What biblical reasons are there to accept the scientific view of the earth as billions of years old?

[Richard_Wright1 (Richard Wright)]

Hello Mike,

@Mike_Gantt

You seem to be a clear thinker.

Thanks for the compliment!

@Mike_Gantt

Substituting “rest” for “ceased” doesn’t change my understanding of the passages in question. If you tell me that a painter has a project which he intends to take six days, and completes it according to plan, you could tell me that he “ceased” on the seventh day or “rested” on the seventh day and it wouldn’t materially change the way I understood what you are telling me.

I’m going to have to flat out disagree with you on this. There is a big difference in saying someone, “ceased” working on a project and someone rested the day after they finsihed it.

@Mike_Gantt

God receiving pleasure from reflecting what He had accomplished.

This is not what refreshed is. We already know that God received pleasure in what accomplished from Genesis 1:31, “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.”

@Mike_Gantt

Thus I do not understand how accepting “rest” and “refreshed” leads to no “need to take the 6-day as history.” But maybe I’ve missed something. If so, please correct me.

Because it’s obvious, at least to me, that the creation narratives are not to be taken literally or historically. One, the ANE people weren’t looking for modern historicity and accuracy in their creation traditions. The ancient Israelites knew that Yahweh didn’t rest and refresh Himself. The whole point of the story is to show that God formed the world as a temple and he would reside in it on the 7th Day. Just like in Genesis 1 where God created light on the 4th day, the fact that it doesn’t make scientific sense is irrelevant, to us and the ancient Hebrews, to the point of the narrative. Similarly, the fact that God stated that He rested and was refreshed on the 7th day was understood that God would reside in His work - again, that fact that it didn’t make literal sense is irrelevant. This is all in addition to the fact that there simply no way for the 6-day narrative to be historical. [quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:111, topic:36256”]

Rather, I think He’s telling us about as much as we were told when it was written that Jesus “rebuked the wind and said to the sea, ‘Hush, be still.’ And the wind died down and it became perfectly calm”
[/quote]

You’re comparing apples to oranges. Jesus performed a miracle, of course it’s beyond us as to how that worked. The creation narratives relate a 6-day creation where the creator rests after He’s done and is refreshed. Either those things are literally true or it’s a tradition, like other peoples of the time had.

@Mike_Gantt

As for “refeshed,” I agree with you that it can only be understood in a spiritual sense as “the Creator of the ends of the earth does not become weary or tired” (Isaiah 40:28). However, while we cannot see fully into the spiritual realm, it is not that hard to picture God receiving pleasure from reflecting what He had accomplished.

I never stated that I thought that, “refreshed” can only be understood in a spiritual sense.

A huge issue for us (and probably with others here also, judging by the posts) is that you and I see the bible much differently. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems you to hold to a Chicago Statement-type biblical inerrancy, that Moses wrote the whole Pentateuch, that there can be no real contradictions in scripture or its unreliable, etc. I don’t hold to any of those things. I hold to biblical authority and infallibility, but not to a strong inerrancy (my view of scripture could be a sort of inerrancy - there are many definitions as to what inerrancy is). I see the bible as a collection of books, consisting of poems, wise sayings, prayers, songs, genealogies and doxologies, historical narratives, letters, traditions, etc., written over 1,500 years in 3 continents in (at least) 3 languages that God is some way inspired and uses to, ultimately, save us. To expect all the incidentals to line up is modernistic and unreasonable, IMO. But I can guarantee you that I take the teachings of the bible quite seriously and continue to make major life decisions based on them.

To answer what you said to another poster, I can see that you are sincere in your efforts to make sense of all of this, and you’re not an acolyte of AIG or the DI. In a way my heart goes out to you, since it would be hard to suddenly accept that scripture uses traditions and legend-building, like the contemporary cultures did, to promote, in the case of the bible, true theology. [quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:111, topic:36256”]
I hope you will continue to labor with me.
[/quote]

I’m here as long as you need me.