How Old Is The Earth According To The Bible?

[a-seeker]

 

 

Shiloh, I respect your right to interpret the Bible as you deem necessary or believe according to your Hebrew grammar research, but you are not the only Gentile expert in Hebrew grammar. Argosy and Conner have been most impressive too.)

 

Two things, here:

1. I am not a Gentile.

2. Argosy and Conner have not provided ANYTHING that comes close to indicating a knowledge of Hebrew.

 

I've heard your many many arguments on how to interpret Genesis 1:1-2, but I'm not buying it. I think your interpretation is slanted to suit your bias and it doesn't jive with my research.

 

Research???   What research??   You do nothing but parrot "scholars" who themselves are not competent in Hebrew and simply parrot each other.  I checked out the scholars whom you claimed believe in the gap theory and pre-adamite earth and they are not scholars.  They are radio preachers and prolific authors but they are not "scholars" in the academic use of the term.  They simply regurgitate what their peers believe.   You haven't got any "research."   That is just laughable.

What the Hebrew grammar doesn't "jive" with, is your agenda and your claims of a mythical pre-adamite earth and the baseless assumption of an old earth. You haven't got anything to refute any information I have provided. That is the heart of the matter.   You are free to reject what I have presented, but you can' refute any of it.  You reject it from pride,not from "research."

 

Coincidentally, most of the scientific research and study out there validates my interpretation of Genesis 1:1, that our earth is much older than 10,000 years. So, I walk away feeling good about the fruit of MY research as I'm sure you feel about yours.

 

There is NO science  research out there that validates your interpretation of Genesis 1:1, and certainly doesn't validate your claims of a pre-adamite earth.   Old earth isn't based on science at all.  It was a late 18th century assumption that science has, in vain, tried to prop up with faulty dating methods.    Sorry, but parroting people simply because you think they validate your claims isn't "research."  

 

 

I cannot find the question any longer.  But I believe you asked whether 15 billion years can be squeezed into the Gen 1 account.

 

I feel there is a trap in your question....so, I will adjust it...

 

The question will be put in different ways:  

 

Did the creation of the world ACTUALLY take 15 billion years as science suggests, so that, the author of Genesis took the FACT of creation and filtered it through his own literary device of 6 days? My answer is YES.

 

We can put the question another way:  If the author of Genesis were invited to listen in on this discussion, would he be surprised, and even appalled, at the suggestion of the scientists.......NO.

 

Again, Would he have felt that his main point of Genesis was thereby challenged and refuted by an older earth?......................NO.

 

Would he have said, "Yes, yes very well, I get it, the actual creation process took very long...great guys. Good work. whatever, woop dee do!   The important point is you are missing the point of the 6 days" ........?...............YEEEESSSSS!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

And I've edited some, simply because you are so stuck on the definition of YOM:

 

would he have acknowledged that he meant 6 literal days?  Yes!  IF we asked whether he meant this because he really meant 6 literal days, or because 6 literal days had a particular significance, I believe he would've been confused........

 

so I would explain to him......

 

today studies of the earth suggest the world is very, very old....

 

And after explaining to him this, I think he would say,

 

"Ahhh....now I understand....No, at the time I represented creation as taking place in 6 days.  I used "day" quite literally, and would still do so.  It was important to me that I represent creation taking those many days.  Now that there is some debate about the actual duration of creation..........well, I'm not a scientist.  You guys figure that out.  I was dealing with something else.

 

 

clb

 

I pray to God Shiloh that you will not accuse me of putting words in Moses mouth, or complaining that this is an impossible situation.

 

Obviously I used a device to make a point.

Edited January 14, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown

[Guest shiloh357]

Did the creation of the world ACTUALLY take 15 billion years as science suggests, so that, the author of Genesis took the FACT of creation and filtered it through his own literary device of 6 days? My answer is YES.

 

The answer is really, "NO."   "Yom"   is not being used as a literary device in Genesis 1.  It is written as a historical narrative.  There are no liteary devices being used, at least not figurative ones.

 

 

We can put the question another way:  If the author of Genesis were invited to listen in on this discussion, would he be surprised, and even appalled, at the suggestion of the scientists.......NO.

 

Again, Would he have felt that his main point of Genesis was thereby challenged and refuted by an older earth?......................NO.

 

Would he have said, "Yes, yes very well, I get it, the actual creation process took very long...great guys. Good work. whatever, woop dee do!   The important point is you are missing the point of the 6 days" ........?...............YEEEESSSSS!!!!!!!!!!

 

The author of Genesis IS listening in on this discussion.   And the author of Genesis also tells us that He magnifies His Word above His own Name.  He is very zealous to protect His integrity and the integrity of His Word.  When people start challegening the accuracy of His Word, it appears that He takes such challenges personally.   It is  a big deal to Him and those who doubt that He means exactly what He says, will eventually have to stand before Him and give an accounting.  

 

I would MUCH rather stand before the Lord and have to explain why I went overboard trying to defend the integrity His Word than have to sputter up a reason for why I was busy diminishing His glory by questioning His accuracy and integrity.  

 

 

 

 

And I've edited some, simply because you are so stuck on the definition of YOM:

 

Yeah, being committed to the truth does get under some people's skin when they would rather me simply capitulate to the majority view.

 

would he have acknowledged that he meant 6 literal days?  Yes!  IF we asked whether he meant this because he really meant 6 literal days, or because 6 literal days had a particular significance, I believe he would've been confused........

 

so I would explain to him......

 

I doubt the Creator of the universe needs you to explain anything to Him.  Nor do I think He suffer you to lecture Him on the pitiful studies of fallible little men. 

 

I pray to God Shiloh that you will not accuse me of putting words in Moses mouth, or complaining that this is an impossible situation.

 

Obviously I used a device to make a point

 

.I think you fail to understand that ultimately, the author isn't "Moses."   Moses was the one through whom the text was written. The human authori isn't the ultimate author to whom we are accountable in all of this.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Shiloh,

You said "There is NO science research out there that validates your interpretation of Genesis 1:1" (earth 4.5 billion years old)

Spock: scratching my head

There isn't.   All you have are assumptions and an attempt by scientists to prove, instead of attempting to falisfy, the assumption/hypothesis of an old earth.  

 

Okay Shiloh...now you are starting to get sloppy.

 

Why was there ever a theory that the earth was much older if Science never discovered data that pointed in that direction....

 

I am starting to lose interest in this thread.

 

clb

 

The notion of an old earth didn't begin with science.  It began before science during the age of eligtenment back in the late 1700s when philosphers and some religionists were busy trying to remove any supernatural events from the Bible.   It wasn't scientists who dreamed the Old Earth hypothesis.  It was theologians and philosophers who postulated it to remove some of the supernatural character of Genesis 1.

 

Science has been trying to prop up that assumption but all of the dating methods employed by modern science have failed to support the old earth hypothesis because they have been shown to be extremely faulty and giving wrong dates for recent events, claiming that rocks formed by recent volcanic eruptions were actually millions of years old. 

 

The assumption of an old earth has never been proven.  Science has no data that proves this assumption.

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

Shiloh, I respect your right to interpret the Bible as you deem necessary or believe according to your Hebrew grammar research, but you are not the only Gentile expert in Hebrew grammar. Argosy and Conner have been most impressive too.)

 

Two things, here:

1. I am not a Gentile.

2. Argosy and Conner have not provided ANYTHING that comes close to indicating a knowledge of Hebrew.

 

I've heard your many many arguments on how to interpret Genesis 1:1-2, but I'm not buying it. I think your interpretation is slanted to suit your bias and it doesn't jive with my research.

 

Research???   What research??   You do nothing but parrot "scholars" who themselves are not competent in Hebrew and simply parrot each other.  I checked out the scholars whom you claimed believe in the gap theory and pre-adamite earth and they are not scholars.  They are radio preachers and prolific authors but they are not "scholars" in the academic use of the term.  They simply regurgitate what their peers believe.   You haven't got any "research."   That is just laughable.

What the Hebrew grammar doesn't "jive" with, is your agenda and your claims of a mythical pre-adamite earth and the baseless assumption of an old earth. You haven't got anything to refute any information I have provided. That is the heart of the matter.   You are free to reject what I have presented, but you can' refute any of it.  You reject it from pride,not from "research."

 

Coincidentally, most of the scientific research and study out there validates my interpretation of Genesis 1:1, that our earth is much older than 10,000 years. So, I walk away feeling good about the fruit of MY research as I'm sure you feel about yours.

 

There is NO science  research out there that validates your interpretation of Genesis 1:1, and certainly doesn't validate your claims of a pre-adamite earth.   Old earth isn't based on science at all.  It was a late 18th century assumption that science has, in vain, tried to prop up with faulty dating methods.    Sorry, but parroting people simply because you think they validate your claims isn't "research."  

 

 

 

What is your science background?  In a different thread I was told that I was not qualified to speak about how to run a business because I have never owned one.  I will assume this sort of thinking on your part applies to everything.  So, what is your qualification to speak on things of science and to discount successful scientist?   Since I, with an MBA and multiple professional certifications was not qualified to speak on matters of businesses, you must surly have even better credentials than that since you speak so often on things of science.  I eagerly await your your credentials that allow you to discount what science says in such a matter of factly way.   Lets take Hugh Ross as an example, he is an accomplished, successful scientist with an advanced degree in astronomy and the author of a multitude of books and published articles and he supports the idea of an old universe.   On what do you base your ability to tell this gentlemen that he is wrong, surly to do so you must be a successful scientist, otherwise it would seem you are not holding yourself to the same standards you hold other to.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

What is your science background?  In a different thread I was told that I was not qualified to speak about how to run a business because I have never owned one.  I will assume this sort of thinking on your part applies to everything.  So, what is your qualification to speak on things of science and to discount successful scientist?  

Oh please...  This doesn't bear any remblance to that other thread.   You were lecturing a successful business owner who has started and successfully ran more than one business and is currently in the process of starting a new one that she didn't understand the reason for her succcess.  You expected us to simply accept your claims 'cause you can cut and paste what someone else has said.  I simply challenged you on the fact that you have never run a business and are not in a position to tell a successful multi - business owner that she doesn't understand why she is successful given the fact that you have never walked in her shoes

 

This situation is entirely different becase I am neither talking to successful seasoned scientists, nor I am not telling them that they dont know how to do science. I am challenging an assumption; I am not challenging scientists with regard to their qualifications to do science, nor am I posting videos to tell them that they don't really understand why they are successful scientists.  

 

And since this thread is about the age of the earth according to THE BIBLE, it is a thread that is theological in nature and I have a theology degree and am qualified to address it and the issues relevant to it.  The creation of our world is a theological issue as much as it is a scientific issue and so far, science has yet to offer any empircal proof that the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old. 

 

So LFR, you do you have something substantive to post relative to the OP, or are you going to continue to sit here and continue to complain about me???

[LookingForAnswers]

No, nothing I say could indict you better than your own words do. You continue to make claims about science without the knowledge or training to know if those claims are valid. This is a behavior you decry in others yet continue to do yourself.

[Guest shiloh357]

No, nothing I say could indict you better than your own words do. You continue to make claims about science without the knowledge or training to know if those claims are valid. This is a behavior you decry in others yet continue to do yourself.

I am not going to go in circles with you, LFR.   I have said my piece above and I stand by it.  I am not going to go in circles with you about this.  I will not respond to any further posts from you that simply complain about me.   I will only respond to posts from you that have to do with the substance of the OP and topic at hand, from this point, on.  I don't need to defend myself to you.

[a-seeker]

To be honest,  and I don't mean to be a jerk, but it does seem that it is Shiloh contra mundum in this thread.  I believe Shiloh knows his Hebrew (actually, I agree with him as regards the definition of Yom)....although from his confidence I thought he had more than a degree in theology.  But I also see no reason to accept him as a authority on cosmology, or any of the sciences (those that pertain to homosexuality).

 

Perhaps we should retire this post?  I mean, it is a Christian website and the only real value is the salvation of souls....ultimately I mean.  Establishing truth even in science (heck, in business) is important... but.Shiloh is clearly a Christian, so what does it matter?

 

unless something new shows up, I for one am done.

 

thanks all (including you Shiloh!!!)

 

it has truly been an exercise of the intellect

 

clb

 

Or "out" as Spock would say.

Edited January 15, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown

[Fez]

I think it is a good suggestion to retire this post, the last few posts were getting nowhere and I think people did exhaust the subject.