Young earth vs Old earth?

[impressedquote194]

Which one is biblical? explain why.

 

[Job 33:6]

Which one is biblical? explain why.

Genesis doesn't address the issue. Moses wasn't lecturing the Isrealites on radiometric dating. Neither one is Biblical because the Bible isn't about either.

Ancient Isrealites discussed creation through the worldview of Ancient Isrealite Cosmology:

 

[David Lamb]

Which one is biblical? explain why.

The bible says that God created all kinds of plants and animals, not that He created non-living matter which over millions of years developed into single celled life, which in turn developed over further millions/billions of years to all the animals, plants and human beings we have today. So I say the bible teaches a comparatively young earth.

 

[Apple Sky]

Genesis doesn't address the issue. Moses wasn't lecturing the Isrealites on radiometric dating. Neither one is Biblical because the Bible isn't about either.

Ancient Isrealites discussed creation through the worldview of Ancient Isrealite Cosmology:

Which is true to this day.

 

[Job 33:6]

David, you should be aware that apple sky is a geocentrist when he says that. @David Lamb

 

[David Lamb]

David, you should be aware that apple sky is a geocentrist when he says that. @David Lamb

Yes, I know. I was agreeing that Genesis is as true to day as it was when God inspired Moses to write it (and I know you don't believe that Moses did write Genesis.) I wasn't agreeing with her (Apple Sky is a woman) flat-earth, geocentric ideas.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes, I know. I was agreeing that Genesis is as true to day as it was when God inspired Moses to write it (and I know you don't believe that Moses did write Genesis.) I wasn't agreeing with her (Apple Sky is a woman) flat-earth, geocentric ideas.

Perhaps we should ask Apple sky to clarify if they were referring to the former or the latter. Everyone would agree with the former. But I suspect that neither you or I would agree with the latter.

@Apple Sky

And I do hold to the traditional view that Moses wrote Genesis. Although it would require editing from another author in circumstances where he wrote of his own death.

I would just call it a matter of accomodation. That the teaching is theological, not cosmological.

 

[David Lamb]

Perhaps we should ask Apple sky to clarify if they were referring to the former or the latter. Everyone would agree with the former. But I suspect that neither you or I would agree with the latter.

@Apple Sky

And I do hold to the traditional view that Moses wrote Genesis. Although it would require editing from another author in circumstances where he wrote of his own death.

I have discussed such things as the shape of the earth, the truth of the moon landings and the nature of the firmament literally hundreds of times with apple Sky on these forums, so she knows I do not agree with her flat earth ideas and the like.

 

[Apple Sky]

David, you should be aware that apple sky is a geocentrist when he says that. @David Lamb

She

 

[Apple Sky]

Perhaps we should ask Apple sky to clarify if they were referring to the former or the latter. Everyone would agree with the former. But I suspect that neither you or I would agree with the latter.

The latter.

 

[Job 33:6]

The latter.

@David Lamb, you see?

 

[Job 33:6]

Alright, so all the above said, it appears as though we currently have 3 positions.

YEC, it's Biblical - David Lamb

Flat Earth, it's Biblical - Apple Sky

Ancient Isrealite Cosmology (which is debatably old earth), it's accommodation, not actual Biblical teaching. -Job 33:6

Alright, glad we've cleared this topic up!

 

[David Lamb]

@David Lamb, you see?

I have already said that I know Apple Sky believes in a flat, geocentric earth.

 

[David Lamb]

Alright, so all the above said, it appears as though we currently have 3 positions.

YEC, it's Biblical - David Lamb

Flat Earth, it's Biblical - Apple Sky

Ancient Isrealite Cosmology (which is debatably old earth), it's accommodation, not actual Biblical teaching. -Job 33:6

Alright, glad we've cleared this topic up!

I agree with that. There are plenty of us who believe as I do here, at least, to judge by the content of their posts.

 

[Job 33:6]

I have already said that I know Apple Sky believes in a flat, geocentric earth.

I'm just saying that, I found it odd that you liked Apple Sky's post, saying that she agreed with what I said, she then confirmed the latter, being that the concept "liked" is related to things like geocentrism and flat earth concepts of ANE cosmology.

Which, at least as far as I'm aware, you don't typically agree with.

In short, you seem to have liked a post that really didn't favor either of our positions, despite how it was framed.

Which you're of course free to do, I just found it surprising because I don't think that you're a flat earther like apple sky is.

I wouldn't like apply sky's post, even though she says that she agrees with my post, because I view it as a matter of accomodation, not actual Biblical teaching. But here, you have liked her post, yet I would imagine you would be further from either of our positions.

Alternatively, we could just all collectively agree that we believe the Bible is true. That might be as far as we get.

 

[David Lamb]

I'm just saying that, I found it odd that you liked Apple Sky's post, saying that she agreed with what I said, she then confirmed the latter, being that the concept "liked" is related to things like geocentrism and flat earth concepts of ANE cosmology.

Which, at least as far as I'm aware, you don't typically agree with.

In short, you seem to have liked a post that really didn't favor either of our positions, despite how it was framed.

Which you're of course free to do, I just found it surprising because I don't think that you're a flat earther like apple sky is.

I wouldn't like apply sky's post, even though she says that she agrees with my post, because I view it as a matter of accomodation, not actual Biblical teaching. But here, you have liked her post, yet I would imagine you would be further from either of our positions.

Alternatively, we could just all collectively agree that we believe the Bible is true. That might be as far as we get.

Although I seem to get on well with Apple Sky, I rarely agree with her. Maybe her post which I said I agreed with was saying more than I initially thought. Anyway, from your earlier post, it seems as though we are clear now on what we each believe.

 

[Apple Sky]

Flat Earth, it's Biblical - Apple Sky

Yes - Very much so.

 

[Fervent]

If you choose to be a Biblical literalist and insist that the only way to understand Genesis is as literal history, that's fine. But that's based on faith, not on what evidence we have available. The issue comes when you try to defend your position as a scientific hypothesis when it isn't and push pseudoscience and misinformation, it's an article of faith that not all believers subscribe to not a scientific hypothesis.

 

[impressedquote194]

I Don't think we can just ignore what science has shown us that is what GOD has chosen to reveal to us in his own perfect time. Young earth Creationism just doesn't feel right to me but i respect and invite a healthy debate on the topic i remain open to different opinions on this.

 

[CoreyD]

Which one is biblical? explain why.

There are several reasons for believing and accepting, without any doubt, that the earth is old. How old? No living person knows... well, no living human, that is.

Here are the Biblical reasons supporting an old earth.

1. Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Full stop. Then turns attention to the earth. Genesis 1:2-5 2 ...the earth was a [a]formless and desolate emptiness, and darkness was over the [b]surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the [c]surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “[d]Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” And there was evening and there was morning, one day. The heavens were created before the earth, and we know what the heavens refer to in scripture. Genesis 2:1, 4; Exodus 20:11; Exodus 31:17
2. God separated the light from the darkness, and called the light “day”, and the darkness He called “night". So, there was day and night, on day one. Hence, the sun existed, from day one.
3. There was evening and morning which completed day one, but when was evening and morning? I'll address this later.
4. Genesis 1:14-18 14 Then God said, “Let there be [s]lights in the [t]expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and they shall [u]serve as signs and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and they [v]shall serve as lights in the [w]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light [x]to govern the day, and the lesser light [y]to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the [z]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and [aa]to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. God said, Let there be [s]lights in the [t]expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. ...to separate the day from the night. Day and night exists - the light was day, and the darkness, night, but no lights are visible in the expanse to visually separate the day from the night, and ]serve as signs and for seasons, and for days and years, so God makes these lights appear visibly in the sky.
5. Genesis 1:25-31 25 God made the animals of the earth according to [ag]their kind, and the livestock according to [ah]their kind, and everything that crawls on the ground according to its kind; 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. On day six, God created land animals and man and woman. During day six, 19 out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the livestock, and to the birds of the sky, and to every animal of the field, but for [q]Adam there was not found a helper [r]suitable for him. Genesis 1:19, 20 Adam was created before the woman, and we know this was a considerably long time, because there were animals created before Adam, and after Adam, and God was bringing each animal kind to Adam, for him to name each one. Reasonably, Adam would study these animals to give them a suitable name, which would take a considerable amount of time... more than 24 hours.
6. Genesis 1:21-23 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 And the Lord God [s]fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, “At last this is bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; [t]She shall be called [u]‘woman,’ Because [v]she was taken out of [w]man.” God later makes a wife for the man, who exclaims, "At last...". Finally, Adam has what he was missing, and longed for. Reasonably, this does not happen within a 24 hour day.
7. Genesis 2 is actually recounting the history of creation, from the creation of the heaven, to the creation of Eve, and explains that fact this way... Genesis 2:4 [c]This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven. In the day the Lord made the heavens and earth, refers not to a 24 hour day, but a period of time, similar to the use of the word day in Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31. These refer to a period of time... not from man's point of view, but rather, from God's point of view. Referring to them as, an evening and morning.

See my visual here... which I really should get back to.