The meaning of time and the "Beginning" in Genesis One, verse one - Is it the beginning, and is there really a creation week?

We read Genesis One, verse one and we see that the fundamental reality of Scripture is that "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

So is this the "creation theory"?

And are there various valid "theories" about the meaning of time and the beginning?

OK, Lets try this again. It is a good discussion - about the meaning of BEGINNING, but it is not the intended topic - So I will change the name to suit Lou. . . 

Lets go ahead and talk about the Beginning.

(but the track record remains,  and even  THIS conversation  will also end up derailed)

Views: 108

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion



Lou Hamby said:

youhave to go tot he evidences in nature that exists that GOd left for us to understnad and know.  So instead of pointing out my short comes, perhaps you should tell me how science has failed and your view is correct on what evidences?

Here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83brK_yohRA

('Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old - Jason Lisle')

In this very short video, Lisle, near the end, notes that the Big Bang model has the same problem (a distance starlight problem) as that of the plain Biblical reading of Genesis 1.

Please note: And I am not saying that the godless version of science has failed on all points. Far from it. What I mean is: notice that human beings are the central instruments in that version of science, no less than in YEC science.

This entails, simply, that, no matter the philosophical framework in which empirical inquiry is interpreted, it still is empirical inquiry by human beings (not by the particular philosophical framework).

The telling predictive failure of the godless naturalism framework is the issue, not any empirical facts that are found by humans who employ that framework. Consider the following profound failure:

The Drake Equation

In case you want me to explain to you some of the profound ways in which that equation failed for various other realms of inquiry, please see my thread (which I shall begin right after posting this reply) titled The Drake Equation on Everything.

.

Lou Hamby said:

youhave to go tot he evidences in nature that exists that GOd left for us to understnad and know.  So instead of pointing out my short comes, perhaps you should tell me how science has failed and your view is correct on what evidences?

Here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83brK_yohRA

('Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old - Jason Lisle')

In this very short video, Lisle, near the end, notes that the Big Bang model has the same problem (a distance starlight problem) as that of the plain Biblical reading of Genesis 1.

Please note: I am NOT saying that the godless version of science has failed on all points. Far from it.

What I mean is: notice that human beings are THEMSELVES the central instruments in that version of science, NO LESS (AND NO MORE) than in YEC science.

This entails, simply, that, no matter the philosophical framework in which empirical inquiry is interpreted, it still is empirical inquiry by human beings (not by the particular philosophical framework).

The telling predictive failure of the godless naturalism framework is the issue, not any empirical facts that are found by humans who employ that framework. Consider the following profound failure:

The Drake Equation

In case you want me to explain to you some of the profound ways in which that equation failed for various other realms of inquiry, please see my thread (which I shall begin right after posting this reply) titled The Drake Equation on Everything

.

Jason Lisle was challenged by real astronomers about his views and was given clear evidence that his view is not consistent with what is known,  and cannot be true.  He is also one who often uses Dogma as a basis of his views but fails to give real evidences and when challenged by experts has been found wanting.  But UECS keep publishing his stuff and trying to support it. I don't get it.  THe Geneisis narrative has a Chronology and language. It is no accident the millions of Christians have different views of Genesis.  I am not criticizing the fact you interpret Genesis this way.  I am "challenging you" and have twice now to give evidences that your view is consistent with observable evidences and mathematics.  First of all since light years have been measured and used in calculations for space travel, why don't you start there and give evidences that this is all a farce and the distances between Milky Way and earth imply a time factor within its existence context.  Again I don't see Lisle disregarding the basis of factual science.  

The telling predictive failure of the godless naturalism framework is the issue, not any empirical facts that are found by humans who employ that framework. 

Again you who employ this is speaking to a person who wholly reject naturalism and in fact have written papers against evolution for scientific consumption with respect to reptiles and design in nature.  So don't equate my views with Naturalism becasue I completely reject that tenant...

With all do respect the Word says that man will have no excuse becasue the natural world reflects the Works of almighty God.  IF your discounting observation and real mathematical science then you must prove by some methodology and observation that this is "all" wrong?

  IF your going to use JasonLISle for an expert, he has been debunked many times and like Danny Faulkner has proposed theoretical ideas that ahve no existence in observable evidences or are congruent with known mathematics.. I am not arguing with you brother.  I am asking you as a YEC to get off of "dogma entrenched theory" and be open that other well meaning and well informed Christians have a different view and some of those views are well supported in every way.  Yet you want to criticize science, criticize what man has observed for thousands of years, without ensuing an argument that others are heretical.  Becasue this is not the case!!!!

  

Daniel you Said:

Either God created the entire cosmos to be conceptually accessible to humans, or it all is just the jumble of physics and biology that Darwin loved: Human brains are like collections of garbage that have no real dependable relation to its cosmos-and-Earth context.

So, in your claiming that the universe is as separate from Earth as that by billions of years, you are deifying the universe, and trivializing Earth.

1.  Daniel did you really read my responses to you brother?  Physics and biology and mathematics goes back to early man my friend.  How do you think Noah designed his boat or the Egyptians built their Pyramids?  Darwin is 150 years old failed theoretical inference friend, BUt man has observed nature and GODs oWrk since the beginning.  I See every reason biblically and rationally, that the earth is totally accessible to man and his understanding.  We are not animals as Darwin assumes, we are the offspring and in the likeness of Gods mighty work and even  Adam understood nature early in the beginning? 

"So, in your claiming that the universe is as separate from Earth as that by billions of years, you are deifying the universe, and trivializing Earth."


Daniel go back and read what I said?  THe earth is not separate form the earth and no I did not trivialize the earth, apparently and unless you have anew theory for us all to understand, the earth "is" part of the Universe but it was specifically set in place by design of all mighty God?  Do you believe that.  No matter its age?  THe earth is a piece of the Universe, and is part of the material make up of the universe that GOD designed and implemented.  So you apparently failed to understand what I actually implore.  wether the universe is 10 minutes, 10 years, or 10 million years, its existence is part of the original and intentional work and design of GOd...Period!!!!   

The creation event --- Meaning the inculcation of life on our planet by almighty GOD is of a recent vintage and we now that by many many different observations and scientific measures. So the creation of the Universe and the creation of life are not one and the same work at the same time?  Obviously 6 days were required for life to be spoken and life covering the earth.  This event is not the creation of the foundations of the Universe... the planets the stars, the specific placement of the earth etc.  Or do you believe the earths placement was just accidental? 

I'm curious, Lou... by this statement did you mean to imply that Jason Lisle is not a 'real' astronomer? I don't believe you to be one who would attack someone's pedigree simply because they don't follow your position on a subject...

That said, I have watched many debates with Jason Lisle speaking with such names as Hugh Ross, and other astronomers, physicists and theoretical physicists.. Each of them do offer evidence that while can't be easily explained away form Jason Lisle's position, Jason Lisle also provides evidence that is contrary to his opponents, those which also go unexplained... You might be satisfied with computer models and man-made experiments that provide a convoluted conclusion that seemingly 'debunks' Jason Lisle, however, I've yet to see conclusive empirical evidence that says otherwise which would debunk the reading of our beloved scripture...

While our knowledge of space science has grown exponentially over the past centuries... we still know very little and much of what we know is assumption based. I would say this for both sides of the argument.. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and thus since both sides fail to fully substantiate their claims and stand on the shaky ground of assumption rather than evidence one shouldn't base their belief system or disregard another simply because one shaky foundation follows your beliefs and the other shaky foundation doesn't do so.

The more you post, Lou, the more it seems that you place your faith on the evidence and works produced by man, as much or in some cases more than that of scripture. I'd say this in and of itself is shaky ground... I take a lot of what man discovers (especially those within their field of study) to heart, consider the evidence, but I am also bringing my own presupposition and assumptions to that evidence... 

We must remember, while these men (on both sides) sincerely love the Lord and are trying to explain the amazement of creation for the glory of God... best men are still men at best, and we take what they say, perhaps to guide us, but we take God's Word over all and the literal reading (not from a specific version but if reading from both the greek and the hebrew texts) support the young earth position (6,000-10,000 years old), which I will remind you IS the census and the belief system of this online community.

The reason there are so many bunk concepts of Genesis is not because science gives us another story, its because good-hearted Christians of the past generations tried to rectify scripture to compare to the discovery of man... 

So Lou is coming out with his answer to the question of the OP: The meaning of time and the "Beginning" in Genesis One, verse one - Is it the beginning, and is there really a creation week?

Lou Hamby said:

Jason Lisle was challenged by real astronomers about his views and was given clear evidence that his view is not consistent with what is known,  and cannot be true.

But, as is typical, my friend Lou is unable to support his views with any kind of biblical discussion. He can only resort to the politics of personality - dropping names like Lisle, Faulkner, and others.

He is also one who often uses Dogma as a basis of his views but fails to give real evidences and when challenged by experts has been found wanting.  But YECs keep publishing his stuff and trying to support it. I don't get it.

Here my friend Lou refers to "Dogma" as a negative. This also is quite telling. It reveals that Lou does not affirm any knowable and certain dogma about origins in the Bible. His only dogma is his misguided appeal to theories and uncertainties put forward by those who have invented a mythology to replace God (Rom. 1:21-28). Not that Lou is involved in idolatry himself, but he is embracing and devoted to the ideologies of the naturalists - ideologies that are NOT SCIENCE, not observable, not measurable, and not repeatable. He says, "I don't get it." What else would we expect from someone who believes that the Book of Scripture must be squeezed into a perversion of the Book of Nature.

 The Geneisis narrative has a Chronology and language.

The Chronology of Genesis is rejected by Lou as wholly inaccurate.

It is no accident the millions of Christians have different views of Genesis.  I am not criticizing the fact you interpret Genesis this way.

Sure you are criticizing it. You are attacking it as NOT in harmony with millions of other Christians. BUT if we are going to appeal to what millions of Christians believe, then that means we should accept Darwinism, since millions of Christians have a view of Genesis that integrates biological evolution. For some reason Lou rejects the majority view of "science" in this regard, and confidently embrace the biblical revelation of uncrossable gulfs between the kinds. How does he accept the one and not the other.  I wonder.

 I am "challenging you" and have twice now to give evidences that your view is consistent with observable evidences and mathematics.

But what my dear friend does not understand is that we here are not concerned about making the Bible consistent with alleged "observable evidences and mathematics." We are challenging Lou and other Concordists to give evidence that their view is even remotely consistent with the simple sense of Scripture. But like all Concordists, Lou rejects the simple sense of Scripture in favor of rewriting it to agree with unbelieving naturalism.

 First of all since light years have been measured and used in calculations for space travel, why don't you start there and give evidences that this is all a farce and the distances between Milky Way and earth imply a time factor within its existence context.

Again, Lou is revealing that he does not accept the account of the Six Days. The narrative of Genesis makes it very clear that the Milky Way, and all of the stars (at least a septillion) were made during the Week, on day four - not millions of years previous.

Again you who employ this is speaking to a person who wholly reject naturalism and in fact have written papers against evolution for scientific consumption with respect to reptiles and design in nature.  So don't equate my views with Naturalism becasue I completely reject that tenant...

No, Lou, you are subservient to naturalism in the world of astronomy and the cosmos. You only reject naturalism when it agrees with your views. We reject naturalism as an ideology; you do not.

With all do respect the Word says that man will have no excuse because the natural world reflects the Works of Almighty God.  IF your discounting observation and real mathematical science then you must prove by some methodology and observation that this is "all" wrong?

Again, poor misguided Lou has it backwards. He wants us to make the Word of God to reflect the Works of God. In fact the Bible reveals that it is the other way around. The natural world CONFIRMS the revelation in the Word of God. So whatever we think the natural world is saying, it must agree with the simple sense of the written Word.

I am asking you as a YEC to get off of "dogma entrenched theory" and be open that other well meaning and well informed Christians have a different view and some of those views are well supported in every way.

Lou, first of all you are not YEC. And all of our understanding of science must be totally based on Scriptural Dogma.

a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle:
the classic dogma of objectivity in scientific observation.
Synonyms: conviction, certainty

Is dogma bad? Is it wrong to have an established and settled faith? The problem here is that Lou, dear friend, your dogma is the speculations of the naturalists which they call "science" even though it relates to things that are outside of the realm of science. Lou, you are bound by his dogma of "science," elevating it over the certainties of Scripture. But we are bound to the dogma of Scripture.

Yet you want to criticize science, criticize what man has observed for thousands of years, without ensuing an argument that others are heretical.  Because this is not the case!!!!

This is a falsehood. Here at Creation Conversations we NEVER EVER CRITICIZE science. But by all means we do most definitely reject all notions of naturalists, masquerading as "science" - and no one is accusing you of being "heretical" - that is an ad hominem, and it is not discussion of the point. Why is it that you are never interested in discussion of Scripture? Why is it that you only bring this absurd claims that we are heretical, and that we are critical of science. We detect from this that you are our opponent, and while we want to be your friends, you respond by calling us heretical and critical of science.

NOW, will you please join the conversation and instead of attacking us, kindly support your own views, discuss your own views, support it with evidences from Scripture - that is the topic of this thread.

Tell us why you believe that Genesis One, verse one is not the real beginning.



Lou Hamby said:

Daniel Said:
"So, in your claiming that the universe is as separate from Earth as that by billions of years, you are deifying the universe, and trivializing Earth."


Daniel go back and read what I said?  THe earth is not separate form the earth and no I did not trivialize the earth, apparently and unless you have anew theory for us all to understand, the earth "is" part of the Universe but it was specifically set in place by design of all mighty God?  Do you believe that.  No matter its age?  THe earth is a piece of the Universe, and is part of the material make up of the universe that GOD designed and implemented.  So you apparently failed to understand what I actually implore.
I'm sorry Lou. I was not clear. I did not mean that I think... that you think... that the Earth is not materially part of rest of the universe.
I know that you think it is (is) part of the universe.
My point was simply about the time difference, and how that difference seems to me to have theological implications:
The most basic theological implication that I see in a billions-of-years-prior-to-Earth idea for the universe is that it is grossly logically unnecessary for God to have left the cosmos without Earth for any appreciable length of time. This is connected to how I interpret the relation between when the man was created and when the woman was created.
Specifically, I meant that, in my interpretation of Genesis 1&2, I think that the only universal fit between Earth and cosmos is one that abides the type that I see in these accounts.
...Specifically, the type that I see in these accounts is the type that might be called irreducibly complex mutual dependency, or ICMD.
The most plain reading of Genesis allows the geophysical systems of Earth that are established in vs. 4-10 to be established in a dynamic process that centrally is about this ICMD. It is about the geophysically final, irreducibly complex thing which is that geophysical system: the water cycle.
And, in my view, unless there is some kind of dependency of Earth on the Universe, then the Universe is trivial to life. And if the universe is billions of years older than the Earth, then that particular triviality, in turn, trivializes Earth.
From the point of view of someone who has no access to any of the evidence that would convince someone like yourself that the universe is billions of years old, Genesis 1 & 2 are a perfect fit to the plainly-read fact that the woman was made only hours, at most, after the man was made.
Half of my point in all this is the fact that... such a someone describes virtually everyone in all of human history (the exceptions being modern secular and secular-influenced people who have that access through the sophisticated instruments required).
The other half of my point is that, ONLY if the Biblical Creator is conceptually denied His own power by a human mind does that human find a need to explain the origins of everything in terms of millions and billions of years. This is because the only observable natural processes by which origins could come about unaided by a Supernatural God are processes that, even hypothetically, must take that long to bring about everything from some original state. This is an original state which is comprised either or both of chaos or non-complexity.
So a universe that God created only to have it exist for billions of years without Earth is like the words of a song called "Sugar" by Wanderhouse...
.
.
...especially the lines:
.
We could be a secret
.
Or the real thing
.

So, Lou, my position on the age of the universe can be summed up in one short statement:

"It would not be good for the man to remain alone." (Genesis 2:18)

.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2017

What's new @ CC for 2017? Stay tuned and keep checking back. More ask the experts, more creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2017   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service