I ran across this the other day and its exactly what I have long believed the Bible plainly teaches on this subject.

So many people in modern times reject the Bible because they think science has disproven the Bible, but they have never really examined what the Bible says about this beyond biased assumptions and just flat out misinformation. You literally don't have to disagree with ANYTHING modern science says about the age of the earth or the big bang. You can literally agree the science points to whatever they believe it points to, with zero contradiction or issue. No matter what they say it fits perfectly within the Bible for one simple reason, scripture both states and illustrates God created things with age built in. That includes the stars, earth, man, everything in the physical universe even down to the atomic level.

One of the most obvious examples is Adam. Adam was never a baby, he was never bottle fed, he was never a child. He was created as a full grown man. He was created with age already built in. If he was examined by any kind of doctor 5 minutes after he was made, by all medical and scientific measure he would have been declared to be at least 20+ years old. But he was not, he was 5 minutes old. God created the earth and universe in the same manner, it was created at a point of maturity. So by all scientific measure, the universe and earth does appear to be billions of years old and that does not contradict scripture AT ALL.

The simple truth is you never have to struggle with science and the Bible on this, because its a total lie that its even an issue as a Bible believer. God created a system of laws and evolution, and He created all things at a point of maturity within that system of laws and design.

Not only does scripture tell us things are created with age built in, we see it actually being done in action with the first man and woman ever made. He created a system of scientific laws and evolution for man, animals and nature and then created the first man at an already mature stage of that system.

Biblically speaking, by all scientific examination the Earth and universe should measure as being ancient.

This is not some wild theory or work around, its just the plain written truth of scripture. All we have to do is believe it.



I hope this was a blessing.

https://texashillcountry.com/london-hamm...ravel/amp/

I think this may fit into the age of the earth theory as well. How can a petrified hammer be found when they didn’t exist in that time frame?

(04-02-2022 04:01 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  https://texashillcountry.com/london-hamm...ravel/amp/

I think this may fit into the age of the earth theory as well. How can a petrified hammer be found when they didn’t exist in that time frame?

I've always thought that hammer was likely a pre flood hammer. They have found several items in coal before that simply should not be there.

Of course we don't know for sure but I'm of the opinion some of them might just be pre flood items. Scripture says they had iron and other materials before the flood.

Just think what a man like Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison or countless others could have created or discovered had they had the advantage of living 900 years. There were smart men before the flood, and they had that advantage.

I actually think the Great Pyramid may be pre flood, but again we can't really prove any such thing fully. Its very different from all the other pyramids for sure, and whoever built it clearly had highly advanced knowledge of math, geometry, cosmology and many other things we did not understand until modern times. None of those things are built into the design of the other pyramids, only this one. And of course its the only one not covered in Egyptian hieroglyphs.

I'm of the opinion the the Bible is referring to it in a few places, but its nothing that I would ever argue is doctrine or proven fact. There are a lot of fascinating facts that line up with it and scripture though.

The London hammer was found in limestone which forms quickly via moving water. The wooden handle is still wood; not petrified.

My preferred harmonization between scripture and science is that scripture is describing the functional ordering of creation, not its material origin (as might be described by the Big Bang Theory or “evolution”). Genesis 1 begins with a functionless (tohu vabohu) universe and God shapes it into a well functioning (tov meod) universe. As science and scripture describe different aspects of creation there is no opportunity for contradiction.

(07-08-2024 05:41 AM)Crayton Wrote:  The London hammer was found in limestone which forms quickly via moving water. The wooden handle is still wood; not petrified.

My preferred harmonization between scripture and science is that scripture is describing the functional ordering of creation, not its material origin (as might be described by the Big Bang Theory or “evolution”). Genesis 1 begins with a functionless (tohu vabohu) universe and God shapes it into a well functioning (tov meod) universe. As science and scripture describe different aspects of creation there is no opportunity for contradiction.

Some call this the "gap theory" but some of them typically then argue there was a pre Adamite civilization. I don't buy this becuase it makes the entire point of the cross a big fat lie. Death entered the world through Adams sin and fall, thus its a giant contradictions to say there was a previous civilization that died.

What I do buy is that there well could be a gap from "in the beginning" to "day 1". The materials the earth is made of could well be billions of years old by any scientific measure, and that on Day 1 God began to form and mold the earth into its current form.

Then there is also the obvious point that most don't want to acknowledge.....that God creates things that are old and ancient the moment they are made. Its right there in the text, its says the heavens were "made of old" and Adam was created as a grown man not as a baby who had to grow into a man. Creating ancient things and light from distant stars is just not an issue at all for God. In fact there is a strong indication in scripture that this is exactly what He did.

Its also a fact though that this (although interesting and fun) is just a pointless and futile debate in the end. No one can fully prove their view, old earth creationists, young earth creationists, those in between and secular science. None of these can fully prove their view at all and never will. All we can do is theorize from a biblical or secular science perspective. All sides are analyzing the same data, the only difference is our starting point. In the beginning God or in the beginning nothing.

Seems to me that in the beginning "nothing" totally contradicts every single thing science teaches, and defies the most basic and obvious logical reasoning of all. The universe and earth clearly had a designer and programmer. There are a gazillion things in science that if they changed just a fraction life and the universe would not even exist or hold itself together. Its so finely tuned that logically this should not even be a debate.

I suppose my take on Genesis 1 was agnostic as to the age of the Earth. Whether old or young, Genesis 1 claims that it was God who called creation to order and is not more specific as to “how” this was accomplished.

Adam’s role in Pauline literature is a second issue. Paul contrasts (in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15) being “in Adam” and being “in Christ” but nowhere does he say these appellations are biological or chronological. People have been saved “in Christ” since long before Jesus hung on a cross; it should be no greater conundrum if people also died “in Adam” prior to Eve eating the forbidden fruit.

I think (could just be my circles) the “federal headship of Adam” is the dominant Evangelical view nowadays.

(07-08-2024 10:21 AM)Crayton Wrote:  I suppose my take on Genesis 1 was agnostic as to the age of the Earth. Whether old or young, Genesis 1 claims that it was God who called creation to order and is not more specific as to “how” this was accomplished.

Adam’s role in Pauline literature is a second issue. Paul contrasts (in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15) being “in Adam” and being “in Christ” but nowhere does he say these appellations are biological or chronological. People have been saved “in Christ” since long before Jesus hung on a cross; it should be no greater conundrum if people also died “in Adam” prior to Eve eating the forbidden fruit.

I think (could just be my circles) the “federal headship of Adam” is the dominant Evangelical view nowadays.

Both the OT and the NT plainly state there was no death before they ate of the tree, and that death entered the world through their fall.

All of us are sons of Adam because of the flesh. But being "in Christ" is not about the flesh its about the spirit. These are not evangelical concepts, they are Biblical concepts. We are guilty of our sin, not Adam's. What Adam did was bring sin and the fall into the world. But each of us has chosen freely to sin, and none of us are without sin.

The issue with "federal headship" is that its not an explicit biblical truth. Romans 5 does not say that Adam was the representative of the human race, only that “by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man” (Romans 5:17). God never says exactly how the transference of the sin nature occurred, only that it did occur.

The idea of federal headship is not explicit in the Bible; that is, the Bible nowhere calls Adam our representative. Federal headship is simply a way some scholars have chosen to speak about Adam’s, and then Christ’s, involvement in the destiny of humanity.

What we know for certain is that death entered the world through Adam’s sin. The idea of federal headship is not stated outright in Scripture, but Adam’s sin was definitely the origin of the problem, and sin was inherited by all of us through him. Then Christ came and by His sacrifice became our Savior. Thus, there is a parallel between Adam and Christ: “Just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:18–19).

So I would disagree that “federal headship of Adam” is the dominant Evangelical view. Its not.

Individual sins are simply the result of a sin nature that we inherited from Adam. Paul goes to great lengths in Romans 1 and 2 to make the case that all people are guilty before God because they have broken the law as it has been revealed to them. He does not charge them with Adam’s sin. Therefore, it seems that the most natural reading of Scripture would lead one closer to the seminalist position.

This is one of several debates that IMO are just a distraction, they don't benefit anyone, are really over 99% of people heads and add nothing to the Gospel or the witness of it. What does it even matter if we have a federalist or seminalist view? We still need Christs sacrifice on the cross for salvation and redemption because we are sinners.

The original point I was trying to get across in the thread was that Christians don't have to struggle with creation, science or the age of the earth at all no matter what your view is. There is no doubt that this is an issue Satan tries to use to sow doubt and intellectually bully people into questioning their faith. But its done in a very dishonest way that preys on peoples ignorance of the Bible on this. (and ignorance of the science as well in many cases) But that comes as no surprise as Satan was a murder and a liar from the beginning. His favorite lies are those which he sprinkles with some truth the help it go down better or at least confound and confuse people. Sowing doubt based on lies mixed with truth.

God creates things with age built in. He created things that are already in an aged and mature state. Genesis and other books of the Bible are clear on this point, though its a point that most everyday people seem to miss.

And this point alone really nullifies the argument of age and uniformitarianism. Thus when it comes to distant star light, carbon dating (which can be incredibly inaccurate) and many other issues they are not able to disprove anything the Bible states because the text tells us God created things with age and maturity prebuilt in.

For atheists this point really gets under their skin because #1 they usually have never heard it or considered it and #2 it so blatantly undermines what they think are their best arguments. Yet its built in right there in the text of scripture thousands of years ago, long before anyone realized the relevance of this point. (gee, its almost like God knew this would come up in the latter days )

So when secularists attack your faith though this you don't have to shrink away from this with uncertainty.

And this isn't the only response to this age issue, there are a few others that are really a big a problem for the atheist/naturalist view. But this is a big one that is just straightforward scriptural and really tackles it with ease.

I say this not to gin up argument and debate but to lift up those who may struggle with this issue and not yet know how to respond or feel about it.

This goes back to the point that many of our churches don't teach apologetics and evidence for the Bible, and yet that is needed more than ever in our current time and culture. So many Christians just aren't educated enough on these topics. The enemy know this so he tries to take advantage of it.

Carbon dating. lol!

These are the same people that told us to stay 6 feet apart.

(07-08-2024 10:21 AM)Crayton Wrote:  I suppose my take on Genesis 1 was agnostic as to the age of the Earth. Whether old or young, Genesis 1 claims that it was God who called creation to order and is not more specific as to “how” this was accomplished.

Adam’s role in Pauline literature is a second issue. Paul contrasts (in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15) being “in Adam” and being “in Christ” but nowhere does he say these appellations are biological or chronological. People have been saved “in Christ” since long before Jesus hung on a cross; it should be no greater conundrum if people also died “in Adam” prior to Eve eating the forbidden fruit.

I think (could just be my circles) the “federal headship of Adam” is the dominant Evangelical view nowadays.

Light didn't exist until the end of the first day. How do you know that first day wasn't billions of years?

Jesus always spoke in parables. The Bible is filled with allegory. There is nothing contradictory in thinking the Bible is God's inspired Word and thinking science is mostly right. I see Genesis as an allegory of how God created things, not a step by step scientific procedure.

Even where there might be contradictions as in the number of soldiers in a battle, that doesn't change the truth and meaning of the story. Worrying about such details is a scientific approach, not a faith and philosophical approach.

(07-10-2024 09:40 AM)bullet Wrote:  Light didn't exist until the end of the first day. How do you know that first day wasn't billions of years?

Jesus always spoke in parables. The Bible is filled with allegory. There is nothing contradictory in thinking the Bible is God's inspired Word and thinking science is mostly right. I see Genesis as an allegory of how God created things, not a step by step scientific procedure.

Even where there might be contradictions as in the number of soldiers in a battle, that doesn't change the truth and meaning of the story. Worrying about such details is a scientific approach, not a faith and philosophical approach.

The Bible has allegory and Jesus spoke in some parable but the vast majority of the Bible is not parable or allegorical. Its literal and historical narrative.

Neither Jesus or the Apostles (or the rest of the OT) spoke of Genesis and creation as a parable or allegory. They spoke of it as very literal.

If it wasn't for modern secular science screaming form the hilltops about millions of years, no one would have ever thought to take each day as millions of years. There is simply no textual reason for it whatsoever, its strictly a secular invention. That is the only place that comes from.

I'm not telling you what to believe (this isn't a salvation issue at all), I'm just saying the idea of that comes solely from secularism, i.e, the word of man vs the Word of God.

So your welcome to believe that, just realize that is the "genesis" of that view. Secularism.

One thing for certain, the person who wrote down seven days wasn't alive when it happened, and did not have any eyewitness accounts of people who were to work from. I don't have any problem interpreting "days" to mean "period of time" of any length, and I don't see why anyone should.

"In the beginning, God created," is good enough for me. The rest is details.

(07-10-2024 11:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One thing for certain, the person who wrote down seven days wasn't alive when it happened, and did not have any eyewitness accounts of people who were to work from. I don't have any problem interpreting "days" to mean "period of time" of any length, and I don't see why anyone should.

"In the beginning, God created," is good enough for me. The rest is details.

Actually the person that did write it was alive when it happened because the Bible is authored by God, not man. Are we really going to pretend God can speak the universe into existence but He can't Give us His Word and protect it for us?

How silly and absurd would that be?

Its also key to remember this is not just said one time in the first chapter of Genesis, its repeated mutiple times all throughout the Bible.

(07-10-2024 11:30 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  Actually the person that did write it was alive because the Bible is authored by God, not man. Are we really going to pretend God can speak the universe into existence but He can't Give us His Word and protect it for us?

I understand your point. Clearly all scripture is inspired by God, and clearly the living person who first wrote down what became Genesis did so under God's direction and leadership. But that persone was a human and not around at the start. I'm pretty sure he did the best that he (or she) could to take a creation story of unimaginable power and might and describe it in terms that people of that era could understand.

(07-10-2024 11:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-10-2024 11:30 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  Actually the person that did write it was alive because the Bible is authored by God, not man. Are we really going to pretend God can speak the universe into existence but He can't Give us His Word and protect it for us?

I understand your point. Clearly all scripture is inspired by God, and clearly the living person who first wrote down what became Genesis did so under God's direction and leadership. But that persone was a human and not around at the start. I'm pretty sure he did the best that he (or she) could to take a creation story of unimaginable power and might and describe it in terms that people of that era could understand.

We're not talking about difficult scientific concepts to understand in ancient times, we are simply talking about God did this on this day and this on that day and that's all. That's not hard to get across and understand. Its just hard for some people to BELIEVE, and the lack of faith on this is much more a modern issue than it would have been back then. We have no more understanding of HOW God created everything from nothing today than people did 3500 years ago.

But to argue your point is to say God is not in control, particularity of His Word. THAT IS A BIG DEAL.

God picked that man out of the WHOLE WORLD and all of human history AND guided Him by His own hand.

To assume he might have screwed it all up/was not capable and God was not able to prevent that is just rather silly. And again, its not just stated in the book of Moses, its repeated all through the Bible, even in the Words of Jesus. So this goes well beyond just the books of Moses.

That argument just doesn't hold up at all. And there is literally zero basis for it at all. Its just an imaginary "what if" with no textual evidence, reason or logic that contradicts everything God said about His Word.

And again, the "genesis" of ALL of this is a 100% secular invention. Otherwise it would not even occur to anyone.

How exactly do we know what a "day" is to God?

(07-10-2024 02:50 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  How exactly do we know what a "day" is to God?

Based on the text where each individual day is described as an "evening and a morning". Doesn't get much more plain spoken than that.

Also by looking at the text in the Hebrew and seeing how its used here and everywhere else in the OT.

Pretty straight forward stuff that speaks for itself.

What you would need to change it is a textual reason for it to NOT be an actual day. Such as "in THAT day", refereeing to an unspecified future period. There are some specific ways the Hebrew shows that if its so and there is none here in Genesis.

The only reason a person would have to say it means anythign other that what it says is because of an outside/unbibilical reason. Textually it can't be more plain and concrete than it is. Literally if this wording in the text won't suffice, there is none that would for surface for that person. They are just hell bend on its not being an actual day and there are no words that would change that.

(07-10-2024 09:40 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-08-2024 10:21 AM)Crayton Wrote:  I suppose my take on Genesis 1 was agnostic as to the age of the Earth. Whether old or young, Genesis 1 claims that it was God who called creation to order and is not more specific as to “how” this was accomplished.

Adam’s role in Pauline literature is a second issue. Paul contrasts (in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15) being “in Adam” and being “in Christ” but nowhere does he say these appellations are biological or chronological. People have been saved “in Christ” since long before Jesus hung on a cross; it should be no greater conundrum if people also died “in Adam” prior to Eve eating the forbidden fruit.

I think (could just be my circles) the “federal headship of Adam” is the dominant Evangelical view nowadays.

Light didn't exist until the end of the first day. How do you know that first day wasn't billions of years?

Jesus always spoke in parables. The Bible is filled with allegory. There is nothing contradictory in thinking the Bible is God's inspired Word and thinking science is mostly right. I see Genesis as an allegory of how God created things, not a step by step scientific procedure.

Even where there might be contradictions as in the number of soldiers in a battle, that doesn't change the truth and meaning of the story. Worrying about such details is a scientific approach, not a faith and philosophical approach.

Agree 100%. Not everything is an eye-witness account or a scientific treatise. There are parables and poetry and (arguably) outright fiction. The inspired authors used all tools at their disposal to shepherd God’s people.

I’m not yet sold on “Allegory” for Genesis 1. In an allegory, story elements correspond to real life facts. A “day”, for example, could correspond to a longer period of real time even if, in-story, it is 24 hours.

But I think the original audience saw the 6 days of creation as an etiology for their own work week, itself derived from earlier pagan traditions. This renders Genesis as a bit of a polemic, against pagan traditions and placing the one, true God in control of the cosmos.

John Walton disagrees with Genesis as a polemic, but has written the best book I’ve read disentangling the original context of Genesis from our modern presumptions of Genesis being an eye-witness account.

(07-14-2024 01:40 AM)Crayton Wrote:  Agree 100%. Not everything is an eye-witness account or a scientific treatise. There are parables and poetry and (arguably) outright fiction. The inspired authors used all tools at their disposal to shepherd God’s people.

I’m not yet sold on “Allegory” for Genesis 1. In an allegory, story elements correspond to real life facts. A “day”, for example, could correspond to a longer period of real time even if, in-story, it is 24 hours.

But I think the original audience saw the 6 days of creation as an etiology for their own work week, itself derived from earlier pagan traditions. This renders Genesis as a bit of a polemic, against pagan traditions and placing the one, true God in control of the cosmos.

John Walton disagrees with Genesis as a polemic, but has written the best book I’ve read disentangling the original context of Genesis from our modern presumptions of Genesis being an eye-witness account.

Its not a "modern" take that Genesis is a first hand account by God. Both the OT and NT say time and time again all scripture is God breathed and these are the Words of God, not man made. The NT says Jesus was there and is the Creator, and He said repeatedly that God made the earth in 6 days, and that man was there from the beginning of creation, not billions of years after the beginning. In John chapter 5 Jesus says "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

Its also a fact that God Himself wrote "six days" by His own hand on the two tablets of stone. (Ex 20:11, Deut 9:10)

If the starting point is "this isn't really God's account, this isn't really authored by God", then its pretty much whatever you personally wish it to be. Therefore your going to have a hundred different "views" that all contradict each other and really make all of it pretty meaningless.

If its not Gods Word its pretty much worthless. Its just one of a gazillion other man made fantasies. So who cares what it says?

If Genesis 1-11 is not literal, then how can we argue the Gospel is literal? There is no Gospel without a literal Genesis 1-11. The entire foundation of Christ being able to save us by His death and resurrection is based on a literal Genesis 1-11. If parts of Genesis 1-11 are fiction, then who is to argue the Gospel is not fiction? How can it be Gods Word, but its also full of man made fiction? How does that make sense? How does God have the ability to speak the entire universe into existence, yet He lacks to ability to keep deeply embedded man made fiction out of His own eternal Word?

How does a person make that make sense?

Remember its God who promises over and over and over again throughout the Bible that He would preserve His Word and we would have it even into the last days and all eternity? So do we make God a liar? 24 literal hours is not necessary for salvation, but for most people its NEVER just the 24 hours, its that ++++ that is not literal or is fiction added in.

The Bible is not a buffet, yet that is how many people want to look at it. Take the parts they like, discard the parts they don't like.