Yes, I think we can confidently say that some things science has discovered are settled facts. For example, the heart works as a pump to circulate blood. This was not known at one point in history, but it is now known as a fact. We aren’t going to find a new and better explanation of how blood circulates. When people say, “Oh, science changes all the time, so we can’t trust any “fact” will actually last” this is just plain wrong. I think the age of the earth is in the category of “the heart is a pump” and “the earth revolves around the sun.” We know these things.
3 Likes
I feel compelled to make this observation - I find it incomprehensible that a site that seeks to discuss the Christian faith, and insists on gracious dialogue, would tolerate and accept such offensive phrases as:
“The only way that this actually makes God a deceiver …”
The Faith teaches, and un-hesitantly professes that God is the source of all truth. The bible identifies the deceiver and who promotes deceit. Perhaps BioLogos needs to be reminded of this as they so often veer into assessing truth as based on evolution.
I would agree with you except for one thing:
Terms synonymous with, and including, “liar” was introduced into the analysis by @Mike_Gantt.
So perhaps you will have to expand your scruples to include terms like these with a more clinical posture.
Appreciate it, you can flag my posts as well if that’d make it easier for you next time. The title of the thread was asking about the scientific age of the Earth being old but the universe being young in reality and included the word ‘deceitful’. So I cited one scientific way we’ve measured the age of the Earth, a neat one in my opinion which includes 5 radioactive elements in a distant star that gives us a very precise date. Also my assessment of truth has nothing to do with evolution but rather cosmology but that’s perhaps just picking on your words.
Perhaps I should have prefaced my conclusion with ‘In my opinion, the only way to reconcile any apparent deceit is to not force the Scriptures to teach a 6,000 year old worldview.’ I personally would want nothing to do with a god who is deceitful like this.
1 Like
I did not mean to single you out as the phrase has been used a number of times; I think it is inappropriate on a Christian site and we should all refrain from such language. How and why we prefer our opinions is what should be said.
Ok. So in your opinion, if, when we date the universe using all these different branches from science and the they all converge on a very large 13.8 billion years, yet creation is actually just 6,000 meaning God, the Creator, made it to look old what would you call this? Is that not some form of trickery or deception? What word would you use to describe that since ‘deception’ is a bad word to use on a Christian website?
3 Likes
This comment does not make sense - as I pointed out, scripture doe not provide a numerical age for the earth, so the discussion has more to do with how others decide matters amongst themselves. Since you seem to seek trickery and deception, you should look at how others decide to input their own meaning into scripture.
As I have pointed out, Creation is best understood by commencing with the Gospel according to John. Christ stated that scripture is written for our good, and the Law as given in the OT is as a school teacher, bringing us to a better understanding, which is given to us by Christ and the Apostles.
It is not inappropriate to say that if A is true and B is also true, then a valid logical deduction from those premises is that “God is a deceiver.” That is just a common form of argumentation where presenting an unacceptable conclusion is supposed to force people to re-examine the premises.
2 Likes
If you can make an argument such as, "God spoke to me, or there is an explicit statement in scripture that God spoke to His prophet the earth’s age has been clearly given a numerical value, and you find this to be grossly in error, than and only than can you make your odd deduction.
Starting with your opinion, and developing it until you claim a logical deduction you make for another party (ie God) is fallacious at best, and in the worst case scenario, deceitful.
Prophecy is judged in this way - when a prophet makes a specific statement, we are urged to test and examine it, to convince ourselves if it is true or false. But we cannot make up our own version of a prophecy and than judge it as someone else’s, and then concluding it is false because of this someone else. There is no logic in that, only false argument.
Maybe for you, but not for a lot of people including the OP of this thread or anyone who reads agrees with ‘plain sense’ reading of Genesis.
What should we call it then? I’m not seeking these words out, it’s a valid question. Let me write the title of this thread out for you: ‘Is it possible for the earth to appear old to science without it actually being old without it actually being old and God being deceitful?’ In other words, can the Earth appear old to science and it still be young and if so, does this make God deceitful?
Your solution is just to say, eh, forget the question you meanie who looks for deception and trickery (sorry for using the bad words again but this time I am quoting you quoting me and I was quoting the OP so I think it’s ok) in everything.
You’re tricking me! The Bible doesn’t start in John silly. Most people could agree with your statement yet still fully hold to a 6,000 year old creation, so back to the question that you don’t like…
Can the Earth appear old to science and it still be young because a pretty plain reading of Scripture gets you back just 6,000 years and if so, does this make God deceitful?
1 Like
You lost me. And honestly this is wandering into the realm of arguing about how other people are communicating wrong and should be doing it differently, which is usually quite counter-productive. If the discussions on this site are as offensive and disturbing to you as your frequent complaints make it sound, you could always find other people to hang out with on-line.
It seems I may have touched a raw nerve, so I will try and get back to my original point to you and @Christy:
Can either of you, or both, provide a clear scriptural statement that says, “(thus says the Lord), the age of the earth is (place a numerical value)?”.
If you can do that, then you can say God is deceiving you, and I will look silly. If not, the boot is on the other foot, and I again (complain) that you are making things up.
Christy, your A therefore B is about as odd as it gets within the context of this discussion. I suggest that if you cannot accept this, then so be it (silence is golden)
Now you both either have a background (or maybe had one), which made claims of an age of the earth, and these are supposed to be scripturally based. I state clearly this is wrong, and it has to do with this error, not that a god is making things up…
And to be (really silly) scriptural, how about this for biblical stuff:
“John1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”
Gen1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.
I note that any discussion on age must start with “a beginning” - and everyone that I know understands this.
In any event, I have said all that needs to be said - God is the Truth.
Ok let’s ignore my question again and again and again that all started with a call to repent. And it’s pretty obvious how you get the age of the Earth to be 6,000 years old (7,500 or so with the Septuagint). Thankfully Google turned up this fairly quickly for me: http://creation.com/6000-years
Add the numbers up yourself if you don’t believe them. And I don’t really get your foolproof proof from John 1.
That is a pretty great way to end all posts. “Boom, I’m right with some vague Scripture magic and nothing else can be said because God is the Truth and that’s what it says in the Bible.” Maybe @Christy can move all this to a new thread “GJDS doesn’t like the ‘D’-word”
The insistence that the Bible should over-ride measured science is a great violence to the relationship God seeks with humanity… including that humans can rely on God’s faithfulness to humanity!
Hello,
Noone here is saying or even implying that God is or ever could be deceitful.
Yes, God is truth. But that doesn’t mean that the bible teaches every bit of truth. I didn’t learn about the heart pumping blood from the bible. The bible teaches spiritual truth.
Here is a passage that I think is relevant:
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ (Matthew 22:37)
God gives us free reign to use the intelligence that He endowed us with to love Him and interpret His message to us. If the intelligence of God’s sons and daughters led us to discover certain things about God’s physical creation, that we can use that in interpreting the bible. So, we’ve discovered that the earth is much older than 6,000 years old, so we know that Genesis 1-3 is not trying to tell us the age of the earth, but is meant to teach us about God’s character and his purposes and roles for us in His creation. He did so using traditions, like the people around the Hebrews did and which were familiar to them. So God isn’t mistaken or deceitful, it’s just that some believers have misinterpreted and misunderstood the nature of early Genesis, just like they did to many other scriptures over the centuries.
That was the intent of my comment, and thus a reasonable response would be that we can rephrase such statements (ie we seek a true account, or such). However I have noticed this phrase (in the context of YEC and/or science debates) that bring in God’s honesty into question. My simple (and I would have thought non-controversial) statement was to point out this is inappropriate - not to indulge in debates that are pointless. I guess I made a mistake in insisting that people find a passage (since they cannot) in scripture that states the ages of the earth. This challenge is to anyone who claims there is, be they YEC or EC or whatever.
I wonder if there are parallel universes after all.
@Mike_Gantt I agree with you. The appearance of age to us is not evidence of God’s deceitfulness. We are not in a position to judge God that way. This, in my view, is not the right way to deal with this.
I appreciate that you are willing to acknowledge the evidence for an old earth. That is a wise step that I respect. I also see that you believe the Bible teaches a young earth. I disagree with that, but if you choose obedience over science, you choose the better thing.
These two article may help you make sense of my position. I think the parable of the 100-year old tree is relevant here. Do you now it?
In my view, you take an honorable position that should have dignity in the church.
The key theological question that will be asked is, “why didn’t God make it more clear the earth is young.” I think your answer is supposed to be, “His purpose in creation was not to declare the age of the earth. He make himself known another way, by raising Jesus from the dead. God has no need to be clear in creation, because He is clear in Jesus.”
I’m sorry so many have been pressing you here.
I do have one request though. You keep saying things like this:
Is that really what you think of me? The last you wrote to me, you said you were thinking through my interpretation of Genesis 2:1-3. You asked me to give my interpretation of what it said, rather than what it did not say. I gave it to you, and as far as I can tell you do not object.
I think we both agree on so much. You should know by now that I am not saying the Bible cannot be contradicting the scientific consensus. In fact I say the opposite every time I confess that Jesus rose from the dead.
I think your position deserves dignity in the Church, even among theistic evolutionists. This is why I have not pressed you to change your mind. I have also seen your blog, http://www.blogforthelordjesus.com/, where you have been faithfully writing for a long time. I agree so much with your call:
To put my message as simply and straightforwardly as possible, we – that is, we who are called Christians – need to repent. The organized church has placed itself ahead of the Lord Jesus Christ. We need to return to Him. Therefore, I present a Christianity centered on Him – not on rituals and traditions. We need to stop going to church, and instead be the church. Like Jesus, we should be known for our godliness, not our associations.
Do you not think my position deserves dignity in the Church too? We disagree on things here and there, but I’m sure you see that I am confessing Jesus in the public square. Perhaps a refrain that acknowledge those like me would be helpful. Not all who affirm evolution do so by disregarding Scripture.
What do you think?
Allow me to give this quick initial response in answer to your closing question. Later, after I have time to read and digest the two articles you have linked, I will respond to them and the rest of your post.
I take this opportunity to affirm all the encouragement I have given you in my previous responses to your posts…and give you some more. Let’s take this from above:
MG: My sense is that most of you conclude, “The scientific evidence is so clear and emphatic that whatever the Bible is saying, it cannot be contradicting the scientific consensus.”
JS: Is that really what you think of me?
Not only is it not what I think of you, you are one of the reasons, and actually the main reason, that I qualified the plural “you” with “most.” In other words, you are the most notable exception I have found in this forum to the sentiment about which I was expressing concern.
I am going to say even more, so guard yourself against getting puffed up…because God help you if you get puffed up, and God help me if I tempt you to get puffed up.
You have a most tender spirit and you combine a staggering amount of intelligence and education with a very humble heart. In other words, most people as intelligent and educated as you are, aren’t that humble. And most people who are humble as you are, aren’t that intelligent and educated.
You have disagreed with me from the beginning, and still do, yet you keep giving me a fair hearing. You haven’t looked to score points against me. Rather, you’ve looked for ways to help me, yet without being condescending.
This forum is blessed to have a voice as mature as yours participating in it. I hope these words of mine do not discourage others here who are like you in all the things for which I have commended you, for indeed you are not an utterly unique participant. Yet, in the interactions I have had here, yours stand out as a model for anyone to follow.
I lived in St. Louis 1979-1994 and so I know how prestigious an institution is Wash U. I can only imagine the pressure you are under both from secularists who think you’re too Christian and Christians who think you’re too secularist. Yet you seem to be navigating your path with the peace of our Lord. It is wonderful to behold, even if only in the limited way I can.
You and I may never come together on the age of the earth and evolution on this side of heaven. At this point, it’s an open question. It’s not settled in my mind that we will or won’t come together before then. Yet in this I have confidence: you have a good spirit. Of all the things for which people admire you - and there are many, given your accomplishments - I admire most your spirit. Please never doubt that again.
I know you seek to be the best professional scientst you can, and that you do not cavalierly dismiss the Bible in your pursuit of science. On the contrary, you seem to be as one following this guidance:
It is good that you grasp one thing and also not let go of the other; for the one who fears God comes forth with both of them. - Ecclesiastes 7:18
Sorry for the haste, and it probably resulted in some poor wording or misspellings above. But I couldn’t bear the thought of any delay in telling you that you have earned my respect by the way you conduct yourself and affirm together with you that who unites us is so much more important than what may divide us. To Jesus our Lord be the glory today and always.
Final words to others: Again I say, I see others of you seeking follow the Lord with the same sort of quiet zeal as JS. You be encouraged, too - please. None of you need my approval, but we all need the Lord’s approval. May we find it daily as we seek Him daily. He is generous to grant it.
3 Likes
Thanks for your kind words.
You are right. You did qualify it. You really do understand something of me…
Thanks for that verse. It is right for the moment.
Someday if you come back to STL, come visit me. It would be fun to talk in person. My colleagues here are kind to me. They are the people of peace that God has brought me to live with for this moment.
After that post, I will take your advice. Across these divides, is it not beautiful when we live as family together? I’m happy today because of this.
2 Likes
How exactly did you come to the erroneous position that Mike was in agreement with you regarding an Old Earth timeline?