ communication for our deeper understanding?
1 Like
I think you mean “inerrancy”, not “inherency”. Otherwise I agree. Accepting the Bible doesn’t mean assuming it’s meant to be taken literally in every respect. When Shakespeare said “all the world’s a stage” he didn’t mean it literally, but it’s still true.
1 Like
There are great resources for understanding the Bible. Like the Bible Project videos that incorporate good consensus scholarship. We don’t need to re-invent the wheel.
2 Likes
Yeah, I don’t forget to have a relationship with God, because God feeds my spirit, and that draws me to God. If I don’t have a relationship with God, then I get spiritually hungry and that causes me to go to God to get fed. I can go to God just as I am and have a relationship with God. A relationship I have with God. I’m into evolution but have never been into six-day creation. But either way a person is into, they can still have a relationship with God.
Not my drawing. Not my art. It’s someone who did this art based on scripture.
Oh I’m into evolution and I was wondering if six-day creation was another type of language, kind of like this drawing art. Using phrases to help communicate.
I’ll put the full scripture
https://biblehub.com/context/ezekiel/1-5.htm
◄ Ezekiel 1:5 ►
Context
5 Within it there were figures resembling four living beings. And this was their appearance: they had human form. 6Each of them had four faces and four wings. 7Their legs were straight and their feet were like a calf’s hoof, and they gleamed like burnished bronze. 8 Under their wings on their four sides were human hands. As for the faces and wings of the four of them, 9their wings touched one another; their faces did not turn when they moved, each went straight forward. 10As for the form of their faces, each had the face of a man; all four had the face of a lion on the right and the face of a bull on the left, and all four had the face of an eagle. 11Such were their faces. Their wings were spread out above; each had two touching another being, and two covering their bodies. 12And each went straight forward; wherever the spirit was about to go, they would go, without turning as they went. 13In the midst of the living beings there was something that looked like burning coals of fire, like torches darting back and forth among the living beings. The fire was bright, and lightning was flashing from the fire. 14And the living beings ran to and fro like bolts of lightning.
15Now as I looked at the living beings, behold, there was one wheel on the earth beside the living beings, for each of the four of them. 16The appearance of the wheels and their workmanship was like sparkling beryl, and all four of them had the same form, their appearance and workmanship being as if one wheel were within another. 17Whenever they moved, they moved in any of their four directions without turning as they moved. 18As for their rims they were lofty and awesome, and the rims of all four of them were full of eyes round about. 19Whenever the living beings moved, the wheels moved with them. And whenever the living beings rose from the earth, the wheels rose also. 20Wherever the spirit was about to go, they would go in that direction. And the wheels rose close beside them; for the spirit of the living beings was in the wheels. 21Whenever those went, these went; and whenever those stood still, these stood still. And whenever those rose from the earth, the wheels rose close beside them; for the spirit of the living beings was in the wheels.
Vision of Divine Glory
22Now over the heads of the living beings there was something like an expanse, like the awesome gleam of crystal, spread out over their heads. 23Under the expanse their wings were stretched out straight, one toward the other; each one also had two wings covering its body on the one side and on the other. 24I also heard the sound of their wings like the sound of abundant waters as they went, like the voice of the Almighty, a sound of tumult like the sound of an army camp; whenever they stood still, they dropped their wings. 25And there came a voice from above the expanse that was over their heads; whenever they stood still, they dropped their wings.
26Now above the expanse that was over their heads there was something resembling a throne, like lapis lazuli in appearance; and on that which resembled a throne, high up, was a figure with the appearance of a man. 27Then I noticed from the appearance of His loins and upward something like glowing metal that looked like fire all around within it, and from the appearance of His loins and downward I saw something like fire; and there was a radiance around Him. 28As the appearance of the rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the appearance of the surrounding radiance. Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell on my face and heard a voice speaking.
Thank you for website, I am looking at it now.
I’m into evolution and never been into 6 day creation. I was seeing if I could post how language was and is.
@Christy from your website
Video
Explains four creature
I screenshot this to show art in your video from your website video. How language was.
another screenshot of your video you shared, how language is
The appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.
I was seeing if I can show language and how it is for artist when drawing from scripture.
further down I added full scripture to this - I’ll go through your website please know that, however in this post, I’m failing at showing different style of languages.
Not my drawing. Not my art. It’s someone who did this art based on scripture.
Oh I’m into evolution and I was wondering if six-day creation was another type of language, kind of like this drawing art. Using phrases to help communicate.
I’ll put the full scripture
https://biblehub.com/context/ezekiel/1-5.htm
◄ Ezekiel 1:5 ►
Context
5 Within it there were figures resembling four living beings. And this was their appearance: they had human form. 6Each of them had four faces and four wings. 7Their legs were straight and their feet were like a calf’s hoof, and they gleamed like burnished bronze. 8 Under their wings on their four sides were human hands. As for the faces and wings of the four of them, 9their wings touched one another; their faces did not turn when they moved, each went straight forward. 10As for the form of their faces, each had the face of a man; all four had the face of a lion on the right and the face of a bull on the left, and all four had the face of an eagle. 11Such were their faces. Their wings were spread out above; each had two touching another being, and two covering their bodies. 12And each went straight forward; wherever the spirit was about to go, they would go, without turning as they went. 13In the midst of the living beings there was something that looked like burning coals of fire, like torches darting back and forth among the living beings. The fire was bright, and lightning was flashing from the fire. 14And the living beings ran to and fro like bolts of lightning.
15Now as I looked at the living beings, behold, there was one wheel on the earth beside the living beings, for each of the four of them. 16The appearance of the wheels and their workmanship was like sparkling beryl, and all four of them had the same form, their appearance and workmanship being as if one wheel were within another. 17Whenever they moved, they moved in any of their four directions without turning as they moved. 18As for their rims they were lofty and awesome, and the rims of all four of them were full of eyes round about. 19Whenever the living beings moved, the wheels moved with them. And whenever the living beings rose from the earth, the wheels rose also. 20Wherever the spirit was about to go, they would go in that direction. And the wheels rose close beside them; for the spirit of the living beings was in the wheels. 21Whenever those went, these went; and whenever those stood still, these stood still. And whenever those rose from the earth, the wheels rose close beside them; for the spirit of the living beings was in the wheels.
The description in the Bible is the way the ancients conceived of and described their world. “Six-day creation” is a construct that modern people (informed by Seventh Day Adventist theology and prophetic visions) have made with the ancient description. It’s not valid to assume that Australian or American modern YEC truth claims are the equivalent of either “the Bible” or “the ancient view.” They aren’t.
The description you pasted is from a vision. It isn’t a description of the natural world. So I don’t understand how it relates or doesn’t relate to evolution.
2 Likes
I’ve never been into 6-day creation.
S. Joshua Swamidass and he’s a Christian. I wonder if @SWilling thoughts of @Swamidass thoughts, and Does acceptance of “deep time” or evolution imperil Christian belief?
@Swamidass writes “What if the traditional account is somehow true, with the origins of Adam and Eve taking place alongside evolution?” You can see this further down this post.
@SWilling what are your thoughts about @Swamidass writes about?
Evolutionary science teaches that humans arose as a population, sharing common ancestors with other animals. Most readers of the book of Genesis in the past understood all humans descended from Adam and Eve, a couple specially created by God. These two teachings seem contradictory, but is that necessarily so? In the fractured conversation of human origins, can new insight guide us to solid ground in both science and theology? In The Genealogical Adam and Eve, S. Joshua Swamidass tests a scientific hypothesis: What if the traditional account is somehow true, with the origins of Adam and Eve taking place alongside evolution? Building on well-established but overlooked science, Swamidass explains how it’s possible for Adam and Eve to be rightly identified as the ancestors of everyone. His analysis opens up new possibilities for understanding Adam and Eve, consistent both with current scientific consensus and with traditional readings of Scripture. These new possibilities open a conversation about what it means to be human. In this book, Swamidass
- untangles several misunderstandings about the words human and ancestry, in both science and theology
- explains how genetic and genealogical ancestry are different, and how universal genealogical ancestry creates a new opportunity for rapprochement
- explores implications of genealogical ancestry for the theology of the image of God, the fall, and people “outside the garden”
Some think Adam and Eve are a myth. Some think evolution is a myth. Either way, the best available science opens up space to engage larger questions together. In this bold exploration, Swamidass charts a new way forward for peace between mainstream science and the Christian faith.
There’s a subtle point here that I first encountered in terms of different words in a grad school course on Romans: a modern summary can change the meaning of the material. In this case, “six days of creation” and “a six-day creation” are not necessarily the same thing – and given that “six days of creation” involves concepts from ancient literature and an ancient worldview, odds are that they are quite different things.
2 Likes
That’s not a new thought, BTW; it can be found in work at least back to the 1950s.
Since he has no credentials in biblical studies, and thin ones in biology . . . not worth my time to read, probably; my future reading list already has over two hundred volumes on it.
BTW, when you quote material it’s best to put it in quotes by highlighting it and then clicking on the quote mark symbol in the formatting options above the box for typing.
Well I certainly think it is “somehow” true. The questions are:
- HOW is it true?
- What is consistent with the demonstrable evidence?
- What gives the greatest meaning to Christianity?
3 → The greatest meaning is derived from having the most connection to reality as we experience it. We do not find any connection to Christian ideas and teachings in the biology and genetics and thus no meaning is given to Christianity by making Adam and Eve about human genetics. Christianity is about love, goodness, and a relationship with God, and thus we should look for connections to Adam and Eve involving these things.
2 → The demonstrable evidence is that our biological/genetic origin is an evolutionary process over billions of years, showing our connection to other species of this planet and when we had a common ancestor with those other species. And the evidence shows even our biological distinctives took million of years to develop.
1 → From this I conclude the best answer to how the story can be taken as somehow true is that God breathed life into Adam and Eve, according to the origin of the word “inspiration.” God spoke to two people Adam and Eve and through them brought the human mind to life with these ideas about persons, love, goodness, and a relationship with God.
Furthermore the meaning for Christianity will be diminished by making this too far into a past where the way of life of our ancestors did not change for millions of years since this would mean that the inspiration from God had no observable effect on them whatsoever. Thus the greatest meaning for Christianity is when this event described in answer to 1 is taken to be 6-10 thousand years ago close the beginning of human civilization. This just happens to be the time frame which also best agrees with the Biblical account.
But the important ancestry for Christianity is not one of genetics but one of culture, ideas, and the human mind. After all, we teach the idea that we are the children of God but that is not about genetics, but about following in His footsteps with regards to love, justice, goodness, and a relationship with Him.
The hypothesis that we have a genetic ancestry traceable to a single couple is not consistent with the current scientific consensus. And pushing Adam and Eve back in time to get a meaningless genetic connection subtracts from their meaningfulness more than it adds to it. And it doesn’t agree with the Biblical account either.
Making a distinction between “genealogical” and “genetic” sounds promising. But using the word “genealogical” contrary to its usual meaning is not very helpful since it adds confusion regarding what is actually being said. The result is… my best guess is that Swamidass is saying basically the same as what I am saying, but I am not completely certain.
My first post here, so take it easy on me…
Does acceptance of deep time and evolution imperil Christian belief generally? Given the fact that so many Christian believers accept both, the answer would have to be no.
However, if those theories/propositions are true they would have the potential to threaten the belief of individual Christians – me included, as it happens. For me and others who read Genesis as historical (or in the case of the creation events, pre-historical) narrative, deep time is somewhat problematic, while evolution, in the sense of universal common ancestry, is more problematic still.
The important question, I think, is whether they actually are true, and how to best go about deriving truth. Apart from my personal biases, or appeals to the authority of Scripture or principles of interpretation, it seems that science and the scientific method are not reliable means of deriving truth, for at least a couple of reasons.
First, scientific confirmation appears to affirm the consequent. In other words, inferring truth from discovery of data that fulfill a theory’s prediction holds to the pattern
If p, then q
q
p
which is fallacious.
Second, the long record of failed scientific theories through history suggests that the theories we currently believe to be true will be either falsified or replaced by better theories in the future (and even some of our currently successful theories, like quantum mechanics and general relativity, appear irreconcilable). But if theoretical science has never actually arrived at truth, we arguably have no solid grounds for thinking it ever will.
In short, I don’t see any reason to think that science should be a serious threat to even a straightforwardly “literal” (non-mythical, non-allegorical) narrative reading of Genesis. Some might say that I am an anti-realist about science, and a realist about Scripture.
That seems to be a minority position here…but I can live with that.
Respectfully,
Don