-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How old is the earth?
- Thread starter GODzThunder
- Start date
word_digger
New Member
To ALL on this Forum:
This morning I received the following letter in my website's comment mailbox. I am sharing it openly to ask for your feedback on how to answer this gentleman. This letter goes to the very heart of this debate, on both sides.
Thanks in advance.
This morning I received the following letter in my website's comment mailbox. I am sharing it openly to ask for your feedback on how to answer this gentleman. This letter goes to the very heart of this debate, on both sides.
Thanks in advance.
What would your response be? I'd really like to know.
Helen said:
Secondly, the fact that there are memories of events which are then mythologized does not invalidate the memories! The fact that flying rocks are associated with a change in the moon's appearance is what is important.
You have provided no evidence that the stories are "memories" at all.
Rather, you have assumed a certain event (the rapid, catastrophic marring of the moon's surface), found a story that seems to corroborate your assumption, and imposed an interpretation upon the story that supports your assumption.
In short, you are arguing in circles.
Secondly, the fact that there are memories of events which are then mythologized does not invalidate the memories! The fact that flying rocks are associated with a change in the moon's appearance is what is important.
You have provided no evidence that the stories are "memories" at all.
Rather, you have assumed a certain event (the rapid, catastrophic marring of the moon's surface), found a story that seems to corroborate your assumption, and imposed an interpretation upon the story that supports your assumption.
In short, you are arguing in circles.
word_digger asked:
What would your response be? I'd really like to know.
What exactly is he asking? If I am reading him correctly, he is saying that disagreement between Christians over how to interpret the creation story undermines Christianity. Is that your take as well?
If so, I would turn the tables on him and affirm what all those Christians say Genesis 1-3 means:
</font>
What would your response be? I'd really like to know.
What exactly is he asking? If I am reading him correctly, he is saying that disagreement between Christians over how to interpret the creation story undermines Christianity. Is that your take as well?
If so, I would turn the tables on him and affirm what all those Christians say Genesis 1-3 means:
</font>
- God is the transcendant, sovereign ruler of creation.</font>
- One God created it all. Other so-called "gods" are null and void.</font>
- God has a special interest in mankind, the only aspect of creation that is declared to be "very good."</font>
- Man is created in the image of God.</font>
- God's creation is good.</font>
Many are so afraid of liberalism, science, history and the validity of scripture, they concoct all sorts of fancy stories about creation and the origins of humankind.
I think my good brother from Ottawa is quite correct. We have a few simple statements, and we can go from there.
When it comes to presenting the gospel and dealing with fallen men (generic) information has never led to conversion. We do not have to convince men of scientific facts, we must convince them of their sinful estate and God's love and redeeming quality.
I just can't get troubled about all the theories. I rest on the concept that it is enough that God created all matter, man and rock alike. The when and how doesn't trouble me.
Cheers,
Jim
I think my good brother from Ottawa is quite correct. We have a few simple statements, and we can go from there.
When it comes to presenting the gospel and dealing with fallen men (generic) information has never led to conversion. We do not have to convince men of scientific facts, we must convince them of their sinful estate and God's love and redeeming quality.
I just can't get troubled about all the theories. I rest on the concept that it is enough that God created all matter, man and rock alike. The when and how doesn't trouble me.
Cheers,
Jim
You are presuming my starting point and you are wrong, Ransom. When I first became interested in mythologies and legends, I ASSUMED they were completely made-up, just like you do. I changed because of data -- because of the facts of the case. I am now convinced that those legends which are the oldest all point to things we are not either recognizing or not admitting. I am NOT talking about Kipling's "How the Camel Got His Hump" or similar; I am talking about the ancient stories which have come down. Here are some of the reasons:
1. linguistics: Hislop got me interested in word usage, and how minor changes can provide whole new meanings for words. This, and double meanings, seemed to have led to a lot of mistaken ideas about what was being referred to. One good example is the fact that "Baal-aberin" meant "Lord of the mighty ones" while "Baal-abirin" meant "the winged one". Thus we may well have representations of some of the ancient mighty kings which include wings. This would have been recognized by the people at the time, but not by us. An example closer to us involves idioms we do not recognize. In the Bible, in Hebrew culture, salt was a real thing, of course, as were salt wastelands, but when Jesus spoke of the salt of the earth -- those belonging to God -- 'losing saltiness', He used a word well-understood by His hearers as idiomatic. It was also understood by the earliest translators, although the modern men and women might simply be following tradition, for it is used four times in the New Testament but only translated as 'lose saltiness' twice. The other two times, in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 1, it is translated as 'made fools' or 'become foolish.' In other words, salt was also a representation of wisdom: either God's or man's. Man's is a salt wasteland. God's is necessary for life. The fact that even poor old Cinderella had a FUR slipper and not a GLASS one in the original is a product of mistaken words. So this was my first clue, in general, that there might be more to some of the legends than I had originally thought.
2. Local legends, which are unique to a culture or race or ethnic group, can usually be ignored as their origins are usually local characters. Our Johnny Appleseed is a good modern example.
3. But when a theme or story runs through a number of cultures in a number of areas, it needs to be looked at, especially if it is talking about something within the memory of their people, such as a possible catastrophe. When this corresponds with something we can see from evidence, astronomically or geologically, there is additional reason to pay attention to the 'legend.'
4. The Bible is God's Word. He knows how to communicate! When the Bible mentions something, it is not legend, it is real. When we can see this same 'story' in other cultures, in one way or another, we begin to be able to add a little meat to the skeleton the Bible has given us, and thus find a little more truth about the matter.
There is no reason to be afraid of research or of finding out things which challenge your world-view, especially if your world-view depends on distorting the plain and simple meaning of events as given in Scripture.
Well Murph,
What it boils down to is a matter of differing interpretation; not those who don't agree with you 100% "ignoring God's word". You mention only 2 alternatives: #1 being the Gap Theory, popularized by Scofield. I don't and never have believed that. #2 would be the existance of a pre-Adamic race. Never believed that one either.
Those are not the only possibilities however. I'd encourage you to do some more reading and research on the subject. I began studying creationism over 25 years ago in earnest, and instead of weakening my faith (as you may be suggesting), it's solidified it. I believe that God created the heavens and the earth just as much as you do. It's the rigid belief that God HAD to have done this at/around 4,000 B.C. that I question. Even Henry Morris has conceded that the Earth may be far older than he once proclaimed. J. Vernon McGee was on record as stating his belief that he believed the Earth might just be as old as secular science claimed. I could give countless more examples of Christians who believe in or concede the possibility of an ancient Earth, but what's the point. If you use that to question their faith or accuse them of ignoring the Bible, that's up to you.
It's a matter of interpretation.
Actually, Jim, there are folks for whom the factual information matters a great deal, and those for whom it was the final point needed for conversion. We have run into a number of these people due to Barry's work. A great many of them are scientists in the fields involved who wanted terribly to believe but felt that if the Bible were wrong about Genesis, how could it be right about Jesus, for the salvation story rests on the Genesis story.
The facts matter very much.
Emphasis Mine
BINGO!!!!
When it says "Heaven is like--", or "He spake a parable unto them--", or some such phrase, then it's obviously not to be taken literally! If, however, there is no such admonition, then I'm going to accept just as written. If I err, it's going to be on the side of trust in His word, not the claims of science.
Helen, I agree that God knew what He was saying.
God communicated exactly what and how much he wanted us to know in the book of Genesis. It's our tendancy to want to add to his words (or put words in his mouth) that I don't agree with.
Out of curiosity I've been to hear Kent Hovind {a creationism speaker popular in IFB circles} give his spin on creation. I heard him say (among other things) that many dinosaurs still roam the earth today; we just don't happen to often run into them! Also, he enlightened the crowd by telling them that flying-saucers are just Satan's means of zipping around the globe. It's this type of disputable/disreputable theorizing that Christians can do without, but that too often drives the consensus about what "is" or "isn't" the correct doctrinal stance regarding the belief about God's creation.
Originally posted by Helen:
"Actually, Jim, there are folks for whom the factual information matters a great deal, and those for whom it was the final point needed for conversion. We have run into a number of these people due to Barry's work. A great many of them are scientists in the fields involved who wanted terribly to believe but felt that if the Bible were wrong about Genesis, how could it be right about Jesus, for the salvation story rests on the Genesis story."
It's not having to believe in God as the Creator that trips up some scientists; it's the unyielding insistance of some otherwise well-meaning believers that the scientists must believe in their particular young-earth creation interpretation of Genesis.
Just as some of the more extreme KJVO'ers believe that one cannot be saved without coming to Christ through the King James Version only; some YEC'ers will insist that must adhere to their particular interpretation of Genesis before one can be saved.
"Actually, Jim, there are folks for whom the factual information matters a great deal, and those for whom it was the final point needed for conversion. We have run into a number of these people due to Barry's work. A great many of them are scientists in the fields involved who wanted terribly to believe but felt that if the Bible were wrong about Genesis, how could it be right about Jesus, for the salvation story rests on the Genesis story."
It's not having to believe in God as the Creator that trips up some scientists; it's the unyielding insistance of some otherwise well-meaning believers that the scientists must believe in their particular young-earth creation interpretation of Genesis.
Just as some of the more extreme KJVO'ers believe that one cannot be saved without coming to Christ through the King James Version only; some YEC'ers will insist that must adhere to their particular interpretation of Genesis before one can be saved.
Helen, I agree that God knew what He was saying.
God communicated exactly what and how much he wanted us to know in the book of Genesis. It's our tendancy to want to add to his words (or put words in his mouth) that I don't agree with.
Out of curiosity I've been to hear Kent Hovind {a creationism speaker popular in IFB circles} give his spin on creation. I heard him say (among other things) that many dinosaurs still roam the earth today; we just don't happen to often run into them! Also, he enlightened the crowd by telling them that flying-saucers are just Satan's means of zipping around the globe. It's this type of disputable/disreputable theorizing that Christians can do without, but that too often drives the consensus about what "is" or "isn't" the correct doctrinal stance regarding the belief about God's creation. </font>[/QUOTE]I sincerely wish someone would muzzle Hovind. That is the first point. To combine baseless ideas with a few scientific facts is doing horrid things both to Bible-believing Christians and to the reputation of Creation Science as a whole! He don't think that guy has any idea of the damage he is doing. At least I hope, for his sake, he doesn't know. I know a lot of people have tried to tell him, though...
Are there still dinos on the earth? I doubt it sincerely, but if there is still some small population deep in the swamps of Africa, that would not be a terrible surprise. On the other hand, there still may be some of the 'monsters of the deep' which are not yet known. The New Zealand carcass was not a plesiosaur, but neither was it a basking shark. Too much evidence against both. So what was it? Maybe something we know of and maybe something we don't. That part doesn't bother me. I am willing to rest on a question mark, as I think a lot of people are.
I've heard about the flying saucers and Satan thing and I choke every time I hear it. Or read it. I know there are good arguments for the idea that the flying saucers which cannot be explained by natural causes (so far) may honestly be demonic manifestations. But Satan certainly doesn't need them to travel! He is a spirit, and does not require physical means to get around.
One of the major problems that I have seen is that people want to be able to understand and explain everything. That just ain't gonna happen, folks. Our minds aren't big enough. So at that point we have a choice: believe the simple straightforward reading of God's Word or believe man's interpretations -- ever-changing -- of what is being seen in terms of data. In my book, Hovind's material tries to combine a lot of both under a deceptive appearance of it all being either God's Word or science. I wish he understood that it is no crime to say "I don't know."
Ransom, you confused my conclusions with presuppositions. I presented my conclusions in what you quoted. The presuppositions were along the lines of "Is there any possibility of a basis for this?" In other words, I was willing to repect that it 'may' be involved with a memory of an actual event, but until I had read other accounts from other peoples around the world as well as checked about the geological record and what the Bible said, I was not willing to give the story credence.
However, with the number of corroborations I found, I do believe the story, and those like it, have credence. That is my conclusion. I went into the study with a rather giant question mark -- and I was willing to come out the same way, actually. The stuff is fascinating, and I no longer think we are reading a bunch of made-up fairy-tales, but rather memories and histories buried in time and myth. Stripping them away to search for facts is a challenging job, but not altogether useless.
However, with the number of corroborations I found, I do believe the story, and those like it, have credence. That is my conclusion. I went into the study with a rather giant question mark -- and I was willing to come out the same way, actually. The stuff is fascinating, and I no longer think we are reading a bunch of made-up fairy-tales, but rather memories and histories buried in time and myth. Stripping them away to search for facts is a challenging job, but not altogether useless.
Sorry to do three in a row. Here I agree with you, Larry. Salvation is in and through Christ only. He picks us up where we are, no matter where we are, and leads us to the truth in Himself. There will be a time when we all know all the truth, but right now we are all being led there (those of us who are born again and His, anyway!). As the liberal is led to a more conservative position, and the legalist to a more relaxed position, they may look at each other and declare the other to be traveling in the wrong direction! But God still knows what He is doing.
I have come to the point where, after journeying through theistic evolution into old age country and finally into young creation country, I think the data truly points to a very young creation. I believe this corresponds exactly to what the Bible is telling us.
But that is my trip, not my salvation! And I have the belief that God will lead others into the truth of that, too. So I agree with you that it has little or nothing to do with salvation in and of itself, although we are very much aware of those for whom it has been a strong indication that salvation through the Jesus of the Bible is a reality and can be trusted.
And there are many with the blessed child-like faith in Jesus without worrying about any of it.
I try to be here for those to whom Genesis is a sticking point. It is for a lot of people, and I understand that. Barry and I simply want those who are curious to know they can trust the Bible and trust God's word -- and that true science does indeed agree with the Bible. The data is there.
But, again, salvation is in Jesus and only in Him.
C.S. Murphy
New Member
Sir, nothing has gone wrong, honest Christian people can have honest Christian differences in interpretations. Your guidelines read:
I also hold fundamental, conservative and traditional views, and one of them is that the Bible does not say that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. The Bible tells me that the world of man is only about this old, but the actual time of "In the beginning (Genesis 1:1)" is not specified in Genesis.
I am not questioning the Word of God by doing so, but I most certainly interpret Genesis a little different than Young Earth Creationists. To say that your interpretation is right and mine is a "lie out of hell" is elevating your traditions and views to a place higher than the Word of God if, indeed, my interpretation is not in error. And if that was, indeed, the case then your interpretation would be a lie. But, of course, only the Word of God can interpret the Word of God and I would certainly not pass judgment on a Brother where we have honest differences. Each of us will stand or fall to the Master.
When you say the Ruin-Reconstruction interpretation is a "lie out of hell" you are attacking my conservative and traditional views without due respect. So, how about being fair and balanced and not a hypocrite about the matter.
Word digger after you quoted from my forum guideline I decided to go back and read it for myself. I must say that Pastor Bob and I did a great job as I am sure you agree
Welcome to the Fundamental Baptist Forum, we hope you enjoy posting here. This forum was born out of a cry from many who despaired that their conservative and traditional views were constantly being attacked. It was designed to be a type of safe haven where one can post and be assured that others on the forum at least agree that the Bible is true and accurate, and will not question the Word of God in the course of the debate. Those who see things more liberally than we do can still be found on other forums so if you feel led to battle them then please do so.
Many have asked who should post here and the answer is, “Anyone who will not deny the truths of the Word of God.” For example, we may disagree on the various interpretations of Scripture; but we will not be allowed to deny or question a clearly revealed truth. (Creation, virgin birth, salvation by grace, Old & New Testament miracles, etc…)
Many threads in this forum have asked the question, “What is a fundamentalist?” or various issues surrounding fundamentalism. This is fine, but I want to add that everyone posting here is not a “fundamentalist,” but I pray that everyone here will respect and defend the truth of the word of God.
A few points I wish to elaborate on in the above are as follows:
#1 This was created as a safe haven for those who accept the bible as it is written. I cannot understand how the 6 day creation account can be cast out and someone still claim to accept the word as written.
#2 Posters are admonished not to post in a fashion that casts doubt on the validity of scripture, and to deny the literal 6 days definately does so.
#3 posters who may hold a more liberal view are not excluded from posting here but while here they must adhere to this forums guidelines. They don't have to change their beliefs but they must post as if they believe the bible word for word while here. There is a large board out there where for the most part anything goes (doctrinally speaking) but not here.
#4 As you read the rest of the guidelines you will immediately notice that they state that creation will not be argued here. Why does anyone who reads this admonition feel that it is o.k. to disregard it.
#5 Notice that the guidelines state that not everyone here is a fundamentalist so there is no gain from posters stating that their view is a fundamentally held belief by this group or that.
I am not trying to be a bad egg but this forum was created to hold atleast one forum where seekers can see that some people hold the scripture as unquestionable.
Murph
C.S. Murphy
New Member
Jim is Genesis a theory? The when and how are spelled out quite plainly in Genesis. I agree that it doesn't trouble me either but when people deny what God has said it does trouble me. It also troubles me that it doesn't trouble you.
Murph
Murph, I don't think Genesis is that specific on details. Yes, I believe Genesis. It says that in the beginning God..I buy that lock, stock and barrel. I just can't get excited whether it took 7 literal days or the other definition of biblical days...one day as a thousand years, and I don't think that really matters.
I don't get excited because some scientist says this or that about some detail. He can't know any better than do I.
If God wanted to call into existence a million year old tree, He could do that. I have no problem believing that God called into being a fully grown Adam and Eve, and animals equally mature.
I hope that clears my saying, I just don't get excited. I think there are so many more important matters..things about which I do know a lot about.
Cheers,
Jim
I don't get excited because some scientist says this or that about some detail. He can't know any better than do I.
If God wanted to call into existence a million year old tree, He could do that. I have no problem believing that God called into being a fully grown Adam and Eve, and animals equally mature.
I hope that clears my saying, I just don't get excited. I think there are so many more important matters..things about which I do know a lot about.
Cheers,
Jim