Believing the Bible in the Face of 'Evidence to the Contrary'

Understand, if God created our old universe in that actual earth day, being understood as in the context of Genesis 1:1-5, then those billions of years would actually be those billions of years we now see. ". . . God, that cannot lie, . . ."

 

An understandable response, but using unprovable assertions. However, we do know that when Naaman was healed of leprosy in the OT, his healed skin did not look his age. And the wine Jesus made was surprisingly better than the best of the wedding. There is no proof that post-miracle what a scientist might find upon examination would look like your run-of-the-mill subject after the miracle.

But regardless of these appearances, arguing about the age of the earth or universe is about the last thing you should do when someone is wondering what science reveals. If you know much about the current state of debate, then you should know that atheistic scientists have virtually no scientific argument left to counter creation.

They wave their hands and grasp at metaphysical straws, and the chance to win the easy argument—the age of the earth and the universe. They claim that by scientific standards, they look billions of years old. And so they do. But the real question is where they came from, and for this they have no reasonable answers, and their case keeps growing worse. Whenever it was, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

 

Trying to bring someone to the age of the earth rather than to Christ is hardly a worthy modus operandi for evangelism. It is a good way to drive people away, and they may be right to avoid such as you. Note you twisted my words, deliberately or not.

Skepticism is a healthy way to approach any new ideas. The Bereans were skeptical and rightly demanded more proof. They did not remain unbelieving, but in being skeptical their faith was thus properly anchored.

 

Also, you sound confused here. You cannot establish the trustworthiness of Scripture via appearance of age. If the universe appears billions of years old, yet the Bible states otherwise, then there is no support for the trustworthiness of Scripture in that. It would have to be established some other way. The point is that you are futilely trying to work it backward.

 

On what basis is that said rock known to be actually only 6,000 years old?

 

Just that. Galaxies we can in our present time can see here from on our Earth.

"If we assume what is not true, . . ." Who in one's right mind would assume what is true is not true?

Most things we accept as true is based on the witness of others.

Those galaxies are images in photographes taken by others.

 

Genesis

 

Summerize how you derive the 6,000 years for an age of a rock using Genesis.

 

The same way other YEC creationists derive the age.

 

So YEC are wrong, while the Genesis account is true.

 

YEC is the only possible correct interpretation if you take the text literally.

 

There is no reason to believe that nonsense explanation. Light reveals what is actual and true. The Son of God is the true light (John 1:9-10), He is truth personified (John 14:6). He is God's glory Hebrews, 1:3.

 

The false assumption of totally errless geneologies. Luke 3:36, ". . . Who was of Cainan, . . ." That extra name is not in our the Hebrew copies at that location.

 

I wonder if you really understood what I said to begin with. The point was to simply cede agreement that the earth and universe appear to be billions of years old. You needn't agree they are. The point is that this is not a good point to argue. In fact, it's a very bad one. Skip it.
…

Him: "Scientists say science shows the universe is billions of years old."

You: "Yes, I agree that God's creation appears to be billions of years old."

If he insists on arguing the age of the universe, then first make sure he agrees God created it, the Bible is God's word, and Jesus is the Word whom we all need to listen to and the Savior whom we all need to be saved.

You: "So then, you agree God exists and created the heavens and the earth?"

Him: "There is no God."

You: "And yet there is God's creation."

Him: "Nothing was created." (Or "the Universe created itself." Etc.)

You: "And why in the world would you think that?"

Him: "Because scientists say science says so."

You: "Really? And you just believe them?"

Him: "How can you question scientists and their science?"

You: "Let's say I've learned it's wise to be skeptical."​

Of course, it isn't all scientists but atheistic scientists. And the problem is not their science, but their worldview. Not everything scientists say are statements of science. They also invoke their authority in science to make unsupportable philosophical and metaphysical assertions.