Age of the earth

[David Michael Harris]

Pretty weak reasoning to reject the Genesis account.

BTW, I said 10,000 years.

I don't reject it, just trying to understand. God wants us to be of sound mind. Also Peter say's that we have not believed myth's, were did Peter get this one day is as a thousand years to God from?

 

[Allan]

I don't reject it, just trying to understand. God wants us to be of sound mind. Also Peter say's that we have not believed myth's, were did Peter get this one day is as a thousand years to God from?

You are missing completely the language being used.
NOTE: one day is LIKE/AS a thousand years,
...not - one day IS a thousand years.

It is a 'simile' which is - 1. A figure of speech in which two essentially unlike things are compared, often in a phrase introduced by like or as, as in "How like the winter hath my absence been or "So are you to my thoughts as food to life" "

Here is another usage of a period of time being like a thousand years:

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night.

The meaning of these phrases is simply that time to God, in and of itself, is of no consequence or meaning in relation to His plan

THis same thing is noted more clearly in 2 Peter 3:

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

However, in the book of the Revelation we see the thousand years specifically addressed a particular period of time (a thousand years .. the thousand years .. when the thousand years were finished)

 

[Robert Snow]

It's easy not to worry about my own salvation when I take the Bible literally and believe that everything God said is true. Folks like you that question whether God is capable of doing the things He said he did are the ones with the problem.

The problem is you think you have it all figured out and anyone who disagrees with the way you see it just must be headed to hell. I cannot think of a better definition of pride than the way you act.

I don't "question whether God is capable of doing things" or not. I believe God can do anything except sin. I do enjoy discussing the things in the Scripture and learning how, why, when, where God did certain things.

You could provide good input if you were not so quick to declare the other person lost or the "one with the problem." I see that you are only 35 years old. I pray that God allows you to mellow out a little with age and see that you have much to learn, especially from those older in the faith than you.

 

[Robert Snow]

To believe that the earth is possibly millions of years old is not calling God a liar. I believe God could have created the entire universe is a split second if He wanted to. I also believe that the days in Genesis are literal days, not periods of time. I just think that there this universe MIGHT have existed before God did what He did in Genesis.

 

[quantumfaith]

No doubts here as to an "old" earth. Science is pretty solid on its approximation of 4.5 billion years, which is of course "orders of magnitude" greater than "millions" of years.

 

[quantumfaith]

I have noticed the title "liberal" banted about in several posts. Would someone be kind enough to define "liberal" with respect to this board. I am new to this board and need to know where I stand intellectuallly and ideologically.

 

[just-want-peace]

Science is pretty solid----

Science has been pretty solid on many things - that science later discovered was in reality quicksand!

If the conflict is between what God said, and what science says, I'll take God's word.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Would someone be kind enough to define "liberal" with respect to this board.

:laugh: You really want an answer? :laugh:

In the context of this discussion, your answer that SCIENCE has the "solid" answer? Yeah, that makes you a liberal!

However, if you want to make up for it just a bit, all you have to do is say you read the KJV and follow the tenets of Calvin. You'll fit right in!

:laugh:

 

[Thermodynamics]

It is a fact that the earth appears to be about 4.5 billion years old.

That is based on the best science as we currently understand it.

The best science has been dead wrong at times, but is also often correct.

God may very well have created the eart in a mature state ready to support life at once, this would result in an earth that appears to be much older than it in fact is.

God may also have created the universe 13 billion years ago, waited 8.5 billion years, created the earth, waited 4.5 billion years, then created man.

There are a number of indicators that suggest an old universe and old earth, something on the order of the 4.5 billion year old model. There are some that suggest an age of several thousand years. The science on this issue seems to point in a certain direction, but is not settled.

The Bible seems to suggest a younger rather than older date of creation, but there is at least some room left for an older earth.

I suspect that the truth is somewhere between 6,000 years and 4.5 billion years, but I am not sure just where.

 

[Thermodynamics]

I should also add that my wife is the most beautiful woman in history and anyone who does not agree is a godless liberal with Marxist leanings.

 

[Marcia]

The thing about an old earth is that if it was created millions or billions of years before Adam and Eve (as some have suggested) then was there any kind of life on it, such as plants and animals? If so, then it had to be peaceful and there was no death because God said it was "good" when He created it and no sin was around. Sin came after Adam, so there had to be millions of years with no death.

I know some will argue that death only came to man, but death is not good at all - it's called an "enemy" in 1 Cor. 15:26 and is thrown into the lake of fire in Rev. 20. So if God created and all was good, then there could be no death, and thus the plants/animals had to live peacefully with no dying before man.

 

[quantumfaith]

Thanks for such a well thought out and articulate definition of liberalism. Science is not my god, but yes I do hold the intellectual achievements "granted" to mankind from the REAL God, in high esteem.

 

[quantumfaith]

:laugh: You really want an answer? :laugh:

In the context of this discussion, your answer that SCIENCE has the "solid" answer? Yeah, that makes you a liberal!

However, if you want to make up for it just a bit, all you have to do is say you read the KJV and follow the tenets of Calvin. You'll fit right in!

:laugh:

Please help me understand, is this some "subtle" sarcasm, or are you actually defining me to a liberal because I hold science in high esteem. And, no thanks to the tenets of Calvinism. Much happier and more secure in my Molinist/Arminian position.

 

[pinoybaptist]

The thing about an old earth is that if it was created millions or billions of years before Adam and Eve (as some have suggested) then was there any kind of life on it, such as plants and animals? If so, then it had to be peaceful and there was no death because God said it was "good" when He created it and no sin was around. Sin came after Adam, so there had to be millions of years with no death.

I know some will argue that death only came to man, but death is not good at all - it's called an "enemy" in 1 Cor. 15:26 and is thrown into the lake of fire in Rev. 20. So if God created and all was good, then there could be no death, and thus the plants/animals had to live peacefully with no dying before man.

that's a logical thought.
you should be a Calvinist, Marcia. :thumbs::smilewinkgrin:
by the way, I voted not more than 6K years.

 

[menageriekeeper]

It is all sarcasm, Quantumfaith. Every word.

The definition of liberal on the BB depends on the person you are speaking too. Holding science in greater esteem than the scriptures, will mark you as being a potential liberal, to some, but in the opinions of others, not so much.

Read along, you'll soon catch on. Better be able to back up your Arminian leanings though as eventually even this thread will somehow come around to be an C vs A debate. (more sarcasm)

 

[quantumfaith]

It is all sarcasm, Quantumfaith. Every word.

The definition of liberal on the BB depends on the person you are speaking too. Holding science in greater esteem than the scriptures, will mark you as being a potential liberal, to some, but in the opinions of others, not so much.

Read along, you'll soon catch on. Better be able to back up your Arminian leanings though as eventually even this thread will somehow come around to be an C vs A debate. (more sarcasm)

Thanks for the clarification, I really appreciate it. I dont want to get into the
C vs. A debate, I have grown tired of those who come across as theologically superior and condescending. Not all mind you, but most have turned out that way

 

[quantumfaith]

It is all sarcasm, Quantumfaith. Every word.

The definition of liberal on the BB depends on the person you are speaking too. Holding science in greater esteem than the scriptures, will mark you as being a potential liberal, to some, but in the opinions of others, not so much.

Read along, you'll soon catch on. Better be able to back up your Arminian leanings though as eventually even this thread will somehow come around to be an C vs A debate. (more sarcasm)

Here is myself in a nutshell;

1. Mathematician
2. Not a Calvinist (reformed, doctrines of grace, historic baptist ) etc.
3. Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years, universe is approximately 13.8 billion years.
4. 6 days of creation and 13.8 billion years of age are one and the same due relativistic time considerations, Lorentz Time Dilation equations etc.
5. Evolution (theistic) gives me no problems theologically or personally
6. I appreciate the arguments of the ID movement
7. What I think about God and "how" He did things and "how" He accomplishes things even today, are just that, my opinion. I try to never be "dogmatic" about such things as to claim "I" have God all figured out, scientifically, theologically or otherwise.

 

[kyredneck]

...... I dont want to get into the
C vs. A debate, I have grown tired of those who come across as theologically superior and condescending. Not all mind you, but most have turned out that way

QF, you gotta be tough. Life is tough. Don't let those you consider as 'theologically superior' deter you from what you would like to experience here on the BB. They're pieces of flesh just like you. I'll give you some advice now; don't take this site or yourself too seriously! You CAN grow and learn a lot here, I promise.

You should go to the Welcome Forum and introduce yourself.

 

[quantumfaith]

QF, you gotta be tough. Life is tough. Don't let those you consider as 'theologically superior' deter you from what you would like to experience here on the BB. They're pieces of flesh just like you. I'll give you some advice now; don't take this site or yourself too seriously! You CAN grow and learn a lot here, I promise.

You should go to the Welcome Forum and introduce yourself.

Thanks for the input and the advice. I have just simply had that debate in my church and on many boards. Occasionally, I will chime in, but most often just read and watch. Mercy, peace and Love in abundance.

 

[Salty]

Here is myself in a nutshell;


4. ... Lorentz Time Dilation equations etc.

I have no ideal what that is! :BangHead: and when I Wiki it it said: "This article may be too technical for most readers to understand..."

Maybe you could start a new thread :type:

Salty
science IQ - less than Obamas approval rating!