Anabaptist perspective of the Creation narrative?

[joshuabgood]

Some might ask why would God make a an earth/universe look old when it isn't actually old? Why would he make "fake" supernova exist?

This line never made much sense to me. Why would Jesus make wine when it never actually aged from grape juice? Grape juice that was never actually pressed from grapes that were never actually picked from vines that never actually were planted?

I don’t see anything wrong with accepting that things can happen in more than one way or that miracles somehow imply deception. To simply say, “God did it that way,” seems far more preferable and honest to me than concocting some half-cooked theory about instantaneous fermentation in ANE stone jars—or, say, about how the speed of light actually varied over the last six thousand years, as the Certain Someone were all thinking of has done.

I don't think miracles imply deception. Fake histories do.

[Soloist]

I don't think miracles imply deception. Fake histories do.

Do you accept that Adam had the full function of an adult and the relative biological age? or do you dispute that as fake history?

[ken_sylvania]

No one is saying God can't do miracles like the resurrection. That point is a red herring of sorts. Of course God could have created fake histories of fake events, like supernova, but it sure doesn't seem to fit with his character. And it actually isn't taught expressly in the scriptures, so why the fervent dedication to Yecism? That is the question?

Further Ham en company have no issue waving away the plain teachings of Jesus, so their motive clearly seems like something apart from a literal hermeneutic. What is it. When one looks at the amusement park themed it seems perhaps other issues are at stake.

I do firmly believe that God created a universe that appeared aged. I think life on earth was created by a direct act of God, and that it was probably within the last 6,000 to 10,000 years.

That being said, I think we put ourselves in great danger if we hitch our wagons to Ken Ham's horses. As you mentioned, Ham et. al. have discarded the plain New Testament teachings of humility, loving our enemies, etc. It's the same danger that came with the fundamentalist movement 50 years ago.

[Pelerin]

No one is saying God can't do miracles like the resurrection. That point is a red herring of sorts. Of course God could have created fake histories of fake events, like supernova, but it sure doesn't seem to fit with his character. And it actually isn't taught expressly in the scriptures, so why the fervent dedication to Yecism? That is the question?

Further Ham en company have no issue waving away the plain teachings of Jesus, so their motive vlearly seems like something apart from a literal hermeneutics.

I saw you posted this as I was writing my reply. I just want to point out (and emphasize my last line) that the Certain Someone does not in fact teach what you say here. He is very much a Man of Science. You don’t have to like his science or think he’s very good at it, but you should notice that Science is very much his game. You can peruse his website and find Scientific explanations for any number of things that I’m sure the Biblical authors themselves attributed to miracles. I don’t think any of them would ever admit it, but Young Earth/scientific creationists don’t like miracles anymore than the Enlightenment rationalists do. Their whole game is to avoid as much as possible ever having to say, “God just did it like that.”

[joshuabgood]

No one is saying God can't do miracles like the resurrection. That point is a red herring of sorts. Of course God could have created fake histories of fake events, like supernova, but it sure doesn't seem to fit with his character. And it actually isn't taught expressly in the scriptures, so why the fervent dedication to Yecism? That is the question?

Further Ham en company have no issue waving away the plain teachings of Jesus, so their motive vlearly seems like something apart from a literal hermeneutics.

I saw you posted this as I was writing my reply. I just want to point out (and emphasize my last line) that the Certain Someone does not in fact teach what you say here. He is very much a Man of Science. You don’t have to like his science or think he’s very good at it, but you should notice that Science is very much his game. You can peruse his website and find Scientific explanations for any number of things that I’m sure the Biblical authors themselves attributed to miracles. I don’t think any of them would ever admit it, but Young Earth/scientific creationists don’t like miracles anymore than the Enlightenment rationalists do. Their whole game is to avoid as much as possible ever having to say, “God just did it like that.”

My point was Ham claims to be a literal interpretationist, my word, of the Bible and he criticizes harshly those who interpret differently than him, Genesis. However he neatly completely sidesteps the plain teachings of the good news of Jesus.

[joshuabgood]

I don't think miracles imply deception. Fake histories do.

Do you accept that Adam had the full function of an adult and the relative biological age? or do you dispute that as fake history?

I don't think Adam had scars of fake injuries. Or memories of events that hadn't actually happened.

Ask yourself the question...why would God make the universe/earth appear old with supernova, tree rings, ice cores, etc?

Also will you agree that the Bible doesn't actually say how old the cosmos is?

[Soloist]

I don't think miracles imply deception. Fake histories do.

Do you accept that Adam had the full function of an adult and the relative biological age? or do you dispute that as fake history?

I don't think Adam had scars of fake injuries. Or memories of events that hadn't actually happened.

Ask yourself the question...why would God make the universe/earth appear old with supernova, tree rings, ice cores, etc?

Also will you agree that the Bible doesn't actually say how old the cosmos is?

That isn't what I asked. We know Adam was perfect at creation so he would not have had cellular decay or "fake" injuries.

To answer your question, I point to dirt. The lowest form of dirt is rock. Dirt is a result of a very long process to convert rock to dirt. Plants will not grow on rock outside of some moss or fungus. I believe God created a functioning universe. Why did God create supernova's that may have already happened? I don't know but I see the 6 day creation as a factual account.

To answer your last question, one must define cosmos. If you are referencing stars, God specifically says what day those were created.
God doesn't dictate when He created asteroids for instance, but it is recorded when He created the stars.
So if we are saying cosmos to mean the creation of the stars, planet Earth, our own sun, moon and the heaven, then yes God told us what days He created those.
If you mean old as in Adam was an adult, yes. The Scripture does not say how "old" the universe is.

This really ends up being an argument about how long God took to create everything or a flat out dismissal of the account of creation. I for one accept I may not know all the answers but I can trust that God did not deceive us with His inspired word presented through man's view.

[Joy]

Can someone please describe to me what an earth, fauna and flora, man, and the universe would look like with no appearance of age?

[temporal1]

sci·ence / /ˈsīəns/
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. "the world of science and technology"

science is limited to study+experiment of God’s creation. it is not ahead of God, but forever lagging behind.


i’m not sure i ever see science that conflicts with scriptures. there is no disproof of God.
i often understand science as reassuring support of scriptures.
i’m always touched by those with advanced formal education who remain in awe of our one vast, mysterious God.
when so much is known+seen, to grasp there is so much more unknown+unseen, impresses. inspires.

[Wayne in Maine]

Okay, since you insist, explain to me the genealogy given in Genesis along with the ages why it does not accurately reflect the age of the creation?

Because we know from other observations of nature that the Universe is older than the genealogies in Genesis indicate. If God wrote the genealogies in Genesis and at the same time created a universe with every physical evidence indicating that it is billions of years old then which "record" am I to believe? If God chose to deceive all of mankind about the age of the universe, then I have been perfectly deceived by Him and cannot deny the record of His perfect creation. It's like I say to my Calvinist friends - "I can't help but reject predestination if I have been predestined to reject it!" I can't help but conclude that the earth is billions of years old and vast in size if that is how God made it appear to be!

I also don't reject the cosmology described, I just come to different conclusions about the meaning as do many others. You hold a position of mocking those who would believe in flat earth and I think the description given is not clear enough to make exact statements of round or flat.

So you accept that the dry land we call the earth is a non-spherical object with water above and below it with a solid dome over it to separate the waters from the dry land, onto which are set the moon, sun and stars? That is the literal, simple description of the earth from the book of Genesis.

You refused to answer questions posed here viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3757 so don't try to say you refused to answer. Just answer the question and then we will know your answer... What miracles in the Old Testament do you believe happened how its described?

That link points to the discussion, not to any particular post you created with a specific question to me.

You refused to answer any explanation of the creation of man and if Adam was the first man from whom all humanity descended.

Could you then repeat your questions specifically (as questions)?

You talk about how believing in the Genesis account is off turning to people yet you are off turning by mocking those who would believe a "simplistic" explanation.

So... Can you actually remove the "intellectualism" bias and answer the three questions posed to you about Biblical beliefs?

I recognize that the earliest portions of the book of Genesis present a model of the creation of the Universe and of cosmology that is the common understanding of mankind in the Eastern Mediterranean at the time of its writing. The point of the creation account in Genesis is not to present a novel "scientific" description of the creation and geometry of the Universe, it's point is to assert that God created the Universe that men observe, that He created Man as a being much like God Himself (in His own image) and that the first humans disobeyed God resulting in our alienation from Him and damage to the cosmos, setting the stage for God's intervention in history to create a people separated to Him.

I use the cosmological model of Genesis (flat earth with starry dome creating a "bubble" in the waters surrounding it) as an example first of how even self-described "biblical literalists" accommodate their interpretation of Genesis to the reality they observe in nature and second, demonstrating that the same simple cosmological model presented in Genesis is almost universal in pre-scientific cultures. Most YEC's accept the modern scientific model of the spherical earth in a vacuum orbiting the sun and reject the "simple" cosmological model described in Genesis. Many Christians likewise accept the modern scientific models of the universe indicating that is is much older than even 10,000 years, rejecting the not-so-simple calculations of time using the Genesis genealogies. The former are no more "literal" in their interpretation of Genesis than the later.

I am not mocking people who believe the earth is only 6000 years old (while simultaneously rejecting the Genesis cosmology) - I am rather trying to enlighten them! My aim is to move Anabaptist Christians away from the Protestant Fundamentalist battleground and instead to focus on Jesus and His Good News. We should not be alienating potential followers of Jesus who accept the natural observations that the earth is old. Arguing against science is not sowing the seed Jesus refers to in his parables, which is the word of the Kingdom (a "gospel" rejected by most young-earth creationists in any case.)