| Author | Message | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 599 Registered: 11-2005 |
Perhaps many of you have been indoctrinated as I was about the power of the flood. Of course, we were taught that the flood covered the whole physical world as we know it today. In my case, any time I contemplated some geological perplexity, the Seventh-day Adventist answer would always be. "It was caused by the flood." That has always seemed to me to be an overly simplistic response, that doesn't really grapple with reality. We all know about the ice age, and have seen evidences of it. Perhaps we have read about oil exploration at Prudhoe Bay, and how drillers found palm fronds and buried frogs below. Adventist Today has published numerous articles relating how a large number of hippos were smothered by a river in Montana in volcanic ash, ice cores with yearly layers 10's of thousands of years old that confirm other layers elsewhere, etc. There is evidence all over the place such as geological magnetic polarity in rock that now points east and west, instead of north and south. There is a small animal fossil that only occurs one place in the east coast of South America and the west coast of Africa, and on and on. There are way to many indications of evidence that, in my mind, can't just be explained away by a flood. Here in Utah, evidence is especially abundant on a massive scale. As we hear daily about the coal miners about 1-1/2 hours south of here, and the coal mines that are getting deeper and deeper here in the west, one has to wonder how the coal got there. I read today that there are, I believe, around 10 mines that are approaching or over 2000 feet deep. It also said that coal is only able to support a load up to around 1800 feet deep, and so when underground mining is done deeper and deeper the likelihood of collapse is greater and greater due to the sheer weight of the earth above. Since these coal seams are horizontal, and 2000+ feet deep how could they have been put there by "the Flood"? We have massive mountains rising up 5000' (22 peaks within 30 minutes drive) of the Salt Lake City valley. You can see the rock strata upended, with glacial cirques on top. The geologic action here in the west is breathtaking. So why aren't these 2000 foot deep coal seams at the same sort of angles as the mountain rock strata nearby? Another curiosity are fossils. In the strata that is upended thousands of feet are fossils. Now let me share with you a story. We have a small farm. One of our sheep died a while back and so we buried her in our orchard. Probably all that is there now after perhaps 8 years are bones. My mother is very strict Historical Seventh-day Adventist. I asked her one day how long she thought it would take for the sheep's bones to turn to fossils -- perhaps 10-15 years? She said, "Oh no!" It would take at least hundreds of years to fossilize. I asked her if she was sure, and she said she was positive. I told her there were huge 5000' mountains nearby, which she has seen, that have rock strata on about a 60 degree slope. I asked her how she thought it got that way. She replied, "It had to be the flood. The Bible says the fountains of the deep broke open the face of the earth." I acknowledged that that sounded like a plausible answer, and asked her if the flood did that, then how could it have created the embedded fossils which took hundreds of years to form? What are your thoughts, and speculations? Gilbert Jorgensen (Message edited by jorgfe on August 16, 2007) | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 269 Registered: 1-2004  |
I think it's a common cause of total loss of faith when someone who wholeheartedly believes the SDA view on geology runs into actual geologic data which has to be used in certain fields of employment. I favor going with whatever has the best evidence, keeping in mind that in science, sometimes evidence will be found which overturns previous theories. Jeremiah | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6571 Registered: 12-2003  |
Jeremiah, I like the way you stated that. I've come to similar conclusions. I'm not dogmatic about a young earth; the Genesis account, in Hebrew, allows for the seven "days" to be read as "day" or "era"—we simply are not given enough data in the Bible to be totally dogmatic. I'ts quite amusing: our pastor, a meticulous and conservative Bible scholar who studies for sermons in Hebrew and Greek, leans toward an old earth based on his reading of research. His wife, not an ancient language linguist but still possessing a doctorate in Biblical studies, is adamant about the literal reading of six days of creation. At a "meet the pastor" gathering in their home recently, someone asked about the age of the earth while Elizabeth was out of the room. She walked in while Gary was answering, and he said, "Elizabeth believes in a young earth, but we won't hold that against her." Elizabeth said that when she speaks to women in Arab countries, for example, she can't explain "eras" to them. She needs to talk to them about God making the earth in six days. That, she said, they understand. So she's sticking with her literal interpretation... I agree, Gilbert--I don't see how we can be dogmatic about the age of the earth. Colleen | ||
| Markmartin Registered user Username: Markmartin Post Number: 6 Registered: 8-2007 |
I'm new at this, --so I keep thinking I have to indicate my tone before I say something, --my tone is like this: "just a thought...." A point of interest is that Jesus references Noah and the flood (Matthew 24:38-39; Luke 17:27), with no hint of compromising the Genesis account. Do you think He believed in a world-wide flood? The apostle Peter also indicates that the whole world was flooded (2 Peter 3:3-7, & 1 Peter 3:20). I remember the author of Hebrews indicates the same (Hebrews 11:7). We have a guy in our fellowship, Tom Vail (who continues to be the center of a national, National Parks controversy, who is a veteran Grand Canyon river guide. The evidences he shows for a catastophic flood on his week-long Colorado river canyon tours are stunning. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6572 Registered: 12-2003 |
Oh, yes, Mark--I agree that there was a catastrophic flood. In fact, we bought a book online about seven or eight years ago called "When The Earth Nearly Died" by two authors whose names I can't remember. (We loaned the book to someone and never got it back...) It was published in the United Kingdom, and the two authors were a geologist and some sort of social scientist. They were not Christian. The fascinating thing about this book was that it built a compelling case for a catastrophic, world-wide flood at a relatively recent geologic age [considering these people were apparently not creationists]: about 11, 500 BC. (Of course, this date is not actually provable.) They even gave compelling reasons to believe that much of the striation and other marks attributed to ice, generally, is more likely the result of water. They also discussed the presence of forests of trees buried under parts of the USA, etc etc. It was a fascinating read, all in all...and most interesting coming from two men who did not approach the subject from the position of attempting to prove the reliability of the Bible. Again, I'm not opposed to a literal six-day creation; it may well have been. I've just moved to a less dogmatic position regarding the timing of it. But the universal flood? Absolutely. Colleen | ||
| Markmartin Registered user Username: Markmartin Post Number: 7 Registered: 8-2007 |
Another thing I've researched is the Hebrew understanding of the word, "yom," or "day" as used in the Genesis account. It seems that it refers to a 24 hour period. It appears that if Moses wanted to be referring to an extended period of time, he would have used another word that would not be misunderstood to refer to a time from sunset to sunset, -- perhaps "olam," which refers to a very long period of time. It doesn't really seem to be an issue about the age of the earth as much as it is an issue of the faithfulness of the text and how we interpret the text, --either literally or figuratively. A whole lot of things, theology included, hinge on when we decide to leave the plain reading of the scripture. It raises tough issues like: "When do we accept the text as it reads and when do we not?" "Has the transmission of the scripture been accurately preserved?" I'm reading a really neat book edited by John F. Ashton, Phd, "In Six Days." Though I haven't ploughed through it all, I'm learning a lot! | ||
| Markmartin Registered user Username: Markmartin Post Number: 8 Registered: 8-2007 |
Colleen, Another book that sounds like the one you are describing is Immanuel Velikovsky's "Earth in Upheaval." Good stuff. I'd really like to get ahold of the book you are referring to if it comes to mind sometime. Thanks, Mark | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 977 Registered: 10-2002  |
I've never heard this before, but this is interesting to me because I drew a watercolor picture a couple months ago of a forest underneath a deep ocean of water. Other than it being an amusingly ironic surrealistic idea, I had no idea why I was drawing it. Just felt like drawing it. I didn't put it on my art-for-Jesus blog because I didn't understand it and thought it was just a random doodle. | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 1074 Registered: 7-2004 |
I've read "Earth in Upheaval" and highly recommend it to anyone. I've often heard people say that an extremely long period of time could have passed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, but I think the wisest thing I ever heard is that the first couple of chapters were not written to be viewed as a scientific treatise, but that it was rather God's way of saying how the physical world we inhabit came to be. God was saying, "I made this world for you to live in." Whether He made in in six days or six eras is not for us to say. I also find it interesting to note that the first three days could be a description of the universe, and the next three days are more specific to this planet. The evolutionary rendition lays out very much like the creationary rendition with the only difference being time. Humankind is just about the last thing to appear on the scene in both stories. For those who wish to be dogmatic about it I would say, "Where were you when all of these things took place?" We must take it by faith that God knows how to tell us what we truly need to know. Paul told the Romans that the earth itself speaks of its Creator, so that those who had not been specifically schooled about Jehovah would still have an innate knowledge of Him--they just don't know Him by name. The Genesis story was given to a group of people who had recently been slaves, so it is fair to say they were relatively unschooled at the time. The Genesis account is as simple as a nursery rhyme, yet it tells a giant story. It was the same church that believed that the earth was flat that made such a big deal about the 6,000 year old earth, and the 7 day creation week. This same church ignored references in the Psalms that spoke about the earth being an orb. There is simply too much information actually buried in the earth for us to stick our heads in the sand and ignore facts in order to validate, or protect God if you will. God does need you or me to defend Him. He has told us that He originated our world, our universe, and ourselves. I absolutely believe that He did it. I also acknowledge that if one wants to tell the story as having occurred over a much longer period of time that there is adequate evidence to base that story on. | ||
| Robby Registered user Username: Robby Post Number: 13 Registered: 2-2006 |
On the subject of geology, has anyone seen the Privileged Planet? http://www.privilegedplanet.com/ I heard an interview with the authors on the radio show "Bible Answer Man". Sounds fascinating. I'm ordering a DVD. Prayers for those in the Utah mine tragedy. Rob | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1289 Registered: 9-2006  |
Having become an amateur geologist and a keen interest in paleontology and an avid fossil hunter after I was saved, I had to go back and read the genesis account for the evidence had old earth written all over it. So I suppose I reviewed the Genesis account from the apparent evidence I saw at that time and ended up like Gilbert. I would have to agree with Belvalew, he didn’t clarify the time between the formations of the universe and the making of man, it just says in the beginning he made them. The proof is the earth is here. In 2 Kings chapter 10 it says Ahab had seventy son’s, it doesn’t say how many women he went through to get that many, but I think we can assume from scientific evidence and common sense that it was more than one and by other scripture we know that in those days men had many wives and concubines and not much birth control, so we can safely come to the conclusion that he did indeed have seventy sons but the information is really skimpy about how that came about. By the same token, evidence seems pretty skimpy for the actual age of the earth in the Genesis account to me. In the Genesis account he said Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. In verse: (Gen 2:4 KJV) These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, We just have to approach it with a little common sense and I can’t see that the young earther’s do that. Why it would be necessary to attribute all scientific evidence that seems to show otherwise to the story of the flood is beyond me anyhow. River | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 145 Registered: 7-2007 |
It's curious how scientists keep changing their theroies! So it seems to me that "old earthers" would have to keep saying, "oh, wait a minute! Here's some new evidence, so we'll have to change our theroy AGAIN. Oh, well." As for me, I'm sticking with just what the Bible says. Awhile back while I was living in Washington state; Mount St. Helens blew up. I'm told that the violence of the event did things to the lake nearby in just a few days. If scientists wouldn't have known of the mountain's eruption and examined the layers of strata in the lake, they would have thought it had taken a long long time for those strata to form! Anyway, I just think it's fasinating that science keeps changing and the Bible doesn't  | ||
| Reb Registered user Username: Reb Post Number: 566 Registered: 5-2007 |
Robby, I have the "Priviledged Planet" DVD and it's great! I agree with the theories in it. By the way I am defintely a long/old earth creationists but I would like to add it's not the HOW that matters it's the WHO. I believe God did the work of creation and that's that. I may disagree with some of y'all on how he did it and how long it took but the thing we can all agree on is He did it. I agree with Dr. Hugh Ross that the Big Bang theory is valid and God started it. I believe the Big Bang is how everything got started and God is the one that "lit the fuse". Man did I ever get "woodshedded and ridiculed" by Adventists for that. But I don't ridicule their believe in the earth being only 6,000 years old, can't they give my beliefs the same respect?? No, because their profitess wrote that long/old earth creationists are among the "worst of infidels" | ||
| Jamundson Registered user Username: Jamundson Post Number: 40 Registered: 7-2007 |
Why is it that Christians even debate the creation/evolution issue. How is it that we accept the miraculous virgin birth , the account of Jesus raising people from the dead, The resurrection of Christ from the dead. Our own passing from death to life, The fulfilled prophecies of Christ in the OT, The parting of the red sea, the belief in the second coming of Christ from a place or dimension we are unable to comprehend. A new Jerusalem that is 1400 mile cube. Then we debate that God has the power to create instantaneously. There is ample evidence for the creation of the world just as the biblical account expresses. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence for a long earth account. Personally I prefer to place my faith with the evidence that is consistent with all the other extraordinary and miraculous events that make up the whole of Christian beliefs. | ||
| Reb Registered user Username: Reb Post Number: 567 Registered: 5-2007 |
I think it's up to induidual liberty of conscience. If you are a young earth creationist, cool. If you are a long/old earth creationist, cool. The important thing is believing God did the creation. How he did it is 100% peripheral to salvation. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6574 Registered: 12-2003 |
God is ceretainly capable of doing anything in any time frame He chooses. With God, all things are possible! The important thing to know about Genesis 1 and 2 is that God created all things. He didn't just "start something" and let it progress. He created with intention and planning. If His deliberate and planned creation were not a fact, there would be no "sense" in His being our Redeemer. He saved us because we are His creations, not because we are an accident of biology that He "set in motion". The creation groans, waiting for the sons of God to be revealed so it can be released from its bondage to decay (Romans 8) because creation itself is God's handiwork. Even creation will be redeemed. It IS God's. Yes, we also have The Privileged Planet, and it is an amazing video. The facts of the placement of our solar system within the Milky Way in a position that allows us to explore/discover the universe instead of having our view completely blocked by stars and dust, for example, is one of those "inexplicable" facts that defy probability, yet God placed our planet in a position for us to discover facts of creation that validate God's involvment. I highly recommend the video. Colleen | ||
| Reb Registered user Username: Reb Post Number: 569 Registered: 5-2007 |
The Priviledged Planet pretty much PROVES there is a God. A must see video. It is truly wondeful. Think I'll watch it again tonite. | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 146 Registered: 7-2007 |
I agree with Jamundson; at least to the point of fully believing whatever the Bible tells me is so. (Concerning whether the word "day" in Genesis 1 means 24 hours, I'll have to look it up in the study Bible at home with the Greek references to see if "day" means a literal day or not. I wouldn't be able to get back to the forum until Monday though.) In any case, the words "the evening and the morning were the third day" and so on; seem VERY clear to me that the Bible is refering to a literal day in each case. In each case (of the six creation days) it says "the evening and the morning," but when it comes to the seventh day, however; it doesn't say "the evening and the morning." God didn't start creating again on the eighth day; He just rested -- on and on and on. His resting had an impact on two of the covenants throughout the earth's history. The covenant made between God and Israel had as it's sign, the seventh-day Sabbath. In the covenant we have now; we Rest in Jesus TODAY - everyday. He's our Sabbath now. In Biblical prophecy, a day means a year, but when it says "evening and morning" it means a "day." That completely un-does the investigative judgment/1844 theroy actually. I'm not a theologian, but my reference Bible in the verse in Daniel 8:14 "...For two thousand three hundred days; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed," the word "days" has a little number beside it, refering me to the center colume. When I look there, I see that the literal meaning of the word rendered "days" in the text, is "evening-mornings." So, I'm thinking that wrecks the prophecy for Adventists. Speaking of Adventists, I hope there are none reading this thread - perhaps they'd feel justified in their beliefs?? (except for their interpretation of Daniel 8:14) Just a thought. | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 147 Registered: 7-2007 |
I should explain what I meant by Adventists "feeling justified in their beliefs." They are such strong (literal 6 day) creationists (and so am I) that they'd say, "see what happens when one leaves the Saaaaabath??!" and they wouldn't study further and find out what the Sabbath was for. Anyway, please look up a couple web sites. (I don't have the exact addresses.) Look up "Answers in Genesis" by Ken Ham, and "Institute in Creation Research" by Dr. Henry Morris. Those will shed light on this important subject. I'd like to also point out that in examining our universe, we're like an ant trying to examine the scientist on the other end of the microscope. | ||
| Jamundson Registered user Username: Jamundson Post Number: 41 Registered: 7-2007 |
This is a great article http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=204 |
