Young Earth Vs Ruin and Restoration Creation Debate

Guest

Young Earth Vs Ruin and Restoration Creation Debate with S. Douglas Woodward and Douglas Hamp....

Published on Mar 13, 2014

faith-happens.com www.douglashamp.com

Douglas Hamp, representing the Young Earth View, graduated from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem with an M.A. in the Hebrew Bible, specializes in ancient languages including Biblical Hebrew and Greek, and is the author of a number of books, including The First Six Days, Corrupting the Image, and The Millennium Chronicles.

S. Douglas Woodward, representing the Ruin and Restoration view, is an author, speaker, and researcher on the topics of 2012, the apocalypse, and biblical eschatology, with over 40 years' experience in researching, writing, and teaching on the subject. Some of his books include, Power Quest books 1 and 2, The Final Babylon: America and the Coming of Antichrist; a book he coauthored with Douglas W. Krieger and Dene McGriff, and most recently Lying Wonders of the Red Planet: Exposing the Lie of Ancient Aliens.

Doug Hamp and Doug Woodward both believe that God created the Heaven (s) and the earth ex nihilo (from nothing)... not from the chaos. They both believe that God created man and woman, directly. He may have used some clay and a rib, but human beings are directly created by God... just as were the angels. We are "sons (and daughters) of God". They believe that evolution plays no part in the creation of Adam and Eve. Furthermore, while there is adaptation by flora and fauna, life in its many forms stays within the boundaries, or kinds, that God established. There are no 'missing links" between "kinds". Neither Hamp nor Woodward reject a proper realm and role for science. Both accept that we have all been granted dominion by God.

With this would include permission by our Creator to explore and learn about His creation, both on this globe and beyond. Both acknowledge that there are a number of views about how God created the heavens and the earth. Doug Hamp and Doug Woodward will offer two different perspectives. They both personally reject the "day age" theory and the theory of "theistic evolution'. They both believe in the full inspiration of Scripture in the autographs, that is to say, the original. They both believe that their particular views represent views that support the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible. That being said, they also believe that both views can't be right... that one or the other better presents the Bible's teaching about the creation. Furthermore, discussing passionately the methods the Lord employed in creating the cosmos is worth doing. However, neither speaker views the other as a heretic or as an apostate. Neither speaker accuses the other as failing to read and take the scripture seriously. They both seek to understand the truth according to the Scriptures. They both respect the other's sincerity in seeking to understand and represent the truth of God as they understand it. They both feel called to share with others what they believe to be true.

Now, to diffuse some potential confusion concerning terminology, I feel it is important to state that YOUNG EARTH vs OLD EARTH should not convey that Doug Hamp holds precisely to a 6,000 year old view and Doug Woodward must hold to a 4.5 billion year old view. There are many facets and branches that can stem from broad theories such as Young Earth and Old Earth, or Gap Theory. For sake of clarity, I will point out that Doug Hamp holds to a view that understands the world to be less than 10,000 years old. Doug Woodward holds to a view that would assert the earth, the solar system, the universe is much older. Hundreds of thousands, millions, or billions of years is not out of the question.

Guest

This looks good, Colonel. Thanks

It may take me a couple of days to be able to listen to the whole thing, but I'll report back.

Guest

Researcher - I am listening at the 31 minute mark and Doug is talking about Jer. 4 - he agrees with you that it refers to the destruction of the earth at the return of Christ.

Thanks for that heads-up, Rose. thank you

I'm looking forward to listening to this as soon as it converts from YouTube to mp3.

This was a fantastic debate and I learned a lot. I've listened twice. If anyone would like the mp3 I ripped from the YouTube video I've uploaded the file (~53MB) to my Mediafire cloud. Go snag it and share the link with anyone you think would be interested.

http://www.mediafire.com/download/g7giz5i2k21s0j1/Young+Earth+Vs+Ruin+and+Restoration+Creation+Debate+with+S.+Douglas+Woodward+and+Douglas+Hamp.mp3

I hope anyone interested in the topic of creation would watch the two videos I've posted on my youtube channel, "In the Beginning" and "Days of Creation" because they resolve the debate between old and young earth theories.

Part 1

and

Part 2

WOW, a series of Zola Levitt videos. Watching I heard him say "looking back from 1990" so this is 24 years old but still a goodie. I'm familiar with this view however I'm not so sure I agree with the presenter, but I did enjoy see this.

I think Schroeder is brilliant and I'm a fan of his theory. To me, it makes perfect sense and resolves the tension between the two views. I thought so much of it in fact, that I bought his books, and then sent for a video of these two shows from Zola. When the technology became available to transfer vhs to my hard drive for posting online, these were two of the first things I posted. I feel like the argument that the earth is 6,000 years old merely makes Christians look like flat-earthers. It can't be; they really have to reach and distort the evidence completely out of shape to try and fit it into such a constricted box. And the Bible never says such a thing. It gives human history for 6,000 years but it doesn't say that there was no earth before that time, or that angels (or other creation) didn't have civilization anywhere in the universe before human history began. I guess I'm fairly adamant on the position after considering it for so many years! But I hope posting these gives others a chance to consider an alternate view that isn't discussed as often as it should be.

Internet Pilgrim wrote:: the argument that the earth is 6,000 years old merely makes Christians look like flat-earthers.

It gives human history for 6,000 years but it doesn't say that there was no earth before that time, or that angels (or other creation) didn't have civilization anywhere in the universe before human history began.

I agree with both of those statements. Maybe I should have been more clear. Science is showing the speed of light isn't constant at 168,000 miles per second like we always thought (or think) it was. It has been found that it varies. Chuck Missler gives a good run-down on this in some of his videos. His view would support a young earth view (which I disagree with) but interesting to ponder none the less. Still, Schroeder's theory does leave plenty of time for a pre-Adamic (angelic or other, just NOT man) race, a rebellion, a war in heaven, and an earth in chaos. In retrospect, Schroeder's theory does have some things going for it.

If you really want to go deep down this rabbit hole see the video below.

Guest

Kabbalah . . . really?

Schroeder's science is sloppy:

Zero time interval in frames of reference moving with the speed of light?

The section in question (pages 161-164) describes the "shrinking of time" in fast moving frames of reference according to the theory of relativity. As that theory asserts, the time interval between two events which occur at the same location within some frame of reference and measured in that frame of reference is always shorter than the time interval between the same events, measured in another frame of reference which moves with a certain speed relative to the first frame of reference, so in that second frame of reference the events in question occur at different locations. The larger the speed of motion of one frame of reference relative to the other one, the larger the difference between the time intervals. If the speed approaches speed of light, the "local" time interval approaches zero.

Schroeder considers the example of a light signal which carries information about the explosion of a supernova that occurred 170 thousand years ago (measured in the earth's time). Since the supernova (1978A) is located 170 thousand light years from the earth, the light signal took exactly that long to reach the earth. Since, though, the light signal moves with the speed of light, the flow of time in the frame of reference attached to the signal "stopped." If there existed an observer "living" in the frame of reference of the signal, (which is impossible as no physical body can move with the speed of light) for "him" the explosion of the supernova and the arrival of the signal on Earth would have happened simultaneously.

Schroeder's explanation entails a serious flaw. A frame of reference which can be attached to photons simply does not exist. If it existed, the photons would be at rest in such a system. However, photons cannot be at rest. According to the special theory of relativity, photons always move with the same speed (in vacuum) in every frame of reference. If a frame of reference wherein photons are at rest existed, time would stop in such a frame. Since, though, no such frames of reference are possible, Schroeder's concept is meaningless.

Of course, in accordance with his agenda, Schroeder tries to prove the analogy between the described alleged "paradox" of the theory of relativity and the concept of God being "outside time." The concept of God being "outside time" belongs to the realm of faith and has nothing in common with the non-existing effect of "time stopping" in systems moving with the speed of light. Schroeder's attempt, inadvertently invoking the image of God running with speed of light past stars and planets in order to satisfy the conditions of the theory of relativity, can only discredit Schroeder's approach, and, with it, the concepts of faith themselves.

Schroeder wrote blatant untruths:

9. Diluted heat and masers

In this section I will discuss a number of the particular errors which are abundant in Schroeder's second book.
1) On page 152, at the beginning of a section titled "The discovery of wave-particle duality" Schroeder tells the story of the discovery and interpretation of the photoelectric effect. Here, within a half-page, he manages to accumulate a long list of errors.
Schroeder starts with the statement that in 1905 Einstein published the results of experiments that demonstrated what has become known as the "photoelectric effect." In fact, Einstein did not publish any experimental data on photo effect because he never performed any such experiments. The photoelectric effect was discovered and partially studied by Heinrich Hertz more than 25 years earlier. Einstein offered in his paper a theory of that effect.
Schroeder writes further: "Light, shining on certain metals, knocks free a stream of electrons..." In fact, not "certain metals," but every metal or semiconductor.
Schroeder continues: "Einstein demonstrated that the rate at which electrons are emitted from metal is related not only to the intensity of the light beam but also to the color of the light." This is an incorrect statement. The rate of electron emission, i.e. the number of electrons emitted per second, does depend on the light intensity but does not depend on the "color" of the light. What indeed depends on the "color" of the light, i.e. on the wavelength, is the kinetic energy of the emitted electrons. Also, Einstein did not demonstrate this, as the dependence of electron's kinetic energy, measured via the so- called "stopping voltage, " on the wavelength of light, had already been discovered by Hertz.

These are only two examples of a very long refutation of Schroeder's three books. If one is interested in pursuing this, please see http://www.talkreason.org/articles/schroeder.cfm#faults

Guest

". . .the argument that the earth is 6,000 years old merely makes Christians look like flat-earthers."

The vast majority of Christians and Jews who have lived and died on this planet would be condemned to idiocy if this were true. Christians also have believed in floating axe heads, talking donkeys, giants with six fingers, coins coming from the mouth of fish, and the dead being raised. In other words, they believe things that seem utterly foolish to the world.

Monikers like this do not disturb me. I'm used to being called names: truther, when I refused to believe the official story behind 9/11; birther, when I refused to accept that Obama was born in the U.S.; hater, when I refused to accept that marriage could be anything other than between a man and a woman.

I gladly accept flat-earther if that means I believe the Bible to be true and that it means what it says. I am very familiar with the neurolinguistic manipulative terms used by the world. However, I am always taken aback when they are used by those who claim to be Christians.

Did you actually watch the programs or have you ever read his books? I’d rather see your personal response instead of a mere cut and paste, especially from a man like Mark Perakh. Sorry, but the author (who should’ve been named in the post as having written the lengthy quotation) is an atheist who made a secondary career of trying to “debunk” anything biblical. For instance, his best known work was titled, “Unintelligent Design.” Anyone who builds a career on evolution as gospel has some problems at the outset, since I think it gets harder to believe that ridiculous theory every day as more is discovered about DNA, etc. Hostile to the Scriptures and to both Christian and Jewish religious thought, he spent years doing mental gymnastics to try and prove there is no reason in faith and no God to obey. I’m certain his errors in thought have been corrected now though, since he passed in 2013.

I haven’t had time for more than a quick overview of the excerpt you posted but with a cursory reading, it appears there are some errors in logic. I will look at it again, if I have time over the next few days, and read it more carefully so that I can respond intelligently. While I don’t have a degree in science, I understand an analytical, logical approach to any subject and it appears that Perakh has some weakness in that area. Aside from that, he has no theory of his own; his goal isn’t to explore creation but to dispute and destroy faith. In contrast, Schroeder’s theory is beautiful in its elegant simplicity and it dovetails perfectly with the biblical timeline and description. He has an obvious reverence for and love of God and he studied the Scriptures for many years before coming up with his theory. In addition to a good knowledge/understanding of the Bible, he has doctorates in two distinct scientific fields, nuclear physics and oceanography, impressive credentials for anyone discussing the topic. He spent his life (wisely, I believe) seeking a knowledge of God, of His Word and of the physical world He created, unlike Perakh who spent his life seeking to argue against God, His word, and His role in creation. We know what the Word says about those who do that, in both Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1, “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.”

angel/dev

Guest

Yes, I've watched the videos. No, I haven't read all the books. It doesn't matter that he is an atheist because he is debunking the science, not the religion. The science is poor.

rose from kentucky wrote:: Monikers like this do not disturb me. I'm used to being called names:

I gladly accept flat-earther if that means I believe the Bible to be true and that it means what it says. I am very familiar with the neurolinguistic manipulative terms used by the world. However, I am always taken aback when they are used by those who claim to be Christians.

Flat-earther is a shorthand way of saying that I don’t find it scientifically reasonable to believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old and further, that this belief exposes us as Christians to unnecessary ridicule. The Bible does not say that the earth is 6,000 years old. If it did, there would be no debate. I’m sorry you have chosen to be offended by my comments. I believe that whatever position we take on matters which aren’t clearly stated, it’s important to avoid offense because Matthew 24:10 does clearly state that in the end times, “Then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.” Therefore, if I have offended you, I apologize. That was not my intent; rather, it was to urge everyone to consider Schroeder’s ideas in the videos I posted because his theory reconciles beliefs in both young and old earth, just as it reconciles respect for biblical understanding with respect for modern ‘scientific’ thought. As I said, I’ve had nearly 25 years to think about these things and to hear arguments on both sides and I find his model the most accurate and reasonable of anything I’ve heard. It also contains within it the possibility of reconciling science and faith, so that the study of one isn’t antagonistic to the other but instead allows them to complement one another, just as they did when Newton, for example, found no contradiction between the two. If you haven’t watched the videos, I hope you’ll do so.

Guest

rose from kentucky wrote:: It doesn't matter that he is an atheist because he is debunking the science, not the religion. The science is poor.

I can’t accept the statement that the science is poor based on Perakh’s assessment because, as I said, he has an axe to grind and he has made a career of trying to debunk anything that would reflect on the accuracy of the Bible. He is closed to anything except evolution and supporters of that theory do mental gymnastics trying to prove it as fact when it is a completely unsupported theory which more of the scientific community is rejecting daily. It is more probable that his science is bad since he attempts to support evolution rather than creation. In addition, Schroeder had years to study and consider before publicly announcing his ideas and writing books on cosmology from a biblical perspective. Perakh, on the other hand, was in the position of trying to refute them immediately upon their publication, using any means to try and denigrate Schroeder's theory. His criticism was not the result of careful, lengthy study.

It is very similar to the criticism that Eliyahu Rips received when he published his findings on the Bible Code in Statistical Science. The article was peer reviewed and no fault could be found in the methodology; since then, no articles challenging the method or the findings from that original experiment ever have been published. Yet Brendan McKay has made a secondary career of arguing against the existence of the codes and against the accuracy of Rips’ experiment, at one point even alleging that it was based on fraud, a charge that obviously was made from malice since no evidence of it existed. He also claimed to have found similar hidden passages in “Moby Dick”, a claim which was spread by those hostile to the very idea of a code that only could have been placed there by God. Supporters of McKay conveniently overlooked the fact that what made the Torah Code unique was the statistical odds on the finding of hidden words which formed matrices and made the references very specific and detailed, (which is why the original experiment was published in Statistical Science) and not the fact that it contained hidden words at all, since given the right set of circumstances (meaning large enough works and skip sequences) any book could contain hidden words. Given that both had a similar agenda (to debunk the Bible) I believe Perakh is another McKay.

Guest

"I can’t accept the statement that the science is poor based on Perakh’s assessment because, as I said, he has an axe to grind and he has made a career of trying to debunk anything that would reflect on the accuracy of the Bible."

This would be a relevant statement if we were discussing the Bible; we're not. This man was referencing the Kabbalah. He has left the scripture and pursued Jewish mysticism.

It doesn't matter if Perakh has an axe to grind. He has his facts straight. Photons do not behave the way Schroeder claims they did. Schroeder confuses mass and weight (high school-level mistakes). Schroeder assigns to Einstein work that was done by Hertz - this is sloppy work even if Charles Manson is the one who says it. Schroeder's science is poor.

Mike Heiser shreds the Bible Codes. This is a rabbit trail I don't want to pursue here, but if you're interested he has his research up on his site.

Guest

" I’m sorry you have chosen to be offended by my comments."

"Flat-earther" is an example of a neurolinguistic manipulative technique that seeks to immediately put the recipient on the defensive. It implies that the recipient is ignorant of the known world like a medieval serf who has been denied education and travel would be. The person who uses the technique is assuming a knowledge of the recipient that he/she does not have - it is arrogant. It is dishonest, manipulative and unkind. Like the terms truther, birther, hater, and homophobe, using the term flat-earther bypasses rational argument because it is an attempt to manipulate emotions; name calling has no place in honest discourse - especially if the participants in that discourse claim to be Christians.

I am not offended because, as I have said before, I am familiar with this propaganda technique. I am attempting to keep this discussion intellectually honest.

Posts : 580 Reputation : 82 Join date : 2012-01-04

the earth isn't flat ? huh....

Guest

Researcher, I have not yet listened to the videos of Barry Setterfield you have put up but I am determined to do so. Thank you - I have been intrigued by him since Stan Deyo mentioned him several Tuesdays ago on the Hagmanns. I will turn my attention to him next.

Concerning Doug Hamp and Doug Woodward's debate: I respect both men and very much appreciated how they treated each other during the debate, but I was disappointed with the content. Doug Hamp did talk about the grammar of Gen. 1:1-3, but I know it was hard for a non-linguist to understand. And Doug Woodward did talk about some of the science, but the examples he gave have been refuted - carbon dating and tree rings cannot be taken as absolute indicators of age or time lapse. These are old arguments.

I was looking forward to a discussion as to why God made the procession of the equinoxes a 25,000+ cycle and drew the stars in the shapes of the mazzaroth to encircle this cycle when He only made the the earth to exist for 7,000 years. I, like Jem above, was looking forward to a discussion as to why there was a night and a day before there was a sun! I can understand why there was light, but why would the light go away? I was also looking forward to a discussion of the antideluvian world that would encompass the monuments and the wide-spread destruction and remnants of radioactive debris long before the last century - this is what really interests me. There are so many questions to discuss, but the old, hackneyed ones keep coming up.

I do think they succinctly summed up the crux of the argument:

D. Hamp: The grammar is everything here.
D. Woodward: I understand your perspective and the grammar is not unimportant by any means. . . the grammar is important, but it's not the only issue.
D. Hamp: It's the central issue! What are we basing our theology on if it's not the grammar?

All we can really know about this time is what we find in scripture - everything else is a guess. And this is what the Jewish Publication Society translated Gen. 1:1-3 to say:

1. When God began to create the heavens and the earth-
2. Now the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering above the face of the waters-
3. Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

No gap. No old earth.

I think what Doug Woodward said is very true: This puts young earth creationists in a defensive posture.

That is a very uncomfortable place to be, and yet, aren't we there already with the talking donkeys and the floating axe heads and the replication of fishes and loaves, and men walking on water? Why should creation be any different?

Guest

murray leslie wrote:: the earth isn't flat ? huh....

Guest

rose wrote:: It doesn't matter that he is an atheist because he is debunking the science, not the religion. The science is poor.

It appears that we never will agree, rose. I find anything Perakh writes suspect because of his agenda. I’d question his assertions that Schroder is a “sloppy” scientist, just as I questioned McKay’s assertions of Rips,’ “fraud”. Those who are determined to debunk will resort to any allegation, even if they have to twist the facts or the original statements to get there. And as I noted in my first reply, a cursory review of his criticism seems to reveal weaknesses in his logic which need examined more closely. But I think it’s almost laughable that someone who is dedicated to evolution as a scientific principle has the nerve to criticize anyone else’s science as sloppy or invalid. In order to get to evolution as a basic, unchanging principle, you have to go through such a process of factual manipulation that you end by standing on your head with your limbs in pretzel-like contortions (mentally speaking).

So it isn’t “science, not religion” because worldview informs every choice we make, every line of reasoning we take or accept. In fact, it underlies everything there is to consider from science to religion. To Perakh science is unquestioning acceptance of evolution and rejection of anything that smacks of God. To Schroeder, God is the foundation, the unchanging constant and all reasoning begins and ends with Him. That’s the basis for his science. But Preakh’s faith underlies his science every bit as much as Schroeder’s does: the difference is in who or what they worship in that faith, and that determines how honest they can be in their “science” and what they’re willing to consider or reject, etc. The distinction between science and religion is illusory. That’s merely an empty argument used by those hostile to God, which the public has blindly accepted in increasing numbers as the capacity for logical reasoning is stripped from them in the modern educational process. It matters for another reason also, and that’s because we know that God imparts wisdom and knowledge to those who love and seek Him. In contrast, we know that those who reject Him are darkened in their understanding and, “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,” as it says in Romans 1.

jem wrote:: Wish he hadn't' mentioned Kabbalah so often but aside from that, what a wonderful explanation of Genesis. It makes perfect sense.

I agree that it makes perfect sense. As to Kabbalah, though once it was an integral part of Judaism, I believe that today it has gotten a bad rap because of the dark, occult uses to which it has been put by many of the elite, through the syncretism that developed as non-Jewish users began to pervert the doctrines. Its original, foundational source was the Jewish Zohar, or Book of Light, actually a group of books which are a more esoteric form of the Midrash, (ancient commentary on the Torah in the form of stories) and as such it contains many useful concepts such as ruminations on the nature of God, the origins of the universe, etc. The modern fear of Kabbalah results from its misuse, which is a shame. Like many other ancient books, fear of The Zohar is what keeps it from being used profitably by those who would do so for proper purposes, such as Schroeder does to expand his knowledge and understanding of Genesis through disciplined study, within the bounds of formal, recognized doctrine. Traditional Jewish teaching holds that the ideas contained within it were revealed to Abraham and Moses by God, and were transmitted orally through formal courses of study until the second century when it was written down for the first time. But it wasn’t published until the thirteenth century in Spain, and then it made its way into other, non-Jewish hands and from there syncretism took hold. At that time, it began to be used for occult purposes by those inclined to use anything for evil. But that doesn’t make its source or its original teachings evil. The enemy can pervert anything good, and in doing so with this, he has managed to create fear of its use so that many who love God have been kept from the knowledge contained within it because of their fear. Originally it was thought to infuse the Torah and the commandments with wisdom, since it was held to be the concealed or hidden part of the Oral Torah. Jesus stated that he spoke in parables so that the wisdom contained within them would not be obvious and available to anyone with a casual interest. The teaching founded on the Zohar is similar in principle. Its teachings were given by God just as the Torah was, but because the wisdom of it was passed from one generation to another orally it remained more hidden and mysterious. There are teachers today who do utilize it properly, among them J.R. Church and Gary Stearman of Prophecy in the News. They’ve used it for research, taught principles from it, and based doctrine on it, and I wouldn’t call either of them occult practitioners or heretics, any more than I would Schroeder.

As far as Bible codes, Heiser is no statistician. That ends the debate for me since Rips’ original experiment has not been found to contain errors and it has not been challenged in that field where the original experiment originated. For reasons of their own, many people are threatened by the existence of Bible codes. Heiser may be among them, but either way, it isn’t relevant to me. I find the codes to be that much more evidence of how truly awesome our God is, of how far He is beyond all we can think or imagine, of how incredibly worthy of worship He always will be.

Finally, rose, you can claim that you’re not offended but your tone would indicate otherwise. I have apologized for any offense I may have caused and explained why I used the term, “flat-earther.” I’ve acknowledged that I believe the young earth theory opens the door for ridicule of US as Christians. I didn’t say that you are ignorant or address you in any way that would relate to the other assumptions you are choosing to make. I have said I was sorry if you are offended; I can do no more. However, your continued return to that subject leads me to believe that you can’t let it go, that you find an apology insufficient. I cannot and will not apologize for my beliefs concerning the topic. But I am sorry you’re choosing to take this personally and I’m sorry if anything that I said led you to believe I was ridiculing you personally. That was not the case. I will pray that you move beyond this either through forgiveness, or by ignoring the subject, or by any other means that allows you to have peace. Because I have a number of other things I need to get done, this will be my last post on the subject. I don’t want that to be interpreted as ignoring you or your opinions, or have it cause further offense though, and I’m concerned that you may view it that way. But I’ve said all I have to say on the subject, and I have much else to do, so please don’t interpret my silence from this point on as arrogance or anything else that would denigrate you. I just am too far behind on other things that I have to complete.

Guest

That's fine. Very Happy

Thank you for your apology. Now let's move on.

Barry Setterfield, if I am understanding him correctly, has been able to differentiate between the movement of the atomic clock and the orbital clock. The manner in which the atomic clock has been interpreted is what has given us the long ages of mankind and the universe. However, he has found that the atomic clock moves at a much faster rate than the orbital clock (the same clock by which we reckon time) - they are not the same, although scientists have considered them the same. (The atomic clock has sped up due to the decay of the speed of light.)

This is huge. I am grappling with the theorem he and other scientists have been able to deduce from the data that allows these long atomic clock time periods to be converted to orbital time. And, they match the Biblical time frame!

Posts : 580 Reputation : 82 Join date : 2012-01-04

so, rose, do u think we are at the end of the last generation before Christ's return, maybe thinking a generation is 70 yrs, and that generation started in may '48 ?

Guest

I think it's possible. When I think where we may be on the prophetic timeline, my head spins. We'll just have to wait and watch (and pray!).

Posts : 580 Reputation : 82 Join date : 2012-01-04

yup..

Guest

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Exodus 20:11

You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. Exodus 31:14-17

God made the creation week a pattern for all mankind, and one that had to be followed by Israel in the wilderness on pain of death.

Where is the gap in this?

Guest

Guest

Well, another question I've asked myself is why did God take so long to create the universe and everything in it? He could have done it all in a microsecond; everything just appear fully formed. Why did He take six whole days?

The best answer I've come up with for that question is that, as it is said in scripture, He set it up as a clock and a rhythm for living. Six days of work, then a day of rest: it works in a practical day-to-day pattern and it works prophetically. He did it that way for us to see and to understand the days, times and seasons.

And, if Barry Setterfield is correct that the atomic clock (that is primarily responsible for the long-term ages) runs much faster than the orbital clock, we can calculate the real age of the earth. I'm still wrestling with the concepts and I'm not willing to bet the farm on it yet, but it is a distinct possibility.

I am very leery, however, of cunningly devised fables being introduced into the Body of Christ that are not in the Bible. For we have not followed cunningly devised fables (myths) when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 2 Peter 1:16

I believe the Gap Theory to be one of those fables. It is very interesting that both Peter and Paul, at the close of their ministries warn the believers against myths. Paul says in 1Tim.1.3 “Neither give heed to fables (myths) and endless genealogies” and again in 4:7 “But refuse profane and old wives’ fables (myths) and exercise thyself rather to godliness.” In 2 Tim. 4:4 “And they shall turn away their ears from the truth and shall be turned unto fables (myths).” And in Titus1.13,14 “Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; not giving heed to Jewish fables (myths, e.g. Kabbalah) and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.”

Guest

I contacted Barry Setterfield concerning the work of Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D, and asked him his opinion of Dr. Schroeder's views. It is one thing for a layman (like me) to view the matter, and another for a professional in the field. Here is his answer:

Hi Rose,

We have not had the time to watch the videos but we are very aware of what Shroeder believes. He says that from God’s point of view it happened in six days but from the scientific point of view it took billions of years. First of all, the Bible is written to be understood by us. If we cannot understand this part of it, which presents itself as an historical truth, why should we attempt to understand, let alone believe, any other part of it? Secondly, we are told God rested on the Seventh Day. He did no work. However, we see God being extremely active on Israel’s behalf after creation. We see Jesus coming to earth on our behalf and also stating in John 5: My Father is always at His work to this very day, and I, too, am working.”

According to Shroeder’s point of view, God’s 7^th day encompassed many billions of years, and we are still in the seventh day. As a Jewish believer, I really thought he would have a better understanding of the Sabbath than that. If God is still resting, that makes prayers rather useless, doesn’t it? He is not going to do anything. He is still resting….

That is not something the Bible teaches and not something I have found in my own life.

Every blessing.

Barry Setterfield

» Vatican Astronomer Says Young Earth Theory Is 'Almost Blasphemous,' Argues Bible Should Not Be Used as Science Book
» First Presidential Debate - Who Watched? - Consider This The Debate Thread and Have Your Say
» CYPRUS UPDATE!! March 26 2:17
» Site Of Moses’ Death Reopens After 10 Year Restoration
» To Avoid Venerable Bede's Ancient Prophecy, Restoration Work Begins To Restore Rome's Crumbling Colosseum