How old is the world?

[Nathan Poe]

God says the earth is about 6000 years old.

Do you have a direct quote from the Capo de Tuti Capi Himself? Chapter and verse, please...

 

[A Freethinker]

God does not "say" the Earth is 6000 years old, Floodnut interprets the text of the bible in such a way that he is able to deduce the age of the Earth as 6000 years. Quite different.

If I interpreted the same text to mean the earth was millions of years old, as somebody already has in this thread, and follow Floodnut's "logic", I could present that number as the "word of God", too.

Unless god SAYS it, you can't say God said it.

 

[f U z ! o N]

well to me if God said he did it in 7 days he did it in 7 days. now, i love reading stuff about old earth and such just to learn things. i love reading about both sides of an issue. but to me whatever the bible says goes. im just one of those people who has to know both sides of issues. i choose to believe in 7 days but thats just me. i don't care about all the scientifc stuff i just believe that. i don't really care how this or that happened nor do i care how old the earth really is. i do know one thing though! CHRIST IS MY SAVIOR!!!!

 

[Floodnut]

Where does God say that? Did He or she appear to you? Are you sure that is what that means? And how do you know, assuming that it actually means that, how do you know that GOD SAID IT? Who ever said it was just a man and there are after all many approaches to God and of course some of those ways may include judging as a vital facet of the path to God < tongue in cheek symbol

Fuzion, I do know of the Scriptures that speak about judging, but by my response above I am trying to show that if we cannot take what the scriptues declare about CREATION and the FLOOD, then we are really left with the same meaninglessness for ALL of Scripture.

But since I believe that all the Scriptures are to be taken in their simple and intended sense I DO believe that we are not to judge, which is what Jesus said in Matthew 7. However He is talking about baseless condemnation, and in the verses that follow in Matthew 7 Jesus COMMANDS us to discern Good and Evil, and to make decisions about what is right and wrong.

I also believe that there is no need to have God appear to you for you to know the truth, and that God is presented through out Scripture as a particular gender and that it was NOT just a man who said it. Furthermore, although it was a man who recorded it, the record was made infallibly under divine inspiration, JUST LIKE the record of Moses about Creation in Genesis.

At the end of my earlier post I noted that what I had said was "tongue in cheek" which means sarcasm, irony, or whimsical exaggeration.

Perhaps we can discuss the whole idea of JUDGING elsewhere, since it is a large subject. In some contexts it is commanded and in others it is prohibited, depending on the nature of the judging, and the nature of the case. Interestingly, someone who says "It is wrong to Judge" has just judged.

 

[Floodnut]

No, God doesn't "say" that. That's your "plain" interpretation.

Yes, God does say that the earth is 6000 years old. 4.7 billion is YOUR plain interpretation, and not of Scripture but of the Creation. Yet you beleive apparently that 4.7 billion is what God says in Scripture:

Given the enormity of bible scholars who understand the subject differently, I don't think you're in any position to be speaking directly on behalf of God. Even suggesting that you are is the ultimate arrogance.

Yes indeed I suppose many of the scholars are large that promote the twisting of the plain sense of Scripture. And they are also the majority. The majority of the world does not believe in Jesus. Majority is not a basis for determining truth.

And yes it is our responsibility to speak on behalf of God. The plain sense of Scripture is that the earth is about 6000 years old. Jesus took the Scriptures in this plain sense. It is not arrogance to take God at his word. Rather it is the ultimate arrogance to imagine that we should take the subject differently from the Savior. It is also arrogance to charge a simple believer with arrogance.

 

[Manic Depressive Mouse]

Yes, God does say that the earth is 6000 years old. 4.7 billion is YOUR plain interpretation, and not of Scripture but of the Creation. Yet you beleive apparently that 4.7 billion is what God says in Scripture:



Yes indeed I suppose many of the scholars are large that promote the twisting of the plain sense of Scripture. And they are also the majority. The majority of the world does not believe in Jesus. Majority is not a basis for determining truth.

And yes it is our responsibility to speak on behalf of God. The plain sense of Scripture is that the earth is about 6000 years old. Jesus took the Scriptures in this plain sense. It is not arrogance to take God at his word. Rather it is the ultimate arrogance to imagine that we should take the subject differently from the Savior. It is also arrogance to charge a simple believer with arrogance.

Jesus also said that the smallest seed was the mustard seed.

Sometimes the plainest reading is not the correct one.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Fuzion, I do know of the Scriptures that speak about judging, but by my response above I am trying to show that if we cannot take what the scriptues declare about CREATION and the FLOOD, then we are really left with the same meaninglessness for ALL of Scripture.

This is an amazing statement, it appears to be so simple: you can't pick and choose what to believe, it is an all or nothing proposition.

but it is not.

First, you have elevated a particular interpretation of Gen 1 and the Flood narrative to absolute truth without question. So effectively you are saying, in part, unless you believe exactly as i do about these two events: Creation and the Flood then you are not believing in anything in the Bible.

Second, is this extraordinary error of composition. If something in the Bible is not exactly true in your interpretation then none of the Bible is faithful or inspired or true. What happens when you misinterpret something? according to your line of reasoning everything in the Bible is suspect. The problem is that you do misinterpret the Scriptures somewhere, probably lots of somewheres, we all do. We just don't know which wheres. Yet this logically leads you to deny the value of the whole Book because you are not infallible. What you are doing is to transfer your inability to arrive at absolute truth to the Scriptures. wow. is that really what you want to do?

Lastly, as has been addressed here many times, there are good hermeneutical reasons for believing that the Creation is not a scientific account in the manner of a newspapermans report of the events and that there are good reasons for understanding the Flood as local in extent not global.

But your big problem is to confuse your personal interpretation of the Bible with God's, saying that you essentially have access to that heavenly absolutely true interpretation and that this is supported by the fact that it can not be otherwise and still have an authoritative Scripture. gong.

but this conversation ought to be on another forum.
....

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yes, God does say that the earth is 6000 years old. 4.7 billion is YOUR plain interpretation, and not of Scripture but of the Creation. Yet you beleive apparently that 4.7 billion is what God says in Scripture:

1: You still haven't given a chapter and verse. It's pretty obvious that God hasn't said the Earth is 6,000 years old.

2: Is it wrong to study God's creation?

 

[Floodnut]

Your interpretation of a book says that the earth is 6000 years old.

1. YOUR. First of all, it is not MY interpretation. Even "Old Earthers" agree that it the simplest sense of the Genesis account is literal days, and the genealogies are also there because the writer(s) were asserting that the ages of the patriarchs provide a clear succession to the beginning.

2. Interpretation. It is an interpretation, the simplest plainest sense, that seeks to take the passage in the sense intended by the writer. This interpretation is the one that was taken by Jesus, David and the Psalmists, Job, Solomon, Peter, John, Jude, and Paul, as well as the prophets who reference the Creation.

3. a book. We are not talking about a book, but the Bible, which is a collection of inspired and infallible documents. It is a volume which Jesus and the Apostles treated as infallible, and given by the breath of God (GK: theo-pneustos).

4. ... says the earth is 6000 years old. At least you are willing to admit that there is an interpretaion that says this. But it just happens to be the interpretation held by Jesus.

Your interpretation of a book is God?

It is the Word of God, not because it is my interpretation. But because it is the Word of God I take it in the sense it is given and I don't try to "interpret my way out of it." God is God and He has spoken. God says the earth is about 6000 years old.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Floodnut, saying this as a Christian, please get off my side. You're making the faith look absolutely bleedin' ridiculous.

Anti-evangelism at its best.

 

[LittleNipper]

1: You still haven't given a chapter and verse. It's pretty obvious that God hasn't said the Earth is 6,000 years old.

2: Is it wrong to study God's creation?

How old were Adam and Eve? Adam was immediately put to work gardening and naming animals (I can provide Chapter & verse if you wish). Obviously, Christ didn't feed Adam a baby bottle until he was weaned. What was good enough for Adam seems likely to have been good enough for chickens and the earth too, for that matter...

Is it wrong to leave a discussion of GOD out of ANY study of GOD's Creation?
I feel that it is. It is sort of like talking about one of Frank Lloyd Wright's masterpieces without mentioning the MASTER HIMSELF.... Who would ever do such a thing but a very ignorant sort of individual.

 

[Floodnut]

i cannot belive how hypocritical you are
did God say the earth was young? i can play that game too.

Don't you understand that I was playing the game that is played by those who explain away the plain teaching of Scripture?

the bible says somewhere i can't remember but do not judge for the judgements you give shall be give to you or something like that. remember it is SCRIPTURE therefore it IS GOD INSPIRED.

It is God-inspired and it is found in Matthew 7:1. And for someone to seriously reject the passages that are so clear on judging would certainly be silly. But this is exactly what the evolutionists do with the clear passages on the age of the earth.

your quote is so hypocritical. its actually quite funny. thanks for giving me a laugh.

You're welcome Fuzion, it was intended to be funny. I was making fun of the Evolutionists who have exactly this approach to the passages on Creation.

there are many approaches to God? last time i heard Jesus was the ONLY way.

Jesus is the only way and we know it because this is the plain and simple sense of Scripture. The same Scripture also says that God created the world in Six days about 6000 years ago. The hypocrisy is to say you believe Jesus is the ONLY way (as YOU and I both believe), but then to reject what the same Bible says in the same simple language about the 6000 year age of the Earth. But I hesitate to actually say you are a hypocrite, since I think you, being from a Baptist background, may be sincerely searching through your beliefs.

There are NOT many approaches to God. I said that facetiously to make fun of those who think there are many "equally valid" views of creation. We can't be a "big tent" about Jesus being the only way of salvation, and we can't toy with the notion that the Earth might be billions of years old, contrary to the plain and simple sense of Scripture.

You are right my friend, Jesus is the only way. And the same Scripture that reveals that saving truth also reveals that the earth is 6000 years old.

how do we know God said the earth is young? i thought all scripture was God inspired.

Just as you asked, HOW do we know the earth is young? I am asking you, "HOW do you know Jesus is the ONLY WAY?" You know it the same way I know it: The Scripture is inspired. So how do we know the earth is 6000 years old? The inspired scripture says so.

 

[Floodnut]

Apples and oranges. But keep up the artful dodging.

It is not apples and oranges, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

A reminder to everybody reading this thread:

1) Floodnut is incapable of supporting his position scripturally,

Actually Floodnut is presenting the scriptural position, the plain reading of the text says 6000 years. Add up the geneologies of Genesis.

and insists that a "plain" reading of the bible indicates 6000 years. This he gets by adding up the geneology in the OT. He takes this position as self-evidently true, despite YEC being the minority theological interpretation of scripture amongst legitimate scholars (note: Floodnut has not demonstrated that he is a scholar of any sort).

So Mike does in fact understand that floodnut's position is supported by the plain reading of Scripture, thats refreshing to see that he has picked up on this fact. However Mike rejects the plain reading of scripture because it is not held by the majority. Does he do the same with Jesus? The Majority of the world does not worship Jesus as God. Does he do the same with the Nicene Creed? During the Time of Athanasius, the whole world embraced Arianism, and Orthodox theology was in the minority.
Finally whether or not Floodnut is a scholar is of no substance. A child shall lead them says the savior, and the simple and plain sense of Scripture is that the Earth is 6000 years old. Even promoters of the Old Earth view aknowledge this, but they reject the YEC because they want to believe in Evolution.

2) Floodnut doesn't even pretend to address any science, but insists that conventional science "mis-interprets the evidence." It's fairly obvious that Floodnut has no clue what evidence does or does not exist -

Of course Floodnut is aware of the evidences put forward by Evolutionists, but the Scripture comes first for a Christian doesn't it. Scripture is the basis for truth, it is the truth. Apparently Mikey does not care about the biblical evidences and what the Bible says. Or at least he subjugates the biblical revelation to the current opions of Scientists

but because he assumes his minority interpretation of scripture to be self-evidently true, it is "obvious" to him that the evidence must be off basis if people have an opinion that differs from his own.

Opions which differ from the plain and simple sense of Scripture are wrong. Jesus agreed with Moses: the earth is about 6000 years old. Why do you not care about the plain sense of Scripture as held by the Savior?

 

[Floodnut]

Only one of the two of you are pretending to speak on behalf of God (a very theologically dangerous position to put yourself in, I might add). So your childish humor is not only unfunny, but isn't even contextually appropriate.

Call it speaking for God, or admit that it is LISTENING to God and taking him at his word, but it is still the word of God. And it is so wonderful that we have an expert here to tell us what is contextually appropriate. The humor is a simple illustration of your approach to Scripture.

Taking God at his word is the theologically safe position. Rejecting the Word because of the "findings of modern science" is the very theologically dangerous position, I might Add.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Floodnut - all this talk of "plain sense of Scripture" basically means that you, for some reason, think that the best way of interpreting a text written thousands of years ago is the modernist, literalist method that is the default interpretation of a non-fiction text in the modern age, although it hasn't always been.

Why would you think that?

Besides, you have another problem. If the Bible really is saying that the world was literally, scientifically and historically created in six days six thousand years ago, all you really show is that the Bible is almost certainly wrong. Isn't that rather a dangerous strategy?

 

[Floodnut]

Show me where I made the claim that God said that the earth is 4.7 billion years old and you might even have something approaching a point.

You are claiming that God said something. However, all that you have is a book and your interpretation of it to back up this claim.

I don't even know if you believe in God, as a personal infinite Source of Truth revealed in Jesus Christ. I am saying that you believe the dirt declares a 4.7 billion year age for the earth. You hold that view in spite of the plain and simple declaration of Scripture. The earth is your Source for Truth.

All you have is dirt. All I have is a book? a book? The book is the breathed out Word of God! You don't believe that? What a shock! So we really have no basis for discussion. I am addressing people who are saved, who hold to the Nicene Creed. If you as an unbeliever care to listen in that is fine. But you really have no basis to discuss anything substantively without the common ground of eternal truth.

God says the Earth is about 6000 years old.

 

[Floodnut]

I will respond to a few comments in this truncated quote of Freethinker:

* * * * * The Bible can say whatever it wants, and it doesn't apply to me.

However, it does apply to you as a Christian. * * * * * (that you aren't familiar with your own religion).
* * * * *
The bible is bunk in my opinion, and only as relevant as the Iliad; * * * *
I'm sorry that you are so upset by being beaten at your own game.

OK, so for the wisdom seeker who has come to CHRISTIAN FORUMS, understanding that we embrace the Nicene Creed, you need to be advised that Freethinker does not believe that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God, and the ultimate basis for truth.

I am sorry that he thinks I am upset. I laugh at his folly and cry for his soul, since he does at least reveal that he can feel sorry, showing that his conscience is not thoroughly seared to insensitivity.

 

[Jet Black]

All you have is dirt.

no, what we have is the universe that God Himself created. please don't degrate it by saying it is "just dirt"

 

[Floodnut]

Are you aware that the words 'Sheol' and the Old Hebrew for 'grave' were both mistranslated into 'Hell' in parts of the bible? I think the words 'Grave' and 'Hell' are two very different things, hardly "the same".

There are entire pages dedicated to mistranslations in the bible. You won't really know what it's saying unless you are fluent in Old Hebrew.

Please don't try to tell me what is and is not relevant in this forum; your nonsensical posts are the only things truly irrelevant.

Of course I am aware of Sheol, Hades, Bosor, as well as Bara, Bereshit, Yom and the rest of the biblical vocabulary, since as I read the Greek New Testament and the Hebrew, and I teach Hebrew. There are volumes and volumes of grammars and dictionaries and lexicons (By the way, I have quite a few of these available for anyone who is interested in adding to their library).

The Scripture is the Same. It is inspired. But I really don't need to discuss this with you since you believe it is all "BUNK." Actually it is you my fine and worthy unbelieving opponent, it is you who should not be declaring what is relevant and irrelevant. You are the one who should not be trying to tell me what I should and should not say, since you are not really a CF subscriber, but an unbelieving visitor.

If you don't like our stand for Scripture here you are welcome to stay and listen, and even post questions and comments. But you may find more agreement at Talk Origins. This is a Christian Forum.

Your nonsensical unbelief is what is irrelevant. You neither know the Scriptures nor the power of God.

 

[mikeynov]

Actually Floodnut is presenting the scriptural position, the plain reading of the text says 6000 years. Add up the geneologies of Genesis.

Fortunately, the "plain" reading of any text doesn't necessarily indicate anything. That you can even read it plainly (hint: it wasn't written in English) is apparently something you take for granted.

So Mike does in fact understand that floodnut's position is supported by the plain reading of Scripture, thats refreshing to see that he has picked up on this fact. However Mike rejects the plain reading of scripture because it is not held by the majority.

But that's not what I said. I simply pointed out that you have a minority position on this, and your only defense is that you "plainly" understand it to be so.

Finally whether or not Floodnut is a scholar is of no substance. A child shall lead them says the savior, and the simple and plain sense of Scripture is that the Earth is 6000 years old. Even promoters of the Old Earth view aknowledge this, but they reject the YEC because they want to believe in Evolution.

It is of substance if you're putting yourself in a position of authority on scriptural interpretation. Unless you establish some credibility for doing so, me pointing out that you have none is perfectly valid.

Of course Floodnut is aware of the evidences put forward by Evolutionists, but the Scripture comes first for a Christian doesn't it. Scripture is the basis for truth, it is the truth. Apparently Mikey does not care about the biblical evidences and what the Bible says. Or at least he subjugates the biblical revelation to the current opions of Scientists

But you've demonstrated no working knowledge of what evidence exists. Here's a challenge - go to this thread, and read all of those by Glenn Morton. For any single issue you feel he has misrepresented, attempt to rebut it.

I have a prediction - you'll do no such thing, and are incapable of doing so, because not only are you not aware of what empirical evidence exists, you're probably not even in a position to understand that evidence in the first place.

Literally all you have is your "plain" understanding of the bible.

Opions which differ from the plain and simple sense of Scripture are wrong. Jesus agreed with Moses: the earth is about 6000 years old. Why do you not care about the plain sense of Scripture as held by the Savior?

Because it's not that simple. Further, you apparently didn't get the memo that "literal" is not identical in meaning to "true."

That Jesus affirmed elements of the OT as being true does not make them literal. Do you understand the difference?