Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
What EXACTLY do I believe?
Hmmmm...
1) I believe that I am a Christian, yet that remains subject to the judgment of the one I call my King. My belief about myself is based on the belief that God is good, that He is merciful, and that He will accept me as His adopted son.
2) Regarding the age of the earth and how long life has existed? Frankly, I don't know. I believe that God does know and also believe that there will come a time when we know Him even as He knows us. The rest doesn't matter much (to me) but I do enjoy trying to think about such things.
_____________________________
Some accept Bishop Ussher's date of creation to be Noon, October 23rd 4004 BC. Many believe this date was arrived at by a simple calculation (similar to what an accountant would do) that involves adding the ages of the patriarchs as listed in Genesis. Problems start when one tries to do this on their own. What text should be used? The Septuagint gives different result than the Hebrew Text. Did the translators get it right? The name "Septuagint" derives from legend that 72 Israelites (6 from each of the twelve tribes of Israel) --worked in separate rooms and made their own translations. When they compared their results, all were identical. If the difference between the totals of the ages indicated a longer period of time (adding 1,000 years) who am I to say one is more authoritative?
Do I know better? I don't. Further, even if one accepts the the bible as inerrant (as I do) the process of adding up the ages stops with Solomon.
In the second period one struggles with trying to deal with the two different timelines during the period of the Kings. Attempts to correlate the dates given for the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah come into play. Fortunately there are events for which dates are given. This helps but the final period, for the time between when the OT stopped being written and the Birth of Christ there are no remaining events or chronologies. One may guess that there were about 400 years (or so) that passed between the times of Ezra and Nehemiah to the birth of Jesus, but we can't use the Bible for that. There is no information from that source. Such things as the death of the Chaldean king Nebuchadnezzar II or other events found during Chaldean and the subsequent Persian rule are used to bridge the gap.
The persuasive element of the Ussher chronology is that it lines up the Six Days of Creation with a metaphor that since "that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day," (2 Peter 3:8) which is taken to mean that the earth was created 4 "days" or four thousand years before Christ, and that 2 days (2,000 years later) will end with the beginning of a new day, the 7th Day and the millennial reign of Jesus for the last "day" or 1,000 years.
One must question why Ussher established 4004 as the year of creation, with all of the alternatives available. Historians had (at that time) already established that Herod died in the year 4 B.C. It became evident that Jesus could not have been born in 0 BC. If Herod ordered the slaying of the innocents, then Jesus could not have been born after 4 B.C. The death of Herod in 4 B.C. fails to establish the birth of Jesus in the same year and the Bible doesn't give the date Herod died. Herod was in charge since 37 B.C.--and Jesus might have been born sometime other than Herod's last year.
The Book of Luke gives a clue for date of Jesus conception - he was conceived when Elizabeth was 6 months pregnant.
_____________________________
But back to my answer to question #2: How old is the earth?
Frankly, I don't know.
Hmmmm...1) I believe that I am a Christian, yet that remains subject to the judgment of the one I call my King. My belief about myself is based on the belief that God is good, that He is merciful, and that He will accept me as His adopted son.
2) Regarding the age of the earth and how long life has existed? Frankly, I don't know. I believe that God does know and also believe that there will come a time when we know Him even as He knows us. The rest doesn't matter much (to me) but I do enjoy trying to think about such things.
_____________________________
Some accept Bishop Ussher's date of creation to be Noon, October 23rd 4004 BC. Many believe this date was arrived at by a simple calculation (similar to what an accountant would do) that involves adding the ages of the patriarchs as listed in Genesis. Problems start when one tries to do this on their own. What text should be used? The Septuagint gives different result than the Hebrew Text. Did the translators get it right? The name "Septuagint" derives from legend that 72 Israelites (6 from each of the twelve tribes of Israel) --worked in separate rooms and made their own translations. When they compared their results, all were identical. If the difference between the totals of the ages indicated a longer period of time (adding 1,000 years) who am I to say one is more authoritative?
Do I know better? I don't. Further, even if one accepts the the bible as inerrant (as I do) the process of adding up the ages stops with Solomon.
In the second period one struggles with trying to deal with the two different timelines during the period of the Kings. Attempts to correlate the dates given for the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah come into play. Fortunately there are events for which dates are given. This helps but the final period, for the time between when the OT stopped being written and the Birth of Christ there are no remaining events or chronologies. One may guess that there were about 400 years (or so) that passed between the times of Ezra and Nehemiah to the birth of Jesus, but we can't use the Bible for that. There is no information from that source. Such things as the death of the Chaldean king Nebuchadnezzar II or other events found during Chaldean and the subsequent Persian rule are used to bridge the gap.
The persuasive element of the Ussher chronology is that it lines up the Six Days of Creation with a metaphor that since "that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day," (2 Peter 3:8) which is taken to mean that the earth was created 4 "days" or four thousand years before Christ, and that 2 days (2,000 years later) will end with the beginning of a new day, the 7th Day and the millennial reign of Jesus for the last "day" or 1,000 years.
One must question why Ussher established 4004 as the year of creation, with all of the alternatives available. Historians had (at that time) already established that Herod died in the year 4 B.C. It became evident that Jesus could not have been born in 0 BC. If Herod ordered the slaying of the innocents, then Jesus could not have been born after 4 B.C. The death of Herod in 4 B.C. fails to establish the birth of Jesus in the same year and the Bible doesn't give the date Herod died. Herod was in charge since 37 B.C.--and Jesus might have been born sometime other than Herod's last year.
The Book of Luke gives a clue for date of Jesus conception - he was conceived when Elizabeth was 6 months pregnant.
Zacharias, a priest and Elizabeth's husband, had been performing his duties when he was told that his wife would conceive. The Bible states this was "during the course of Abijah." There is a way to relate the various "courses" set out for the priesthood and their times so, to make a long story short, our best guess for the year of Jesus' birth is 4 B.C.
_____________________________
But back to my answer to question #2: How old is the earth?
Frankly, I don't know.
Pizzaguy
Member
Yes.
Old.*
* I believe the age of the earth is not easily determined, but the best evidence points to an age that can only be described as "old".
C
cupid dave
Guest
"Scientifical Correst."
I believe Genesis is scientifically correct, as is every other thing stated in the Bible.
1. Yes
2. Young. I take Genesis literally (why would there be dimensions for the ark if the story of the global flood was only meant to be figurative?), and from that view you simply cannot fit the it and evolution together. I also believe it's scientifically accurate.
2. Young. I take Genesis literally (why would there be dimensions for the ark if the story of the global flood was only meant to be figurative?), and from that view you simply cannot fit the it and evolution together. I also believe it's scientifically accurate.
Last edited by a moderator:
thightower
Member
1. yes 2. young
My basis is I believe the bible is the inerrant literal word of God.
My basis is I believe the bible is the inerrant literal word of God.
The Unbeliever
Member
1. No
2. 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years
2. 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years
Re: Bible is Word of God -AND- I don't know how old the Earth is, do you?
Some of the theories regarding the age of the earth involve calculating the distances between stars and consider such lofty ideas as the absolute speed of light. The problem that I have when I try to think about such stuff is that my mind quickly becomes boggled. Not by the vast amounts of "empty" space between the stars (and galaxies) but by the sheer number of them. At any given time to total number of stars that can be seen by the unaided eye from every point on earth (not counting duplicates) is about 4,000 or so.
Yet the bible compares their number to the total number of grains of sand! (Jer 33:22) (Gen 22:17)
Scientists have done a remarkable job at convincing people that they know more about places that nobody has ever been to than anybody else. They've created elegant self-supporting mathematical models of the universe but their speculation includes such things as dark energy and dark matter. But why do we have a need for an invisible, unproven force such as dark energy? I'm as comfortable with saying that all creation is waiting with eager anticipation for the Sons of God to be revealed (Rom 8:19) as I would be saying that Dark Energy is the reason that the universe is observed to be accelerating and expanding away from us faster than the speed of light. see link ---> Cornell University: "Ask an Astronomer" for more information.
Explanations that include analogies of "giant blobs of dough" and raisins just fail for me. Go figure. Isn't it easier to simply say, "I'm unsure, or "I don't know"?? This frank admission avoids the horn of the dilemma and doesn't serve to put me into a category that I'd rather not be in, "Those who think more of themselves than they ought."
Some of the theories regarding the age of the earth involve calculating the distances between stars and consider such lofty ideas as the absolute speed of light. The problem that I have when I try to think about such stuff is that my mind quickly becomes boggled. Not by the vast amounts of "empty" space between the stars (and galaxies) but by the sheer number of them. At any given time to total number of stars that can be seen by the unaided eye from every point on earth (not counting duplicates) is about 4,000 or so.
Yet the bible compares their number to the total number of grains of sand! (Jer 33:22) (Gen 22:17)
Astronomers estimate that there are at least 10^26 stars (that is, a hundred-million-billion-billion stars), which reflects the same order of magnitude as the number of grains of sand on the earth. That alone boggles my mind. I'm left wide-eye'd in wonder at the truth that was revealed to prophets of old and the modern debate about the age of the earth recedes and is relegated to a place in my mind called, "Who knows, really?"
Scientists have done a remarkable job at convincing people that they know more about places that nobody has ever been to than anybody else. They've created elegant self-supporting mathematical models of the universe but their speculation includes such things as dark energy and dark matter. But why do we have a need for an invisible, unproven force such as dark energy? I'm as comfortable with saying that all creation is waiting with eager anticipation for the Sons of God to be revealed (Rom 8:19) as I would be saying that Dark Energy is the reason that the universe is observed to be accelerating and expanding away from us faster than the speed of light. see link ---> Cornell University: "Ask an Astronomer" for more information.
Explanations that include analogies of "giant blobs of dough" and raisins just fail for me. Go figure. Isn't it easier to simply say, "I'm unsure, or "I don't know"?? This frank admission avoids the horn of the dilemma and doesn't serve to put me into a category that I'd rather not be in, "Those who think more of themselves than they ought."
OldJesushippie
Member
Yes, I m a Christian (more than 30 years)
I accept both the Biblical account of creation and the scientific data regarding the age of the earth. Both affirm that the universe was created specifically by God. That work began billion of years ago; took billions of years to complete; and culminated with the creation of mankind.
I accept both the Biblical account of creation and the scientific data regarding the age of the earth. Both affirm that the universe was created specifically by God. That work began billion of years ago; took billions of years to complete; and culminated with the creation of mankind.
C
cupid dave
Guest
oes anyone beluieve that "Inthe beginning" indicates that there was a start upo to the Cosmos, something equivalent to the Big Bang science has just verified around 1940 as being true???
Claudya
Member
Yes, christian.
I believe something in the billions. 4 or 5 billion. Because if earth was created only 6000 years ago then God mislead us by making the world look so much older. And I refuse to believe that God would commit such a deceit. It makes more sense the other way: When God told Moses, a Bronze Age man, about where the world came from He couldn't tell him about physics, geology, genetics, evolution and anthropology, because all the details would have been incomprohensible and thus useless or confusing information for Moses and his people. God put it in a metaphorical story instead that contained all information relevant for mankind for some thousands of years.
I believe something in the billions. 4 or 5 billion. Because if earth was created only 6000 years ago then God mislead us by making the world look so much older. And I refuse to believe that God would commit such a deceit. It makes more sense the other way: When God told Moses, a Bronze Age man, about where the world came from He couldn't tell him about physics, geology, genetics, evolution and anthropology, because all the details would have been incomprohensible and thus useless or confusing information for Moses and his people. God put it in a metaphorical story instead that contained all information relevant for mankind for some thousands of years.
Arch Angle
Member
yes,
God seems to have created the earth threw evolution. I meanwhy wouldn't he use a rational approach?
Matthew G
Member
1.) Yes.
2.) Young
Taking into consideration the description of earth found in Genesis (water canopy vs. an atmosphere - little to no carbon radiation), there's no reason to believe the amount of C14 in lifeforms would have been the same as it is today. In fact there would have been very little due to a lack of cosmic radiation, which today means it would appear as if it died tens of thousands or even millions of years ago because there was so little C14 present.
I know this isn't a debate, but I didn't want to say young or old without an explanation. Blessings.
2.) Young
Taking into consideration the description of earth found in Genesis (water canopy vs. an atmosphere - little to no carbon radiation), there's no reason to believe the amount of C14 in lifeforms would have been the same as it is today. In fact there would have been very little due to a lack of cosmic radiation, which today means it would appear as if it died tens of thousands or even millions of years ago because there was so little C14 present.
I know this isn't a debate, but I didn't want to say young or old without an explanation. Blessings.
C
cupid dave
Guest
1. Yes.
2. I take Genesis literally and read it comprehensively aware that this form of communication utilizes all he Literary Arts to include parables, simile, hyperbole, bromides, metaphor, symbolism, analogy. etc.
The purpose of Genesis is to tell us the general facts of cosmic evolution that preceded the condition of our environment at the time the particular reader is reading that book.
It must have used a subtle way of telling us the Truth, yet anticipatingthe ignorance and inability of prior generations to handle that Truth.
Before the 20th century, the idea that seven long durations of time marked the history of the expanding Universe could not have been directly revealed.
No one would accept, read, or have their children read a book which claimed the earth was 4.5 billiin years old, or that Modern man appeared from a list of 22 now extinct human species as he emerged Out-of-Africa in a rush of population expansion over all the earth under heaven and even up the mountain tops .
[Edited by Sparrowhawke] Nice job. Thank you.
Last edited by a moderator:
AirDancer
Member
1. I believe myself to be Christian and try my best to lead a life that illustrates & promotes the love of our Lord to others, but the ultimate determination will be made by my Father, our Lord God, when He judges me.
2. The Earth may be very old, although not as old as the universe, according to Genesis. Like many others, I take Genesis literally. I also take the fact that our Lord God does everything in His time, not ours, ... so it could easily be the Earth is VERY old, with an even older universe. Or.... the Earth & the universe could be young, if we apply the now-standard 24 hours to equate to each 'day' as Genesis describes.
All that truly matters is the fact that when Adam & Eve were designed, they were created with souls, in God's image ... something that the earlier upright & bipedal forerunners of Homo sapiens sapiens did not have.
2. The Earth may be very old, although not as old as the universe, according to Genesis. Like many others, I take Genesis literally. I also take the fact that our Lord God does everything in His time, not ours, ... so it could easily be the Earth is VERY old, with an even older universe. Or.... the Earth & the universe could be young, if we apply the now-standard 24 hours to equate to each 'day' as Genesis describes.
All that truly matters is the fact that when Adam & Eve were designed, they were created with souls, in God's image ... something that the earlier upright & bipedal forerunners of Homo sapiens sapiens did not have.
Narwhalist
Member
Yes. I'm a Christian
Old earth
Old earth