Theological implications of an old earth

This is where we must choose to disagree as brothers in Christ.
IMO, I find a contradition between God's general revelation and God's special revelation hard to swallow.

Rob

 

No, this is not poetic language. It is Satan offering things to Jesus to worship him.

I don't get your point or what this has to do with Rev 7.1.

 

As do I. But where you are willing to reintepret the special revelation in light of the general revelation, I prefer to interpret the general revelation in light of the special revelation. I don't think they do contradict. And I think the more we learn, the less contradiction there will be.

 

Ditto on Pastor Larry's response to this.

We don't know what would have happened had Adam eaten from the Tree of Life before the fall because he didn't. It's an interesting question, and I am sure God knows. And I also am sure God knew Adam would not eat from it so the point is moot. The Tree of Life is mentioned again in Rev 2.7, 22.2, 22.14, and 22.19 as part of "paradise" the new Jerusalem, seemingly representing the eternal life we have through Christ.

Deacon, thanks for posting the verse I wanted to find. I was pretty sure it was in Job or Psalms but couldn't remember the wording to look it up.

As far a death spreading to all men, that passage in Romans is about sin and justification through Christ, and that would not apply to animals. So I don't think it proves animals died before Adam and Eve. I don't know I can prove they didn't but I think Gen 3.17 ("cursed is the ground") and Romans 8:20-21 is on my side for showing that decay came to creation (which would mean animals, at least) through sin:

The first death of an animal that we know about is the animal(s) that had to die so its/their skin could be make into clothes for Adam and Eve. I also believe this is the first animal death because of the enormous price that had to be paid for sin, bringing curse to the ground, decay to the creation, and death to living beings.

 

We also don't know what the complete nature of food was in that time before the fall. If I eat an apple, I have not killed the tree. In fact, I help the tree to reproduce if I properly dispose of the core and seeds. Such seems the plan from the garden of Eden.

When I lived in the farmland of Maine, people would "refresh" their fallow meadows by allowing ruminators (cows, goats) to browse the fields. Eating the blades of grass and somehow signaling the plant root system to re-invigorate (not to mention the extra "droppings" of food).

HankD

 

Mat 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
Mat 4:9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

This is another of the several passages in the Bible that clearly teaches that the earth is flat. We have here in Matthew 4 a historical narrative in which Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, and this historical narrative tells us explicitly how Satan accomplished this—he took Jesus up into an “exceeding high mountain” from which Jesus could view the entire earth. In order for this historical event to have actually taken place, it would be necessary for the earth to be flat. Therefore, the writer of Mark’s Gospel clearly believed the earth to be flat, and this very mistaken concept caused the writer of this Gospel to write a historical narrative that was not historically accurate. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the writer or writers of the first few chapters of Genesis were any more accurate than was Mark in writing their historical narratives of creation. And if the accounts of creation in Genesis are not actually historical narratives, but literature of a different genre, then we have all the less reason to believe contrary to science that the earth is no more than 10 – 12 thousand years old.

To say that the Bible teaches that the earth is no more than 10 -12 thousand years old is to say something that simply is not true. The truth is that the Bible MAY BE INTERPRETED to teach that the earth is no more than 10 -12 thousand years old, but that interpretation is based upon very faulty hermeneutics and inadequate exegesis that makes Christians appear to be intellectually challenged and that makes the Bible to appear to have been written by school boys who spent more time swimming at the water pond than they did in the classroom.

It was not that long ago that most scientists were Christians, but these days even the scientists that are Christians are often too ashamed to admit it—and not because they are ashamed of the gospel, but because they are ashamed of the way that it is presented today by so very many people who simply have not studied the Bible enough to know what they are talking about. Those individuals who lack enough education to realize that the earth is much more than 10 -12 thousand and that this fact does not mean that the Bible is not true have the right to believe that, but they NEED TO REALIZE THAT IN VOCALIZING THAT BELIEF THEY ARE JEOPARDIZING THE SOULS OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN BLESSED BY GOD INTELLECTUALLY.

I have here in my library at home hundreds of commentaries on individual books of the Bible that were written in the 1800’s by great scholars who were very conservative in their theology. I do not have that many that were written since 1900 by great scholars who were very conservative in their theology. And why is it that I do not have that many of them? Is it because I prefer to buy commentaries written by those who are more liberal in their theology? NO! It is because fewer and fewer great scholars are very conservative in their theology. And why is it that fewer and fewer great scholars are very conservative in their theology? I believe that it is, to a substantial extent, due to the fact that being conservative in one’s theology is now very closely associated with being substantially less than gifted intellectually, or to be more blunt—it is now very closely associated with being outright stupid!

In Matthew’s gospel we read,

Mat 16:1 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.
Mat 16:2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red.
Mat 16:3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?
Mat 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

Matthew uses the word “red” but he does not tell us what the color red looks like. We know (those of us who can see colors), however, what the color red looks like from personal observation. And scientists know and have explained to us why some light appears to be red while some other light appear to be of a different color. God gave us the ability to both see and describe scientifically the color red. God also gave us the ability to walk around on the earth that he created and see for ourselves that it is very, very old. And scientists are able to learn the ages of rock formations, fossils, etc., and they have explained to us in detail how they know these things to be so. We have accepted that red is red, why can’t we accept that old is old? The reason is very simple—there are those who foolishly tells us that “God said that the earth was created in six 24-hour days no more than 10 - 12 thousand years ago" (or even more recently than that), when, in fact, GOD DID NOT SAY THAT!

 

God did not say that it was old, either! Did He??

The word from the Word says that God is called "The Ancient of Days"---but does that make God old??

And getting back to the idea Jesus shared about the "red" sky and certain weather patterns----any "Elementary" student can reason and understand that the redness----either in the morning sky or the evening---has everything to do with the certain angles that the Earth is in in its rotation upon its axis verses the position of the sun at the moment verses cloud formations at the moment given upon a round Earth---added to that--the position the Earth was in in a particular Season---meaning Fall, Winter, Spring, Summer---if the Earth were flat(and Jesus knew then it wasn't---as well as Mark)---the sky would not give off that shade of color----no angle---no color!

See?

 

BlackBird,

According to the Bible, you are wrong about Mark.

 

Are you suggesting that I should have flunked out of grammar school? I didn't realize all that stuff until I was doing post-doctoral research in astrophysics!

 

Luke 4
5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

So in the Luke account we have an additional clause of "in a moment of time" which clearly indicates that this is a metaphysical event.

Ephesians 6:12
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

And even if it were not why would we be surprised that the devil had this power?

Even mankind has the power to see both sides of the earth simultaneously through the "miracle" of satellite communications.

HankD

 

Nonsense. If it were merely metaphysical, there would be no need for the very high mountain.

 

And if it were natural, Jesus could not see all the earth, even if one thought the earth was flat. No one can see that far, naturally.

 

You are in severe need of a visit to your optometrist. ANYONE with normal vision can see much further than that if they are up high enough. And that Jesus was up high enough is the whole point the “exceedingly high mountain.” There is nothing metaphysical about it.

 

You are in severe need of a visit to your optometrist. ANYONE with normal vision can see much further than that if they are up high enough. And that Jesus was up high enough is the whole point the “exceedingly high mountain.” There is nothing metaphysical about it. </font>[/QUOTE]So you are saying that someone on a high mountain can see all the kingdoms existing at that time on the whole earth (assuming it is spread out flatlike)? I think you know that's impossible. They could see very far, but no way could they see that far.

 

The curvature of a round Earth prevents anyone from seeing everything there is to see all at once---even if they were aloft on Mt. Everest! And even if the earth were flat---Jesus would have still needed a good pair of binoculars to see the kingdom last in line----even if He were perched on top of Mount Everest!

There's a picture taken during WW2 of Hitler and his croonies standing on the French shoreline---watchin' "Greta" hurl its bombs toward Britain---and although it was less than 20 miles distance from there to there---Hitler was standing there 'gawkin' at the distruction through a pair of binoculars----and then---even there---all he was looking at through them---were little puffs of smoke!

The passage is dealing with spiritual kingdoms---not some finite kingdom that man rules and will one day at death surrender that rule because, see, you can take anything out of a dead man's hand--easier than stealin' candy from a baby!!

The devil wanted to give the kingdom's to Jesus---Jesus came---not to receive those kingdoms but to destroy those kingdoms!

 

Yes and through the "miracle" of photography and or the WWW, you can see these events in your home 1000s of miles away and 60 (plus or minus) years past in a moment of time.

HankD