Can We Determine the Age of the Universe and Earth Biblically?

[Frank Robert]

When you missed the first goalpost, and cannot see it for what it is, because you keep looking at it with those evolutionary time line spectacles, is the only reason I am moving unto something else.

Fossils on mountaintops and far inland can be found and you see no evidence of the global flood? That means the Biblical global flood is true as Jesus said it was true and that God is coming to judge the earth again but with fire.

You are starting with a 6000 old earth which there is zero evidence for. Your basis for fossils on a mountain top are stories from sites like AIG which attempt to poke holes into the overwhelming science which people believe because they believe in a young earth. I have no problem with what others believe but I also don't mind pointing out the scientific evidence for such things ocean fossils on top of mountains which is overwhelming.

I think ocean fossils on mountain tops are fascinating because they provide a view into Earth's ancient history as well as providing scientists with valuable insights into how the Earth's crust has evolved over time.

Scientists use both radiometric dating and relative dating to determine the age of the ocean fossils found on mountain tops. Radiometric dating provides an accurate age for the fossils, while relative dating helps to place the fossils in the context of the geological history of the area.

When creationists deny the science for ocean fossils they also deny

1. History of the earth
2. Plate tectonics - When two tectonic plates collide, the one that is denser will subduct beneath the other. This process can push up the rocks that were once on the ocean floor, carrying the fossils with them.
3. Geology of earth's crust
4. Radiometric dating
5. Relative dating

Which reminds me of a Shakespearean phrase, ‘Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive.’

Remember your earlier quote in this same post?

These animals had subtropical plants like buttercups in their stomachs, and their flesh is so perfectly preserved that some adventurer's club once held a banquet on the meat of the Berezovka mammoth

Eating the flesh is what the creationists claimed, not Farrand.

 

[ChristB4us]

You are starting with a 6000 old earth which there is zero evidence for.

I believe Jesus & His words.

Your basis for fossils on a mountain top are stories from sites like AIG which attempt to poke holes into the overwhelming science which people believe because they believe in a young earth.

I cited a pro evolutionist article from the NY Times.

I have no problem with what others believe but I also don't mind pointing out the scientific evidence for such things ocean fossils on top of mountains which is overwhelming.

Yet the science you referred to claims it has to be a miracle for a fossilized sea bed not be destroyed when the mountains rose from the sea because generally it is destroyed. So like duh.. on their part, the mountains did not rise suddenly from the sea and so evidence of the Biblical global flood.

I think ocean fossils on mountain tops are fascinating because they provide a view into Earth's ancient history as well as providing scientists with valuable insights into how the Earth's crust has evolved over time.

Yeah if you want to follow that white rabbit down that rabbit hole by ignoring the obvious that the mountains did not rise suddenly from the sea.

Scientists use both radiometric dating and relative dating to determine the age of the ocean fossils found on mountain tops. Radiometric dating provides an accurate age for the fossils, while relative dating helps to place the fossils in the context of the geological history of the area.

Since science is bias because of the evolution theory, then everything they do in making their reports will be in view of the evolution theory even at the expense of ignoring the obvious like the mountains did not rise suddenly from the sea because those fossils beds would have been destroyed.

When creationists deny the science for ocean fossils they also deny

1. History of the earth
2. Plate tectonics - When two tectonic plates collide, the one that is denser will subduct beneath the other. This process can push up the rocks that were once on the ocean floor, carrying the fossils with them.
3. Geology of earth's crust
4. Radiometric dating
5. Relative dating

Which reminds me of a Shakespearean phrase, ‘Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive.’

Since I believe Jesus and His words about the global Biblical flood and the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah in Luke 17:26-37, as a warning to believers to be ready or else be left behind, and the ruins of Sodom & Gomorrah has been found,

Eating the flesh is what the creationists claimed, not Farrand.

The article did not testify to that as being the source for why I see Farrand overlooking that fact just to point out plants that just fit his theory.

 

[Frank Robert]

I believe Jesus & His words.

I cited a pro evolutionist article from the NY Times.

As I said before I am all for discussing one or two items at a time but I don't have the time to go through pages of creationists claims.

From the Times article:

Among the fossils the scientists reported bringing back were the bones of whales and other marine animals found at altitudes of more than 5,000 feet. When these animals died from 15 million to 20 million years ago, their carcasses settled to the ocean floor and were embedded in submarine sediments. But since then, the violent upthrusting of the Andean chain has carried the sediments to the tops of mountains. In geological terms, the time the fossils took to rise from ocean floor to mountain top was relatively brief."​

​

So what is your point? "Relatively brief" is not proof for a YEC earth.

Yet the science you referred to claims it has to be a miracle for a fossilized sea bed not be destroyed when the mountains rose from the sea because generally it is destroyed. So like duh.. on their part, the mountains did not rise suddenly from the sea and so evidence of the Biblical global flood.

I have no idea what you are talking about or where you get the idea that I am claiming a miracle. Where have I claimed that there are no fossils of ocean animals on top of mountains?

Yeah if you want to follow that white rabbit down that rabbit hole by ignoring the obvious that the mountains did not rise suddenly from the sea.

Since science is bias because of the evolution theory, then everything they do in making their reports will be in view of the evolution theory even at the expense of ignoring the obvious like the mountains did not rise suddenly from the sea because those fossils beds would have been destroyed.

Please refer to the article. It states "..these animals died 15 to 20 million years ago"

Since I believe Jesus and His words about the global Biblical flood and the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah in Luke 17:26-37, as a warning to believers to be ready or else be left behind, and the ruins of Sodom & Gomorrah has been found,

There are numerous flood stories besides the Noah's flood so it is there is no need to think that Jesus was not referring to a flood. It is not clear whether or not Jesus is referring to a global flood even though creationist believe the flood was global. If there were a global it would have whipped out the people of the including the Americas, Asia and Europe. not just all from Sodom & Gomorrah. There is no scientific evidence for a global flood[3]. I think a literal reading of the OT is not a matter of faith or morals for Catholics because it takes away from Jesus' commandments, "love God and love your neighbor.

The article did not testify to that as being the source for why I see Farrand overlooking that fact just to point out plants that just fit his theory.

It fits your theory of a young earth.

 

[ChristB4us]

As I said before I am all for discussing one or two items at a time but I don't have the time to go through pages of creationists claims.

From the Times article:

Among the fossils the scientists reported bringing back were the bones of whales and other marine animals found at altitudes of more than 5,000 feet. When these animals died from 15 million to 20 million years ago, their carcasses settled to the ocean floor and were embedded in submarine sediments. But since then, the violent upthrusting of the Andean chain has carried the sediments to the tops of mountains. In geological terms, the time the fossils took to rise from ocean floor to mountain top was relatively brief."​

​

So what is your point? "Relatively brief" is not proof for a YEC earth.

I have no idea what you are talking about or where you get the idea that I am claiming a miracle. Where have I claimed that there are no fossils of ocean animals on top of mountains?

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA

Scroll halfway down the page at the link above and you will see this quote:

"Assemblages comparable to this are virtually unknown in the Andes, he said, since geological upthrusting generally destroys fossil beds. 'Remarkably Intact' Fossils.

Nearly all of the fossils were embedded in surface rock and easy to pick up, he said. ''That was another great piece of luck, since we couldn't have brought in excavating equipment on horseback,'' he said. ''Best of all, despite weathering, many of the smallest fossils were remarkably intact and will be relatively easy to study.''" ~~~ end of quote

Note the bold in the quote and then think "Duh". That means the mountains rising from the sea is not the truth.

Please refer to the article. It states "..these animals died 15 to 20 million years ago"

Like I said, it is pro evolution article and therefore a supposition done by evolutionists refusing to see the evidence of the global Biblical flood.

There are numerous flood stories besides the Noah's flood so it is there is no need to think that Jesus was not referring to a flood. It is not clear whether or not Jesus is referring to a global flood even though creationist believe the flood was global. If there were a global it would have whipped out the people of the including the Americas, Asia and Europe. not just all from Sodom & Gomorrah. There is no scientific evidence for a global flood[3].

Cambrian Period: Facts & Information

"In the early Cambrian, Earth was generally cold but was gradually warming as the glaciers of the late Proterozoic Eon receded. Tectonic evidence suggests that the single supercontinent Rodinia broke apart and by the early to mid-Cambrian there were two continents. Gondwana, near the South Pole, was a supercontinent that later formed much of the land area of modern Africa, Australia, South America, Antarctica and parts of Asia. Laurentia, nearer the equator, was composed of landmasses that currently make up much of North America and part of Europe. Increased coastal area and flooding due to glacial retreat created more shallow sea environments." ~~~ end of quote

"A mass extinction event closed the Cambrian Period. Early Ordovician sediments found in South America are of glacial origin. James F. Miller of Southwest Missouri State University suggests that glaciers and a colder climate may have been the cause of the mass extinction of the fauna that evolved in the warm Cambrian oceans. Glacial ice would have also locked up much of the free ocean water, reducing both the oxygen in the water and the area available for shallow water species."

Too bad they cannot add the fossils on top of the Andes Mountains to know what caused that mass extinction event. They see the aftermath as per the Ice Age but not the cause of the Ice Age and yet agree that something broke up the continent.... .... asteroid impacts at the time of the Biblical global flood forcing the fountains of the deep to gush out to add to the flooding rain, then when God rebuked the excess waters in the direction of the Marianna Trench; the Ice shelf began forming from the chaotic weather patters before it settled into seasonal weather patterns that we are familiar with today. That means tree rings and rings in ice will throw everybody off when it is not done yearly at all.

Over time, the weight of the land over where the waters once was that came from the fountains that misted the earth, collapsed in what caused the breaking up of the one land mass world in the days of Peleg.

Genesis 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

That means the region of the Atlantic Ocean was once above sea level as other places of the world was. I suspect the Pacific basin was the original place where the sea was all in one place.

Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Course now, that which was called the Seas that we know to be in many places today was not always so. I may be wrong in applying this in that way but I do not think so. Seems science theorized a huge continent called Pangaea course they see millions of if not billions of years in breakin apart whereas I see that as happening after the global Biblical food in the days of Peleg.

I think a literal reading of the OT is not a matter of faith or morals for Catholics because it takes away from Jesus' commandments, "love God and love your neighbor.

It fits your theory of a young earth.

The Pharisees were looking for ways to condemn Jesus by the scriptures and Jesus referred to the scriptures as something that cannot be broken thus He validated everything the scriptures says. Jesus testified to a young earth. He ought to know because He is the Creator and not just Our Redeemer.

FYI I am not Catholic. I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ & the God raised Him from the dead and therefore I am saved as I trust him as my personal Good Shepherd to help me discern the truth from the lies in science and in the churches so that I am abiding in Him & in truth.

You should do that too.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Since science is bias because of the evolution theory, then everything they do in making their reports will be in view of the evolution theory even at the expense of ignoring the obvious

You say this and many other derogatory things about scientists and quite frankly it is disrespectful and completely inaccurate.

Scientists spend years studying and working towards finding answers to questions. They seek the truth and add to the knowledgebase in regards to the mechanisms of the natural world. Science has in place a good mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of the reporting in the system of peer review which has an in built mechanism to prevent fraudulent claims. Of course no system is perfect and there are good scientists as well as bad and yes scientists have their own biases like everyone else - including you. But I can assure you there is no conspiracy among scientist to view all things through the lens of evolutionary theory. In fact there are many branches of science that have nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution.

Scientists are well aware of the scope and limitations of their methods and for you to claim otherwise is showing your own bias and your own deception. The reason we can do science at all is because the God has created an ordered universe. God's Word is the truth, but it has to be understood in its context. Going beyond that context leads to problems and is the reason some today see science and the Bible as enemies. They are not. But both have to be read properly.

The Bible is an ancient document and was written to a people in a culture very different to our own. We should read it and understand it as such and not put our own biases onto it.

On the other hand, science is an every changing field with new discoveries and refining of theories happening all the time. Scientists know this and accept this. In fact this is one reason science is such an exciting and rewarding area to be in. When different and unrelated fields of science come to similar conclusions we can have greater confidence in the validity of their results. The age of the earth is one such area.

Your OP asked if we can determine the age of the universe from the Bible. In my understanding of the Bible, it makes no claims at all in this regards and as such I believe a young earth and an old earth view are both compatible with Scripture. In my view modern science can be my guide to answer questions for which it is suited because to me science is the search for how God has designed the natural world to function. Your view of the text is very rigid and relies on a young earth. This means that you have to deny modern science otherwise your understanding of Scripture is jeopardised. You claim scientists are biased, but have you considered that you have biases of your own?

 

[Frank Robert]

The Pharisees were looking for ways to condemn Jesus by the scriptures and Jesus referred to the scriptures as something that cannot be broken thus He validated everything the scriptures says. Jesus testified to a young earth. He ought to know because He is the Creator and not just Our Redeemer.

FYI I am not Catholic. I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ & the God raised Him from the dead and therefore I am saved as I trust him as my personal Good Shepherd to help me discern the truth from the lies in science and in the churches so that I am abiding in Him & in truth.

You should do that too.

I don't want to get involved with creationists beliefs, believe whatever you want. I would likely have the same beliefs as you if I wasn't lucky with the family I was born to.

I don't for sure but it appears you believe in Sola Scripture which Paul preached. Jesus did not. I don't if it holds for all Protestants as it didn't appear to be the case with the UCC worked with many years ago.

Protestants believe in faith alone, while Catholics believe in faith plus works. Jesus tells us this with his two commandments--love God and love your neighbor--,with the story of the good, Samaritan, in the Sermon on the Mount and with the Corporal Works of Mercy.

 

[ChristB4us]

You say this and many other derogatory things about scientists and quite frankly it is disrespectful and completely inaccurate.

Scientists spend years studying and working towards finding answers to questions. They seek the truth and add to the knowledgebase in regards to the mechanisms of the natural world. Science has in place a good mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of the reporting in the system of peer review which has an in built mechanism to prevent fraudulent claims. Of course no system is perfect and there are good scientists as well as bad and yes scientists have their own biases like everyone else - including you. But I can assure you there is no conspiracy among scientist to view all things through the lens of evolutionary theory. In fact there are many branches of science that have nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution.

Scientists are well aware of the scope and limitations of their methods and for you to claim otherwise is showing your own bias and your own deception. The reason we can do science at all is because the God has created an ordered universe. God's Word is the truth, but it has to be understood in its context. Going beyond that context leads to problems and is the reason some today see science and the Bible as enemies. They are not. But both have to be read properly.

The Bible is an ancient document and was written to a people in a culture very different to our own. We should read it and understand it as such and not put our own biases onto it.

On the other hand, science is an every changing field with new discoveries and refining of theories happening all the time. Scientists know this and accept this. In fact this is one reason science is such an exciting and rewarding area to be in. When different and unrelated fields of science come to similar conclusions we can have greater confidence in the validity of their results. The age of the earth is one such area.

The evidence of bias can be seen by how the woke mentality of transgenderism is in every relative field of science now and not just being pushed by the Department of Education. Of course, there are oppositions from the medical field and the psychiatric field exposing it as bull, but they keep on pushing it because like Adolf Hitler, if they tell a lie often enough and loud enough, they will believe it to be true.

When I was in high school the evolution theory was just a "theory". That was woke move taking advantage of that "excuse" when another teacher in that same high school says it is true and caused a fellow student in my grade that was Catholic to turn from his church & Jesus Christ altogether. He went into Buddhism and by their practices, suffered a spirit to invade him to start hearing voices and became mentally ill because of it. Nobody in Buddhism, not hos teacher, nobody could help him when he raised an alarm that he was hearing voices then.

Although the Lord was able to use me to show him that the evolution theory was a false science, he eventually went back to the Catholic Church in spite of Pope john Paul saying he saw nothing wrong in the evolution theory thus inferring that it would not be opposed by the RCC.

Your OP asked if we can determine the age of the universe from the Bible. In my understanding of the Bible, it makes no claims at all in this regards and as such I believe a young earth and an old earth view are both compatible with Scripture. In my view modern science can be my guide to answer questions for which it is suited because to me science is the search for how God has designed the natural world to function. Your view of the text is very rigid and relies on a young earth. This means that you have to deny modern science otherwise your understanding of Scripture is jeopardised. You claim scientists are biased, but have you considered that you have biases of your own?

All it takes is for you to ask Jesus to help you see the truth in His words.

Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The following verses is about how He did that by establishing the very beginning of time by creating light to designate what is day and the darkness night as there was evening and morning that day and every day since as a 24 hour day.

Then the conclusion of Genesis 1:1 is found here;

Genesis 2:1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Then it starts the next topic in about the generation of where mankind came from but in more detail about what had happened the 6th day of creation by citing how there was no man yet to till the ground.

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

No rain fell on the earth until the global flood as it was being watered by a mist when there was no man to till the ground. This testimony was important to testify that all of mankind came from Adam & Eve as Eve was named as the mother of all the living after the fall of man.

Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

There were no other couple on earth but them.

Just as there were no other survivors of the biblical global flood other than Noah and his family; hence his wife and three sons with their wives; eight people as we are all descendent of that family.

So the age of the earth can be determined Biblically but not scientifically because the speed of light cannot be used to determine the age of the universe when God created the universe that fourth day to shine her lights on the earth that day for the governing of signs, seasons, days and years. That mean God created the sources of those lights in that universe that was created that fourth day and filled in the gaps between the source of the lights and the earth so that they were shining upon that earth that day FOR the purpose. He spoke it & it was done.

AND when they claim that they are doing radiometric dating based on the assumption that there was no global calamity within the last 5,000 years that would affect the rate of decay, they do so by denying the Biblical global flood for why you have to disregard all that they claim about the earth being more than 6,000 years old when obviously they cannot have any accurate testing results at all because of the global flood.

Jesus confirmed the global flood in Luke 7:26-37 & so did Peter in 2 Peter 3:3-10 as a warning to Christians to be ready as found abiding in Him to endure to the end or else be left behind to die but resurrected after the great tribulation instead as vessel unto dishonor in His House, vessels of wood & earth, and getting stripes for not being ready per verses 47-48 of Luke 12:40-49 and verse 6 of Hebrews 12:1-10 for not resisting sin by looking to Jesus Christ to help them lay aside ever weight ( provision for the flesh ) & sin in running that race to be that vessel unto honor in His House. Those unrepentant saints & former believers left behind are still saved for why it is not a works salvation, but running that race is for the high prize of our calling to be that vessel unto honor in His House to attend the marriage Supper in heaven and to live in that City of God.

Whereas those resurrected after the great tribulation shall be kings and priests in raising up the generations in that 1000 year reign of Christ, serving the King of kings from all over the earth; and yet have to visit the City of Zion to eat from the tree of life for the healing of the nations.

So that false science and the media as led by the devil, the prince of lies, is hiding the fact that God is coming to judge the world again by fire.

So time to wake up and read the Bible as it is written with His wisdom and not read the false science into it as if millions or billions of years in between the lines.

 

[ChristB4us]

I don't want to get involved with creationists beliefs, believe whatever you want. I would likely have the same beliefs as you if I wasn't lucky with the family I was born to.

Well, if you have not changed your stance before the Bridegroom comes and find yourself left behind, you may also call on Him for help to forgive the family, the RCC, and those that taught you that false science to you.

I don't for sure but it appears you believe in Sola Scripture which Paul preached. Jesus did not. I don't if it holds for all Protestants as it didn't appear to be the case with the UCC worked with many years ago.

Jesus did teach Sola Scriptura as He resorted to them to defend Himself against the Pharisees.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Jesus referred to scriptures to defend His disciples for profaning the sabbath.

Matthew 12:1At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. 3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; 4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? 6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. 7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

When it comes to the topic of the resurrection, He treated the scriptures as truth in correcting those in error.

Matthew 22:28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Jesus even taught to use the word hence scripture to correct a brother in a trespass or else how can anyone see the need to repent before God and men? And if unrepentant, he is to be excommunicated from the assembly until he does.

Matthew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

So I fail to see where you get that notion that Jesus did not teach Sola Scriptura.

Side note; the RCC's policy & practice in moving unrepentant child molesting priests around instead of removing them from that position as a priest or even excommunicating them should offend you. It certainly does not lead them to repent either.

Protestants believe in faith alone, while Catholics believe in faith plus works. Jesus tells us this with his two commandments--love God and love your neighbor--,with the story of the good, Samaritan, in the Sermon on the Mount and with the Corporal Works of Mercy.

When talking about how we are saved; it is by faith alone; but when talking about abiding in Him & His words as His disciples to escape the fiery judgment that is coming on the earth is to endure to the end in that way as 2 Peter 3:3-15 warns by reference to that Biblical global flood.

2 Peter 3:3-15 KJV Peter warned us and so for the RCC to claim Peter as the first Pope, why aren't the RCC listening to Peter instead of being ignorant about how the evolution theory is denying that Biblical global flood, and yet the Pope John Paul & the RCC sees nothing wrong with it?

 

[Sereni-tea]

The evidence of bias can be seen by how the woke mentality of transgenderism is in every relative field of science now and not just being pushed by the Department of Education. Of course, there are oppositions from the medical field and the psychiatric field exposing it as bull, but they keep on pushing it because like Adolf Hitler, if they tell a lie often enough and loud enough, they will believe it to be true.

When I was in high school the evolution theory was just a "theory". That was woke move taking advantage of that "excuse" when another teacher in that same high school says it is true and caused a fellow student in my grade that was Catholic to turn from his church & Jesus Christ altogether. He went into Buddhism and by their practices, suffered a spirit to invade him to start hearing voices and became mentally ill because of it. Nobody in Buddhism, not hos teacher, nobody could help him when he raised an alarm that he was hearing voices then.

Although the Lord was able to use me to show him that the evolution theory was a false science, he eventually went back to the Catholic Church in spite of Pope john Paul saying he saw nothing wrong in the evolution theory thus inferring that it would not be opposed by the RCC.

None of this has anything to do with what we are talking about. It is just your desire to paint science in the worst light possible.

All it takes is for you to ask Jesus to help you see the truth in His words.

You tell me to ask Jesus for me to see the truth in His Words and believe me when I say that this is a topic I have prayed about and studied over many years. I started in a similar position to where you are and God has lead me on a journey.

I now see that the significance of the text is in its theological message. We are not supposed to try to recreate what happened scientifically. We are supposed to see Him as the One and Only Creator God who has set about ordering His creation for His purposes. We are to see Him establishing heaven as His throne and the earth as His footstool; to see Him as the Ruler over all creation. We are to see that He made humanity in His image, to represent Him to the world and reflect the praises of creation back to Him. When Adam and Eve desired to have wisdom apart from God and chose to disobey we see should see this as their failure in their role. As a result they were cast out of God's presence, exiled into a world of sin and death. We should see the rest of Genesis 4-11 as sin increasing and despites man's attempts, he cannot restore the relationship with God himself. The flood is a re-creation event, going back to the formless and empty world of Genesis 1 but still man continues to sin. This sets the scene against which we see God implementing his plan of redemption and restoration with the call of Abram. We see the nation of Israel grow and established as His kingdom and yet they too rebel and are sent into exile. It is into this world that the Saviour comes and God's plan of redemption is fulfilled. The early chapters of Genesis sets up the whole of the Bible.

My journey is not complete and I continue to pray for God to lead me deeper into His Word, but I will never again return to the flattened out view of AiG and similar groups as they completely miss the whole point of the text.

Here is the difference between us - my understanding of the passage does not rely on anything to do with science - whether a young earth or old earth - because I see the theological meaning of the passage in its context. But your interpretation of the text relies reading the English words outside of their Hebrew context. You also depend on a wide variety of unrelated fields of modern science being wrong. If this understanding of yours is wrong then what happens your understanding of Scripture?

This is why I am passionate about this topic - I want people to see God's Word and God's world in harmony and modern science, far from removing the need for a Creator (though some do see it that way), actually reflects the glory of the Creator - the One who controls the smallest sub-atomic particle and the largest galaxy; who holds it all in the palm of His hand. But people like AiG try to tell us that modern science and the Bible are at odds with each other. This results in many today rejecting Christianity as it is seen as nonsense. Or it turns Christians against science, putting into their heads the erroneous ideas that you have presented. Either way God is not glorified.

So that false science and the media as led by the devil, the prince of lies, is hiding the fact that God is coming to judge the world again by fire.

So time to wake up and read the Bible as it is written with His wisdom and not read the false science into it as if millions or billions of years in between the lines.

Yes, Jesus will return to judge the heavens and the earth and will bring with Him the renewal of all things. I look forward to this day. But to claim that science is hiding the fact of Jesus' return is nonsense. This isn't the role of science.

You say that science is of the devil but this is the lie that you have been taught. You think I don't trust His Word because I have a different understanding to you. That is very disrespectful. I don't claim to have the whole truth - I think the Word of God is deeper than we can ever reach. Are you really so confident about your own understanding?

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree.

 

[ChristB4us]

None of this has anything to do with what we are talking about. It is just your desire to paint science in the worst light possible.


You tell me to ask Jesus for me to see the truth in His Words and believe me when I say that this is a topic I have prayed about and studied over many years. I started in a similar position to where you are and God has lead me on a journey.

I now see that the significance of the text is in its theological message. We are not supposed to try to recreate what happened scientifically. We are supposed to see Him as the One and Only Creator God who has set about ordering His creation for His purposes. We are to see Him establishing heaven as His throne and the earth as His footstool; to see Him as the Ruler over all creation. We are to see that He made humanity in His image, to represent Him to the world and reflect the praises of creation back to Him. When Adam and Eve desired to have wisdom apart from God and chose to disobey we see should see this as their failure in their role. As a result they were cast out of God's presence, exiled into a world of sin and death. We should see the rest of Genesis 4-11 as sin increasing and despites man's attempts, he cannot restore the relationship with God himself. The flood is a re-creation event, going back to the formless and empty world of Genesis 1 but still man continues to sin. This sets the scene against which we see God implementing his plan of redemption and restoration with the call of Abram. We see the nation of Israel grow and established as His kingdom and yet they too rebel and are sent into exile. It is into this world that the Saviour comes and God's plan of redemption is fulfilled. The early chapters of Genesis sets up the whole of the Bible.

My journey is not complete and I continue to pray for God to lead me deeper into His Word, but I will never again return to the flattened out view of AiG and similar groups as they completely miss the whole point of the text.

Here is the difference between us - my understanding of the passage does not rely on anything to do with science - whether a young earth or old earth - because I see the theological meaning of the passage in its context. But your interpretation of the text relies reading the English words outside of their Hebrew context. You also depend on a wide variety of unrelated fields of modern science being wrong. If this understanding of yours is wrong then what happens your understanding of Scripture?

This is why I am passionate about this topic - I want people to see God's Word and God's world in harmony and modern science, far from removing the need for a Creator (though some do see it that way), actually reflects the glory of the Creator - the One who controls the smallest sub-atomic particle and the largest galaxy; who holds it all in the palm of His hand. But people like AiG try to tell us that modern science and the Bible are at odds with each other. This results in many today rejecting Christianity as it is seen as nonsense. Or it turns Christians against science, putting into their heads the erroneous ideas that you have presented. Either way God is not glorified.


Yes, Jesus will return to judge the heavens and the earth and will bring with Him the renewal of all things. I look forward to this day. But to claim that science is hiding the fact of Jesus' return is nonsense. This isn't the role of science.

You say that science is of the devil but this is the lie that you have been taught. You think I don't trust His Word because I have a different understanding to you. That is very disrespectful. I don't claim to have the whole truth - I think the Word of God is deeper than we can ever reach. Are you really so confident about your own understanding?

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree.

There is nothing wrong with exposing false science as in false knowledge for what it is as reproved by scriptures.

And I point out that the evolution theory as being taught as if proven true has caused many to not believe in the Bible and thus God any more let alone cause those who would have sought after God, to seek Him not because of the evolution theory.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

There can be no partiality with the evolution theory when it does not pass the definition of real science in that it HAS TO BE OBSERVED and therefore proven and it never was nor can it ever be observed nor proven. You just keep ignoring how they spin something scientific sounding as if nulling and voiding that definition of real science and that is considered as deflecting from what real science is about.

 

[Sereni-tea]

There is nothing wrong with exposing false science as in false knowledge for what it is as reproved by scriptures.

Of course there is nothing wrong with exposing false knowledge, and scientists do this all the time in their peer reviewed system. However you see to put all modern science in the false knowledge category because it doesn't fit with your understanding of the Bible.

And I point out that the evolution theory as being taught as if proven true has caused many to not believe in the Bible and thus God any more let alone cause those who would have sought after God, to seek Him not because of the evolution theory.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

There can be no partiality with the evolution theory when it does not pass the definition of real science in that it HAS TO BE OBSERVED and therefore proven and it never was nor can it ever be observed nor proven. You just keep ignoring how they spin something scientific sounding as if nulling and voiding that definition of real science and that is considered as deflecting from what real science is about.

At no point have I talked about evolutionary theory and you know that I do not base my understanding of the text on this theory or any other scientific view as I have made this perfectly clear time and time again. In bringing up evolutionary theory again I can only conclude that you are avoiding engaging with what I actually wrote in my post above.

I base my view on the literary context (the Hebrew language that is used), the cultural context (the ancient Israelite and near eastern cultures at the time the text was written) and the theolgocial context (what it is saying about God and His relationship with us and how that fits with the rest of Scripture). This is how all Scripture should be understood - in its appropriate contexts. Can you not see that?

 

[ChristB4us]

Of course there is nothing wrong with exposing false knowledge, and scientists do this all the time in their peer reviewed system. However you see to put all modern science in the false knowledge category because it doesn't fit with your understanding of the Bible.

Let me be pointedly clear; everything that has to do with the theory of evolution as far as macroevolution and thus the age of the earth is false as it promotes spontaneous generation of a different kind as coming from that which was not what it was before when real science dictates that it has to be actually observed and therefore proven and the Law of Biogenesis & the 1st Law of Thermodynamic testifies an stablished system or existence that cannot come out of nowhere whereas the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproves the upward climb of the evolution theory but testifies to Time's Arrow as pointing downward in decline of any established system, biologically or otherwise.

At no point have I talked about evolutionary theory and you know that I do not base my understanding of the text on this theory or any other scientific view as I have made this perfectly clear time and time again. In bringing up evolutionary theory again I can only conclude that you are avoiding engaging with what I actually wrote in my post above.

The problem is that there has to be discernment in what is considered modern science because false science has corrupted every field of real science. You mentioned this:

"Here is the difference between us - my understanding of the passage does not rely on anything to do with science - whether a young earth or old earth - because I see the theological meaning of the passage in its context. But your interpretation of the text relies reading the English words outside of their Hebrew context. You also depend on a wide variety of unrelated fields of modern science being wrong. If this understanding of yours is wrong then what happens your understanding of Scripture?

This is why I am passionate about this topic - I want people to see God's Word and God's world in harmony and modern science, far from removing the need for a Creator (though some do see it that way), actually reflects the glory of the Creator - the One who controls the smallest sub-atomic particle and the largest galaxy; who holds it all in the palm of His hand. But people like AiG try to tell us that modern science and the Bible are at odds with each other. This results in many today rejecting Christianity as it is seen as nonsense. Or it turns Christians against science, putting into their heads the erroneous ideas that you have presented. Either way God is not glorified." end of quote
Actually, it is the Hebrew words that modern day scholars are taking out of context of what is written as a whole of the message of truth.

There is no harmony between the evolution theory that as perverted mostly every field in science.

I base my view on the literary context (the Hebrew language that is used), the cultural context (the ancient Israelite and near eastern cultures at the time the text was written) and the theolgocial context (what it is saying about God and His relationship with us and how that fits with the rest of Scripture). This is how all Scripture should be understood - in its appropriate contexts. Can you not see that?

Your view is based on educational learning from the world in how you view and apply the scripture. That is not the same thing as receiving wisdom from the Lord Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit in you in understanding His words & applying His words.

Scripture did not say learn from Christian educational men either. Biblical scholars are not the source for confirming His words as truth.

1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

That means we are to prove everything with Jesus Christ; Biblical commentaries, hymns, creeds, catechism, sermons, & spirits and not just science because there is real science and then there is false science that turns believers away from the truth and so there can be no partiality when it comes to that evolution theory that many see as modern science when it is a false science.

They are assigning the law of biogenesis now as a biogenesis theory and making the theory of evolution as laws of science. See the lies now?

They do not know the method for macroevolution and they never will and yet they want to pretend that the evolution theory passes muster for real science even though it can never be directly observed nor proven.

Point me in the direction of my nearest macroevolution facility to get wings so I can fly & be able to reproduce with someone to get offspring in the same way. It is not going to happen. The minute by design, you introduce extra genetic material or information into the DNA, you risk becoming sterile. And so what are the chances of that happening by a random, out of nowhere phenomenon called macroevolution?

 

[Sereni-tea]

The problem is that there has to be discernment in what is considered modern science because false science has corrupted every field of real science.

There is no harmony between the evolution theory that as perverted mostly every field in science.

The term 'science' covers a great many different disciplines, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with evolution whatsoever.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Your view is based on educational learning from the world in how you view and apply the scripture. That is not the same thing as receiving wisdom from the Lord Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit in you in understanding His words & applying His words.

Scripture did not say learn from Christian educational men either. Biblical scholars are not the source for confirming His words as truth.

1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

That means we are to prove everything with Jesus Christ; Biblical commentaries, hymns, creeds, catechism, sermons, & spirits and not just science because there is real science and then there is false science that turns believers away from the truth and so there can be no partiality when it comes to that evolution theory that many see as modern science when it is a false science.

Yes, we are to test everything against Scripture - have I said otherwise? I hold to the reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The Bible alone is the ultimate authority for our faith and learning. But it is not the only thing we should read. Jesus has given the church the gift of many great teachers and scholars. We should learn from them.

 

[ChristB4us]

The term 'science' covers a great many different disciplines, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with evolution whatsoever.

Then only the Lord can help you be more discerning in that matter for I see otherwise.

You cannot have medical doctors looking at the unborn child as a fetus unless otherwise influenced by the evolution theory.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Then only the Lord can help you be more discerning in that matter for I see otherwise.

You know you keep saying that to me, but I can't helping thinking that you are the one who is blinded by a false ideology. You know I am not a supporter of the theory of evolution and yet you can't respond to any of my posts without going on about it. Why is that?

You cannot have medical doctors looking at the unborn child as a fetus unless otherwise influenced by the evolution theory.

What does this have to do with anything I have said? You do know there are fields of science that don't involve biology at all like physics, chemistry, geology, mathematics, etc.

 

[ChristB4us]

You know you keep saying that to me, but I can't helping thinking that you are the one who is blinded by a false ideology. You know I am not a supporter of the theory of evolution and yet you can't respond to any of my posts without going on about it. Why is that?

You still seem to think there are no errors in modern science.

What does this have to do with anything I have said? You do know there are fields of science that don't involve biology at all like physics, chemistry, geology, mathematics, etc.

I do not consider math as science. It is practical, granted, until they start claiming to use math for the evolution theory in determining the age of the earth which is to me as applying math wrong being based on faulty assumptions that there was no global calamity wthin the last 55,000 years this disregarding the global Biblical flood.

As far as chemistry and physics, okay, those are practical science until they input theoretical evolutionary science regarding chemistry for abiogenesis and physics when determining the age of the universe by that speed of light.

I believe in real science. I stop believing real science is being applied when involving the evolution theory. I just want you to be aware of that when addressing modern science as if it can never be involved in that false science when it can when real science is being applied wrong.

Thank you for sharing.

 

[Sereni-tea]

You still seem to think there are no errors in modern science.

I never said that.

I do not consider math as science. It is practical, granted, until they start claiming to use math for the evolution theory in determining the age of the earth which is to me as applying math wrong being based on faulty assumptions that there was no global calamity wthin the last 55,000 years this disregarding the global Biblical flood.

As far as chemistry and physics, okay, those are practical science until they input theoretical evolutionary science regarding chemistry for abiogenesis and physics when determining the age of the universe by that speed of light.

I believe in real science. I stop believing real science is being applied when involving the evolution theory. I just want you to be aware of that when addressing modern science as if it can never be involved in that false science when it can when real science is being applied wrong.

Glad to hear you accept some form of science, even if your ideas are clouded.

Thank you for sharing.

Blessings.

 

[ChristB4us]

I never said that.

Okay, even though you seem to believe in the old earth theory.

Glad to hear you accept some form of science, even if your ideas are clouded.

Practical science as real science is defined as what can be observed and proven whereas the evolution theory is only assumed.

Blessings.

May God bless you & keep you. May He shone His face upon you and give you His peace.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Okay, even though you seem to believe in the old earth theory.

Practical science as real science is defined as what can be observed and proven whereas the evolution theory is only assumed.

As I said from the beginning of this thread, I do not believe the Bible says anything at all about science and we can not use it to determine anything about the age of the earth. To try to do so is to distort what it is actually telling us.

In my understanding of the text a young earth or an old earth is compatible with Scripture.
I believe that science, which is a tool used to learn about the mechanism of the universe, shows overwhlemingly that the universe is very old. But if I am wrong, it won't change how I read Scripture.

May God bless you & keep you. May He shone His face upon you and give you His peace.