• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

The age of the earth

What always amazes me in this discussion is how often archaeologists are constantly changing their perspectives on either the sophistication of ancient civilizations or just the amazement of how far back they have to adjust their dates for human migrations or colonizations. Man has been pretty crafty for a long time. The MILLIONS/BILLIONS of years proponents act as though humans must have been grunting, chest beating savages who couldn't figure out how to move 10 miles outside their comfort zones. Men have been traveling long distances since they was created. IMO, All those bones and civilizations were deposited pretty early. Adam and his descendants were pretty smart (see Babel).

My more fundamental brethren might think me too liberal, but I come down somewhere between the 1million to 6k range, but probably closer to the 6k than million. Why? I don't think 6k can account for a lot of the sophistication and wide global disbursement from such a small progenitor group (pre flood or post flood).

I agree with everyone else that macro evolution really holds very little water based on a pure, hard science model.


Feel free to poke holes in my thinking. It's really late for me right now so my brain is winding down.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/chinamum/taklamakan.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/...w-kennewick-man-was-native-american.html?_r=0

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/20...riginals-come-from-Genomic-data-reveals-clues
 
I think a literal reading of the Creation story followed by a period of peace and tranquility in the Garden with people filtering out here and there would really explain a lot. Like those really big lizards that needed a lot of time to grow.
 
FollowingHim said:
This issue is largely important simply because many people take it as a key reason to reject God (atheism), or at least reject His teachings even if they believe He might still exist somewhere (agnosticism). Because people make it important, it becomes important for evangelism to those people, and to prevent our own children from falling into the same heresy given that particular heresy is entrenched in our culture. So you're correct, it's important simply because people make it important, which is in some ways circular reasoning - yet we are stuck in a culture that is trapped in that circle, and must respond to it accordingly.

If we lived in a culture where people believed in God's existence regardless and the age of the earth was never a topic of discussion, then I agree it would be just an interesting detail to discuss hypothetically, but of itself somewhat unimportant. But in our culture it has become an important one.
Click to expand...

Amen

ἕτοιμοι ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον περὶ τῆς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλπίδος,

1 Peter 3:15b "also always [have] a speech in defense to those whom demand from you an explanation concerning the faith which is in you all."
This Greek word is where we get the word "apologetics" from (apologia)
 
Last edited:
JustUs said:
There are many views of Genesis. I have heard there are 14 and only 2 are young earth creationism. I hold to an old earth view lime Reasons to Believe but disagree with evolutionary creationism lime Biologos. The question has never been an issue in the historical church but some YEC are acually trying to say inerrancy is tied to your view on 6 24 hour days or not. That is not true.
Click to expand...
Young earth is the most "just what you can see in scripture" accurate. It doesn't mean it is the most accurate, though. I lean "younger" but I don't think it's a test of my fellowship.
 
I'm young earth for sure. I'm sure the truth has lots of strange elements and caveats that I'm oblivious to, but I know this earth was created in 6 days and on the seventh day God rested. If those days were meant to represent 'ages' or whatever, then I would be interested to know what the current theory is to describe how the plants and seed bearing trees survived WITHOUT THE SUN.
 
Slumberfreeze said:
I'm young earth for sure. I'm sure the truth has lots of strange elements and caveats that I'm oblivious to, but I know this earth was created in 6 days and on the seventh day God rested. If those days were meant to represent 'ages' or whatever, then I would be interested to know what the current theory is to describe how the plants and seed bearing trees survived WITHOUT THE SUN.
Click to expand...
Here's my best @Slumberfreeze impersonation as a reply:

"Magical, hocus, picks, juju power?"
 
I'm at the same point as Slumberfreeze. It seems funny that the same people who expect God to resurrect their decomposed bodies instantaneously from nothing by the power of his spoken word have issues with that same word creating the universe from nothing in 6 days.

It's possible that there's something missing from the story or perhaps that we are understanding it incorrectly, but it seems far more plausible to me that an all powerful God that can create life from nothing can do so by his voice if he so chooses, instantaneously or in 6 days.
 
I'm with both of you, and, like I said, am mostly young earth, but for argument sake (devil's advocate) couldn't the Almighty keep those same plants viable with an alternate form of sustainability?
 
Without a doubt! If I were going to advocate I would bring up that very thing, and note that light existed before the sun, moon and stars were created. Perhaps that light was sufficient for plant life.

However, Mr. Advocate, if I were to do that in the defense of defining the creation account's days as something other than literal 24 hour periods, I would need a pretty strong reason to do so. There is occasionally very clear reason for not interpreting the bible's words literally (As I do not expect to see a beast rising out of the sea, King of the Monsters-style, because Gabriel had previously explained this symbolism to Daniel) but I am unaware of any such thing in this case.

I propose that no such imperative exists in Scripture. The motive to do so rests not in the Scripture, nor again in scientific observation; but an alternate origin theory whose first proponents had no evidence for it, but believed it anyways because the idea of a Creator was abhorrent to them. Their origin story is at least internally consistent, because it is constantly evolving; but what it lacks in evidence it makes up in repetition and public acceptance. It is from this pressure that the desire to see room in the creation account for this theory to also be plausible exists. If there are other motives, or any physical evidence driving a more honorable school of thought, I am unaware of it.

I am for maintaining plasticity in how one interprets the bible, as God often intends and reasons differently than His reader base, but that plasticity must allow God, and God only to mold it. It is true that to God, a thousand years are as a day, and a day as a thousand years, but the natural world below Him does not have this benefit. Even if it did, a thousand year to one day ratio does not provide anything like a timetable that any variant of evolutionary thought could acknowledge as relevant.

Thusly, the practice fails at having a good reason to consider it, and once it is considered it fails to convince anyone of anything concrete, and if it is believed it does no service in bridging the gap between creationists and their critics. This, at best, is a transitional belief of an indoctrinated public school student who has not yet begun to question his curriculum but is also starting to take the bible seriously. At worst it is a transitional belief of a childhood Sunday school student losing their faith in their second semester of college. There is no place to camp here.
 
We are hardcore young earth creationists. Literalists. Fundamentalists... Gangsters basically. :cool::cross:

I say, "How old is the earth?"
Kids respond, "About 6,000 years sir."
I say, "When was the word dinosaur invented?"
Kids respond, "1842 sir."
.. little gangsters , I love em!

#homeschooling #indoctrination :rolleyes: Lol
 
rustywest4 said:
We are hardcore young earth creationists. Literalists. Fundamentalists... Gangsters basically. :cool::cross:

I say, "How old is the earth?"
Kids respond, "About 6,000 years sir."
I say, "When was the word dinosaur invented?"
Kids respond, "1842 sir."
.. little gangsters , I love em!

#homeschooling #indoctrination :rolleyes: Lol
Click to expand...
You need your own reality show. Sounds like a fun existence in your household :D
 
Mojo said:
You need your own reality show. Sounds like a fun existence in your household :D
Click to expand...

Lol thanks Lord Mojo bro. I call it "extreme dadding", and it's what I'm about! We have a blast for sure. I use to do YouTube videos as a goof-ball when I was in ministry as a youth pastor and think often of doing a fun new YouTube channel possibly titled "extreme dadding" or something like that. But family time and any recreational time is very limited for me cuz I am on call 24/7 and work 65+ hours a week.
 
rustywest4 said:
Lol thanks Lord Mojo bro. I call it "extreme dadding", and it's what I'm about! We have a blast for sure. I use to do YouTube videos as a goof-ball when I was in ministry as a youth pastor and think often of doing a fun new YouTube channel possibly titled "extreme dadding" or something like that. But family time and any recreational time is very limited for me cuz I am on call 24/7 and work 65+ hours a week.
Click to expand...
It'll happen. Have your people talk to my people.:D:confused::p
 
I think i mentioned it earlier in this thread, but in case i didn't, my reasoning for a young earth goes like this:
When God created Adam, he did not create a toddler, infant, fetus or zygote. He created a man. Why is it so hard to make that step to say that He created a world that was already X years old? This is of course completely ignoring that He spoke everything into existence. Why would a being with that much power have to rely on "natural aging"? Makes no sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top