How old is the earth?

[Alive]

Okay, then you tell us what were our spirits made of.

There are things that we simply cannot know because God has not told us. We should be satisfied with this.
Otherwise, we speculate and find something else to argue about. An argument that can have no value or reasonable conclusion other than…we do not know.
Wisdom says to avoid such things.

 

[JIM]

There are things that we simply cannot know because God has not told us. We should be satisfied with this.
Otherwise, we speculate and find something else to argue about. An argument that can have no value or reasonable conclusion other than…we do not know.
Wisdom says to avoid such things.

Seriously? Our spirits are not made of anything. Our spirits are not physical entities.

 

[Alive]

Okay, then you tell us what were our spirits made of.

There are things that we simply cannot know because God has not told us. We should be satisfied with this.
Otherwise, we speculate and find something else to argue about. An argument that can have no value or reasonable conclusion other than…we do not know.
Wisdom says to avoid such things

Seriously? Our spirits are not made of anything. Our spirits are not physical entities.

i did not suggest that either way. That was the point.

 

[JIM]

i did not suggest that either way. That was the point.

And my point was that you should know that the spirit is not a physical entity.

 

[Alive]

And my point was that you should know that the spirit is not a physical entity.

I heard you. No need to push further. You have made your point and did so clearly.

 

[CrowCross]

Seriously? Our spirits are not made of anything. Our spirits are not physical entities.

What are they?

 

[EarlyActs]

And my point was that you should know that the spirit is not a physical entity.

Right, there is no possibility of a 'spiritual particle' discovery as a science article recently discussed.

 

[EarlyActs]

I got one step closer to an age of the 'spreading' (which I believe to be God's detonating a mass to make the distant worlds): a list of stars' brightness in descending order shows those that would possibly be the marker mentioned on Day 1; it would have shown at twilight on Day 1, marking the end of Day 1, the start of Day 2.

See recent posts under 'Reddit member asks about theistic evolution' thread.

 

[EarlyActs]

A new article about the Webb scope information is saying that the distant universe has a much stranger shape (and motion) than we previously thought.

In my view, they are not connected to the local in Gen 1, nor are they connected in 2 Peter 3 nor in the 'spreading out' references of Job, Psalms and Isaiah. The vocab which starts this distinction is the features of 'shama-raqia' vs 'kavov' in Gen 1. (shama is not to be confused with shema--a blessing).

The Webb conclusions are only a problem if a Genesis reader pushes the two close together, as is often done in YEC groups. Related to this is thinking that Gen 1 is an omniscient POV rather than local.

 

[EarlyActs]

Creation ex nihilo is indicated, I believe, in Genesis 1:1. True, it may be taken as introduction to the following verses or a summary of their events, but it also may be taken as a statement in itself, that precedes the events following. Thus, yes, it includes the creation of the "materials of earth".

(Whatever, I can't personally stomach the notion of a god who comes upon an already existing set of circumstances, and organizes it. That is not God, and such a being is only another resident in the universe, no matter how powerful 'he' is.)

There was creation ex nihilo, or at least out of a very compressed mass, but it is not at Gen 1. The 'spreading out' had already happened. Gen 1's POV is local, and is all that could possibly concern us anyway.

 

[XrzrX]

Non "scientific" take here but, as one who's spent alot of time looking at 'landscapes', I've seen with the naked eye landscapes change, degrade.. "wear" and erode to such a degree within just decades.. that the idea of "millions of years" much less "billions" is such an inane possibility, it literally boggles the mind that anyone could even conceive of it. Similarly, the human being.. made to 'resemble' the creation we're a part of, but so unfathomably "different". The chasm between what we are, masters from the atom to the farthest reaches of space, and aware of our exact place within it... is such that it's evident we Are indeed the Image of God among this creation, not an "evolved" machine born 'out of it'.

 

[CrowCross]

I find there are many christians who try to shoe-horn the bible into the theory of evolution.

They can believe in the miracle of the resurrection....yet deny the special means of creation in which God the Son did it.

 

[prism]

There was creation ex nihilo, or at least out of a very compressed mass, but it is not at Gen 1. The 'spreading out' had already happened. Gen 1's POV is local, and is all that could possibly concern us anyway.

Perhaps not in Genesis 1, but certainly in Hebrews 11:3 and possibly in John 1:1-3.

Hebrews 11:3 ESV
By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

John 1:1,3 ESV
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [3] All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

 

[CrowCross]

The Ten commandments affirm a six day creation with a 7th day of rest:
11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

 

[John Bauer]

Non-scientific take here, but as one who's spent alot of time looking at 'landscapes', I've seen with the naked eye landscapes change, degrade, "wear" and erode to such a degree within just decades that the idea of "millions of years"—much less "billions"—is such an inane possibility, it literally boggles the mind that anyone could even conceive of it.

I very highly recommend Martin Gorst, Measuring Eternity: The Search for the Beginning of Time (Broadway Books, 2002). As a writer and documentary filmmaker, Gorst vividly illustrates in this captivating and character-driven narrative the fascinating, centuries-long journey by religious figures, philosophers, astronomers, geologists, physicists, and mathematicians to discover the answer to a fundamental question at the intersection of science and religion: When did the universe begin?—a question that arose from pondering the age of the earth. He very helpfully traces the historical process of these questions being explored and in such a way that it makes a good deal of sense how we landed on these huge numbers. (I was particularly struck by Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, whose fascinating experiments led him to calculate that the earth must be more than an order of magnitude older than 6,000 years.)

... it's evident we are indeed the image of God among this creation, not an "evolved" machine born 'out of it'.

Since those are not mutually exclusive, why not both?

 

[XrzrX]

I very highly recommend Martin Gorst, Measuring Eternity: The Search for the Beginning of Time (Broadway Books, 2002). As a writer and documentary filmmaker, Gorst vividly illustrates in this captivating and character-driven narrative the fascinating, centuries-long journey by religious figures, philosophers, astronomers, geologists, physicists, and mathematicians to discover the answer to a fundamental question at the intersection of science and religion: When did the universe begin?—a question that arose from pondering the age of the earth. He very helpfully traces the historical process of these questions being explored and in such a way that it makes a good deal of sense how we landed on these huge numbers. (I was particularly struck by Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, whose fascinating experiments led him to calculate that the earth must be more than an order of magnitude older than 6,000 years.)




Since those are not mutually exclusive, why not both?

I would suggest, taken with no context yes, they aren't mutually exclusive.. but in context, the Creation account doesn't lend itself to that interpretation (although I know that's debated), and to my knowledge (again, admittedly woefully limited) the evidence I've seen does not support such a 'theory'. Element 'dating' the half-life of which is not even a millionth of a fraction of the time spans they extrapolate from it, the impossibility of 'evolutionary jumps' in design that are absolutely self contradictory to slow evolution, and geological and biological deposits showing fully formed creatures, no evidence of previous iterations, cataclysmic geological events enshrining them so 'interpretation' is not the issue. Anomalous gravitational/physics laws throughout space, aging other planets beyond the possible half-life of the elements they are made of etc. It's just a cumulative body of actual, not theoretical evidence, coupled with a harmony with scripture that informs my conception of this issue.

 

[prism]

Since those are not mutually exclusive, why not both?

Not mutually exclusive to what? The image of God? Creation? Or an "evolved" machine?

 

[Carbon]

The Ten commandments affirm a six day creation with a 7th day of rest:
11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

But they do not confirm a day is 24 hours.

 

[XrzrX]

But they do not confirm a day is 24 hours.

But He installed the Sabbath a such.. enumerated by "therefore..". Kinda reads right...

 

[CrowCross]

But they do not confirm a day is 24 hours.

Why would God need more than 24 hours? In fact God didn't even need 24 hours.

Why did God use numerical dates bracked with the terms morning and evening in Genesis?