Age of the earth...Young or old?

[David1701]

Thanks for your time

Did you know that the evolutionists kept realising that their suppositions needed more and more time, to stand a chance of being correct; so, the age of the earth kept getting older and older... That is what it's all about.

 

[JIM]

Did you know that the evolutionists kept realising that their suppositions needed more and more time, to stand a chance of being correct; so, the age of the earth kept getting older and older... That is what it's all about.

That is not true at all. The current 4.5billion-year estimate for the age of the earth was established primarily through radiometric measurements. That technology was first developed very early last century. It had nothing to do with "realising that their suppositions needed more and more time, to stand a chance of being correct".

 

[Sereni-tea]

I believe true science agrees with scripture. Why wouldn't it after all?

Both books (if you will) can be read side by side.

Agreed. In fact the very reason we can do science at all is because God is a God of order, a rational God.

It is important, as Christians, that we strive to understand both books of God as they both declare His glory. When we fail to do either, then we present ourselves as ignorant and easily dismissed by a modern world. But God has given us brains and gifted us teachers with understanding of Scripture in its context and and others with understanding of science in its context. We should make use of them to honour Him.

I belive many Christians today are afraid of science because they think it contradicts the Bible, when in fact it only contradicts their understanding of the Bible. Not that I am saying science has all the answers. Far from it. But science was developed as a discipline to 'think God's thoughts after Him', to His praise and glory. Even today, despite what some on this forum think, there are many Christians in the scientific profession, who through their studies and research see the amazing creativity, power and omniscience of the Creator.

Genesis 1 is an incredible piece of literature. Every word has been carefully chosen and placed for a particular purpose. Of course it was written in Hebrew and not English and therfore much of its brilliance is lost on us. When we try to flatten out the narrative to make it a 'straightforward historical account', we lose all the meaning of the passage, as well as its power and beauty. Alternatively, we can err in the opposite direction, and make it purely poetic, and then we lose the full force of the sovereignty and might of the Creator God in whose image we have been created. To properly understand the passage we need to let it speak on its own terms and not force it one way or the other.

 

[CrowCross]

It is important, as Christians, that we strive to understand both books of God as they both declare His glory. When we fail to do either, then we present ourselves as ignorant and easily dismissed by a modern world. But God has given us brains and gifted us teachers with understanding of Scripture in its context and and others with understanding of science in its context. We should make use of them to honour Him.

To be honest i really do mind being dismissed by a "modern" world.
The modern world tells us you don't rise from the dead on day 3...but it happened with Jesus.

 

[Carbon]

Agreed. In fact the very reason we can do science at all is because God is a God of order, a rational God.

It is important, as Christians, that we strive to understand both books of God as they both declare His glory. When we fail to do either, then we present ourselves as ignorant and easily dismissed by a modern world. But God has given us brains and gifted us teachers with understanding of Scripture in its context and and others with understanding of science in its context. We should make use of them to honour Him.

I belive many Christians today are afraid of science because they think it contradicts the Bible, when in fact it only contradicts their understanding of the Bible. Not that I am saying science has all the answers. Far from it. But science was developed as a discipline to 'think God's thoughts after Him', to His praise and glory. Even today, despite what some on this forum think, there are many Christians in the scientific profession, who through their studies and research see the amazing creativity, power and omniscience of the Creator.

Genesis 1 is an incredible piece of literature. Every word has been carefully chosen and placed for a particular purpose. Of course it was written in Hebrew and not English and therfore much of its brilliance is lost on us. When we try to flatten out the narrative to make it a 'straightforward historical account', we lose all the meaning of the passage, as well as its power and beauty. Alternatively, we can err in the opposite direction, and make it purely poetic, and then we lose the full force of the sovereignty and might of the Creator God in whose image we have been created. To properly understand the passage we need to let it speak on its own terms and not force it one way or the other.

Excellently said!

 

[Sereni-tea]

To be honest i really do mind being dismissed by a "modern" world.
The modern world tells us you don't rise from the dead on day 3...but it happened with Jesus.

The resurrection of Christ is outside the realm of science. There is no physical evidence for science to analyse, so science can't really say anything about whether it did or did not happen. However, we all are well aware that the reason the world dismisses the resurrection of Christ is not sicence but sin. This of course is a theological discussion and not really relevant to what we are talking about here.

The evidence we have for an old earth, from many different branches of science, is overwhleming. Pretending otherwise does not honour God in any way. Nor is it necessary. When the Biblical passage is interpreted properly, taking into account the original context, there is absolutely no need to try to force science to show what it does not.

 

[Carbon]

The resurrection of Christ is outside the realm of science. There is no physical evidence for science to analyse, so science can't really say anything about whether it did or did not happen. However, we all are well aware that the reason the world dismisses the resurrection of Christ is not sicence but sin. This of course is a theological discussion and not really relevant to what we are talking about here.

The evidence we have for an old earth, from many different branches of science, is overwhleming. Pretending otherwise does not honour God in any way. Nor is it necessary. When the Biblical passage is interpreted properly, taking into account the original context, there is absolutely no need to try to force science to show what it does not.

This is like a breath of fresh air.

 

[CrowCross]

The resurrection of Christ is outside the realm of science. There is no physical evidence for science to analyse, so science can't really say anything about whether it did or did not happen. However, we all are well aware that the reason the world dismisses the resurrection of Christ is not sicence but sin. This of course is a theological discussion and not really relevant to what we are talking about here.

The evidence we have for an old earth, from many different branches of science, is overwhleming. Pretending otherwise does not honour God in any way. Nor is it necessary. When the Biblical passage is interpreted properly, taking into account the original context, there is absolutely no need to try to force science to show what it does not.

Did God use evolution to form man or did God create man from the the dust and then women from his rib?

 

[David1701]

Agreed. In fact the very reason we can do science at all is because God is a God of order, a rational God.

Amen.

It is important, as Christians, that we strive to understand both books of God as they both declare His glory. When we fail to do either, then we present ourselves as ignorant and easily dismissed by a modern world. But God has given us brains and gifted us teachers with understanding of Scripture in its context and and others with understanding of science in its context. We should make use of them to honour Him.

Amen.

I believe many Christians today are afraid of science because they think it contradicts the Bible, when in fact it only contradicts their understanding of the Bible.

Hmm...

Whilst this may be true of some Christians and some science, we must not forget the fact that many scientists are atheists who hate God and will do anything to keep God out of "science", including ignoring inconvenient facts. Their "science" often does disagree with the Bible, and deliberately so (e.g. millions of years and molecules-to-man evolution).

Not that I am saying science has all the answers. Far from it. But science was developed as a discipline to 'think God's thoughts after Him', to His praise and glory. Even today, despite what some on this forum think, there are many Christians in the scientific profession, who through their studies and research see the amazing creativity, power and omniscience of the Creator.

Amen. For example: there are many Christian scientists who believe the Genesis account as written and have not swallowed the "millions of years" lie.

Genesis 1 is an incredible piece of literature. Every word has been carefully chosen and placed for a particular purpose.

Amen.

Of course it was written in Hebrew and not English and therefore much of its brilliance is lost on us. When we try to flatten out the narrative to make it a 'straightforward historical account', we lose all the meaning of the passage, as well as its power and beauty.

This is either ignorant or deliberately deceptive. The Genesis account was written in Hebrew narrative form and is not figurative or poetic language.

Alternatively, we can err in the opposite direction, and make it purely poetic, and then we lose the full force of the sovereignty and might of the Creator God in whose image we have been created. To properly understand the passage we need to let it speak on its own terms and not force it one way or the other.

Those who take Genesis as written, are not forcing it at all. It is those who don't like what it teaches, so they allegorise it, or try to explain parts away as "poetic", who are forcing it into a lying mould.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Did God use evolution to form man or did God create man from the the dust and then women from his rib?

The question of evolution is a scientific one - although I do agree that it does have theological implications.
The question about creation of man from the dust and woman from his rib is a question that involves understanding the text in its original context.

These are 2 separate questions. The first I am not willing to discuss - I am not an advocate for evolution - it is not my field of study. The second I am much more interested in discussing, if you are interested.

 

[Carbon]

Whilst this may be true of some Christians and some science, we must not forget the fact that many scientists are atheists who hate God and will do anything to keep God out of "science", including ignoring inconvenient facts. Their "science" often does disagree with the Bible, and deliberately so (e.g. millions of years and molecules-to-man evolution).

Do you realize there are many scientists who are Christian? Do you know many became Christians after being in science as an atheist?

 

[Sereni-tea]

Whilst this may be true of some Christians and some science, we must not forget the fact that many scientists are atheists who hate God and will do anything to keep God out of "science", including ignoring inconvenient facts. Their "science" often does disagree with the Bible, and deliberately so (e.g. millions of years and molecules-to-man evolution).

Your claim here I think is not based on fact, afterall, while atheism is a growing belief in the western world, it is still very much a minority belief throughout the rest of the world. I think you would find that the majority of scientists worldwide hold a belief in some sort of a creator or creators (whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindus, etc).

I find it disrespectful that you claim scientists deliberately falsify data to promote a worldview contrary to Scripture. Scientific data is what it is. Scientists may disagree with its interpretation. And while some scientists do falsify their data, it has little to do with their views of Scripture and more to do with pressure for funding or their ego, etc, and will be weeded out by the peer review system over time.

For example: there are many Christian scientists who believe the Genesis account as written and have not swallowed the "millions of years" lie.

And this is my concern. I find the science of young earthers to be poor and their understanding of the Biblical text to be worse.

This is either ignorant or deliberately deceptive. The Genesis account was written in Hebrew narrative form and is not figurative or poetic language.

It is a mistake to try to describe Genesis 1 as a 'straight forward historical' account, just as it is a mistake to refer to it as figurative or poetic. But modern Christians seem to want to classify it one way or the other.

Those who take Genesis as written, are not forcing it at all. It is those who don't like what it teaches, so they allegorise it, or try to explain parts away as "poetic", who are forcing it into a lying mould.

I think those who take Genesis 1 as written in English without taking into account the context it was written in are indeed forcing their beliefs into the text, just like those who (as you said) 'don't like what it teaches and allegorise it'. However, when we understand the text in its original context, all these issues disappear and we can let the text speak for itself, without fear that science can contradict it in any way, since they are both in separate domains.

 

[David1701]

Do you realize there are many scientists who are Christian? Do you know many became Christians after being in science as an atheist?

You obviously did not bother to read my whole post, before replying. Here is part that you did not quote.

"For example: there are many Christian scientists who believe the Genesis account as written and have not swallowed the "millions of years" lie."

It was my next line, under the one you did quote...

P.S. I studied Biology at University. I was agnostic at that time.

 

[David1701]

Your claim here I think is not based on fact,...

Yes, my claim is based on fact.

...afterall, while atheism is a growing belief in the western world, it is still very much a minority belief throughout the rest of the world. I think you would find that the majority of scientists worldwide hold a belief in some sort of a creator or creators (whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindus, etc).

Firstly, this is not a relevant response to what I posted; secondly, what is your evidence (apart from presumption) that the majority of scientists worldwide believe in a creator(s)?

I find it disrespectful that you claim scientists deliberately falsify data to promote a worldview contrary to Scripture.

Facts don't care about your feelings.

Scientific data is what it is. Scientists may disagree with its interpretation. And while some scientists do falsify their data, it has little to do with their views of Scripture and more to do with pressure for funding or their ego, etc, and will be weeded out by the peer review system over time.

There have been many statements, by atheistic scientists, to the effect that, even if the evidence points to a creator, he must not be allowed a foot in the door (otherwise their materialism goes down the drain).

Before spouting presumptuous and dogmatic statements, you should check your facts.

And this is my concern. I find the science of young earthers to be poor and their understanding of the Biblical text to be worse.

And your evidence for attacking Bible believers is...?

You have not exactly covered yourself with glory so far. Those in glass houses...

It is a mistake to try to describe Genesis 1 as a 'straight forward historical' account, just as it is a mistake to refer to it as figurative or poetic. But modern Christians seem to want to classify it one way or the other.

Actual experts in the Hebrew language (including native Hebrew speakers) almost all agree that the author of Genesis 1-3 intended it to be taken as straightforward narrative; in spite of your dogmatic claim (again, without evidence) to the contrary.

I think those who take Genesis 1 as written in English without taking into account the context it was written in are indeed forcing their beliefs into the text, just like those who (as you said) 'don't like what it teaches and allegorise it'. However, when we understand the text in its original context, all these issues disappear and we can let the text speak for itself, without fear that science can contradict it in any way, since they are both in separate domains.

Science means "knowledge". We have knowledge of what happened in the creation week, because God has told us in his word (six days of creation, followed by a day of rest). Any "science" that contradicts this is pseudo-science, based on false assumptions.

 

[Sereni-tea]

And your evidence for attacking Bible believers is...?

It is not my intention to attack anyone. In fact, I applaud the young earthers zeal for the authority of Scripture. I do believe, however, that they have made a fundamental exergetical mistake trying to read the text without taking into account the original ancient near eastern context of the passage.

Science means "knowledge". We have knowledge of what happened in the creation week, because God has told us in his word (six days of creation, followed by a day of rest). Any "science" that contradicts this is pseudo-science, based on false assumptions.

Yes, the archaic meaning of the word 'science' is knowledge. However that is not the sense in which we are using the word. When we are talking about science we are talking about it as "the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained". While the knowledge presented in Genesis 1-3 does mention life, air, water, sun, moon, stars, plants, animals and mankind, it does not do so in any way that fits this definition of science.

So let's examine the claim of YECs, as described by Henry Morris, that "The creation account is clear, definite, sequential and matter-of-fact, giving every appearance of straight forward historical narrative."

If we approach Genesis 1 in this manner, it is not long before we run into problems. Verse 1 is clear, that God alone is the Creator of heaven and earth. But from verse 2 questions start being raised. It appears that in verse 2 the earth is already in existence though not fit for habitation. What is “the face of the deep” and “the face of the waters” in verse 2? Did water already exist as well?

But it is verses 3-5 and verse 14 which to me is one of the clearest examples of why a ‘straight-forward sequential’ reading is simply not possible:

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Compare this with verse 14:

And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.”

How can we have the light of Day in verse 4 when the sun wasn’t created until verse 14? And when was the day and night separated – verse 4 or verse 14? How can there be evening and morning if the lights were not in the heavens to be a marker of days until day 4?

 

[Sereni-tea]

I could go on and talk about other verses, or even look at the differences between Gen 1 and Gen 2. But instead, let’s step back a bit and look at the structure of the passage. Dr John Dickson writes:

Genesis 1 … is not written in the style we normally associate with historical report. It is difficult even to describe the passage as prose. The original Hebrew of this passage is marked by intricate structure, rhythm, parallelism, chiasmus, repetition and the lavish use of number symbolism. These features are not observed together in those parts of the Bible we recognize as historical prose.

The days of creation are separated into 2 triads - the first establishing the spears or domains and the second filling them.

The number seven (in the ancient Hebrew world representing the divine number, goodness and perfection) and its multiples appears in extraordinary ways:

• The first sentence consists of seven Hebrew words, the second 14.
• The words ‘heaven’ and ‘earth’ both appear 21 times.
• ‘God’ is mentioned 35 times.
• The repeated phrases ‘and it was so’ and ‘God saw that it was good’ both occur seven times.
• And of course the whole passage is structured around seven scenes (days of the week).

And this is only scratching the surface.
Can you honestly say these are characteristics of a straight-forward sequential account?

 

[CrowCross]

How can we have the light of Day in verse 4 when the sun wasn’t created until verse 14?

We find the following passage in the book of Revelation...
23 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.

Now, I'm not saying this was the light....as the light also might be the light of angels.....but it most certainly does answer the question....How can we have the light of Day in verse 4 when the sun wasn’t created until verse 14

 

[Carbon]

We find the following passage in the book of Revelation...
23 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.

Now, I'm not saying this was the light....as the light also might be the light of angels.....but it most certainly does answer the question....How can we have the light of Day in verse 4 when the sun wasn’t created until verse 14

But the sun was created in Genesis 1:1.
Unless the sun wasn’t part of the heavens?

 

[David1701]

It is not my intention to attack anyone. In fact, I applaud the young earthers zeal for the authority of Scripture. I do believe, however, that they have made a fundamental exergetical mistake trying to read the text without taking into account the original ancient near eastern context of the passage.

Except that "taking into account the original ancient near eastern context of the passage" is exactly what Bible believers (to whom you disparagingly refer as "young earthers") have done.

What did Jesus teach?

Mark 10:6 (WEB) But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.

This proves that God making mankind male and female was from the beginning of creation (i.e. during the Genesis creation week, not billions of years after the earth was created).

Mark 13:19 (WEB) For in those days there will be oppression, such as there has not been the like from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be.

This shows that man's suffering started very close to the beginning of creation, not billions of years later.

Luke 11:50,51 (WEB)
50 that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zachariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary.’ Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation.

This places Abel's murder very close to the foundation of the world, not billions of years later.

------------------------------------------------

--The 1st C. historian, Josephus, tells us that the Jews of his day (i.e. the original near Eastern context) believed that both the first day of creation and Adam's creation were about 5,000 years before Christ.

------------------------------------------------

What did Jesus teach about Moses' writings?

John 5:45-47 (WEB)
45 “Don’t think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you, even Moses, on whom you have set your hope.
46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me.
47 But if you don’t believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”
So, what did Moses write?

Ex. 20:8-11 (WEB)
8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 You shall labor six days, and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to Yahweh your God. You shall not do any work in it, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your livestock, nor your stranger who is within your gates;
11 for in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore Yahweh blessed the Sabbath day, and made it holy.

The whole basis for the Jewish Sabbath day was the six literal days of creation, followed by a literal day of rest.

Now that you have a small amount of the biblical proof for six literal day of creation (not to the mention the fact that every time "day" (Hebrew: "yom") is accompanied by a number, or "evening", or "morning", it means a literal day, in the OT - the creation days are accompanied by all three; in other words, it could hardly be made more emphatic that these are literal days, not figures of speech), what are you (and anyone else who disbelieves the literal creation account) going to do with it?

 

[CrowCross]

But the sun was created in Genesis 1:1.
Unless the sun wasn’t part of the heavens?

Gen 1:14-19 tells us God made the sun on day 4.

The bible doesn't say the sun was created on day one.