How Old Is The Earth

[BNR32FAN]

Your exaggeration saying either one "lied" is a straw man argument. Neither lied. Your narrow-minded crass literalism is your assumption, not mine. The issue is "how old is the earth," not "how literal do you have to interpret the Bible."

But if you really want others to believe your tradition that all creation was made in 6 literal days, then you have the burden to prove how we can observe events in the cosmos that point to an old age. But I suspect you can't do that.

Ok you don’t like the word lied, how about intentionally gave incorrect information? Either God intentionally said that the heavens, the earth, the seas, and everything in them were made in 6 days knowing that it was incorrect, or Moses intentionally quoted God saying this knowing that God didn’t actually say it. I don’t know where you come from but here in Texas when someone intentionally gives false information we call that a lie. I don’t know what you call it where your from. Unless you think God mistakenly said the heavens, the earth, and the seas and everything in them were created in 6 days or Moses mistakenly misquoted God. It’s been my experience according to the scriptures that Moses was extremely meticulous in paying attention to every detail when it came to quoting God and kept incredible track of all of the laws and ordinances God gave him in exquisite detail.

Now according to what you’re saying below you’re actually saying that Moses got this information from a source other than God Himself.

Precisely why ANE cosmology was figured out by men of the times. They thought that their conclusions about the cosmos was correct, based on their observations. Their idea was the "science" of the day, except they didn't have Galileo's telescopes to see they needed to rethink it. Gen 1 looks much like ANE cosmology. The difference is that the only true God creating everything is being communicated.

According to this you’re specifically saying that God DID NOT TELL MOSES THAT THE EARTH WAS MADE IN 6 DAYS. You’re saying that the idea of a six day creation came from man’s own limited scientific knowledge of that time. That’s you’re own words right there.

Moses wrote in Exodus 20:1

“Then God spoke all these words, saying,”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭20‬:‭1‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

So according to this God is the one doing the speaking here. And in verse 11 this is what Moses wrote that God said.

“For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭20‬:‭11‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Moses says that God told him this, you say that Moses got this from man’s limited scientific knowledge of the time. So either Moses is lying about where he got this idea about a 6 day creation or you are very much mistaken.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It may be that your assumption about the historical accuracy is incorrect. ANE culture did not necessarily define accuracy or preciseness. This is partly why origins, numbers, dates, etc. are controversial, because we have to face the fact that ancient Hebrew writings aren't as precise as people would like it to be. People naturally impose a modern western scientific paradigm into the scripture (called "projection"), and there is where controversy is rooted. This is why I keep saying that the Bible is not a science book, and neither is it a precise history textbook. It's about belief in God and obeying what He commands. Science and history are side issues, and remain in man's realm to figure out.

Yeah I know this is the typical nonsense given by people who don’t actually believe what the Bible says. I mean that is what you’re saying right? It’s not a reliable source of information? It can’t be trusted?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I don’t even know how to respond to that.

Your opinion

Your opinion

Of course

There are no scientific mistakes in the Bible

So you base changing the meaning of the Bible to fit your opinions. Good luck with that

Lol isn’t it hilarious when people say that the specific number of years given from father to son and father to son and father to son over and over and over isn’t meant to indicate when those people lived? I mean why else would anyone give all these ages for every single person in the genealogy? These people say that the Bible doesn’t say how old the earth is like it’s supposed to be written in the Bible that the earth is 6,000 years old. The problem with this idea is that the very next year that age would be incorrect because then it would be 6,001 years old. What do you think would be a good way for the Bible to give us an accurate age of the earth that wouldn’t be outdated the following year? What if the Bible told us how old Adam was when his son was born then told us how old his son was when his son was born and so on and so on? Wow that would be a great way to keep track of the age of the earth by giving a complete line of descendants all the way from Adam to Abraham. Then all you’d have to do is add up all the ages of the fathers when they had their son and that would tell you when each of them lived and how old the earth is. So it not only gives you a timeline of when each key figure lived but also when the earth was created. Now I know I’m preaching to the choir here but it really amazes me how people are so absolutely determined to try so hard to reject what the Bible says in order to hold on to what scientists predict about the past. It’s literally scientists’ best guess vs God’s word. Absolutely incredible.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Precisely why ANE cosmology was figured out by men of the times. They thought that their conclusions about the cosmos was correct, based on their observations. Their idea was the "science" of the day, except they didn't have Galileo's telescopes to see they needed to rethink it. Gen 1 looks much like ANE cosmology. The difference is that the only true God creating everything is being communicated.

Ok I have another problem with this post. You say “They thought that their conclusions about the cosmos was correct, based on their observations.” How does someone observe a 6 day creation when the first man was created on the 6th day? Who observed anything before day 6? What you’re doing here is just pulling this out of thin air because there is absolutely nothing to support this claim you’re making. You’re presuming to know why they concluded that the creation process took 6 days when you couldn’t possibly have any idea of why they would conclude such a thing other than the fact that it is what Moses wrote quoting God specifically telling them that He made the earth in 6 days. You can’t sit there and claim that they got it from what they observed because no one but God existed to observe it.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yahweh means God. God can mean either Jesus or The Father since they are both God. So when Moses saw Yahweh that means he saw God. Since Jesus said that no one has seen The Father the only other God Moses could’ve possibly seen was Jesus. What makes you think that this was The Father other than the word Yahweh being used in the passage?

As for Daniel 7 Daniel received a vision, Daniel perceived the white haired man as God The Father, Daniel didn’t actually see The Father with his own eyes and we don’t even know if what Daniel saw is actually what The Father even looks like.

Yahwey is the Fathers proper name.

"What makes you think it's Yahwey aside from the Bible saying that it's him?"

That's basically what you're asking.

It's how the Father is described in the Bible, nonetheless. Your response doesn't actually reflect on what the Bible says.

I point out that God in the Bible is enthroned. Your response is "well it's metaphorical" or a vision, or "well we don't actually know what God looks like outside of the vision" etc.

That's all fine and dandy, but that's still how Yahwey is described. Be it a vision or not. Be it a metaphor or not.

It's like Genesis 7:11 and 8:2 describing windows opening and closing in the firmament to release a sky ocean.

You can call it metaphor, or a vision, or poetry, or anything you want.

But at the end of the day, the Bible is still saying what it's saying.

The same goes with 1 Kings 22 and Isaiah 6, that includes visions of God, the Father, enthroned as well.

But that doesn't change what the text is describing.

 

[Job 33:6]

Which is why I asked for the definition of the word omnipresent. When has God not been on His throne?

So let's go all the way back to this post.

My statement was:
I use the Bible to understand the Bible. I'm not going to quote Genesis day 7 with God resting because that's the passage in question. Hence why I shared a dozen other passages that show that every time God rests, God does so in a temple, on His throne.

Though God is omnipresent theologically, this is how God is consistently described throughout the Bible, regardless. That is, the Father. He is described enthroned and He sometimes isn't on the throne. Sometimes He is walking around in the garden. Sometimes He is moving to sit on the throne. Sometimes He is descending from heaven to confuse the tongues of people. Sometimes He is traveling ahead of the isrealites into battle etc.

This is just how Yahwey is portrayed throughout the old testament.

And saying "well those are visions" is a meaningless response. Of course they're visions. God doesn't actually have arms and legs and feet.

But that doesn't change the fact that God the Father, Yahwey, is described with all of the above in the old testament.

 

[Platte]

And killed off thousands (at least) of species in the process,

there are no animal classes that I’m aware of that we’ve driven to extinction. Yes there are 43 different tiger breeds and a few of them are no more. I’d hardly say we’ve been poor Stewart’s of that. Our respect for animals (especially dogs) is ridiculous at times. lol

polluted or otherwise destroyed vast areas of land, wasted tons of resources

Very few area are polluted or destroyed

trying to kill each other furthering the other points. Yes, we've built some monuments, some neat toys, and improved some lifestyles, but good stewards of the planet could have achieved these things without the negative affects of our reckless behavior.

I look around and am amazed at how my city looks. How we built a great city yet maintain trees and how great it looks

I agree, which is why I said the universe cannot reasonably be said to be for man.

Then what can you say it’s reasonably made for?

No more silly than making "evening and morning" literal when Genesis 1 clearly says there was no regular evening and morning until the 4th day. Clearly it implies something different.

An evening and a morning requires light. There was light

I will when you are able to understand that very few plants (let alone trees) grow enough to produce fruit in a single day like you purport to have happened in Genesis 1:12.

They were created with fruit

Because the sabbath day is for humans. The day of rest is for God.

And they are both a day

 

[lifepsyop]

Comparing gospels to each other is actually a good lesson on their inspiration. Because we have 3 synoptic ones, we can easily see they were not dictated by God, but written by people.

They weren't dictated by God. They are the testimony of Jesus' disciples.

Main theological points remain the same (or else they would not be collected into the biblical canon), but details differ significantly, even to the point of different contexts for the same events or talks or producing different doctrines (for example about marriage/divorce).

Even prominent texts like the Our Father prayer are different among gospels.

With this knowledge, its really strange that some people postulate that for example Genesis is inspired word after word and even preserved perfectly.

What you claim is a weakness is actually a mark of authenticity.

This is what we expect from multiple eyewitness testimony of a truly major event seen from different angles. The same general points are shared, but many differences and variations in how it is presented. It's an amazing thing that we have the Gospel told to us from four different vantage points.

On the other hand, imagine how easy it would be for you to prove the Gospels a fake if they all copied each other near verbatim, which would be an obvious sign of fakery.

The pattern of undesigned coincidences between the different Gospels are part of what prove them as genuine testimony.

There is a fragmentary nature to the Gospels, where a single one taken by itself leaves lots of strange gaps in understanding, but all Four taken together leave an unmistakable signature of eyewitness accounts converging around a real event.

 

[trophy33]

What you claim is a weakness is actually a mark of authenticity.

I do not claim its weakness or strength. I claim its a good lesson to learn that inspiration is not a dictation - human authors created different words, sentences and even contexts (logically, some must be made up), sometimes left or added crucial points regarding Jesus' speech. Luke had to search for historical sources and witnesses, it was not supernaturally "revealed" to him or dictated.

And thats how we must see the inspiration of the Bible - Bible is not a supernatural fetish dictated word for word, even with supernaturally inspired scientific details, but mostly human work, human witnessing about God. Therefore, we cannot see Genesis, genealogies or the Noah story and similar as perfect literal, factual records dictated by God and preserved by God till today word for word. Bible does not support such kind of inspiration.

The supernatural inspiration is in its usefulness for godly life and for knowing the only God and His unique Son, Jesus Christ.

And we are getting back the to thread topic - there is no reason why we should put Genesis and science into conflict. Genesis is a mixture of theology and of ancient Hebrew worldview, not a supernatural scientific revelation.

 

[Platte]

Lol isn’t it hilarious when people say that the specific number of years given from father to son and father to son and father to son over and over and over isn’t meant to indicate when those people lived? I mean why else would anyone give all these ages for every single person in the genealogy? These people say that the Bible doesn’t say how old the earth is like it’s supposed to be written in the Bible that the earth is 6,000 years old. The problem with this idea is that the very next year that age would be incorrect because then it would be 6,001 years old. What do you think would be a good way for the Bible to give us an accurate age of the earth that wouldn’t be outdated the following year? What if the Bible told us how old Adam was when his son was born then told us how old his son was when his son was born and so on and so on? Wow that would be a great way to keep track of the age of the earth by giving a complete line of descendants all the way from Adam to Abraham. Then all you’d have to do is add up all the ages of the fathers when they had their son and that would tell you when each of them lived and how old the earth is. So it not only gives you a timeline of when each key figure lived but also when the earth was created. Now I know I’m preaching to the choir here but it really amazes me how people are so absolutely determined to try so hard to reject what the Bible says in order to hold on to what scientists predict about the past. It’s literally scientists’ best guess vs God’s word. Absolutely incredible.

These are people who don’t believe the Bible is the Word of God. They have no clue what they are reading. They think it’s some book from the past. Nice to read your post.

 

[David Lamb]

Bible is not the word of God,

That explains why you answer as you do. If the bible is not God's Word, then of course we have no more reason to believe it than we have to believe Aesop's Fables. Also, such a view of the bible soesn't only affect creation, but the whole of Christianity.

 

[Platte]

That explains why you answer as you do. If the bible is not God's Word, then of course we have no more reason to believe it than we have to believe Aesop's Fables. Also, such a view of the bible soesn't only affect creation, but the whole of Christianity.

They think it’s some literary book from the past. They don’t have a clue what they are reading. Thank you for your post

 

[trophy33]

These are people who don’t believe the Bible is the Word of God.

Is a translation the word of God? Or only the source compilation in the original language? Which one? Or only the autograph? In what textual family can it be found? In what manuscripts? And which historical "canon" is the ultimate one?

Ignorance is not an excuse. If you did not study it deeper, nobody forces you to participate in discussions. However, if you want to publicly discuss such topics, you need more than just repeating fundamentalists phrases.

 

[trophy33]

That explains why you answer as you do. If the bible is not God's Word, then of course we have no more reason to believe it than we have to believe Aesop's Fables. Also, such a view of the bible soesn't only affect creation, but the whole of Christianity.

Bible is a library of various Scriptures. There have been different Bibles throughout history till today.

All Scripture is the word of God (or: inspired by God) in the meaning that its useful for a godly life and for the knowledge of the highest God and his only Son, Jesus Christ.

Bible is not a dictated scientific textbook or anything like that.

 

[trophy33]

Maybe your silliest post ever

Dumb

Wow you are a tool. You are missing so much.

Your opinion

Your opinion

Of course

What great answers.

Nobody forces you to participate in these discussions. If you want to just read an English bible and live a simple life, you can.

But why are you even active in these threads, when you do not know how to deal with the ancient culture, history or textual issues? Using just ignorant mockery does not help your case.

 

[Platte]

Is a translation the word of God? Or only the source compilation in the original language? Which one? Or only the autograph? In what textual family can it be found? In what manuscripts? And which historical "canon" is the ultimate one?

Ignorance is not an excuse. If you did not study it deeper, nobody forces you to participate in discussions. However, if you want to publicly discuss such topics, you need more than just repeating fundamentalists phrases.

I guess you would have to have belief that God was involved in the translation and the Bible as we read it today. And that the Bible as we read it today is a true and accurate translation and conveys His word to us as he desired us to read it.

The Bible as we read it today is based on the Hebrew text. The King James Version is what I read as I’m comfortable with the translation. I’m not opposed to other versions and I see very little difference between them.

If you ever come to accept the Bible as the Word of God you’ll understand it much better and you’ll realize it’s not like other ancient texts. There is no similarity or comparison to other ancient texts. You’ll accept the words the are written and you’ll shift you’re research from trying to get the Bible to conform to science and instead seeing how the Bible is the truth and how it does not contradict science.

 

[trophy33]

I guess you would have to have belief that God was involved in the translation and the Bible as we read it today. And that the Bible as we read it today is a true and accurate translation and conveys His word to us as he desired us to read it.

The Bible as we read it today is based on the Hebrew text. The King James Version is what I read as I’m comfortable with the translation. I’m not opposed to other versions and I see very little difference between them.

If you ever come to accept the Bible as the Word of God you’ll understand it much better and you’ll realize it’s not like other ancient texts. There is no similarity or comparison to other ancient texts. You’ll accept the words the are written and you’ll shift you’re research from trying to get the Bible to conform to science and instead seeing how the Bible is the truth and how it does not contradict science.

Define precisely what you mean by "the Word of God" (even what you mean by the capital W - I suppose you do not mean that Bible is Jesus).

Also, explain why you believe that:
a) the Massoretic text is the one
b) the Textus Receptus is the one
c) the old English translation is the one
d) the modern western canon is the one

 

[David Lamb]

Bible is a library of various Scriptures. There have been different Bibles throughout history till today.

All Scripture is the word of God (or: inspired by God) in the meaning that its useful for a godly life and for the knowledge of the highest God and his only Son, Jesus Christ.

Bible is not a dictated scientific textbook or anything like that.

I never suggested that the bible was dictated, whether as a scientific textbook or anything else. I do believe that the bible is inspired by God, so that although the biblical "library" has many human authors, God ensured that they wrote the truths He wished to communicate to Mankind.

 

[trophy33]

I never suggested that the bible was dictated, whether as a scientific textbook or anything else. I do believe that the bible is inspired by God, so that although the biblical "library" has many human authors, God ensured that they wrote the truths He wished to communicate to Mankind.

Inspired how? And in what aspects/truths?

Also, which bible is "the inspired bible" of all the bibles there are?

There is no space for vague answers, anymore.

 

[David Lamb]

Inspired how? And in what aspects/truths?

Also, which bible is "the inspired bible" of all the bibles there are?

There is no space for vague answers, anymore.

I am not sure what sort of answer you expect me to give to a question like "How did God inspire the bible?" Perhaps somebody else who like me believes the bible is God's inspired Word might be able to answer. As to what aspects/truths, I say all it contains.