Posted on 03/26/2009 7:20:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
‘But the New Testament does not make a big deal out of the Age of the Earth…’
by Peter Milford
...
The issue of the age of the earth parallels circumcision. In my experience, the first response from Christians who do not accept the age of the earth that the Scriptures indicate, is to say something like “The New Testament does not make a big deal out of the age of the earth” or “It is not the purpose of the Bible to give the age of the earth”. Their point is that (1) the issue of the age of the earth is a non-essential, and (2) therefore not something we should argue about. They believe we are free to hold whatever view our conscience permits. They are right in the first part. In and of itself, the age of the earth is not a central focus of Scripture. But the distortions a long-age view brings to the gospel message make them wrong on the second part...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Would it help?
If God himself said he created the heavens and the earth in SIX DAYS, would you believe it?
So are you admitting that it is silly for Science to try to show that the earth was not created in 6 days?
Yep, or that the earth is whatever age anyone deduces from the Scripture.
Science evaluates other science for validity, it's not qualified to take Scripture, deduce science from it, then test it scientifically.
Whose deduction should they take, yours, mine or their's?
The error of deducing science from scripture can come from anyone. The use of science to then test the deduction merely compounds the error.
==The “age” of the earth is a question pondered by Christians who do not understand that time is not constant, and in fact itself is a component of creation.
Boy are you WAY behind the times!
http://www.conservapedia.com/Young_Earth_Creationism#Starlight_and_the_Age_of_the_Universe
==Does it devalue scripture to use science for science and Scripture for Scripture?
If it conflicts with the Bible, yes it does. For instance, science says that turning water into vintage wine in an instant is scientifically impossible. And yet, the Bible records that that is precisely what Jesus Christ, the Son of God, did at the wedding feast. This is a historical, eyewitness account, and therefore takes priority over science. The same goes for the eye-witness creation account in Genesis. It was written by God Himself, and takes priority over man-made, fallible science.
All excellent points, P-Marlowe. Where have you been on all these threads?!?!? Hope to see a lot more of you in the future.
All the best—GGG
For instance, science says that turning water into vintage wine in an instant is scientifically impossible. And yet, the Bible records that that is precisely what Jesus Christ, the Son of God, did at the wedding feast. This is a historical, eyewitness account,
___________
So this story was written down at the exact time it happened by whom? Who specifically was the eyewitness who recorded this event?
Since when are eyewitnesses infallible?
Given the methods available that I'm familiar with, it is. But then all that means is the method hasn't been found yet and it does not fit the current scientific model of material reality.
But then if it did fit the model, it would instantaneously no longer be a miracle. Some people ceased seeing the miracle of birth and stars and lightning when they fit into a scientific model.
Anyway, assume that if you ask science "Based on your current best models and experiments, is this possible?," the answer is "No."
Has your whole belief in God been destroyed?
Science is never finished, never claims perfection - it can change almost on a dime.
If you require science to prove your faith, then you allow science to disprove it. Our faith is perfected by God, not science.
This is a historical, eyewitness account, and therefore takes priority over science.
Historical analysis has it's tools and evidence and conclusions. And it's own limitations similar to sciences. But, the question is "what would it take for historic "proof?"
You list "eyewitness testimony" and that's good, but compare with the eyewitness testimony you have in LDS, with a shorter history and more documentation. And then there's proof battles over that.
So what would it take to historical "prove" the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ? to the majority of competent historians?
And if they find against you, has your faith left you?
Faith is informed by history, by science, by experience. But if it gives power over itself to any of these, it's no longer faith. And we're no longer lead by God.
Thanks for your reply.
Its really amusing to see someone who has never read the Bible trying to trash it. - And its not just the knowledge of what is written therein, but also the massive amount of numeric protection hidden in the text patterns; patterns that are so complex and improbable that only one with the power to have created all that exists could have arranged them.
God's word is unassailable to anyone with a working knowledge of the laws of probability. Savor it's beauty!
“Are you saying that Christians are not supposed to rely on the Bible in terms of salvation, morality, wisdom and history?”
Are you saying that reliance on the literal truth of the bible is a prerequisite to being a Christian?
To those of us old enough to have witnessed 75% of what was considered scientific fact at the time of our birth being dashed on the rocks of reality, that statement is a clash of paradoxes.
Persons falsely claiming to be scientists have almost universally claimed perfection more often than not, while real scientists claim nothing, prefering modesty lest they destroy their credibility through the unavoidable error inherent in bold reasearch. Science has indeed had to spin on a dime too many times to count.
What is in contention in these threads has never been real science. Its when an impostor cloaks himself with the mantle of science to gain advantage in an ideological debate that the threads heat up.
My income has been dependent on "high technology" as it has been defined at the time, all of my adult life, so for me to reject the basis of that technology would be self-defeating. The laws of probability are a lovely thing to me, and things that are an affront to those laws, such as evolution, and socialism, I reject out of hand.
Yet you seem upset that I asked and are curiously unwilling or unable to provide it. I wonder why.
Except for those places where the Bible itself warns that allegory, or 'spirit' is being invoked, that has to be a truism. (else what could belief be!)
“...we acknowledge that God is not bound by physical laws and that his miracles are not made false by empirical or circumstantial evidence...”
Exactly. We have the reasoning ability to deduce from observation that God has brought us into being via an evolutionary process. I put no such bounds on God as to presume that his creation method would be in deniable opposition to all of the evidence that he has left behind.
Exodus 20:11, Exodus 31:17, and many more places too.
You say "exactly," then you post absurdity like the above?
Pathetic!
Lest we quote out of context, is this similarly pathetic?
“Agreed. For a real mind-bender, let's ask "how long did God exist before creating the universe, earth, etc?"”I think the real question is, how much time passed before God created time?
Since it is demonstrably at odds with what God did say, its foolish.
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.