VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:05:22 06/01/99 Tue
Author: daniel
Subject: Re: Time continued
In reply to: Kevin 's message, "Re: Time continued" on 07:07:12 05/29/99 Sat

> We both love the Lord. We both believe the Bible is
> inspired. We both are seeking to reach out to a lost
> and dying world. We both desire to be honest before
> the Lord, and we both desire to walk upright before
> men.
>

Amen

> By the way, I am sure you are aware Humphrey's time
> dilation theory has been criticized by secular and
> Christian scientists, both YEC and OEC. Have you read
> Gerald Schroeder's version? My web site is named in
> honor of his first book. Although I remain highly
> skeptical of his theory, his book is what convinced me
> it was necessary to think this through - and go public.
>

I have not reviewed his work.

>
> > Knowing that some passages have dual fulfillment or
> > meaning for more audiences that were not necessarily
> > the intended recipients of the massage, I having been
> > thinking about redaction criticism which keeping very
> > simple means what did the author mean within the
> text.
> > Now obviously the ultimate author is God, but Moses
> I
> > am quite sure was very intelligent although sometimes
> > shy, I think believed that what he was writing is
> YEC.
> > We have to wait thousands of years before OEC comes
> > on the scene, and you say that that is primarily due
> > to NEW technology and information.
>
> Hermeneutics, redaction criticism, higher criticism,
> or whatever else you might consider using to interpret
> Scripture; where did they come from? They did not
> originate with the Bible. They are not a Divine gift
> to man. They are man made tools. They are useful,
> yes, but they are tools. They are not idols to be
> bowed down to. They are not Holy Writ (which is also
> not an idol). I am sure similar tools of
> interpretation are what the Pharisees used to justify
> denying the risen Savior, but He is risen none the
> less.
>

So is basic hermeneutics different or the same as radiometric dating? We both use tools, we both rely on evidence and hope for wisdom to help us understand.

> The tools you are using for interpretation are of
> recent invention. No older than a couple hundred
> years. So it is ridiculous to declare the physical
> evidence is inadmissible because it has only recently
> been uncovered.

I never suggested inadmissible, I am suggesting that we are ignorant despite the number of PHD's behind any issue.

> The discovery may be new but the
> evidence is not. When you look into the night sky you
> are not looking at the 'now'. You are looking at the
> 'then'. The 'then' is very big and very old. You say
> the tools of Biblical interpretation disagree, but
> which is more accurate, the tools of investigation or
> the object of the investigation?

Nicely stated, however, the object I choose to focus on is the bible.

> Obviously, the
> object - whether the Work or the Word. You say the
> tools of science are in error - why? - because they
> disagree with the Word. But you must twist the
> physical evidence beyond it's breaking point to make
> it fit the interpretation tool you have used to
> examine the Work against. You say I am stretching the
> meaning of Genesis beyond that which Moses intended.
> I do not deny this as a possibility. I appeal to the
> nature of progressive revelation to explain this.

Progressive revelation includes scientific findings? And when science changes so does the revelation of God. From geocentricity to helocentricity. The bible teaches geocentricity in the relationship of God to man, but the bible didn't claim geocentricity in the "scientific sense". You would have been a geocentrist up until science changed it's opinion to it's empiracle observations. If I knew what I understand about hermeneutics now - then, I would have not been phased by the sudden change.

Because science seems to be such an integral part of your faith, I am curious if science could dissuade you from believing a virgin birth or resurrection.

> Moses may have pictured a literal 24 hour day when he
> had the words written down, but the Holy Spirit
> inspired his word choice in such a way as to allow the
> creation narrative to take on deeper significance as
> more of God as His Works were revealed. The old earth
> model does not use the simplest reading of the Word,
> no one debates that. Instead, we look for the deeper,
> yet still literal, meaning of the words. You can not
> use a deeper literal, or even consistent, meaning of
> the physical world in your holistic model.
>

deeper=OEC

> >
> > So your belief would certainly debunk the majority of
> > biblical scholars for the last few thousand years.
> > That is ok, becasuse in my mind Augustine had such a
> > detrimental effect on the church that we wrongly
> > believe in a God that is very much based on greek
> > mysticism. As a matter of fact, Augustine said
> > specifically that the scriptures must be interpreted
> > with Platonic Rationalism. Wow. Unfortunately a
> > majority of biblical scholars have been blinded by
> > Augustine.
> >
> > So what is the difference between these two issues?
> > Is there a difference?
> >
> > Yes. Each relies on something extrabiblical.
> Science
> > or Plato.
>
> Point - OE does not rely on science, it relies on
> Scripture and the physical evidence (there is a
> difference).
>

It does not rely on scripture, it forces it's meaning onto scripture. It is a severe bastardization of the text. BTW, it too is a very new and young interpretation. Younger than YEC... :)


> >
> > The point thatI am trying to get at is what was
> Moses'
> > original belief about the passages? This is
> important
> > because the Lord uses men to issue his decrees and
> > will.
> >
> > The knowledge or belief of multi-dimensional space
> > time continuums was certainly not known by Moses, but
> > I am sure that knowledge of the History of man was
> > very well known. This is obvious as we look into the
> > lineage or nations that came from Noah. Have you
> ever
> > studied this? The History of man clearly has an
> > abrupt beginning point based on historical records.
> > Both biblical and extrabiblical. The "History" of
> man
> > is not old at all.
>
> No disagreement from me on man not being old -
> compared to the universe as a whole, man has barely
> been here a day ;-)
>

OK, but I am speaking towards history as documented by man. There seems to be about a 5000yr drop date of evidence available about man's existence on earth (ie written).

> >
> > I have just finished reading two books,
> > "Forbidden Archeology" and "Bones of Contention".
> And
> > Have you read either of these books?
> >
>
> You mentioned 'forbidden archeology' before. No
> offense, but the portions I have seen of it read like
> the ancient astronaut books of the '70's, lot's of fun
> - no substance. Bones of contention, I have heard of,
> but am not familiar with - who wrote it? I enjoyed
> Philip Johnson, and Michael Behe's books - if you
> haven't read them, I recommend them. Neither address
> the age of the earth issue, so I suspect you would
> thoroughly enjoy them.
>
Be fair for a moment this book is 950pages of detailed accounts of paleoarcheological suppression of scientific evidence and findings. I do not care what your interpretation is, but this is the most forthright position this huge document claims. In addition Dr. Phillip Johnson supports this work.

> >
> > I do not pretend to be a scientist. I claim to be a
> > lay person with a strong knowledge of biblical
> > hermeneutics. In my efforts to synthsize and come up
> > with a wholistic approach to biblical interpretation,
> > I have learned that literalism is usually first to be
> > displaced and replaced with "NEW" information,
> usually
> > escoteric in nature and now most recently with
> > technological advancments.
> >
> > As I have said many times, I do not believe it is
> > possible to come up with a consistent biblical
> > hermeneutic that captures OEC, the history of the
> > bible, and the direction or will of God. I have
> > brought up the whole issue about "time" and God's
> > power because it requires literalism to understand
> the
> > messages of the bible. YEC claims to be the
> > literalistic interpretation of the bible. So because
> > literlaism is necessary to understand biblical
> > prophecy, the law, grace, and forgiveness, then
> > literalism is a likely candidate for understanding
> > creation.
> >
>
> OE claims to use a literal, though not the simplest,
> interpretation of the Bible.
>

Complex Assumptive Literalism = OEC


> >
> > "Science is incapable of instructing us on Creation.
> > Creation was a one-time occurence, a singularity....
>
> >
>
> It is not repeatable, that is why honest science uses
> theories - and doesn't call them facts. However God
> left His fingerprints all over the place. We can see
> them. We can measure them. And they are awesome.
>

I wonder what Adam thought of the pre-adamic race of animals. Wow, they look just like me, but they act like stupid robots, who bury their dead and paint pretty pictures. I hope they don't mind if I permanently borrow their vases, since I am not a potter.

> > The bible claims to be truth in the absolute sense,
> > including it's statements about nature. On the other
>
> God is truth in the absolute sense. The Bible makes
> no such claim about itself.
>

The bible makes no such claim?

By whose authority to we accept any biblical claim?

> > hand, philosophers of science are unanimous in
> > recognizing that science does not-in fact, cannot
> > traffic in absolute truth. All scientific truth is
> > relative. What a strange twist of logic would cause
> > to think that absolute truth and relative truth can
> be
> > or should be harmonized, would that not be elavating
> > the relative truth of today to absolute status?"
>
> Again, I am not talking about the theories of science.
> I am saying the physical evidence tells the truth of
> God's creation. Our interpretations of the Word and
> the Work may change - His truth does not.
>
Descriptions of Young Earth Evidence

By AntiCreationist, William D. Stansfield

Prof. Biological Sciences, California Polytechnic State University

Water From Volcanoes

"It has been estimated that seventy volcanoes the size of Mexico's Paricutin producing 0.001 cubic mile of water per year for 4.5 billion years of earth's history could account for the 315 cubic miles of water in the oceans today. There are now approximately 600 active volcanoes and about 10,000 dormant ones. Six hundred volcanoes comparable to Paricutin could account for the present oceans in approximately 0.5 billion years."



Uranium In the Oceans

"Uranium salts presently appear to be accumulating in the oceans at about 100 times the rate of their loss. It is estimated that 60,000,000,000 grams of uranium is added to the oceans annually. Under uniformitarian rules, the total concentration of uranium salts of the oceans (estimated at less than 1E+17 grams) could be accumulated in less than one million years.



Helium In the Atmosphere

"The atmospheric content of helium-4 (the most abundant isotope of helium) has accumulated from the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium in the earth's crust and oceans, from nuclear reactions caused by cosmic rays, and from the sun. If the present rate of accumulation has been constant throughout four billion years of the earth's history, there should be thirty times as much helium in our present atmosphere as is presently there."



Meteoric Dust In Strata

"One estimate of meteoric dust settling to earth places it at 14.3 million tons annually. If this rate has been constant throughout five billion years of geologic history, one might expect over fifty feet of meteorite dust to have settled all over the surface of the earth. ... The average meteorite contains about three hundred times more nickel than the average earth rock."



Meteorites In Strata

"No meteorites have been found in the geological column."



Lava In The Crust

"It has been estimated that four volcanoes spewing lava at the rate observed for Paricutin and continuing for five billion years could almost account for the volume of the continental crusts. The Colombian plateau of northwestern United States (covering 200,000 square miles) was produced by a gigantic lava flow several thousands of feet deep. The Canadian shield and other extensive lava flows indicate that volcanic activity has indeed followed an accelerated tempo in the past. The fact that only a small percentage of crystal rocks are recognizably lavas...."



Pressure In Oil Reservoirs

"Some geologist find it difficult to understand how the great pressures found in some oil wells could be retained over millions of years."



Human Population Dynamics

"If humanity is really about 2.5 million years old (as claimed by Dr. Louis Leakey), creationist calculate from conservative population estimates (2.4 children per family, average generation and life span of forty-three years) that the world population would have grown from a single family to 10 to the 2700th power of people over one million years. The present world population is about 2xlO to the 9th power, an infinitesimal part of the 10 to the 2700th power."



Radiocarbon In Atmosphere

"It now appears that the C14 decay rate in living organisms is about 30 per cent less than its production rate in the upper atmosphere. Since the amount of Cl4 is now increasing in the atmosphere, it may be assumed that the quantity of C14 was even lower in the past than at the present. This condition would lead to abnormally low C14/Cl2 ratios for the older fossils. Such a fossil would be interpreted as being much older than it really is. ... Creationists argue that since Cl4 has not yet reached its equilibrium rate, the age of the atmosphere must be less than 20,000 years old."



Dr. Stansfield's "Answer":

"By this methodology, creationists stand guilty of the "crime" they ascribe to evolutionists, namely uniformitarianism. All the above methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable, because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history. A method that appears to have much greater reliability for determining absolute ages of rocks is that of radiometric dating."



But He Acknowledges:

"If we assume that (1) a rock contained no Pb206 when it was formed, (2) all Pb206 now in the rock was produced by radioactive decay of U238, (3) the rate of decay has been constant, (4) there has been no differential leaching by water of either element, and (5) no U238 has been transported into the rock from another source, then we might expect our estimate of age to be fairly accurate. Each assumption is a potential variable, the magnitude of which can seldom be ascertained. In cases where the daughter product is a gas, as in the decay of potassium (K40) to the gas argon (Ar 40) it is essential that none of the gas escapes from the rock over long periods of time.



It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable longterm radiological 'clock."'





SCIENCE OF EVOLUTION, pp. 80-84.



>
> > > the past held that the days of creation were
> greater
> > > than 24 hour days (Martyr).
> >
> > Please provide this reference. I have most of his
> > works.
> >
>
> 1 day = 1000 years. We covered this, unless in your
> response you believed that is not what he was saying.
> If so, I totally misunderstood you on that one.
>

As I already posted on this very issue the 1day=1000yrs has nothing to do with a difference God's time and ours, it has everything to do with God's everlasting mercy and grace. He withholds judgment. Pls review this topic in context and you will KNOW that it has nothing to do with some multi-dimensional difference between man and God.

God is eternal forever, we are are eternal forward.

> > > was acceptance of differing views because no one
> was
> > > certain. That is why there was no resistance.
> > >

> > I am simply challenging. If you are not willing to
> > challenge what you believe....you better! I love Ed
> > as a brother in the Lord. But he openly admitted to
> > me that he was even unsure of the resurrection and he
> > was unsure of the biblical Adam. Why? That is
> > because people like you make him believe that the
> > bible is not meant to be a literal, historic
> document.
>
> Don't even go there. Have you read his page?

I am telling you what he wrote to me in an email.

>
> >
> > Please tell me the difference between Genesis 1: and
> > Genesis 11:. The point is that they are both
> Historic
> > and you have no method by which to deal with one
> > literally and one as symbolic. Since I am a
> > literalist there is simplistic harmony between Gen 1
> > and Gen 11.
> >
>
> I am also a literalist. Literal does not mandate
> simplest.
>

Is the Table of Nations literal?


> >
> > Have you ever read the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical
> > Journal? Seems like a lot of hard work, and well
> > documented too.
>
> I thought about making some cleverly irritating
> comment, but I won't. I will say, I have seen what
> happens when the 'theories' touted in this journal are
> examined in the real world. It's pretty messy.
>

Have you read the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal?

> >
> > Prove that Adam was not the first living human
> > biblically.
> > (He was the first biped ever created)
> > Prove that the Flood was not Global biblically.
> > (The flood was global)
> > Prove that the Resurrection was scientifically
> > plausible.
> > (It does not require science)
> > Prove that the Virgin Birth was scientifically
> > plausible.
> > (It does not require science)
> > Prove that a man can walk on water
> > scientifically.......etc.......
> > (It does not require science)
> > Prove that the History of the bible is symbolic.
> > (It is historic)
> >
> > How is that for a start.
> >
>
> You can't have it both ways Daniel. You can not say
> on the one hand prove the world is old using Scripture
> only, while on the other, prove miracles using science
> only. It is inconsistent (and a straw man). Still just
> for giggles...
>

Argh, that is the point.

> Adam was the first man made in God's image (by my
> understanding of Scripture). He was not the first two
> legged hominid - where does the Bible say he was?
> God's image is spirit, not two legged hominid.
>

Fraid to tell it like it is....Maybe Java man and Adam shared a valley together. Maybe Adam named Java.

> The flood; probably universal (not global - do you
> know the difference?)
>

No what is the difference? If I am in this universe, I get wiped out, but if I am in another universe I stay dry?

I have simply refutted the OEC claim that the flood was local or universally local. That is why Ed started this whole thread.

What was the reason for the Global Flood?

> As you said the resurrection does not require
> scientific explanation. Jesus appeared to the
> disciples as a sign and wonder to prove He had
> authority over death. But if you need an explanation
> - the resurrection was possible because Jesus being
> God in the flesh was self limited on earth to our
> space time continuum. In death He was liberated from
> these restraints and in His true multi-dimensional
> nature overcame the seeming invincibility of death.
>

You sound like Hank time and time again.

> etc. etc.
>
> I never said the history of the Bible was symbolic. I
> believe you did. I said it is literal, though
> misinterpreted.
>

The history of the bible symbolic. Haaaaaa! I would never sya this, and if you think I would don't you think that would contradict everything that I have been saying??????

> > > Your model fails from the
> > > start. It may be a nice tight dogmatically correct
> > > view, but it is wrong.
> >
> > Dogmatically correct? Huh? Do you mean biblically
> > correct or are just afraid to confront that
> > possibility?
> >
>
> Do not think for a moment that I don't wish you were
> correct. It would be so much simpler. Your
> hermeneutic only looks like a complete package because
> you keep it inside it's literary box. Take it out and
> try to make it fit in the real world and it falls
> apart.
>

You mean look at OEC science and it all falls apart. BTW, saving grace in the realworld seems to fall apart quite often. Must be that freewill thing getting in the way again.


> >
> > We are freewillbeings. Period. The difference
> > between you and I in this matter is that you believe
> > that God knew before hand who would be shot at the
> > columbine high school massacre and I believe that God
> > had no clue who would live or die that day, until the
> > incident occurred. He certainly knew all the
>
> I agree to your accessment of our differing views.

So why is God not the object of evil? In a court of law, if you have foreknowledge of an event you too can be found guilty for the same crime.

Why does the prayer of one man fail in the midst of the success of another within the same tragedy? Especially if God is not hold any one man higher than another.

>
> Your analogy fails because world time and game time
> are based on the same timeline. Even playing the game
> while traveling near the speed of light, where time
> dilation would come into play, will not help you.
> Still same timeline. At the speed of light time is
> virtually meaningless.

Great science fiction, but NOW would always be the same especially in a Geocentric universe. Why do you stop there? Quantum physics suggests that there are multiple universes, multiple space time continuums. Science has now provided you with an avenue for universe where all potential outcomes are actualized. Hitler a great humanitarian and Clinton celebate.


> >
> > Please provide any examples of God not being limited
> > to the NOW.
>
> Biblically, Richard did, I did, and I believe Mike did
> - you interpreted them differently. Mathematically, I
> did - you disagree. There is nothing left to try and
> convince you with - but time.
>

As I recall poorly exegete of passages using the greek term chronos. Don't you think that if God knew the future you could find something a little more substantial? Think aboout it, the answer is Prophecy. Yet even that breaks down, because prophecy does not have to be pre-written future, it is merely God's pre-determined will. His will changes based on the actions of his creation unless he is really determined. (read below)


Jer 15:1
1 Then the LORD said to me, "Even if Moses and Samuel stood before Me, My mind would not be favorable toward this people. Cast them out of My sight, and let them go forth.
(NKJ)

Why would God say such a thing?????? It appears that Moses and Samuel must have had some success changing God's mind.


Daniel

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.