[_ Old Earth _] Evidence for an old earth

[lordkalvan]

Can you read German? I can't - and it would be better said of me that I'm illiterate than to suggest such a thing of the ones the Holy Spirit chose as His pen....

You spent the first part of the thread complaining that the thread was not sticking very tightly to what you considered the original topic. Now you talk about something completely different. Are you completely incapable of discussing the topic of the young earthers theory that the earth is 6,000-10,000 old?

It's only off-topic if the Topic Police decide it's off-topic... ;)

As far as your ending question is concerned, it would seem to be that the simple answer is yes.

 

[Sparkey]

Are you completely incapable of discussing the topic of the young earthers theory that the earth is 6,000-10,000 old?

As far as your ending question is concerned, it would seem to be that the simple answer is yes.

Ahhh, guys?
I have spoken about Bisop Ussher's assessment. I've quoted paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould who pointed to him as “a symbol of ancient and benighted authoritarianism.†(Sorry - that says nothing about the age of the earth - but then again, it was per your request).

I've also brought in links that address the calculations about the age of "old" ICE.

I've also been asked to point to any specific place where you two have "double teamed" others in this section of the forum. By the way, that observation did not originate with me.

Need I say more?

 

[VenomFangX]

The discussion was interesting and without malice: thank you guys. This in my opinion is how all forums should be; you guys are a credit.
yours
ÒõýþüäðýóÖ

 

[lordkalvan]

Ahhh, guys?
I have spoken about Bisop Ussher's assessment.

To what purpose? That he wasn't 'inspired by the Holy Spirit'? How do you know?

I've quoted paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould who pointed to him as “a symbol of ancient and benighted authoritarianism.â€Â

Only in the context of scientists' 'ridicule' of him, without any illuminating commentary on your part.

(Sorry - that says nothing about the age of the earth - but then again, it was per your request).

I think you introduced Ussher into the conversation, asking if we had heard of him. Again, to no very evident purpose.

I've also brought in links that address the calculations about the age of "old" ICE.

And did you comment about how the calculation of ages from ice layers impact upon YE creationist views of Earth's age?

I've also been asked to point to any specific place where you two have "double teamed" others in this section of the forum.

For my part I asked where Ken and I had double-teamed you elsewhere, as that was the obvious implication of your original complaint on the matter. I also refuted your suggestion that we were actively co-operating to double-team you. As I've said before, in a public forum anyone can comment on anyone else's posts. I was simply agreeing with Ken's comment.

By the way, that observation did not originate with me.

What observation?

Need I say more?

Yes.

 

[Sparkey]

There are obviously two different views here. Does that surprise anyone? The thread is found on a Christian Forum in a section under "Christian Discussion / Christianity and Science.

It's easy enough to find various "authorities" to support any argument these days. You've stated that Hebrews were illiterate (I assume you mean at the time of the exodus and before). Can we "prove" that? There are two camps on that issue which should be of no surprise.

W. Vatke, the father of the philosophic presuppositions of the radical criticism of the Old Testament, in true Hegelian style, denies on a priori grounds that Moses had a knowledge of writing, claiming that such a view contravenes the laws of the evolution of history. He accordingly concludes that the Hebrews at the Exodus were illiterate nomads and of course had no knowledge of writing (Relig. d. A. T., p., 179). Cornill says: "In the sense in which the historian speaks of knowing, we know absolutely nothing about Moses. All original records are missing; we have not received a line, not even a word, from Moses himself, or from any of his contemporaries; even the celebrated Ten Commandments are not from him, but, as can be proved, were written in the first half of the seventh century B. C. The oldest accounts of Moses are five hundred years later than his time" (Proph. Israel, p., 17).
The antiquity of Hebrew writing and literature: By Alvin Sylvester Zerbe

The "appeal to authority" is at an impasse, is it not? If you care to, you may scroll up a page in the above given link to see the other side of the coin.

Your statement was:

Pre-scientific ideas expressed in ways that might make sense to a pre-literate. superstitious culture have no meaningful contribution to make to our understanding of the cosmos.

You do know that Moses actually spoke to God, don't you? Perhaps that is a focus you would do well to emulate, it certainly is my prayer for you (all jousting aside). I do enjoy our discussions and appreciate the fact that you would probably not reply if you didn't find them, as you say, "of interest".

~Sparrow

 

[lordkalvan]

There are obviously two different views here. Does that surprise anyone? The thread is found on a Christian Forum in a section under "Christian Discussion / Christianity and Science.

Concerning the literacy of a 2nd or 1st Millennium BC Middle Eastern culture? I don't think so.

It's easy enough to find various "authorities" to support any argument these days. You've stated that Hebrews were illiterate (I assume you mean at the time of the exodus and before). Can we "prove" that? There are two camps on that issue which should be of no surprise.

I stated that most Hebrews at this time would be functionally illiterate. It's not a question of proof, it's a question of the weight of evidence. The fact of illiteracy on the part of the majority does not preclude literacy on the part of elites.

The "appeal to authority" is at an impasse, is it not? If you care to, you may scroll up a page in the above given link to see the other side of the coin.

I made no comment on the literacy-levels of Moses or any other invoked author of the Old Testament. Whoever wrote down the stories in the Old Testament derived from earlier oral traditions was, ipso facto, literate.

You do know that Moses actually spoke to God, don't you?

An assertion for which there is no evidence. Moses may or may not have 'actually' spoken to God, but the Old Testament is not evidence that he did, anymore than my writing in my diary that I spoke with Odin or Vishnu yesterday would be evidence that I spoke with either of them.

Perhaps that is a focus you would do well to emulate, it certainly is my prayer for you (all jousting aside).

I think it is better to leave claims of personal divine revelation, whether current or historical, to one side.

I do enjoy our discussions and appreciate the fact that you would probably not reply if you didn't find them, as you say, "of interest".

Indeed I do.

 

[Sparkey]

There are obviously two different views here. Does that surprise anyone? The thread is found on a Christian Forum in a section under "Christian Discussion / Christianity and Science.

Concerning the literacy of a 2nd or 1st Millennium BC Middle Eastern culture? I don't think so.

It's easy enough to find various "authorities" to support any argument these days. You've stated that Hebrews were illiterate (I assume you mean at the time of the exodus and before). Can we "prove" that? There are two camps on that issue which should be of no surprise.

In summary, I've stated, "There are obviously two different (or differing) views here."
You're replied, "I don't think so."

The facts are not changed by your opinion. There are two camps of thought on the matter. Here then, let me fetch "the other side" from the book that I quoted, "The antiquity of Hebrew Writing and Literature: By Alvin Sylvester Zerbe:.

THE STATE OF WRITING AMONG THE HEBREWS AT THE EXODUS.

Here again we have two rival theories, the one affirming, the other denying, that writing was known to the Hebrews at the Exodus.

1. Writing Known to the Hebrews.

The great German scholar, Ewald, in his History of Israel, supports in detail the view that the Hebrews were familiar with writing in the Mosaic age. "It cannot be doubted that the Israelites could write during the time of their sojourn in Egypt Only what was then written in Israel cannot have been very important  at any rate we have no trace of it As to the Mosaic age, the most various and earliest reminiscences concur in representing it to have possessed the familiar use of writing.

The two stone tables of the law are according to all evidences and arguments to be ascribed to Moses; but as the art of writing certainly cannot have commenced with the hardest writing-materials, nor its use been restricted to a few words on one single occasion, the unquestionable historical existence of these tables necessarily implies a diffusion of the knowledge of writing among the more cultivated portion of the people" (II p., 48). Prof. W. H. Green, of Princeton, writes: "If anything can be established by historical and monumental evidence, the law surely can be, which was graven on stones that were still extant in the time of Solomon" (Heb. Feasts, p., 169)."

A large and influential group of scholars are certain that the Hebrews must have been acquainted* with the art of writing at the time of the Exodus.

_____________________________________________________________
*So to the same effect: C. F. Keil, Rib. Archaeol. u, -to: A. H. Sayce. Lex Mosaica, p., 6, and other world; E. C. Bissell, Bib. Anliq.. p., 14; A. J. F. Behrends, O. T. und,r Fir*, 18; J. On, Problem of the 0 T. and Bible under Trial, p., i2j.

There you have it. Two camps.

Now surely you will say, "That's what I've been saying all along." You will quote where my source speaks of writing, "among the more cultivated portion of the people". That does not speak to your assertion that the whole of the book of Genesis must be discounted because a certain portion of Hebrews at the time it was written were unable to read.

I would suggest that your particular view should not be expected to be welcomed on a Christian forum in a section called "Christian Discussion" and a sub-forum called "Christianity & Science." If the thrust of your whole argument about "Evidence for an old earth" (so called) is to deny the truth of the Bible? To deny that the Bible is the word of God? Well, you're in the wrong room.

Cordially,
~Sparrowhawke

 

[lordkalvan]

....There you have it. Two camps....

You are creating a strawman to attack and ignoring everything I have said. Some is not the same as all. Most members of a culture can be functionally illiterate, but this does not mean that an elite within that culture neither cannot be nor is not literate. Your references do nothing to undermine this observation.

 

[Sparkey]

Not so. I was speaking to Venom about the beauty of the Word found in the Hebraic language.
My only intent when I came back to this thread was to delete my post in order to save us this discussion and not get onto another side track.

Now you wrongly state that I am creating a "straw man". I'm giving counterpoint to your statements. When I don't reply you complain, when I do reply you complain. Interesting style of argument there. Does it work this well for you always?

~Sparrow

PS - I was editing the above post as you posted. Not editing after the fact.

 

[lordkalvan]

....Now surely you will say, "That's what I've been saying all along." You will quote where my source speaks of writing, "among the more cultivated portion of the people". That does not speak to your assertion that the whole of the book of Genesis must be discounted because a certain portion of Hebrews at the time it was written were unable to read.,,,

Sorry, I missed this part.

I argue that Genesis cannot be regarded as a reliable presentation of Earth's origins and development because it addresses a superstitious, pre-scientific, functionally illiterate audience in terms which would make sense to them. Additionally, there is no evidence from the detail of Genesis that those who wrote it down understood the origins, nature and evolution of the Universe and most of the natural world any better than the people they were addressing.

I would suggest that your particular view should not be expected to be welcomed on a Christian forum in a section called "Christian Discussion" and a sub-forum called "Christianity & Science." If the thrust of your whole argument about "Evidence for an old earth" (so called) is to deny the truth of the Bible? To deny that the Bible is the word of God? Well, you're in the wrong room.

Who denies the Bible is inspired in part by the word of God? Where the word of God is written down and interpreted by fallible men, it is inevitable that misunderstandings, confusion and different understandings will arise. The Old Testament in particular is demonstrably more than an inspirational, spiritual message, replete as it is with nation-building myths, rules on social mores and self-serving distortions of history. The Christian movement is replete with devout Christians who regard the Old Testament as very much less than the literal truth without denying a spiritual truth that underlies it. I am sorry that you appear to be feel so threatened by a countervailing opinion that you seem to feel it has no place in a public forum.

 

[lordkalvan]

Not so. I was speaking to Venom about the beauty of the Word found in the Hebraic language. My only intent when I came back to this thread was to delete my post in order to save us this discussion and not get onto another side track.

I am more than happy to leave our difference of opinion on this matter to one side and return to the substance of the thread.

Now you wrongly state that I am creating a "straw man". I'm giving counterpoint to your statements. When I don't reply you complain, when I do reply you complain. Interesting style of argument there. Does it work this well for you always?

Fair enough; we are both entitled to our opinions. As I said above, I am happy to drop the matter and return to the subject matter of the thread.

 

[Orion]

Sparrow, and anyone else, . . . may I ask, point blank, what your belief is, as per the age of the earth? I would appreciate it. The age of the universe as well, if you could.

Thanks!

 

[VenomFangX]

Interesting question indeed. The Earth is 4.6 billion years and the Universe is 14 billion.
yours
ÒõýþüäðýóÖ

 

[Sparkey]

Sparrow, and anyone else, . . . may I ask, point blank, what your belief is, as per the age of the earth? I would appreciate it. The age of the universe as well, if you could.

Thanks!

Is it okay for me to have a firm belief that I don't know the age of the earth, nor the age of the universe?

I do understand (to some degree) and enjoy reading various viewpoints. If I had to guess about how old the earth was? I'd shrug my shoulders and say, "Sorry, I really don't know." There are so many arguments on both sides, you know? The ones that appeal to me are more spiritual (bible based) than scientific but that doesn't mean that I think that science isn't fascinating. For most of my life (especially as a younger man) I've loved knowledge and tried studiously to gain a basic grasp of various subjects. What did I learn? Merely that I am distinctly under-qualified to assess let alone pontificate on such things as the dictates of advanced scientific knowledge. String theory? I've got the book and have read it but do I understand it? Truth is I fail to understand even what light is. Sure, I've read about the various properties of light but do I understand it? No.

Just because we can label something and try to speak about it doesn't mean we know it. What about the implications surrounding "Schrodinger's Cat" thought experiment? Can I understand or unlock the mysteries of life itself? Sure, that's been a dream of mankind for-almost-ever. Can I know and state categorically the age of the universe? It seems to me that even the best efforts of others (those who cite YE theory) can only look back until the expulsion from the Garden of Eden and even those efforts are based on what I would call "shaky grounds". Was the earth created on October 23, 4004 BC? I sincerely doubt it. I can't (at least I haven't so far) discover any direct statements about the age of the earth or the age of the universe in the Bible.

My dad tried to teach and instruct my inquisitive mind to look to the "Why?" of an issue and not only to the "What?". If I were able to understand both "What?" and "Why?" of Gods acts when He created us I would be better able to serve, right? Slaves in the house of a Master do what they are told without understanding "Why". Although it is easy to show that I do not live up to my calling it is also true that I want to learn how to so that God can be better served and so that His purpose can be better seen not only in me but also in the earth. He states that we will know that He is God because He shows us the end from the beginning. I do like thinking about what He might have meant when He said that.

Science doesn't even ask questions like, "How can death be in the world before the sin of Adam?"
I also understand that the bible directly states that there was a flood and that many are willfully ignorant of that fact. Does that mean that I should take various statements that contradict the bible with a grain of salt? I think it does. Does that mean that I can force my view on others? I've tried not to. What is my "view"? God is good. He loves mercy and kindness and does not neglect Justice. God is Just and True and does not lie.

The background for my thirst of knowledge has ever been the study of creation, how it works and etc., but that is mostly in order to find more about our Creator. It's only been recently that I've understood even the simple things like, "What good is knowledge if you don't know what to do with it?" Wisdom is better than knowledge but there I go preaching again. If we gain knowledge only for the sake of argument and to prove others wrong (implying that we are somehow better) then it seems that the real teaching found in the Bible has been misunderstood. That's the fault of mine that I would confess to.

It's a simple thing to me. Although I do like to discuss things the effort to avoid argument is sometimes taken to mean that I am avoiding the subject (and perhaps that's true enough).

Orion, thank you for the direct question. I hope that my answer at least satisfies you in part.

Regarding the age of the earth and the age of the universe, the jury is still out as far as I'm concerned. What does the bible mean when it speaks of the silver chord being loosened? Is knowledge being poured out upon the earth in these last days? Can we seek understanding while we grow in wisdom and learn what He wants us to know? What priority do we assign to "book knowledge" over the "knowledge hidden in Christ"? These are the questions that remain in me and it is my hope that the purpose of the Lord will be served here.

Cordially,
~Sparrow

 

[lordkalvan]

Sparrow, and anyone else, . . . may I ask, point blank, what your belief is, as per the age of the earth? I would appreciate it. The age of the universe as well, if you could.

I see no reason to cast doubt on ages in the region of 4.5 billion years for Earth and the Solar System, and around 13.7 billion years for the Universe. Various independent methodologies all converge on the billions of years; it is overwhelmingly improbable - as near impossible as makes no difference - that Earth (and the Universe) are around 6,000 years old.