The Bible and an Ancient Earth

How do we know the message is from God? Well, because of the life changing power it has on those who trust its message and draw close to God.

(Still having technical problems here.)

We have three things in the universe called space, time, and motion. We need two of them to validate that the other one exists. This seems unfaitr. But it is so I think.

The way we know TIME is by motion through space. The way we know SPACE is by motion in time. The way we know MOTION is by space and time. This seems rather unfair. But we need TWO of THREE phenomenons to detect the other. They are dependent upon one another.

With the will of God we need three things also which are dependent upon each other.


We have the Spirit of God, the Word of God, and the people of God.

To recognize the Spirit of God we need the people of God and the Word of God. To know the people of God we need the Spirit of God and the Word of God. To discern Word of God we must have the Spirit of God and the peope of God.

It seems unfair and circular. But it is the same as with SPACE,TIME, and MOTION. This triangular relationship is just what we have to use to know these three realities.

And we need the Spirit of God, the Word of God, and the people of God to discern each of those three realities. Particularly the apostles and prophets of God help us.

Having said that, I think as the age of the world changes the Spirit of God may cause us to notice things in the Word of God which previously overlooked. I do believe that from time to time we believers must go back to the Scripture with the Spirit of God that He could illuminate what previously was missed by us. What the Holy Spirit wants to emphasize in a particular age of man may vary from time to time. So there is form and there is freedom too. There is scope and limits. But there is also the fact that God is the LIVING God and His word is the LIVING word of God.

Originally posted by jaywill
How do we know the message is from God? Well, because of the life changing power it has on those who trust its message and draw close to God.

(Still having technical problems here.)

We have three things in the universe called space, time, and motion. We need two of them to validate that the other one exists. This seems unfaitr. But it is ...[text shortened]... s. But there is also the fact that God is the LIVING God and His word is the LIVING word of God.

Well, we are given hints in regards to the word of God concerning the age of the Earth.

Deuteronomy 32:7 "Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations..." Here we see a reference to the days of creation and then human time beginning. From the time of Adam on, the Biblical calendar is accurate.

Also look at Psalms 90:4 "For a 1000 years to thy sight are but yesterday when it is past, and as a watch to the night." Here we see an important scientific principle which is TIME IS RELATIVE. In other words, who's perspective is describing the six days of creation before man came on the scene? Is it not God's? Granted, a 1000 years is not a 100,000.000 years but the scripture does not say that a day equals a 1000 years to God. I believe it was simply stating the above scientific principle by saying that a day to us is like a 1000 years to God. It would be akin to me telling you that a dog is like a cat. I would say this only if you had no point of reference in terms of what a cat is, thus I would not be saying a dog equals a cat. From an anceint perspective, what point of reference would they have in terms of what a billion years is?

Yet another verse to consider is Genesis 2:4 which says, "These are the generations of the hearvens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."

You say that 3 sources of evidence is crucial to the revelation of truth? I have given you 3 scriptures. Now how about 3 scientific sources? After all, is not science merely the study of the material universe that God has created? The age of the universe has been measured using a variety of independent technological systems including, radioactive dating, doppler shifts in starlight, and the isotropic "3 degree above zero" radiation background. The methods of these studies are totally unrelated, therefore, an error that might have ocurred in one would not appear in the others. All point to the fact that the universe is around 15 billion years old, not 15 thousand years.

Originally posted by jaywill
I have no problem believing that 7 days is intended.

But these are seven days of restoration and recovery of something which had become without form and void. Of course to be sure some further creation is also taking place there. Man is a new addition to the creation.

For the dry land to appear from underneath the water on the third day is recover ...[text shortened]... ental arrangement under the new creature MAN.

The clock starts [b]"in the beginning".[/b]

The clock starts there, but not the time lines that are referred to in the links. If I start counting my age with when I began school or when I graduated high school, then I'm declaring myself to be younger than I really am.

Originally posted by jaywill
I don't know why you call the Bible a conglomeration. To many of us who have really spent our lives to prayerfully explore the 66 books,we see the product of a divine mind overall unifying its message into a unified theme. And whatever ''political" motive you imagine in the Bible I would question.

It certainly is not easy to claim that the Bi ...[text shortened]...

This part of your comment only I feel to respond to now. It is related to the topic.

During the 1st and 2nd centuries there were many wildly divergent versions of christianity around, and they were all in competition with one another. There were the Ebionites, the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the proto-orthodox christians, etc., etc. They were all convinced that theirs was the true version of christianity, and they all had their own writings to back that conviction up. It is widely known that many passages of some of those writings were deliberately altered to make them fit in with that particular group's ideology. Sometimes this was a case of open fraud, and other times it was simply as case of a particular scribe bringing his own interpretation into play.

Furthermore, there were dozens of gospels, epistles and apocalypses in circulation at the time, many which were very popular, and only a few of which eventually ended up being endorsed by the orthodox christians. As I pointed out previously, the Codex Sinaiticus, an early bible from the 4th century, contains the Epistle of Barnabas and part of The Shepherd of Hermas, both of which are now considered apocryphal. The Muratorian Canon accepts the Wisdom of Solomon and the Apocalypse of Peter as being canonical. In addition to early manuscripts widely accepting writings that were later discarded, many of them left out writings that were later included. The Codex Vitacinus lacks 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon and Revelation.

The early history of christianity is clearly one of many competing and wildly divergent groups jostling for supremacy as they continued to refine their theology along the way. During this tumultuous formative process many writings were copied, forged, manufactured, tampered with, or ultimately discarded until the winning group had finally cobbled together what it considered to be the definitive version of the bible. By virtue of their victory, all the other writings were now considered heretical. But if the politics had turned out differently, the whole bible could have been very different form what it is. Finally, how much does this conglomeration actually resemble what Jesus allegedly said? Precious little, I would wager.

Originally posted by rwingett
During the 1st and 2nd centuries there were many wildly divergent versions of christianity around, and they were all in competition with one another. There were the Ebionites, the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the proto-orthodox christians, etc., etc. They were all convinced that theirs was the true version of christianity, and they all had their own writings ...[text shortened]... his conglomeration actually resemble what Jesus allegedly said? Precious little, I would wager.

Help me understand how this relates to the various interpretations of what the Jewish Bible says. It was already canonized and in circulation during the intertestamental times. Therefore, to me, your posts about early church sects during or after the days of Christ and the apostles seems to be outside the scope of the thread.

Originally posted by jaywill
To many of us who have really spent our lives to prayerfully explore the 66 books,we see the product of a divine mind overall unifying its message into a unified theme.

Then y'all haven't spent your lives studying the whole Bible, which comprises 73 books. That you
would excise books accepted by the Christian church for 1600 years, ones accepted by the earliest
members of the Christian community, ones in the first authorized Bibles.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Then y'all haven't spent your lives studying the whole Bible, which comprises 73 books. That you
would excise books accepted by the Christian church for 1600 years, ones accepted by the earliest
members of the Christian community, ones in the first authorized Bibles.

Nemesio

"whole" doesn't necessitate 73 books. A community defines the parameters of their scripture. By your assumption, one must also include the LSAT Logic Games Bible and Analytical Reasoning Bible, then totaling 75.

SN. What is a PA fellow using "ya'll" for so far from Dixie?

Originally posted by Big Mac
"whole" doesn't necessitate 73 books. A community defines the parameters of their scripture. By your assumption, one must also include the LSAT Logic Games Bible and Analytical Reasoning Bible, then totaling 75.

SN. What is a PA fellow using "ya'll" for so far from Dixie?

So, you would naturally consider 'Christian' those who exclude Revelation, or those who include the
Gospel of St Thomas?

I used 'y'all' because I wanted the plural clear to agree with lives. It still galls me to write 'yinz.'

Nemesio

Originally posted by jaywill
I don't know why you call the Bible a conglomeration. To many of us who have really spent our lives to prayerfully explore the 66 books,we see the product of a divine mind overall unifying its message into a unified theme. And whatever ''political" motive you imagine in the Bible I would question.

So if you read a different translation or version would you see exactly the same overall unifying message or another one. What do you do when you come across two different versions and you do not know which is correct and they have an important difference?
Some things for example the virginity of Mary to the Roman Catholic faith, are so critical that if they are wrong it would alter peoples faith dramatically. How do you know that the foundations of your faith are based on accurate translations or the correct versions or do you possibly claim that all translations and versions are correct (that is easily proved wrong).

Originally posted by Nemesio
Then y'all haven't spent your lives studying the whole Bible, which comprises 73 books. That you
would excise books accepted by the Christian church for 1600 years, ones accepted by the earliest
members of the Christian community, ones in the first authorized Bibles.

Nemesio

As I believe that God inspired the books of the Bible I also believe that He was not a dummy in causing His people to discern between His word and the plethora of religious copycat liturature.

I don't think the process was instantanteous or without contraversy. But I do believe that God directed both the Jews of the Old Testament age and the Christian church of the New Testament age to recognize inspiration. Those who live by God and live unto God are led by God to recognize human products (which may have many good and interesting ideas) from the divinely inspired word of God.

I don't believe that God spoke to man but was too inept to assist man to seperate His speaking from the flood of copycat writings. There may be interesting things in the Epistle of Barnabus and the Gospel of Peter. But the ancient men of God were led by the Holy Spirit to discern between the authoritatively inspired prophetic writings as the canon and other writings.

The Old Testament refers to other books. The New Testament refers to others letters and writings. It doesn't mean that all these other writings were on the same level as the prophetic writings which refered to them.

I don't think God was not smart enough to navigate His followers through this confusion. I don't think we need to throw up our hands in dispair that even if God DID communicate with man we can't tell what He said because everyone else is also talking too.

Some of you think God never spoke at all. Others of you think, well even if God did speak, it has been totally lost and buried within the confusion of similiar copycat speakings of religious people. In that case God has been defeated because of divine incompatence.

My comments won't mean much to these two crowds. Perhaps my comments will be helpful to those who like me believe God both spoke, and is still speaking and that He guides His people to recognize the authoritative impact and flavor of inspiration.

Deuteronomy 32:7 "Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations..." Here we see a reference to the days of creation and then human time beginning. From the time of Adam on, the Biblical calendar is accurate.

Human time ?

What about time which is pre-human? Do you think that is possible?

Do you think that within a few days a creature such as the one who became Satan launched a universal rebellion against his Creator?

I think such a universal rebellion of a being against God took longer to ferment and fester.

Besides we are told that sin and death came into the world through Adam (Romans 5:12). But when we read carefully sin was lurking outside the door waiting for an opportunity to enter. So if sin was outside lurking, it was somewhere. If it was somewhere waiting to enter then the scope of "world" (in Paul's usage) must have its limits.

I believe that sin in Satan had a long pre-Adamic history. Strickly speaking this was not human time as we measure. And we are only given a slight glimmer of those dark times in Scripture. In Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 we are given only a glimpse into the prophetic past to see the ancient history of Satan.

One Pererius (1535 - 1610 AD) wrote in a commentary on Genesis:

"Even though before the first day, the heavens and the elements were made subsequent to (ie. basic essence of creative activity) nevertheless they were not perfected and completely furnished until the period of the six days: for then was given to them (their) completion. However, just how long that darkened state of the world lasted, ie., whether it lasted more than a day or less than a day, this is not clear to me, nor ( I hold) is it clear to any other mortal man unless to one to whom it has been divinely made so."

In other words the commentator says that there is an unspecified interval of time before the commencement of the six days spoken about in Genesis 1.

I agree. And the unspecified interval could have possibly been very long time in human terms.

Another comment, an earlier one, by Origen (186 - circa 254 AD) commented on Genesis 1:1. The original language was very familiar to him:

"It is certain that the present firmament is not spoken of in this verse, nor the present dry land, but rather that heaven and earth from which this present heaven and earth that we now see afterwards borrowed their names."

In other words Origen understood in the first century, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" should be put apart in time from the six days by some unspecified gap of time.

I agree with Origen on this point. And I think Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 include passages which give us a glimpse into the "prophetic past" of that gap. Mainly they do so to reveal the pre-Adamic history of Satan.

There is no other reason for the Spirit of God to reveal this. As much as we are curious about those pre-Adamic age/s the Bible doesn't help our curiosity.

It is only deemed necessary to tell us that God did create an Anointed Cherub who was perfect in his ways from the moment of creation. And that this one rebelled against God and sought to replace God and the most high.

YEC interpreters, if they pay attention at all to these passages, attempt to squeeze them into the first six days of Genesis 1. My opinion is that such a huge universal conflict between one of God's highest creatures and God did not ferment over a period on less than one week. I think it developed over a longer time in a pre-Adamic world.

So, you would naturally consider 'Christian' those who exclude Revelation, or those who include the
Gospel of St Thomas?


It is relatively easy to become a Christian. You simply believe that Jesus is alive and take Him as your Lord and Savior.

If a Christian thinks the Gospel of Thomas is canonical I would not say he or she is not my brother in the Lord because of that reason.

Does that answer your question?

Don't you think in a spiritual family it would be possible for some to be less mature and some to be more mature? I think the epistles teach us to expect that there would be varying levels of maturity in growth among those in the family of God.

Originally posted by Big Mac
Help me understand how this relates to the various interpretations of what the Jewish Bible says. It was already canonized and in circulation during the intertestamental times. Therefore, to me, your posts about early church sects during or after the days of Christ and the apostles seems to be outside the scope of the thread.

In the second post in this thread, Jaywill said:

My attitude is that if there is a descrepency between what science says and what the Bible says, my leaning is toward the Bible. God, I believe and trust, knows all the facts. But science, wonderful as it is, is man's invention.

My post is directly relevant to that point. Jaywill claims science is "man's invention." The process may be man's invention, but the knowledge it reveals is not. The bible and its composition, on the other hand, are wholly man's invention. From Genesis to Revelation it is a man-made document, and its god is a man-made god. The bible should not be trusted as an authoritative source on anything. If you want fable, poetry, or literature, you may find it in the bible, but if you want knowledge, science holds all the trump cards.