Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Old Earth Belief
http://www.answersincreation.org/old.htm ^

Posted on 12/22/2011 6:33:49 AM PST by truthfinder9

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last

1 posted on 12/22/2011 6:33:52 AM PST by truthfinder9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
Given that time is relative there is no reason one necessarily has to choose between young earth/old earth. Both could be true simultaneously depending on the perspective of the one recounting the event.
2 posted on 12/22/2011 6:52:22 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

There is also just as much science to prove the young earth theory...or what God’s Word says!
Like the halo’s in the granite...these were made within a few seconds, not millions of years! I guess the bible can be trusted:)


3 posted on 12/22/2011 6:52:57 AM PST by astratt7 (obama,muslim,politics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
Consider this…the Bible says a day to the Lord is as a thousand years to man (II Peter 3:8).

The Bible is the first Book to state the Theory of Relativity. Time is a complex subject and depends (among other things) ones perspective.

4 posted on 12/22/2011 6:57:38 AM PST by BipolarBob (Of all the taglines in all the posts in all the world and she read mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

Oh, for goodness sake! How long is infinity? How long in G-d’s time does it take to create an unending universe...and perhaps others? What constitutes a ‘day’ for G-d who lives forever? Does G-d even need days or nights...or ‘time’ for that matter? It’s just silly. Man is so arrogant that he believes HE is the center of all things and G-d must operate on Eastern Standard time. How blasphemous to say one believes in G-d and sets about to limit G-d to man’s own laws...which have often been proven wrong, and been MORE often just stupid.


5 posted on 12/22/2011 6:58:05 AM PST by MestaMachine (obama kills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: astratt7

God is eternal. I don’t presume to know what a day is to Him.


6 posted on 12/22/2011 6:59:06 AM PST by steve8714 (A-B-O-E-R-&G)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: astratt7
There is also just as much science to prove the young earth theory

Really? Such as? Love to see it.

Why some people insist on a literal interpretation of modern English words in the Bible, in this particular case the English word "day" in Genesis, is beyond me. Especially so when it defies reason and scientific evidence, and most importantly when the modern English text has undergone so many language & semantic translations from the original oral/written language over the centuries.

7 posted on 12/22/2011 7:02:34 AM PST by MCH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: astratt7

The halo in the granite argument was such a joke and has been discounted. Gentry “study” is similar the BS leftist version of man made global warming and other crap.


8 posted on 12/22/2011 7:04:41 AM PST by rightofthefairway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: astratt7
There is also just as much science to prove the young earth theory.

Really?? Well maybe junk science. The earth I live onis about 4.5 billion years old.

9 posted on 12/22/2011 7:07:37 AM PST by ExtremeUnction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

exactly

anyone who thinks God’s time ran by our watches and calendars is just ignorant

what is 6000 God-years? Only God knows!


10 posted on 12/22/2011 7:08:27 AM PST by silverleaf (common sense is not so common- voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

God put the Bible in human terms for us to understand. An especially stupid human trait is to use humanity’s limitations to beat up on God.


11 posted on 12/22/2011 7:08:35 AM PST by Rinnwald
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
Preachers can say all kinds of bizarre things. I once went to a church and on a certain Sunday the preacher joyously announced that President Bill Clinton had been found INNOCENT! I was a freeper at the time and I never went back. So, if you are in one of those kinds of churches, leave!
12 posted on 12/22/2011 7:13:59 AM PST by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

The quote about a day with God being as a thousand years was written at a time when few had any concept of millions, let alone billions. The days seem to describe what we humans refer to as ages. The important thing is that God started it all in motion, whether billions of years ago, or less than ten thousand. Your belief system may vary, that’s your right.


13 posted on 12/22/2011 7:16:46 AM PST by JimRed (Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

Young earth, old earth, my salvation doesn’t depend on either. God created the earth, that is all that matters.


14 posted on 12/22/2011 7:27:34 AM PST by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

Back in the mid-seventeenth century, Archbishop James Ussher of the Church of Ireland calculated that the earth was created on October 23, 4004 BC at 9:00 AM—and I assume he meant Pacific Daylight Time. When my geology class met at 9 on the morning of October 23 some years ago, it turned into a surprise party put on by the geology department to celebrate the creation of the earth.


15 posted on 12/22/2011 7:27:47 AM PST by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

The old Earth was ruined by the fall of Lucifer when Lucifer was cast out of heaven with a third of the angels. In Genesis, God made things right again and “replenished” it.


16 posted on 12/22/2011 7:32:20 AM PST by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

Do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

Do you believe that death existed before Adam?

Do you believe that God destroyed the whole world in a global cataclysm?


17 posted on 12/22/2011 7:32:26 AM PST by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

I think the big, unanswered question is “Why did God hate dinosaurs?”

(NSFW, rude language)

http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Matt/omnipotent-beings-correcting-their-mistakes.png


18 posted on 12/22/2011 7:36:16 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

Hence the problem with literal interpretation of Old Testament stories that are thousands of years old and passed through barbs and word of mouth for the majority of their existence. Also why, while I am a Christian, I am not an Evangelical.


19 posted on 12/22/2011 7:37:48 AM PST by wolfman23601
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ExtremeUnction

I have no idea where the “Earth is only 6000 years old” argument comes from.

If it comes from counting the years from Adam’s age at death, and then adding all the subsequent generational ages, then it ignores time in the Garden of Eden (a spiritual place of Earth). For all we know that Adam and Eve were residing in this garden for billions of years as they were immortal.

There are many metaphors used in scripture and it is difficult to be at all scientific. But the key thing for a scientist to discern from scripture is that it cannot be falsified. It is written in a way that no firm scientific finding can render it fraudulent. That in itself is amazing.

This is not to say that scripture is scientifically provable, it merely points out that biblical scriptures are not contradicted by science such as the example I just gave that Adam and Eve could have existed in an immortal state for billions of years before expulsion.

The Resurrection is not provable scientifically nor is it falsifiable. This is what is amazing about the biblical scriptures, that the writings are not found to be false by current science and technology.

What amazed me was in reading of Moses on Mt. Sinai questioning direct to God “Who Are You?” and the answer blew me away; “I AM THAT I AM”. This is a tautology, always true X Implies X.

One can’t prove the existence of God. One can’t disprove the existence of God.


20 posted on 12/22/2011 7:38:08 AM PST by Hostage (The revolution needs a spark. The Constitution is dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

Prove to me that today is thursday.


21 posted on 12/22/2011 7:38:55 AM PST by ozark hilljilly (Tagline typed on a closed keyboard. Do not attempt. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fiji Hill

Exactly. The bible gives an account of all the decendents of Adam and how long they lived as well as Moses. It can be calculated. It can not be true. But there is an even bigger problem in Genesis in that there are two contradictory stories of Creation. Now either it happened one way or the other but not both ways.


22 posted on 12/22/2011 7:42:05 AM PST by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
Given that time is relative there is no reason one necessarily has to choose between young earth/old earth. Both could be true simultaneously depending on the perspective of the one recounting the event.

That definitely impossible...One or the other is true...Truth isn't relative...

but yes, you can chose either and still be a Christian...Siding with the Old Earth scenario however, makes you blind to and ignorant of a multitude of OT prophecies concerning the return of Jesus Christ...

But, what ever floats your boat...

23 posted on 12/22/2011 7:57:49 AM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: steve8714
God is eternal. I don’t presume to know what a day is to Him.

I do...Peter gave us the answer...

24 posted on 12/22/2011 7:59:37 AM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MCH
Why some people insist on a literal interpretation of modern English words in the Bible, in this particular case the English word "day" in Genesis, is beyond me. Especially so when it defies reason and scientific evidence, and most importantly when the modern English text has undergone so many language & semantic translations from the original oral/written language over the centuries.

God says he will preserve his words forever...Do you believe him???

25 posted on 12/22/2011 8:01:14 AM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MCH
Why some people insist on a literal interpretation of modern English words in the Bible, in this particular case the English word "day" in Genesis, is beyond me. Especially so when it defies reason and scientific evidence, and most importantly when the modern English text has undergone so many language & semantic translations from the original oral/written language over the centuries.

I'll be your huckleberry.

How about those of us who insist on a literal interpretation of ancient Hebrew words, which haven't changed in over 5,000 years? Want to explain why `ereb boqer 'echad yowm doesn't actually mean `ereb boqer 'echad yowm? For your reference, that's "...and the evening and the morning were the first day." in English.

Our understanding of science needs to catch up to Scripture, not the other way around. The events recorded in Genesis don't defy reason and evidence, but our understanding of science hasn't caught up yet with the record of what happened. We're getting there though, as someone above mentioned. Relativity is dependent upon the point of reference. To us, things may look billions of years old but to the one who created it, it's only a little under 6,000 years old. So which is correct? Are we right, because we can look and say "looks billions of years old" or is God right because He said "I created it a little less than 6,000 years ago"?

26 posted on 12/22/2011 8:01:52 AM PST by Avalon Hussar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wolfman23601
Hence the problem with literal interpretation of Old Testament stories that are thousands of years old and passed through barbs and word of mouth for the majority of their existence. Also why, while I am a Christian, I am not an Evangelical.

Maybe the Virgin Birth was a metaphor...How would you know???

27 posted on 12/22/2011 8:04:54 AM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; circlecity
That definitely impossible...One or the other is true...Truth isn't relative...

He didn't say that truth was relative, he said that our understanding of truth was relative. We see it from the point of view of those who live here, in this moment of time and thereby are subject to the same things which make the Creation appear to be older than what it is. God, who is outside of time, left a record that says it was only a little less than 6,000 years ago that he did all this.

28 posted on 12/22/2011 8:05:12 AM PST by Avalon Hussar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
"That definitely impossible...One or the other is true..."

Wrong. Einstein's general theory of relativity says both can definitely be true simultaneously. GPS systems recognize this fact and must be adjusted to account for it.

29 posted on 12/22/2011 8:07:57 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: wolfman23601

Would you say the Ten Commandments are to be taken literally?


30 posted on 12/22/2011 8:11:21 AM PST by dartuser ("If you are ... what you were ... then you're not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Avalon Hussar

Because the earth was in darkness for many millions of years. It underwent quite a transformation from its original self.


31 posted on 12/22/2011 8:17:21 AM PST by MestaMachine (obama kills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Avalon Hussar

Science is a method and we understand it very well. Science deals with objective reality. The fact that we can launch a rocket and have it meet up with and orbit another planet, much less land a rover on the surface more or less where we want to is proof that we have a handle on the scientific method. It is silly to argue that the earth is only thousands of years old. That flies in the face of objective reality. There are so many contradictions in Genesis that it can not be taken literally unless there is no such thing as an objective reality or God is an irrational being who wants to confuse us and torment us. I can’t believe either.


32 posted on 12/22/2011 8:17:21 AM PST by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

“Would you say the Ten Commandments are to be taken literally?”

I would say the Ten Commandments are a great moral philosophy to live by. Whether or not there was a historical Moses and whether or not God literally gave him those orders is really inconsequential. I believe there is enough evidence of the Arc of the Covenant’s existence to give credence to the story, and the historical event would have happened around 1500 BC when records would have been easier to keep after technological advancements as opposed to during say the Biblical flood period, but if it turned out to be a myth it would be inconsequential to my belief in Christianity.


33 posted on 12/22/2011 8:18:22 AM PST by wolfman23601
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Written in the style of the day, a thousand years is not the indication of a specific time but indicates more than a man can imagine.


34 posted on 12/22/2011 8:19:06 AM PST by steve8714 (Hitchens was wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

The Virgin Birth is a point of faith and therefore needs no proof. You believe or you do not.


35 posted on 12/22/2011 8:21:59 AM PST by steve8714 (Hitchens was wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ScottfromNJ

Actually that occurs in Revelation when He will make everything right forever.


36 posted on 12/22/2011 8:22:56 AM PST by ThisLittleLightofMine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: albionin
Science is a method and we understand it very well.

I agree, we do understand science very well, as it functions at this point in space and time. The problem is that there is no way to confirm that our assumptions about the past are true due to the fact that there's no way to actually truly verify the past. Yes, we can take note of things and make educated assumptions based upon those notes, but there is a certain limit to our understanding that is due to our inability to see time as a whole.

Now, you stated that there are contradictions in Genesis. Care to provide an example?

37 posted on 12/22/2011 8:27:06 AM PST by Avalon Hussar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Avalon Hussar
Ding, Ding, Ding! We have a winner!

EXACTLY CORRECT!

Believing in Billions of years doesn't make you a non Christian, it just makes you wrong. Many different denominations have varying beliefs. They are still Christians. We won't know for sure until we die, but the evidence for a young earth is in the bible and in science.

There are many Christian scientists (small “s”, not the denomination, but actual scientists). They dispute the secular scientist's views. Science first needs to be defined. What qualifies as science these days is a joke. I like double blind studies and actual FACTS, instead of “theories”. Much of so called science today is nothing but theory and computer models.

You might find this informative:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/oect/introduction

38 posted on 12/22/2011 8:29:03 AM PST by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: wolfman23601
Sounds like a "no" to my question.
39 posted on 12/22/2011 8:32:07 AM PST by dartuser ("If you are ... what you were ... then you're not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine
Because the earth was in darkness for many millions of years. It underwent quite a transformation from its original self.

Are you talking about the Gap theory, which states that there's a gap of an unknown amount of time between the first sentence of Genesis 1:2 and the second sentence of that same verse?

40 posted on 12/22/2011 8:33:25 AM PST by Avalon Hussar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

It is really up to you and your faith. I am just giving my take. If I knew, I wouldn’t be human.


41 posted on 12/22/2011 8:40:39 AM PST by wolfman23601
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

It is really up to you and your faith. I am just giving my take. If I knew, I wouldn’t be human.


42 posted on 12/22/2011 8:41:27 AM PST by wolfman23601
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: faucetman
Believing in Billions of years doesn't make you a non Christian, it just makes you wrong.

So, there's no such thing as billions of years? The entire universal expanse of space-time just came into being 6000 years ago, all for the convenience of us, centered here on Earth?

How old is God then? Did God come into being just before 6000 years ago, or has God "always been" so to speak, meaning God has been in existence forever which is WAY more than 6000 years ago. What about before that? Why would God erase all evidence of the history of the universe prior to 6000 years ago, making the concept of "billions of years" in the past "wrong?"

43 posted on 12/22/2011 8:46:45 AM PST by MCH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ThisLittleLightofMine
The events of Revelation come later when there will be a new Heaven and Earth replacing what exists today. What I was referring to was Genesis 28:

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth"
44 posted on 12/22/2011 8:47:47 AM PST by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Avalon Hussar

“In the beginning, the Earth was a formless void, and darkness shown on the waters of the deep.”

A void means an absence of anything. Formless means without form. The “Earth” and “waters of the deep” are things. Either the Earth was a void in the beginning in which case there could be no waters of the deep. Or there were waters of the deep in which case the Earth was not a formless void.

Then there is the problem of two different versions of the creation of Earth. In one the oceans come about by a deluge from the sky and the other tells that the oceans sprung from the land.

Then there is the problem of Cain’s wife. Where did she come from.

Then there is the fact that God punishes every man for the actions of Adam and Eve which would fly in the face of justice.

Then there is the fact that the Earth was created before the sun.

I could go on. In order to take the book of Genesis literally you must suspend your consciousness. You must abandon reason. Now I don’t mean to start a fight, but I can’t let the argument that the Earth is only thousands of years old go by without challenging it. If faith means ignoring reality to believe something written over two thousand years ago that flies in the face of reason, then I want no part of faith. Our assumptions about the past are based on reason, not arbitrary whim. They are based on real evidence. I don’t begrudge anyone their right to believe what every they want, and I don’t think that I have all the answers by far, but I don’t think it is arguable that Genesis is not full of contradictions and to accept them as true “somehow” is to abandon my one tool to perceive reality.

Now I don’t mean to run away on you but I really have to get to work. Also I have said all I have to say. I’ll probably get banned for this but that’s o.k.


45 posted on 12/22/2011 9:05:03 AM PST by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Avalon Hussar
How about those of us who insist on a literal interpretation of ancient Hebrew words, which haven't changed in over 5,000 years? Want to explain why `ereb boqer 'echad yowm doesn't actually mean `ereb boqer 'echad yowm? For your reference, that's "...and the evening and the morning were the first day." in English.

Our understanding of science needs to catch up to Scripture, not the other way around. The events recorded in Genesis don't defy reason and evidence, but our understanding of science hasn't caught up yet with the record of what happened. We're getting there though, as someone above mentioned. Relativity is dependent upon the point of reference. To us, things may look billions of years old but to the one who created it, it's only a little under 6,000 years old. So which is correct? Are we right, because we can look and say "looks billions of years old" or is God right because He said "I created it a little less than 6,000 years ago"?

Reference THIS SITE for the answer to this, as well as many additional sound arguments against young earth creationism - including a non-scientific, scripture-based-only refutation of the literal interpretation of a "day" as being 24 hours in Genesis Clearly Teaches that the Days Were Not 24 Hours, as measured by our planet's rotation period.

46 posted on 12/22/2011 9:10:45 AM PST by MCH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Avalon Hussar

I am saying that Genesis was written so that MAN could have HIS concept of Creation which he did not and does not yet understand. Darkness covered the earth. The earth was hot from volcanic activity and high methane content, much like Venus is NOW. The gases, ash, and vapor created a cloud cover that prevented sunlight as we now see it.
The earth did finally cool and the sun was then able to burn off the outer shield that had surrounded us, but who knows how long THAT took?
Here is a concept for you. Mars IS as we WILL be and Venus WILL be as we ARE now. We are being pushed slowly, slowly away from the sun. So is Venus. So is Mars. Light doesn’t move anything but SOUND does. Listen to the sound of the sun sometime. Without our limited hearing capacity, if we could actually hear the noise all around us, we would go mad.
We can’t hear the sounds our solar system makes, but it moves things. There is a balance which is why I MUST believe that Creation was no mere accident. Imagine this throughout the entire universe.
And then there is Archaea. Which means the entire universe is thriving and teeming with life.
How anyone can say there is no G-d is mind boggling to me, let alone DARE try to set limits for the limitless.
And here is one last question for ya. Where do you suppose the very IDEA of G-d actually came from?


47 posted on 12/22/2011 9:28:50 AM PST by MestaMachine (obama kills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: albionin

“A void means an absence of anything. Formless means without form”

“Void” Strongs 922: “bohuw” - an undistinguishable ruin.

“Without form” Strongs 8414: “tohuw” - to lie waste, a desolation.


48 posted on 12/22/2011 10:12:45 AM PST by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
No, you are definitely not alone...millions have been driven away from the church, and Christ, because of this very topic.

No, millions have been driven away from the church because their refusal to submit themselves to the authority of Scripture.

These people are reprobates and have no business corrupting the church with damnable heresy

Church is not where someone goes to find affirmation of their personal feelings and beliefs.

49 posted on 12/22/2011 10:16:37 AM PST by The Theophilus (Obama's Key to win 2012: Ban Haloperidol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: albionin

“Then there is the problem of Cain’s wife. Where did she come from.”

His wife would have been a sister. The forbidding of incest only comes much later after sin had had its cumulative effects on humanity.


50 posted on 12/22/2011 10:25:51 AM PST by Diapason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson