Posted on 12/22/2011 6:33:49 AM PST by truthfinder9
Have you ever been to a church that claimed that the earth is young? Have you ever felt pressured into believing in a young earth, even though you felt the scientific evidence was contrary to a young earth? Have you ever thought that in order to be a Christian, you had to deny science, and believe in young earth creation science? You are not alone. Many churches teach that the earth is young, and many require you to profess this belief through their statement of faith, which includes a world that was created in six 24-hour days. No, you are definitely not alone...millions have been driven away from the church, and Christ, because of this very topic.
However, there is no need for this to happen. You can believe in an old earth and be a Christian. The doctrine of salvation has nothing to do with the age of the earth. The Bible does not say, “Believe in a young earth, or be condemned to hell.” You can become a Christian and believe in an old earth.
Want to learn more? This website is here to help you. Let's start with a basic explanation of old earth theology. There are several major positions one can take with regards to belief in an old earth and universe. Using a simplistic view of old earth creationist beliefs, they can basically be split into two groups, those who hold to a Day-Age Interpretation, and those who believe in the Gap Theory
(Excerpt) Read more at answersincreation.org ...
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.
Einstein's theory has been debunked...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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..."
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.