Age of the earth

[champuru]

Jesus said that the words in Genesis are God's words.

Please, read the material I have given before critiquing. It could not have been a parable for several historical and grammatical reasons. The sabbath rest also is a clear implication of the creation week being literal. As for creation scientists proving your two points, well they are working on such things, have theories about them and have a lot a hard evidence to back up a young earth creation theology.

But that is not the issue. The current issue is reconciling that Jesus said the account is the word of God and is was originally meant to be taken literally with old-earth creationsim.

I'm going to be honest here, I do not know anything about ancient hebrew so I cannot argue for or against that. On the other hand, how can you possibly have hard evidense for day and night being independent of the sun? That makes absolutely no sense.

What in the world are you talking about? How do hermaphrodites fit in here??? Plust, the quote Jesus gave regarding the creation account is not releveant. The relevant part was that he prefaced the quote by clearly indicating that while Moses penned the text, it was the word of God. Or would you have us believe that God inspired only bits and pieces of the text?

Well it was just a bit of tongue and cheek humor about how if humans weren't man and woman they would be hermaphrodites. Also something can be inspired by God but also be allegorical.

 

[dead2self]

Augustine, himself, as is well known, states in connection with the days of Genesis 1, "What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive."

Anselm may be read to follow this lead in his supposition that "the 'days' of Moses' account ... are not to be equated with the days in which we live."

John Colet held that Genesis 1 was written in "the manner of a popular poet" [more poetae alicuius popularis]. In the Augustinian tradition, Colet views the precise meaning of the days of Genesis 1 as so difficult to untangle that he writes (tongue in cheek): "nothing could be more like night than these Mosaic days."

You got me there I am afraid. I should rally know better than to affirm an absolute in the negative. I point out this error when atheists proclaim there is no God and now make the error myself. I sahll modify my statement to say that to the best of my knowlege, it was the mainstream view that these passages were to be taken literally. The view that they are allegorical has, so far as I can see, only reached mainstream acceptance in modern times. Thanks for pointing out the error friend

Though I take issue with Mr. Colet's statement. In English translations he may be correct, but the origianl Hebrew was by no means written in poetic style.

Even highly conservative Prebyterians of the 1800s and 1900s disagree with you. Neither Charles Hodge, nor his son, A. A. Hodge, nor B. B. Warfield regarded the six 24 hour day view of creation as exegetically required by a careful reading of Genesis 1.

A small point admittedly, but I'd include 19th and 20th century thinkers in the modern age.

 

[dead2self]

There is nothing conclusive about it whatsoever. First of all conservative scholars believe that even if Moses wrote some of the Pentateuch he would have used earlier sources. Secondly, the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1:1-2:4a is a New Year Festival that predates Moses.

Actually it is most conclusive. Watertight and absolutely sure in fact. Jesus Himself placed authorship with Moses. All the worlds scholars cannot trump the words of our Lord. As for earlier sources, God is the source. Moses wrote the Pentateuch God inspired what He wrote.

 

[dead2self]

Creation And Chaos in the Primeval Era And the Eschaton: A Religio-historical Study of Genesis 1 and Revelation 12

Sorry but I am not about to shell out 30 dollars for a book I know nothing about save that it seems likely to argue for a point I am strongly opposed to. Perhaps if you were to use a quote from the work we could discuss it properly.

 

[dead2self]

Or a clear reason for writing a non-literal passage, depending on your view.

Hmm...I must admit to not being able to see where you are going with that. The sabbath is a clear indication of a literal 6 day creation. As after the 6 days, God rested 1 day, so we are to rest 1 day after six days of work. The Bible itself uses this comparison, which while I would not sya it conclusively proves the literal view, it does aide it coupled with other facts. I do not see how it is a clear reason fro writing a non-literal passage. Could you please expand upon this for me?

 

[dead2self]

I'm going to be honest here, I do not know anything about ancient hebrew so I cannot argue for or against that. On the other hand, how can you possibly have hard evidense for day and night being independent of the sun? That makes absolutely no sense.

I cannot claim to have hard evidence and never did. I also have not looked into this matter so do not know if it exists. But I can tell you this. Many preposterous ideas that kmade no sense have been proven. Creation scientists are, as we speak, researching the hard questions asked by old-earthers. As this work progress, science goes further to back up the position of YEC as more proofs are found. We cannot explain everything. God is awfully big and complex, as is His creation. Likely we will not have the answers in this life.

Well it was just a bit of tongue and cheek humor about how if humans weren't man and woman they would be hermaphrodites. Also something can be inspired by God but also be allegorical.

Yes I agree, something can be inspired and allagorical. I never made a claim to the contrary. My point is that the creation account is not such an instance and I have given proofs to that effect. I have still not seen anything to refute one of those proofs or prove the opposing view.

 

[Samuro]

If the earth is millions of years old, death existed before Adam. The garden of Eden has to have been a fairy tale and by extension original sin could not have happened. Claiming that there was death before Adam guts the gospel and basically negates the cross. The first death was when God killed animals to cover Adam and Eve. This presented the concept of death to cover sins, culminating in Jesus' death to cover all our sins.

Didn't you ever notice that Jesus told storys to explain important issues (the returning son e.g.)? Would it then be possible that Adam & Eve, the Garden of Eden, and the fall of man, is a way to explain to us stupid people why things are as they are?

My theory is simple;

Earth is old. Creatures existed and died before Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve are symbols of the first intelligent race of humans, and God gave us that intelligence - thus, creation of intelligent life. Then, God gave us the possibility to do some sort of sin (represented for easy understandin in the bible as an apple), and we did it. Thus we were introduced to the concept of death.

Why have so many christians so big issues with the fact that God can tell storys not ment to be taken literal? Jesus did it, and he was God in human form. And Jesus never said "read every word from the old testament word by word". He said "that is what God intended to say, so read it with care". This still doesnt mean that he wanted us to read each word literally. If so - we should still run around killing gay people...

 

[artybloke]

I sahll modify my statement to say that to the best of my knowlege, it was the mainstream view that these passages were to be taken literally.

If Augustine and Anselm were not mainstream in their day (certainly in the Western church) then I don't know who was. Even Protestantism without Augustine & Anselm wouldn't be what it is.

And what is meant anyway by "literal"? Just because something is "literal" doesn't stop it from being fictional. And just because something is fictional doesn't mean it's not true.

And there is no such thing as creation "science." It's a devilish deception.

 

[dead2self]

If Augustine and Anselm were not mainstream in their day (certainly in the Western church) then I don't know who was. Even Protestantism without Augustine & Anselm wouldn't be what it is.

I may be worng on this, and if so the so be it, it is not a vital point ot my argument. But I do believe that the majority of Christianity until modern times took a literal view of this passage.

And what is meant anyway by "literal"? Just because something is "literal" doesn't stop it from being fictional. And just because something is fictional doesn't mean it's not true.

Of course literal does not necessarily mean not fictional. But that is not the topic I am discussing. The point is, whethere accurate of not the intent of the original author was to be taken literally.

And there is no such thing as creation "science." It's a devilish deception.

That is an uniformed statement that you cannot back up. I can state that as I know there is indeed creation science. Frankly I find your statment that I am promoting a devilish deception offensive.

 

[ahiggs]

i am just getting in on this, but can any one show me where there is any proof that the earth is older than roughly 6000 years old?

 

[artybloke]

Try reading a reliable science book - one about geology will do. Or you could try www.talkorigins.org; but don't expect it to be easy. The mistake an awful lot of people make is to go for the option that is simplest to understand. Science is difficult, it involves lots of complex maths and ideas.

The fact is that there is overwhelming evidence in favour of an old earth, and any attempt to force contemporary science into a straightjacket of literalistic Biblical interpretation is doomed to fail.

 

[ahiggs]

how do they date the rocks in those geology books?

 

[artybloke]

Google "radiometric dating" for starters. (And by the way, carbon 14 ain't the only form, and isn't used to date rocks anyway.) Then read a few books.

Don't expect me to do your work for you. If you're honest enough to examine the evidence without deciding on the conclusion beforehand (the general creationist ploy) then you'll not need me to trawl through the internet for you.

 

[ahiggs]

from answers in Genesis
"
Science and Assumptions

Scientists use observational science to measure the amount of a daughter element within a rock sample and to determine the present observable decay rate of the parent element. Dating methods must also rely on another kind of science called historical science. Historical science cannot be observed. Determining the conditions present when a rock first formed can only be studied through historical science. Determining how the environment might have affected a rock also falls under historical science. Neither condition is directly observable. Since radioisotope dating uses both types of science, we can’t directly measure the age of something. We can use scientific techniques in the present, combined with assumptions about historical events, to estimate the age. Therefore, there are several assumptions that must be made in radioisotope dating. Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating:

1. The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.
2. The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
3. The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed. "

 

[Markus6]

Hmm...I must admit to not being able to see where you are going with that. The sabbath is a clear indication of a literal 6 day creation. As after the 6 days, God rested 1 day, so we are to rest 1 day after six days of work. The Bible itself uses this comparison, which while I would not sya it conclusively proves the literal view, it does aide it coupled with other facts. I do not see how it is a clear reason fro writing a non-literal passage. Could you please expand upon this for me?

The first observation would be that God does not need to rest. This couples nicely with Jesus' statement that "The Sabbath was made for man," in Mark 2. Assuming the passage was written according to mainstream science there would be no model of the sabbath provided. A non-literal passage provides a model for the sabbath, and is designed to communicate the message that it is God ordained, but it would be a mistake to take it too literally and think that God got tired after 6 days or that God is bound by the sabbath.

Can I ask your opinion on the different accounts of Genesis 1 and 2?

i am just getting in on this, but can any one show me where there is any proof that the earth is older than roughly 6000 years old?

The most obvious as far as I am concerned is that even the closest star is a lot further away than 6000 light years away which means that when you look at them you are seeing back into the past further than creation scientists say is possible.

 

[Iosias]

Actually it is most conclusive. Watertight and absolutely sure in fact. Jesus Himself placed authorship with Moses. All the worlds scholars cannot trump the words of our Lord. As for earlier sources, God is the source. Moses wrote the Pentateuch God inspired what He wrote.

So did Moses write Deuteronomy 34?

 

[dead2self]

Try reading a reliable science book - one about geology will do. Or you could try www.talkorigins.org; but don't expect it to be easy. The mistake an awful lot of people make is to go for the option that is simplest to understand. Science is difficult, it involves lots of complex maths and ideas.

The fact is that there is overwhelming evidence in favour of an old earth, and any attempt to force contemporary science into a straightjacket of literalistic Biblical interpretation is doomed to fail.

Ok friend, I'm not an unread moron here. I know sciene is complex. In fact I used to be a hardcore evolutionist because of your vaunted science books. I have seen your so called evidence and actually looked into it and discovered much of it to be unbacked by real science. So much is theory and speculation. And so much of the overwhelming evidence you see in favour of old earth is starting to be loooked at in a new light even by those who will not accept YEC. What is actually happening is that old earth science is struggling to force the facts into their views, not the other way around. As science advances YEC becomes more and more probable.

But what I really want answered by you is how to reconcile Jesus' claim that Genesis is the word of God with the fact that the author of Genesis meant for it to be taken literally. Still haven't had that dealt with with any facts or proofs. Just with denials not backed by anything or attempts to prove the age of the earth.

 

[dead2self]

Google "radiometric dating" for starters. (And by the way, carbon 14 ain't the only form, and isn't used to date rocks anyway.) Then read a few books.

Don't expect me to do your work for you. If you're honest enough to examine the evidence without deciding on the conclusion beforehand (the general creationist ploy) then you'll not need me to trawl through the internet for you.

Oh wow, you "proof" relies upon radiometric dating. How troubling...

Perhaps you need to read up on some reliable science and actually look at radiometric dating honestly. Unless one is blindly insistant on seeing old earth proof, nothing in radiometric dating helps old earthers at all.

 

[dead2self]

The first observation would be that God does not need to rest. This couples nicely with Jesus' statement that "The Sabbath was made for man," in Mark 2. Assuming the passage was written according to mainstream science there would be no model of the sabbath provided. A non-literal passage provides a model for the sabbath, and is designed to communicate the message that it is God ordained, but it would be a mistake to take it too literally and think that God got tired after 6 days or that God is bound by the sabbath.

Ok, God lied to us so we could understand the Sabbath better then. Gotcha. And son't buy it, sorry.

Can I ask your opinion on the different accounts of Genesis 1 and 2?

Same events looked at from different views. One delas with creation in general and one focuses more on localised events.

The most obvious as far as I am concerned is that even the closest star is a lot further away than 6000 light years away which means that when you look at them you are seeing back into the past further than creation scientists say is possible.

Hmm..I allways thought the closest star was 8 light minutes away...you know, Sol.

Anyway, this is hardly the achilles heel you hoped for.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=446
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/267.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4389starlight10-10-2000.asp

 

[dead2self]

So did Moses write Deuteronomy 34?

Ok, I was going to specify this exception but it is so obvious I didn't bother. And nowhere have I or anyone else I have seen claimed he wrote that chapter. Also, as it is the final chapter of these 5 books and we are dealing with the first chapters of these books it is a non issue.