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 previous 1-5051-85 last
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.

"Both could be true": James writes that the double-minded man is unstable in all of his ways (1:8), and Paul writes (Ro 8:6) that to be carnally minded leads to death.

The narrative in Genesis is not "time relative" for it specifically says "evening and morning" in defining the boundaries of each "day". Evening and morning are both events, not relative terms in that the event can take place over the span of "billions of years".

The six day Creation is embedded in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:11) and to say that the Ten Commandments are "relative" shows a profound disregard for the things of God.

51 posted on 12/22/2011 10:29:58 AM PST by The Theophilus (Obama's Key to win 2012: Ban Haloperidol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
>>For all we know that Adam and Eve were residing in this garden for billions of years as they were immortal.<<

So would that make scripture in error as to the age of Adam at his death?

52 posted on 12/22/2011 10:32:24 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: albionin
>>But there is an even bigger problem in Genesis in that there are two contradictory stories of Creation.<<

There is no such thing.

53 posted on 12/22/2011 10:33:36 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
>>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... <<

How so?

54 posted on 12/22/2011 10:34:51 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: albionin
“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.

It would probably help if you could get the verses right. Let's start with the very first problem. You stated that “In the beginning, the Earth was a formless void, and darkness shown on the waters of the deep.” but that's not what the verse actually says. It actually states that "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Now, the difference is that the words we translate as "without form" actually mean formlessness, confusion, unreality or emptiness in Hebrew. Looking again with this understanding, we see that the Earth was without form (formlessness, confusion, unreality or emptiness), and void (emptiness, void or waste); and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep (deep, depths, deep places, abyss, the deep, sea). And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

In other words, the Earth was not yet formed into something but it was there because it was void, or empty. It was covered by water, hence why the Spirit of God could be said to move over the face of the water.

Now, on to your next point. There's not two different accounts of the creation. You need to provide proof of your claim, otherwise it just falls flat.

Next claim: Cain's wife. That's easy, she was his sister. At this time, the Law against incest had not been given due to the fact that the genetic pool had not been polluted enough yet to cause genetic problems.

Next claim: God unfairly judges all men according to one man's sins. Correct in that we're all fallen due to Adam's sin, but incorrect in that we don't have a way of setting that account right (Christ died so that all men could be reconciled back to God in the same manner that all men fell due to the actions of one man, Adam) and furthermore the idea that this is unjust is false in that our views of justice are inconsequential as we are a created being. Justice and righteousness is established by the creator, not the created.

Next Claim: Earth Created before Sun. And? This provides a problem how? We know that there was a light source before this time, we just don't know what it was or where it went once the Sun was created.

You seem to be trapped into thinking that just because we can't comprehend how something was formed, that it must not have been formed according to how it's Creator recorded it. Well, that and you don't have a good grasp of the actual text involved either. All in all, I'd say you've evidenced a marked bias against Genesis being correct without even giving it the benefit of actual study on your part. That's remarkably similar to the same attitude that is evidenced by Global Warming advocates.

55 posted on 12/22/2011 10:45:21 AM PST by Avalon Hussar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: The Theophilus
"Both could be true": James writes that the double-minded man is unstable in all of his ways (1:8), and Paul writes (Ro 8:6) that to be carnally minded leads to death.

The narrative in Genesis is not "time relative" for it specifically says "evening and morning" in defining the boundaries of each "day". Evening and morning are both events, not relative terms in that the event can take place over the span of "billions of years".

The six day Creation is embedded in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:11) and to say that the Ten Commandments are "relative" shows a profound disregard for the things of God.

This is not a case where someone is being double minded. This is literally a case where time, as we see it, is not the same as time as God see's it. God recorded the first day as evening and morning, or one yowm, from His vantage outside of time and being clearly able to see the End from the Beginning, but how long does that evening and morning appear to us now, at this point in time? Scripture states that we view reality as through a dim glass, I suspect that this is one of those instances where what we see appears to be at odds with what God has recorded but it really isn't at odds because our understanding of the situation is limited.

In short, God's view of Time versus our view of Time is relative to who is viewing it.

56 posted on 12/22/2011 10:57:54 AM PST by Avalon Hussar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

There are. The title of the second chapter is “An alternative view of creation” or something like that. I don’t have a bible handy but there most certainly are two different creation stories and in both of them events happen differently. In the first the waters come down from the sky and in the other the water springs from the Earth. How is that not different? Am I to believe it happened both ways. Many people are willing to tie themselves into pretzels to believe this story but the one thing they will never do is question the story. They will deny the evidence and denounce man’s mind before they will ever question their beliefs that they take on faith. For me personally I am not willing to do it. Don’t try to tell me that Genesis doesn’t say what it says. Why does the bible not just say how it happened instead of confusing us. Yes the two alternatives are similar but they are most definitely not the same. The standard response is that we are not to question. Well we were made to question. It is in our nature to question. I believe that the Creator made us exactly as we are. He gave us our reasoning minds. I don’t accept the premise that we are evil by nature and I don’t believe the Earth is only 5 thousand years old.


57 posted on 12/22/2011 11:11:49 AM PST by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: The Theophilus
"The six day Creation is embedded in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:11) and to say that the Ten Commandments are "relative" shows a profound disregard for the things of God."

This is obviously going over your head. All that's relative is time. This means that from the perspective of someone who was present at the time, creation literally took 7 days. From the perspective of someone much, much later, under different enviornmental conditions, the event would appear to have taken much, much longer. Both are equally true. That's what the relativity of time means. A GPS satellite travelling at a high velocity experiences time differently than we do here on earth. What takes it X amount of time to do would last twice as long here on earth during the VERY SAME temporal period. That's why time adjustments must be made to make GPS work. Essentially, a minute goes by much more quickly for the satellite than it does for us here on earth. People going different velocities experience a different amount of time going by during the same temporal period.

58 posted on 12/22/2011 11:15:46 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: albionin; CynicalBear

Not to put too fine of a point on it, but you really need to provide proof of your accusations before most here will listen to what you have to say. Just because you claim something doesn’t make it so and, frankly, when two people who know the Bible as well as CB and I know it don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, that’s a pretty clear indication that you’ve got part of the story wrong. Are you sure you’re not confusing the Genesis account in the Bible with the Epic of Gilgamesh?


59 posted on 12/22/2011 11:28:04 AM PST by Avalon Hussar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

There are. The title of the second chapter is “An alternative view of creation” or something like that. I don’t have a bible handy but there most certainly are two different creation stories and in both of them events happen differently. In the first the waters come down from the sky and in the other the water springs from the Earth. How is that not different? Am I to believe it happened both ways. Many people are willing to tie themselves into pretzels to believe this story but the one thing they will never do is question the story. They denounce man’s mind before they will ever question their beliefs that they take on faith. For me personally I am not willing to do it. Don’t try to tell me that Genesis doesn’t say what it says. Why does the bible not just say how it happened instead of confusing us. Yes the two alternatives are similar but they are most definitely not the same. The standard response is that we are not to question. Well we were made to question. It is in our nature to question. I believe that the Creator made us exactly as we are. He gave us our reasoning minds. I don’t accept the premise that we are evil by nature and I don’t believe the Earth is only 5 thousand years old.

I was responding to the notion that science needs to catch up to faith. I don’t have faith but only convictions based on reason. Now I know I have outed myself so let the condemnation and zotting begin.


60 posted on 12/22/2011 11:57:22 AM PST by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: albionin
>>are two different creation stories and in both of them events happen differently.<<

Nope. In Chapter 1 the sequence is given and only in chapter 1.

>>Don’t try to tell me that Genesis doesn’t say what it says.<<

If you are talking about the first and second chapters of Genesis there is no contradiction. Chapter two does not imply a chronology of events.

>>I don’t believe the Earth is only 5 thousand years old.<<

It’s not. It’s billions of years old. In chapter 1 verse we read that God created the earth. Then in verse we see that it’s a total mess. Tohu va Bohu means “without form and void”. One would have to think the first thing God did with this world was to create confusion. God doesn’t create something that is a mess.

>>I was responding to the notion that science needs to catch up to faith. I don’t have faith but only convictions based on reason.<<

After years and years of study I can assure you that science and the Bible do not contradict each other if both are understood correctly.

61 posted on 12/22/2011 12:20:00 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
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.

Einstein's theory has been debunked...

62 posted on 12/22/2011 12:21:04 PM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Avalon Hussar

1 God year = 750,000 human years. Easy! But as we had to invent the concept of zero at one point I can see how our Creator might want to dumb the math down for us a bit.


63 posted on 12/22/2011 12:26:36 PM PST by LikeARock (Liberty or Death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
"Einstein's theory has been debunked..."

Then how come adjusments based exclusively on Einstein's theory are necessary to make GPS work? How come atom bombs, developed based on Einsten's theory, work? You don't know what you are talking about.

64 posted on 12/22/2011 12:27:59 PM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: albionin

Oops something went wrong. Most of what I wrote didn’t get posted.

What originally prompted me to respond was the notion that science needs to somehow adjust itself to faith. I believe that science deals with objective facts and faith deals with feelings or what we want to believe. By definition faith is above reason. At least that is the way I see it. I have never responded to postings on religion because I know that my views are antithetical to many here but that statement really struck a nerve with me. I don’t claim to be an expert in the bible or theology and I know it is useless to argue with faith. I only meant to respond to this notion that science, which deals with objective reality is changeable while faith is not.


65 posted on 12/22/2011 12:36:13 PM PST by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: albionin; CynicalBear
I believe that science deals with objective facts and faith deals with feelings or what we want to believe.

Here's the problem; faith isn't about feelings or what we want to believe, it's about what we know to be true even if we don't see it immediately. You said so yourself when you said that you "believe that science deals with objective facts". You have faith that science deals with objective facts, but that faith is based in reality and not just feelings or what you want to believe.

The Christian Faith is the same thing; we know these things to be true because the same One who bore witness to them also bore witness to other events which have proven to be true. While there's a lot that we don't know yet, we do know the character of the One who reported the facts to us, so we can have faith in His truthfulness.

66 posted on 12/22/2011 1:03:19 PM PST by Avalon Hussar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: albionin

You’re confusing a hard, testable science like physics that enabled the moon landing, with a soft, speculative science like geology. Science that tries to reconstruct the past from looking at the present is never going to be as verifiable and reliable as science that studies things occurring currently.


67 posted on 12/22/2011 1:03:22 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: LikeARock
1 God year = 750,000 human years. Easy! But as we had to invent the concept of zero at one point I can see how our Creator might want to dumb the math down for us a bit.

Obviously I disagree, but thanks for the chuckle anyway. I can tell you've got a sense of humor and that's becoming rare these days.

68 posted on 12/22/2011 1:05:21 PM PST by Avalon Hussar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

He lived a number of years AFTER expulsion not after being created.

He was immortal before expulsion, why would he count his age? And if he was more than a billion years old, how in the world would he keep track?

You see that is what is so amazing about the Bible, you can’t find a CLEAR falsehood in it. It never gets pinned down for fraud.

Of course there are things in it which defy belief, (parting of the Red Seas, Manna from Heaven, etc.). These things can’t be proven or disproven, but they can be believed or disbelieved.

But in a court of law, there is nothing in the Bible that can be pinned down for fraud or perjury. And I find that amazing.


69 posted on 12/22/2011 1:19:15 PM PST by Hostage (The revolution needs a spark. The Constitution is dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
>>He was immortal before expulsion, why would he count his age?<<

So you’re saying there would have been dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden? If so, when did they become extinct and why? If they didn’t become extinct at that time were they on the Ark? Scripture tells us that Satan was the most glorious angel and “walked the earth”. When did that happen while Adam and Eve were alive?

70 posted on 12/22/2011 1:46:36 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Avalon Hussar; albionin
>>the same One who bore witness to them also bore witness to other events which have proven to be true.<<

Also every prophecy other than those for the future has happened exactly as stated in scripture. Never has science proven scripture to be in error.

71 posted on 12/22/2011 1:50:16 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: wolfman23601; truthfinder9; albionin; Theophilus; Avalon Hussar; CynicalBear
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.

The doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Bible holds that since God is absolute Truth, His Word, the Bible, must be "infallible" (without error) in the original manuscripts. Of course, many errors have crept into the various manuscript traditions, so few Christians would argue for the infallibility of any particular translation.

It seems to me that someone who claims to be a Christian yet denies the infallibility of the Bible will sooner or later face a crisis of authority. That is to say, they may want to defend their Faith, and do not want to accept the attacks of the critics against Christianity, yet they have no sure authority with which to counter such arguments.

The rejection of the authority of the "Old Testament Stories" because they are "thousands of years old" is a problematic position to hold if one intends to contend for any lingering authority in the Scriptures, for of course, the New Testament "stories" are likewise very "old."

Likewise, if the Old Testament stories are to be rejected as authoritative because they "passed through barbs and word of mouth for the majority of their existence," the same could be said for the New Testament stories.

It is rather like the poor fellow stuck out in the middle of the ocean who has inadvertently pulled the plug in his life raft and yet is clinging to the hope that at least some part of the raft will remain inflated. In the same sense, Truth is a seamless garment: if you deny the infallibility of the Scriptures and yet attempt to "retain" those parts which you deem to be authoritative, you will soon find that there is no part of Scripture which is "safe" from the attacks of the critics. And you will be left with no persuasive argument against them other than your subjective impressions as to what is "truly" the Word of God.

But will that get you through in times of crisis? I for one could not trust in my own subjective opinion. Isn't it odd that we should reject the authority of God's Word on the basis of our own very limited, fallible judgment?

I have a terminal degree in Theology and at one time was very conversant in the issues and views regarding Biblical infallibility/inerrancy. I have also taught Biblical history and archaeology on site in Israel. My considered opinion is that those who reject Biblical infallibility do so because they have chosen to accept it - for whatever reason - "by faith." That is to say, few if any have actually conducted primary research as to the historical and archaeological evidences for the historicity of the text.

More often, they choose to reject the full authority of Scripture because they do not want to be seen as an uniformed and gullible Christian. In short, they are willing to jettison the Christian belief that the Bible is the Word of God in order to retain (what they believe to be) the respect of those around them.

But this is a fool's errand, for nothing short of the total repudiation of the Truth of Christianity and the Bible will make you "respectable" in the eyes of those who hate the Gospel.

On the basis of my study and experience, I can wholeheartedly affirm the full and complete authority of the Bible - including the book of Genesis. Yes, of course there are difficult passages and even apparent (though not proven actual) contradictions, but like the bard who confessed regarding his Love who had been wrongly accused of unfaithfulness, "I believed in you even when I knew you were guilty..."

72 posted on 12/22/2011 9:04:46 PM PST by tjd1454
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
From my perspective as an engineer with an advanced degree, the very existence of the universe, the world around us, and especially the life on this planet as observed by self-aware humanity, are only explicable by accepting the existence and guidance of a divine being - namely God. Among a host of reasons, how else to explain the extreme complexity and increased order of life itself - which IMHO flies in the face of accepted scientific theories like the laws of thermodynamics, which dictate that entropy (disorder) must always increase with time in a closed system (e.g., the universe). The very evolution/creation of life, and our self-awareness as humans, seems to contradict these "truths" of science - namely the creation of extreme & complex order (life) out of the chaos of the universe as understood by modern physics. How else to explain this, and "why" things are as they are, the fact that the universe even exists at all, its origins (big bang, whatever), and everything else - but to accept that God created all of it along with a set of rules governing everything.

With the very existence of God as a premise, my perspective on physics has always been that it's a disciplined science that has evolved over centuries - dedicated to the ongoing understanding and characterization of the basic rules & laws set in place by God to govern the fundamental properties and interactions of matter and energy in His universe. Advanced modern science us just an ongoing attempt by God's most intelligent creations on this planet at understanding a tiny fraction of one corner of the mind of God and what he has created for us.

Aside from conjectures per modern theoretical physics on even more general governing theories beyond Einstein's General & Special Theories of Relativity, they are still the accepted governing theories on physics, applied on a daily basis to many real-world scientific & engineering problems (definitely NOT "debunked" as claimed in this thread).

If one were inclined to apply modern theoretical physics to the old/new earth theological debate, as understood by humans in our current time reference, circlecity and LikeARock, who is being tongue in cheek about "human years" vs. "God years," are absolutely in the right ballpark IMHO.

From relativity, the concept of time dilation - whether due to relative velocity or distance from a common/relative gravitational body (Earth - who knows how far "Heaven" is from Earth?), can absolutely explain the difference between a "day" as viewed/measured by an observer on the face of the Earth, vs. a "day" as viewed/measured by God. IF God (in Heaven) were moving at a velocity relative to Earth that was very near the speed of light, OR IF God (in Heaven) was extremely distant from the gravitational body represented by the Earth, then the relative differences in time could very well be quite extreme - per our modern understanding of space-time & the theories governing it.

In short, a "day" from God's perspective could, according to modern theoretical physics, very well equate to billions of years from the perspective of an observer on Earth. Einstein's theories - which are nothing more than humanity's current collective scientific understanding of God's rules governing space-time - actually explain everything. Moreover, how could the language of ancient Hebrew and the people of that time even begin to describe such concepts in the vocabulary and human understanding of that time? IMHO, the writers of the age did their best at translating the word of God into the language and understanding of the age they lived in.

73 posted on 12/22/2011 11:10:34 PM PST by MCH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

I think I read somewhere that the term “day” and “age” are the same in the Hebrew used in the Old Testament. As an earth scientist it is fairly evident that we live on an old earth. Also as a scientist, it is fairly evident that it didn’t “just happen” by chance.

I always find it interesting how close the Genesis account fits with today’s science. There was a progression to Creation - and it came out of nothing. But it didn’t happen all at once.


74 posted on 12/22/2011 11:27:36 PM PST by 21twelve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

The words of the English Bible are translations so one has to consult with a language expert to understand the nuances of meaning. So my interpretation or readings are coarse logic and for interest only in triggering alternative plausible possibilities.

There are references in Genesis to ‘Giants walking the Earth’. I have never seen any explanation of what this means. The dinosaurs were presumably extinct long before the Ark of Noah.

I have read that Satan walked the Earth and I do not see in this any contradiction or indication of fraud or lie because it is written that the Earth was formed before Adam was created in the image of the creator. The Earth was formed on one of the ‘7 Days’ or one of the ‘7 Ages’ as it may be interpreted. The Apophrica contains many passages where Adam and Eve were seemingly under attack by any number of forms and representations of Satan. So it appears from Catholic reading that Satan was walking the Earth at the time of Adam and Eve.


75 posted on 12/23/2011 12:08:55 AM PST by Hostage (The revolution needs a spark. The Constitution is dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Avalon Hussar; Alamo-Girl

I’ve posted the following because I found it an interesting comment in light of this discussion as the dialogue was similar as seen here. The writer will have to remain annonoymous.

Quote:

“...The tool of physics & chemistry offer the closest we can get to the “provable” truth.... Most of those who have studied the world from this particular perspective have generally tried to get at the unadulterated truth.... There have been exceptions of course.... But here’s the glitch.

As methods of measuring and viewing get smaller and smaller, the uncertainty of what “you know” increases... (This is know as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.)... Ultimately, when you get down to the size of atoms, all of your “common sense” ends up going out the window and you’re totally perplexed because you realize there is a serious limit to getting exact knowledge....

So you see, science clearly reaches a limit of understanding by measuring and viewing.

You can now see the difficulty someone will have in trying to find “The Truth”.... He will reach a point of limitation of knowledge regardless of which direction he goes..... If he were to decide to take the physics, chemistry and mathematics approach he would eventually be discouraged and disillusioned when he finds that the whole universe is based on statistics, which involves uncertainty.

If he decided to go in the direction of philosophy and religion he will arrive, again, at a point of uncertainty. He will be asked to have faith, which ultimately means believing without proof.... (Which on the surface, is the opposite of the scientific approach.)

Both methods, Science & Philosophy/Religion require a lot of effort and study if you want to have a clear understanding of them. And neither ends up offering a “Provable Truth”.


76 posted on 12/23/2011 12:33:30 AM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: tjd1454

Infallibility does not equal literal translation and literal intent. For instance, back to the subject, the earth is not 6000 yeard old. It just isnt. It can be said beyond a reasonable doubt. You are the one facing a xrisis of authority because your interpretation blows up your entire faith because the earth is 6 billion years old. It is sad for you because the fact that the earth is 6 billion years old is really inconsequential unless you are an evangelical. Perhaps you should consider Catholicism or Episcopalianism and these mundane nuances wouldnt cause you such crises.


77 posted on 12/23/2011 3:41:17 AM PST by wolfman23601
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. That earth with all its inhabitants lead by Lucifer was destroyed because of rebellion to God which leads to the condition in verse 2. Genesis 1:2 and the earth was without form and void.

We don’t know how long that world existed before it was destroyed. We do know that their were dinosaurs on that earth before Genesis 1:2 but there were not in the world after verse 2. There are several references in scripture to “the world that then was”.

The flood during Noah’s time was partly due to the commingling of Demons taking human form and mating with human women which produced the “giants”.

78 posted on 12/23/2011 5:06:46 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: albionin

Some worship Occam’s Razor over Divine Providence.

For science to place such faith in Carbon dating, it amazingly produces inaccurate results. Relative placement on a timeline might be strongly implied, but it is a poor attempt at absolute dating.

The scientific masses appear to huddle around their assumptions and acceptance of what they were told by teachers from early age and promoted by a worldly system of thinking. Real thinkers are humble enough to consider the Word of God and how our understanding might not yet be as sound as what He has provided.


79 posted on 12/23/2011 5:17:06 AM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
The scientific masses appear to huddle around their assumptions and acceptance of what they were told by teachers from early age and promoted by a worldly system of thinking. Real thinkers are humble enough to consider the Word of God and how our understanding might not yet be as sound as what He has provided.

Actually, that's not "thinking" at all. It's simply faith - which is necessary as well where science does not provide us coherent answers or proof. What's wrong with using the scientific method and the powers of observation and reasoning given to us by God to attempt to better understand and harness the laws of science, as laid down by God, to improve our lives?

If we were to restrict our "thinking" to only reading the word of God in the Bible, and not apply it to the pursuit of science for the betterment of our existence, we'd still be living in huts and primitive dwellings as men did in Biblical times. IMHO, the pursuit of science to improve our lives is one of the key differences between our Judeo-Christian heritage, and that of Islam, which teaches just what you are espousing in an attempt to keep its followers in the 7th century living as savages.

80 posted on 12/23/2011 11:17:12 AM PST by MCH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: wolfman23601
I never stated that I knew the exact "age" of the Earth. As mentioned by others on this thread, the whole question of time and "age" takes on a different meaning in the light of God's eternal perspective, and very likely also during the time of Creation.

What is not negotiable is for Christians to confess God as Creator. My question for you, then, is whether you can wholeheartedly affirm the Apostles Creed (confessed by Catholics and Episcopalians during worship), which states: "I believe in God the Father, maker of heaven and earth..."

81 posted on 12/23/2011 1:31:12 PM PST by tjd1454
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: tjd1454

” As mentioned by others on this thread,the whole question of time and “age” takes on a different meaning in the light of God’s eternal perspective,and very likely also during the time of Creation.”

OK so you don’t believe in the literal translation and interpretation of the Bible then.

Remember, Genisis was written by man, not God himself. To man, the “day” is and always has been quite clear.


82 posted on 12/23/2011 2:02:30 PM PST by wolfman23601
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: tjd1454

” What is not negotiable is for Christians to confess God as Creator. My question for you,then,is whether you can wholeheartedly affirm the Apostles Creed (confessed by Catholics and Episcopalians during worship),which states: “I believe in God the Father,maker of heaven and earth...”

Absolutely. I never said or implied I believe otherwise. There is no other logical explaination. I don’t even believe in evolution. I believe spieces can change physical characteristics over time, but not actually morph into other species (monkey to man eg.)


83 posted on 12/23/2011 2:09:17 PM PST by wolfman23601
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: wolfman23601
Absolutely. I never said or implied I believe otherwise. There is no other logical explaination. I don’t even believe in evolution. I believe spieces can change physical characteristics over time, but not actually morph into other species (monkey to man eg.)

That would be my position as well. Development within a species, yes, but the overarching view that Evolution is responsible for all the glorious diversity of Creation is utterly untenable and flies in the face of reason. I.e., the view that intelligence and an almost unimaginable degree of order/design somehow arose spontaneously from chance + time + matter is contrary to reason.

84 posted on 12/23/2011 2:29:03 PM PST by tjd1454
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: caww
If he decided to go in the direction of philosophy and religion he will arrive, again, at a point of uncertainty. He will be asked to have faith, which ultimately means believing without proof.... (Which on the surface, is the opposite of the scientific approach.) Both methods, Science & Philosophy/Religion require a lot of effort and study if you want to have a clear understanding of them. And neither ends up offering a “Provable Truth”.

The Scriptures tell us: "Without faith it is impossible to please God." Jesus commended the simple faith of children: "For of such is (composed) the kingdom of God." It makes perfect sense that God would desire his children to have faith in him. We are limited and fallible, and He is our loving Heavenly Father who supplies all our needs.

But this does not mean that the Christian faith is a-historical or built upon myths and fables. Our faith is soundly grounded in history, and the testimony of Holy Scripture is trustworthy.

Mathematical proof and the scientific method are very limited, and wholly incapable of "proving" much of what we know to be true. You did not mention a very important kind of truth that each one of us depends upon implicitly every day of our lives: historical truth.

Permit me to pose a question: Do you believe that there was a President named John F. Kennedy? Are you certain? The reason I ask is because you argued that "provable truth" - as you put it - was not possible. Back to John F. Kennedy. How certain are you that he lived? Are you, say, 85% certain? 90% certain? Perhaps more? I suspect that your honest answer would be something like: Of course I am fully certain that JFK lived: what kind of a question is that?

You see, it is all fine and good to argue back and forth as to the theoretical possibility of absolute truth, but the practical reality of the matter is that each and every one of us lives our lives every day assuming a great many things to be unshakably true.

But back to historical truth; I would contend that just as we accept sans doubt the existence of many, many historical personages and events, that in the same way we can have a reasonable faith in the historicity of events described in the Bible.

Of course, we are talking about events of great antiquity, but I have always found it curious that historians speak with great confidence about the lives of many ancient personages, even though the actual historical evidence is often much less that is available regarding the biblical texts.

Put another way, to be consistent, if we claim the biblical accounts are "unreliable" and "shrouded in myth," then we would be duty bound to jettison virtually everything we know about ancient history.

The issue is one of reliable testimony. Though we never met JFK in person, we accept reliable testimony regarding his life. The same is true of innumerable "facts" that we accept without question because we trust the reliability of the source.

I myself put my faith in Christ at an early age, and have never wavered, though I was not always a good example of a Christian. My study of the Bible, history, and archaeology has confirmed the reliability of the biblical texts. Indeed, it has increased my faith as I read about the marvelous works of God and His promises to those who put their trust in Him.

85 posted on 12/23/2011 8:26:33 PM PST by tjd1454
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


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