Let's assume that Genesis IS literal truth to be taken literally with a literal creation week, garden of Eden, literal Adam & Eve, literal serpent, etc, and that the earth is only between 6,000 to 10,000 years old.
If a scientist traveled back in time and landed in the garden of Eden while Adam and & Eve were living there what would be his findings based on his observations? He'd first see a full grown man and woman. Judging by their maturity and development he'd assume that they had at least lived there for about 20-25 years (assuming that's how old they appeared to be). Our scientist would see the trees of the garden and assume that they had been growing for perhaps many decades. Our scientist might also evaluate the river flowing through the garden (it's flow rates, the rate of erosion, it's depth, etc.) and conclude that the river may have started as a small stream some 2,000 years ago. Based on all of his "observations" the world would "appear" very old. However, none of this would have existed just 8 days prior.
That's one weakness I see in completely trusting scientific observation over the biblical narrative.
But first we must ASSUME. To come to the conclusion that science is weak based on assumptions that may not be true is weak.
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
Let's assume that Genesis IS literal truth to be taken literally with a literal creation week, garden of Eden, literal Adam & Eve, literal serpent, etc, and that the earth is only between 6,000 to 10,000 years old.
If a scientist traveled back in time and landed in the garden of Eden while Adam and & Eve were living there what would be his findings based on his observations? He'd first see a full grown man and woman. Judging by their maturity and development he'd assume that they had at least lived there for about 20-25 years (assuming that's how old they appeared to be). Our scientist would see the trees of the garden and assume that they had been growing for perhaps many decades. Our scientist might also evaluate the river flowing through the garden (it's flow rates, the rate of erosion, it's depth, etc.) and conclude that the river may have started as a small stream some 2,000 years ago. Based on all of his "observations" the world would "appear" very old. However, none of this would have existed just 8 days prior.
That's one weakness I see in completely trusting scientific observation over the biblical narrative.
This is the "Appearance of Age" argument or the Omphalos Theory ("omphalos" is Greek for navel or belly button).
Did our scientist notice a belly button on our subjects Adam and Eve?
IF a time traveler went back and saw a literal Garden of Eden just 6 thousand years ago and he cut down a tree he would NOT see a bunch of tree rings -since rings indicate growing seasons, none of which this tree would have seen.
The river would not show a progression of sedimentary layers since such layers would indicate a history which would have never occurred if everything was created "as is".
Adam would not show any internal (or external) signed of age -other then being an adult size. IF you did an autopsy his internal organs would have been as fresh as a new borns.
A whole lot of IF's and assumptions here.
But.... God is not a cannot lie, which is what a "false" history or "appearance of age" is.
But first we must ASSUME. To come to the conclusion that science is weak based on assumptions that may not be true is weak.
I seem to remember quite a bit of science assuming that the earth was in the center of the universe. The church embraced the conclusions of "science" and frankly she fell into it's error. Of course the Bible doesn't speak to this subject, but the point of the matter is that science also makes assumptions based on "known data". One piece of undiscovered data could turn scientific on it's head.
IF a time traveler went back and saw a literal Garden of Eden just 6 thousand years ago and he cut down a tree he would NOT see a bunch of tree rings -since rings indicate growing seasons, none of which this tree would have seen.
The river would not show a progression of sedimentary layers since such layers would indicate a history which would have never occurred if everything was created "as is".
Adam would not show any internal (or external) signed of age -other then being an adult size. IF you did an autopsy his internal organs would have been as fresh as a new borns.
A whole lot of IF's and assumptions here.
But.... God is not a cannot lie, which is what a "false" history or "appearance of age" is.
I agree with your conclusions on the Omphalos Theory. For the earth to be just 6,000 years old would require not only an "appearance of age" but it would require some sort of creator more akin to the Norse god Loki the trickster.
Not only would you have the tree ring problem, but those rings themselves would give evidence of wet years and dry years and contain the scars caused by beetle infestations and even forest fires.
The same with the layers of sediments. Not only were the layers laid down, but foot prints and all sorts of tracks from insects to tumbleweeds to wave and wind action are "frozen" into the rocks. Why would God go to all that trouble just to deceive us?
And why did He blow up that star in one of the Magellenic Clouds and make it look like the star blew up more than 25,000 years ago? Is He just messing with us - or do we need to fundamentally adapt our perceptions to fit with reality?
This is the "Appearance of Age" argument or the Omphalos Theory ("omphalos" is Greek for navel or belly button).
Did our scientist notice a belly button on our subjects Adam and Eve?
I would imagine no. They wouldn't have had an umbilical cord. My mother had a terrible infection in her belly button and it left her without a belly button. The scientist would naturally conclude that something happened to the both of them to render them without a belly button. He certainly would see that they were mature adults and assume that regardless as to what happened to their belly buttons, they appeared to be adults. However, they didn't exist just eight days prior.
Observations can be deceiving is my point. All things being relative. If the Bible is true and God is all powerful, he could indeed have created the earth as literally described in the Bible. If he did, it would DEMAND an appearance of age. This would cause any "scientific" notion pr observation refusing to consider the Creator into it's equations seriously flawed.
I dunno, with genealogies from Adam through Abraham and beyond, including the ages of fathers when kids were born, and the exact ages of folks when they died, it sure seems like it was meant literally. (Ever notice that Methuselah, Noah's grandpa, died the year the flood started?)
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
IF a time traveler went back and saw a literal Garden of Eden just 6 thousand years ago and he cut down a tree he would NOT see a bunch of tree rings -since rings indicate growing seasons, none of which this tree would have seen.
The river would not show a progression of sedimentary layers since such layers would indicate a history which would have never occurred if everything was created "as is".
Adam would not show any internal (or external) signed of age -other then being an adult size. IF you did an autopsy his internal organs would have been as fresh as a new borns.
A whole lot of IF's and assumptions here.
But.... God is not a cannot lie, which is what a "false" history or "appearance of age" is.
I don't see it as a lie, especially since God discloses the information in His Word. For example, if I created a diamond through artificial means and wrote to you about how I did it... did I lie? No. But if you refused to read what I wrote regarding how I made it and claimed that it was formed by thousands of years of pressure... you'd be the one misleading people.
If I remember correctly, even Hugh Ross believes that God formed a literal man whom God named Adam from the dust of the earth. Was Ross' idea of Adam a lie because God formed him with an appearance of age? No.
When Jesus cursed the fig tree and it withered...it essentially aged before their eyes and died. Was that a lie? No. If God actually created all things in six literal days it would demand an appearance of age (however in a perfect condition). And since God revealed this in his Word... it cannot be said that he lied. However, if this is true, it could be said that many a man has disregarded what God said he did in the Bible, and thereby ended up misleading themselves.
I agree with your conclusions on the Omphalos Theory. For the earth to be just 6,000 years old would require not only an "appearance of age" but it would require some sort of creator more akin to the Norse god Loki the trickster.
Not only would you have the tree ring problem, but those rings themselves would give evidence of wet years and dry years and contain the scars caused by beetle infestations and even forest fires.
The same with the layers of sediments. Not only were the layers laid down, but foot prints and all sorts of tracks from insects to tumbleweeds to wave and wind action are "frozen" into the rocks. Why would God go to all that trouble just to deceive us?
And why did He blow up that star in one of the Magellenic Clouds and make it look like the star blew up more than 25,000 years ago? Is He just messing with us - or do we need to fundamentally adapt our perceptions to fit with reality?
And why... why do we subordinate our lives to angry souls who are willing to lie to us to try and deceive us into thinking that their own vain traditions are on a par with the Word of God?
Sorry, but I had to throw that in for those angry lurkers... you know who you are.
And why... why do we subordinate our lives to angry souls who are willing to lie to us to try and deceive us into thinking that their own vain traditions are on a par with the Word of God?
Sorry, but I had to throw that in for those angry lurkers... you know who you are.
Linear Mode
