Christians: How could Earth only be 6000 years old?

[darkendless]

That is the technical truth, but what are you doing with it? You are pursuing a flavor of thought based on assumption and using it to dismantle something that has yet to be falsified. The claims in the Bible more than account for any and all of Earth's conditions, everything from history to fossil fuels.
Science is drawing conclusions from a dotted fossil record and unreliable dating techniques. Way to go.

Save me jebus

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Why don't you question the Bible? Maybe if you did, you would come to the same conclusion.

I've questioned the Bible. I've considered parts of it wrong. Never all of it. It's right were it counts. Being wrong where it doesn't count...well that doesn't really matter anyway.

 

[waitasec]

Although speculative, I believe God used that time period to test the angels. They were asked to govern--not a barren world, but a world full of life forms (dinosaurs, hominids) throughout geologic history. God was 'deveIoping' a creation in which angels were being challenged and tested on how they would carry out God's government in guiding that nature, and in ruling over ever more complex forms of life to prove they could be trusted before being sent out further into the universe. They failed because Lucifer (angel in charge) felt his philosophy was better than God's.

They as well as the earth and its cosmic partners (sun and moon and perhaps the other planets) were destroyed during satan's rebellion. Sparking the renovation of the earth and creation of "new and improved" man and beast.

where do you get these ideas from?
do you have anything to back this up, other than your acute sense of imagination?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Save me jebus

The palm on the forehead is a bit premature in lieu of my other statements.

These type of posts are very unnecessary for a debate thread, and cheap at that.

 

[darkendless]

The palm on the forehead is a bit premature in lieu of my other statements.

These type of posts are very unnecessary for a debate thread, and cheap at that.

1) the bible accounts nothing with enough depth to be remotely credible.
2) Dating methods are just fine. Heck I date rocks on a weekly basis up to 300 million years old. Its funny how people suggest that formulae for dating are wrong and yet do not provide the mathematical calculations to correct what we have.

Its amusing to see people say that carbon dating is wrong because some biased idiots dated a 50 year old fence post to be 23456765432 years old or so. I'd say theres an issue with the technician or the equipment, not the method.

 

[kiwimac]

As a Christian living today there are a number of voices who claim to be speaking for all of us, they assail science and insist that we must literally accept every word in the Bible as true. In doing so they fail both themselves and others for much in the Bible is parable or metaphor. When we, as Christians, insist that parable must be accepted as literally true we put a stumbling block of, well, biblical proportions in the way of earnest seekers.

It is for such seekers that I write this article.

Should you happen to visit the Answers in Genesis site you will find, among other things the following comment,

"... We return to the question which forms the title of this article. Should Genesis be taken literally?

Answer: If we apply the normal principles of biblical exegesis (ignoring pressure to make the text conform to the evolutionary prejudices of our age), it is overwhelmingly obvious that Genesis was meant to be taken in a straightforward, obvious sense as an authentic, literal, historical record of what actually happened..."

But are they right?

Modern science shows that the earth is billions of years in age, it comes to this conclusion in a number of ways and I recommend the following site for information even a non-scientist can understand, The Age of the Earth .

Is there then a meeting place between science and the Book of Genesis? Yes, there is and it comes from the understanding that Genesis is not a science text-book, that it was written in order to understand, not HOW the world came to be but WHY.

Genesis 1 & 2 are parables, they are parables about why there is an earth, why humans and animals and plants share it in common and why there is pain and suffering in the world. Parables are stories which may or may not be literally true but which imparts to us an important spiritual truth. In the New Testament we have parables such as the Good Samaritan, the evil vine-dressers; the parable of the prodigal son.

None of those New Testament stories are literal fact but they are true in a deeper, more meaningful way. So it is with the parables of Genesis 1 & 2. In them we are not being told that the world was created in six days, six thousand years ago. We are, however, being told that the world was created by God's intention, that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God and that God is a close to us as a friend who walks and talks with us in the cool of the day.

Adam and Eve, the Fall, the Serpent, Noah and his Ark may or may not be literal truth but they are markers of ultimate truth, of truth which can be held only in the imagination, of truth which can only be shown in images and symbols.

Genesis can only be understood in that it is our story, each of us is Adam, each of us is Eve, we misunderstand the Genesis parables when we fail to realize that they are addressed to US individually. Genesis, then, is our unique, individual story told as parable it is not some pre-scientific attempt to explain how all things came to be but rather a profound series of meditations on why things should be in the first place.

Once we realize this, we can see there are no contradictions, can be no contradictions between the findings of science and God's word to us in Genesis. Let us happily give up our insistence on a literal Genesis and seek the deeper, religious truths that await us there

 

[Where Is God]

I've questioned the Bible. I've considered parts of it wrong. Never all of it. It's right were it counts. Being wrong where it doesn't count...well that doesn't really matter anyway.

You have to question it in it's entirety to be validly objective.

 

[Pegg]

I've questioned the Bible. I've considered parts of it wrong. Never all of it. It's right were it counts. Being wrong where it doesn't count...well that doesn't really matter anyway.

i've found that what is usually wrong is the interpretation of the bible, not the bible itself.

As an example, the word 'day' (Heb. Yom) in genesis is interpreted strictly as a literal 24 hours, yet in the very same book, the same word 'day' is used in reference to all 6 days.
Gen 2:4 'This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven

So to make the claim that genesis is speaking of a strictly literal 24 hour day, even though the writer so obviously used the word in its broader meaning, proves that it is interpretation that is the problem.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

You have to question it in it's entirety to be validly objective.

All or nothing. I believe that is a logical fallacy. You must first prove that the parts of the bible that you think are incorrect are the same as the rest before you can make such a statement as the entire bible is false.

Example. The letters to Timothy, which are commonly attributed to Paul, were in fact not written by Paul at all. Does this mean they are false? They have the wrong author, but that is all you can say. Does that make them invalid? If you can prove that Paul is the only expert of the time on what those letters are talking about, and the rest of the world were just clueless about it, then yes, it does prove that the letters are gibberish. I'd like to see you try to prove that though...it should take years and years of research...good luck trying to find everyone from that time period.

My point with all of this is that just because something in the Bible is false, such as the entire universe being created in six days, doesn't mean it isn't useful or it can't teach you something about life and the thing it calls 'god'.

 

[tumbleweed41]

That is the technical truth, but what are you doing with it? You are pursuing a flavor of thought based on assumption and using it to dismantle something that has yet to be falsified. The claims in the Bible more than account for any and all of Earth's conditions, everything from history to fossil fuels.
Science is drawing conclusions from a dotted fossil record and unreliable dating techniques. Way to go.

I think I have already showed you the multitude of dating techniques that verify that the earth is older than 3.5 billion years.
Not to mention the cosmological data.
And yes, many historical and scientific aspects of the Bible are falsified.
Which is why most rational Christians have no problem seeing the allegorical aspects, particularly in the OT.

 

[james2ko]

where do you get these ideas from? do you have anything to back this up, other than your acute sense of imagination?

Science and the bible:

In the beginning--perhaps billions of years ago (Gen1:1), God initially created the earth so beautiful and perfect for the original inhabitants that they shouted for joy (Job 38:7--morning stars are angels). Over time, Lucifer felt his philosophy of survival of the fittest rather than God's way of love was a better way to balance out the life forms he was leading.

Lucifer eventually convinced a third of the angels to abandon their estate (Jud 1:6) and scale the heavens and attempt a coup (Isa 14:13-14). He was ejected from heaven and struck back down to the earth like a bolt of lightning (Isa 14:12; Luk 10:8). In satan's anger and fury, he suddenly destroyed all that God placed under his care with a pre-adamic world-wide flood, which geologic evidence seems to indicate. This set the stage for the repair and renewal (Psa 104:30) of the earth's inundated surface approximately 6,000 years ago:

"The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." Gen 1:2​

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Science and the bible:

In the beginning--perhaps billions of years ago (Gen1:1), God initially created the earth so beautiful and perfect for the original inhabitants that they shouted for joy (Job 38:7--morning stars are angels). Over time, Lucifer felt his philosophy of survival of the fittest rather than God's way of love was a better way to balance out the life forms he was leading.

Lucifer eventually convinced a third of the angels to abandon their estate (Jud 1:6) and scale the heavens and attempt a coup (Isa 14:13-14). He was ejected from heaven and struck back down to the earth like a bolt of lightning (Isa 14:12; Luk 10:8). In satan's anger and fury, he suddenly destroyed all that God placed under his care with a pre-adamic world-wide flood, which geologic evidence seems to indicate. This set the stage for the repair and renewal (Psa 104:30) of the earth's inundated surface approximately 6,000 years ago:

"The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." Gen 1:2
​

Dear God please tell me you made that up and you didn't get it from any one else (book, magazine, website).

 

[james2ko]

Dear God please tell me you made that up and you didn't get it from any one else (book, magazine, website).

I'm glad you like it..

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm glad you like it..

Don't flatter yourself.

 

[james2ko]

Don't flatter yourself.

I didn't have to since you have already done it for me

In all seriousness, as I stated in an earlier post, the scenario is speculative but from a Christian perspective, based on the geologic and biblical evidence, it just seems to make the most sense.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I didn't have to since you have already done it for me

In all seriousness, as I stated in an earlier post, the scenario is speculative but from a Christian perspective, based on the geologic and biblical evidence, it just seems to make the most sense.

To who?

 

[waitasec]

Science and the bible:

In the beginning--perhaps billions of years ago (Gen1:1), God initially created the earth so beautiful and perfect for the original inhabitants that they shouted for joy (Job 38:7--morning stars are angels). Over time, Lucifer felt his philosophy of survival of the fittest rather than God's way of love was a better way to balance out the life forms he was leading.

Lucifer eventually convinced a third of the angels to abandon their estate (Jud 1:6) and scale the heavens and attempt a coup (Isa 14:13-14). He was ejected from heaven and struck back down to the earth like a bolt of lightning (Isa 14:12; Luk 10:8).

genesis 1 is a bronze age understanding, ignorant (not unintelligent) assumptions...until science provided evidence that says something completely different...in your case i would say, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink"

from i understand...job was a book with poetry about why bad things happen to good people so your connection to the creation story is really stretching it...so i can see how your imagination ran with this

jude was written in the 2nd century and was accepted for some reason...maybe because it stood in opposition to gnosticism

Epistle of Jude - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but since it's a part of a book you call bible then it has to have some merit...

now this passage in isaiah begs the question...
is being in the presence of god not enough to fill your cup to never be thirsty again? john 4:13

In satan's anger and fury, he suddenly destroyed all that God placed under his care with a pre-adamic world-wide flood, which geologic evidence seems to indicate. This set the stage for the repair and renewal (Psa 104:30) of the earth's inundated surface approximately 6,000 years ago:

so here you trust science...but reject all the other evidence science has discovered that makes this creation story nothing more than a fable. isn't that a double standard?
interesting...

 

[waitasec]

as I stated in an earlier post, the scenario is speculative but from a Christian perspective, based on the geologic and biblical evidence, it just seems to make the most sense.

and here i have to repeat what i said...
if you are using a sliver of geological evidence to support your fantasy then why not use all of it?

 

[james2ko]

so here you trust science...but reject all the other evidence science has discovered that makes this creation story nothing more than a fable. isn't that a double standard? interesting...

But my premise implies the earth is much older than 6,000 years old. So you believe the evidence proves otherwise?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But my premise implies the earth is much older than 6,000 years old. So you believe the evidence proves otherwise?

The problem is you forgo basic concepts of both the sciences (not just geology) and biblical interpretation as you are trying to reconcile the two fields.

Apparently you want to be the kind of Christian who accepts science and as literal an interpretation of the Bible as you can. So you're loosely fitting in what you think you know about science with what you think you know about the bible, and the product is a useless, bastardized mess.