How old is the earth?

[EarlyActs]

So God's Word is not sufficient to proclaim truth?

Of course it is, and it is open to verification. "These things are true and rational"--Acts 26. He meant they are entirely open to verification, proof, demonstration. What have you been reading that you missed this about the Bible?

 

[prism]

hy ever not? what is it about demonstrable proof that bothers you?

It puts the Christian on the same playing field as the scientist. It becomes an eye/ear thing. Hearing (God's Word) is to be over observation (science).
We walk by faith, not by sight.
2 Corinthians 5:7 BSB
For we walk by faith, not by sight.

 

[EarlyActs]

It puts the Christian on the same playing field as the scientist. It becomes an eye/ear thing. Hearing (God's Word) is to be over observation (science).
We walk by faith, not by sight.
2 Corinthians 5:7 BSB
For we walk by faith, not by sight.

That passage is about the new vs old covenant. It has nothing to do in any sense with proof of knowledge of events that happened in normal history.

Paul explains this down the passage a bit saying that he knew about Christ in the normal sense but didn’t realize God was in Christ justifying us from our sins.

There is utterly nothing about our topic. What do you have against proof? The human body is far too complex to have developed one system at a time in a harsh predatory world. It was thriving the moment God made the first man Adam. That reason among others is proof against evolutionary development. So the creation account is both God commanding things into existence, and proof by reasons that creation took place. And the opposite did not.

This thread is about the age of earth. The opening of Genesis , as well as 2 Peter 3, have earth in existence in another form before creation week which was recent. It’s a mass of rock and mineral under water. There is no life. But there are obvious things that allow for time, but not life, about these facts before Day 1.

The Word also often refers to the ‘spreading out’ of the distant worlds (Job, Psalms, Isaiah), does not speak that way about earth, which is there but around which many things are placed.

 

[John Bauer]

No. Both are not true. The 1% numbers were derived from certain sections of the DNA sequences while other portions such as "junk" DNA were not included.

That is precisely why both numbers are true:

• Comapring these specific sections of DNA shows almost 99% similarity.
• Comparing whole genomes (including "junk" DNA) shows 85% similarity.

 

[EarlyActs]

That is precisely why both numbers are true:

• Comapring these specific sections of DNA shows almost 99% similarity.
• Comparing whole genomes (including "junk" DNA) shows 85% similarity.

JB, you were going to review Seegert.

 

[CrowCross]

That is precisely why both numbers are true:

• Comapring these specific sections of DNA shows almost 99% similarity.
• Comparing whole genomes (including "junk" DNA) shows 85% similarity.

Which shows evolution was not the way man was "made".

 

[prism]

This thread is about the age of earth.

That's right, and it's been all over the map since it's beginning. (forgive the pun).

 

[Rella]

Life span was reduced because God decreed it, not because of some type of cataclysm.

Not to be argumentative but there is always possiblwe and probable that God used "some type of cataclysm to reduce life span.

Could have been the very reason for such a cataclysm... No?

 

[prism]

Not to be argumentative but there is always possiblwe and probable that God used "some type of cataclysm to reduce life span.

Could have been the very reason for such a cataclysm... No?

"Could be".

 

[prism]

What have you been reading that you missed this about the Bible?

I have been reading the Bible, such as evening and morning = one day and the genealogies. What have you been reading? I guess I have a bad habit of taking God at His Word, like a child, how foolish of me!

 

[EarlyActs]

I have been reading the Bible, such as evening and morning = one day and the genealogies. What have you been reading? I guess I have a bad habit of taking God at His Word, like a child, how foolish of me!

All I’m asking is look at what level of proof matters in the text itself. Early Mark is especially interesting. Not only is there the express proof miracle of ch 2 , but numerous references to how many people sought Jesus. If the miracles were fake, the opposite would have happened.

The Acts 25 line that ‘this has not been done in a corner’ means there is proof past God just saying something to be the case.

Romans starts and ends with two proofs that are remarkable: Jesus was declared to be the Son of Ps 2 by the resurrection. At ch 16, Paul says God ‘has decreed’ that the Gospel go to the nations. There is proof: it was out to all nations primarily through 1st Pentecost worshippers going home. You might even say the known result was the decree, or that it was non-verbal.

I don’t know why Prism sees a conflict. It is a unity.

 

[prism]

I don’t know why Prism sees a conflict. It is a unity.

And I don't know why you assume I see a conflict. How could there be a conflict when God the Holy Spirit inspired all the Scriptures?

 

[EarlyActs]

And I don't know why you assume I see a conflict. How could there be a conflict when God the Holy Spirit inspired all the Scriptures?

You have a conflict about there being actual outside proof—outside the Bible.

 

[prism]

You have a conflict about there being actual outside proof—outside the Bible.

Our sinfulness (which is outside Scripture) is proof enough.

 

[Rella]

Our sinfulness (which is outside Scripture) is proof enough.

For both of you @prism and @EarlyActs if I may....

Scripture is the definitive proof. Period. It is inspired and not to be questioned yet there is enough seeming confusion and misunderstanding
in interpretations of assorted translations that those very heated debates do happen. (Yes, I have myself)

So Scripture in and of itself is not enough without verifying ones understanding with outside commentaries and sources. (I happen to like Bible Hub for clarity and ease of understanding... but that is me) but to rely on the interpretations of another "mortal" for me not so much.

Just this morning , elsewhere I was in the mix because of this

You should start listening to Jesus and those to whom he handed the true faith on.

The Bible does not stand alone , it has a true meaning handed down by tradition and authority of the succession.

listen to those who were SENT, don’t lean on your own understanding, and take disputes on meaning to those Jesus appointed, the PILLAR OF TRUTH the physical church , given the power to “bind and loose” the true faith.

The reformationists severed the Bible from its true meaning and substituted the authority and tradition handed down with a myriad of conflicting personal opinions , it’s why they all disagree.

This was referencing the traditions handed down to the church for teaching, allowing for no one to disagree with a human translation.

 

[EarlyActs]

For both of you @prism and @EarlyActs if I may....

Scripture is the definitive proof. Period. It is inspired and not to be questioned yet there is enough seeming confusion and misunderstanding
in interpretations of assorted translations that those very heated debates do happen. (Yes, I have myself)

So Scripture in and of itself is not enough without verifying ones understanding with outside commentaries and sources. (I happen to like Bible Hub for clarity and ease of understanding... but that is me) but to rely on the interpretations of another "mortal" for me not so much.

Just this morning , elsewhere I was in the mix because of this

You should start listening to Jesus and those to whom he handed the true faith on.

The Bible does not stand alone , it has a true meaning handed down by tradition and authority of the succession.

listen to those who were SENT, don’t lean on your own understanding, and take disputes on meaning to those Jesus appointed, the PILLAR OF TRUTH the physical church , given the power to “bind and loose” the true faith.

The reformationists severed the Bible from its true meaning and substituted the authority and tradition handed down with a myriad of conflicting personal opinions , it’s why they all disagree.

This was referencing the traditions handed down to the church for teaching, allowing for no one to disagree with a human translation.

This is actually a modern problem that started in the mid 1800s, probably by Lyell, when he mistakenly believed there were huge geological periods (the present processes are the key to the past) , but still wanted the Bible to be true for society’s sake. From his time onward the Bible was ‘proof-free’ , but spiritually “true.”

I’ll paste Dr Schaeffer’s best line on what this means. The problem is called ‘neo-orthodoxy’ and it has permeated thinking ever since. CNN: ‘since (this)is a religious idea about faith, there is no proof’ in an early 2000 article where a Christian was responding to Islam.

Here is Schaeffer in HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT:

(Next post)

 

[EarlyActs]

F. Schaeffer, HE IS THERE...

"No one stands more for the full inspiration of Scripture than I, but this is not the end of truth as Christianity is presented, as the Bible presents itself. The truth of Christianity is that it is true to what is there. You can go to the end of the world and you never need be afraid like the ancients, that you will fall off the end and the dragons will eat you up. You can carry out your intellectual discussions to the end of the game, because Christianity is not only true to the dogmas, it is not only true to what God has said in the Bible, but it is also true to what is there, and you will never fall of the end of the world!. It is not just an approximate model; it really is true to what is there.

When the evangelical catches that--when evangelicalism catches that--we may have our (societal)revolution. We will begin to thave something beautiful and alive, something which will have force in our poor, lost world.
--p17


There are actually things about this which, for society's sake, have more in common than in difference with Catholic thinking. But by 'dogmas' he meant earliest creeds (Apostle's, Nicea).

In THE GOD WHO IS THERE he presents how the modern split mindset came about, creating a 'lower story' of facts and data, and an 'upper story' of meaning and significance, but utterly divorced from each other.

He was prob the most effective evangelist of the late 20th century, being an ex-agnostic. He produced the film series HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? His study center in Switzerland was visited by thousands in the turbulent years of the 70s and 80s.

 

[John Bauer]

We should not assume at the outset that the scientists are wrong. It is also possible that our interpretation of Scripture is wrong, though it is not possible for Scripture itself to be wrong. We must be humble enough and self-critical enough to reexamine these questions, even under the stimulus of scientific claims with which we may be initially unsympathetic. This is part of our apologetic mandate to bring every thought captive to Christ.

John M. Frame, The Doctrine of God (Presbyterian and Reformed, 2002), pg. 303.

 

[EarlyActs]

Perhaps what Prism is missing is the use of the term archeology. Last night I was fortunate to hear new research on Israel's period in Egypt. The speaker referenced the following items which are not detailed in Genesis/Exodus, but of course inexplicable without it. So 'the Bible is true to what is there.'


Among the highlights referenced:
*a canal called Bahr Yoseph which is very likely authentic to the Joseph period and continues to be an essential water conduit today in the Fayim district
*the Avisa area which is under the city of Goshen, and has many kinds of indications that people lived there who were from the Canaan area
*the home of the 'mayor' of Avisa, and its Joseph features
*a 19th century drawing by archeologist Petrie of another district where thousands of Cana people lived in what might be called 'company housing'--identical design repeated over and over in rows.
*a stele showing people arriving from Cana with technology that Egypt perhaps did not have (steel working).
*a graphic description of a famine translated from glyphs
*glyph references to the Hyksos (foreign power). They didn't have a name for the foreign power, but it refers to the post-Hebrew period when the Egyptian army was decimated, so prob Assyrians.



I would hope that when Prism hears of material like this, he does not say: but that is man's reasoning; it is not in the Bible' but rather rejoices at the evidence coming to light!

 

[prism]

So Scripture in and of itself is not enough without verifying ones understanding with outside commentaries and sources. (I happen to like Bible Hub for clarity and ease of understanding... but that is me) but to rely on the interpretations of another "mortal" for me not so much.

I'm not sure if that is the issue. The way I see it. is that 'if outside sources contradict scripture, then we are to go with scripture'. Scripture trumps man's opinions and traditions. There is nothing wrong with commentaries or teachers, as long as they don't contradict the clear teaching of scripture.