Old Earth or Young Earth

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The Bible was never meant to be taken at face-value.   It is always meant to be taken literally, though.  The whole point of interpretation/literary analysis is to arrive the literal meaning the author means to convey.   

Yes and there is nothing in the context of Genesis 1 that indicates that days of creation are long epochs of time.  And you have, so far, been unable to provide any evidence in the form of textual devices to prove otherwise. 

What I am saying is that you can't rely on science.   There have been many experiments on things like volcanic lava rock and modern trees and vegetation and even modern inventions like asphalt, things we know are not millions of year old, and yet modern scientific dating methods give off readings of millions or in some cases, billions of years.   So you really cannot hang your hat on science.   Science is the product of fallible men and thus there are no infallible scientific disciplines.  Fallible man cannot create anything infallibly.

Scientists tell us that the planets and stars and suns and moons were all made at the same time in time, via the "Big Bang."   God says in the Bible  that the stars and suns and moons were created on the 4th day after the earth was created.  Is God or science wrong?  They cannot both the right.  Either the Bible, or science has to be your final authority.  Either God is a liar and can't get His facts straight, or science is wrong about some of the time and should not be held as being above question or scrutiny.   Who is our final authority?  God or scientists? 

When you take the Bible  in the context it was written in, it agrees with science. Only YEC Christians believe in this theory. Millions of other Christians don't. 

[Guest shiloh357]

43 minutes ago, Allroses48 said:

When you take the Bible  in the context it was written in, it agrees with science. Only YEC Christians believe in this theory. Millions of other Christians don't. 

Then you need to show how the context of Genesis 1 unmistakably states that the six days of creation are really long epochs of time.   Since you are making a textual argument, you need to provide the textual indicators inside Genesis 1 that point to an old earth.  

It's interesting that scientists reject the Bible on the grounds that it doesn't agree with what they view as how the earth came into being and how it developed.

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Then you need to show how the context of Genesis 1 unmistakably states that the six days of creation are really long epochs of time.   Since you are making a textual argument, you need to provide the textual indicators inside Genesis 1 that point to an old earth.  

It's interesting that scientists reject the Bible on the grounds that it doesn't agree with what they view as how the earth came into being and how it developed.

I already gave you a definition of yom including a detailed link explaining it which you don't agree with. You've already got your mind set on something that's already been proven false. So no science or exegesis is going to convince you otherwise. We will just agree to disagree. I can't debate with someone who refutes solid evidence from even Christian scientists like Dr. Ross. 

[Guest shiloh357]

7 minutes ago, Allroses48 said:

I already gave you a definition of yom including a detailed link explaining it which you don't agree with.

What you gave me was a Strong's condordance entry that had many, many possible definitions, and all of them are based on different contexts.  You did not provide me with anything out of Genesis 1 that shows us that yom is used there to mean "long epochs of time"  or millions of years or whatever.  

Quote

You've already got your mind set on something that's already been proven false.

No, you have not shown that anything I have said is proven false.  You have not proven that the YEC model is false.  You don't seem to even be able correctly frame the things you have provided.   You have not refuted any claims I have made, you have not engaged any argument I have presented. And that is because you can't mount a refutation.  You are simply parrotting what someone else has said, and you are taking their word for it.

Quote

So no science or exegesis is going to convince you otherwise.

You have provided no exegesis.   You cited one article and were unable to refute my response.   So far, you have not made any substantive arguments or exegesis.   I answered the "word study" you offered and you ignored my response.  The one who has the problem being convinced is you, not me.

Quote

I can't debate with someone who refutes solid evidence from even Christian scientists like Dr. Ross. 

You can't respond to the substance of my lines of argumentation.  Science and Dr. Ross are not infallible and are not above question or scrutiny.

[Guest]

Yes again I have provided proof the YEC is wrong. I'm sorry we disagree. Have a good day. 

[Guest shiloh357]

16 minutes ago, Allroses48 said:

Yes again I have provided proof the YEC is wrong. I'm sorry we disagree. Have a good day. 

Then you have set the bar pretty low for what you consider "proof"  to be. 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Then you have set the bar pretty low for what you consider "proof"  to be. 

If you say so. The logic of YEC is like that of flat earthers. They don't use it. They don't believe in the scientific data regardless of how it's been tested over time and they don't use exegesis. I can't provide any links or data regardless of their truth because YEC is completely illogical. 

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, Allroses48 said:

If you say so. The logic of YEC is like that of flat earthers. They don't use it. They don't believe in the scientific data regardless of how it's been tested over time and they don't use exegesis. I can't provide any links or data regardless of their truth because YEC is completely illogical. 

We believe scientific data.  We interpret the data through the prism of God's word, though.   God's word is our final authority.  If science and the Bible are at odds, we go with the Bible and expect science to eventually catch up to the truth of God's word.  That's not like being a flat-earther.   It's called faith.  

And I have actually used exegesis and responded to the "word study" you provided and you ignored my response.   You ignore what we say, are unable to show why our lines of argumentation are wrong, but still continue to pass judgement on us.   You have not engaged with any facts that I have presented and until you do, you are not in a position to say that what I have said is wrong.

YEC isn't illogical at all, and you have not shown why OEC is more logical.   Why is it illogical to say that God created the earth is six days?   Can't He do that?   Does that violate something about His character?    God could have created everything in six seconds if he had wanted to.    So while you throw out desperate, irrational claims, you still have failed to really demonstrate anything presented to you as false or incorrect.  Simply claiming something is false without showing why it is false isn't much of a rebuttal.

[Guest]

As I said before I provided links on old earth which you choose to deny and ignore. I also provided ample information on yom from two sources and you did the same thing. The creation story is allegorical and was never meant to be taken literally. Because YEC takes this story literally (which was never meant to occur) they misinterpret science based on a misinterpretation of Genesis. That's why their stance is illogical. Nothing they believe regarding age of earth are based on any facts either scientifically or biblically. 

[Guest shiloh357]

3 minutes ago, Allroses48 said:

As I said before I provided links on old earth which you choose to deny and ignore.

I have not ignored anything.  I have addressed every link you have provided and did so in detail.   I don't know where you get the idea that I ignored anything.

Quote

I also provided ample information on yom from two sources and you did the same thing.

And again, I responded to that information in detail   YOU are the one ignoring my remarks, not the other way around.   I respond and you ignore my responses over and over.   You cannot mount a refutation, ignore my responses and then pretend I never said anything.   Not a very trustworthy way of handling a discussion like this.

Quote

The creation story is allegorical and was never meant to be taken literally. Because YEC takes this story literally (which was never meant to occur) they misinterpret science based on a misinterpretation of Genesis. That's why their stance is illogical. Nothing they believe regarding age of earth are based on any facts either scientifically or biblically. 

There is no evidence of allegory being used in Genesis 1.   You are making textual arguments you cannot support.  The text is written as a chronological, historical narrative.   There is nothing in the Bible that tells us to take Genesis 1 as anything but literal history.   Jesus treats the creation account as literal.  Everywhere it is mentioned in Scripture, it is viewed as a literal historical account.

Allegory is a teaching device, not an interpretation device.  No one interprets Scripture allegorically.   They use allegory to teaching moral or spiritual truths.   Every use of allegory in the Bible is used in that manner.   It is never used deny the historicity of any part of Scripture.

As far as being illogical, you need to look up "illogical" in a dictionary because you are misusing it.   There is nothing illogical about an all-powerful God creating the world in six days.   He can do it any way He wants. 

And there are no textual indicators in Genesis 1 that tell us that the days of Creation are anything but literal days.   Exodus 20 treats the days of creation as literal days and as literal historical narrative.    So, the Bible takes Genesis 1 literally. 

So your view is at odds with Scripture, not mine.