God answers prayers, right? Why can't we ask Him instead of relying on our limited minds? There must me one holy man left on earth to ask this question and receive the answer back. That is my hope for the answer. Every other idea is just a confusion.
The big bang lol. Not only did matter just self exist, but the space it existed in had to come into existence of its own accord before matter did the same. Then when the big bang happened, where do all the elements come from? That is a big problem for evolutionists because you cannot fuse Iron, and they need that to create the elements.
Then there is the problem of the bones. There are not enough of them to prove their theory. There is only one "lucy" who apparently self existed as well. There are under 10 neanderthal bones, in the period of their existence there should be at minimum a few hundred thousand, etc.
Neanderthal's support the Genesis account of man. The only big difference between us and neanderthal is the skull, which is significantly bigger than ours. This is one thing that does not stop growing on humans, especially the brow ridge. If you dont believe me check out this Russian http://stargods.org/TheyLiveNikolaiValuevEyes2.jpg His head is actually a bit bigger than that of a neanderthal.
My argument is this, yes evolution appears to make sense, BUT the evidence we have in the fossil records are NOT showing a "gradual transition" from one species to the next. You may see one "transitional form" but evolution teaches that for a species to change into a distinctly different species requires billions of transitional forms, yet we have only discovered how many transitional forms? Keep in mind that if a species requires billions of years to become another species, it is more likely that the species would go to extinction before having a chance for evolutionary advance. If I was the only one arguing this you may just call me stubborn, but when you have a list of HUNDREDS of scientists with Ph.D's from different fields who have obviously done enough research saying that the evidence for Darwinian evolution REALLY isn't as strong as other scientists are claiming it to be, than that must mean something.
Likewise, not to be disrespected to anyone, but the age of the universe is simply out of question. If the universe we not billions of years old than the Laws of the universe would all be thrown out the window. There is no evidence at all for a young earth. I am not saying God couldn't have created the earth 10,000 years ago, He could have if he wanted to, but what God has revealed to us through science which HE created, was that he created the universe around 14.9 billion years ago with a big Bang in which he simultaneously created matter, space, and time itself. Once again, Psalm 19 and the firmament sheweth his handywork. 2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. This verse can be interpreted as the discoveries in science reveal to us HOW God created the universe in detail. The book of genesis simply tells us the order in which he created, but it is ridiculous to think all the magnificent works of God concerning the creation could even be contained in any book.
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=9851.msg120807#msg120807 date=1287161444] The big bang lol. Not only did matter just self exist, but the space it existed in had to come into existence of its own accord before matter did the same. Then when the big bang happened, where do all the elements come from? That is a big problem for evolutionists because you cannot fuse Iron, and they need that to create the elements.
Then there is the problem of the bones. There are not enough of them to prove their theory. There is only one "lucy" who apparently self existed as well. There are under 10 neanderthal bones, in the period of their existence there should be at minimum a few hundred thousand, etc.
Neanderthal's support the Genesis account of man. The only big difference between us and neanderthal is the skull, which is significantly bigger than ours. This is one thing that does not stop growing on humans, especially the brow ridge. If you dont believe me check out this Russian http://stargods.org/TheyLiveNikolaiValuevEyes2.jpg His head is actually a bit bigger than that of a neanderthal.
There is actually a Paper written on Neanderthals by two athiests scientists. First of all, there heads are not just "bigger" than ours, their nasal capacity is so huge, that these scientists concluded that it was impossible to link Neanderthals with any other land mammal species, not just humans. On top of that, Neanderthals DNA is about 4% different than human DNA which is huge, so... there not humans.
If God created the world 10,000 years ago it would not affect the laws of nature one iota.
Do please re-read what I have said and see if you understand what I mean. The creation of the universe at the Big Bang does solve the problem of what happened before the Big Bang.
Science is just mechanics. It can tell us nothing at all about origins. The creation of the universe takes place outside of time and therefore cannot be bound to whatever any scientist says.
Let me ask again. If you were creating a mature Oak tree how old would it look? And how old would it be? If it were created as a mature tree what laws of nature would be broken? And in what way in any case is God bound by anything? No laws of nature are broken by God creating the universe 10,000 years ago, and the mechanical explanations of scientists are not invalid, they do represent an explanation from WITHIN the universe, although they are limited because they cannot say anything about what God actually did. Scientists are just mechanics, they explain the mechanics of things. According to the mechanics what might have happened might be what they say. But I don't believe at all that this is what happened from God's point of view.
If someone wants to leave the Orthodox Faith because a priest teaches that God really created the heavens and earth then with respect they have lots of other problems in any case because we do not abandon faith in Christ over anything like that once we have known Christ.
There is time in the world to come. Indeed creation necessitates time. Only God exists beyond time.
Therefore we may ask, if God will create the new universe in an instant then why not this one?
We know that we will cast our crowns before God in the future life. This requires a before and an after and therefore time. We know that we will worship saying, Holy, Holy, Holy, this also requires a sequence of events and therefore time. Indeed it is incomprehensible how any being might exist without time, and since this belongs only to the experience of God it is beyond anything we might imagine.
Since we will be existing in time the new universe will be created in time, and I am sure we will not have to wait 4 billion years to inhabit it, even though it will also be created as a mature system just as this universe is, and those who think of such things in those days will also see that there is an inferred history even in that age.
Sorry I have to reply quickly then get back later.
Dendrochronology: it is scientifically observed and recorded that it is not a uniform criterion due to environmental and natural growth variations, in a single year from 1 to 5 tree rings were proven to occur. Furthermore the longer the time factor the more you must statistically calculate a deviation factor: you cannot simply assume that the environment is stable and unchanging for thousands of years or more. Also the proven fact that the Flood occurred cuts short many assumptions (these latter built on other assumptions) depending on a circular non scientific reasoning.
Big bang is a chaotic explosion that according to proven laws of physics can only deteriorate.
I have no real problem in believing God is totally able to create the sun after the earth. I'd like to point out that the sun cannot be too old otherwise it would have swallowed the earth - you can check this yourself. Also the earth is not derived from the sun, if this is so then the earth cloud could not have any chance to condensate (unless of course it were there already before the sun). I have also read a physics paper discussing Einstein's all possible relativity and quantum calculations concerning the speed of light, cosmic distances and bending, that concluded without any problem that light from stars millions of light years away can be seen instantly from earth - yes that's right.
Neanderthal is now approved to be a variation of humans. It is considered now correct there are still living descendants of them in Europe. Similarly, the Hobbit variation of Asian pygmies.
I do accept that God can chose to create things instantaneously as well as using sometimes established properties of things He had already created according to His Will and Wisdom but we learned that most if not all the miracles of Our Lord Jesus Christ were instantaneously following His command.
Too many discoveries in the ID field point also to a crucial fact: that too many living creatures could not have evolved at all because they could not have survived for one generation.
I will later discuss the "Know How" problem, and the symbiotic and the parasitic relationships between the living creatures found in nature.
[glow=red,2,300]EDIT:[/glow] I forgot to put this important link for everybody to watch: [table][tr][td][/td][/tr][/table] Hubble bubble - Big Bang In Trouble http://www.youtube.com/user/vdofam#g/c/270A014EEA63E595 And he is not a lone scientist.
[quote author=Meena_Ameen link=topic=9851.msg120809#msg120809 date=1287162151] [quote author=Ioannes link=topic=9851.msg120807#msg120807 date=1287161444] The big bang lol. Not only did matter just self exist, but the space it existed in had to come into existence of its own accord before matter did the same. Then when the big bang happened, where do all the elements come from? That is a big problem for evolutionists because you cannot fuse Iron, and they need that to create the elements.
Then there is the problem of the bones. There are not enough of them to prove their theory. There is only one "lucy" who apparently self existed as well. There are under 10 neanderthal bones, in the period of their existence there should be at minimum a few hundred thousand, etc.
Neanderthal's support the Genesis account of man. The only big difference between us and neanderthal is the skull, which is significantly bigger than ours. This is one thing that does not stop growing on humans, especially the brow ridge. If you dont believe me check out this Russian http://stargods.org/TheyLiveNikolaiValuevEyes2.jpg His head is actually a bit bigger than that of a neanderthal.
There is actually a Paper written on Neanderthals by two athiests scientists. First of all, there heads are not just "bigger" than ours, their nasal capacity is so huge, that these scientists concluded that it was impossible to link Neanderthals with any other land mammal species, not just humans. On top of that, Neanderthals DNA is about 4% different than human DNA which is huge, so... there not humans.
Can you give me these papers, or links to these papers?
Let me ask again. If you were creating a mature Oak tree how old would it look? And how old would it be? If it were created as a mature tree what laws of nature would be broken? And in what way in any case is God bound by anything? No laws of nature are broken by God creating the universe 10,000 years ago, and the mechanical explanations of scientists are not invalid, they do represent an explanation from WITHIN the universe, although they are limited because they cannot say anything about what God actually did. Scientists are just mechanics, they explain the mechanics of things. According to the mechanics what might have happened might be what they say. But I don't believe at all that this is what happened from God's point of view.
I understand exactly what you mean by creating a mature oak tree, it makes perfect sense and you make a very good point. My only issue with that is Gods purpose. Lets say God created a MATURE universe, that is, he created the Universe, the sun, the moon the starts all simultaneously. And at the same time when God creates the universe he creates all the physical laws of the universe, such as gravitational constants, electrostatic constants, speed of light constants, E = mc^s, and so on. Than lets say God gives man the special capability to learn his creation, to LEARN, Math and Physics, chemistry and all the sciences. And lets now say that man uses math, physics, and chemistry to determine the age of this "mature universe". BUT when man uses the sciences, it turns out that science is telling them the universe was created billions of years ago, not a few thousand years ago and NOT maturely.
Despite God being the creator of science, what he revealed to the us has become strictly contradictory to what he really did. Instead of creating a mature universe with scientific laws that POINT to a mature beginning, he created a Mature universe with scientific laws pointing to an OLD universe.
We must recognize what the Bible really teaches, we see that after every creation "day" the Lord says, "there was evening and there was morning the first day.. the second day... the third day... the fourth day... the fifth day... the sixth day.... the seve........... wait a minute, theres no closure on the seventh day... God never mentioned the 7th day coming to an end... What does that imply? It means we are still in the "7th day". When the Bible says God rested on the 7th day what does that even mean? Did God sleep on day seven? Did God take his eyes off our universe on day 7? We know that God never sleeps, and we know God never ceasing working, when the Bibles says rested it merely means he rested from CREATING, meaning he stopped creating. He didnt stop working, I doubt God would create adam and eve and than take a day off and tell them he'l get back to them sunday morning. No, God resting on the seventh day means God ceased his creation. We know that God will create again on the 8th day, a new universe with different physical laws, we wont need a sun because the Light of God will light up the universe, we will be given bodies with different physical laws not subject to even time itself. God will stop "resting" on the 8th day when he begins to create again.
If someone wants to leave the Orthodox Faith because a priest teaches that God really created the heavens and earth then with respect they have lots of other problems in any case because we do not abandon faith in Christ over anything like that once we have known Christ.
Quite the opposite, I found that my relationship with God has strengthened greatly after learning all that ive learned concerning science. Not only that but it has opened the door for MANY athiest scientists to finally SEE God in their work. The strongest evidence for God is in the Big Bang as any scientist will tell you. The theory of the Big bang is that even TIME itself was created. This actually troubled einstien himself, He thought he made a mistake in his mathematical equations because his equations were pointing towards a universe that had a beginning. Before than the scientific belief was that the universe was static and always existed, but science points towards a creator, and creation. Einstein thought that he made a mistake and actually went back and tried to rewrite his equations for general relativity and it was a disaster, he concluded that he did not make a mistake and the universe really must have had a start, yes, even time itself did not exists before the big bang. The only question science cannot answer is WHAT started the big bang? Now we can go back to scripture and see that....
"In the begining, God created"
I don't believe at all that this is what happened from God's point of view.
Were not talking about Gods point of view, were talking about man. certainly if God is beyond time we cannot say it took God 14.9 billions years to create the universe. What we are saying is that withing OUR time zone, what could have been merely a second for God took 14.9 billion years here in OUR universe.
If we want to look at scripture we must examine it at a deeper level, simply reading it we get an idea of how God created, but REALLY looking into it we see a lot more happening than what we see at first glance. This is what we should expect when reading the word of God.
Quote from: Meena_Ameen on October 15, 2010, 01:02:31 PM Quote from: Ioannes on October 15, 2010, 12:50:44 PM The big bang lol. Not only did matter just self exist, but the space it existed in had to come into existence of its own accord before matter did the same. Then when the big bang happened, where do all the elements come from? That is a big problem for evolutionists because you cannot fuse Iron, and they need that to create the elements.
Then there is the problem of the bones. There are not enough of them to prove their theory. There is only one "lucy" who apparently self existed as well. There are under 10 neanderthal bones, in the period of their existence there should be at minimum a few hundred thousand, etc.
Neanderthal's support the Genesis account of man. The only big difference between us and neanderthal is the skull, which is significantly bigger than ours. This is one thing that does not stop growing on humans, especially the brow ridge. If you dont believe me check out this Russian http://stargods.org/TheyLiveNikolaiValuevEyes2.jpg His head is actually a bit bigger than that of a neanderthal.
There is actually a Paper written on Neanderthals by two athiests scientists. First of all, there heads are not just "bigger" than ours, their nasal capacity is so huge, that these scientists concluded that it was impossible to link Neanderthals with any other land mammal species, not just humans. On top of that, Neanderthals DNA is about 4% different than human DNA which is huge, so... there not humans.
Can you give me these papers, or links to these papers?
You can search it online, its a paper written by ian tattersall and jeffrey schwartz
I highly recommend you watch the video debate between Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr kent honvind, an old earth vs young earth creation debate by two devout Christians.
I understand exactly what you mean by creating a mature oak tree, it makes perfect sense and you make a very good point. My only issue with that is Gods purpose. Lets say God created a MATURE universe, that is, he created the Universe, the sun, the moon the starts all simultaneously. And at the same time when God creates the universe he creates all the physical laws of the universe, such as gravitational constants, electrostatic constants, speed of light constants, E = mc^s, and so on. Than lets say God gives man the special capability to learn his creation, to LEARN, Math and Physics, chemistry and all the sciences. And lets now say that man uses math, physics, and chemistry to determine the age of this "mature universe". BUT when man uses the sciences, it turns out that science is telling them the universe was created billions of years ago, not a few thousand years ago and NOT maturely.
Despite God being the creator of science, what he revealed to the us has become strictly contradictory to what he really did. Instead of creating a mature universe with scientific laws that POINT to a mature beginning, he created a Mature universe with scientific laws pointing to an OLD universe.
Well said Meena - that's exactly my point, but worded much better than I had said it. This is why we contend that it somewhat deceptive of God to create a mature universe that was not mature.
Meena, I have actually watched that debate. What I asked for was your evidence of what you said of Neanderthals, as I have never heard that before, so why did you give me the Hovind, who is in jail and has a fake Phd, and Hugh Ross? I am confused, please give me your sources.
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=9851.msg120880#msg120880 date=1287277289] Meena, I have actually watched that debate. What I asked for was your evidence of what you said of Neanderthals, as I have never heard that before, so why did you give me the Hovind, who is in jail and has a fake Phd, and Hugh Ross? I am confused, please give me your sources.
I told you, the paper is written by scientists Ian Tattersall and Jeffrey Schwartz, I dont have it in paper, i read it online about 2 years ago, i just googled it. Im sure you can find it, just google ian tattersall and jeffrey schwartz paper on Neanderthal nasal capacity.
This is their personal theory based on evolutionary thought. African-American, and most west africans in general have a much larger nasal cavity then that of the caucasian, are they monkeys? Neanderthal is a very old human being, hence why we have only found a few of them, which are probably Noah and his decendants. This article is an opinion, not fact, much like all of evolution.
This is their personal theory based on evolutionary thought. African-American, and most west africans in general have a much larger nasal cavity then that of the caucasian, are they monkeys? Neanderthal is a very old human being, hence why we have only found a few of them, which are probably Noah and his decendants. This article is an opinion, not fact, much like all of evolution.
It is a personal opinion, but there not jsut "no bodies" these are scientists. Check out this video about neaderthal DNA
The guy speaking in this video is Fuz Arana i think is his last name, Ph.D Chemistry
Michael Heiser, who is a Greek, Hebrew, and many other languages, scholar has a much better take on the Genesis account. Keep in mind, nobody ever questioned the literal 7 day creation until Darwin who is an agent of satan, not of God. So you choose.
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=9851.msg120892#msg120892 date=1287287525] Michael Heiser, who is a Greek, Hebrew, and many other languages, scholar has a much better take on the Genesis account. Keep in mind, nobody ever questioned the literal 7 day creation until Darwin who is an agent of satan, not of God. So you choose.
I haven't heard of Michael Heiser, could you send me some of his interpretations, id love to hear them. As for your comment on darwin, Darwin spoke of evolution, the age of the universe is something we observe through astronomy and physics, evolution and the age of the universe are two different topics. And also, apparently early church father who wrote books and books on the 7 day creation of Genesis did not close the door on the days being long periods of time, but how could we understand creation without the evolution of science.
Science is science, not metaphysics. It has delved into an area that it does not belong. Just because the universe is expanding does not mean the big bang happened. Scripture states that God stretched out the heavens. Science is there to test and observe the natural world, creation is not observable. Placing interpretations on bones and such is the same as protestants taking the same scripture we read and coming out with a completely different conclusion. So what.
I have read many commentaries on Genesis, namely St John Chrysostom's, who has several. He personally believed in a literal 7 day creation. The reasoning is simple, to give us structure, time gives us structure and direction and without it we are lost. This is why God did not create all things in an instant nor in a span of millions of years, which obviously conflicts with scriptures and the interpretation of the church fathers.
http://www.michaelsheiser.com/ This is his website. I have a few of his lectures and he does not lecture on the age of the universe. You can email him if you wish, he is a very nice person. Most of his lectures deal with Gen. 6 and the book of Enoch, he completely disproves the idea that the Sons of God are human in any way.
[quote author=sameenashaheen link=topic=9851.msg120898#msg120898 date=1287290802] Very very interesting post..I like this one. gotta bookmark this one.
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=9851.msg120892#msg120892 date=1287287525] Michael Heiser, who is a Greek, Hebrew, and many other languages, scholar has a much better take on the Genesis account. Keep in mind, nobody ever questioned the literal 7 day creation until Darwin who is an agent of satan, not of God. So you choose.
After I've read many resources we can flexibly and safely agree that the 6 creation days can be each a literal 24 hours day and/or each can be a 1000 years.
2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
HH Pope Shenouda answered that question: let the geologists say what they want, because we cannot be 100% sure, even though current "science" says it's millions to billions of years. Fr TY Malaty also said that we do not know but that you can easily calculate years from Adam to now (i.e. this would be less than 7000 years).
What I mean is that it is acceptable to think in the frame of days and thousands but not millions, especially putting into consideration that the millions/billions model is based on and is serving the ideas of big bang and evolution, and reinforcing the related uniformitarian and naturalism philosophical models (all of these officially deny God's creation). You have to also fit in the flood and its consequences.
Scientifically speaking I do not accept evolution at all and neither the so called big bang. From what we observe in nature, species or kinds creation is the only conclusion. The horizontal tree model for creatures' origins is the most correct in my opinion though I'd divide the horizontal line into segments that follow God's sequence of creation (whether for days or thousands of years) - remember that only God is infallible, that science should be a continual research discipline and philosophical approaches to origins are fallible human mental exercises.
Did you know that the carbon dating method is inaccurate beyond the ~40,000's of years range?
John that is referring to God, as in time is nothing to God. He gave us time, structured time, not an enigmatic time that could be thousands or millions of years. Especially if the plants were created before the sun. This is of course my opinion based on my research but think about it, it makes no sense for God to speak metaphorically, why say 6 days of creation if it is not 6 days and in fact millions or thousands? It was to give us the foundation of time which exists primarily for human beings.
And your source is sketchy at best, he takes St. Cyprian out of context completely and I have not been able to verify the other sources, who is this guy anyways? John Tobin, never heard of him. I am very familiar with St. Cyprian and St. Clement btw.
What is happening is that you, as well as others, are trying to reconcile evolution and your religious views. You view evolution as a truth when there is not a shred of evidence to prove it, there are plenty of erroneous interpretations placed on to so called evidence, but no truth to prove evolution. If you choose to believe in something that is undermining or seeking to undermine Orthodoxy, go right ahead. But dont try and pass off these kind of sources as true, especially from someone that I have never heard of who is misinterpreting what the early church fathers said, and possibly perverting what they said to fit his personal ideology as I have not been able to find many quotes.
There is actually an Abouna named abouna Pishoy i think that is coming to my church this friday who will be giving a lecture on the Big Bang theory. I am really excited to here his response, and will be sure to let everyone on this site here what he says. But just to let you know, I have already heard from priests INSIDE the orthodox church, that have said the days in genesis are long periods of time and not a literal 24 hours. Why are they able to say this? Because the Hebrew translation (original text of the o.t) does NOT close the door on these days being longer than 24 hours.
Just because the universe is expanding does not mean the big bang happened. Scripture states that God stretched out the heavens. Science is there to test and observe the natural world, creation is not observable
If your basing this on your own interpretation thats fine, but thats not science and there no credibility to your claims, there simply your opinions. There are virtually millions of scientists who have done more studies on the age of the universe, the study of stars, planets, atoms, all point to an OLD universe. I am assuming your field of study is outside that of physics, you must understand that scientists do not consider theories unless they have been exhaustively tested.
As for evolution, like I said before I do not believe in the evolution of species to a distinctly different species, namely macro evolution. Natural Selection however is an observable fact, but only to a certain extent. What some evolutionists try to do is say that natural selection is a fact and theres no limitations to it, thats where they start messing everything up, why? because the fossil record shows us this is simply not true.
I have read many commentaries on Genesis, namely St John Chrysostom's, who has several. He personally believed in a literal 7 day creation.
Thats great but St John Chrysostom is not infallible, and this is something the church can disagree on. Its not a doctrine that has to do with salvation such the divinity of Christ.
Did you know that the carbon dating method is inaccurate beyond the ~40,000's of years range?
I am very aware of that, the only reason carbon dating gets so much publicity is because its good at dating thing such as ancient biblical manuscripts, but if you think scientists rely on carbon dating as there evidence for an old earth your very wrong. Carbon dating measures the time since a living organism has died. It is useless for measuring anything that has never been alive, such as a rock.
Their interpretation of an expanding universe is the big bang, thats NOT my opinion its theirs. It is clear that you are trying to reconcile erroneous "scientific" beliefs with your religious ones. Since you believe that the Hebrew (aramaic) supports either a 6 day creation or millions of years, does that mean we should always look at the Hebrew? Gen. 6 clearly says in Hebrew that the Sons of God are not humans but divine beings, so why do many of our leaders, if not all, in the Coptic church say this is the line of Cain?
You have failed yet again on giving me your evidence to show which of the early church fathers believed that the 6 day creation could be non-literal. Your source is not valid, and who in God's name is John Tobin? How is he qualified in any way to say anything on this subject?
Address the issue and quit dancing around it. What is the divine purpose of the creation being millions or thousands of years as opposed to a six day creation? I have asked several questions that you cannot, or are unwilling to, answer. If they are indeed thousands or millions, why use seven days? It does not make sense. What your saying is that plants lived for possibly millions of years before the sun was created.
God used a 6 day creation to give us structure and time, the seventh for rest of course. We still use the 7 day week, why? Why not have thousands or millions of years between monday and tuesday? You see what I mean, your idea, or the idea you adopted, is senseless and has no purpose or meaning.
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=9851.msg120915#msg120915 date=1287353126] Their interpretation of an expanding universe is the big bang, thats NOT my opinion its theirs. It is clear that you are trying to reconcile erroneous "scientific" beliefs with your religious ones. Since you believe that the Hebrew (aramaic) supports either a 6 day creation or millions of years, does that mean we should always look at the Hebrew? Gen. 6 clearly says in Hebrew that the Sons of God are not humans but divine beings, so why do many of our leaders, if not all, in the Coptic church say this is the line of Cain?
You have failed yet again on giving me your evidence to show which of the early church fathers believed that the 6 day creation could be non-literal. Your source is not valid, and who in God's name is John Tobin? How is he qualified in any way to say anything on this subject?
Address the issue and quit dancing around it. What is the divine purpose of the creation being millions or thousands of years as opposed to a six day creation? I have asked several questions that you cannot, or are unwilling to, answer. If they are indeed thousands or millions, why use seven days? It does not make sense. What your saying is that plants lived for possibly millions of years before the sun was created.
God used a 6 day creation to give us structure and time, the seventh for rest of course. We still use the 7 day week, why? Why not have thousands or millions of years between monday and tuesday? You see what I mean, your idea, or the idea you adopted, is senseless and has no purpose or meaning.
You told me you watched the debate I posted between Dr. Hugh Ross and Kent Hovind. Now i know you were lying because everything you mentioned just now was answered in GREAT detail by Dr Hugh Ross. Go watch the debate, it covers LITERALLY EVERYTHING your claiming im "dancing around" yet it was the FIRST thing I told you to do when I first started commenting in this forum. I don't know who John Tobin is, i never mentioned his name, im assuming your talking to someone else on this site.
What is the divine purpose of the creation being millions of years old? I can ask you the same question, what is the divine purpose of the days being 24 hours period. If your answer is so that God could give us a 7 day week, thats got to be the most pathetic explanation for a divine purpose. I can tell you however the significance of God making over billions of years, but you would just claim that science is wrong in their interpretations so why waste my time?
I never said the plants were created before the sun, in fact i ALSO addressed this issue earlier, I don't even think your fully reading my posts. Furthermore even in your interpretation, those plants are not going to survive a nanosecond without the heat and light of the sun let alone a full 24 hour period.
As for failing yet again on giving you evidence on early church fathers, i'm surprised to see you havent heard of St Augustine thoughts on the biblical creation.
ST AUGUSTINE But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say! (City of God 11:6 [AD 419])
Meena, calm down for a second. I did watch that debate many times before, these are opinions or views and while I respect Hugh Ross and his views, I dont agree with them at all. Are you ignoring Kent Hovind's point of view? I do not care for Hovind very much but he makes some great points, so how am I a liar? Because I disagree with Hugh Ross? I ask for your opinion and your sources and you give me that video going off subject.
John Tobin is the man who wrote the article you gave me on the church fathers, do you not read where you sources come from or something? That is academically irresponsible of you to give me something that is not valid and certainly not from anyone I know or heard of. I do not believe Augustine is a saint in our church, even at the end of his life he recanted many things he said. I dont particularly care for Augustine as many of his beliefs are sketchy and some are not even considered Orthodox, none the less he was a great asetic. And I am not sure where you get half the things you say, you must be doing the all to familiar egyptian assumption. I never said you claimed anything about plants, but if you claim that each day is a thousand years or millions then you have a problem, plants were created before the sun, read Genesis.
I am going to stop this conversation because I get tired of stupidity and the egyptian mentality of assume now, question later. It is tiring and frustrating and I am quite sick of Egyptians at the current moment.
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=9851.msg120923#msg120923 date=1287358508] Meena, calm down for a second. I did watch that debate many times before, these are opinions or views and while I respect Hugh Ross and his views, I dont agree with them at all. Are you ignoring Kent Hovind's point of view? I do not care for Hovind very much but he makes some great points, so how am I a liar? Because I disagree with Hugh Ross? I ask for your opinion and your sources and you give me that video going off subject.
John Tobin is the man who wrote the article you gave me on the church fathers, do you not read where you sources come from or something? That is academically irresponsible of you to give me something that is not valid and certainly not from anyone I know or heard of. I do not believe Augustine is a saint in our church, even at the end of his life he recanted many things he said. I dont particularly care for Augustine as many of his beliefs are sketchy and some are not even considered Orthodox, none the less he was a great asetic. And I am not sure where you get half the things you say, you must be doing the all to familiar egyptian assumption. I never said you claimed anything about plants, but if you claim that each day is a thousand years or millions then you have a problem, plants were created before the sun, read Genesis.
I am going to stop this conversation because I get tired of stupidity and the egyptian mentality of assume now, question later. It is tiring and frustrating and I am quite sick of Egyptians at the current moment.
I still don't know which article your talking about, I don't even remember posting an article on early church fathers, maybe someone else sent you that, if you could send me it back exactly what your talking about that would be great.
I never said you were a liar because you disagreed with Ross, I said you lied because you keep asking me question that Hugh Ross answered in detail. In fact you just did it again
plants were created before the sun, read Genesis.
What did I JUST right before lol.. I even said in YOUR interpretation you have the SAME problem, the plants wont survive 1 second without the sun, so your arguments works against even your interpretation.
As for me, I know the Hebrew words do NOT say the sun was created on the fourth day, rather the sun became visible from the surface of the earth on the fourth day, because the creatures that would be created on the 5th "day" are animals who need the visible sun to regulate their biological clocks as Hugh Ross stated.
As for St Augustine, I never said he was right, or wrong, my point was that this belief in an OLD earth was always around, it wasn't something that JUST came up in the Church when Darwin arrived as you stated.
You can say what you want, you can call me stupid or ignorant or whatever makes you happy, I can safely say ive done my homework on the subject. I have yet to meet someone who is part of the scientific community that doesn't believe the universe is billions of years old. For some reason its only those who haven't taken a physics course in their life that are claiming these things.. I wonder why?
Guys let us not get too caught up in this. Whether the days were literal or not is not a doctrine or dogma. It is ok to discuss this in a healthy manner, but let us not turn it into a heated debate. If we are to talk this out, let us do this in a Christian and healthy manner. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see no way that the age of the Earth affects the theology or our salvation, and therefore it is not doctrine.
Once again I hope I'm not misunderstood. I don't see anything wrong with talking this out and discussing it, as long as this doesn't get out of hand.
We see that the word day is used both literally and figuratively through out scripture. Ex ("You are my Son, today I've begotten you" PS. 2:7 does not mean literal days, or else we have entered the heresy of Arian. Rather it is figurative.
Please if anyone sees something wrong in my post, feel free to say something, as I greatly enjoy being corrected, as it leads to me learning more.
you are right anba bola, and I did also mention this earlier when St John Chrysostome was brought up, I said
this is something the church can disagree on. Its not a doctrine that has to do with salvation such as the divinity of Christ.
Personally I really do not mind if someone chooses to believe the days were 24 hours, maybe they were, the fact it we will never know, my point was as you said anba bola the word day has both meanings in the Bible, and if that door is opened, why cant we let science investigate or at least hear what they have to say. I apologize if I offended anyone, it was not my intention, I don't do well with debating which is why I often try to stay away from it.
I will try to stay calm from now, I apologize everyone, particularly Ioannes. Thank you anba bola
Sorry Anba Bola, evolution is contrary to scripture, Orthodoxy, and logic. It is a destroyer of faith, when I see people mixing Orthodoxy and evil I get a bit upset, unfortunately Egyptians are just as inflexible as I am. This is why I said I am done discussing this issue.
Comments
That is my hope for the answer. Every other idea is just a confusion.
Then there is the problem of the bones. There are not enough of them to prove their theory. There is only one "lucy" who apparently self existed as well. There are under 10 neanderthal bones, in the period of their existence there should be at minimum a few hundred thousand, etc.
Neanderthal's support the Genesis account of man. The only big difference between us and neanderthal is the skull, which is significantly bigger than ours. This is one thing that does not stop growing on humans, especially the brow ridge. If you dont believe me check out this Russian http://stargods.org/TheyLiveNikolaiValuevEyes2.jpg
His head is actually a bit bigger than that of a neanderthal.
My argument is this, yes evolution appears to make sense, BUT the evidence we have in the fossil records are NOT showing a "gradual transition" from one species to the next. You may see one "transitional form" but evolution teaches that for a species to change into a distinctly different species requires billions of transitional forms, yet we have only discovered how many transitional forms? Keep in mind that if a species requires billions of years to become another species, it is more likely that the species would go to extinction before having a chance for evolutionary advance. If I was the only one arguing this you may just call me stubborn, but when you have a list of HUNDREDS of scientists with Ph.D's from different fields who have obviously done enough research saying that the evidence for Darwinian evolution REALLY isn't as strong as other scientists are claiming it to be, than that must mean something.
Likewise, not to be disrespected to anyone, but the age of the universe is simply out of question. If the universe we not billions of years old than the Laws of the universe would all be thrown out the window. There is no evidence at all for a young earth. I am not saying God couldn't have created the earth 10,000 years ago, He could have if he wanted to, but what God has revealed to us through science which HE created, was that he created the universe around 14.9 billion years ago with a big Bang in which he simultaneously created matter, space, and time itself. Once again, Psalm 19 and the firmament sheweth his handywork. 2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. This verse can be interpreted as the discoveries in science reveal to us HOW God created the universe in detail. The book of genesis simply tells us the order in which he created, but it is ridiculous to think all the magnificent works of God concerning the creation could even be contained in any book.
The big bang lol. Not only did matter just self exist, but the space it existed in had to come into existence of its own accord before matter did the same. Then when the big bang happened, where do all the elements come from? That is a big problem for evolutionists because you cannot fuse Iron, and they need that to create the elements.
Then there is the problem of the bones. There are not enough of them to prove their theory. There is only one "lucy" who apparently self existed as well. There are under 10 neanderthal bones, in the period of their existence there should be at minimum a few hundred thousand, etc.
Neanderthal's support the Genesis account of man. The only big difference between us and neanderthal is the skull, which is significantly bigger than ours. This is one thing that does not stop growing on humans, especially the brow ridge. If you dont believe me check out this Russian http://stargods.org/TheyLiveNikolaiValuevEyes2.jpg
His head is actually a bit bigger than that of a neanderthal.
There is actually a Paper written on Neanderthals by two athiests scientists. First of all, there heads are not just "bigger" than ours, their nasal capacity is so huge, that these scientists concluded that it was impossible to link Neanderthals with any other land mammal species, not just humans. On top of that, Neanderthals DNA is about 4% different than human DNA which is huge, so... there not humans.
Do please re-read what I have said and see if you understand what I mean. The creation of the universe at the Big Bang does solve the problem of what happened before the Big Bang.
Science is just mechanics. It can tell us nothing at all about origins. The creation of the universe takes place outside of time and therefore cannot be bound to whatever any scientist says.
Let me ask again. If you were creating a mature Oak tree how old would it look? And how old would it be? If it were created as a mature tree what laws of nature would be broken? And in what way in any case is God bound by anything? No laws of nature are broken by God creating the universe 10,000 years ago, and the mechanical explanations of scientists are not invalid, they do represent an explanation from WITHIN the universe, although they are limited because they cannot say anything about what God actually did. Scientists are just mechanics, they explain the mechanics of things. According to the mechanics what might have happened might be what they say. But I don't believe at all that this is what happened from God's point of view.
If someone wants to leave the Orthodox Faith because a priest teaches that God really created the heavens and earth then with respect they have lots of other problems in any case because we do not abandon faith in Christ over anything like that once we have known Christ.
God bless you
Father Peter
There is time in the world to come. Indeed creation necessitates time. Only God exists beyond time.
Therefore we may ask, if God will create the new universe in an instant then why not this one?
We know that we will cast our crowns before God in the future life. This requires a before and an after and therefore time. We know that we will worship saying, Holy, Holy, Holy, this also requires a sequence of events and therefore time. Indeed it is incomprehensible how any being might exist without time, and since this belongs only to the experience of God it is beyond anything we might imagine.
Since we will be existing in time the new universe will be created in time, and I am sure we will not have to wait 4 billion years to inhabit it, even though it will also be created as a mature system just as this universe is, and those who think of such things in those days will also see that there is an inferred history even in that age.
Father Peter
Dendrochronology: it is scientifically observed and recorded that it is not a uniform criterion due to environmental and natural growth variations, in a single year from 1 to 5 tree rings were proven to occur. Furthermore the longer the time factor the more you must statistically calculate a deviation factor: you cannot simply assume that the environment is stable and unchanging for thousands of years or more. Also the proven fact that the Flood occurred cuts short many assumptions (these latter built on other assumptions) depending on a circular non scientific reasoning.
Notes on dendrochronology:
http://creationwiki.org/Dendrochronology
http://creation.com/tree-ring-dating-dendrochronology
Please watch this. About Lucy: she's no lady lecture:
http://www.youtube.com/user/vdofam#g/c/D084C4274F2EA1EA
please do not take for granted a deceiving falsely reconstructed statue in a museum.
Big bang is a chaotic explosion that according to proven laws of physics can only deteriorate.
I have no real problem in believing God is totally able to create the sun after the earth. I'd like to point out that the sun cannot be too old otherwise it would have swallowed the earth - you can check this yourself. Also the earth is not derived from the sun, if this is so then the earth cloud could not have any chance to condensate (unless of course it were there already before the sun). I have also read a physics paper discussing Einstein's all possible relativity and quantum calculations concerning the speed of light, cosmic distances and bending, that concluded without any problem that light from stars millions of light years away can be seen instantly from earth - yes that's right.
Neanderthal is now approved to be a variation of humans. It is considered now correct there are still living descendants of them in Europe. Similarly, the Hobbit variation of Asian pygmies.
I do accept that God can chose to create things instantaneously as well as using sometimes established properties of things He had already created according to His Will and Wisdom but we learned that most if not all the miracles of Our Lord Jesus Christ were instantaneously following His command.
Too many discoveries in the ID field point also to a crucial fact: that too many living creatures could not have evolved at all because they could not have survived for one generation.
I will later discuss the "Know How" problem, and the symbiotic and the parasitic relationships between the living creatures found in nature.
[glow=red,2,300]EDIT:[/glow] I forgot to put this important link for everybody to watch:
[table][tr][td][/td][/tr][/table]
Hubble bubble - Big Bang In Trouble
http://www.youtube.com/user/vdofam#g/c/270A014EEA63E595
And he is not a lone scientist.
GBU
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=9851.msg120807#msg120807 date=1287161444]
The big bang lol. Not only did matter just self exist, but the space it existed in had to come into existence of its own accord before matter did the same. Then when the big bang happened, where do all the elements come from? That is a big problem for evolutionists because you cannot fuse Iron, and they need that to create the elements.
Then there is the problem of the bones. There are not enough of them to prove their theory. There is only one "lucy" who apparently self existed as well. There are under 10 neanderthal bones, in the period of their existence there should be at minimum a few hundred thousand, etc.
Neanderthal's support the Genesis account of man. The only big difference between us and neanderthal is the skull, which is significantly bigger than ours. This is one thing that does not stop growing on humans, especially the brow ridge. If you dont believe me check out this Russian http://stargods.org/TheyLiveNikolaiValuevEyes2.jpg
His head is actually a bit bigger than that of a neanderthal.
There is actually a Paper written on Neanderthals by two athiests scientists. First of all, there heads are not just "bigger" than ours, their nasal capacity is so huge, that these scientists concluded that it was impossible to link Neanderthals with any other land mammal species, not just humans. On top of that, Neanderthals DNA is about 4% different than human DNA which is huge, so... there not humans.
Can you give me these papers, or links to these papers?
Despite God being the creator of science, what he revealed to the us has become strictly contradictory to what he really did. Instead of creating a mature universe with scientific laws that POINT to a mature beginning, he created a Mature universe with scientific laws pointing to an OLD universe.
We must recognize what the Bible really teaches, we see that after every creation "day" the Lord says, "there was evening and there was morning the first day.. the second day... the third day... the fourth day... the fifth day... the sixth day.... the seve........... wait a minute, theres no closure on the seventh day... God never mentioned the 7th day coming to an end... What does that imply? It means we are still in the "7th day". When the Bible says God rested on the 7th day what does that even mean? Did God sleep on day seven? Did God take his eyes off our universe on day 7? We know that God never sleeps, and we know God never ceasing working, when the Bibles says rested it merely means he rested from CREATING, meaning he stopped creating. He didnt stop working, I doubt God would create adam and eve and than take a day off and tell them he'l get back to them sunday morning. No, God resting on the seventh day means God ceased his creation. We know that God will create again on the 8th day, a new universe with different physical laws, we wont need a sun because the Light of God will light up the universe, we will be given bodies with different physical laws not subject to even time itself. God will stop "resting" on the 8th day when he begins to create again. Quite the opposite, I found that my relationship with God has strengthened greatly after learning all that ive learned concerning science. Not only that but it has opened the door for MANY athiest scientists to finally SEE God in their work. The strongest evidence for God is in the Big Bang as any scientist will tell you. The theory of the Big bang is that even TIME itself was created. This actually troubled einstien himself, He thought he made a mistake in his mathematical equations because his equations were pointing towards a universe that had a beginning. Before than the scientific belief was that the universe was static and always existed, but science points towards a creator, and creation. Einstein thought that he made a mistake and actually went back and tried to rewrite his equations for general relativity and it was a disaster, he concluded that he did not make a mistake and the universe really must have had a start, yes, even time itself did not exists before the big bang. The only question science cannot answer is WHAT started the big bang? Now we can go back to scripture and see that....
"In the begining, God created" Were not talking about Gods point of view, were talking about man. certainly if God is beyond time we cannot say it took God 14.9 billions years to create the universe. What we are saying is that withing OUR time zone, what could have been merely a second for God took 14.9 billion years here in OUR universe.
If we want to look at scripture we must examine it at a deeper level, simply reading it we get an idea of how God created, but REALLY looking into it we see a lot more happening than what we see at first glance. This is what we should expect when reading the word of God. You can search it online, its a paper written by ian tattersall and jeffrey schwartz
I highly recommend you watch the video debate between Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr kent honvind, an old earth vs young earth creation debate by two devout Christians.
I understand exactly what you mean by creating a mature oak tree, it makes perfect sense and you make a very good point. My only issue with that is Gods purpose. Lets say God created a MATURE universe, that is, he created the Universe, the sun, the moon the starts all simultaneously. And at the same time when God creates the universe he creates all the physical laws of the universe, such as gravitational constants, electrostatic constants, speed of light constants, E = mc^s, and so on. Than lets say God gives man the special capability to learn his creation, to LEARN, Math and Physics, chemistry and all the sciences. And lets now say that man uses math, physics, and chemistry to determine the age of this "mature universe". BUT when man uses the sciences, it turns out that science is telling them the universe was created billions of years ago, not a few thousand years ago and NOT maturely.
Despite God being the creator of science, what he revealed to the us has become strictly contradictory to what he really did. Instead of creating a mature universe with scientific laws that POINT to a mature beginning, he created a Mature universe with scientific laws pointing to an OLD universe.
Well said Meena - that's exactly my point, but worded much better than I had said it. This is why we contend that it somewhat deceptive of God to create a mature universe that was not mature.
God bless
Meena, I have actually watched that debate. What I asked for was your evidence of what you said of Neanderthals, as I have never heard that before, so why did you give me the Hovind, who is in jail and has a fake Phd, and Hugh Ross? I am confused, please give me your sources.
I told you, the paper is written by scientists Ian Tattersall and Jeffrey Schwartz, I dont have it in paper, i read it online about 2 years ago, i just googled it. Im sure you can find it, just google ian tattersall and jeffrey schwartz paper on Neanderthal nasal capacity.
This is their personal theory based on evolutionary thought. African-American, and most west africans in general have a much larger nasal cavity then that of the caucasian, are they monkeys? Neanderthal is a very old human being, hence why we have only found a few of them, which are probably Noah and his decendants. This article is an opinion, not fact, much like all of evolution.
Here is the link http://www.pitt.edu/~jhs/articles/morph_paleo_neander.pdf
This is their personal theory based on evolutionary thought. African-American, and most west africans in general have a much larger nasal cavity then that of the caucasian, are they monkeys? Neanderthal is a very old human being, hence why we have only found a few of them, which are probably Noah and his decendants. This article is an opinion, not fact, much like all of evolution.
It is a personal opinion, but there not jsut "no bodies" these are scientists. Check out this video about neaderthal DNA
The guy speaking in this video is Fuz Arana i think is his last name, Ph.D Chemistry
Michael Heiser, who is a Greek, Hebrew, and many other languages, scholar has a much better take on the Genesis account. Keep in mind, nobody ever questioned the literal 7 day creation until Darwin who is an agent of satan, not of God. So you choose.
I haven't heard of Michael Heiser, could you send me some of his interpretations, id love to hear them. As for your comment on darwin, Darwin spoke of evolution, the age of the universe is something we observe through astronomy and physics, evolution and the age of the universe are two different topics. And also, apparently early church father who wrote books and books on the 7 day creation of Genesis did not close the door on the days being long periods of time, but how could we understand creation without the evolution of science.
I have read many commentaries on Genesis, namely St John Chrysostom's, who has several. He personally believed in a literal 7 day creation. The reasoning is simple, to give us structure, time gives us structure and direction and without it we are lost. This is why God did not create all things in an instant nor in a span of millions of years, which obviously conflicts with scriptures and the interpretation of the church fathers.
http://www.michaelsheiser.com/ This is his website. I have a few of his lectures and he does not lecture on the age of the universe. You can email him if you wish, he is a very nice person. Most of his lectures deal with Gen. 6 and the book of Enoch, he completely disproves the idea that the Sons of God are human in any way.
Very very interesting post..I like this one. gotta bookmark this one.
Hopefully thats a good thing
Michael Heiser, who is a Greek, Hebrew, and many other languages, scholar has a much better take on the Genesis account. Keep in mind, nobody ever questioned the literal 7 day creation until Darwin who is an agent of satan, not of God. So you choose.
That's not true, many early church fathers thought the same way: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/churchfathers.htm
PFM
2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
HH Pope Shenouda answered that question: let the geologists say what they want, because we cannot be 100% sure, even though current "science" says it's millions to billions of years. Fr TY Malaty also said that we do not know but that you can easily calculate years from Adam to now (i.e. this would be less than 7000 years).
What I mean is that it is acceptable to think in the frame of days and thousands but not millions, especially putting into consideration that the millions/billions model is based on and is serving the ideas of big bang and evolution, and reinforcing the related uniformitarian and naturalism philosophical models (all of these officially deny God's creation). You have to also fit in the flood and its consequences.
Scientifically speaking I do not accept evolution at all and neither the so called big bang. From what we observe in nature, species or kinds creation is the only conclusion. The horizontal tree model for creatures' origins is the most correct in my opinion though I'd divide the horizontal line into segments that follow God's sequence of creation (whether for days or thousands of years) - remember that only God is infallible, that science should be a continual research discipline and philosophical approaches to origins are fallible human mental exercises.
Did you know that the carbon dating method is inaccurate beyond the ~40,000's of years range?
I also invite you to watch this important lecture:
Hubble bubble - Big Bang in trouble
http://www.youtube.com/user/vdofam#g/c/270A014EEA63E595
GBU
And your source is sketchy at best, he takes St. Cyprian out of context completely and I have not been able to verify the other sources, who is this guy anyways? John Tobin, never heard of him. I am very familiar with St. Cyprian and St. Clement btw.
What is happening is that you, as well as others, are trying to reconcile evolution and your religious views. You view evolution as a truth when there is not a shred of evidence to prove it, there are plenty of erroneous interpretations placed on to so called evidence, but no truth to prove evolution. If you choose to believe in something that is undermining or seeking to undermine Orthodoxy, go right ahead. But dont try and pass off these kind of sources as true, especially from someone that I have never heard of who is misinterpreting what the early church fathers said, and possibly perverting what they said to fit his personal ideology as I have not been able to find many quotes.
As for evolution, like I said before I do not believe in the evolution of species to a distinctly different species, namely macro evolution. Natural Selection however is an observable fact, but only to a certain extent. What some evolutionists try to do is say that natural selection is a fact and theres no limitations to it, thats where they start messing everything up, why? because the fossil record shows us this is simply not true. Thats great but St John Chrysostom is not infallible, and this is something the church can disagree on. Its not a doctrine that has to do with salvation such the divinity of Christ. I am very aware of that, the only reason carbon dating gets so much publicity is because its good at dating thing such as ancient biblical manuscripts, but if you think scientists rely on carbon dating as there evidence for an old earth your very wrong. Carbon dating measures the time since a living organism has died. It is useless for measuring anything that has never been alive, such as a rock.
You have failed yet again on giving me your evidence to show which of the early church fathers believed that the 6 day creation could be non-literal. Your source is not valid, and who in God's name is John Tobin? How is he qualified in any way to say anything on this subject?
Address the issue and quit dancing around it. What is the divine purpose of the creation being millions or thousands of years as opposed to a six day creation? I have asked several questions that you cannot, or are unwilling to, answer. If they are indeed thousands or millions, why use seven days? It does not make sense. What your saying is that plants lived for possibly millions of years before the sun was created.
God used a 6 day creation to give us structure and time, the seventh for rest of course. We still use the 7 day week, why? Why not have thousands or millions of years between monday and tuesday? You see what I mean, your idea, or the idea you adopted, is senseless and has no purpose or meaning.
Their interpretation of an expanding universe is the big bang, thats NOT my opinion its theirs. It is clear that you are trying to reconcile erroneous "scientific" beliefs with your religious ones. Since you believe that the Hebrew (aramaic) supports either a 6 day creation or millions of years, does that mean we should always look at the Hebrew? Gen. 6 clearly says in Hebrew that the Sons of God are not humans but divine beings, so why do many of our leaders, if not all, in the Coptic church say this is the line of Cain?
You have failed yet again on giving me your evidence to show which of the early church fathers believed that the 6 day creation could be non-literal. Your source is not valid, and who in God's name is John Tobin? How is he qualified in any way to say anything on this subject?
Address the issue and quit dancing around it. What is the divine purpose of the creation being millions or thousands of years as opposed to a six day creation? I have asked several questions that you cannot, or are unwilling to, answer. If they are indeed thousands or millions, why use seven days? It does not make sense. What your saying is that plants lived for possibly millions of years before the sun was created.
God used a 6 day creation to give us structure and time, the seventh for rest of course. We still use the 7 day week, why? Why not have thousands or millions of years between monday and tuesday? You see what I mean, your idea, or the idea you adopted, is senseless and has no purpose or meaning.
You told me you watched the debate I posted between Dr. Hugh Ross and Kent Hovind. Now i know you were lying because everything you mentioned just now was answered in GREAT detail by Dr Hugh Ross. Go watch the debate, it covers LITERALLY EVERYTHING your claiming im "dancing around" yet it was the FIRST thing I told you to do when I first started commenting in this forum. I don't know who John Tobin is, i never mentioned his name, im assuming your talking to someone else on this site.
What is the divine purpose of the creation being millions of years old? I can ask you the same question, what is the divine purpose of the days being 24 hours period. If your answer is so that God could give us a 7 day week, thats got to be the most pathetic explanation for a divine purpose. I can tell you however the significance of God making over billions of years, but you would just claim that science is wrong in their interpretations so why waste my time?
I never said the plants were created before the sun, in fact i ALSO addressed this issue earlier, I don't even think your fully reading my posts. Furthermore even in your interpretation, those plants are not going to survive a nanosecond without the heat and light of the sun let alone a full 24 hour period.
As for failing yet again on giving you evidence on early church fathers, i'm surprised to see you havent heard of St Augustine thoughts on the biblical creation.
ST AUGUSTINE
But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!
(City of God 11:6 [AD 419])
John Tobin is the man who wrote the article you gave me on the church fathers, do you not read where you sources come from or something? That is academically irresponsible of you to give me something that is not valid and certainly not from anyone I know or heard of. I do not believe Augustine is a saint in our church, even at the end of his life he recanted many things he said. I dont particularly care for Augustine as many of his beliefs are sketchy and some are not even considered Orthodox, none the less he was a great asetic. And I am not sure where you get half the things you say, you must be doing the all to familiar egyptian assumption. I never said you claimed anything about plants, but if you claim that each day is a thousand years or millions then you have a problem, plants were created before the sun, read Genesis.
I am going to stop this conversation because I get tired of stupidity and the egyptian mentality of assume now, question later. It is tiring and frustrating and I am quite sick of Egyptians at the current moment.
Meena, calm down for a second. I did watch that debate many times before, these are opinions or views and while I respect Hugh Ross and his views, I dont agree with them at all. Are you ignoring Kent Hovind's point of view? I do not care for Hovind very much but he makes some great points, so how am I a liar? Because I disagree with Hugh Ross? I ask for your opinion and your sources and you give me that video going off subject.
John Tobin is the man who wrote the article you gave me on the church fathers, do you not read where you sources come from or something? That is academically irresponsible of you to give me something that is not valid and certainly not from anyone I know or heard of. I do not believe Augustine is a saint in our church, even at the end of his life he recanted many things he said. I dont particularly care for Augustine as many of his beliefs are sketchy and some are not even considered Orthodox, none the less he was a great asetic. And I am not sure where you get half the things you say, you must be doing the all to familiar egyptian assumption. I never said you claimed anything about plants, but if you claim that each day is a thousand years or millions then you have a problem, plants were created before the sun, read Genesis.
I am going to stop this conversation because I get tired of stupidity and the egyptian mentality of assume now, question later. It is tiring and frustrating and I am quite sick of Egyptians at the current moment.
I still don't know which article your talking about, I don't even remember posting an article on early church fathers, maybe someone else sent you that, if you could send me it back exactly what your talking about that would be great.
I never said you were a liar because you disagreed with Ross, I said you lied because you keep asking me question that Hugh Ross answered in detail. In fact you just did it again What did I JUST right before lol.. I even said in YOUR interpretation you have the SAME problem, the plants wont survive 1 second without the sun, so your arguments works against even your interpretation.
As for me, I know the Hebrew words do NOT say the sun was created on the fourth day, rather the sun became visible from the surface of the earth on the fourth day, because the creatures that would be created on the 5th "day" are animals who need the visible sun to regulate their biological clocks as Hugh Ross stated.
As for St Augustine, I never said he was right, or wrong, my point was that this belief in an OLD earth was always around, it wasn't something that JUST came up in the Church when Darwin arrived as you stated.
You can say what you want, you can call me stupid or ignorant or whatever makes you happy, I can safely say ive done my homework on the subject. I have yet to meet someone who is part of the scientific community that doesn't believe the universe is billions of years old. For some reason its only those who haven't taken a physics course in their life that are claiming these things.. I wonder why?
Once again I hope I'm not misunderstood. I don't see anything wrong with talking this out and discussing it, as long as this doesn't get out of hand.
We see that the word day is used both literally and figuratively through out scripture. Ex ("You are my Son, today I've begotten you" PS. 2:7 does not mean literal days, or else we have entered the heresy of Arian. Rather it is figurative.
Please if anyone sees something wrong in my post, feel free to say something, as I greatly enjoy being corrected, as it leads to me learning more.
Pray for me,
Anba Bola
I will try to stay calm from now, I apologize everyone, particularly Ioannes. Thank you anba bola
Pray for me