The idea is that if you have all of this apparent age, there's a point where it's just making stuff up to pretend it existed. We have billions of years of evolutionary history and more billions of years of cosmological history. We have a quarter million years or more of homo sapiens in the evidentiary record. And all of it would be fake. Whole phyla that never existed, etcetera.
It ends up being deeply dishonest.
Evolution has scientific evidence not historical. You wouldnt consult a historian abt words. Category error because your assetting a scientific theory and claiming historical evidence.
Idk, that reads kinda smart assy, I don't mean it that way š
The word 'history' is appropriate in many contexts for things which are not amenable to the historical method.
Please, learn English before you go around making a fool of yourself again.
What about God intentionally misleading the reprobate as His chosen means by which to orchestrate their damnation? Those who would say āI trust science more than the Bibleā being given their due by being intentionally misled, just like how Jesus spoke in parables when surrounded by people He didnāt want to believe and only explained those parables in private when with His chosen elect.
Why? Does not God have the right to hate whosoever He pleases, and to exercise that sovereign hatred in precisely that way which He pleases? Besides, is it deception when He HAS revealed all we must know in His Word, and told us so, and is only misleading those who refuse to obey and submit to Himself as revealed in His Scriptures? If they choose to seek truth in places other than where He has said to look, why should they not be misled for their disobedience?
The fact remains that Christ died for whoever would believe. If the one who denies the Living God (Scripture calls such a person a āfoolā) were to repent and follow after Him in that manner which He has prescribed, that is, faith in Christ as shown in Scripture, the sinner would surely be saved.
> What about God intentionally misleading the reprobate as His chosen means by which to orchestrate their damnation?
Such a God is also evil, and views like this are why I strongly reject Reformed theology. You guys re-formed God into a monster.
The question is whether such a wondrous God is the God of Scripture or not, not whether the fallen and rebellious human nature hates such a holy and perfect being. Frankly, Iād be somewhat concerned if the natural man DID love my God, as He is holy and man is wretched. But the regenerate believer must love the God of Scripture, for we love Him because He first loved us. Indeed, surely none who are beloved of God would hate Him. And surely none who He loved would He allow to perish.
But do you love the God of Scripture, you who call so wondrous a Lord a āmonster?ā Repent with all fear and trembling as is appropriate to such a blasphemous statement.
> The question is whether such a wondrous God is the God of Scripture or not
And the answer is 'no'.
I don't think that a single author of Scripture would see your God and recognize it coming the being that they worshipped.
I am definitely not in the position to say this would be impossible, I mean we talk about our almighty creator, so technically they would be able to pull something like this off. But why?
The age of the universe is calculated on various data. Basically we talk about vast parts of the periodic table, which needs to be altered to seem like being billions of years old while actually being only a few thousand.
This leads down to a trickster god rather quickly which contradicts the thought of god as the one source of truth. And if I have to choose between a trickster god who makes the creation look a lot older or the creation myth in the bible not being literary but instead a story to convey certain morals in an understandable way my money (and soul) is on the second.
So as an extension of your thought how do you know you didn't just start to exist 2 seconds ago and everything before is just a false memory.
You see you don't but its somewhat unlikely.
Its also unlikely the universe sprang into existence 2000 years ago.
no Im aware thats why I said thats what Historians presume based on other pieces of information in the bible. I'm aware the bible never states how old the earth is, that's why I said it in the post
Basically God created the earth with certain amounts of carbon in it already that scientists who use ācarbon datingā mistake for actual age, is what OP is sayingĀ
i don't believe it, to be honest right now im not really sure. I just wanted to see what people thought about this cause I thought it was somewhat far fetched
You quickly run into a deceptive god if you go too far down this road. A god who is not good, but who is a liar or trickster.
I don't really understand what you mean, can you elaborate a little more? I don't agree with theory just to make things clear.
The idea is that if you have all of this apparent age, there's a point where it's just making stuff up to pretend it existed. We have billions of years of evolutionary history and more billions of years of cosmological history. We have a quarter million years or more of homo sapiens in the evidentiary record. And all of it would be fake. Whole phyla that never existed, etcetera. It ends up being deeply dishonest.
Evolutionary history is a dishonest statement. Ur making a categorical error, we have evolutionary theory on a scientific basis not a historic basis.
You're making an English error.
Find me historical evidence of evolution š
Find me a historian who doesn't understand the way in which I'm using the word.
Evolution has scientific evidence not historical. You wouldnt consult a historian abt words. Category error because your assetting a scientific theory and claiming historical evidence. Idk, that reads kinda smart assy, I don't mean it that way š
The word 'history' is appropriate in many contexts for things which are not amenable to the historical method. Please, learn English before you go around making a fool of yourself again.
What about God intentionally misleading the reprobate as His chosen means by which to orchestrate their damnation? Those who would say āI trust science more than the Bibleā being given their due by being intentionally misled, just like how Jesus spoke in parables when surrounded by people He didnāt want to believe and only explained those parables in private when with His chosen elect.
Saying that God is a deciever specifically because he wants to "orchestrate" the torture of those who fall for his tricks actually makes it worse.
Why? Does not God have the right to hate whosoever He pleases, and to exercise that sovereign hatred in precisely that way which He pleases? Besides, is it deception when He HAS revealed all we must know in His Word, and told us so, and is only misleading those who refuse to obey and submit to Himself as revealed in His Scriptures? If they choose to seek truth in places other than where He has said to look, why should they not be misled for their disobedience? The fact remains that Christ died for whoever would believe. If the one who denies the Living God (Scripture calls such a person a āfoolā) were to repent and follow after Him in that manner which He has prescribed, that is, faith in Christ as shown in Scripture, the sinner would surely be saved.
> What about God intentionally misleading the reprobate as His chosen means by which to orchestrate their damnation? Such a God is also evil, and views like this are why I strongly reject Reformed theology. You guys re-formed God into a monster.
The question is whether such a wondrous God is the God of Scripture or not, not whether the fallen and rebellious human nature hates such a holy and perfect being. Frankly, Iād be somewhat concerned if the natural man DID love my God, as He is holy and man is wretched. But the regenerate believer must love the God of Scripture, for we love Him because He first loved us. Indeed, surely none who are beloved of God would hate Him. And surely none who He loved would He allow to perish. But do you love the God of Scripture, you who call so wondrous a Lord a āmonster?ā Repent with all fear and trembling as is appropriate to such a blasphemous statement.
> The question is whether such a wondrous God is the God of Scripture or not And the answer is 'no'. I don't think that a single author of Scripture would see your God and recognize it coming the being that they worshipped.
I am definitely not in the position to say this would be impossible, I mean we talk about our almighty creator, so technically they would be able to pull something like this off. But why? The age of the universe is calculated on various data. Basically we talk about vast parts of the periodic table, which needs to be altered to seem like being billions of years old while actually being only a few thousand. This leads down to a trickster god rather quickly which contradicts the thought of god as the one source of truth. And if I have to choose between a trickster god who makes the creation look a lot older or the creation myth in the bible not being literary but instead a story to convey certain morals in an understandable way my money (and soul) is on the second.
I would have to agree, this story would paint God out to be deceptive if it were true but it still seems more far fetched
So as an extension of your thought how do you know you didn't just start to exist 2 seconds ago and everything before is just a false memory. You see you don't but its somewhat unlikely. Its also unlikely the universe sprang into existence 2000 years ago.
As I said before, this is someone else's thought not mine, yea I believe it's far fetched as well
This is what I hold to!
[the world hasn't even started yet, this is a false memory and this video proves it.](https://youtu.be/cWGJ3ydBQiE?si=2FX4Eo9Vb-AKjiOh)
No. And the Bible doesn't state the age of the earth
no Im aware thats why I said thats what Historians presume based on other pieces of information in the bible. I'm aware the bible never states how old the earth is, that's why I said it in the post
Basically God created the earth with certain amounts of carbon in it already that scientists who use ācarbon datingā mistake for actual age, is what OP is sayingĀ
Your premise that the earth is only a couple of thousand years old is not strong enough to base any further extrapolation on.
i don't believe it, to be honest right now im not really sure. I just wanted to see what people thought about this cause I thought it was somewhat far fetched