How old is the earth?

[Carbon]

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

What do you mean by the Sabbath?

 

[Carbon]

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

I give up. Why?

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

And He didn’t need to

 

[XrzrX]

What do you mean by the Sabbath?

Sorry, "The Sabbath Day", not our Sabbath.

 

[Carbon]

Formless and void is God saying earth was not there. Only water was there

Then why did God say, “earth” was formless and void?
You’re just reading into scripture what you would like to see there.

 

[Carbon]

Sorry, "The Sabbath Day", not our Sabbath.

What is sabbath? A day of rest? A time of rest? What would you say and why?

 

[EarlyActs]

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?

Evolution has nothing to do with it because mutation causes deterioration. The earth thrived from the first week of Creation, even if the planet was here lifeless before week as part of the spreading out.

 

[XrzrX]

What is sabbath? A day of rest? A time of rest? What would you say and why?

I won't belabor the 'scholarship' on the issue, but my understanding of it is "Yom" as used, means sunrise to sunset. I do think, the intention to challenge it, stems from, as was mentioned earlier, a desire to shoehorn humanist 'science' into the account. Which is another issue, the structure is also considered as adhering to "Account" rules, rather than Poetic, again, as I've understood.

 

[John Bauer]

Evolution has nothing to do with it because mutation causes deterioration. The earth thrived from the first week of Creation, even if the planet was here lifeless before week as part of the spreading out.

 

[John Bauer]

I would suggest that, yes, taken with no context, they aren't mutually exclusive. However, in context the creation account doesn't lend itself to that interpretation ...

Of course the creation account doesn't lend itself to that interpretation—because the creation account pertains to a categorically different explanatory domain (redemptive history). Man as "image of God" belongs to a redemptive-historical category, while man as "evolved" belongs to a natural-historical category. Redemptive history on the one hand, natural history on the other. Your objection fails by flattening these categories, thereby committing a category error.

My argument recognizes and maintains those categorical distinctions, which is why I can hold both positions as true without conflict, that man is both evolved and imago Dei. Natural history, unfolded in general revelation (nature), is the stage upon which the drama of redemptive history plays out, and it is redemptive history that reveals the meaning and purpose of natural history, disclosed through special revelation (scripture). We explore natural history scientifically; we explore redemptive history theologically.

It's just a cumulative body of actual (not theoretical) evidence, ...

I understand terms like "theoretical physics," but what exactly is "theoretical evidence"?

 

[John Bauer]

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

Man as image of God and man as evolved are not mutually exclusive to one another, which means both can be held as true without contradiction or tension.

 

[XrzrX]

Of course the creation account doesn't lend itself to that interpretation—because the creation account pertains to a categorically different explanatory domain (redemptive history). Man as "image of God" belongs to a redemptive-historical category, while man as "evolved" belongs to a natural-historical category. Redemptive history on the one hand, natural history on the other. Your objection fails by flattening these categories, thereby committing a category error.

I'd suggest, you've posited contrived distinctions.

My argument recognizes and maintains those categorical distinctions, which is why I can hold both positions as true without conflict,

The convenience of contriving such "distinctions"..

that man is both evolved and imago Dei.

It becomes an issue in whether the structure of the scripture is considered "Account" or "Poetic", and as Account.. THAT is why it doesn't lend itself.

Natural history, unfolded in general revelation (nature), is the stage upon which the drama of redemptive history plays out, and it is redemptive history that reveals the meaning and purpose of natural history, disclosed through special revelation (scripture).

See above..

We explore natural history scientifically; we explore redemptive history theologically.

This is where paradigms become an issue. "Science" is the language of God's creation, and inasmuch as it strays from that Foundation, it becomes proportionally inane.

I understand terms like "theoretical physics," but what exactly is "theoretical evidence"?

"Theoretical evidence" is carbon, with a half-life of 20K years, extrapolated to 4 billion years. Or a theory of "evolution" that defies "kind", or posits 'evolution' from species we literally co-exist with. Or, philosophical posits declaring "identity" dictates biology.. or, on... and on.. and on.
We've strayed.. WIDE.

 

[John Bauer]

I'd suggest, you've posited contrived distinctions.

And your suggestion would not survive critical scrutiny.

"Theoretical evidence" is carbon, ...

Carbon is not theoretical. It actually exists.

 

[XrzrX]

And your suggestion would not survive critical scrutiny.

Well, that's pretty easy.. can you cite your source for said "distinctions"?

Carbon is not theoretical. It actually exists.

My point exactly.
How long does it exist in the form of measurable carbon?
*The Philosopher's Stone here is.. as your instinct rightly discerned, there is no such thing as "theoretical evidence".

 

[CrowCross]

I give up. Why?

....He's God.

And He didn’t need to

But He did.

 

[prism]

Man as image of God and man as evolved are not mutually exclusive to one another, which means both can be held as true without contradiction or tension.

Compare
Genesis 1:27 LSB
And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Matthew 19:4 LSB
And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,

Definitions can be twisted like a pretzel, but not taste half as good,