Is the age of the Earth worth disputing?

[rjs330]

The general rule seems to be that if taking a passage literally produces a proof-text against the theory of evolution then it is taken literally--otherwise it doesn't matter to them very much.

C'mon you are misrepresenting and you know it from previous conversations. There are very strong reasons to believe it's literal and they have all been pointed out to you. You don't have to believe them, but we do and biblically it's a strong case. Us literalists understand metaphors very well. As I have said I have a degree in Bible literature. We studied metaphors and all the figures of speech in Scripture. We studied the old church fathers and so on. Metaphors in Scripture are pretty clear in the Bible when you take Scripture alone and let it interpret itself.

What starts to make Scripture unclear for people is when you start accepting science over Scripture and since science claims things that seemingly contradict Scripture then the only option is to claim certain scriptures are metaphors.

I get it. I understand why it happens. We literalists just disagree and have valid scriptural reasons for doing so.

Like I said metaphors in Scripture are pretty easy to recognize. It's just that the creation account isn't one of them.

 

[zoidar]

Why?

I don't know if we can see the age of Earth by the light? What I do know though is that we can see the age of the universe by the light, by mathematics, measuring the speed of light and distance to stars. So, even if Earth is young, we know the universe is "roughly 13.7 billion years old".

 

[rjs330]

It feels a bit like saying that: "It looks like Africa and America was fit together, but they really weren't. God created it that way with similar mountain chains and fossils and so on, just because he wanted to create it like that."

Is that reasonable? To me it isn't. To me it would be deceiving, and a bit chaotic too. It makes more sense to me if science is right, that the creation of the world was "mathematical".

"for God is not a God of confusion but of peace" /1 Cor 14:33

Well it would be deceptive if God said he created everything as babies, but he didn't say that. He created everything fully mature so it could reproduce. That's not being deceptive. Creating the sun as mature was necessary for life on the planet to exist. That's not being deceptive that's being intelligent.

 

[zoidar]

Well it would be deceptive if God said he created everything as babies, but he didn't say that. He created everything fully mature so it could reproduce. That's not being deceptive. Creating the sun as mature was necessary for life on the planet to exist. That's not being deceptive that's being intelligent.

Ok! I just think it's weird that God would for an example create lightwaves that seem to have traveled billions of years over the galaxy, when it really only is a couple of thousand years. Why on earth would he do it like that?

 

[zoidar]

I do believe in the message of the story of Genesis, that God created the world, that mankind was tricked by the Evil One into sin and so on. It's just that I believe that the purpose of the story is telling us what happened, not exactly how.

 

[benelchi]

I don't know if we can see the age of Earth by the light? What I do know though is that we can see the age of the universe by the light, by mathematics, measuring the speed of light and distance to stars. So, even if Earth is young, we know the universe is "roughly 13.7 billion years old".

There are many Christians who acknowledge that the evidence we have is that the universe is aprox. 13 billion years old who still reject the idea that Genesis is a metaphor. This doesn't really answer the question about why you believe that Genesis must be understood as a metaphor." Why do you believe we must understand Genesis as a metaphor?

 

[rjs330]

I do believe in the message of the story of Genesis, that God created the world, that mankind was tricked by the Evil One into sin and so on. It's just that I believe that the purpose of the story is telling us what happened, not exactly how.

And why wouldn't God tell us how? He's God. There isn't any reason why God wouldn't tell us. Why would he create a metaphor like that anyway? Why would he tell us he created in six days and then have Jesus and the apostles reaffirm the history of it? That is far more deceptive than what's written.

 

[rjs330]

There are many Christians who acknowledge that the evidence we have is that the universe is aprox. 13 billion years old who still reject the idea that Genesis is a metaphor. This doesn't really answer the question about why you believe that Genesis must be understood as a metaphor." Why do you believe we must understand Genesis as a metaphor?

I agree. God created the heavens and earth. We don't know how long it sat empty before God began the creation of life.

 

[zoidar]

There are many Christians who acknowledge that the evidence we have is that the universe is aprox. 13 billion years old who still reject the idea that Genesis is a metaphor. This doesn't really answer the question about why you believe that Genesis must be understood as a metaphor." Why do you believe we must understand Genesis as a metaphor?

Thank you for your question. Because the story doesn't seem to fit with science at all. I can't imagine that dinosaurs and man lived at the same time for an example ... to me it's not likely. There was no death in Eden, does that mean that lions ate grass? It's not believable to me either.

 

[zoidar]

And why wouldn't God tell us how? He's God. There isn't any reason why God wouldn't tell us. Why would he create a metaphor like that anyway? Why would he tell us he created in six days and then have Jesus and the apostles reaffirm the history of it? That is far more deceptive than what's written.

Where do Jesus and the apostles reaffirm that that God created everything in six days?

Why he would create such a metaphor, would be because the importance is not how, but what happened. And the bible is written by man, inspired by the holy spirit. It wouldn't be too strange if the writer got the story in images, metaphors.

 

[benelchi]

Thank you for your question. Because the story doesn't seem to fit with science at all. I can't imagine that dinosaurs and man lived at the same time for an example ... to me it's not likely. There was no death in Eden, does that mean that lions ate grass? It's not believable to me either.

Maybe some of the answers you have learned from science are not accurate. and maybe some of the answers you have heard from people (even pastors) about what story is being told in Genesis are not correct. Most bible translations, with the notable exception of the NASB, present a picture of the first week that is a little more precise than the picture presented in the actual Hebrew text. Example:

1) In Hebrew, adjectives follow the noun the modify (like Spanish); for example, in both Spanish and Hebrew, we say "house white" and not "white house." In ever English bible translation, the phrase יום אחד is repeatedly translated as "one day" with a very notable exception being Genesis 1:5 where it is translated "day one" or worse "the first day;" the later being written in Hebrew as "היום הראשון" which is not in the text anywhere. Additionally, the article "the" does not appear in days 1-5 in the Hebrew text but does appear in days 6 and 7. Most bible translations have simply added "the" into the text of every day despite its absence in the Hebrew text (something that has been noted for centuries). The result is that our English translations strongly convey a definiteness to the sequence that isn't communicated nearly so strongly in the Hebrew text. While none of this proves that there were not 6 literal 24 hour days, it does leave the door open a bit wider to the prospect that something else was being communicated. In Ge. 1, the NASB does a reasonably good job of communicating the text of Genesis 1 along with all the ambiguities that are "cleaned up" in most other English translations. Take a look.

As far as the claim that there was no death in the Garden is concerned, that is not a claim that is plain in Scripture. God's declaration to Adam was "that in the day you eat from [the tree of the knowledge of good and evil] you will certainly die." We know from Genesis that Adam lived centuries after eating from the tree, so either God was mistaken, or we have misunderstood what God meant by death. Most theologians recognize that God was speaking of Adam's spiritual death and separation from God which happened the moment he ate the fruit from the tree. Similarly, most recognize that the death being spoken of in Ro. 5:12 was also spiritual death. Some, however, have tried to also include physical death in the Romans passage and read that interpretation back into Genesis 1-3; this isn't an idea that is clearly communicated in Scripture anywhere.

 

[zoidar]

We know from Genesis that Adam lived centuries after eating from the tree, so either God was mistaken, or we have misunderstood what God meant by death.

First of all I want to say say that I'm sorry that I have come out so strongly about the "scientific" way of seeing this. It's not my meaning that everyone should believe like I do. I'm sorry if have affected anyone's faith in a negative way. That wasn't my meaning. Really the question was "if the age of the Earth is worth disputing", and I would answer that with "No!". It may be interesting to talk about and discuss, though.

Thanks for your reply Benelchi!

Does the bible really say that Adam lived for centuries after eating the fruit? Interesting, but where?

 

[benelchi]

First of all I want to say say that I'm sorry that I have come out so strongly about the "scientific" way of seeing this. It's not my meaning that everyone should believe like I do. I'm sorry if have affected anyone's faith in a negative way. That wasn't my meaning. Really the question was "if the age of the Earth is worth disputing", and I would answer that with "No!". It may be interesting to talk about and discuss, though.

Thanks for your reply Benelchi!

Does the bible really say that Adam lived for centuries after eating the fruit? Interesting, but where?

Adam lived 800 years after the birth of Seth, and he fathered other sons and daughters. (Gen. 5:4 HCSB)

 

[zoidar]

Adam lived 800 years after the birth of Seth, and he fathered other sons and daughters. (Gen. 5:4 HCSB)

Sorry I read your last post wrong, I read that he lived centuries "before" eating from the tree. I have probably had too much coffee

Blessings!

 

[benelchi]

have probably had too much coffee

Is there such a thing???

 

[JoeP222w]

Is it worth contending for the truth?

I think it is.

If Genesis is not true, all of the Bible is not true, and we are still dead in our sins before the Holy God.

Or far worse, if we are all the product of infinite random impersonal chance, with no purpose, no meaning, no hope, and if that is true, there is absolutely no reason for morality or reason to love one another, so why do it?

There is no reason for love, logic, thought or reason when you deny the existence of God and His creation. None whatsoever.

 

[JoeP222w]

I've never believed in the creation story of Genesis, yet that doesn't effect my faith in God. Science just debunks the superstitious component woven into religion.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

How can you seek God if you know Him not and reject His word that He has given you? That is not rational.

 

[JoeP222w]

I think it's God who is perfect not the books used to make the Bible.

So this implies a perfect God cannot preserve His word throughout the ages? How then is He perfect?

 

[benelchi]

Is it worth contending for the truth?

I think it is.

If Genesis is not true, all of the Bible is not true, and we are still dead in our sins before the Holy God.

I see nothing in Zoider's question that suggests he doesn't believe the bible is true.

Or far worse, if we are all the product of infinite random impersonal chance, with no purpose, no meaning, no hope, and if that is true, there is absolutely no reason for morality or reason to love one another, so why do it?

There is no reason for love, logic, thought or reason when you deny the existence of God and His creation. None whatsoever.

Nor do I see him suggesting that we at all the product of infinite random impersonal chance.

 

[benelchi]

Really the question was "if the age of the Earth is worth disputing", and I would answer that with "No!".

While I do think the age of the Earth is worth discussing with one another as brothers and sisters in Christ, too often the discussions turn into angry disputes with all sides digging in even when "evidence" they are standing on is shaky. While not directly related to the question about the age of the earth, here is a article that deals with this issue in regards to the early Genesis account.

Please don’t create unnecessary division among believers over God’s creation!