[_ Old Earth _] Earths Age

[brujaq]

I do not know what this means. I hope it is good.

Response to Runners post 112, just playing ..

 

[Papa Zoom]

Response to Runners post 112, just playing ..

Okay. And I do like tap dancing!

 

[chessman]

I'm old

Not as old as Job was.

Job recognized men’s days were not as God’s.

Are your days as the days of human beings, or your years as the days of man,​

Job 10:5 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Job 10:5&version=LEB

 

[brujaq]

Not as old as Job was.

Job recognized men’s days were not as God’s.

Are your days as the days of human beings, or your years as the days of man,​

Job 10:5 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Job 10:5&version=LEB

Job is a powerful book on perspectives, talk about a humbling smack down

 

[for_his_glory]

Here's what I believe: The universe is billions of years old. Here's also what I believe, evolution is real (look at the strain of flu and how it evolves every year). Here's another: God created everything in the universe/world by the Word of His mouth. Also: Darwinian Evolution is most certainly false. How about this one: Adam and Eve weren't alone. And their names weren't really Adam and Eve. ;)

Finally, I could be wrong on the age of the earth and just about any other speculation of mine. But it's not essential to my walk with God. It's more a curiosity and I don't mind thinking about things outside the box.

I used to believe in a young earth but not more. And the Bible won't help with the question, it doesn't tell us the age of the earth. :/

That's what it all boils down to is that no one can know the age, but can speculate on certain things contained in the Bible.

 

[Jim Parker]

But, hey, if someone's faith hinges on the earth having been created 6,000 years ago and on Hezron being the father of Ram, Ram being the father of Amminadab, Amminadab being the father of Nahshon and Nahshon the father of Salmon, far be it from me to try to persuade him otherwise.

I agree.

To call a genealogy a "literary device" is to acknowledge that it is not factually true; otherwise, we would simply call it a genealogy and move on to its theological implications.

That is exactly the purpose of Matthew's opening his Gospel with a genealogy.
First, it is how a story is introduced in ancient Hebrew literature.
Second, it provides a vehicle (a "devise") by which Matthew connects Jesus with both David (by the number of David's name: 14) and with Abraham with whom he begins his genealogy.
Is it an accurate genealogy?
No. That's not the point. The point is to communicate the theology which will be presented in the Gospel.
It is similar to Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 which is IMHO the genealogy of the heavens and the earth.
It is also MHO that to conclude that the entirety of creation as it is seen today was accomplished in six, twenty-four hour periods is to miss the point.
That genealogy is also a devise (a literary devise) to introduce the story that follows.

That's my story. (alas, without genealogy!)

Oh! And, by the way, as you have expertise in Law by having graduated from a law school, so I have some expertise in Literature (BA Eng. Lit) and Theology. (MDiv) So, as you can speak authoritatively on issues of law, so I am able to do so (to some extent) in questions of theology and the literature of the Bible.

And I think you would really enjoy and appreciate the book Before Abraham Was. It was out of print for years and is back "by popular demand."


iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

But, again, that is all based on your interpretation of what the Bible says. And so my point still stands that you are calling some Christian scientists liars based on your interpretation.

Many people have difficulty with the concept of the Bible "inspired by God."
IMO, it is definitely inspired by God for the purpose of revealing Himself and His will for man.
But the Bible is not "inspired" to be a history or science text book.

my 2 kopecks


iakov the fool

 

[Jacks Bratt]

Many people have difficulty with the concept of the Bible "inspired by God."
IMO, it is definitely inspired by God for the purpose of revealing Himself and His will for man.
But the Bible is not "inspired" to be a history or science text book.

my 2 kopecks


iakov the fool

I disagree.

Firstly, how do you interpret Post # 108?

Secondly:

Only men say that it isn't a history book or science book due to the fact that it may contradict the finite mind of men and their observations.

When I see a contradiction between men and the word of God, in relation to events of the past or concepts of reality, I will take the Word of God.

Yes, it is not a science book per say.... however, either is even any other book, written by men, that includes a page or two or even a paragraph, which describes something factual about some sort of science. It's not a book to study as science but does include information, from the words of God Himself that tell us something about the concepts that would be considered to be a scientific discipline.

Check these scriptures out:

Deuteronomy 23:13 King James Version (KJV)

13 And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee:

Leviticus 15:13 King James Version (KJV)

13 And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean.

This is just two examples of how the Bible told the Israelite's a method to deal with cleanliness. One, to bury their excrement and the other, to wash with running water.

There is no way that Moses knew about bacteria but these two actions kept them safe from illness.

More people, from what I understand, have died during wars, from infection due to improper sanitation from crowed living quarters.

God gave His people the knowledge to avoid this.

It's not a science text but it gives instructions that made scientific sense.

 

[for_his_glory]

More people, from what I understand, have died during wars, from infection due to improper sanitation from crowed living quarters.

Andersonville prison camp in Georgia is a great example of that. I had a two distant cousins that were prisoners there during the Civil War as one died from the disease and the other was released and ended up going insane shooting his wife and then himself from the effects of this camp.
In the picture at the bottom you see a long trough as this was where the men did their business and also drank from the spout that ran into it.

 

[for_his_glory]

Actually the OT in parts is a history book that takes us back to in the beginning. Science can try to prove the age of the earth, but only in theory and never in absolutes.

Does science and nature define God, or does God define science and nature!!!

Genesis 1:1; Job 38:4-30; Isaiah 40:12; Romans 1:20; Proverbs 14:15; Job 26:7; Ecclesiastes 1:13-17; Hebrews 3:4; Ecclesiastes 1:6-7 and my favorite Ecclesiastes 8:17. There are so many more, but this should be enough.

 

[Jim Parker]

I disagree.

Not a problem.

Firstly, how do you interpret Post # 108?

Do you mean:
Exodus 20:11 King James Version (KJV) "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." ?

That reference (to 6 days) is given as part of the teaching on keeping the Sabbath. It is a theological statement, not an historic statement.

I do not believe that the report in Gen 1:1-2:3 of the creation of the universe being accomplished in six, 24-hour days is to be taken as a literal, historic fact. It is my view that Gen 1:1-2:3 is the genealogy of the heavens and the earth which introduces the story of creation and the relationship between God and man which begins at Gen 2:4.

If it were a literal, historic fact, then we would find that six day (yowm) creation of Gen 1:1-23 is contradicted by Gen 2:4 which states that the creation was accomplished in ONE day (yowm).

It also seems to me that the point to be understood is that God, in fact, did create the heavens and the earth. (Rather than the orthodox scientific fairy tale that the universe created itself from a single point that was so small as to have no dimensions.)

That's my understanding. I do not have a need for you to agree.

Only men say that it isn't a history book or science book due to the fact that it may contradict the finite mind of men and their observations.

That's one opinion.
I would say that the Bible is the revelation of God to mankind and His communication to mankind as to His will for us.

When I see a contradiction between men and the word of God, in relation to events of the past or concepts of reality, I will take the Word of God.

It appears to me that what you "take" is your opinion of what God's word says and means.

I have to go.

I'll be back>

 

[Runner]

That is exactly the purpose of Matthew's opening his Gospel with a genealogy.
First, it is how a story is introduced in ancient Hebrew literature.
Second, it provides a vehicle (a "devise") by which Matthew connects Jesus with both David (by the number of David's name: 14) and with Abraham with whom he begins his genealogy.
Is it an accurate genealogy?
No. That's not the point. The point is to communicate the theology which will be presented in the Gospel.
It is similar to Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 which is IMHO the genealogy of the heavens and the earth.
It is also MHO that to conclude that the entirety of creation as it is seen today was accomplished in six, twenty-four hour periods is to miss the point.
That genealogy is also a devise (a literary devise) to introduce the story that follows.

That's my story. (alas, without genealogy!)

As a friend of mine always says, we are in violent agreement. I have no quibble with any of this, which is what I meant by my use of the phrase pious fiction.

 

[Runner]

Actually the OT in parts is a history book that takes us back to in the beginning. Science can try to prove the age of the earth, but only in theory and never in absolutes.

Oh, no, science can prove the age of the earth in far more than theory and to a date range that is very narrow. "The age of the earth" is a purely scientific question. The precise date and manner of creation are scientific questions that likely never will be proved to the same level of certainty. Whether God was or was not the agent of creation is not a scientific question, although science can certainly shed light on the likelihood of the "God theory" being correct.

Does science and nature define God, or does God define science and nature!!!

Neither. This is a false dilemma, category mistake, or something in that vein. Science and nature obviously do not define God. God created nature, and did so in such a manner that it is susceptible to human investigation and analysis. It is orderly, it operates according to "laws," it can be observed and measured. God blessed humans with five senses and intellectual and analytical abilities that allow them to investigate and attempt to understand his creation. It all meshes together perfectly. The "outlier" is the literalist approach to Scripture, which mistakenly views the Bible as a 4,000-year-old scientific and historical treatise and says "I don't care what science says, I'm putting my faith in [my interpretation of] the Bible." This is, I would suggest, pretty much exactly the opposite of what God intended.

 

[for_his_glory]

Oh, no, science can prove the age of the earth in far more than theory and to a date range that is very narrow. "The age of the earth" is a purely scientific question. The precise date and manner of creation are scientific questions that likely never will be proved to the same level of certainty. Whether God was or was not the agent of creation is not a scientific question, although science can certainly shed light on the likelihood of the "God theory" being correct.



Neither. This is a false dilemma, category mistake, or something in that vein. Science and nature obviously do not define God. God created nature, and did so in such a manner that it is susceptible to human investigation and analysis. It is orderly, it operates according to "laws," it can be observed and measured. God blessed humans with five senses and intellectual and analytical abilities that allow them to investigate and attempt to understand his creation. It all meshes together perfectly. The "outlier" is the literalist approach to Scripture, which mistakenly views the Bible as a 4,000-year-old scientific and historical treatise and says "I don't care what science says, I'm putting my faith in [my interpretation of] the Bible." This is, I would suggest, pretty much exactly the opposite of what God intended.

I would have to say if anyone calls it a "God theory" I would have to say they have no fellowship with Him. There are many mysteries of God that we will never understand as how can anyone know the mind of God or how He measures time. We know His attributes and what He reveals in His word, but yet anything beyond that is question and theories, but never absolutes.

 

[Runner]

I would have to say if anyone calls it a "God theory" I would have to say they have no fellowship with Him. There are many mysteries of God that we will never understand as how can anyone know the mind of God or how He measures time. We know His attributes and what He reveals in His word, but yet anything beyond that is question and theories, but never absolutes.

That may well be. The point is that science is concerned with explaining (as best it can) the known universe. The existence of God is a metaphysical question beyond the scope of science. From a strictly scientific viewpoint, God is indeed a theory (or hypothesis). As Laplace famously said to Napoleon when the latter asked him why his scientific treatise contained no reference to God, "I have no need of that hypothesis." A Christian scientist may believe that he has fellowship with God and may say like the rest of us that he "knows" God exists, but his knowledge of God is not scientific knowledge.

The age of the earth is not a "God question." How God measures time is irrelevant to the question. Time operates in a certain manner in the universe and on the earth that God has created. According to that standard, the earth is billions of earth-years old, period. This is essentially as much of a scientific certainty as is the fact that the earth is not flat and does not sit on pillars.

The relationship between God and time is a fascinating topic. William Lane Craig wrote an excellent book on this, the gist of which is that God existed in a state of timeless eternity before the creation but entered into time with the creation. By this reasoning, God would agree the universe is billions of years old. See https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00A0XAES0/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1, or the summation at https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/divine-eternity/god-time-and-eternity/.

 

[brujaq]

Why is there so little moon dust, a few years ago there was an Australian company who collected space dust in high altitude flights and sold the dust accumulated in vials to the public and how much dust would be created by meteor strikes pulverized rock ..

 

[Jim Parker]

It's not a book to study as science but does include information, from the words of God Himself that tell us something about the concepts that would be considered to be a scientific discipline.

Check these scriptures out:

Deuteronomy 23:13 King James Version (KJV)

13 And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee:

Leviticus 15:13 King James Version (KJV)

13 And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean.

This is just two examples of how the Bible told the Israelite's a method to deal with cleanliness. One, to bury their excrement and the other, to wash with running water.

And these are things that would be learned from observation and instruction of previous generations. No one to samples to put under a microscope to identify pathogens.
It looks more like common sense than science.

It's not a science text but it gives instructions that made scientific sense.

Exactly. It is not science. But it teaches behaviors that are conducive to good health.

My view is that the Bible does have historically accurate and scientifically verifiable content but that its primary purpose is God's self revelation.

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

Andersonville prison camp in Georgia is a great example of that. I had a two distant cousins that were prisoners there during the Civil War as one died from the disease and the other was released and ended up going insane shooting his wife and then himself from the effects of this camp.
In the picture at the bottom you see a long trough as this was where the men did their business and also drank from the spout that ran into it.

Over 30,000 Union and nearly 26,000 Confederate prisoners died in captivity. Just over 12% of the captives in Northern prisons died, compared to 15.5% for Southern prisons. (reports from "Harper's Weekly "1863-64; illustrated)

Note that the South was subjected to a blockade by the north which resulted in a scarcity of all resources for everyone in the south, military and civilian. (Much like Germany in WW1.)

iakov the fool

 

[for_his_glory]

That may well be. The point is that science is concerned with explaining (as best it can) the known universe. The existence of God is a metaphysical question beyond the scope of science. From a strictly scientific viewpoint, God is indeed a theory (or hypothesis). As Laplace famously said to Napoleon when the latter asked him why his scientific treatise contained no reference to God, "I have no need of that hypothesis." A Christian scientist may believe that he has fellowship with God and may say like the rest of us that he "knows" God exists, but his knowledge of God is not scientific knowledge.

The age of the earth is not a "God question." How God measures time is irrelevant to the question. Time operates in a certain manner in the universe and on the earth that God has created. According to that standard, the earth is billions of earth-years old, period. This is essentially as much of a scientific certainty as is the fact that the earth is not flat and does not sit on pillars.

The relationship between God and time is a fascinating topic. William Lane Craig wrote an excellent book on this, the gist of which is that God existed in a state of timeless eternity before the creation but entered into time with the creation. By this reasoning, God would agree the universe is billions of years old. See https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00A0XAES0/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1, or the summation at https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/divine-eternity/god-time-and-eternity/.

The whole thing that brought me to question all of this years ago of how old the earth is and present it here is Genesis 1:28 where it says "and replenish the earth". Just one of those curiosity questions, but really no answer, but fun to explore it.

 

[brujaq]

I disagree.

Firstly, how do you interpret Post # 108?

Secondly:

Only men say that it isn't a history book or science book due to the fact that it may contradict the finite mind of men and their observations.

When I see a contradiction between men and the word of God, in relation to events of the past or concepts of reality, I will take the Word of God.

Yes, it is not a science book per say.... however, either is even any other book, written by men, that includes a page or two or even a paragraph, which describes something factual about some sort of science. It's not a book to study as science but does include information, from the words of God Himself that tell us something about the concepts that would be considered to be a scientific discipline.

Check these scriptures out:

Deuteronomy 23:13 King James Version (KJV)

13 And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee:

Leviticus 15:13 King James Version (KJV)

13 And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean.

This is just two examples of how the Bible told the Israelite's a method to deal with cleanliness. One, to bury their excrement and the other, to wash with running water.

There is no way that Moses knew about bacteria but these two actions kept them safe from illness.

More people, from what I understand, have died during wars, from infection due to improper sanitation from crowed living quarters.

God gave His people the knowledge to avoid this.

It's not a science text but it gives instructions that made scientific sense.

It is said that Jewish cleanliness laws was a factor in figuring out the ''Black Plague'' .. It was noticed that Jewish communities were not near as affected as non Jewish communities .. God only knows how many other diseases through the years were kept in check because of keeping Jewish cleanliness laws, plenty I suppose ..