If we trace the timeline the Bible gives us starting with the first day of Creation then the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Exodus 20:9-11 (Creation)
- Thread starter Xalith
- Start date
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
SkyWriting said: ↑
The Bible makes no mention of the age of the earth. Old or new testament.
1. All major tenants of Christianity are covered from multiple authors, in
different ways, correct?
But back to the question......it has a ? on the end.
2. And they are covered in both the old testament and the new, correct?
3. And Jesus speaks to them directly, then the disciples cover them again, right?
The Bible makes no mention of the age of the earth. Old or new testament.
1. All major tenants of Christianity are covered from multiple authors, in
different ways, correct?
But back to the question......it has a ? on the end.
2. And they are covered in both the old testament and the new, correct?
3. And Jesus speaks to them directly, then the disciples cover them again, right?
Upvote
0
I never said I was trying to prove Young Earth.
I'm merely here saying that what God said in the Bible is 100% truth and we should stop trying to reconcile the Bible with man's flawed understanding of science. No, we should be reconciling science with the Bible.
Anytime Science and the Bible disagree, it is Science that needs to budge, not the Bible.
Upvote
0
EDIT: I misread something when I quoted, so I'll revise this post:
Many agnostics, atheists, are saying "Oh, that [God's Creation Account] CAN'T be true, because Science says........"
Ever think that maybe Science is wrong? Maybe scientists miscalculated? Maybe something happened that Science doesn't even know about? Maybe God snapped His Holy Fingers and sped time up for awhile, or perhaps the laws of time or physics worked differently in "pre-history" than they do post-history?
We don't know that, because there are no surviving records to document one way or the other except for God and His Word.
God was the only One who was there (well, His angels were too).
Obviously, there are things God didn't tell us. He told us enough that we need to know. And what He did tell us, you got Christians going "no, no, science says....."
Oi.
Many agnostics, atheists, are saying "Oh, that [God's Creation Account] CAN'T be true, because Science says........"
Ever think that maybe Science is wrong? Maybe scientists miscalculated? Maybe something happened that Science doesn't even know about? Maybe God snapped His Holy Fingers and sped time up for awhile, or perhaps the laws of time or physics worked differently in "pre-history" than they do post-history?
We don't know that, because there are no surviving records to document one way or the other except for God and His Word.
God was the only One who was there (well, His angels were too).
Obviously, there are things God didn't tell us. He told us enough that we need to know. And what He did tell us, you got Christians going "no, no, science says....."
Oi.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Amen. That statement should settle the issue, given the fact that it was carved in stone with the finger of God.
Upvote
0
So tracing the timeline in the Bible is not enough? We must have a Biblical author give us a number or it isn't true? No, the age of the earth is not a major concern to the Biblical writers, but it is to us now since many want to argue about it.
Upvote
0
Actually there's quite a few references you can add up based on genealogies , kings reigns and so forth .. Then add 5 more days before Adam .. I think the controversy is good that it prevents a thief from sneaking in .. It boils down to separating the wheat from the chaff in that you either have faith in God's word or not so evolutionists and other non believers are blown away leaving the wheat .. Same thing with believers as our faith in God's word is strengthened to become substance .. This leaves us to our own free will to either accept God or reject him .. Judgement will be fair and either heaven or hell to pay with no argument ..
Upvote
0
Maybe, I coulda quoted the wrong post. Sorry about that.
EDIT: I revised the post. I think I mistook you for that other poster. I really do apologize for that.
Upvote
0
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Please note the question mark. It's not a trick question.
The Bible makes no mention of the age of the earth. Old or new testament. All major
tenants of Christianity are covered from multiple authors, in different ways, correct?
Upvote
0
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
SkyWriting said: ↑
The Bible makes no mention of the age of the earth. Old or new testament.
1. All major tenants of Christianity are covered from multiple authors, in
different ways, correct?
But back to the question......it has a ? on the end.
I'm not trying to trick you with a clever worded trick question.
Here are 2 more simple questions:
2. And they are covered in both the old testament and the new, correct?
3. And Jesus speaks to them directly, then the disciples cover them again, right?
The Bible makes no mention of the age of the earth. Old or new testament.
1. All major tenants of Christianity are covered from multiple authors, in
different ways, correct?
But back to the question......it has a ? on the end.
I'm not trying to trick you with a clever worded trick question.
Here are 2 more simple questions:
2. And they are covered in both the old testament and the new, correct?
3. And Jesus speaks to them directly, then the disciples cover them again, right?
Upvote
0
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Or your interpretation of a translated passage from a language you don't
normally speak needs to budge. The scripture are 100% error free in the
spiritual sense becasue they tell the storyof how man can be saved from his
deserved fate. But the writings are by man, about men, and then
understood by men. The story is correct.
Upvote
0
Thir7ySev3n
Psalm 139
There is no need to suppose a false dichotomy between science and faith. Faith affirms science; that is, faith that acknowledges God as the creator of our world acknowledges the existence and function of the same subject matter that science investigates, which is the material world. The differences between the positions is not properly distinguished as faith versus science but faith versus scientism/materialism. Those of us who have accepted and integrated the theory of evolution into our theology do so as a result of succumbing to the influences of atheistic philosophies, not superior scientific theory. That is because evolutionary theory as employed by non-theists presupposes the absence of God in the creation of the natural order and that science is the only viable means by which we can apprehend knowledge of anything at all. If this was not the case (that these Christians are, in part, accommodating atheistic philosophies of scientism and materialism) then no Christian would have need of assuming a theory which is based upon confusions that exist only as a result of the denial of two important facts revealed in the Genesis account: 1. That everything produces after it's own kind, and 2. The universe was created with mature initial conditions.
First, the fact that everything produces after it's own kind is empirically observed, and the fossil record is a laughable attempt at establishing the tenability of the theory in this regard. Connecting sets of bones with increasing similarities, considering the concurrent structural variances within groups of species that allow us to manipulatively filter models that are most similar in design, is a childish excuse for circumventing this reality. Secondly, the universe will have an appearance of age that is well beyond the actual duration of it's existence as a consequence of being created mature. For example, Adam would have appeared a full grown man though he was only a day old. This does not constitute lying or misinformation as it is explicitly revealed in this account that the universe was created this way. The only ones being mislead and confused are those who refuse to accept God at His word, which will result in one observing the universe with false premises and a need to establish an account that avoids inference from God as the first cause.
The only viable evidence used (the appearance of the age of the universe) is dismantled for the theist (and truthfully, non-theist, though other arguments would likely be necessary in addition) once they recognize that the universe would appear as old as it does, despite being relatively young, due to the mature initial conditions it was created with as explicated in the Genesis account. So there are two kinds of faith; one that acknowledges God as the creator of the universe in the manner He described, or one that accommodates or affirms atheist philosophies of scientism and materialism. Both observe the same world, and are only distinguished by their affirmation or denial of God and the corresponding evidence we have to affirm the theology or ideology respectively. It is as philosophical battle, not a scientific one.
Upvote
0
OK, so, what you seem to be claiming then is that you possess a far superior knowledge of the universe and science than do all these scientists. That seems about the epitome of hubris to me, though it is all too characteristic of many laity here. Also, evolution is a neutral scientific concept. It is not inherently atheistic. I, for example, believe that evolution would be impossible without God. I see absolutely no reason to pit science against the Bible, as I do not believe that God intended the Bible to be an accurate geophysical witness.
Upvote
0
Colter
Member
The problem is it wasn't God who wrote the creation story, it was exiled Hebrew Holy men writing, or rewriting, editing and redacting, older writings, from the vantage point of the Babylonian re-captivity, the single most devastating event to Israelite nationalist pride in the evolution of Judaism.
So from the start a false dichotomy is established. A pseudo-biographical story written for the consumption of the scattered Israelite audience became the writings of God in the minds of subsequent generations of the priest class. It became the basis of church governments authority.
On that basis, when one disagrees with the holy men's narratives, they are made to be disagreeing with God himself when in fact we disagree with the speculative, historical worldview of bronze age preachers.
Upvote
0
tickingclocker
Well-Known Member
Firstly, does this change anything? Is God still God either way? To me He is the same, as my faith is safely in Him, not in a certain perspective of Him. Your premise always brings to mind, those who insist that God IS "thus and so", that if it was revealed that He was not precisely as they insist, would they still continue to trust Him without their faith faltering? That concerns me. I've witnessed the end results of that very thing in people too many times. Very sad.
Secondly, God didn't create life "over millions of years". He did with the earth. No plant or animal life could have survived, let alone formed, without sunlight for however much time it took for this rock to cool and form into land. "It was formless and void" means something, even scientifically. How much time was the earth 'formless and void'? No one can know except God. What does void mean?: lifeless, without definition. And then (v.2), God created light, our sun. And who knows how long it took for the sun to form and settle down into being the sun, and its light to reach earth and start affecting the land and water? No one but God. I take great comfort in that, knowing there are no mysteries to God. Only to us (for now). Why God is still very much God here, to me, despite my lack of a few creation facts. They do not define God. God defines God.
When you also insist that God be "thus and so", you are essentially telling God He needs to be who you expect Him to be, and thus inferring that HE may be found to be the liar if proven otherwise? Not a good idea.
And where was this thread before? Sounds very familiar.
Upvote
0
@tickingclocker , @Hoghead1 :
I present to you another question:
If God made Adam and placed him in Eden, do you believe that he did so with Adam being a mature adult, or a newborn infant?
If you believe that Adam was already a mature adult (or at the very least, late pubescent?), then why couldn't He have created the Earth in a mature state as well?
God said He did it in 6 days. Science thinks it was millions of years. Who is to say that God, on Day 1 and Day 2 didn't create an Earth that already "looks" mature just like when He placed Adam in the garden? Human life usually starts out as a sperm+egg cell inside of a woman... but there was no woman before Adam.
And for that matter, Eve was made from a rib taken from Adam. I doubt she entered the world as a newborn infant either, right?
Well, if God was able to do that with Adam and Eve, then why not the rest of the Earth? If He is able to create a universe by speaking it into existence, I'm quite sure He's able to create beasts, trees, and yes, two people and place them on the Earth in a mature state.
But that doesn't mean that He didn't do it in 6 days.
As to the "retranslation, redactions, etc" of the Bible... they've found very, very old scrolls... incredibly old writings... of some of the Torah and guess what? They were 99% faithful to the ones that are found today, with almost no change. There's one thing that Jewish scholars are known for, and that is that they are extremely careful when copying their holy scrolls. Have you ever seen any videos or pictures of Jewish rabbis handling Torah scrolls? They treat those things like they are made out of gold. They treat them like they are priceless.
Contrast that to some Christians that hold up a Bible, waving it around and then thump it loudly down on a podium with barely any respect for it whatsoever.
I present to you another question:
If God made Adam and placed him in Eden, do you believe that he did so with Adam being a mature adult, or a newborn infant?
If you believe that Adam was already a mature adult (or at the very least, late pubescent?), then why couldn't He have created the Earth in a mature state as well?
God said He did it in 6 days. Science thinks it was millions of years. Who is to say that God, on Day 1 and Day 2 didn't create an Earth that already "looks" mature just like when He placed Adam in the garden? Human life usually starts out as a sperm+egg cell inside of a woman... but there was no woman before Adam.
And for that matter, Eve was made from a rib taken from Adam. I doubt she entered the world as a newborn infant either, right?
Well, if God was able to do that with Adam and Eve, then why not the rest of the Earth? If He is able to create a universe by speaking it into existence, I'm quite sure He's able to create beasts, trees, and yes, two people and place them on the Earth in a mature state.
But that doesn't mean that He didn't do it in 6 days.
As to the "retranslation, redactions, etc" of the Bible... they've found very, very old scrolls... incredibly old writings... of some of the Torah and guess what? They were 99% faithful to the ones that are found today, with almost no change. There's one thing that Jewish scholars are known for, and that is that they are extremely careful when copying their holy scrolls. Have you ever seen any videos or pictures of Jewish rabbis handling Torah scrolls? They treat those things like they are made out of gold. They treat them like they are priceless.
Contrast that to some Christians that hold up a Bible, waving it around and then thump it loudly down on a podium with barely any respect for it whatsoever.
Upvote
0
Your questions have nothing to do with the age of the Earth according to the Bible, but I'll answer them anyways.
Yes, all major tenants of Christianity are covered in the Bible. No, they are not covered in both the OT and NT, as the NT has much more to say about Christ and the nature of salvation whereas the OT does not. Jesus does speak directly to most of them.
I know why you are asking these questions: you think that in order for the age of the Earth to be taught dogmatically then Jesus, the NT, and the OT all need to have talked about it. But, I've already told you that the age of the Earth was never their concern, because nobody back then cared how old the Earth was. Nowadays we do, so we have traced the Biblical timeline and found the Earth to be much younger than what secular society thinks.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
