How Old Is The Earth?

Says who?

 

There's no but. Ken Ham and all young earth creationists (at least mainstream) believe true Christians can be old earth. No doubt in my mind.

What they argue is that it's a deterrent to unbelievers and to kids growing up in the Church. It undermines Biblical authority (see his castle illustration). Ken Ham's Foundations series is a worthwhile watch (I noticed these are on TV a lot). Nobody explains this issue like he does.

 

my bad . apologies

 

Do you know the meaning of non sequitur? I ask because that is what your reply to my comment is. Did you read it, or were meaning to reply to someone else?

 

I agree

 

We disagree. I led a study of several families on the Foundations series, as well as ICRs Unlocking series (amazing amazing series). The kids, about 11 and up ate it up, not just the fun science stuff, but the theology. Suddenly they were getting it, from the gospel to everything else. It's all tied into the creation account, and old earth theories frankly confuse matters. I'm not saying no one can get the Gospel otherwise, just saying, it made it a lot easier.

I agree. Romans 14 for those things that are not spelled out. Where we disagree, is whether the Genesis account is unclear. It's as clear as anything else, in my view, and the series of events, in the right order, vivifies the Gospel. Creation (very good), Curse (Adam's sin), Cross (the Last Adam).

 

whats interesting is when non believers see the plain reading of six day creation and a worldwide flood , but use this to argue that the bible is a fairy tale

I think the issue is when the atheist uses the plain reading of the text against us . They clearly( correctly) read a six day creation and a worldwide flood . But then a Christian tries to defend this by saying ' no you don't understand, the bible is compatible with science , evolution and billions of years , dont worry , your just not interpreting correctly ' . The Athiest sees the contradiction .

 

You are very wrong that old earth does not undermine Biblical authority because deep time theory popularized by the Enlightenment is junk science that does contradict Genesis. You have been repeating this for a long time as the church continues to lose members. Evolution and deep time are taught in schools as scientific truth that contradicts Scripture. You yourself postulate the gap theory to accommodate mainstream science so you believe in deep time. The trouble is that you are enthralled by a disproved science but you go with the majority. Young people see this easily.

 

That makes no sense to say that saying that Genesis is scientifically wrong does not undermine the authority of Genesis. The SBC says that it is presuppositional so maybe that would be a better line of defense for you.

 

“Thou wast in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, the topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was in thee; in the day that thou wast created they were prepared.”
‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭28:13‬ ‭ASV‬‬
The earth was covered with water after Satan’s fall between Gen 1:1-2. Therefore it could be very old or very young since the Bible is silent on it. We can know that the Eden of God was a mineral garden vs the vegetable garden in Adam’s dispensation.

 

Easy to see for oneself. God didn't cause fossils to form to deceive us. And many a geologist can attest to the great age of the Appalachians.

 

Just because there is the perception that something looks old doesnt make it so. Futher processes to determine age are not reliable. There is much bias in the "science" that they are not credible. "Peer review" means do it like the rest of us or we will destroy you.

 

It's interesting that, by your standards, all miracles would be deceptive on God's part. The miraculous creation of Adam and Eve would be deceptive. For they would look old to the naturalist. All resurrections, including Jesus' would be deceptive, as they would fool the naturalist into thinking death never occurred. The multiplying of fish and bread would also be deceptive, giving the naturalist the impression that these things existed prior, that the fish grew from eggs, were caught and prepared, and the bread was made from wheat grown in season, harvested and baked into bread. And what about the wine miracle by Jesus? Total deception (again by your standards). Made in an instance, yet looking as if it had been fermented several months maybe even years.

If you really feel this way, maybe you should go the route of Bishop Spong, and deny all miracles.

 

No evidence that fossils & mountain erosion were miracles.

 

Hmmm...No "peer" can explain the fact that the distances to many stars have been fairly-accurately measured, & the light we now see from them originated millions of years ago. The distance from us to the center of our own galaxy is about 30K light-years.

And again, in Gen.1, we see the spirit of God moved over the face of the waters, showing they were already there.

 

Part of the problem with the old earth types that we see here is that they do not acknowledge the immense catastrophe of the Genesis Flood.

 

Two things. The Bible reveals to you a massive erosion even in the Flood. And the Bible says, God directly caused it, in response to man's sin. We know it was massive, because all the high mountains were covered.

Secular science rejects the history of the Bible, so they look for other eroding events which require much more time.

The other thing to note is, technically, there is no such thing as evidence for miracles, apart from testimonial evidence, such as the Bible, which you're quick to reinterpret. If you disagree, please offer me some hypothetical physical evidence for a past miracle. What would it look like?

Scientific interpretation of evidence is based assumptions, the main one being that natural processes remain in play. Science can never conclude that a miracle happened, even if science is stumped and at a loss for a natural explanation. It never settles on the supernatural. It will merely conclude an anomaly has occurred to be understood at a later time.