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

[Mike_Gantt]

@Jonathan_Burke

For example, many readers totally miss the fact that Genesis 6 mentions people who lived through the flood, despite not being on the Ark.

I can’t find it. Can you point out precisely where in Gen 6 you see this?

[Mike_Gantt]

@Jonathan_Burke

As people have said many times before, the point is that the miraculously created wine did not leave any evidence of having had a lengthy non-miraculous past, including a lengthy, non-miraculous production process.

How would anyone know that?

[Bill_II]

@Mike_Gantt

I woud not be surprised if the miraculously-created wine carried no sign of having been miraculously created.

So you are saying that you would not be surprised to find no signs of a miraculously creation in creation itself? And as a result of the lack (or in spite of the lack) of miraculous evidence you accept the Bible’s version of history over our interpretation of the rather non-miraculous evidence we do see? Am I understanding you correctly?

Quote from Jonathan.

As people have said many times before, the point is that the miraculously created wine did not leave any evidence of having had a lengthy non-miraculous past, including a lengthy, non-miraculous production process.

@Mike_Gantt

How would anyone know that?

Any discussion of wine is speculation pure and simple. The question is what do we do with creation for which we do have physical evidence in place.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Mike_Gantt

I can’t find it. Can you point out precisely where in Gen 6 you see this?

You can’t find it because you are used to reading the text with your conclusion already settled. It’s the same with Genesis 1; there’s an absolute wealth of information which the original audience would have understood, and which careful exegetes can uncover but which you can never know simply by reading a few different English translations. So you read the text without actually realizing how much you’re missing out on, all that information God has put into the text and you’re just not reading it at all.

The survival of the Nephilim is right there in Genesis 6:4. Their post-flood survival is confirmed in Numbers 33. This is recognized by commentators of all theological positions. Here are just a few examples.

1. ‘The bald allusion to the Nephilim (lit. fallen ones) in Gen 6:3 (‘The Nephilim were on the earth in those days … ’) fits uneasily into a context that has always presented a challenge to exegetes.’, Coxon, ‘Nephilim’, in Toorn, Becking & Horst (eds.), ‘Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible’, p. 618 (2nd rev. ed. 1999).

2. ‘In Genesis 6, the Nephilim are connected with the multiplication of humanity on the face of the earth (v 1) and with the evil of humanity which brings about God’s judgment in the form of the flood (vv 5–7). Verse 4 includes a reference to later (postdiluvian) Nephilim. The majority of the spies who were sent by Joshua to spy out Canaan reported giants whom they called Nephilim, and who are designated in the account as the sons of Anak (Num 13:33).’, Hess, ‘Nephilim’, in Freedman (ed.), ‘Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary’, volume 4, p. 1072 (1996).

3. ‘From Numbers 13 we learn that the Anakites are said to be descendants of the “Nephilim.” If the Nephilim of Num 13:33 and Gen 6:4 are taken as the same group, the verse indicates that the Nephilim and their descendants survived the flood.’, Matthews, ‘New American Commentary’, p. 336 (2001).

4. ‘It is not clear why or how the Nephilim survived the Flood to become the original 'Canaanites; probably a duality of older oral traditions can be detected in the clash between these two texts.’, Hendel, ‘Nephilim’, in Metzger & Coogan (eds.), ‘The Oxford guide to people & places of the Bible’, p. 217 (2004).

5. ‘The nephilim of Num 13.33 are the people whom the men saw when they were sent to spy out the land of Canaan while Israel was in the wilderness. These beings described as gigantes in LXX present the reader with the problem of how giants survived the Flood, in contrast to the Watcher tradition that conveys that all the giants were physically killed.’, Wright, ‘The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6.1-4 in Early Jewish Literature‘, p. 81 (2005).

6. ‘Thus, within the Flood narrative itself, the sole continuity of life between pre-Flood and post-Flood is represented by Noah and the others in the ark. Beyond the Flood narrative proper, however, there are implicit pointers in a different direction. One issue is the presence of “the Nephilim” both before the Flood (Gen. 6:4) and subsequently in the land of Canaan as reported by Israel’s spies (Num. 13:33). Indeed, there is a note in the text of Genesis 6:4 which expliciitly points to the continuity of Nephilim pre-and post-Flood: “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterwards” (my italics), a note which of course poses the problem rather than resolves it.', Barton & Wilkinson, ‘Reading Genesis After Darwin’, p. 12 (2009).

7. ‘Although in Numbers 13 the inhabitants of Canaan are considered enemies of the Israelites, both the use and co-ordination (LXX) or derivation of the designation (MT) in an allusion to Genesis 6 betrays an assumption that one or more of the Nephilim must have escaped the great deluge.’, Auffarth & Stuckenbruck, ‘The Fall of the Angels’, p. 92 (2004).

That’s even before we get to the other internal evidence in the record, like the fact that the Ark ran aground in Ararat before the tops of the mountains were seen. That could only happen if the flood was local. If Everest was still underwater, the Ark would still have been three kilometer higher than the highest point on Ararat; it would have been impossible for the Ark to run aground.

@Mike_Gantt

How would anyone know that?

The way that I described the first and second times I explained this, when you raised it the first and second times. We have had this same conversation at least four times now, and each time you treat it like it has never happened before.

[Mike_Gantt]

@Jonathan_Burke

The way that I described the first and second times I explained this, when you raised it the first and second times. We have had this same conversation at least four times now, and each time you treat it like it has never happened before.

Since your memory is apparently so much better than mine, would you please tell where I can find your two or three previous answers.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

Right here.

@Jonathan_Burke

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that the wine Jesus produced at Cana was not accompanied by any evidence of having been produced through a very long process. On the contrary, it was seen to be water one second, and it was wine the next second. It did not leave behind vineyards stripped of grapes, a winepress covered in grape juice, or empty fermentation jars still smelling of fermented grape juice. It did not leave any misleading evidence whatsoever.

So when we examine your analogy, we find it does not fit.

• The earth: evidence of very long process of development, evidence of thousands of years of change, evidence of billions of life forms having lived and died over millions of years; massive evidence indicating the earth is very old and life has been on it for millions of years

• The wine at Cana: no evidence of grape picking, no evidence of grape juice production, no evidence of fermentation; no evidence indicating the wine had been produced over time

And yet again here.

@Jonathan_Burke

Where are we told that the taste gave the false impression that the wine had been produced over years of vine growing, harvesting, fermentation, and bottling? You’ve ignored all the reasons why your analogy was false. There’s no indication that Jesus deliberately created the wine with a false appearance of a fictional past.

If the head steward had asked where the wine came from, he would not have found the usual trail of evidence.

• The amphorae in which the wine had been delivered
• The broken seals on the amphorae
• The sales record and receipt for the amphorae
• The household inventory record for the amphorae
• The name of the seller

And so on, and so on, all the usual evidence for wine with a past. Instead he would have asked the servants “Which wine was this, who did we buy it from?”, and they would have replied “It didn’t exist until about an hour ago; we saw it created miraculously”. There was no false appearance of age.

[Chris_Falter]

Hi Mike,

I’ve been pretty busy recently. Hope all is going well for you.

@Mike_Gantt

would [the wine at Cana] have contained evidence of having been miraculously created?

You’re saying with great confidence that the wine would have appeared identical to old wine in every possible fashion, in every perspective. But the only thing the Scripture tells us is it tasted good.

I’m going to ask a question that hasn’t been asked yet, but needs to be asked: on what basis can you authoritatively claim that it would look chemically identical to year-old wine? That’s not a trick question, I’m really curious as to how you are so confident about your judgment of how it would appear to a chemist. Why couldn’t it taste really great to a vinophile, but show signs of freshness to a chemist?

@Mike_Gantt

if you insist that the earth is billions of years old doesn’t it mean that you do believe “that we can scientifically determine whether the world was created supernaturally over six days or naturally over billions of years”?

No.

Really, I don’t. Instead, I believe that we can scientifically determine how long it has been since God supernaturally created the universe.

@Mike_Gantt

Sorry, Chris, but that’s way too much science and much too long and intricate a scenario for me.

OK, I’ll restate the scenario as simply as I can.

Using the ratio of carbon isotopes and similar archeological evidence, archeologists have been able to trace the rise, spread, and downfall of civilizations that lived tens of thousands of years ago. Archeologists are able to tell when they invented certain technologies (such as chiseled bone arrowheads and spears) during their flourishing. Archeologists can tell what kinds of foods they ate and what nearby civilizations they traded with.

In other words, we are not discussing a currently existing people or article (like miraculous wine, if we could time travel back to Cana) that merely looks old, even though it is truly recent. Instead, the topic is civilizations that lived and died tens of thousands of years. Since these civilizations no longer exist, so we cannot very well say that they only look ancient, but they’re really modern.

So my question is: how do you explain the history of civilizations that died tens of thousands of years ago?

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter

[Chris_Falter]

Hi @Mike_Gantt ,

As I’ve been catching up with the thread, a couple of interesting points have stood out to me.

@Jonathan_Burke

For example, many readers totally miss the fact that Genesis 6 mentions people who lived through the flood, despite not being on the Ark. They also miss the fact that Numbers reinforces this. Some early expositors were not so careless with the text.

@Mike_Gantt - I haven’t seen you address this point that Jonathan made. It seems important to me; if Jon is right, then the Genesis 7 should not be interpreted as a global flood.

@Jonathan_Burke

We’re not talking about how we know scientifically what results a supernatural process would leave. We’re talking about the fact that we know, scientifically, what results a natural process would leave (including a natural process initiated by God, as in this case). We know this from repeated experimentation. So we know what results a natural process would leave. They’re exactly the results we see today. So the burden of evidence is on you to demonstrate that a supernatural process would leave exactly the same results as a natural process.

This is another really good point that I haven’t seen you address, Mike.

And one more…

@Mike_Gantt

I deem you to be acting in good faith with your view, doing what you believe is right in the sight of the Lord.

This is very gracious of you. And I want you to know that I believe that you are acting in good faith, seeking to please the Lord.

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter

[Bill_II]

@Mike_Gantt

A supernatural creation in six days presents a reality that never existed prior to that time, whereas your story presents a long-standing pattern that “one morning” is broken. There’s just no way for the story to work as an analogy to the situation on which we’re focused.

My story was intended to ask about the aftermath of a miracle. The fact that there wasn’t a miracle before this one doesn’t matter. Just like creation, what happens after the miracle?

[Mike_Gantt]

@Chris_Falter

You’re saying with great confidence that the wine would have appeared identical to old wine in every possible fashion, in every perspective.

You’re misreading me. My point has not been that we know for sure “that the wine would have appeared identical to old wine in every possible fashion, in every perspective,” but rather that we don’t know those details and therefore can’t rule out that possibility.

@Chris_Falter

Really, I don’t. Instead, I believe that we can scientifically determine how long it has been since God supernaturally created the universe.

You and I must be using the words “naturally” and “supernaturally” in different ways. My usage was that an earth created over a 4.543B year period implies an earth created by natural processes, while an earth created over six days implies an earth created by supernatural processes.

@Chris_Falter

So my question is: how do you explain the history of civilizations that died tens of thousands of years ago?

I look at it that these histories are inferred through examination of artifacts and by other means by archaeologists, and appear impressive; however, if the word of God states otherwise, I will trust the word of God.

To explain further, see @Swamidass’s Riddle of the 100 Year Old Tree here and my response to it here.

[Mike_Gantt]

@Bill_II

My story was intended to ask about the aftermath of a miracle. The fact that there wasn’t a miracle before this one doesn’t matter. Just like creation, what happens after the miracle?

But in your story it was awareness of behavior before the miracle that established predictability. There is no parallel with respect to creation in the six-day scenario.

[Mike_Gantt]

@Chris_Falter

@Mike_Gantt - I haven’t seen you address this point that Jonathan made. It seems important to me; if Jon is right, then the Genesis 7 should not be interpreted as a global flood.

I don’t think Jon is right.

@Chris_Falter

This is another really good point that I haven’t seen you address, Mike.

Again, I think the riddle of the 100 year old tree has application here. See my links to it at the bottom of my previous response to you.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:502, topic:36256”]
My usage was that an earth created over a 4.543B year period implies an earth created by natural processes, while an earth created over six days implies an earth created by supernatural processes.[/quote]

But the problem is you’re leaving God out of the second part, when there’s no need to. As several people have pointed out to you, an earth created by natural processes initiated by God is no less “supernatural” than an earth created over six days by supernatural processes.

[Mike_Gantt]

@Jonathan_Burke

But the problem is you’re leaving God out of the second part, when there’s no need to. As several people have pointed out to you, an earth created by natural processes initiated by God is no less “supernatural” than an earth created over six days by supernatural processes.

Here again, I think we are being tripped up by different uses of the terms natural and supernatural. As you are using “supernatural” in this sentence, I would agree with you. However, in my usage, I consider both natural and supernatural processes to be equally of God - the main difference being that the former He does regularly (and thus are more easily observed and cataloged by us) and the latter He does irregularly (making them harder to catalog and predict). Another difference, of course, is that supernatural processes may involve factors we cannot observe; the same can be true of natural processes, but our lack of ability to observe them does not excessively inhibit out ability to predict outcomes.

[Mike_Gantt]

@Jonathan_Burke

There’s no indication that Jesus deliberately created the wine with a false appearance of a fictional past.

My point is that there’s no indication of anything. We don’t know. All we know is that the miraculously-created wine was considered to be excellent.

Your impressive forensic skills could be applied if we’d been left any evidence, but we haven’t any of these things to examine.

(By the way, thanks for reproducing your answers.)

[Mike_Gantt]

@Jonathan_Burke

You can’t find it because you are used to reading the text with your conclusion already settled.

Actually, I think it’s the other way around. That is, I think the reason you are finding this in the text is that you are coming to the text with your conclusion already settled.

The Nephilim are mentioned in Gen 6:4, but all the references to the flood come after that - implying, of course, that the Nephilim were destroyed along with everything else that was not on the ark. The identities of the few saved is, of course, confirmed in 1 Peter and again in 2 Peter.

The subject of the Nephilim has indeed, as your commentator above states, “always presented a challenge to exegetes.” But it requires inferring a lot from the cryptic reference in Gen 6:4, and ignoring a lot of explicit references to exclusive deliverance provided to Noah and his family to conclude that the Nephilim, whoever they were, survived the flood.

[Chris_Falter]

@Mike_Gantt

You’re misreading me. My point has not been that we know for sure “that the wine would have appeared identical to old wine in every possible fashion, in every perspective,” but rather that we don’t know those details and therefore can’t rule out that possibility.

This is the strongest defense of post-modernism I have ever seen. Since we can never rule out miraculous intervention (how could we?), we have no ability to make inferences about what happened in the past…if I follow the Gantt school of reasoning.

@Mike_Gantt

You and I must be using the words “naturally” and “supernaturally” in different ways. My usage was that an earth created over a 4.543B year period implies an earth created by natural processes, while an earth created over six days implies an earth created by supernatural processes.

What makes you think that an earth that is 4.543 B years old is not created by God?

@Mike_Gantt

I look at it that these histories are inferred through examination of artifacts and by other means by archaeologists, and appear impressive; however, if the word of God states otherwise, I will trust the word of God.

You aren’t dealing with the question I asked, Mike. What does trusting the word of God imply about the history of civilizations that lived, thrived, developed, and met their demise tens of thousands of years ago?

As for the convex mirror analogy: I don’t understand how it would apply to this situation. let’s examine the mirror analogy carefully.

The car manufacturer is confronted with three conflicting design goals:

1. The mirror should provide as broad a view of the roadscape behind the mirror.
2. The mirror should provide as accurate a representation of distance as possible.
3. The mirror should be quite small so as to not pose a hazard to other vehicles, pedestrians, etc.

The manufacturer can only satisfy two of the requirements; it is impossible to satisfy all three simultaneously. Therefore, the mirror is small and provides a broad view. The warning about distance engraved onto the mirror surface is given explicitly to the occupants so that they can adjust their behavior appropriately, given that the mirror distorts the appearance of distance.

So there are two key factors here:

• A design trade-off that cannot be avoided
• An explicit warning about the trade-off

In that discussion, you never identified any trade-offs. You also did not provide any documentation for your assertion that

@Mike_Gantt

just as we would be, on this view, warned by the Bible not to assume the age of the earth from scientific inquiry.

Where do you find an unambiguous warning in the Bible about scientific inquiry into the age of the earth? What the Bible says and what Mike says it says seem very different to me in this particular case.

I hasten to point out on the key message(s) of Scripture, I appreciate your faithful handling of and obedience to the God’s Word.

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter

[T_aquaticus]

@Chris_Falter

This is the strongest defense of post-modernism I have ever seen. Since we can never rule out miraculous intervention (how could we?), we have no ability to make inferences about what happened in the past…if I follow the Gantt school of reasoning.

At times I wonder how a creationist would reason through a murder trial if they were on the jury.

Imagine if the defense attorney claimed that the death of the victim was a supernatural miracle, and as part of that miracle there was the production of oily swirls that just coincidentally matched his client’s fingerprints. On top of that, the supernatural miracle also just happened to create strings of nucleic acids that just coincidentally and for no apparent reason match his client’s DNA. Since the defense attorney is claiming all of this evidence was the byproduct of a supernatural event, he then asks the jury to just ignore it since they can’t predict what a supernatural event would produce.

What would the creationist think about this? Would they just ignore the forensic evidence?

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Chris_Falter

This is the strongest defense of post-modernism I have ever seen. Since we can never rule out miraculous intervention (how could we?), we have no ability to make inferences about what happened in the past…if I follow the Gantt school of reasoning.

I wonder if Mike would nod his head in agreement while reading Foucault…[quote=“Chris_Falter, post:509, topic:36256”]
What makes you think that an earth that is 4.543 B years old is not created by God?
[/quote]

That seems to be at the heart of Mike’s thesis, but I’ve never seen him support it in any way.

@Mike_Gantt

I look at it that these histories are inferred through examination of artifacts and by other means by archaeologists, and appear impressive;…

There Mike goes again, pretending that science is merely dismissible post hoc inferences without any empirical predictions.

[Mike_Gantt]

@Chris_Falter

This is the strongest defense of post-modernism I have ever seen. Since we can never rule out miraculous intervention (how could we?), we have no ability to make inferences about what happened in the past…if I follow the Gantt school of reasoning.

You’re misreading me even more this time. Wildly so. I was talking about two situations where we have the testimony of God that a miracle occurred which may be in conflict with evidence we observe. From that, you have extrapolated that I don’t ever want to use evidence because a miracle might have occurred. Completely unwarranted.

@Chris_Falter

What makes you think that an earth that is 4.543 B years old is not created by God?

I gave you my understanding and usage of the terms “naturally” and “supernaturally.” How then can you think that my usage of “naturally” with respect to the earth’s creation would mean I was saying God wasn’t the one doing the creating?

@Chris_Falter

You aren’t dealing with the question I asked, Mike. What does trusting the word of God imply about the history of civilizations that lived, thrived, developed, and met their demise tens of thousands of years ago?

Do you not recognize that you are trusting without question the verdict of archaeologists, and then asking me how I can trust the word of God instead?

@Chris_Falter

So there are two key factors here:

• A design trade-off that cannot be avoided
• An explicit warning about the trade-off

• The design trade-off that cannot be avoided is the need to show regularity of processes so as to invite scientific inquiry.
• The explicit warning about the trade-off is in the six-day creation as attested by Gen 1-2, Ex 20:8-11, and Ex 31:12-17.

@Chris_Falter

Where do you find an unambiguous warning in the Bible about scientific inquiry into the age of the earth?

Primarily, in Gen 1-2, Ex 20:8-11, and Ex 31:12-17 - especially with regard to Adam being created on the sixth day, and all the genealogies of the Bible that trace back to him.

@Chris_Falter

What the Bible says and what Mike says it says seem very different to me in this particular case.

Yes, I get that. I fully expected BioLogos people to have different views of Scripture than mine. It’s those views of Scripture I came hear to find out about. What’s amazed me is how little I’ve heard about them compared to the science that’s been thrown at me. If I had wanted scientific explanations, I would have gone to a science site.