The Bible, Rocks, and Time: Christians and an Old Earth (Conclusion)

We should not be afraid of the evidence that God has put into his world.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

I am not afraid of the evidence. I am, however, afraid of said interpretation of the evidence that runs contrary to what the word of God plainly states :slight_smile:

What do you mean?

There is only one legitimate interpretation of the evidence: that the earth is old. Attempts to reinterpret the evidence to fit it into six thousand years result in some of the most spectacularly bizarre and absurd workarounds imaginable, such as accelerated nuclear decay that would vaporise the entire planet if it were even possible.

As Christians we need to approach this honestly. The only way that the earth can be six thousand years old is if it were created with overwhelming evidence for 4.5 billion years of history that never happened – the “omphalos” hypothesis.

There is a Biblical basis for understanding long ages: 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4. There is no Biblical basis whatsoever for understanding the evidence for a fictitious history that omphalos proposes.

I am sure blacks and whites thought the same with OJ’s glove :slight_smile:

I didn’t follow the OJ Simpson case, so I had to consult Wikipedia to figure out what on earth you were talking about. However, having done so, I’ve noted a couple of differences that render your analogy invalid:

  1. The glove was just one piece of evidence. There are hundreds of thousands of evidences for an ancient earth.
  2. Neither side had to plead absurdities as extreme as accelerated nuclear decay in order to maintain their position on the glove.

(2 Peter 3:8) Ya…that’s just a misapplication of a verse. 2 Peter is not a creation verse. It is a verse pertaining to the coming of Christ. Furthermore that verse cancels itself out, because 1000 is as one as one is a thousand. Furthermore even if we use that verse, the world will be thousands of years old; not billions. You have violated a hermeneutical principle. We don’t look for obscure verses in scripture in order to run in opposition to another verse. You are doing the same thing prosperity preachers do, my friend :slight_smile:

Yep, you are the classic case in point.

Just curious, do you generally read the articles before you comment on them?

You’re just copying and pasting from Answers in Genesis here, and they completely miss the point.

First, although neither 2 Peter 3 nor Psalm 90 are primarily about creation, they do both refer to it. Read 2 Peter 3:4-5 and Psalm 90:2 in particular.

Secondly, to say that “the world would be thousands of years old, not billions” is to completely miss the point of these verses. 1000 years is merely an example, not a specific exact quantity, to illustrate the point that God’s days do not correspond to our days. A day with the Lord can be any length in our time at all.

Third, even if your points still stood, at least 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4 give us something in the Bible by which to understand long ages. As I said, the only alternative is the creation of evidence for a false history, and in support of that, the Bible gives us nothing.

I never said that I didn’t have a presupposition, my friend :slight_smile:

Answers in Genesis? Ya…no. Anyone in my camp will come up with, because people in your camp constantly misapply scripture :slight_smile:

[quote=“jammycakes, post:8, topic:5534”]First, although neither 2 Peter 3 nor Psalm 90 are primarily about creation, they do both refer to it.[/quote] No they don’t :slight_smile:

Just one question for you here.

Do you or do you not believe that God created evidence for a history that never happened?

Psalm 90:2:

Before the mountains were born
or you brought forth the whole world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

2 Peter 3:4-5:

They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.

Both sound like they talk about creation to me.

This is pretty simple. Genesis 1 maps out a perfect picture of how God creates the world, but since that doesn’t fit your model. You then look for obscure verses that only appear (when taken out context) to back your model. Then you turn around saying that you can accept this verse that may or may not deal with creation, but totally reject the other verse that DEFINITELY deals with creation. And you want to know why my camp has a problem with how your camp tortures scripture :slight_smile:

Again, I repeat my question: do you or do you not believe that God created evidence for a history that never happened?


I am sure it does. Another principle in hermeneutic. Never give a verse it’s own context. Read the verse before or the verse after, but preferably the whole passage. And if you read the entire passage. You will see that this verse is not dealing with creation, my friend :slight_smile:

In my view, it’s not a “perfect picture” if you have to deny reality all over the place in order to “believe” it. Why would God insist we deny the reality he put us in and gave us the intellect and curiosity to comprehend?How is that kind of trickery consistent with God’s revealed character?

I have no idea what that means. It sounds a bit loaded…sorry. Can you expand that?

Do you believe in talking donkeys? because that is not reality :slight_smile:

The physical evidence that God has created does not support, and can not be reinterpreted to support, a young earth. It is dishonest for anyone trained in the scientific method, who has examined the evidence, to claim otherwise.

This means that as Christians we have just two options in how we understand the physical evidence that God has created in the light of the Bible:

  1. That it represents a fictitious history that never took place;
  2. That 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4 really do allow for long ages.

These are the only two options available to you. Which do you choose?

Your said interpretation of the physical evidence does not support what God plainly states in Genesis 1. Because that is what it comes down to. Do you believe what God says or what man says. I go with God, my friend :slight_smile:

But you don’t believe what God says in nature. You believe what man says about what Genesis must be interpreted to mean. The God says/Man says game can be played both ways.