I suppose it's possible that God created the universe in such a way that it looks old, but is in actuality young.
In your mind then when God created Adam presumably as a man did he just look old or was he actually old?
I'm not convinced that the seven days of creation are meant to be taken
literally. Whether the first chapter of genesis is literal or figurative, the
underlying story still stays the same
Is there anything internal in the chapter that tells you this may be figurative?
Why just the first chapter?
Why not figurative seven days of rain as in Gen 7?
Why not take the seven days that the doves were sent out as figurative? Gen 8
When Laban chased after Jacob for seven days? Gen 31:23
Should these be millions?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lance: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion
suits you.
Such a short question, but such a long answer :) I think that
astronomy is
something that often gets overlooked in that question. The last time I
checked,
astronomers dated the universe to about 13.5 billion years old. The dating of
the universe is something that has been discussed often in my astronomy
classes. The method astronomers use to come to this conclusion is a little
strange, but largely makes sense. However, even if their dating method was
completely wrong, there would still be plenty of evidence that the universe
looks old. Models of the sun which accurately predict its structure also
predict ages and lifetimes (old ages and long lifetimes). The same
models work
well for other stars we observe, and seem to be good models beyond a
reasonable
doubt. There's a lot to it, but essentially the universe looks old. Quick
example. Models of star formation predict that it would take hundreds of
thousands (or millions) of years for a star to collapse from a cloud of
gas. The sun is a star. Therefore it seems a safe bet that the sun is
at least a
million years old.
I accept that fact that the universe looks old. I suppose it's possible
that God created the universe in such a way that it looks old, but is in
actuality young. I don't see why that would be necessary though. Personally,
I'm not convinced that the seven days of creation are meant to be taken
literally. Whether the first chapter of genesis is literal or figurative, the
underlying story still stays the same. The universe (and us) are God's
creation. We were created in his image. That's the entire point of genesis,
and it's a point that remains the same regardless.
Ironically though, I'm not a strict evolutionist, or a strict
creationist. I'm still waiting for a third option, which seems to be
slow in coming. I find
macro evolution to be rather hard to buy. There's a couple other things I
wanted to say in regards to the previous e-mails.
DaveH:
> Those laws define him and all his creation, and I do not think God
> could/would break those laws, but is capable of using them in ways of
> which we are unaware in order to perform miracles that confound his
> Adversary.
I would disagree with that satement. The universe is a creation of God's,
and the laws of physics that "run" our universe are also His creation. As His
creations, He has complete control over them. It's quite possible that God
performs his miracles without breaking the laws that run our universe, but I
think it much more likely that when God makes a miracle happen, the laws of
physics step aside. Just think about the feeding of the five thousand.
How is
it possible for 5 loaves and 2 fish to feed five thousand men until they were
full? I realize that human beings don't have a complete understanding of the
laws of physics, but I'm pretty sure that that is a task which is physically
impossible. The laws of physics (as we know them) had to go right out the
window for that one. The universe is God's creation. Just as we can modify a
computer as much as we want (after all, it's our creation), God can
change this
universe as much as he wants.
DaveH:
> Did you ever read the SCREWTAPE LETTERS, Judy? At one point,
> Screwtape (the devil) tells Wormwood that humans are too quick to
> attribute their all their ills to him, effectively suggesting that
> sometime humans give credit to where credit isn't due.
I think you have a very good point here. It is very easy to attribute
things to God that God didn't necessarily do. After all, coincidences do
happen. In this case, I am thinking about a particular example. This was a
while back, so I don't remember the details exactly.
About a year ago I visited an LDS church one sunday (someone on this list
is mormon, right?). Anyway, at this particular service people from the
congregation were coming up to the front and sharing their "testimony". One
lady came up and talked about her very long conversion to mormonism. She was
originally visited by some missionaries when she was younger (late
teens, early
twenties, I don't remember). She talked with them, but, didn't
convert. Instead, she remained a nominal christian for a decade or two.
Some crisis
happened in her life that left her very much in search of God. She
prayed that
God would help her figure things out and in about five minutes a pair of LDS
missionaries showed up at her door. She took it as a sign, and shortly there
after became mormon.
I've heard many example of things like this helping people become
christians as well. I'm sure there are example like this from just
about every
religion. However, they can't all be acts of God. They only way that is
possible is if God is just as happy with people being mormon as he is with
people being christian. However, I think that the mormon missionaries I have
talked with would disagree with that, and I would disagree with that. So, my
conclusion is that humans give credit to God where credit isn't necessarily
due.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Yahoo! Mail
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
