|
Post by Dave on Aug 28, 2013 4:38:27 GMT -5
It really is hard to say. None of us know.
But I threw off Christendom's attitude to just take it on faith. Ignore what you can measure and just except someone else's opinion is not a well informed, or well rounded approach to scripture. Read the information, study the information in the original language in the context that original culture. Pray over it and let the Holy Spirit be your teacher.
Pondering Confusion desires the most data possible on any given subject. We are not perfect, I am not perfect, bu it is all about the preponderance of the evidence. If science does not agree with scripture then I consider the science not fully developed.
FD-WEDT agrees with every drop of scripture, as well as, science theory from a wide range specialties, therefore I am all behind it.
Does two verses of English translation, out of cultural context, that disagrees with every science theory enough to validate a doctrine? Not for me.
Even the birth, life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Christ is validated by 3-400 previous prophesies. It is all about the preponderance of the evidence.
But if someone has been shown something, who are we to discount that experience.
|
|
|
Post by Dillon on Aug 28, 2013 17:28:38 GMT -5
I thought that most of the Jews did think the earth was young? the post above seems to make the point that they don't believe this.
I read some of the post at that Ancient Hebrew forum. Maybe I don't understand what they are saying, but it seems they believe both ways
I really don't understand their point about Adam having to die before the day was over.
Help
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 29, 2013 0:03:29 GMT -5
I could be wrong, but what I have read uses the genealogies from the Bible to count the years between us and Adam. Currently as of 2013 - 5774 years The problem with using genealogies are the apparent gaps the the Biblical record. Just how many generation were there between Noah and Nimrod and the Tower of Babel guys. the how many generations were there between Nimrod and Abram? But for the six days of creation they are as confused as we are. Talmudic Jews allow enough time in the first day for God to have created and destroyed several other worlds before earth. Here is an interesting play on Steve's claim that 1day = 100 years fixed. THE AGE OF THE WORLD - UNIVERSERabbi - Simcha Tzvi Koretz -Israel www.ascentofsafed.com/cgi-bin/ascent.cgi?Name=age"The Midrash says that each divine day is a thousand years, basing this on the verse, "A thousand years in Your sight are as but yesterday", Psalm 90:4 (Bereshit Rabbah 8:2, Zohar 2: 145b, Sanhedrin 97a).
Since each year contains 365.25 days, a divine year would be 365,250 years long. According to this, each cycle of seven thousand divine years would consist of 2,556,750,000 earthly years. This figure of 2.5 billion years is close to the scientific estimate as to the length of time that life has existed on earth.
If we assume that the seventh cycle began with the Biblical account of creation, then this would have occurred when the universe was 15,340,500,000 years old. This is very close to the scientific estimate that the expansion of the universe began some 15 billion years ago." (Taken from Sefer Yetzirah: Rabbi Kaplan, page 186)."Sure a lot older than 6-7000 yearsI am still looking for the answer about Adam.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 29, 2013 23:58:22 GMT -5
Gerald Lawrence Schroeder is an Orthodox Jewish physicist, author, lecturer and teacher at College of Jewish Studies Aish HaTorah's Discovery Seminar, Essentials and Fellowships programs and Executive Learning Center, who focuses on what he perceives to be an inherent relationship between science and spirituality. I am a big fan and he a one of the original causes for this website. In 2002. I wrote a paper about non-linear time. All of my friends read it and said ooo-ahhh nice Dave. The a few months later people brought me one of Gerald Schoeder’s papers and claimed it to be amazing and wonderful, I should really read it. After I did, I spent the next few months gloating that I said many of the same things earlier in my own paper. The difference? He had a Ph.D. and I was full of BS – I mean I only had a BS. Since then I have posted and dated my work onto the internet and today I also have a Th.D. – ooooo-ahhhhh “The Flexible flow of time and the stretching of space Einstein taught the world that time is relative. That in regions of high velocity or high gravity time actually passes more slowly relative to regions of lower gravity or lower velocity. (One system relative to another, hence the name, the laws of relativity.) This is now proven fact. Time actually stretches out.
15 billion years or six days? Today, we look back in time and we see approximately 15 billion years of history. Looking forward from when the universe is very small - billions of times smaller - the Torah says six days. In truth, they both may be correct. What's exciting about the last few years in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the "view of time" from the beginning of stable matter, the threshold energy of protons and neutrons (their nucleosynthesis), relative to the "view of time" today. It's not science fiction any longer. A dozen physics textbooks all bring the same number. The general relationship between nucleosynthesis, that time near the beginning at the threshold energy of protons and neutrons when matter formed, and time today is a million million. That's a 1 with 12 zeros after it. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says "I'm sending you a pulse every second," would we see a pulse every second? No. We'd see it every million million seconds. Because that's the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe.
The Talmud tells us that the soul of Adam was created at five and a half days after the beginning of the six days. That is a half day before the termination of the sixth day. At that moment the cosmic calendar ceases and an earth based calendar starts. . How would we see those days stretched by a million million? Five and a half days times a million million, gives us five and a half million million days. Dividing that by 365 days in a year, that comes out to be 15 billion years. NASA gives a value of about 14 billion years. Considering the many approximations, and that the Bible works with only six periods of time, the agreement to within a few percent is extraordinary. The universe is billons of years old from one perspective and a mere six days old from another. And both are correct!
The five and a half days of Genesis are not of equal duration. Each time the universe doubles in size, the perception of time halves as we project that time back toward the beginning of the universe. The rate of doubling, that is the fractional rate of change, is very rapid at the beginning and decreases with time simply because as the universe gets larger and larger, even though the actual expansion rate is approximately constant, it takes longer and longer for the overall size to double. Because of this, the earliest of the six days have most of the15 billion years sequestered with them. For the duration of each day and the details of how that matches with the measured history of the universe and the earth, see The Science of God.”“The universe is billons of years old from one perspective and a mere six days old from another. And both are correct!” 2 Peter 3:8 loud and clear! It is all about perspective!
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 30, 2013 0:38:46 GMT -5
“The universe is billons of years old from one perspective and a mere six days old from another. And both are correct!” 2 Peter 3:8 loud and clear! It is all about perspective! That is your perspective! God Bless Steve
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 30, 2013 1:22:16 GMT -5
It is also the perspective of Gerald Lawrence Schroeder an Orthodox Jewish physicist. Someone you quoted to refute my perspective.
Curious?
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Aug 30, 2013 11:31:50 GMT -5
Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. 5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. 6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: 7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. 8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. 11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
If a day = 1000 years If God rested on the 7th day And we are more than 2000 years from Adam Then God’s 7th day of rest must already be over
How could Paul suggest that we still have an opportunity to enter that day of rest?
It doesn’t add up.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 30, 2013 13:59:26 GMT -5
You are correct - it doesn't add up.
I don't know how to answer your question from the 1 day = 1000 years perspective. It is not my view of scriptural time. I think there are several examples that don't quite fit this model, which is why I don't accept this model.
For me, Time is non-linear. Every new Christian that accepts Christ's cross can share that moment in history with Christ, or Christ can share that moment with the new Christian.
John, was not given a vision of revelation, he transported forward in time and witnessed revelations.
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 30, 2013 20:42:24 GMT -5
If a day = 1000 years If God rested on the 7th day And we are more than 2000 years from Adam Then God’s 7th day of rest must already be over
How could Paul suggest that we still have an opportunity to enter that day of rest?
It doesn’t add up. The first 6 days represented in genesis 1 are creative days. The 7th day is not a creative day, and it was changed by the Adamic fall and the requirement of redemption; hence the 7th day continues. This is merely my own personal belief. I understand that this view is not widely held and not easily recognized. The reason I have chosen to believe this is basically 2-fold: 1. The earliest christians seemed to believe that this was the case. 2. The stratigraphy and fossil index appear (to me) to be produced over a longer period than just 72 hours. Although I do not believe in uniformitarianism, I do think that the evidence of progressive stratigraphy took longer than what 24 hour/day creationists allow for. 1000 year episodes would have been ample time (as opposed to millions or billions of years) in my humble opinion, and this view is in harmony with the earliest teachings offered by the church going back to the 2nd century AD. This is my conclusion. Everyone must come to their own conclusions. God Bless Steve
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 30, 2013 20:50:55 GMT -5
It is also the perspective of Gerald Lawrence Schroeder an Orthodox Jewish physicist. Someone you quoted to refute my perspective.
Curious? I quoted Gerald Schroeder to demonstrate that your conclusions that 'the church had originated the big bang theory' was false. I also recognized that your own teachings on the creation days are almost identical to his. God Bless Steve
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Aug 30, 2013 22:10:09 GMT -5
The first 6 days represented in genesis 1 are creative days. The 7th day is not a creative day, and it was changed by the Adamic fall and the requirement of redemption; hence the 7th day continues. This is merely my own personal belief. I understand that this view is not widely held and not easily recognized. Read more: ponderingconfusion.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=science&action=display&thread=256&page=2#ixzz2dVocZ4dMHelp me out here for days you have been saying that 2 Perter 3:8 and Pslams 90 mean that 1 day = 1000 years. Now you say it changed on day 7. Both of these passages do not say the days of creation. What did it change to? Now how long is a day worth? and what is the scripture that supports either the change or the new length of day.
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 31, 2013 0:30:37 GMT -5
Help me out here for days you have been saying that 2 Perter 3:8 and Pslams 90 mean that 1 day = 1000 years. Now you say it changed on day 7. Both of these passages do not say the days of creation.
What did it change to? Now how long is a day worth? and what is the scripture that supports either the change or the new length of day. I have explained that the early church adopted the day=1000 years for the creative days. You do not have to accept this, but I do. You do not have to agree that the length of time for the 7th day has not been assigned, as Jesus said, “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Matthew 24:36). The Father alone knows the length of the day of rest; so I obviously cannot tell you how long that day is to last. We are told to "be diligent to enter that rest" day. (Hebrews 3:7-11, 4:11, Psalms 95:7-11). It is often because of this ambiguity thay many forsake the biblical teaching and become seduced into the pseudo-science theories and worldviews. If this is the case here, then I cannot help you to see that which is not shown you. If you are happy with your "science" beliefs, then stick to them. God Bless Steve
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 31, 2013 0:49:21 GMT -5
Wait a minute!
If day 1 - 6 = 1000 years each -and- day 7 = anything other than 1000 years.
Then by definition - TIME IS NOT LINEAR! This is my point. It has always been my point.
|
|
steve
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by steve on Aug 31, 2013 16:30:02 GMT -5
Wait a minute!If day 1 - 6 = 1000 years each -and- day 7 = anything other than 1000 years. Then by definition - TIME IS NOT LINEAR!This is my point. It has always been my point. I think your non-linear time theory has merit if you are meaning that time (for God) may have a structured variation to that of time on earth. If you apply that theory to the biblical time-frame, then I can agree. If you apply that theory to the evolution time-frame, then I disagree. Evolution is a competing world faith that pretends to be scientifically derived. It is not. God Bless Steve
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 31, 2013 23:50:23 GMT -5
It is not my theory - it belongs to Albert Einstein
|
|