Just how old is the earth anyway?

[Lloyd81]

Not meaning to miss the point of this thread - it's certainly been a good read.

But what happens when the day comes and we ALL have to bow before God? Where will the theories, scientists, evolutionists, go then? What evidence will you have to support your claims?

One day we will all bow before the Lord, and truly understand his greatness.

This isn't a swipe at anyone by the way, so please don't take offence or think that I have dropped off topic and am blinded by my Biblical approach. I'm just sayin...

Why does understanding that the earth and universe are older than 6000 years old make God angry?

Hey .. I'm not sure where I said God is angry?

Like I said, I've enjoyed reading this thread, been really insightful and interesting.

 

[happyjoy]

Not meaning to miss the point of this thread - it's certainly been a good read.

But what happens when the day comes and we ALL have to bow before God? Where will the theories, scientists, evolutionists, go then? What evidence will you have to support your claims?

One day we will all bow before the Lord, and truly understand his greatness.

This isn't a swipe at anyone by the way, so please don't take offence or think that I have dropped off topic and am blinded by my Biblical approach. I'm just sayin...

Why does understanding that the earth and universe are older than 6000 years old make God angry?

Hey .. I'm not sure where I said God is angry?

Like I said, I've enjoyed reading this thread, been really insightful and interesting.

It seemed you alluded to God judging scientists, and people who believe in an old earth would be Judged harshly when they stand before God. Sorry if I misunderstood.

I agree this has been an interesting read.

 

[oi_antz]

Question: why is it impossible for a human to consider they are BOTH correct?

 

[John]

Question: why is it impossible for a human to consider they are BOTH correct?

Are you talking about apparent age?

 

[watchman F]

Not meaning to miss the point of this thread - it's certainly been a good read.

But what happens when the day comes and we ALL have to bow before God? Where will the theories, scientists, evolutionists, go then? What evidence will you have to support your claims?

One day we will all bow before the Lord, and truly understand his greatness.

This isn't a swipe at anyone by the way, so please don't take offence or think that I have dropped off topic and am blinded by my Biblical approach. I'm just sayin...

Why does understanding that the earth and universe are older than 6000 years old make God angry?

It doesn't make God angry it makes you wrong. The fact that you try to force scripture to fit man-made ideas rather than accepting scripture as God's inerrant word. Now that might make Him angry

 

[happyjoy]

Not meaning to miss the point of this thread - it's certainly been a good read.

But what happens when the day comes and we ALL have to bow before God? Where will the theories, scientists, evolutionists, go then? What evidence will you have to support your claims?

One day we will all bow before the Lord, and truly understand his greatness.

This isn't a swipe at anyone by the way, so please don't take offence or think that I have dropped off topic and am blinded by my Biblical approach. I'm just sayin...

Why does understanding that the earth and universe are older than 6000 years old make God angry?

It doesn't make God angry it makes you wrong. The fact that you try to force scripture to fit man-made ideas rather than accepting scripture as God's inerrant word. Now that might make Him angry

I am not twisting scripture the young earthers are.

 

[John]

I am not twisting scripture the young earthers are.

Sorry, but i must disagree with that statement.

 

[freeway]

Happyjoy posted that=

I am not twisting scripture the young earthers are.

Question then can you please show where said scriptures are, and how or if they are being twisted? I am a young earth-er.. 6000 thousand years according to the bible, maybe as far as 10,000 but not billions just doesn't fit the bible view.

 

[oi_antz]

Question: why is it impossible for a human to consider they are BOTH correct?

Are you talking about apparent age?

No actually, what I mean is that people have an incapacity to accept both science and the Bible. From my point of view they both accomplish different things:

Science (big-bang, evolution) facilitates scientific advancement which is necessary in our world - dare to argue it isn't?

Holy Bible facilitates a relationship with God through faith - that's obvious.

The Holy Bible doesn't set out to teach science and science doesn't set out to provide a relationship with God.

They are not actually meant to be contradictory, those of us who choose to see contradiction are probably using science or the Bible for the wrong purpose..

Am I really the only person who finds it possible to believe both science and The Bible without trying to use one to prove the other wrong?

 

[jasoncran]

the problem with that is say this.

the bible says the the lord is creator of the earth.

men using the "science" as a tool, to "prove" that that God doesnt exist.

which one are you going to agree with.

science itself has no opionion, men do. a man makes"opinion' not the data.

evolution by it's nature is unguided. if its being guided then why is the natural selection called natural events.

we use "natural"selection to bred dogs, but that isnt considered evolution at all.

 

[happyjoy]

we use "natural"selection to bred dogs, but that isnt considered evolution at all.

Jason it is called artificial selection when we do it. Precisely because it isn't natural. You really lack understanding in basic biology. I am going to post this for you. It is a General Biology course available for free. This is an accredited university. This is where you learn what science really says. I encourage you to learn.

http://www.academicearth.org/courses/general-biology-i

 

[seekandlisten]

Question then can you please show where said scriptures are, and how or if they are being twisted? I am a young earth-er.. 6000 thousand years according to the bible, maybe as far as 10,000 but not billions just doesn't fit the bible view.

The Bible doesn't give an age of the earth so it would be man's folly in calculating a young earth based on information given in the Bible. If the evidence points differently then maybe those calculations should be revisited.

Not to take this discussion into evolution, although I see it heading that way already, let's take a look at some dates and ideas put forth in history. Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published in 1859 laying out the framework for what we know today about how life came to be what it is today on our planet. Darwin pointed to 'God' as the originator of this life despite what creationists try and say.

Now the only basis for a young earth and a literal 6 day creation comes from Genesis so is it valid to read it as a literal reading? Origen, a philosopher in the 3rd century, didn't think it should be taken literally. Now this is well before someone decided that the earth was only 6-10 thousand years old. Taken from his On First Principles which states;

"What person of intelligence, I ask, will consider as a reasonable statement that the first and the second and the third day, in which there are said to be both morning and evening, existed without sun and moon and stars, while the first day was even without a heaven? […] I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history."

St. Augustine of Hippo in the 5th century also followed the line of thinking that Genesis shouldn't be read literally. St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century also didn't believe in a literal interpretation. On which William Carrol had this to say.

"Aquinas did not think that the opening of Genesis presented any difficulties for the natural sciences, for the Bible is not a textbook in the sciences. What is essential to Christian faith, according to Aquinas, is the "fact of creation," not the manner or mode of the formation of the world."
(William E. Carroll, "Aquinas and the Big Bang," First Things 97 (1999): 18-20)

Aquinas argued to the point that God created all life to have potential.

"On the day on which God created the heaven and the earth, He created also every plant of the field, not, indeed, actually, but "before it sprung up in the earth," that is, potentially. … All things were not distinguished and adorned together, not from a want of power on God's part, as requiring time in which to work, but that due order might be observed in the instituting of the world. Hence it was fitting that different days should be assigned to the different states of the world, as each succeeding work added to the world a fresh state of perfection."

St. Thomas Aquinas, "Question 74: All the Seven Days in Common," in The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, 2nd ed., trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: Burns Oates and Washbourne, 1920)

In the 18th century, just before Darwin's Origin of Species, John Wesley wrote this.

"The inspired penman in this history [Genesis] … [wrote] for the Jews first and, calculating his narratives for the infant state of the church, describes things by their outward sensible appearances, and leaves us, by further discoveries of the divine light, to be led into the understanding of the mysteries couched under them."
John Wesley, Wesley's Notes on the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Francis Asbury Press)

Wesley also argued that scriptures "were written not to gratify our curiosity [of the details], but to lead us to God."
John Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God in the Creation: Or, a Compendium of Natural Philosophy, 3rd ed. (London: J. Fry, 1777)

So as one can see, many significant Church figures believed not in a literal 6 day Creation 6000 years ago and this was long before science found evidence of this. I believe the literal reading of Genesis beliefs started around the 15th-16th century. So the question becomes what are the reasons for clinging to said belief when the evidence points otherwise and is in agreement with early Christian thinkers long before scientists figured it out?

Augustine offered of this important piece of advice.

"In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture."

(Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis)


cheers


(If any of my information is incorrect feel free to correct me)

 

[logical bob]

Thanks seekandlisten - an excellent post.

To those who maintain that the early chapters of Genesis must be read literally I would ask this: which was created first - humans or plants?

 

[watchman F]

Thanks seekandlisten - an excellent post.

To those who maintain that the early chapters of Genesis must be read literally I would ask this: which was created first - humans or plants?

Plants

 

[jasoncran]

we use "natural"selection to bred dogs, but that isnt considered evolution at all.

Jason it is called artificial selection when we do it. Precisely because it isn't natural. You really lack understanding in basic biology. I am going to post this for you. It is a General Biology course available for free. This is an accredited university. This is where you learn what science really says. I encourage you to learn.

http://www.academicearth.org/courses/general-biology-i

ok, ms. i have i hate for all christians. i think the point is the same. :mad

its not considered a species when organism are breed in captivity, correct? why because men. are manipulating the gene pool.and yes i used to the wrong word. i will take a class when i am ready. and i noticed that you dont dare correct bronzesnake.

i wonder if your act like this to persons and correct them like this all the time.

 

[John]

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. Exodus 20:11


Right in the middle of issuing the ten commandments, are you calling Jesus a liar? or perhaps Jesus was ignorant of modern dating methods? The Lord made all in 6 days, man, dinosaurs, water, earth, etc etc. The water was clear until man threw mud in it with his theories about the age of the earth and heavens.

You lose.

 

[jasoncran]

right, we should take a pastors word over what the bible does say in the book of exodus. while it is true that the the creation story isnt exactly a scientific text. but that doenst support evoultion.

should when then still hate the the jew as calvin, luther, and other "greats" of the faith did.

most creationist dont accpet the the creation happened in the order of the six day, exactly

 

[happyjoy]

its not considered a species when organism are breed in captivity, correct? why because men. are manipulating the gene pool.and yes i used to the wrong word. i will take a class when i am ready. and i noticed that you dont dare correct bronzesnake.

I don't correct bronzesnake because I don't think he is actually interesting in a real discussion, only in formulating emotional gotcha arguments, not talking about real science. I will let others tilt against windmills. You strike me as a person who wants to actually discuss things, but you just don't have correct information. So I gave you a place to get some.

i wonder if your act like this to persons and correct them like this all the time.

I correct people when they claim something that is incorrect is correct.

 

[happyjoy]

its not considered a species when organism are breed in captivity, correct?

Wrong, dogs are the same species because they can breed with each other. Really you have a basic lack of knowledge about biology. I notice you like to talk about biology, why wouldn't you want to understand and have knowledge about what you are talking about?

 

[jasoncran]

A species is a population of interbreeding organisms. The definition requires that interbreeding be in the wild, not in some artificial environment, such as a zoo

that is where i got that. and i should have added that in artifical enviroment.

no, you dont choose to correct bronsesnake as he has more knowledge then you, and that fact that i choose not respond to your accusation.which i would have addressed hadnt my uncle be in the hospital.