Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Age of the earth/Biblical chronology


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
9 replies to this topic

#1
wincam

wincam
  • Members
  • 61 posts

see it worked out at www.johnsalza.com  - click on Geocentrism and then go to Evolution and the 6 days of creation and also see 'The age of the Earth' - wincam



#2
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts

see it worked out at www.johnsalza.com  - click on Geocentrism and then go to Evolution and the 6 days of creation and also see 'The age of the Earth' - wincam

From your post alone it is unclear what side you come on; from a very quick read of the link I take it you are a 6dayer?

 

I would advise from this point on that all parties avoid any math adding together the ages of each patriarch.  The question deals entirely with the 6 days of creation and whether they were intended by the author to be a literal 6, 24 hour day period.  (Actually, this needs to be nuanced: it really involves the quesiton of whether the author, being summoned today and presented with the debate, would side with the 6dayers or the old earthers).

 

Everything hinges upon those 6 days.  Please stop the counting genealogical years!!!

 

secondly, everything hinges upon the difference between a literal and what we would call a thematic interpretation of Scripture.  There is no dispute that the Bible does not attribute our origins to Apes. The question is whether the account of our origins in Genesis was meant to give a scientific account of our origins.

 

clb


Edited by ConnorLiamBrown, 12 January 2014 - 07:14 PM.


#3
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts

 

see it worked out at www.johnsalza.com  - click on Geocentrism and then go to Evolution and the 6 days of creation and also see 'The age of the Earth' - wincam

From your post alone it is unclear what side you come on; from a very quick read of the link I take it you are a 6dayer?

 

I would advise from this point on that all parties avoid any math adding together the ages of each patriarch.  The question deals entirely with the 6 days of creation and whether they were intended by the author to be a literal 6, 24 hour day period.  (Actually, this needs to be nuanced: it really involves the quesiton of whether the author, being summoned today and presented with the debate, would side with the 6dayers or the old earthers).

 

Everything hinges upon those 6 days.  Please stop the counting genealogical years!!!

 

secondly, everything hinges upon the difference between a literal and what we would call a thematic interpretation of Scripture.  There is no dispute that the Bible does not attribute our origins to Apes. The question is whether the account of our origins in Genesis was meant to give a scientific account of our origins.

 

clb

 

Okay,

 

I've read the link in a little more detail.

 

We can eliminate from the outset the witness of Church fathers; not because their witness is inadmissible in general, but because they were never engaging in this debate.  The question isn't whether they believed in a 6 day creation process, but whether they would in light of scientific propositions.

 

There are two problem in asserting that nowhere in the OT does "Day" refer to an indefinite time.  One is strictly logical.  The real assertion is "nowhere ELSE does it SEEM that the word designates an indefinite period of time.  For of course, we may very well be looking at the 6 instances where it is used indeterminably; you can say that it is highly improbable given the other occurrences.... I will say, "even so, this may be 6".

 

But The second problem is that the word is used indeterminately.  The link given points out Isaiah 4.2 where it says "in that day the branch of the Lord will be glorious".  Day is singular, but context it clearly refers to an epoch.  The author claims that by context we are referring to the glory of the Lord (which of course transcends days).  That is a poor exegetical maneuver.  Grammatically we are talking about "the branch". Everywhere else in Isaiah branch refers to Israel, more specifically, to a new Israel..........more specifically to a new Davidic king of Israel.  Isaiah is saying that in that day there will be a glorious descendant of David (who will walk in his father's footsteps)...............that day does not = 24 hour period.

 

Truth be told I don't really care about all this.  I ground my ax elsewhere.  I believe the significance of Genesis 1 and 2 is to be found less in its language than in the cultural it was written in.

 

clb



#4
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 43,514 posts
....a scientific account of our origins....

 

:thumbsup:

 

Every

 

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Genesis 2:1-3

 

Saturday

 

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: Exodus 20:8-11
 

So, Should Science Lie?

 

For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. Romans 3:3-4

 

~

 

And Beloved Where Will You Stand

 

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? John 11:25-26

 

When You Hear His Voice

 

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. John 5:24-25

 

Where

 

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. John 5:28-29

 

Love, Joe



#5
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts

Hey Joe,

 

I love the "When I get on my high horse, I usually find Jesus rides off on his donkey."

 

Where is that from?

 

clb



#6
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

 

 

see it worked out at www.johnsalza.com  - click on Geocentrism and then go to Evolution and the 6 days of creation and also see 'The age of the Earth' - wincam

From your post alone it is unclear what side you come on; from a very quick read of the link I take it you are a 6dayer?

 

I would advise from this point on that all parties avoid any math adding together the ages of each patriarch.  The question deals entirely with the 6 days of creation and whether they were intended by the author to be a literal 6, 24 hour day period.  (Actually, this needs to be nuanced: it really involves the quesiton of whether the author, being summoned today and presented with the debate, would side with the 6dayers or the old earthers).

 

Everything hinges upon those 6 days.  Please stop the counting genealogical years!!!

 

secondly, everything hinges upon the difference between a literal and what we would call a thematic interpretation of Scripture.  There is no dispute that the Bible does not attribute our origins to Apes. The question is whether the account of our origins in Genesis was meant to give a scientific account of our origins.

 

clb

 

Okay,

 

I've read the link in a little more detail.

 

We can eliminate from the outset the witness of Church fathers; not because their witness is inadmissible in general, but because they were never engaging in this debate.  The question isn't whether they believed in a 6 day creation process, but whether they would in light of scientific propositions.

 

There are two problem in asserting that nowhere in the OT does "Day" refer to an indefinite time.  One is strictly logical.  The real assertion is "nowhere ELSE does it SEEM that the word designates an indefinite period of time.  For of course, we may very well be looking at the 6 instances where it is used indeterminably; you can say that it is highly improbable given the other occurrences.... I will say, "even so, this may be 6".

 

But The second problem is that the word is used indeterminately.  The link given points out Isaiah 4.2 where it says "in that day the branch of the Lord will be glorious".  Day is singular, but context it clearly refers to an epoch.  The author claims that by context we are referring to the glory of the Lord (which of course transcends days).  That is a poor exegetical maneuver.  Grammatically we are talking about "the branch". Everywhere else in Isaiah branch refers to Israel, more specifically, to a new Israel..........more specifically to a new Davidic king of Israel.  Isaiah is saying that in that day there will be a glorious descendant of David (who will walk in his father's footsteps)...............that day does not = 24 hour period.

 

Truth be told I don't really care about all this.  I ground my ax elsewhere.  I believe the significance of Genesis 1 and 2 is to be found less in its language than in the cultural it was written in.

 

clb

 

 

Actually, you are wrong, the early church fathers did engage in the debate about the meanings of the "days" of creation.  And you are wrong that one needs to look at the days in light of scientific propositions, that is the wrong thing to do as then how we view the bible would change with each new scientific discovery, which would render God's word meaningless.



#7
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts

And you are right; but misunderstood me.

 

Yes the Church fathers discussed the significance of the 6 days--and not all took them literally (Augustine believed the creation account occurred in a single moment, but Moses told it through a literary theme of 6 days.  Augustine did not believe the days were to be taken chronologically.  When I said the church fathers did not engage in this debate, I mean they did not engage in a debate between literalists and symbolists in light of modern scientific discoveries.....

 

And that brings us to the real problem at  hand.  It seems that the real question is whether Scripture should be read in light of scientific discoveries, or not.  You vote not because then "the Bible would change......and render God's word meaningless".

 

I take it you reject Augustine's doctrine of Two Books--the book of Creation and the Book of Scripture?  Augustine himself held that we must not take literal what is manifestly incongruent to our experience.  Thus Augustine rejected the literal reading of certain psalms which made the earth flat, or square, or have pillars.  This was not science vs. God's Word, but the exegesis of one book (creation studied by science) compared with the exegesis of another (Scripture studied by one or other hermeneutic).

 

I take it that you still believe the sun moves round the earth?  As the psalmists says, as the Teacher says, "the sun rises and goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises." (Ecc. 1:5)  or the Prophet Habakkuk 3:11 "the sun and the moon stood still in their habitation at the light of thine arrows...".  Note that these verses do not say "seemed to move because of the rotation of the earth.  Remember also what a scandal heliocentricism caused when first proposed!  Something quite similar today. 

 

 

It does seem to me that you have a very low view of God's creation.  That is not an attack; and no doubt I error--but surely you can see how I can make that error.  Whatever creation might say to us through the study of science is not a God's message--even though we affirm that God created her?  

 

And finally, you are wrong (at least to me personally) that when we allow science to sharpen our exegesis, God's word becomes meaningless.  I have found my appreciation for Scripture and especially Genesis 1, 2 and the psalms which comment on it deepen immensely once I abandoned the assumption that the author and Author meant it to be literal.

 

clb



#8
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts
 

 

And you are right; but misunderstood me.

 

Yes the Church fathers discussed the significance of the 6 days--and not all took them literally (Augustine believed the creation account occurred in a single moment, but Moses told it through a literary theme of 6 days.  Augustine did not believe the days were to be taken chronologically.  When I said the church fathers did not engage in this debate, I mean they did not engage in a debate between literalists and symbolists in light of modern scientific discoveries....

 

 

I believe we disagree on what a literalistic view of the Bible is.  One does not need to take figures of speech, analogies, symbolism and more as "real" to take the bible literally.

 

I take it you reject Augustine's doctrine of Two Books--the book of Creation and the Book of Scripture?  Augustine himself held that we must not take literal what is manifestly incongruent to our experience.  Thus Augustine rejected the literal reading of certain psalms which made the earth flat, or square, or have pillars.  This was not science vs. God's Word, but the exegesis of one book (creation studied by science) compared with the exegesis of another (Scripture studied by one or other hermeneutic).

 

 

I do not reject his theory of the two books.  I just believe that when there is a conflict between them that the Book of Scripture wins.  Evolution is a good example, the "science" of evolution is just as accepted today as is the theory of gravity and the heliocentric model.   But in my opinion evolution cannot be fit into the bible so it must be rejected.

 

I take it that you still believe the sun moves round the earth?  As the psalmists says, as the Teacher says, "the sun rises and goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises." (Ecc. 1:5)  or the Prophet Habakkuk 3:11 "the sun and the moon stood still in their habitation at the light of thine arrows...".  Note that these verses do not say "seemed to move because of the rotation of the earth.  Remember also what a scandal heliocentricism caused when first proposed!  Something quite similar today.

 

 

Everyday I read my local weather and I have a "sunrise" and a "sunset" time, yet those publishing those times understand that the sun is not the thing moving.  Just as I assume God also knew. 

 

It does seem to me that you have a very low view of God's creation.  That is not an attack; and no doubt I error--but surely you can see how I can make that error.  Whatever creation might say to us through the study of science is not a God's message--even though we affirm that God created her?  

 

And finally, you are wrong (at least to me personally) that when we allow science to sharpen our exegesis, God's word becomes meaningless.  I have found my appreciation for Scripture and especially Genesis 1, 2 and the psalms which comment on it deepen immensely once I abandoned the assumption that the author and Author meant it to be literal.

 

 

The very nature of science is that it is always changing, new ideas are always brought forth.  If we are to use science as the lenses to view God's words as you are putting forth then the very meaning of God's word would change with each new discovery.   I do not believe this is the correct way to view God's written word.


Edited by LookingForAnswers, 14 January 2014 - 07:57 AM.


#9
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts

 

 

 

And you are right; but misunderstood me.

 

Yes the Church fathers discussed the significance of the 6 days--and not all took them literally (Augustine believed the creation account occurred in a single moment, but Moses told it through a literary theme of 6 days.  Augustine did not believe the days were to be taken chronologically.  When I said the church fathers did not engage in this debate, I mean they did not engage in a debate between literalists and symbolists in light of modern scientific discoveries....

 

 

I believe we disagree on what a literalistic view of the Bible is.  One does not need to take figures of speech, analogies, symbolism and more as "real" to take the bible literally.

 

I take it you reject Augustine's doctrine of Two Books--the book of Creation and the Book of Scripture?  Augustine himself held that we must not take literal what is manifestly incongruent to our experience.  Thus Augustine rejected the literal reading of certain psalms which made the earth flat, or square, or have pillars.  This was not science vs. God's Word, but the exegesis of one book (creation studied by science) compared with the exegesis of another (Scripture studied by one or other hermeneutic).

 

 

I do not reject his theory of the two books.  I just believe that when there is a conflict between them that the Book of Scripture wins.  Evolution is a good example, the "science" of evolution is just as accepted today as is the theory of gravity and the heliocentric model.   But in my opinion evolution cannot be fit into the bible so it must be rejected.

 

I take it that you still believe the sun moves round the earth?  As the psalmists says, as the Teacher says, "the sun rises and goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises." (Ecc. 1:5)  or the Prophet Habakkuk 3:11 "the sun and the moon stood still in their habitation at the light of thine arrows...".  Note that these verses do not say "seemed to move because of the rotation of the earth.  Remember also what a scandal heliocentricism caused when first proposed!  Something quite similar today.

 

 

Everyday I read my local weather and I have a "sunrise" and a "sunset" time, yet those publishing those times understand that the sun is not the thing moving.  Just as I assume God also knew. 

 

It does seem to me that you have a very low view of God's creation.  That is not an attack; and no doubt I error--but surely you can see how I can make that error.  Whatever creation might say to us through the study of science is not a God's message--even though we affirm that God created her?  

 

And finally, you are wrong (at least to me personally) that when we allow science to sharpen our exegesis, God's word becomes meaningless.  I have found my appreciation for Scripture and especially Genesis 1, 2 and the psalms which comment on it deepen immensely once I abandoned the assumption that the author and Author meant it to be literal.

 

 

The very nature of science is that it is always changing, new ideas are always brought forth.  If we are to use science as the lenses to view God's words as you are putting forth then the very meaning of God's word would change with each new discovery.   I do not believe this is the correct way to view God's written word.

 

"Everyday I read my local weather and I have a "sunrise" and a "sunset" time, yet those publishing those times understand that the sun is not the thing moving.  Just as I assume God also knew. "

 

I take it that the canonical authors also knew that the sun only "seemed" to rise and set, an impression caused by the rotation of the earth; though somehow the heliocentricity of our system was hidden from posterity, and only discovered by science (not exegesis) millennia later?"  

 

"You are aware that one of the major qualms against heliocentricity was its incongruency with the Bible?  Yet eventually the theory was accepted and readings of the Bible adjusted in light of that?"

 

Can I ask, if you were alive in Copernicus' day, would you be siding with geocentricity, or heliocentricity based on the Bible, which you have been reading under the assumption that the earth stood still and the sun moved, and never once heard anything contrary until Copernicus?  I tell you, if all I had was the Bible and the whole world assuming geocentricity, I would believe in geocentricity.....but then I'd be wrong.

 

clb



#10
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts

 

 

 

 

And you are right; but misunderstood me.

 

Yes the Church fathers discussed the significance of the 6 days--and not all took them literally (Augustine believed the creation account occurred in a single moment, but Moses told it through a literary theme of 6 days.  Augustine did not believe the days were to be taken chronologically.  When I said the church fathers did not engage in this debate, I mean they did not engage in a debate between literalists and symbolists in light of modern scientific discoveries....

 

 

I believe we disagree on what a literalistic view of the Bible is.  One does not need to take figures of speech, analogies, symbolism and more as "real" to take the bible literally.

 

I take it you reject Augustine's doctrine of Two Books--the book of Creation and the Book of Scripture?  Augustine himself held that we must not take literal what is manifestly incongruent to our experience.  Thus Augustine rejected the literal reading of certain psalms which made the earth flat, or square, or have pillars.  This was not science vs. God's Word, but the exegesis of one book (creation studied by science) compared with the exegesis of another (Scripture studied by one or other hermeneutic).

 

 

I do not reject his theory of the two books.  I just believe that when there is a conflict between them that the Book of Scripture wins.  Evolution is a good example, the "science" of evolution is just as accepted today as is the theory of gravity and the heliocentric model.   But in my opinion evolution cannot be fit into the bible so it must be rejected.

 

I take it that you still believe the sun moves round the earth?  As the psalmists says, as the Teacher says, "the sun rises and goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises." (Ecc. 1:5)  or the Prophet Habakkuk 3:11 "the sun and the moon stood still in their habitation at the light of thine arrows...".  Note that these verses do not say "seemed to move because of the rotation of the earth.  Remember also what a scandal heliocentricism caused when first proposed!  Something quite similar today.

 

 

Everyday I read my local weather and I have a "sunrise" and a "sunset" time, yet those publishing those times understand that the sun is not the thing moving.  Just as I assume God also knew. 

 

It does seem to me that you have a very low view of God's creation.  That is not an attack; and no doubt I error--but surely you can see how I can make that error.  Whatever creation might say to us through the study of science is not a God's message--even though we affirm that God created her?  

 

And finally, you are wrong (at least to me personally) that when we allow science to sharpen our exegesis, God's word becomes meaningless.  I have found my appreciation for Scripture and especially Genesis 1, 2 and the psalms which comment on it deepen immensely once I abandoned the assumption that the author and Author meant it to be literal.

 

 

The very nature of science is that it is always changing, new ideas are always brought forth.  If we are to use science as the lenses to view God's words as you are putting forth then the very meaning of God's word would change with each new discovery.   I do not believe this is the correct way to view God's written word.

 

"Everyday I read my local weather and I have a "sunrise" and a "sunset" time, yet those publishing those times understand that the sun is not the thing moving.  Just as I assume God also knew. "

 

I take it that the canonical authors also knew that the sun only "seemed" to rise and set, an impression caused by the rotation of the earth; though somehow the heliocentricity of our system was hidden from posterity, and only discovered by science (not exegesis) millennia later?"  

 

"You are aware that one of the major qualms against heliocentricity was its incongruency with the Bible?  Yet eventually the theory was accepted and readings of the Bible adjusted in light of that?"

 

Can I ask, if you were alive in Copernicus' day, would you be siding with geocentricity, or heliocentricity based on the Bible, which you have been reading under the assumption that the earth stood still and the sun moved, and never once heard anything contrary until Copernicus?  I tell you, if all I had was the Bible and the whole world assuming geocentricity, I would believe in geocentricity.....but then I'd be wrong.

 

clb

 

"I believe we disagree on what a literalistic view of the Bible is.  One does not need to take figures of speech, analogies, symbolism and more as "real" to take the bible literally."

 

 

I guess we do??  And now I am very confused.  Do you believe that Augustine took Genesis literally when he said that Creation happened not in 6 days, but simultaneously, but was conveyed as though it happened in 6 days?

 

clb






Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network