You use fables as if it equals false but that is not necessarily true.
fable noun; a short story, typically with animals as characters, conveying a moral.
Fables can convey truth just as much as literal history. BTW, I don’t consider Genesis 1-11 to be a collection of fables nor do I consider it literal history.
You are correct, and I do think it is saying that nature proves God’s handiwork. We aren’t a result of billions of years of trial and error and death, disease and cruelty. Our God created us as thinking, rational beings in a world that was perfectly formed for our benefit. Let’s look further into Romans 1.
I prefer the KJV.
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Thanks Patrick. I know the passage about God saying that He would not destroy the world again in the same way. But I think you started off somewhere wondering about biblical assertions that might reflect on an earth that “must be older than 6000 years”? I think that is what you are asking. I was just commenting to others on something the Is Genesis History site said, which I thought was unusual. But that is beside the point with re to discussing the age of the earth.
I’m curious can you show me a verse that explicitly states that genesis 1-11 is being recalled by Jesus and the apostles as literal history and not merely them bring up creation mythology because they were using biblical language?
Also can you show me that everything we call a parable was definitely a parable by Jesus. Like was the Good Samaritan a parable me if so how do you know?
I agree that God created us in an environment appropriate for us.
Was there something you wanted to say about the rest of the Romans passage?
Patrick…it’s not likely that you are addressing hypocrisy here…well, OK, maybe some sarcasm. But this is a place for, at least, discussing why and how one views a certain thing. …and maybe defending how you see a certain thing, as opposed to how someone else sees it.
You have to at least presume the other person might be interested. And you have to at least presume that they think differently than you.
The issue of the age of the earth, or universe, is “accepted” as very ancient by many and not accepted that way by others. The ancient Sumerians — who thought one of their ancient pre-=Flood rulers lived 36,000 years and then had large life spans for many other rulers – evidently believed in an old earth…as the Egyptians also must have believed, for similar reasons…
One respondent recommended that you read a point-counterpoint book on this issue by Denis Lamoureux — and I probably misspelled his name. This would give you an idea of arguments made by professed evangelical Christians on the subject that you seem to be interested in.
I could also recommend Mark Noll’s Scandal of the Evangelical Mind…which has been out for awhile. I also read The Creationists by Ronald Numbers. This book had a glowing recommendation by Henry Morris who was one of the “big names” in the young-earth movement. BTW – a YEC organization warned me off Numbers’ book because he is “agnostic” but did not deny that Morris, who was YEC, recommended the book. One of the “takeaways” that I got from these two books is that, by the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th centuries, there was increasing acceptance by evangelical or conservative Christians of an old earth or old universe. The history of this, and of the reaction against that old-universe way of thinking, is for you to read. But I found it odd.
But if the biblical text was so clear about the age of the earth being one thing, and a day being 24 hours, etc — then it does not explain why even St. Augustine of Hippo — way back in the early fifth century A.D. — questioned it…or why others of that era “allegorized” it. Yes, our concept of science is not the same as theirs, but they still raised some of these issues anyway – which I find interesting…
Some of the genealogies in the biblical text – to which you referred at one point – skip generations. That is a whole other set of discussions, of course. But the genealogies, then, are not meant as a guide to the age of the earth or of the universe, or even of how long humanity has been on this earth…
OK nuff said…But do not assume people here are being hypocritical …and Happy New Year (in 4 days)
.
In getting to the answer to the original question on this string as to whether there is any biblical interpretation that suggests the earth is older than 6000 years, I provide these comments:
The arguments from a biblical standpoint that the earth must be older than 6000 years basically follow the following approach:
The Bible affirms that everything is a part of God’s good creation.
The Bible affirms our responsibility as rulers to take good care of creation.
The Bible affirms the importance of honesty.
If we study the evidence of creation, we see clear and unambiguous evidence for a vast age.
The age of the earth is neither a particular concern of the Bible nor a valid way to divide historical views into two camps. The “in the beginning” , Heb. reshit, does not refer to a point in time in the other biblical usages, but instead to an opening period of time of varying length. The seven-day framework of Genesis 1:3-2:3 and the single “day” of 2:4 both fit with a literary framework more than a chronological sense. Psalm 104, commenting on creation, does not follow the sequence of Genesis 1. The Bible requires a minimum of about 6000 years for the historical events recorded in it, but how much more might be there is quite flexible.
Historically, important categories of age estimates for the earth include reliance on philosophical or religious considerations (often favoring cyclic, more or less eternal age), assumption of a simplistic steady straight-line process, or a commitment to historical evidence. The development of a modern geological understanding of earth history grew out of the work of chronologers such as Ussher, who sought to compile all of the available historical evidence into a timeline. With the rejection of Platonic and Aristotelian ideas about the production of patterns in favor of what we would now consider “natural causes”, the interpretation of geological layers as recording the history of their formation became standard. Following the early work of Steno, Hooke, and the like, in the mid-1600’s, early geologists began to record the sequences of layers and features they observed. By the late 1600’s, they began to suspect that a long pre-human time was likely; by 1770, it was unambiguous that geology indicated a very long pre-human history.
But isn’t this using outside sources to interpret the Bible? Yes, and doing so is a necessary and integral part of biblical interpretation, including the use of science. For example, “Vždyť Bůh tak miloval svět, že dal svého jediného Syna, aby každý, kdo v něho uvěří, unikl záhubě a získal věčný život” is a very theologically useful verse, but only if I understand the language it’s written in. The Bible doesn’t include a dictionary- we need other resources for that. Science gives us a basic understanding of how the world works, which is necessary to understand the meaning of Scripture. Of course, you don’t need to have a thorough understanding of modern scientific discovery for understanding Scirpture, just a basic knowledge of how the world works. For example, resurrection is exciting precisely because we know from our grasp of science that dead people stay dead.
I agree with the first three statements. Not so much the fourth and onward.
What does vast age look like? Better yet, what would a young universe look like? Remember, this universe wasn’t created by a novice or as a science experiment. It was created to be a home for us, to stimulate our imaginations and to give us everything we could need to live, grow and build. Ps 23.
What would be the purpose of creation ex nihilo, only to create a dead universe, and letting a mostly chaotic and savage system of chance, death and evolution rule over it for billions of years? I’m hoping that we agree that if God had wanted to create the universe as stated in Genesis 1, that he could have done just that. So it isn’t a matter of him not being able to do it.
That is true, but flexible isn’t infinite. 100 years or so is flexible. 4 billion is grossly extravagant.
Psalm 104, like the other Psalms is poetic, unlike Genesis. It doesn’t read as a creation story, but extols the virtues of God in creation and nature. He isn’t out to describe all of creation.
In a way, but science is both limited and mostly biased toward naturalism - against God.
(Both of these articles are pretty short)
No. It is pretty clear as far as I can see.
What would a young universe look like? It should not show a long sequence of events. Certainly the universe was created to be a home for us, to stimulate our imaginations, and to give us what we need. But the evidence from observing the universe is that the process of creating the universe took about 13.7 billion years, with the earth present for the past 4.6 billion years of that. Any claim that science does not support that age for the earth is untrue. Science is not the ultimate authority, but we must be honest about what science does say.
Could apparent age explain that? After all, the wine at Cana presented the appearance of a year or so of work by a grape vine and some yeast. But the wine at Cana did not come with a label saying “Chateau Naboth, 6 BC”, nor did it have authentic bits of dirt and bugs to more closely resemble normally-produced wine. We need to distinguish between appearance of age and appearance of history - evidence of a sequence of events that did not actually happen. To take a feature of the earth, the rock of the ocean floors is currently being produced along the mid-ocean ridges and then it slowly moves out from there, eventually being squashed down into the earth’s interior at the trenches. If God had made the earth only a few thousand years ago, it would be unreasonable to demand that He leave a big gap under the bottom of the ocean awaiting the formation of rock along the ridges and the slow outward migration. But that rock connecting the sides of the ocean would not have to display myriad traces of slow formation and movement over time. It does display such traces - patterns of radiometric dates, of magnetic reversals, of the layers of sand and mud on top, of the types of fossils in those layers, of evidence of changes in climate, of changes in stable isotopes, in amount of erosion of volcanoes, of temperature, etc. all match what the seafloor should show if it has been very slowly forming over the past 250 million years (everything older than that is either already squashed down into the earth’s interior or bits and pieces squashed into the continents). A few people have advocated a system of total appearance of history in a young earth (e.g., Gosse’s Omphalos). But that is highly problematic theologically - why would the creation be misleading in appearance? God can create however He wants to, which means that He can create with extensive use of “natural laws” over a period of billions of years if He wants to, or quickly (as stated in young-earth claims but not required by Genesis 1) if He wants to. A young universe should not have light in it that requires over 13 billion years to get to us from its source, nor should it show evidence of a long history of events such as impact cratering, interactions between objects, sequences of stars forming and aging and sometimes exploding and contributing to new stars forming.
Psalm 19 states that the heavens declare God’s glory. Complaining about the heavens being “dead” does not fit well with that verse. Stars certainly aren’t alive. Life didn’t exist in the universe until there had been enough supernovae, neutron star collisions, etc. to produce enough elements heavier than helium to make life out of. But it’s fascinating to look at and study. What’s wrong with that?
If God is in charge of the world today, as messy as it looks to us, then He can be in charge of the course of evolution, which is not nearly as chaotic, savage, or random as many claim, though it’s not devoid of those elements. If God wanted to create the universe as stated in Genesis 1, He could have done so through the processes of the big bang, stellar nucleosynthesis, gravitational collapse, evolution, etc. We need to accept that things are the way God made them, whether in theology or in science, and seek to find out what the actual evidence is, rather than trying to impose our systems.
Naturalism is a rejection of God. But if we believe that God created everything, as described in Genesis 1, then we will recognize that science should be a very good description of how things work. Unlike the pagan, we don’t need to worry about some other god or monster or force intruding. The forces of nature do not have goals or agency of their own - they are merely the patterns and means generally used by God in running the universe. So we can be confident in the stability of natural laws, while recognizing the possibility of miracles. If we are to rule over creation, then we need to understand how it works - good rule according to the Bible cares for what is ruled. The atheist, conversely, has nothing beyond the empirical evidence to justify the assumption that natural laws are consistent and understandable. So-called “metaphysical naturalism” is actually assuming that God usually runs the universe according to the standard patterns, and is not inherently naturalistic at all. Evolution News, as is typical of ID sources, makes god of the gap errors in talking about evolution. In reality, the Bible calls us to assume that natural laws will be operating. Is it more spiritual to claim that if God wants me to attend church, He’ll miraculously transport me there like Phillip meeting the Ethiopian, or to duly drive to church every Sunday? If you are looking for a scientific explanation, you will either find a scientific explanation in terms of natural laws, or else you won’t be able to find an explanation. If there is not a scientific explanation, either you did not try hard enough, or else the event in question did not follow scientific patterns.
Hopefully nobody has said God is not able to do this. In fact He could have created the universe complete with it’s history Last Thursday. I would argue that only goes against His nature and not a lack of ability. As @paleomalacologist says the problem is with the appearance of history. God would never leave clear evidence of an event that never happened.
I’d appreciate it if you would connect that passage with your point, if you are intending to make one. I think you are capable of defending your interpretation. Elsewhere, it didn’t seem like you appreciated people assuming things about your knowledge.
And no, don’t cry “uniformitarianism” here. The level of non-uniformitarianism you would need to see any of these things runs deep into the realms of science fiction. For starters, nuclear decay would need to have been accelerated to a rate that would have raised the Earth’s temperature to 22,000°C.
No problem. I’ll say ‘unwarranted assumptions’.
As for dino DNA, remember that it’s only been a few years since the ‘fact’ was known that there could not only be no DNA in dino bones due to the great age, there couldn’t be soft tissue at all. Then a scientist accidentally found soft tissue. Now? Great age is a myth. The facts is that no soft tissue could last a million years, much less 300 million. DNA is even more unlikely to last. It takes special conditions, such as being frozen to last any length of time, but even perfect preservation only goes so far.
DNA begins to decay at death. Findings from [a 2012 study] on moa bones show an organism’s genetic material deteriorates at such a rate that it halves itself every 521 years.
Luke 3:38 Genealogy of Jesus from Adam, the first man
Matthew 19:4-5, Mark 10:6 parallel verses
John 1 Jesus is God incarnate, the creator of the universe and the author of the OT
Romans 5:12-21 Adam’s fall due to sin was the cause of all death
1 Corinthians 15:22
Revelation 4:11
The parables were fairly easy to determine. He told parables to the people, not to his disciples. All except one gave no names, Lazarus and the rich man being the exception. The good Samaritan means more if you know the enmity between them and the Jews at that time. Remember the dealings with Jesus and the woman at the well, who was a Samaritan? Jews and Samaritans rarely interacted, because they each considered the other to be heretics. If the story were told today, the Samaritan could be a Palestinian or a Syrian, someone whose people are normally hostile or at best indifferent to the Jews.
Of course. Some people still believe that the universe is eternal, or close to it. One problem with that is the laws of thermodynamics.
I just looked him up and he talked about 3 aspects of creation.
That quote was just hard to determine where he was coming from. It’s almost impossible to tell when someone is being really emphatic or sarcastic as they look the same.
None of that alters anything I said. It’s not a challenge at all. It’s just the same thing you originally said. It’s just your own opinion on the paradigm they had when they said it. I disagree.
That’s why I asked for evidence that what they are thinking because I think it’s very clear that Jesus and the aspotles who authored the epistles understood genesis was mythological.
And I’ll respond by saying “magic shibboleth.” You YECs love to cry “assumptions” as if it would automatically refute anything and everything that you don’t like. It doesn’t work that way. Unless you can explain what is being assumed, and provide credible evidence that the assumption is not just wrong but out by a factor of a million, you are just talking nonsense.
Please read the whole article before quote mining it. The article also says this:
Yet first, paleontologists need to confirm that these possible genetic traces are the real thing. Such potential tatters of ancient DNA are not exactly Jurassic Park –quality. At best, their biological makers seem to be degraded remnants of genes that cannot be read—broken-down components rather than intact parts of a sequence.
(Emphasis mine.) There is a vast difference between this and having sequenced the entire T-Rex genome by now. In a young earth, we shouldn’t just be finding tiny scraps of badly degraded remnants of hadrosaur soft tissue, we should be finding whole, perfectly preserved T-Rex carcasses. Just like we do with the woolly mammoths. Why don’t we?
I’m sorry, but this is just another example of the YEC tactic of taking tiny samples and tiny discrepancies, blowing them up out of all proportion, and citing them as evidence that hundreds of thousands of high-precision, rigorously cross-checked studies must be consistently out by a factor of a million, and that the laws of physics must have seen changes in the past that would have vaporised the Earth if they had any basis in reality. Science simply doesn’t work that way. Neither does anything else, for that matter.
For some reason, YECs are awfully quiet about this – maybe they have corporately borrowed Thomas Jefferson’s blade:
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.