Age of the earth

[Vadergirl123]

Who is wrong when the bible contradicts itself

The bible doesn't contradict itself. Please give me some examples of what you believe is "contradiction."

 

[Vadergirl123]

There is nothing veryifing the Bibles content as being true as it's written out, other than fellow human beings who share your view . I was relaying my condolences by which this is all that you got. Nothing else is ever going to help you with validation regarding the Bible's "truth" and claims outside the scope other than human intervention alone . I'm afraid there is nothing that can be ever done about it.

Please read my post on page ten

 

[Vadergirl123]

Vadergirl, where in the bible does it say how old the earth is or that the earth is 6000 years old.

There are living things on earth older and there also events that have been witnessed by humans that are older.

Have you ever look at the moon? Does it have craters in it and how did they get there and when?

Also what is a solar system?

I already posted something about this, but God created the world in 6days. He created Adam, the first man, on day 6 and if you look chronologically form Adam to Moses about 3,000yrs pass. Moses lived in the time of the new kingdom(around 1200-1300 B.C)
A solar system is defined as the sun, with all the planets and other bodies taht revolve around it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

This seems to be a waste of time.

Anytime facts are presented that indicate the earth is 4.5 billion years old, at the least, as is indicated through empirical geological, astrophysical, chemical, etc, evidence, it is dismissed as "wrong" because it goes against someones literal interpretation of of the Bible.

I have described this attitude of denying reality before as Bibliolotry.

Bibliolatry- In the case of Christian Creationism, an extreme devotion or worship of the Bible as entirely inerrant and absolutely literal. A focus on the words of the Bible rather than the teachings of Jesus. Denying factual reality in favor of a Biblical literalism and inerrancy.
Original Thread

 

[The_Evelyonian]

So here's a better reason for why the bible is true.(I copied it from a website called answersingenesis.org)
the Bible can make sense of the standards by which we evaluate whether or not something is true. One such set of standards are the laws of logic. We all know that a true claim cannot contradict another true claim. That would violate a law of logic: the law of non-contradiction. The statements “The light is red” and “The light is not red” cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Laws of logic thus represent a standard by which we can judge certain truth claims. Moreover, all people seem to “know” laws like the law of non-contradiction. We all assume that such laws are the same everywhere and apply at all times without exception. But why is this? How do we know such things?
If we consider the biblical worldview, we find that we can make sense of the laws of logic. The Bible tells us that God’s mind is the standard for all knowledge (Colossians 2:3). Since God upholds the entire universe and since He is beyond time, we would expect that laws of logic apply everywhere in the universe and at all times. There can never be an exception to a law of logic because God’s mind is sovereign over all truth. We can know laws of logic because we are made in God’s image and are thus able to think in a way that is consistent with His nature (Genesis 1:27). So, when we take the Bible as our worldview, we find that laws of logic make sense.
But if we don’t accept the Bible as true, we are left without a foundation for laws of logic. How could we know (apart from God) that laws of logic work everywhere? After all, none of us have universal knowledge. We have not experienced the future nor have we travelled to distant regions of the universe. Yet we assume that laws of logic will work in the future as they have in the past and that they work in the distant cosmos as they work here. But how could we possibly know that apart from revelation from God?
Arguing that laws of logic have worked in our past experiences is pointless—because that’s not the question. The question is: how can we know that they will work in the future or in regions of space that we have never visited? Only the Christian worldview can make sense of the universal, exception-less, unchanging nature of laws of logic. Apart from the truth revealed in the Bible, we would have no reason to assume that laws of logic apply everywhere at all times, yet we all do assume this. Only the Christian has a good reason to presume the continued reliability of logic. The non-Christian does not have such a reason in his own professed worldview, and so he is being irrational: believing something without a good reason. The unbeliever has only “blind faith” but the Christian’s faith in the Bible makes knowledge possible.

The AiG argument, verbose as it is, can be broken down into the following.

"the Bible can make sense of the standards by which we evaluate whether or not something is true."

because

"The Bible tells us that God’s mind is the standard for all knowledge"

therefore

"There can never be an exception to a law of logic because God’s mind is sovereign over all truth."

and we know this because

"The Bible tells us that God’s mind is the standard for all knowledge"

See the circle?

The rest regarding the laws of logic is window dressing. The article makes a number of assertions and fails to back any of them up with anything more than appeals to the authority of the Bible, which is what the article is supposed to be proving.

"X is true because X is true."

 

[Vadergirl123]

This seems to be a waste of time.

Anytime facts are presented that indicate the earth is 4.5 billion years old, at the least, as is indicated through empirical geological, astrophysical, chemical, etc, evidence, it is dismissed as "wrong" because it goes against someones literal interpretation of of the Bible.

I have described this attitude of denying reality before as Bibliolotry.

Bibliolatry- In the case of Christian Creationism, an extreme devotion or worship of the Bible as entirely inerrant and absolutely literal. A focus on the words of the Bible rather than the teachings of Jesus. Denying factual reality in favor of a Biblical literalism and inerrancy.
Original Thread

I'm not denying reality. However we can't KNOW the age of the earth without making assumptions, and sometimes assumptions can be wrong(It's also possible those rocks could be younger than billions of years old, but you'd have to make different scientific assumptions.) I'm chosing to place my belief in a book that's 100% true and accurate. And the teahcings of Christ and the bible aren't separate things.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

I'm not denying reality. However we can't KNOW the age of the earth without making assumptions

What assumptions?

 

[Vadergirl123]

The AiG argument, verbose as it is, can be broken down into the following.

"the Bible can make sense of the standards by which we evaluate whether or not something is true."

because

"The Bible tells us that God’s mind is the standard for all knowledge"

therefore

"There can never be an exception to a law of logic because God’s mind is sovereign over all truth."

and we know this because

"The Bible tells us that God’s mind is the standard for all knowledge"

See the circle?

The rest regarding the laws of logic is window dressing. The article makes a number of assertions and fails to back any of them up with anything more than appeals to the authority of the Bible, which is what the article is supposed to be proving.

"X is true because X is true."

Hmm I think I see your point, but where do you get these "laws of logic?"

 

[tumbleweed41]

I'm not denying reality. However we can't KNOW the age of the earth without making assumptions, and sometimes assumptions can be wrong(It's also possible those rocks could be younger than billions of years old, but you'd have to make different scientific assumptions.) I'm chosing to place my belief in a book that's 100% true and accurate. And the teahcings of Christ and the bible aren't separate things.

Do you realize you have just verified your Bibliolatry?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Hmm I think I see your point, but where do you get these "laws of logic?"

Not sure what you mean by "where do you get these "laws of logic?"

 

[Vadergirl123]

Not sure what you mean by "where do you get these "laws of logic?"

Where do you think they come from? One of my point in that post from AIG was to show that by using the laws of logic you're implying that God exists.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Do you realize you have just verified your Bibliolatry?

How so? Do you believe Christ's teaching's are "unbiblical?"

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Where do you think they come from?

I don't necessarily think that they "come from" anywhere (at least, in the sense of being created or handed down by the gods). The laws of logic are just conceptual axioms.

One of my point in that post from AIG was to show that by using the laws of logic you're implying that God exists.

That's nonsense. Replace "God" with anything else in that sentence and its absurdity becomes evident.

 

[Viker]

Somewhere around 142006284000143587 seconds

 

[Vadergirl123]

I don't necessarily think that they "come from" anywhere (At least, in the sense of being created or handed down by the gods). The laws of logic are just conceptual axioms.

Of course it comes form somewhere

That's nonsense. Replace "God" with anything else in that sentence and its absurdity becomes evident.

And why is that "nonsense" if God's always been in existence the concept of logic would come from him.

 

[Viker]

And why is that "nonsense" if God's always been in existence the concept of logic would come from him.

Do the "laws of logic" apply to God?

 

[tumbleweed41]

How so? Do you believe Christ's teaching's are "unbiblical?"

There was no "Bible" at the time of Jesus.

Jesus did not teach on the literal historicity of the Torah, he taught on the human condition and love and forgiveness, not to judge others, give to the poor and to be careful not to let wealth become too important, to be genuine and not hypocritical, to pray and to have faith in God.

In fact, Jesus did teach against getting too literal with the Torah. He chastised those who used the Law as a literal weapon. He advocated common sense in the application of the Torah.

Not once did Jesus tell his followers to revel in intentional ignorance in favor of literalism over new-found knowledge.

AiG, and other sites like it, come across as having the weakest of faiths. To ignore, twist or reject scientific advancement because it threatens their faith shows a lack of faith.

 

[Vadergirl123]

There was no "Bible" at the time of Jesus.

Jesus did not teach on the literal historicity of the Torah, he taught on the human condition and love and forgiveness, not to judge others, give to the poor and to be careful not to let wealth become too important, to be genuine and not hypocritical, to pray and to have faith in God.

In fact, Jesus did teach against getting too literal with the Torah. He chastised those who used the Law as a literal weapon. He advocated common sense in the application of the Torah.

Not once did Jesus tell his followers to revel in intentional ignorance in favor of literalism over new-found knowledge.

AiG, and other sites like it, come across as having the weakest of faiths. To ignore, twist or reject scientific advancement because it threatens their faith shows a lack of faith.

Not the bible as we have it today no, but the jews did have the old testament so that they would know God's authority. In fact the old testament promised that Jesus would come. Jesus fulfilled the old testament and replaced their laws. And he himself quoted out of it. So "common sense" the you that God didn't create our planet?? Does "common snese" also mean not believing he created it in 6days?? He was upset that someof the priest's had turned the law into something about THEM and didn't really care about God at all. And weak faith?? How is believing in the bible as my absolute authority displaying "weak faith?" And I don't have a problem with "scientific advancement"(as long as it doesn't contradict the bible) I'm glad we now have cars and other technological objects and medicines.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Do the "laws of logic" apply to God?

You tell me?

 

[Viker]

"I don't have a problem with "scientific advancement"(as long as it doesn't contradict the bible)"

This is actually a bit scary, if you ask me. Sort of cultist.