Genesis 1:14 - what does it indicate?

Faith & Science Conversation
45

No that isnt quite right…you are claiming the secular old age interpretation is fact…and that isnt true. Its theory, not fact. There are plausible opposing theories…, but since you dont agree with thos interpretations…they arent facts.

The issue is, your interpretation has almost no historical written or oral support…only modern theory. Given that the latest claim by evolutionary science is that in fact the earth is actually more than twice the age secular science thought it was (its now proposed to be over 10 billion years old), you were so certain of the 4.54 figure) i think you now have a big factual problem!

One of the oldest stars known to science, fittingly named Methuselah is, by some estimates, somehow older than the known universe. Obviously, that is impossible, though margins of error could place it before the Big Bang. And Methuselah isn’t the only cosmological anomaly. New JWST data also revealed at least six galaxies way too massive for how early they formed in the Universe’s past.

I think the above supports the idea that the biblical creation account was not recording the entire universe creation, but just that of our reality. And that is a far more consistent conclusion using scripture as our authoritative guide.

46

You still can’t deal with girdled rocks, can you, Adam.

47

This has already been dealt with…there is no issue here im nor sure why you keep ignoring the responses and deal with the evolutionary problems that dont have answers…,expain the above story please Einstein…why all of a sudden the chabe to a 26 billion year old universe? Oh thats right, we have to increase the number because 6 galaxies and a star are clearly older than 13.54 billiion years

48

Those are just more empty words because you never have, speaking of ignoring.

1 Like
49

But, we are not talking about “ Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam”. We are talking about the two people (not the first original people) god assigned with the original task of creating sacred space.

The bible is telling us a story of our separation from god not of our biological, physical evolution.

The two people god assigned with task were working together, yes there’s no evidence of this, but this is where our faith comes into calling.

“Syntax Adam” and “Syntax Eve”, in the bible are not, “ Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam, which are named so because of the bible reference but are not the bible referenced people.

There had to have been an event to separate us from god, (the fall) to have an event for the reconciliation with god. The death and resurrection of Jesus.

Again I’m not referring to the fall in a literal depiction of a snake hanging from a tree telling Eve to take a bite of an apple.

All that detail is irrelevant really, all we know is at this point in time whenever it was, god was still ordering his creation, something who’s nature was not of gods order, a creature of chaos persuaded the first woman assigned to create gods order on earth (not the first woman on earth) to question god and break gods universal ordering command. Which was a rule given to offer them choice, freewill, the option to be in a relationship with god, or out of one.

50

No you just dont bother reading anything outside of your own narrow pathway…

51

If science tells us there were no, first original two people, a Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam that skipped hand in hand across Eden and populated the globe. The biblical Adam and Eve can not be “shoe horned”, into a first beings on earth fit.

They exist as possible priests or just people of faith.

52

And this is where a huge theological dilemma arises for TEism…

Christ physically lived and then died a physical death on the cross.

If Adam and Eves fall resulted in only a spiritual death, please explain the sacrificial system where real sheep and goats were physcially killed and that this pointed forward to a physical atonement by the physical death of the Messiah on the cross.

Then explain the physical ressurrection, physical ascention into heaven, and finally, the Christian belief in the physical return of Christ at the second coming where the saints will meet Him together in the air with those who have died in Christ?

53

citation please.

Methuselah is evidently from the early universe, but it has been recently estimated to be in the 12-13 billion year range, well within the big bang timeline. Somebody has to be oldest.

Now that JWST spectrographic analysis is in, the z distances for those early galaxies have fallen in line. That is not about scientists changing their minds, that is the data becoming available. Some things take time.

There is no change and the 13.5 billion year age for the big bang is still close to universally accepted. This is one physics professor indulging in blue sky thinking, which goes on all the time. Science, astrophysics in particular, begins with all sorts of guesses and hypothesis, but a slender few of these will ever make it through peer review and further observations.

1 Like
54

A lot of irony there, and you are still avoiding and failing to deal with girdled rocks.

55

However, the existence of stars like Methuselah, which appear older than the universe’s estimated age, and the discovery of early galaxies with advanced evolutionary characteristics have perplexed scientists.

These early galaxies, observed only 300 million years after the Big Bang, exhibit levels of maturity and mass typically associated with billions of years of cosmic evolution, presenting a significant puzzle.

56

Christians should read Jeremiah 33:25 and ignore YECs who pretend universal constants can change because of their eisegesis:

This is what the LORD says: If I have not established my covenant with the day and the night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth…

57

Dale if i were you i would concern myself more with the problem of the origins of evil…that is the big dilemma you face. Support your view biblically please.

58

Well we die a spiritual death and then we receive a spiritual eternal life. Because of the physical death of Christ. The rule break was physical, the redemption act was physical. Receiving death and receiving life is spiritual.

I’m not an expert on everything and part of being a Christian is faith. I’m not arguing the existence of god and whether the theology of the bible is real or not. I’m just saying genius does not tell the story of evolution and the formation of the universe and earth.

59

With your monotonous song and dance.

60

Thank you for your reply, but there is nothing there at all about the earth being 10 billion years old.

1 Like
61

Tecnically maybe, but this is not a court of law, and we are not judges. God gave us the freed om to follow or ignore, For that to be true ten the decision to ignore must be valid. Go figure.

That is an accepted meaning. The Bible can be read on many levels and the New Testament repurposes Hebrw Scripture in retrospect. The problem with any foretelling is that the true meaning rarely comes apparent until after the event…

That would be ""Anything thtat contradicts me (insert self not Richard)

Agreed on the frst part.
Accountability to God? Is subject to recognising Him. And God does not demand it (apparently, assuming frere will)

Unfortunately that is not true, otherwise there would be no courts of law. For a fact to be true it must be verified. That meteor might just ne a boulder
.

That canoot be verified so it cannot be asserted. We can verify certain aspects of evolution but not the macro assertions.

To be honest I am not sure wheter you are trying to justify Original Sin or not. It would appear that you think one x and ne y iis enought to form a gene pool?

Eureeka

Where have you been recently? Your answers are refreshing to me

Standard deferral. If you do not like the question fend it off with a plattitude or two. You know: nt appropriate, you know nothing, usal stuff.

And you are claiming them physical existence in a magical garden with a tree that imbues knowledge…

That is circular logic. SIn always existed so the “cure” was always needed. Adam did not create sin. The fact that God waited a few thousand years before sending Christ might tell you something. Otherwise God has condemned everyone prior to Him (et al)

Brilliant! .We can ignore all reaity for good theology.

That is probably the most rational and sensible assertion I have seen here. Using the Bible for what it is meant for.

Richard

PS I am not agreeing with the X Y theory just the arguments with assertive evolutionists

62

My learned friend, evolution was known fact more than two hundred years ago, and deemed fact before the time of Christ. Theory explains fact; the name of the theory that helps us understand how evolution happens is Natural Selection. Charles Darwin had no way to anticipate the fine details such as DNA, the inevitable DNA copy errors, etc. But his brilliant insight melded nicely into the developing science of DNA, evolution, the Tree of Life, and so forth. Secular is not the same as false, by the way. Secular science has helped invent computer chips, display screens, the 747, the Space Shuttle - - -
I hope you see the point. Fact is secular while interpretation of fact is spiritual. Spirit, when it presents itself before fact and calls it a name (secular) in an effort to defeat it? It stops being spiritual.
We never reach modern theory in isolation - historical support consists in the fact that knowledge has been accumulating for far longer back than either of us can do more than guess at.
The only factual problem is owned by people who call facts by odd names and expect that to constitute a persuasive argument.
For instance: Until as recently as the 19th or at least mid-18th Century there was no dividing line between seminary and university. Knowledge had value to men of God, as testimony to what God had wrought, since the First Century itself.
Science is a way to adore God. Currently philosophers have noticed that the swelling mountains of fact describe what happened after the Big Bang, hence “there is no God anywhere in the fine print.”
You and I can realize that the opening verses of Genesis declare God as Author of the big bang: God creates time itself, space, matter, and light. It’s all right there.

63

I am sorry, but this is not a universal understanding.
As far as i am concerned God is the father of science. It is just an expression of his creative working. I argue against nontheistic evolution that would exclude God from His creation.
There are those who view this as an attack on science and or evolution and seem to take it personally. I guess the safest and easiest thing would be to leave the status quo alone. The angst and unchristian behaviour sparked might confirm this. Mia culpa.

Richard

64

That passage was always taken as Messianic, so if Christ is the Messiah it doesn’t take any effort at all to “[read] Jesus into” it.

I’m guessing you guys are working from the NIV. I have to point out that this is another passage where they take serious liberties with the text and render an interpretation rather than just a translation. It isn’t talking about not being recognizable as human, it’s talking about being more deformed than anyone would consider normal (in a rather barbaric age!).

No one had to “make” it anything; second Temple Judaism regarded that as a Messianic Psalm. It was only after Christians recognized that Jesus was the Messiah and thus that it spoke of Him that the interpretation got changed.

I’m not seeing this “evil theology”, in either English or the LXX (it’s too late at night for me to try to employ my rusty Hebrew to read the whole thing).