6,000 Years?

[Jerry N.]

I read a lot of books. At this point, dozens per year. And it becomes completely unrealistic to try to do this with hard copy books.

Kindle alternatively usually has cheaper prices. It's a lot easier to do word searches to fly straight to the references you want. It's just much easier to handle.

And in fact, I referenced 3 different books just while speaking to you. And it only takes me 10 seconds or so to open one up, type in "Enuma Elish" and fly straight to the text to copy here to you.

So, I would personally recommend a kindle reader. But I have plenty of hard copy books too, so I guess it's about what people are comfortable with. Some people just like having a regular book that they can just toss in the closet when they're done. Kindles you have to worry about dropping it and such.

Thanks. Is Kindle easier on the eyes than a computer screen?

 

[tampasteve]

How do you feel about the fact that, the text must be plainly interpretable, yet realistically none of us are able to read ancient Hebrew and thus can't even read what God has revealed? We have to rely on PHD Hebrew scholars to translate it for us?

I was a convert to Judaism at one time, so I do read and speak some Hebrew and I have personally investigated a lot about near eastern culture and the secular view of the origin of the Hebrew people. But, as Christians a t some point we have to trust in the Holy Spirit to lead people to the translations that we have.

As surprising as it may sound, I actually fully understand what you're saying. I personally think there is a 3rd way to handle the divide between modern science and biblical faith, but I'm not going to get into that. It's enough for me to be charitable to all of my fellow Trinitarian brethren, despite whatever position on 'origins and the bible' they may have. Besides, for me, 'origins and the bible' is a secondary issue rather than a primary issue.

Anyway, thanks for further unpacking and explaining your thoughts on this. It helps me to empathize with how other Christians are working through these issues.

Peace, and have a blessed day, TS!

Thank you for your kind words, I really appreciate it. I understand we are not all going to agree, but having some level of understanding where one is coming from and one's world view really goes a long way. It is a pleasure to speak with you here.

I read a lot of books. At this point, dozens per year. And it becomes completely unrealistic to try to do this with hard copy books.

Kindle alternatively usually has cheaper prices. It's a lot easier to do word searches to fly straight to the references you want. It's just much easier to handle.

And in fact, I referenced 3 different books just while speaking to you. And it only takes me 10 seconds or so to open one up, type in "Enuma Elish" and fly straight to the text to copy here to you.

So, I would personally recommend a kindle reader. But I have plenty of hard copy books too, so I guess it's about what people are comfortable with. Some people just like having a regular book that they can just toss in the closet when they're done. Kindles you have to worry about dropping it and such.

I love my kindle, I have the app on two Kindle Fire (7 and 10 inch) and a Kindle ereader - I think they are great. I love how they synch between devices and my notes are on each of them. I vastly prefer a hard copy for my Bibles, but for anything else I get a kindle copy. It is also easy to borrow e-books from libraries using a Kindle.

 

[tampasteve]

Thanks. Is Kindle easier on the eyes than a computer screen?

You can use a night mode that helps remove blue from the Kindle tablets. Kindle e-ink e-readers are very easy on the eyes, much like a real book.

 

[Jerry N.]

You can use a night mode that helps remove blue from the Kindle tablets. Kindle e-ink e-readers are very easy on the eyes, much like a real book.

Thanks. I have a birthday coming up, so it might be just the thing to buy.

 

[Job 33:6]

Thanks. Is Kindle easier on the eyes than a computer screen?

There are settings. You can choose different brightnesses and colors. And nighttime reading settings etc. you can also make text really big if the words are hard to see.

Like this​

So, at least for me, sometimes I just make the text gigantic and it's easier for me to read than some books.

 

[Jerry N.]

There are settings. You can choose different brightnesses and colors. And nighttime reading settings etc. you can also make text really big if the words are hard to see.

Like this​

So, at least for me, sometimes I just make the text gigantic and it's easier for me to read than some books.

That is important information. Thank you very much.

 

[Job 33:6]

I was a convert to Judaism at one time, so I do read and speak some Hebrew and I have personally investigated a lot about near eastern culture and the secular view of the origin of the Hebrew people. But, as Christians a t some point we have to trust in the Holy Spirit to lead people to the translations that we have.

I feel like this presents a strange dichotomy. In one hand you have concerns about the Bible, what if it were too difficult for everyday people? Even for Hebrew speakers, they rarely would additionally speak Greek and aramaic as well.

How could anyone say, well it must be read as though it were written by a modern scientist (including things like the age of the earth) for the sake of being simple, but then simultaneously you also recognize that no person today can actually read the Bible (without PHD translators converting things for us)?

The reality is that, apart from the gospel. Or very basic messaging, there really isn't anything simple about the Bible at all.

Even if we wish that it could be, it's just not. And it's not clear to me that, saying that the worlds scientists are all wrong, is going to somehow make the Bible any more easier to understand.

 

[Jerry N.]

I feel like this presents a strange dichotomy. In one hand you have concerns about the Bible, what if it were too difficult for everyday people? Even for Hebrew speakers, they rarely would additionally speak Greek and aramaic as well.

How could anyone say, well it must be read as though it were written by a modern scientist (including things like the age of the earth) for the sake of being simple, but then simultaneously you also recognize that no person today can actually read the Bible (without PHD translators converting things for us)?

The reality is that, apart from the gospel. Or very basic messaging, there really isn't anything simple about the Bible at all.

Even if we wish that it could be, it's just not. And it's not clear to me that, saying that the worlds scientists are all wrong, is going to somehow make the Bible any more easier to understand.

The beauty of the Bible is that you can discover things throughout your life, but the most important things are plain and easy to understand. If it was all easy, we would drift away from study. If it was all hard, many people would avoid it. Both things happen anyway, but it is better this way. The “doing” and the learning are different things. The “doing” gets easier in some things, but new shortcoming come up. Then we start on a new path to improve.

Science seems to have two sides. One side makes us marvel at God, but the other side, which is often more theoretical (e.g., evolution), tries to lead us away. The first seems to be primarily in the practical realm, and the latter is more of a mixed bag. I haven’t figured it out, but these discussions help.

 

[Job 33:6]

The beauty of the Bible is that you can discover things throughout your life, but the most important things are plain and easy to understand. If it was all easy, we would drift away from study. If it was all hard, many people would avoid it. Both things happen anyway, but it is better this way. The “doing” and the learning are different things. The “doing” gets easier in some things, but new shortcoming come up. Then we start on a new path to improve.

Science seems to have two sides. One side makes us marvel at God, but the other side, which is often more theoretical (e.g., evolution), tries to lead us away. The first seems to be primarily in the practical realm, and the latter is more of a mixed bag. I haven’t figured it out, but these discussions help.

Sure. Unfortunately, scientists oftentimes do not make for good public speakers. But you have some here than can also assist in discussion. I used to debate topics of science in the past. I'm not too active as I used to be in that space (fortunately but also unfortunately, atheists have somewhat taken that role over), but I am a geologist if you're curious about the earth sciences.

Personally, I think that if the Bible is not rightly understood, then it's inevitable that people will walk away.

 

[tampasteve]

I feel like this presents a strange dichotomy. In one hand you have concerns about the Bible, what if it were too difficult for everyday people? Even for Hebrew speakers, they rarely would additionally speak Greek and aramaic as well.

How could anyone say, well it must be read as though it were written by a modern scientist (including things like the age of the earth) for the sake of being simple, but then simultaneously you also recognize that no person today can actually read the Bible (without PHD translators converting things for us)?

The reality is that, apart from the gospel. Or very basic messaging, there really isn't anything simple about the Bible at all.

Even if we wish that it could be, it's just not. And it's not clear to me that, saying that the worlds scientists are all wrong, is going to somehow make the Bible any more easier to understand.

I guess it comes down to what world view we are starting at. If we are starting at the world view that Gen is reliable and talking about a real 6 day creation as it plainly reads then how do we view the science and evidence in front of us? If we are starting at a secular or evolutionary world view then we are going to view that same science and evidence through a different lens.

I don't think the Bible is simple, but I also don't view it is as difficult as you seem to believe it to be. In my thinking I can allow for people to hold differing views on how passages are interpreted without accusing them of being absolutely incorrect, but I do think that as Christians we should start at the Bible being the foundation and lens to interpret the rest, not the other way around. I am not of the view that the Bible explains everything in detail (that would be silly), but I am of the view that it is the foundation that we need to start from to interpret the natural world around us.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The beauty of the Bible is that you can discover things throughout your life, but the most important things are plain and easy to understand. If it was all easy, we would drift away from study. If it was all hard, many people would avoid it. Both things happen anyway, but it is better this way. The “doing” and the learning are different things. The “doing” gets easier in some things, but new shortcoming come up. Then we start on a new path to improve.

Science seems to have two sides. One side makes us marvel at God, but the other side, which is often more theoretical (e.g., evolution), tries to lead us away. The first seems to be primarily in the practical realm, and the latter is more of a mixed bag. I haven’t figured it out, but these discussions help.

From what I can tell, theory is present in all aspects of science, but it is usually a very specific philosophical evaluation about scientific method which makes or breaks a person's perception of God's presence in the world.

 

[Frank Robert]

I’m not disputing the decay rate perhaps the decay rate is consistent. But you have to know the original amount of C14 in the subject in order to use that decay rate and estimate an age based on its current decay amount. The original amount of C14 is not verifiable. Assumptions are made to determine that. Funny thing is you can’t use carbon dating on a subject that’s died in the past 100 years to estimate age because of the advanced and widely variable amount of carbon in the atmosphere due to fossil fuels and due to nuclear testing this century. Makes it impossible to accurately determine the starting amount of C14

If are you claiming that carbon dating has limitations, I agree. If you claiming it is useless please provide the science research.

 

[Jerry N.]

Sure. Unfortunately, scientists oftentimes do not make for good public speakers. But you have some here than can also assist in discussion. I used to debate topics of science in the past. I'm not too active as I used to be in that space (fortunately but also unfortunately, atheists have somewhat taken that role over), but I am a geologist if you're curious about the earth sciences.

Personally, I think that if the Bible is not rightly understood, then it's inevitable that people will walk away.

The Bible is not often understood. The Holy Spirit has to take part and the reader has to have a positive point of view. An atheist friend of mine told me what he thinks the God of the Bible is like. He obviously did not understand much about the Bible, and I joked with him that I don’t believe in the God he described either. He didn’t get it. Wanting to know what God is like was not for him. He was still in the mindset that God was a bearded man sitting on a cloud.

Atheist taking over scientific study is worrisome. I don’t understand that more knowledge of the creation doesn’t point to the creator.

 

[Jerry N.]

From what I can tell, theory is present in all aspects of science, but it is usually a very specific philosophical evaluation about scientific method which makes or breaks a person's perception of God's presence in the world.

You are absolutely correct. I was trying to be brief, but you wrote it much better. I just meant that having a practical goal cuts through the bias. I am an engineer, so my view might be narrow in this regard.

 

[Platte]

If are you claiming that carbon dating has limitations, I agree. If you claiming it is useless please provide the science research.

I'm claiming because of its inherent limitation it holds no authority

 

[Jerry N.]

If are you claiming that carbon dating has limitations, I agree. If you claiming it is useless please provide the science research.

I seem to recall that a Viking grave in England was used to improve carbon dating, because they knew the date of the burial. It is one thing to say it needs improvement and another to say it is useless. Platte can answer for himself, but his words seem to be on the “needs improvement” side.

 

[Jerry N.]

I seem to recall that a Viking grave in England was used to improve carbon dating, because they knew the date of the burial. It is one thing to say it needs improvement and another to say it is useless. Platte can answer for himself, but his words seem to be on the “needs improvement” side.

I posted too soon. I'm sorry.

 

[CoreyD]

Does anybody have proof that the earth and the entire universe really is 6,000 - ish years old beyond the usual arguments that science has debunked over and over again? Arguments like the rocks in the Grand Canyon or some other such weak examples? I’m looking for reputable scientists who’ve written peer reviewed papers on the subject and gained the support of other reputable scientists?

No one has any proof. No.
There isn't any proof that the earth is about 6,000 old, nor 4.5 billion years old.
These are just hypotheses, and the "evidence" for both, is based on certain assumptions, and interpretations.

In the case of persons believing in a literal six twenty four hour days creation period, their interpretations tend to contradict other evidence in the Bible itself, that the creative days were not literally twenty four hours long.

You will find no proof however, in support of any of these "theories" - hypotheses.

 

[CoreyD]

No, I mean scientific evidence that supports the 6,000 y/o belief……evidence that hasn’t been disprove over and over again.

There is none, but there is also no scientific evidence that Jesus walked on water, but that does not mean it did not happen, or one cannot believe in faith, since what is beyond man's limited understanding is not seen with physical eyes.

Like Dark Matter one must believe that their understanding is correct, although it may not be.
Faith, too, calls for the believer to be confident - assured of what is not seen, based on the evidence available to him.

 

[CoreyD]

So they just disregard all the evidence and science? The reason I started this thread is because I’m Catholic and while Catholicism has no official position on the age of the earth, all the priests I talked to about this believe in an old universe/earth. I was LCMS for a few years, then went back to Catholicism. Hubby went with me to the LCMS when I was going there, then stopped going to church when I returned to the RCC. He went to the LCMS this past Sunday even though he is an OEC. That doesn’t bother him. I’d like us to attend church together but he isn’t interested in the RCC and I don’t believe as the LCMS does. And it really bothered me when I was going there.

He obviously has reasons for not wanting to go RCC, as you do for not wanting to go LCMS.
Remember though, that why people believe something does not hinge on what science says.
Science does not deal with God, but that does not stop any religious person from going to church.

It's a matter of what people believe, or want to believe the Bible says, so the better question would be, 'Does the Bible support the belief that the earth is about 6,000 years old?"
If the Bible supports this belief.... which it does not, that would mean that God planted super trees and grass, that sprouted and grew in less than 24 hours, as well as a whole lot of things that do not harmonize with God working.
It would be more like God saying a word, and BOOM! out pop a whole garden of trees and lush greenery.

The mountains too, popped into the air, and the waterfalls we see in pictures rejoiced.
That's not God working. That's Hollywood's Disney Animation.