Age of the earth

[Iosias]

I am simply seeking to understand the other side

Well my first suggestion would be to get clued up on terminology, an easy read is Gene M. Tucker's Form Criticism of the Old Testament. In it he introduces Prose and Poetry. He then goes through each type and breaks each of these down again. He discusses Genesis although not in any major depth, as it is introductory. Once you have read this you should be able to distinguish between 'poetic prose' and Poetry and you will understand the difference between them. This is an essential distinction which confuses many conservative evangelicals, i.e. they hear 'poetic' and think I am calling Genesis 1-2 Poetry where I am in fact saying it is a sub-genre of Prose.

Once you have the terminology sorted I would suggest you have a read of these commentaries, they are expensive so I would use Inter-Library Lending if I were you (as you move down they get more conservative):

Genesis by Hermann Gunkel (preview here)
Genesis by Claus Westermann
Genesis by Gordon Wenham
Genesis by John H. Walton

 

[artybloke]

i know i have asked this before, but i will ask again...can you give me one piece of evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years that does not require that before the test is run that you make the assumption it is older than that

All of them. Please read up properly on dating techniques.

Goobye and thanks for the continued insults.

It's not my fault you're gullible.

 

[ahiggs]

you gave me one and it isn't accurate. you don't want to believe Gods word is accurate and credible, and i can't make you believe it.

 

[artybloke]

you gave me one and it isn't accurate.

It seems pretty accurate to me. If you want to go ahead and do your own research, make sure you go to a reputable scientific source (say, the University of Princeton).

you don't want to believe Gods word is accurate and credible

The Bible is certainly credible as a religious book that leads people to God. It is, however, not, and was never intended to be, a scientific text. It has no interest in, nor bearing on, science; as science is totally separate to the purposes of the Bible. None of the writers of the Bible were remotely interested in science, as science as a discipline didn't even exist at the time.

It affects none of the great truths of the Bible to say that the first few chapters of Genesis were couched in symbolic and poetic language. It has often seemed to me that the fundamentalist view of scripture is far more modernistic than even the scientific view; because it assumes that all truth has to be couched in historical/scientific ways otherwise "it's not really true," or "not as true." But truth is truth, whether told through story, parable or even through history.

So the creation story is true, whether it happened in 6 days, exactly as the Bible states; or it happened as a result of a long process of slow change and evolution. God is still the author of creation; and it is His creation that shows itself to be 4.5 billion years old. Whereas it was human beings who wrote the scriptures, with all their human limitations and understanding. God does not lie in His universe.

 

[ahiggs]

the problem with it taking millions of years is this...if it took millions of years there would be death before sin. it was the sin of man that caused death. now we are out of the science and into the validity of scripture.

 

[artybloke]

it was the sin of man that caused death.

It was the sin of man that caused spiritual death. Physical death is just something that happens to anything that lives.

now we are out of the science and into the validity of scripture.

The validity of scripture ain't got nothing to do with it. The truth or otherwise of scripture doesn't stand or fall if your interpretation of it is incorrect. The validity of your interpretation of scripture maybe. But your interpretation of scripture ain't the only one nor is it necessarily the most correct.

Besides which, the scriptures are not divine.

 

[ahiggs]

one can't interprate scripture, you can understand it or misunderstand it...scripture is the word of God, scripture is the truth. you can't interprate truth it is what it is. you either believe it or not

 

[artybloke]

one can't interprate scripture, you can understand it or misunderstand it

You seem to think that interpreting the scriptures is somehow different from understanding and misunderstanding it. Well, we all of us both understand and misiunderstand it, and in the space between the two is where interpretation sits. None of us, not your church, nor mine, has a complete understanding of scripture.

Besides, the Bible you're reading is probably a translation from a set of ancient documents that are themselves copies of copies of copies of copies (x50+?) of ancient originals that were written in ancient versions of Greek and Hebrew (and occasionally Aramaic) that nobody speaks anymore. The New Testament textual variations alone amount to more than the number of verses in the New Testament!

Before the Bible has even got into your hands, it's already been interpreted by a large team of translators! (All translation involves a degree of interpretation.) Some of whom probably spent long hours arguing the meaning of a single word, or even where to put the vowels in the Hebrew!

So the Bible in your hand is not the Word of God (a title the NT itself reserves for Christ, not the Bible, by the way), it is an imperfect, human vessel containing the Word of God.

All this, of course, is before we even get to the vexed question of whether anybody reads the text of the Bible without already having a set of assumptions about what they will find there. The "looking down the well of history and finding your own face reflected in the pool at the bottom" phenomenon.

Of course your reading of the Bible is an interpretation. All reading of any text, especially one as old as the Bible, is an interpretation. Otherwise we wouldn't have so many Christians reading the same passages and coming to different conclusions about what it says.

Take a look at Bart D. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus sometime.

 

[walt2000]

chart of Revelations

 

[walt2000]

Revelations.walt2000

 

[ahiggs]

You seem to think that interpreting the scriptures is somehow different from understanding and misunderstanding it. Well, we all of us both understand and misiunderstand it, and in the space between the two is where interpretation sits. None of us, not your church, nor mine, has a complete understanding of scripture.

Besides, the Bible you're reading is probably a translation from a set of ancient documents that are themselves copies of copies of copies of copies (x50+?) of ancient originals that were written in ancient versions of Greek and Hebrew (and occasionally Aramaic) that nobody speaks anymore. The New Testament textual variations alone amount to more than the number of verses in the New Testament!

Before the Bible has even got into your hands, it's already been interpreted by a large team of translators! (All translation involves a degree of interpretation.) Some of whom probably spent long hours arguing the meaning of a single word, or even where to put the vowels in the Hebrew!

So the Bible in your hand is not the Word of God (a title the NT itself reserves for Christ, not the Bible, by the way), it is an imperfect, human vessel containing the Word of God.

All this, of course, is before we even get to the vexed question of whether anybody reads the text of the Bible without already having a set of assumptions about what they will find there. The "looking down the well of history and finding your own face reflected in the pool at the bottom" phenomenon.

Of course your reading of the Bible is an interpretation. All reading of any text, especially one as old as the Bible, is an interpretation. Otherwise we wouldn't have so many Christians reading the same passages and coming to different conclusions about what it says.

Take a look at Bart D. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus sometime.

is there any part of supernatural scripture that you believe?

 

[artybloke]

is there any part of supernatural scripture that you believe?

The Bible is not supernatural, nor does it claim to be. It did not come down to us from heaven on golden plates, it was not dictated by an angel, it is not the fourth member of the Trinity; it was written by human beings, with human minds and human limitations. These human beings were inspired to write by their experience of God, but they did so in their own terms, using the language and the world-view they were living in, and they were writing without any sense that somebody 2000 years later would still be reading it.

The message of the Bible (not the words), the truth behind the words, comes from God. That you could say is divine. The Spirit that inspired the writers is divine. The Spirit that inspires us to find truth and interpret the Bible and to see God in the world and people he created is divine.

It seems to me that most fundamentalists have replaced the Pope in Rome with a paper Pope.

 

[ahiggs]

no a virgin birth and God becoming a man is quite supernatural

 

[Chickapee]

Hi fellows ,

After reading all of I Corinthians the speaking in new tongues , is a spiritual toungue , language , and the Word of God is our Foundation , upon the new heavens and earth is built , and the builder is God Hbr 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker [is] God.

the Spiritual is very much anti flesh or the literal and natural corruptive state the physical world consist of ..
remember NO FLESH , pleases God we must worship Him in Spirit and Truth
of Which GOD is Spirit and TRUTH .. there is no getting around that , it is scriptural

1Cr 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
peace C ..

 

[artybloke]

no a virgin birth and God becoming a man is quite supernatural

I've no doubt. But what has that to do with the Bible itself being supernatural? Isn't the Incarnation part of the message of the Bible, and didn't I say:

The message of the Bible (not the words), the truth behind the words, comes from God.

PS: Personal note: I've never been terribly fond of the word "spernatural"; too many "Year's Best Supernatural Tales" on my mother's bookshelf makes me think of ghosties and ghoulies when I hear the word. I prefer the word "divine."

 

[ahiggs]

i do believe that the bible itself is inspired by God so therefore supernatural...but that is not the point if the biggest miracle in the bible (God becoming a man) is true why not the rest?

 

[Chickapee]

the age of the earth is as old as the hills [rulers] that has been keeping the innocent judged as guilty Jesus Christ has come [sent by God ] to change that

hills are a anology to rulers people in charge who has been given some power to rule like kings and such
the Holy Mountain is Christ Jesus and the Kingdom of God , we see these types of rulers [hill] in proverbs 8 we see this perception quiet well ..

Gal 1:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.


Deu 27:25 Cursed [be] he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen.

here the law is ministrating death , in the mouth of two or three witnesses they die without mercy
Mercy is of God through Jesus Christ
I am a sinner saved by grace [under the Law of moses i am as dead by it guilty as charged ] and redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ
peace C

 

[artybloke]

Of course the Bible is true.

It's just not always "historically true." There are other kinds of truth than literal, historic truth.

The bible is not one kind of literature; it's lots of different kinds of literature. Poetry, fable, legend, parable, prophecy, "wisdom literature", a kind of Socratic dialogue (Job), epistle, apocalyptic, law - and history. The creation story is just not "history," that's all.

The Gospels at least claim to be history, and contain history. Whether they're 100% accurate in all details is another thing; but they can be assessed as history. The Genesis creation stories are no such thing, and cannot be assessed as such. Their truth is deeper, more symbolic, more meaningful than mere facticity.

 

[marktheblake]

One of the problems with the modern 'fundamentalists' is that they don't seem to realise that the OT we have in our hands has been edited over many centuries.

You can only know this, if you have seen the earlier versions scriptures. So what did they originally say?

They don't seem to realise that the written records are based upon oral traditions which arose in cultic settings

Why do you consider that oral traditions is flawed?

 

[Vradan]

If you really are a Christian you would agree that the earth is indeed 6000 years old because there is the 7000 year theory that Jesus will come in the year 7000 and we are currently living in the 6000. The theory is a myth, but that the earth is 6000 years old is fact.

I will agree with dead2self, he has provided the most information. JJpasinella, do go for informal answers. Not people who are posting own opinion.