Death Before Adam

[oletimer]

MacUser Posted: Just a random fleeting comment here.. BUT why not, eh?

Do we submit to/accept/give greater credit to proven scientific facts over Faith? If scientific facts prove out your personal faith.. is it increased? If it disproves it.. is it decreased?

Facts say that you are Born, Live, and Die. The End. Did you find the answer you really wanted?

Faith says that you are Born of purpose, Live Graciously via Jesus, Die expectantly with Hope... and enter into an amazing Eternal Life.


Another idea is that deception is key here or the idea that God is holding out on us... and we don't know the "Full TRUTH" etc. The serpent in the Garden.. did this to Eve.. by essentially telling her that God was holding out on them and that God must not want you to know ALL and if you do this.. you won't be dumb / average but intellectual etc.

We have to examine whom is telling us these things... clear as mud?

Mac a good post and I don't see any mud in it. Satan has never quit and never will. He will and has change some methods. I went back to Genesis the third chapter to refresh my self on Adam's fall. It was Eve's statement caught my eye;

Ge 3:13
And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

BEGUI'LED, pp. Deluded; imposed on; misled by craft; eluded by stratagem; passed pleasingly.

STRATAGEM, n. L., Gr., to lead an army.

1. An artifice, particularly in war; a plan or scheme for deceiving an enemy.

2. An artifice; [b]a trick by which some advantage is intended to be obtained[/b].

Jesus said;
Mt 7:15
¶ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Col 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

I know that some will and other have label me old fashion, but I still bellieve that we have to have faith that God is the author of the world and that He is PURE AND HOLY and if we are to please Him then we muct reflect a similitude of Him. I wonder if anyone else feels this way?

[RamboPreacher]

lots of assumptions in dating techniques that aren't otherwise mentioned, but the dates are mentioned as a matter of fact. bah. you can't c14 date a fossil. and how do you date a fossil? you date it by the "stratigraphical records". and how do you date the strata? why by geological column and fossil records, of course.

[Russell Roberts]

Rambo, they don't date the fossils with Carbon 14 dating. They use radiometric dating. Carbon 14 dating is only accurate up to around 50,000 years. And, as every good scientist knows, the earth is waaaaaaaaaay older than that.

[Pastorbps]

I'm open to different possibilities on this but right now I'll go with the young earth theory. Dolfan has a point. Facts of science ARE interpreted from a philosophical or faith standpoint. The science community starts with a naturalistic assumption that all things happened as a result of natural occurances which are measurable because they have always been constant and consistent. The Christian interprets the facts based upon a belief in a Supreme Being who created all things supernaturally.
A scientist picks up a rock, examines it, and says, "This rock contains these elements and for them to form this way would have taken this many years and thus it is this many years old." The opening statement is true but the conclusion is based on a philosophy that denies the supernatural Divine intervention of God. In fact, God created the rock in an instant and thus what would have taken millions of years, took a moment. What takes nature millions of years (if it were possible) takes God a moment.
On the first day after Creation, one may have looked at a tree and by looking at that tree they would say that tree is 500 years old. In reality, it is only a day old. God created everything with age. If Adam would have cut down that tree there may have been 500 rings. It is possible God went through the process of creating an aged tree but did it in a moment (See the formation of humans in Ezekiel's vision).
The same with light and stars. Scientist make philosophical assumptions about the age of the universe based upon a belief things were always as they are. They say, "These stars are this far from earth and light travels at 186,000 miles per second which means these stars must be this many years old because we see them now. They are right about the distances. They are right about the speed of light. However, we know God created the stars and had them shining on the earth within days of creation.
Don't be too sure science is right. There observations are correct. There interpretations many times are incorrect.

"The Bible is not true because science says so. Science is true because God says so." - (From the movie Timechanger)

[Russell Roberts]

By the same token, a billion years is but a moment to God. Even if He used a lengthy process to form the earth and to cause humans to evolve from the dust, from God's perspective it was instantaneous.

Most Christians interpret the facts from a philisophical framework that includes a misreading of the Hebrew word 'bara' in Genesis which does not refer to causing material substance to come into existence but to assigning material substance that already exists a function or role. I would present the argument myself but it would be too lengthy and it is well summarized in the work of John Walton who wrote 'The Lost World of Genesis One'.

In this book Mr. Walton examines the language of Genesis from within a reconstruction of the culture that existed when it was written. In other words - in context - something most modern day Christians fail to do. I highly recommend the book. It enables one to reconcile the conclusions of the scientists with how we should be interpreting scripture.

Whether someone chooses to pursue this issue or not, I can attest that I have felt a great sense of relief in abandoning the thought that most scientists are simply conspiring to support a hypothesis that God does not exist. I no longer believe they are. It makes the world seem, well, less ugly and conspiratorial. It also helps understand how intelligent Christians can believe in evolution while maintaing their faith in Jesus. In fact, the most renown Christian scientists believed, or do believe, in evolution.

If God had created everything with the appearance of age wouldn't it make sense for scientists to conclude that the earth and the universe were old? Is he testing our faith? Is he trying to make it harder for both Christians and nonbelievers to believe? It seems to me that God is more interested in making himself knowable to man - the incarnation is the prime example.

Pastorbps, I don't blame you for maintaining a default position of a young earth. That's always the safest course of action until we have studied an issue enough to be convinced otherwise.

[Pastorbps]

By the same token, a billion years is but a moment to God. Even if He used a lengthy process to form the earth and to cause humans to evolve from the dust, from God's perspective it was instantaneous.

But why would a billion years be necessary to an all powerful God? The only reason I can see that someone would have to conform their beliefs and interpretations to an “Old Earth” theory would be because they believe science contradicts the idea of a young earth. My point is, there is no need to do that because science cannot prove an old earth. They can make assumptions based upon current constants that may not have always been constant and they make assumptions based upon a bias to an assumption that everything is the result of NATURAL occurrences. Christians know this to be flawed because God created the earth from nothing which means there was supernatural intervention. That fact alone means you cannot interpret what you see based upon natural laws alone.

If God had created everything with the appearance of age wouldn't it make sense for scientists to conclude that the earth and the universe were old? Is he testing our faith? Is he trying to make it harder for both Christians and nonbelievers to believe?

From a traditional interpretation of scripture its not “If” He created everything with the appearance of age, He did. Adam wasn’t created as a baby but a man. He didn’t create seeds but seed bearing trees. He said that’s what He did and I doubt He is pleased with those who say, “I know You said that but I have investigated and come to a different conclusion.” As far as scientists’ conclusions, God really isn’t moved by what they might or might not conclude (“For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” – 1 Cor. 1:21). God is interested in whether you believe what He says not what you see and can figure out. The fact the earth appears a certain way is not a “test of faith.” It has nothing to do with faith. A Christian believes because God said so and not because he has done a scientific investigation of God’s creation. A Believer says, “The Bible is not right because science says so but science is right because the Bible says so.” It only makes it harder for one to believe IF there faith is rooted in science and not the Word of God. Preaching and faith is the wisdom of God. The wisdom of God says, "Do you believe what I am telling you?"

[Russell Roberts]

The key statement you made was

"From a traditional interpretation of scripture..."

At one point, traditional interpretation of scripture was that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it.

[Russell Roberts]

Pastorbps,

I really admire your tenacity in defending a traditional interpretation of scripture. I really do. Just as a traditional interpretation was challenged in the past, we must remain open to allowing for the possibility that our interpretation is wrong. History should teach us that much.

[Pastorbps]

I think the mistakes of the past were made based upon a false interpretation of what they observed and not on a false interpretation of the Bible. For instance, I don't see that the Bible taught men the world was flat. I think they came to that conclusion based upon what they could physically comprehend. If the the world was a ball then how could we stand on it without falling off. Some may have taught the earth was the center of the universe and that the stars and sun revolved around it but that wasn't a Biblical interpretation. I think they came to that conclusion based upon watching the movements and then, not being able to feel themselves moving, they concluded the stars and Sun must be moving around us. Science and observation is what has been proven to be wrong and not what the Bible said. Men got themselves into trouble by trying to make the Bible fit physical observation.

[Russell Roberts]

Pastorbps, they based that on scriptures that indicated that the earth had foundations.

[Pastorbps]

I would have to see your references on that. I believe they may have interpreted "foundations" based upon their observations and experiences but I don't believe they based their belief in a flat earth upon the Bible's use of the word "foundations." The point is the Bible never said, "The earth is flat and thou shalt not sail too far or thou wilt fall off the edge." The belief in a flat earth was based upon their faulty interpretations based upon faulty observations. I believe they interpreted the Bible based upon what they saw which was a mistake.

[Russell Roberts]

Well, you could read this quote by Thomas Blundeville explaining why Copernicus was wrong.

http://tinyurl.com/y9fgb55

[Russell Roberts]

Pastorbps,

The reason these guys believed in a geocentric universe is pretty much commong knowledge. I would keep citing stuff but I'm not sure how much it would take to convince you. Here is a quote from another page about a French article that uses scripture to support a geocentric universe. This will be my last link.

Traité du ciel et du monde (1377) by the French theologian Nicole Oresme. Building on and refuting the earlier work of John Buridan, Oresme demonstrated that if the Earth was rotating and we were all rotating with it, an arrow shot in the air would land back on the spot it was launched rather than behind as it would carry the Earth’s rotational movement as well as the motion up and down. Hence, physics alone could not demonstrate whether or not the Earth was rotating and it was necessary to consult the Scriptures to settle the matter.

[Pastorbps]

If God had created everything with the appearance of age wouldn't it make sense for scientists to conclude that the earth and the universe were old? Is he testing our faith? Is he trying to make it harder for both Christians and nonbelievers to believe? It seems to me that God is more interested in making himself knowable to man - the incarnation is the prime example.

There is the problem. Faith comes from the Word of God and has nothing to do with scientific investigation. If my faith is based in what God says then what I see or hear from man, my senses, or scientific investigation will not sway me. You say it makes it harder for unbelievers to believe but that's only if they are trying to come based upon their senses and own wisdom. You say it tests the faith of believers by having the appearance of age but how can what a person believes be tested by what a person sees and if it is moved by what it sees then it is feigned faith? Faith doesn't come from scientific investigation which seems to be what you are leaning toward. You try to interpret the Word based upon what science discovers instead of basing the truth of science on what the Word says. Now that won't be what you claim but I don't think you came to an "old earth" conclusion based upon a study of the Bible but on a study of science.

And by the way, science concluding the earth and universe are old doesn't come as a surprise to me. I would expect nothing else. Since I believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis then I believe Adam was created a full grown man and the trees were created with varying appearances of age. It makes perfect sense to me that the earth would appear to be old. This doesn't hinder my faith but establishes it.

[Russell Roberts]

Pastorbps,

I don't buy into the notion that faith is opposed to what I can see. I try to reconcile what I see with how I interpret the Bible. It doesn't have to come down to a question of whether I am going to believe what I see or what I THINK the bible teaches. Sometimes our interpretation can be informed by scientific discoveries. The question is whether we are open to considering the possibility that our interpretation is flawed.