How old is the Earth?

[LiturgyInDMinor]

No chance that Adam wasn't literal history huh?

'Spose the parables were all real events too?

Umm with all due respect...what does this have to do with anything in this thread directly?
I love Roman Catholics...I used to be one ya know.
Please read the FSG's for this forum(do they still exist with all the CF changes???) about the bible and literal things....thanks.

 

[DD2008]

That is beside the point and pure speculation....otherwise all the guys promoting the Gap theory are just idiots, and I don't think they are idiots...re read my last post...I edited while you were apparently responding.

Every word of inspired scripture has a purpose. If God didn't want us to know how old the earth was he wouldn't have told us. But he did tell us and actually gave us great details about the work, yet we creatures still have to prove it to ourselves.

I hope you're not mad at me brother, but I actually do believe the earth is only 6000ish years old because that's what the bible says. I have a technical degree and am in a technical career as well. So I'm not uneducated. I have sat through the classes in support of the other side and even as a young man drifted into agnosticism in college. But in the end I saw it for what it was, as Paul told us.

Romans 1:18-22 ESV
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,

Much of modern "science" is no less a snare of the devil than internet pornography, consumerism, or false religions. In this time it's hard for even the elect to follow Christ.

Not meaning to nit pick. I just think this is one issue where we are being led astray by secularism that promotes godlessness and socialism in the end.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Every word of inspired scripture has a purpose. If God didn't want us to know how old the earth was he wouldn't have told us. But he did tell us and actually gave us great details about the work, yet we creatures still have to prove it to ourselves.

I hope you're not mad at me brother, but I actually do believe the earth is only 6000ish years old because that's what the bible says. I have a technical degree and am in a technical career as well. So I'm not uneducated. I have sat through the classes in support of the other side and even as a young man drifted into agnosticism in college. But in the end I saw it for what it was, as Paul told us.

Romans 1:18-22 ESV
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,

Much of modern "science" is no less a snare of the devil than internet pornography, consumerism, or false religions. In this time it's hard for even the elect to follow Christ.

Not meaning to nit pick. I just think this is one issue where we are being led astray by secularism that promotes godlessness and socialism in the end.

OH lordy my brother there is NO anger on my part towards you!
I enjoy our give and take.
I'm just of the opinion that the bible contains all Truth, and God does work in mysterious ways, but not when it comes to His word. If God wanted us to actually and literally know the age of our planet(and would want it to actually matter in the overall plan of His will) it would be in the scriptures crystal clear for a 10 year old to deduce. It's not the case.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Droppin' yer 2 cents is awesome IMHO...back it up missy!

 

[DD2008]

OH lordy my brother there is NO anger on my part towards you!
I enjoy our give and take.
I'm just of the opinion that the bible contains all Truth, and God does work in mysterious ways, but not when it comes to His word. If God wanted us to actually and literally know the age of our planet(and would want it to actually matter in the overall plan of His will) it would be in the scriptures crystal clear for a 10 year old to deduce. It's not the case.

Understood.

It's not easy to deduce because one must carefully read the entire thing and count up the ages compare and contrast and arrive at the time of Christ and then count modern history from there to arrive at around 6000 years since creation.

I agree that the central theme of Christ the spiritual aspects of glorifying God and the plan of salvation are more important than when the earth was formed.

But I think it is also God glorifying that since he took the time to give us the info we believe Him.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Like I stated before...the genealogy of Genesis adds up to 1656 years and the average age of a person from pre-flood times was 900 years old...go figure...I hate math.
But from what you stated above...you discount the Gap Theory all together due to the literal counting of the ages............

I see your point, and agree to disagree.

 

[TimRout]

No chance that Adam wasn't literal history huh?

'Spose the parables were all real events too?

Hi EM2. Perhaps you are you unfamiliar with the differences between historical narrative and parable?

I realize it can seem confusing, but biblical narratives relate actual people and events, while parables (usually) relate an earthly fable designed to teach a literal heavenly truth. Naturally, therefore, we see Adam as a literal historical figure [Gen. 5:1], while we do not believe that Jesus is literally a vine [Jn. 15:5]. I apologize that we did not make this distinction clearer in our previous discourses.

 

[TimRout]

I appreciate your explanation.

However, I find it makes more sense to consider Genesis as a series of fables designed to teach literal heavenly truths. Sometimes they are a little blurred having been subject to oral tradition for generations before being recorded.

See? Its not that I don't "believe" Genesis, per ce, rather that I don't think it is literal history.

Two questions then:

1. On what exegetically consistent basis do you support your assertion that the narrative texts of Genesis are in fact parabolic?

2. Since Jesus made reference to various portions of the Genesis narrative as literal history [ex. Mt. 19:4-6], on what grounds do you reject its prophetic origin for the unverifiable oral traditions of which you speak?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Two questions then:

1. On what exegetically consistent basis do you support your assertion that the narrative texts of Genesis are in fact parabolic?

Is "parabolic" the correct adjective of parable? Just never heard it used that way before.

Other than that, honestly, I don't really understand the question, but I THINK the appropriate answer is "external evidence"

2. Since Jesus made reference to various portions of the Genesis narrative as literal history [ex. Mt. 19:4-6], on what grounds do you reject its prophetic origin for the unverifiable oral traditions of which you speak?

Exactly the same as His parables... he used examples and references that his audience would understand and were appropriate for a contemporary listener.

What do you mean "unverifiable traditions"? The stories in question predate writing, how would you imagine they were transmitted, if not orally?

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Family trees are not made up of fictional characters. I would hope this would end the argument but of course it will not since some people hold rather strongly to ideas.

Luke 3:23-38 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, 25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, 27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, 28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, 29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, 30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, 32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, 33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, 34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Also, if Adam was not real was Christ real? Are we really dead in our sin?

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

 

[DD2008]

Two questions then:

1. On what exegetically consistent basis do you support your assertion that the narrative texts of Genesis are in fact parabolic?

2. Since Jesus made reference to various portions of the Genesis narrative as literal history [ex. Mt. 19:4-6], on what grounds do you reject its prophetic origin for the unverifiable oral traditions of which you speak?

Roman Catholics rarely read the bible and when they do read it their Church tells them it's ok not to believe it, so most of them don't.

Anymore, their Church says it's not even necesary to believe in Jesus and that Muslims and Jews are going to be saved by normal practice of their religion, so when you see a red cross icon 7 times out of 10 there is a liberal behind it. They believe that "human reason" trumps scripture and explain away all of their official documents that clearly state otherwise.

After this pope they'll probably be marrying gays and ordaining women priests justifying it by saying that there was a misunderstanding of magisterial teachings or something that led to such "unfortunate intolerance" in the past. I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[DD2008]

The very first footnote in the Macarthur Study bible NKJV says that scripture does not support a creation date any later than 10,000 years ago. I guess there is a way to argue for 4000 more years. Most people tend to agree that the earth is around 6000 years old.

 

[FreeinChrist]

This is the Baptist forum and the congregational rule is still in effect:

Congregation Forums
Forum members who are not a member of that denomination may not debate in that denomination's area. Questions and fellowship are allowed, proselytizing is not.

This is the Baptist forum and nonBaptists are guests only. Some of the Baptists may not have Baptist icons but teir profile shows they are Baptist.

 

[MrJG]

Steering back toward the OP, perhaps a relevant question at this point might be: How does one make a case for "millions of years" based on nothing but the text of Scripture? After all, sola scriptura demands that all our doctrines, including the doctrine of creation, be based exclusively on the text of Scripture.

Well, if you want to account for the supposed "millions of years," there are really only two possibilities that can line up with the scriptures:

1) The Gap Theory - which is what I personally hold to, but not because I am trying to align the Bible with science because I only use the Bible to prove the Gap Theory and could care less about the scientifically proposed timeline of millions of years.

2) The Garden of Eden - no one really knows how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden prior to their sin. It is logical to assume that they didn't age until after their sin since death did not affect man before sin, so could Adam's 930 years (Gen. 5:5) could have started being counted at that time? It is all supposition of course, but interesting to think about in my opinion.

 

[Allen1901]

Roman Catholics rarely read the bible and when they do read it their Church tells them it's ok not to believe it, so most of them don't.

I know a lot of Catholics that study the Bible.

God Bless!

 

[TimRout]

Is "parabolic" the correct adjective of parable? Just never heard it used that way before.

Yes, "parabolic" is an acceptable adjective used commonly among theologians when referring to parables; its mathematical meaning does not apply in this context. It was not my intent to fog the question with unfamiliar terminology. You seem so certain in your assertions, I just assumed you had some background in the field.

Other than that, honestly, I don't really understand the question, but I THINK the appropriate answer is "external evidence"Exactly the same as His parables... he used examples and references that his audience would understand and were appropriate for a contemporary listener.

As a Catholic, I understand that you are unlikely to adhere to sola scriptura. However, even Catholic tradition generally recognizes Adam as a real, literal, historical person. So what "external evidence" are you referring to?

What do you mean "unverifiable traditions"? The stories in question predate writing, how would you imagine they were transmitted, if not orally?

The Bible says the writers of the Old Testament, including Moses, were carried along by the Holy Spirit [2 Ptr. 1:21], and did not produce their work in accordance with their own wills.

 

[TimRout]

The very first footnote in the Macarthur Study bible NKJV says that scripture does not support a creation date any later than 10,000 years ago. I guess there is a way to argue for 4000 more years. Most people tend to agree that the earth is around 6000 years old.

I agree. This position is affirmed by Ryrie, White, Piper, Rendle, Blackman, and the vast bulk of evangelical creationists (including Rout). Though we cannot determine a precise date for creation, there is sufficient data in Scripture to provide a window somewhere between 6000 and 10,000 years old.

Sadly, one of the guys who did a fair bit of work on this subject was Kent Hovind, and his rather denigrated reputation has necessitated the dismissal of much of his work.

 

[DD2008]

Most Creationists is NOT the same as "most PEOPLE".

Just one member of a group speaking to other members of the group about members of the group, not meant to be a universal proclaimation. (there is actually a lot of scripture that follows that same principle)

"Most people" are unbelievers headed for hell, so in discussions about reality we usually only consider their views as the errors we are to avoid and speak the truth against. The goal is to spread the gospel to the world because the gospel deserves to be proclaimed because Christ is worthy and reconciled sinners with God by taking their punishment upon himself to fullfill the will of the Father.

Anyway, I believe the biblical account of creation and all of the events that have followed, so that is my baseline.

 

[seeker777]

There are a variety of theories held by various Christians.

I'll have to stop you there and insist that you exchange the word " theories" for " opinions".

Believing that the earth is 6000 years old, that man lived with dinosaurs and that somehow, agriculture had it's start 4000 years before the creation of the earth, is not a theory.

It is an opinion.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Fallible dating assumptions? PROVE IT!

I get it now....man is so far gone that all scientific knowledge is bullgarbage eh?
IT's ok if it doesn't have anything to do with what the bible states hyper-literally eh? It's all about man's fallibility when it comes to anything right?
I don't buy it.