I've changed my mind. I now believe the "earth" is 6k years old

[Retrobyter]

13 hours ago, Still Alive said:

Actually, no. What I'm accomodating is the evidence, not the theories and hypotheses that people make from it. 

My main focus is on the phrase "beginning" and its context within the context of the teaching of bible. The very first line of genesis 1 could theoretically be interpreted as "In the beginning of this dispensation..." and represent what God started on the clean slate of a bare planetary surface, made bare in the destruction of some sort of dispensation or age before it. And there could have been one before that, and before that, and before that, etc. 

I'm not saying it's true. Rather, the bible is silent on it, which means that saying nothing came before it or saying what I hypothesized above are both speaking to something on which the bible is silent. But the evidence all around us supports the latter more than the former.

Shalom, Still Alive.

The "evidence" that you've been shown has also been GREATLY spun to give it an evolutionary TWIST!

Haven't you ever wondered why there is such a ground swell of Creationism in this world? It's simple, really. There's a BETTER explanation for what we see in nature than this ... fairy tale of "evolution!" The better explanation is the model of Creation with the major modifications of the Fall and the Flood. See, every model of origins requires faith.

Creationism is not shy about its faith. We must believe in an all-powerful, INFINITE God who created all things that we see and experience, and therefore, He EXCEEDS and SUPERSEDES all that was created. We believe that He created ALL of the species that have EVER existed on earth in the six days of Creation. That's the original model. The first modification for refinement is adding the Fall and its results, and the second modification for refinement is adding the Flood and its results.

BUT, even Evolution requires an amount of faith; they must have faith that the earth and all things within it could be formed by slow changes over eons of time. They must have faith that matter and energy have always existed, even if it has pulsated by a series of Big Bangs down through eternity in the Pulsating Universe theory. They must believe that the myriad species that currently exist on earth could "pull themselves up by their genetic bootstraps" if given enough time. These are matters of FAITH, whether the evolutionists want to admit it or not!

There are a multitude of reasons why the theory of Evolution was accepted as "fact" by the secular world of scientists, the first being that NUMBERS MATTER! They have a broader base of people who adhere to the theory than does the competition.

They also have a stronghold, some might even call it a "STRANGLEHOLD," on the public institutions, such as high schools, colleges, and universities. Only in privately held institutions, such as Christian high schools, Christian colleges, and Christian universities, is this lop-sided inequity balanced out or reversed.

Another reason for why the theory of Evolution was accepted as "fact" is found in the influence over the various media to which the public is exposed. It's been said that if something is declared often enough and loud enough by enough people, that thing is viewed as being true. Evolution-supporting scientists have glutted the market in T.V., radio, and other forms of media. It's broadcasted in movies and supported with the artistic abilities of painters and computer graphic designers to the extent that the average person who doesn't know any better is swept away with the hype.

Evolutionists also have a certain disdain for those who don't adhere to their theory. Treating others with disrespect is not only acceptable but ENCOURAGED among their peers! Scientists who have been respectable and have earned their degrees with every bit of hard work just as any evolution-supporting scientist has had and earned are OSTRACIZED, DEFROCKED, and RIDICULED if they admit that they do not accept the theory of Evolution as fact! Many students have been denied their diplomas if they cannot sign a statement that they believe in the theory of Evolution!

This is the kind of opposition that a Creationistic scientist faces in the community! This is also why there have been institutions, like the Institute for Creation Research, that have been formed! The need is so great!

The truth is, however, that the facts do NOT support the theory of Evolution! They favor the theory of Creation by an All-Powerful God who destroyed the world with a Global Flood that left its evidence in formations like the Grand Canyon, glaciers, and a fossil record that was overwhelmingly produced by water! Evolutionists have merely suppressed this information and denied the findings BECAUSE they don't support Evolution! They deny the truth because it doesn't fit in with their belief system, and work overtime to counter the pure findings of scientific discovery!

Now, while there are some things that SEEM like the Bible is silent on them, much of that is because we don't speak Hebrew. Subtle nuances in the words chosen for a particular subject may reveal much to one who speaks and writes Hebrew that others will miss. However, even if the Bible truly was silent about a matter, there's usually enough said in Scripture to suggest what the Bible MIGHT have said if the subject was addressed.

Finally, you still didn't address the SIN-DEATH-DECAY problem! How can death and decay be the results of man's sin PRIOR to man sinning?  How can death and decay and fossil forming exist BEFORE man who sinned and CAUSED the earth to have death and decay?

[Still Alive]

16 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Not true at all.  When modern dating methods return results that we know are wrong, then it is not something you trust.   When the dates of recently formed volcanic rock from a 20th century eruption is dated as being millions of years old it is a massive problem.  The problem is that you are getting the same dates for everything, even things are known to be less 100 years old. If a dinosaur bone and a chicken bone from KFC are both showing up to be millions of years old, you don't trust that dating method, be it C14 or radiometric, or whatever.  That is too unreliable to trust.   But when you have an agenda, it is easy to just ignore the data that you don't like and only present one side of the story. 

On these issues, I hate taking the "Science" side because I get tired of people trying to use "science" to pummel the bible. But in this case, I have no choice. The reason is twofold. First, The dating methods, though prone to inaccuracy, are not completely worthless. Second, what is being pummeled is an inference made from the bible, rather than the bible itself. I consider that inference to be not so much inaccurate, but woefully unreliable. i.e. regardless of what science says, I don't hold to it other than to say it could be possible, but there is no evidence from the bible to categorically support it.

Fact is, saying modern geological dating techniques can't be trusted is like saying GM can't make a good truck just because my 2004 Silverado Z71 is the most unreliable piece of crap I've owned since my 1963 Rambler classic I drove in 1970. Sure, it's not perfect, but saying it can't be trusted within the context of this issue, is like saying a bathroom scale can't be trusted because it says you are 180 lbs and you can prove it is inaccurate because you put a known weight of 100 lbs on it and it says the item is 105 lbs. So you use this as proof that your belief is sound that you weigh 5 lbs.

 

Here: https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/reliability.php

 

It is covered pretty fully. 

Look, I'm with you, generally speaking, regarding the scientific claims used to attempt to disprove claims by Christians, but sometimes the science is quite sound, and the belief being skewered is not what the bible says, but what we attempt to make it say. The bible does not say the earth is 6,000 years old. And when there is ample proof all around us that it's a lot older, it's time to adjust ones inference and stick to what it actually says, rather than what we want it to say. Christianity should not be at war with science, and in these various battles, both have been on the losing side. It's not the bible that loses. It is our incorrect inferences that lose.

 

BTW, DNA just got even more amazing. 

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-confirmed-a-new-dna-structure-inside-living-cells-i-motif-intercalated

 

[Still Alive]

16 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

That is exactly what it indicates IF you take it context, but that means taking the Bible literally, which means believing what it says, as written.

I am not wrong.   I don't have to speculate or guess or infer anything. I can just take God at His word, because I actually believe Him.

I'm going to be really clear about how I see the bible: It can be taken literally except when it shouldn't be. And I think it is a lot like Yogi Berry when describing a certain restaurant: "Nobody goes there any more because it's too crowded." To those that know him, it makes perfect sense. To those that refuse to even try to understand him, it's oxymoronic gibberish. Regarding this, I refer to Romans 9:11-21

I have demonstrated how both of us can support our positions based on what is actually written. So I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying both of us can say our position is possible, based on what the bible says. And I can look to what we actually OBSERVE in our creation to determine which is most likely correct. 

YMMV.

[Still Alive]

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, Still Alive.

The "evidence" that you've been shown has also been GREATLY spun to give it an evolutionary TWIST!

Haven't you ever wondered why there is such a ground swell of Creationism in this world? It's simple, really. There's a BETTER explanation for what we see in nature than this ... fairy tale of "evolution!" The better explanation is the model of Creation with the major modifications of the Fall and the Flood. See, every model of origins requires faith.

Creationism is not shy about its faith. We must believe in an all-powerful, INFINITE God who created all things that we see and experience, and therefore, He EXCEEDS and SUPERSEDES all that was created. We believe that He created ALL of the species that have EVER existed on earth in the six days of Creation. That's the original model. The first modification for refinement is adding the Fall and its results, and the second modification for refinement is adding the Flood and its results.

BUT, even Evolution requires an amount of faith; they must have faith that the earth and all things within it could be formed by slow changes over eons of time. They must have faith that matter and energy have always existed, even if it has pulsated by a series of Big Bangs down through eternity in the Pulsating Universe theory. They must believe that the myriad species that currently exist on earth could "pull themselves up by their genetic bootstraps" if given enough time. These are matters of FAITH, whether the evolutionists want to admit it or not!

There are a multitude of reasons why the theory of Evolution was accepted as "fact" by the secular world of scientists, the first being that NUMBERS MATTER! They have a broader base of people who adhere to the theory than does the competition.

They also have a stronghold, some might even call it a "STRANGLEHOLD," on the public institutions, such as high schools, colleges, and universities. Only in privately held institutions, such as Christian high schools, Christian colleges, and Christian universities, is this lop-sided inequity balanced out or reversed.

Another reason for why the theory of Evolution was accepted as "fact" is found in the influence over the various media to which the public is exposed. It's been said that if something is declared often enough and loud enough by enough people, that thing is viewed as being true. Evolution-supporting scientists have glutted the market in T.V., radio, and other forms of media. It's broadcasted in movies and supported with the artistic abilities of painters and computer graphic designers to the extent that the average person who doesn't know any better is swept away with the hype.

Evolutionists also have a certain disdain for those who don't adhere to their theory. Treating others with disrespect is not only acceptable but ENCOURAGED among their peers! Scientists who have been respectable and have earned their degrees with every bit of hard work just as any evolution-supporting scientist has had and earned are OSTRACIZED, DEFROCKED, and RIDICULED if they admit that they do not accept the theory of Evolution as fact! Many students have been denied their diplomas if they cannot sign a statement that they believe in the theory of Evolution!

This is the kind of opposition that a Creationistic scientist faces in the community! This is also why there have been institutions, like the Institute for Creation Research, that have been formed! The need is so great!

The truth is, however, that the facts do NOT support the theory of Evolution! They favor the theory of Creation by an All-Powerful God who destroyed the world with a Global Flood that left its evidence in formations like the Grand Canyon, glaciers, and a fossil record that was overwhelmingly produced by water! Evolutionists have merely suppressed this information and denied the findings BECAUSE they don't support Evolution! They deny the truth because it doesn't fit in with their belief system, and work overtime to counter the pure findings of scientific discovery!

Now, while there are some things that SEEM like the Bible is silent on them, much of that is because we don't speak Hebrew. Subtle nuances in the words chosen for a particular subject may reveal much to one who speaks and writes Hebrew that others will miss. However, even if the Bible truly was silent about a matter, there's usually enough said in Scripture to suggest what the Bible MIGHT have said if the subject was addressed.

Finally, you still didn't address the SIN-DEATH-DECAY problem! How can death and decay be the results of man's sin PRIOR to man sinning?  How can death and decay and fossil forming exist BEFORE man who sinned and CAUSED the earth to have death and decay?

There is so much there and I have not figured out how to use this non-html-code based quoting to be able to quote segments separately so I will address them separately in follow up posts. I'm a bit like a guy that only drives a stick trying to figure out how to change gears with an automatic.

[Still Alive]

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, Still Alive.

The "evidence" that you've been shown has also been GREATLY spun to give it an evolutionary TWIST!

I'm not talking about evolution. I'm with you on that. We've found soft tissue in fossils that are supposed to be millions of years old. That's impossible. But they can still be a heck of a lot older than 6,000 years.

[Still Alive]

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

 

Haven't you ever wondered why there is such a ground swell of Creationism in this world? It's simple, really. There's a BETTER explanation for what we see in nature than this ... fairy tale of "evolution!" The better explanation is the model of Creation with the major modifications of the Fall and the Flood. See, every model of origins requires faith.

 

I don't think it's better. I think it is the fairy tale (regarding earth's age, that is). We've even found man-made artifacts that are well over 6,000 years old. 

BTW, I met the author of a book called, The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch, and adhere to some of the hypotheses he had regarding the great flood. Yes, he attacks it from a biblical perspective. And he has changed some of his views regarding, for example, which planet came into close proximity to the earth at the time. But I digress.

[Still Alive]

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Now, while there are some things that SEEM like the Bible is silent on them, much of that is because we don't speak Hebrew. Subtle nuances in the words chosen for a particular subject may reveal much to one who speaks and writes Hebrew that others will miss. However, even if the Bible truly was silent about a matter, there's usually enough said in Scripture to suggest what the Bible MIGHT have said if the subject was addressed.

Finally, you still didn't address the SIN-DEATH-DECAY problem! How can death and decay be the results of man's sin PRIOR to man sinning?  How can death and decay and fossil forming exist BEFORE man who sinned and CAUSED the earth to have death and decay?

I'll end with these because I agree with you on the evolution stuff. 

I'm completely with you regarding us not speaking Hebrew. That's actually a major part of the foundation of what I'm saying. i.e. what, really, was a day? And when, really was light actually CREATED. Stuff like that. And the sin-death-decay problem is simple, yet complicated. There is no controversy for those who just take some scripture at face value, without considering what is really being communicated. And there are plenty of people discussing it. 

An example: http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/profiles/blogs/sin-before-adam

The thing is, I'm not trying to say "you are wrong and I'm right". Rather, I'm trying to expose that creating a solid dogma regarding time based on a line or two of text that say nothing about time is not a reasonable position. It is reasonable to, within the context of the bible, come up with an hypothesis based on the teaching in the bible about the personality of God and the context of the bible as a whole. My take is that both your position and mine hold water, but the geological record supports mine more than yours. But the critical issue here is that either one can be correct and it has no impact on the salvation brought by the death and resurrection of the man, Jesus, as a perfect sacrifice for our sins. In fact, it falls into the category of this: (from here: http://biblereasons.com/arguing/)

What does the Bible say?

1. Philippians 2:14 Do everything without complaining and arguing.

2. 2 Timothy 2:14 Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.

3. 2 Timothy 2:23-24 Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.

4. Titus 3:1-2 Remind the believers to submit to the government and its officers. They should be obedient, always ready to do what is good. They must not slander anyone and must avoid quarreling. Instead, they should be gentle and show true humility to everyone.

5. Proverbs 29:22 An angry person stirs up conflict, and a hot-tempered person commits many sins.

6. 2 Timothy 2:16 However, avoid pointless discussions. For people will become more and more ungodly.

7. Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, arguments about genealogies, quarrels, and fights about the Law. These things are useless and worthless.

 

We are in agreement on so much, and we can't KNOW the answer to this because there is not enough detail in the bible. The only reason I started this thread was to show that a 6,000 year age OR a multi million (or billion) year age are both compatible with what is said about the planet, galaxy and universe. And it is really not even the reason the bible exists. This is explained to us in the bible much the way a father would explain to a three year old how the engine works in the family car. And us three year olds are arguing displacement.

[Guest shiloh357]

31 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

On these issues, I hate taking the "Science" side because I get tired of people trying to use "science" to pummel the bible. But in this case, I have no choice. The reason is twofold. First, The dating methods, though prone to inaccuracy, are not completely worthless. 

Brakes on your car that only work 9 times out of 10 are not completely worthless, but you would not put any faith in them. 

Quote

Second, what is being pummeled is an inference made from the bible, rather than the bible itself. I consider that inference to be not so much inaccurate, but woefully unreliable. i.e. regardless of what science says, I don't hold to it other than to say it could be possible, but there is no evidence from the bible to categorically support it.

I have marvelled many times on this board that Atheists are more honest about what the Bible says than some Christians.  Even unbelievers can read the Bible honestly and see what it says, and attempt to refute it on that basis.   It is not an  inference I have the Hebrew grammar to back it up.  All you have is speculation and wishful thinking.t of 10 are not completely worthless, but you would not put any faith in them. 

Quote

Fact is, saying modern geological dating techniques can't be trusted is like saying GM can't make a good truck just because my 2004 Silverado Z71 is the most unreliable piece of crap I've owned since my 1963 Rambler classic I drove in 1970. 

To use that same analogy more consistently with the argument I am making would be that if GM's trucks had a notorious track record for failure, if GM was just putting out lemons right and left, then one could say that GM is unreliable.

If GM's track record was the same as our modern dating methods in terms  of unreliability, GM would be out of business and the CEO would be selling shoes instead of cars. 

Quote

Look, I'm with you, generally speaking, regarding the scientific claims used to attempt to disprove claims by Christians, but sometimes the science is quite sound, and the belief being skewered is not what the bible says, but what we attempt to make it say. The bible does not say the earth is 6,000 years old. And when there is ample proof all around us that it's a lot older, it's time to adjust ones inference and stick to what it actually says, rather than what we want it to say. Christianity should not be at war with science, and in these various battles, both have been on the losing side. It's not the bible that loses. It is our incorrect inferences that lose.

But that "evidence" for an old earth is based on flawed dating techniques.  It is science that needs to adjust to the Bible and we need stop treating science as the means by which we judge the accuracy of the Bible.  The Bible doesn't come out and say, "the earth is 6,000 years old,"  but there is far greater evidence in support of a young earth that doesn't require the flawed methods of science.  

17 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

I'm going to be really clear about how I see the bible: It can be taken literally except when it shouldn't be. 

And that is utterly ridiculous and demonstrates the fact the fact that you still don't understand what "literal" means.   When people refuse the take the Bible literally, they are simply applying an arbitrary means of reinterpreting the parts of the Bible they don't like and don't want to believe in order to justify their end run around the literal meaning of the text.

There is no rational reason to interpret a text if you are not interpreting literally.   What if we decided to interpret your posts according to an arbitrary standard that allows us to ignore the meaning YOU assign to your posts and assign our own meaning to your posts and then attempt to spar with you over something you didn't mean?   I bet you would not like that, but you seem to see no problem taking that irrational approach with the Bible.

When people reject a literal interpretation of Scripture what they are doing is asserting authority over Scripture.  It's a way of saying, "The Bible means what I say it means."     Which parts are not to be taken literally?  Where is the line drawn between what is to be taken literally?   Is that a line that is different for different people?  If so, then how does anyone actually know what the Bible says, if they are free to reject the literal meaning of any text as they see fit?

Quote

And I think it is a lot like Yogi Berry when describing a certain restaurant: "Nobody goes there any more because it's too crowded." To those that know him, it makes perfect sense. To those that refuse to even try to understand him, it's oxymoronic gibberish. Regarding this, I refer to Romans 9:11-21

Yeah, I don't see what the passage has to do with anything here.  That is called sloppy exegesis.

 

Quote

I have demonstrated how both of us can support our positions based on what is actually written. So I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying both of us can say our position is possible, based on what the bible says. And I can look to what we actually OBSERVE in our creation to determine which is most likely correct. 

No, that is not really the case.

[Still Alive]

4 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Brakes on your car that only work 9 times out of 10 are not completely worthless, but you would not put any faith in them. 

I have marvelled many times on this board that Atheists are more honest about what the Bible says than some Christians.  Even unbelievers can read the Bible honestly and see what it says, and attempt to refute it on that basis.   It is not an  inference I have the Hebrew grammar to back it up.  All you have is speculation and wishful thinking.t of 10 are not completely worthless, but you would not put any faith in them. 

To use that same analogy more consistently with the argument I am making would be that if GM's trucks had a notorious track record for failure, if GM was just putting out lemons right and left, then one could say that GM is unreliable.

If GM's track record was the same as our modern dating methods in terms  of unreliability, GM would be out of business and the CEO would be selling shoes instead of cars. 

But that "evidence" for an old earth is based on flawed dating techniques.  It is science that needs to adjust to the Bible and we need stop treating science as the means by which we judge the accuracy of the Bible.  The Bible doesn't come out and say, "the earth is 6,000 years old,"  but there is far greater evidence in support of a young earth that doesn't require the flawed methods of science.  

And that is utterly ridiculous and demonstrates the fact the fact that you still don't understand what "literal" means.   When people refuse the take the Bible literally, they are simply applying an arbitrary means of reinterpreting the parts of the Bible they don't like and don't want to believe in order to justify their end run around the literal meaning of the text.

There is no rational reason to interpret a text if you are not interpreting literally.   What if we decided to interpret your posts according to an arbitrary standard that allows us to ignore the meaning YOU assign to your posts and assign our own meaning to your posts and then attempt to spar with you over something you didn't mean?   I bet you would not like that, but you seem to see no problem taking that irrational approach with the Bible.

When people reject a literal interpretation of Scripture what they are doing is asserting authority over Scripture.  It's a way of saying, "The Bible means what I say it means."     Which parts are not to be taken literally?  Where is the line drawn between what is to be taken literally?   Is that a line that is different for different people?  If so, then how does anyone actually know what the Bible says, if they are free to reject the literal meaning of any text as they see fit?

Yeah, I don't see what the passage has to do with anything here.  That is called sloppy exegesis.

 

No, that is not really the case.

I'll leave it to this. We all see what we want to see in these arguments. FWIW, I used to agree with you wholeheartedly. This is why this matters to me as much as it does. But it's time to leave us all to our own personal dogmas.

[Retrobyter]

23 hours ago, Still Alive said:

Unless the "earth" talked about in verse two is the surface of the earth. 

Shabbat shalom, Still Alive.

No, you didn't HEAR what shiloh357 was saying to you AT ALL! He's RIGHT!!! The Hebrew doesn't support your hypothesis; in fact, it CONTRADICTS what you are saying, even when "haa'aarets" IS INDEED talking about the surface of the planet! Gen. 1:1 is a SYNOPSIS of what is to follow! It's NOT separate from it as a previous event!