Otangelo has questions about the age of the earth

[r_speir]

Post deleted

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Socratic.Fanatic

R_speir, I think your post is a very useful one because you’ve explained an excellent example of how someone can embrace “six literal days” within an old earth view. You probably already know this, but readers may find it helpful to know that the view you are describing is often called The Days of Proclamation view of creation. Because God is outside of time (because time is an attribute of the matter-energy universe he created), the author wanted us to understand God’s “vantage point” outside of creation where he issued commands as separate creative acts but sure to be fulfilled within creation at the appropriate times throughout the timeline of the universe. Thus, when God issued the command that the waters would bring forth creatures, every timeline event related to the origins of various kinds of aquatic life became a sure thing. You could even say that God “authorized” the creation of each and every aquatic creature species but that that creative commandment was fulfilled throughout the timeline as appropriate. (Yes, evolutionary processes could be at work for many generations leading up to each of those species.) Likewise, when God created the beasts of the field, birds of the air, and everything which creepeth upon the earth, all of those creative events along the timeline became inevitable realities no matter where and when those events would occur.

Does my description of the Days of Proclamation fit what you are saying?

Notice that the Days of Proclamation don’t even have to be issued in a particular chronological order, because that culture was not bound by such chronological notions. Indeed, as a boss of a building project, I could issue orders as a general contractor to all of my subcontractors in any sequence I wish and give each a calendar date when they begin and end their work—because the subcontractors know from experience where the various elements come into play and how to integrate their labor into the building process of all of the trades. (Thus, I might issue the contract for the wiring of the building long before the foundation is poured. Everybody knows that the wiring comes later, but that doesn’t stop me from authorizing the work and telling them what to do and when.)

@Socratic.Fanatic

How wonderful! I’ve never heard of the Days of Proclamation Creation scenario! Perfect !

[Socratic.Fanatic]

If Mary Schweitzer’s solution was not “credible”, it wouldn’t have gotten past the journal’s peer-review committee.

[Patrick]

There are two new papers out on soft tissue. The first one is where Mary’s team repeated and greatly cleaned up her previous work. results are even more clear and precise. In the second paper, soft tissue may have been found going back 195 mya. If confirmed this will be spectacular

[Chris_Falter]

Hi Patrick,

Thanks for sharing this. Could you kindly provide links?

Best,
Chris

[Socratic.Fanatic]

I read that first one but had only heard of that second paper. So I’m baffled as to what r_speir considers “not credible.”

What I have yet to see is a Young Earth Creationist critic of Dr. Schweitzer’s work address the problems of their “young” interpretation of the soft tissue finds and explain why “young” dinosaur finds do not contain DNA fragments.

[Lynn_Munter]

I asked once in a different thread about how the T-rex fossils she based the original work on could be found under the iridium layer from the asteroid impact 65 million years ago if they were supposed to be evidence for dinosaurs living in the recent past. I don’t think I got an answer.

[Patrick]

Chris,
Here are the links to the latest Science Daily coverage of dinosaur soft tissue:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170123145210.htm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170201140952.htm

I wonder when someone here is going to get into discuss of feathered dinosaurs or birds being extant dinosaurs. I love the contortions YECs do on this area of rapid discovery. I am reading an article in March 2017 Scientific American on “The True Colors of Dinosaurs.” Really amazing discoveries and analysis.

[Otangelo_Grasso1 (Otangelo Grasso)]

@gbrooks9

No, the Bible does not lie. But the Bible does use figurative terminology. When Jesus says he is a Vine … he doesn’t mean he is really a Vine!

So when he , and the apostle Paul talked about Adam and Eve, that was figurative, too ? they were not alking about real persons ? If so, how did sin enter the world ?

[Otangelo_Grasso1 (Otangelo Grasso)]

@Socratic.Fanatic

In fact, they are making considerable headway in understanding how iron preserves some organic structures.

The problem is not iron only. The problem is radio carbon C14 dating, that gives a age of fossil bones less than 50th years. The problem is non permineralized fossils. And the problem is protein, beside hemoglobin, found in different fossils.

Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones, non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue like proteins are evidence for young fossils

heavenforum.org

[Otangelo_Grasso1 (Otangelo Grasso)]

@Bill_II

Based on your fallible interpretation of a fallible English translation of a text written by a people for which you have no conception of how they thought about what was written. Can you explain how it is you came up with what is described in Genesis and know for certain that it is correct?

we have word by word translations , like this one:

http://biblehub.com/lexicon/genesis/1-11.htm

its pretty clear you can by no way infer common ancestry based on it.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Otangelo_Grasso1

So when he , and the apostle Paul talked about Adam and Eve, that was figurative, too ? they were not alking about real persons ? If so, how did sin enter the world ?

@Otangelo_Grasso1,

There are two ways to answer this. One way is to presume that Paul’s language was figurative as well, as allowed for by holy inspiration.

And there is the way I prefer, which is that Jesus while dressed in a mortal body didn’t know anything more about creation of the Earth than the people who lived around him. When Jesus was a child, did he already know carpentry? Or did he still have to learn some Earth-bound skills and experiences.

As for this standard phrase: “If so, how did sin enter the world?”, there are millions of Eastern Orthodox Christians who characterize Adam & Eve as the “first sinners”, not as the ones who “invented” Sin. Sin “entered the world” via mortal flesh. All come short of the glory of God.

If these things were not true, then Adam somehow “magically” tainted all their children with sin of which they are not personally guilty. But all mortal beings, by being mortal, will inevitably sin.

[Otangelo_Grasso1 (Otangelo Grasso)]

@gbrooks9

And there is the way I prefer, which is that Jesus while dressed in a mortal body didn’t know anything more about creation of the Earth than the people who lived around him.

But he was aware about the future, and made prophecies that are fullfilling today… So he was aware about the future, but ignorant about the past !!!

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Otangelo_Grasso1

But he was aware about the future, and made prophecies that are fullfilling today… So he was aware about the future, but ignorant about the past !!!

Jesus as God knew all the spiritual truths he needed to know. But how does this make him omniscient about the past? As a 5 year old, did he already know how to build a house?

Did Jesus know how to drive a car? Did Jesus know about “germ theory”? If he did, why didn’t he tell anyone?

Why did he spit into a handful of dirt and apply this “gook” to someone’s eyes?

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Otangelo_Grasso1

Genesis 1:11 Lexicon: Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so.

its pretty clear you can by no way infer common ancestry based on it.

@Otangelo_Grasso1

Oh, really? Let’s look at the first words of Genesis 1:11 and how they connect to Animals being “brought forth” by the Earth [By God, Through The Earth!]. I’ve already posted some of this, but it’s worth mentioning it again.

“bringing forth” - - Applied to both Plants and Animals.

“by their seed” - - a clear reference to biological origins. Trees and animals did not, and were not, sprung out of boulders.

Genesis 1:25
“And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”

Now this seems pretty straightforward, yes? God made these beasts. The “his” of “his kind” is the beast itself. The beast is being generically referred referring to “his” kind … his category of creature.

The English word “after” is probably not the best way to translate the sentence. Instead of “after”, it would be more clear to say "God made the beasts “by” or even “into” their kinds… their categories. He didn’t just create a chaos of beasts. He created creatures that could be categorized by their kinds.

And these “kinds” are pretty strongly connected to the reproductive process of these beasts. We see this in
Genesis 1:11-12:
“And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,
and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself,
upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind,
and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind:
and God saw that it was good.”

[Chris_Falter]

@Otangelo_Grasso1

So when he , and the apostle Paul talked about Adam and Eve, that was figurative, too ? they were not alking about real persons ? If so, how did sin enter the world ?

Hi Otangelo,

I am thinking about one of the great riddles of Genesis: how is it that Cain feared the peoples of the earth?

“Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoevet finds me will kill me.”

Here is one possible solution to that riddle: Adam and Eve were not the first members of the homo sapiens species. Instead, they were the first people with whom God forged a covenant. Cain knew about the humans from whom Adam and Eve had been selected…and he feared them.

If you reject this solution, then you have to come up with one of your own. What is your solution, Otangelo?

[Chris_Falter]

@Otangelo_Grasso1

So he was aware about the future, but ignorant about the past ??!!

Why not? I have a friend who has the gift of “words of knowledge” by the Spirit. Occasionally, God reveals things to him directly that he could not possibly have known by human means. At the same time, my friend does not claim to be omniscient about the past, present, or future. God only reveals supernaturally what is needed at the moment.

The gospels speak of Jesus as being empowered by the Spirit. So yes, whatever He needed to know supernaturally in order to teach or interact with those around Him, He received by supernatural intervention of the Holy Spirit. But there is no reason to think that Jesus knew that the “curse of the billy goat” would be broken in 2016, for example. He did know, however, that the curse of sin would be broken through His suffering, death, and resurrection.

[Bill_II]

@Otangelo_Grasso1

we have word by word translations , like this one:

Even in a word by word translation a human had to decide what English word she was going to use in place of that Hebrew word. And that changes based on context. Translation is not inspired by the Holy Spirit so any translation is fallible. Interpretation is for sure fallible as that is a human effort.

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

@Socratic.Fanatic

R_speir, I think your post is a very useful one because you’ve explained an excellent example of how someone can embrace “six literal days” within an old earth view.

Perhaps I’m being dense, but I read through all of your post, and I don’t see how six literal days fits into the scenario. In the view that you’ve outlined, the length of the “day” in which God issued his proclamations seems beside the point. It was immaterial to the original audience, which simply means that they understood it symbolically, not literally. So while I am in agreement with pretty much everything you said, I don’t see how it justifies six literal days. Am I missing something?

[Otangelo_Grasso1 (Otangelo Grasso)]

@Chris_Falter

Here is one possible solution to that riddle: Adam and Eve were not the first members of the homo sapiens species.

So the bible is lying… is that what you want to say ?