It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

One answer to the dilemma of a seven day Creation vs Scientific views of creation.

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 03:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: chr0naut




The Bible, however, has a Creation account that has the universe being created roughly 6,000 years ago.


No where does the Bible give that number as the age of the universe...while I am aware some Christians believe that, none of the ones I know do.


You are right.

I should have said that "calculations based upon events that occurred at known historical dates as starting points and then with the addition of the ages of people from genealogical information in the Bible, leads us a date of Creation occurring approximately 6,000 years ago".

No matter how we may dance around the subject, many people see this as an irreconcilable problem and defer to the scientific chronology.

I was just suggesting one way that the difference is reconcilable.


edit on 15/2/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 04:40 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I don't even think you can do that. You might could make an argument for the fall of adam happening about 6000 years ago but not the creation.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 04:46 AM
link   
The Bible Doesn't Support a 6,000 Year Old Creation.

Read the following biblical passages concerning how God experiences time vs how man does. Keep in mind, that everywhere this is quoted, God never says his experienced day "is" exactly the same as a human's 1,000 years, but instead said "is like", "as good as" or "shall be as".

2 Peter 3:8 ". . . A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day. With God, one day is as good as a thousand years, a thousand years as a day."

The following passages (2 translations) clearly shows that man's day is incredibly short compared to God's and uses ever smaller units of time to emphasize that. Note here that a watch was actually 4 hours in duration.

Psalm 90

4 - but a thousand years mean nothing to you! They are merely a day gone by or a few hours in the night.

4 For a thousand years in Thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

It seems plain to me that this is saying that our human day is extremely small compared to God's day, but it doesn't commit to an exact comparison. However, a literal interpretation of 1,000 human years equals 4 of God's hours gives us the following estimate.

In this case a divine hour would be 250 human years, or a divine day of 6,000 human years, or a divine year equaling 2,190,000 for humans. With such a formula creation occurs over 36,000 years + 6,000 for the day of rest = 42,000 years. Now add to this the years since the bible was written plus the previous oral history. Dates go from 3,000 to 6,000 years ago, I'll choose a date of around 4,500 years giving us a age of creation around 46,500 human years.

However, if you were to apply the 7 divine days of creation to the currently held scientific age of the universe, around 14 billion years, then a day to God is somewhere in the realm of 2 billion years. Of course with God being an eternal, omnipotent being, I'd believe the first translation of Psalms given above that states a thousand human years means nothing to God.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

No offense friend, but I think you read a little to much into those passages. Psalms is most certainly poetic diction throughout. I believe the author of 2 peter and psalms were using linguistic devices as to try and help the readers understand God's position outside the realm of time. These verse don't have anything about the language or context that says they should be taken as literal time markers of God's days. Actually its kinda silly to assume the creator of time is held within another realm of time all together.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 05:45 AM
link   
I wonder who God was working for. And did he have a green-card or did he work under the table.
This looks like a job for the IRS.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

No offense friend, but I think you read a little to much into those passages. Psalms is most certainly poetic diction throughout. I believe the author of 2 peter and psalms were using linguistic devices as to try and help the readers understand God's position outside the realm of time. These verse don't have anything about the language or context that says they should be taken as literal time markers of God's days. Actually its kinda silly to assume the creator of time is held within another realm of time all together.


I thought that was what I was pointing out. Seems like you're supporting my position, except that last line that seems to oppose the rest of what you stated. How can God's position be outside the realm of (human) time and yet it is silly to assume that God is within another realm of time all together? If God doesn't experience some form of time (God's time), why bother making such a comparison in the Biblical text?
edit on 15-2-2015 by MichiganSwampBuck because: For clarity



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


Cheers! Hope this generates some lively discussion.

Read your thread and it was very well presented and clear with the exception that I am as dumb as a rock when it come to science.

Don't believe in a big bang myself and believe the world today is twice the size of when it was formed. For the first 1600 years or so the world was canopied by an unknown measure of water and it was that water that fell for 40 days and 40 nights. That would change the sciences as we understand them today. Gravity would be tremendously increased as well.

Prior to this the world was a great big mud ball with out time. Now where this mud ball came from I have no idea. Could have been created eons before it was formed into this world. I believe that as science insists upon the material (world) being billions of (years) it is very possible but not necessarily true that it was formed billions of years ago, When Moses wrote of the creation of this world it could be understood as being the formation of the material of this world. So it could have been the formation of the created material that took place in six eras. You can see some of this understanding in the Genesis account as the Creator formed some things from the creation. Formed and created are used very loosely.

That is my understanding as a dumb jockey.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Also since we are in an expanding system we base all our figures on factors happening at a certain rate at a certain point of the expansion. It could be that some factors make it fact that at different points of the expansion we find that things we accepted as constants are not. Something like decay could vary depending on influences we have not expierenced in this life.

Since the news of two friday 13 in a row and the super collider restarting at 13tev i tend to believe that perhaps a stranglet could be in our near future that sends us into a time loop and we start over from being smashed very small then back to the size we are. That could be the point where an unseen group detaches from us and allows a new group to connect to us in the higher slot that is above us.

Anyhow i think you are mostly correct with what you put forth here. One thing i think is that it could be possible that in an argument both sides could be right and that would allow them to be completly convinced the other side is wrong.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck



How can God's position be outside the realm of (human) time and yet it is silly to assume that God is within another realm of time all together? If God doesn't experience some form of time (God's time), why bother making such a comparison in the Biblical text?


Isaiah 57
For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

Now lets look at 2 Peter again:

A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day. With God, one day is as good as a thousand years, a thousand years as a day."

This is not a normal comparison of time. One says that 24 hours can equal 1000 years and the other says 1000 years can equal 24 hours. One goes forward and one goes backwards. You are looking at time as though it is linear. When in reality time is spherical. From an outside perspective an observer could see all of time at once, and interject whenever he pleases. The author is showing us that God is unhindered by time at all(he inhabits eternity).

Many of us think of eternity as an infinite amount of time, when it is actually best thought of as the absence of time. Time is not relevant in an eternal state.




If God doesn't experience some form of time (God's time), why bother making such a comparison in the Biblical text?


The comparison is a more poetic way of saying he inhabits eternity. IMO.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I see your point now. Thanks for explaining that.

Still, Genesis claims God created the world in seven days. So who's seven days were those? Also, if time doesn't exist for God in some form, then would anything actually exist at all from God's perspective? Space and time, just like all dimensions cannot exist separately, an object without duration doesn't exist at all.

Of course it is impossible to understand eternity from our perspective. All in all, it is quite a thought provoking exercise. My big hang up is people who believe in an absolute 6,000 year creation based on the verses I quoted, when those verses never actually said that. In that, I assume, we can both agree?

ETA: Another point would be, if Christ was God in the flesh, then He would have experienced time in a linear way the same as other human beings. Therefore, due to that and His all knowing nature, God must be aware of "time". Quite perplexing indeed.
edit on 15-2-2015 by MichiganSwampBuck because: Added extra comment


Crap! Then there is the verse where God says He is the beginning and the end. How can that be without a reference to time? Man. I need to stop thinking for a while.
edit on 15-2-2015 by MichiganSwampBuck because: Added another comment



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: chr0naut

I don't even think you can do that. You might could make an argument for the fall of adam happening about 6000 years ago but not the creation.


The Bible clearly states that Creation (or re-Creation) occurred over a six day period and on the seventh God rested. I am assuming that the intention of the writer's prose was literal.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
The Bible Doesn't Support a 6,000 Year Old Creation.

Read the following biblical passages concerning how God experiences time vs how man does. Keep in mind, that everywhere this is quoted, God never says his experienced day "is" exactly the same as a human's 1,000 years, but instead said "is like", "as good as" or "shall be as".

2 Peter 3:8 ". . . A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day. With God, one day is as good as a thousand years, a thousand years as a day."

The following passages (2 translations) clearly shows that man's day is incredibly short compared to God's and uses ever smaller units of time to emphasize that. Note here that a watch was actually 4 hours in duration.

Psalm 90

4 - but a thousand years mean nothing to you! They are merely a day gone by or a few hours in the night.

4 For a thousand years in Thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

It seems plain to me that this is saying that our human day is extremely small compared to God's day, but it doesn't commit to an exact comparison. However, a literal interpretation of 1,000 human years equals 4 of God's hours gives us the following estimate.

In this case a divine hour would be 250 human years, or a divine day of 6,000 human years, or a divine year equaling 2,190,000 for humans. With such a formula creation occurs over 36,000 years + 6,000 for the day of rest = 42,000 years. Now add to this the years since the bible was written plus the previous oral history. Dates go from 3,000 to 6,000 years ago, I'll choose a date of around 4,500 years giving us a age of creation around 46,500 human years.

However, if you were to apply the 7 divine days of creation to the currently held scientific age of the universe, around 14 billion years, then a day to God is somewhere in the realm of 2 billion years. Of course with God being an eternal, omnipotent being, I'd believe the first translation of Psalms given above that states a thousand human years means nothing to God.


I take your point but I did mention in this post: www.abovetopsecret.com... that the 1,000 years was a middle eastern colloquialism for 'a big number' and may not necessarily be a literal exact value.


edit on 15/2/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: skunkape23
I wonder who God was working for. And did he have a green-card or did he work under the table.
This looks like a job for the IRS.


No, I've reviewed the records and it appears that He has fully accounted for His work hours and the documentation has been submitted to us and was in our offices for some time.




edit on 15/2/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck




Still, Genesis claims God created the world in seven days. So who's seven days were those?


I think its important to establish a frame of reference in Genesis 1 before coming to the creation days.

Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

In order to first understand what is being said here we must know what is meant by "the heaven and the earth." In Hebrew the words "the heaven and the earth" is a phrase kind of similar to "break a leg" or any other English phrase you can think of. It occurs 9 times in Genesis I believe and it always means the totality of physical existence.

So in the beginning God created the totality of physical existence. We don't know how long God was in this act of creation. We do know that God was stretching the heavens(Expanding universe). There are around 11 verses that talk about God doing this, one below:

Thus says the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and the one who formed him: “Ask me of things to come; will you command me concerning my children and the work of my hands? I made the earth and created man on it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host.

Genesis 2
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

At some point in time God visits the earth after something the text doesnt disclose causes it to become uninhabitable. How do I know something caused it? Genesis 1:28 Adam and Eve are told to replenish the earth.

Replinsh definition
restore (a stock or supply of something) to the former level or condition.

So adam and eve were to restore the earth to its former condition.

and he is hovering over the water.

Now God begins to reform the earth for humans. Again we have no idea were we are at in time, we just know that it happened at some point.




Also, if time doesn't exist for God in some form, then would anything actually exist at all from God's perspective?


I will have to agree with "Of course it is impossible to understand eternity from our perspective."

Maybe what is perceived as movement through space in God's realm works entirely different. The truth is I have no idea




My big hang up is people who believe in an absolute 6,000 year creation based on the verses I quoted, when those verses never actually said that. In that, I assume, we can both agree


Most definitely.




Another point would be, if Christ was God in the flesh, then He would have experienced time in a linear way the same as other human beings. Therefore, due to that and His all knowing nature, God must be aware of "time". Quite perplexing indeed.


Well the creator of time must logically be aware of its inner workings right? I mean if I created the internal combustion engine and didn't understand how it worked that would be even more perplexing imo.




Crap! Then there is the verse where God says He is the beginning and the end. How can that be without a reference to time? Man. I need to stop thinking for a while.


He is the beginning and the end. Remember, from an outside perspective an observer could see all of time at once, and interject whenever he pleases. God is at the start of time and God is at the end of time. Again it seems a poetic way of saying God is outside the realm of space-time.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: chr0naut


Cheers! Hope this generates some lively discussion.

Read your thread and it was very well presented and clear with the exception that I am as dumb as a rock when it come to science.

Don't believe in a big bang myself and believe the world today is twice the size of when it was formed. For the first 1600 years or so the world was canopied by an unknown measure of water and it was that water that fell for 40 days and 40 nights. That would change the sciences as we understand them today. Gravity would be tremendously increased as well.

Prior to this the world was a great big mud ball with out time. Now where this mud ball came from I have no idea. Could have been created eons before it was formed into this world. I believe that as science insists upon the material (world) being billions of (years) it is very possible but not necessarily true that it was formed billions of years ago, When Moses wrote of the creation of this world it could be understood as being the formation of the material of this world. So it could have been the formation of the created material that took place in six eras. You can see some of this understanding in the Genesis account as the Creator formed some things from the creation. Formed and created are used very loosely.

That is my understanding as a dumb jockey.


Not dumb at all. Questioning the popular paradigm shows intellect in my opinion.

The cloud canopy bit is a stage in planetary formation that accords with science.

As gravity is a function of mass, I can't see how a mass of water falling from a canopy to the planet changes the total mass of the system, hence I cannot see a reason for gravitational change.

The Big Bang is currently the darling theory but not too many years ago highly respected scientists like Fred Hoyle suggested alternates. In no way is the Big Bang totally proven but there is evidence that points in that direction.

Thank you for your contribution.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Once again, more thought provoking answers. Thanks for your perspective Servant.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: chr0naut

Also since we are in an expanding system we base all our figures on factors happening at a certain rate at a certain point of the expansion. It could be that some factors make it fact that at different points of the expansion we find that things we accepted as constants are not. Something like decay could vary depending on influences we have not expierenced in this life.

Since the news of two friday 13 in a row and the super collider restarting at 13tev i tend to believe that perhaps a stranglet could be in our near future that sends us into a time loop and we start over from being smashed very small then back to the size we are. That could be the point where an unseen group detaches from us and allows a new group to connect to us in the higher slot that is above us.

Anyhow i think you are mostly correct with what you put forth here. One thing i think is that it could be possible that in an argument both sides could be right and that would allow them to be completly convinced the other side is wrong.


Yes, I am in total agreement that science has based itself upon the observed and therefore may be quite wrong about conditions outside its observation.

One such issue is the possibility of a varying speed of light. There has been some suggestion that even during historical times, the speed of light has been slowing down. As historical measurements have also not had the accuracy we currently have and the proposed changes are tiny in this modern time-frame, it could be down to observational error. However, the fact that there seems to be some evidence that red-shift appears to be quantized raises question about it being due to Doppler Shift (which means the Hubble Constant may not be constant and we may not be in an expanding universe which puts doubt on a Big Bang origin).


edit on 15/2/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   

The only observer of the six days of creation was... of course, God, you got it!

So, there it is, a possible answer.

Now, an exercise for those who must just know things;

Assuming that the creation consumed God's energy enough to dilate 13.798 ±0.037 billion years into six 24 hour days of creation, calculate the energy God used to create the universe (this is assuming a curve with an asymptote coinciding with the 7th day when He rested). Cross check that with the calculated mass of the universe (approx 10^53 kg) to get creation efficiency.

Cheers! Hope this generates some lively discussion.


is this a testable hypothesis?



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

What is a day off of earth? How can a day exist before the earth existed?



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

The only observer of the six days of creation was... of course, God, you got it!

So, there it is, a possible answer.

Now, an exercise for those who must just know things;

Assuming that the creation consumed God's energy enough to dilate 13.798 ±0.037 billion years into six 24 hour days of creation, calculate the energy God used to create the universe (this is assuming a curve with an asymptote coinciding with the 7th day when He rested). Cross check that with the calculated mass of the universe (approx 10^53 kg) to get creation efficiency.

Cheers! Hope this generates some lively discussion.


is this a testable hypothesis?


Not that I can conceive of; but it's a big universe, and strange, too.

By the way, please use the quote or reply buttons as they identify whom your response is directed to. I nearly missed your post as one I might reply to because of this.


edit on 15/2/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join