how old CAN earth be?

[MagusAlbertus]

Observable science has consistently refuted evolution & the Bible is clear about the time frame of creation & its seven literal days so either take it or leave it debating it & argueing semantics will not solve a thing!

I argue that if this was not the case, it's still true that none of us was there at the foundation of the Earth: all we can say for sure is the bible is true, be it that the earth is 6 thousand years old or 6 billion years old

 

[Aduro Amnis]

The Earth can be as old as the universe, 13.7 billion years old... but it points to 4.6 billions years old .

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

[/font]
I argue that if this was not the case, it's still true that non of us was their at the foundation of the Earth and all we can say for sure is the bible is true, be it that the earth is 6k years old or 6b years old.

What are you saying? The original post cannot be parsed in English.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

none of us was there at the foundation of the Earth: all we can say for sure is the bible is true, be it that the earth is 6 thousand years old or 6 billion years old.

Sorry.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

How can we say for sure the Bible is true?

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

How can we say for sure the Bible is true?

We can not, however, as christians, we state that as basic fact. Based on this assumption, we observe the world around us based on the fact that the bible is true. However, how to interpret and use that truth, that is where we differ. It seems that some people's minds are clouded by biblical literalism, seeing the truth that the bible offers, but blind to the evidences that prove their concept of a literalist interpretation wrong.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

How can we say for sure the Bible is true?

That the truth of the teachings of Jesus being without error is the basis of my faith that God is big enough to protect what God would have us know of God through God's book.

 

[lucaspa]

[/font]
I argue that if this was not the case, it's still true that none of us was there at the foundation of the Earth:

The present is the way it is because the past was the way it was. We don't have to directly observe events in order to know they happened. After all, Magus, no one today saw the Biblical Flood, but YECers say we can know it happened and how it happened by studying geology! So yes, we can know how old the earth is.

all we can say for sure is the bible is true, be it that the earth is 6 thousand years old or 6 billion years old

True in what fashion? I would say the Bible is theologically true, but not true as far as science. And when you say "the bible is true", we have the added problem of what interpretation of the Bible are we talking about? All interpretations are man-made.

 

[lucaspa]

That the truth of the teachings of Jesus being without error is the basis of my faith that God is big enough to protect what God would have us know of God through God's book.

Then how do you explain that different Christians have different books in the Bible? You can have God protect the essential things, but that still wouldn't mean that the man-made literal interpretation and the man-made scientific theory derived from that interpretation is true.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

Then how do you explain that different Christians have different books in the Bible?

Are you just here to question faith with nothing personally to gain? Or do you truly believe that this should logicly end my faith in it's truth?

Then how do you explain that different Christians have different books in the Bible?

Because you can be a saved Christian and not have the bible, or even a bible with added books; but God always keeps it set-outside his Holy Scriptures, see the apocrypha.

 

[Bushido216]

[/font]Are you just here to question faith with nothing personally to gain? Or do you truly believe that this should logicly end my faith in it's truth?Because you can be a saved Christian and not have the bible, or even a bible with added books; but God always keeps it set-outside his Holy Scriptures, see the apocrypha*.

*Deuterocannon

 

[MagusAlbertus]

*Deuterocannon

Yea, but i'm not a Roman Catholic.

 

[Bushido216]

Not my fault.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

Not my fault.

LOL, sure it is, you Romans are only full-cort press or not-at-all with your evangelical ministries.

If you'd do something between no evangelilizing at all and conqestadors creating missions you'd be set :- p

*a joke, no offence intended*

 

[lucaspa]

Are you just here to question faith with nothing personally to gain?

I'm here to question your claims. It appears that you can't answer the questions. However, there is an answer that does not require you to give up faith.

Or do you truly believe that this should logicly end my faith in it's truth?

Because you can be a saved Christian and not have the bible, or even a bible with added books; but God always keeps it set-outside his Holy Scriptures, see the apocrypha.

Some Christians have books in the Canon that others do not. See http://www.m-w.com/mw/table/bible.htm

The Apocrypha is something completely different. These are books about God or gospels that the Church decided were not accurate and should not be considered as coming from God. If you read a couple -- such as the Infant Gospel of Thomas -- you can often see why. Jesus is a real brat in that one! http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/christian-history.html

It seems that you have been sheltered from these things, Magus. I think you need to read some history about how the books of the Bible were chosen.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

It appears that you can't answer the questions.

even though i did answer.

did you not read the bit about aprocripha?

such as the Infant Gospel of Thomas -- you can often see why...

get behind me.

 

[lucaspa]

even though i did answer did you not read the bit about aprocripha?

I did. Perhaps you'll read my posts all the way thru before you begin answering. The Apocrypha is not what you said it is.

such as the Infant Gospel of Thomas -- you can often see why...

get behind me.

That wasn't called for. I simply pointed out the Infant Gospel of Thomas to you. I didn't say it was genuine. There was no need to imply I am Satan.

However, I would note that in the Infant Gospel of Thomas, just when you are sure the whole thing is made up out of whole cloth, you come to the end and find the story of Jesus in the Temple at 12 -- exactly as you find it in Matthew and Luke!

 

[MagusAlbertus]

The Apocrypha is not what you said it is.

I didn't say The Apocrypha, i said the apocrypha; that being the aprocirphal books
to help you out here is what the dictionary says on this:

1 : writings or statements of dubious authenticity
2 capitalized a : books included in the Septuagint and Vulgate but excluded from the Jewish and Protestant canons of the Old Testament -- see [size=-1]BIBLE [/size]table b : early Christian writings not included in the New Testament

but your confusion is understandable.

There was no need to imply I am Satan.

I don't need to spend time answering anyone that infers negativity about GodWithUs, nothing but a stumbling block.

 

[lucaspa]

I didn't say The Apocrypha, i said the apocrypha;

Magus, those are the same thing. The only difference is that I used caps and you didn't.
Here's what you said: "Because you can be a saved Christian and not have the bible, or even a bible with added books; but God always keeps it set-outside his Holy Scriptures, see the apocrypha."

Now, look at the definition:

1 : writings or statements of dubious authenticity
2 capitalized a : books included in the Septuagint and Vulgate but excluded from the Jewish and Protestant canons of the Old Testament -- see [size=-1]BIBLE [/size]table b : early Christian writings not included in the New Testament

The books were excluded from the Bible because they were not from God. You said they were.

I don't need to spend time answering anyone that infers negativity about GodWithUs, nothing but a stumbling block.

[/font]

What is "negativity about GodWithUs"? And how does that relate to equating me to Satan because I point out what one of the apocrypha is?