Then he couldn’t have been the only author.
What biblical reasons are there to accept the scientific view of the earth as billions of years old?
1 Like
Mike, you’re fudging the Biblical evidence.
You infer a historical timeline. You’re stating that it is implied when only the author can state that as a fact, trying to elide the weakness of your post hoc interpretation.
2 Likes
This is not accurate. I direct you to Eugenia Scott, an atheist,
So science must be limited to using just natural forces in its explanations.This is sometimes referred to as the principle of methodological materialism in science: we explain the natural world using only matter, energy, and their interactions (materialism). Scientists use only methodological materialism because it is logical, but primarily because it works. We don’t need to use supernatural forces to explain nature, and we get farther in our understanding of nature by relying on natural causes.
Because creationists explain natural phenomena by saying “God performed a miracle,” we tell them that they are not doing science. This is easy to understand. The flip side, though, is that if science is limited by methodological materialism because of our inability to control an omnipotent power’s interference in nature, both “God did it” and “God didn’t do it” fail as scientific statements.
Properly understood, the principle of methodological materialism requires neutrality towards God; we cannot say, wearing our scientist hats, whether God does or does not act. I could say, speaking from the perspective of my personal philosophy, that matter and energy and their interactions (materialism) are not only sufficient to understand the natural world (methodological materialism) but in fact, I believe there is nothing beyond matter and energy. This is the philosophy of materialism, which I, and probably most humanists, hold to. I intentionally added “I believe” when I spoke of my personal philosophy, which is entirely proper. “I believe,” however, is not a phrase that belongs in science.
We philosophical materialists may all be methodological materialists, but the converse isn’t true. Gregor Mendel was a methodological materialist who didn’t accept the philosophy of materialism. I think we make a grave error when we confuse philosophical views derived from science — even those we support — with science itself.
Far from debatable, this are currently the rules enshrined in the legal system. Edwards v. Aguillard - Wikipedia
Science is devoted to formulating and testing naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. It is a process for systematically collecting and recording data about the physical world, then categorizing and studying the collected data in an effort to infer the principles of nature that best explain the observed phenomena.[29] Science is not equipped to evaluate supernatural explanations for our observations; without passing judgment on the truth or falsity of supernatural explanations, science leaves their consideration to the domain of religious faith. Because the scope of scientific inquiry is consciously limited to the search for naturalistic principles, science remains free of religious dogma and is thus an appropriate subject for public-school instruction.
The scientific community has developed a vocabulary to describe the various aspects of the scientist’s work. Although individual scientists are not always careful in their use of that vocabulary, a rigorous set of definitions can help to prevent confusion about what a scientific theory is. It can also provide a firm base on which to discuss the legal issues presented in this case.
The grist for the mill of scientific inquiry is an everincreasing body of observations that give information about underlying “facts.” Facts are the properties of natural phenomena. The scientific method involves the rigorous, methodical testing of principles that might present a naturalistic explanation for those facts. To be a legitimate scientific “hypothesis,” an explanatory principle must be consistent with prior and present observations and must remain subject to continued testing against future observations. An explanatory principle that by its nature cannot be tested is outside the realm of science.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html
You can have your personal opinions @T_aquaticus but science does not include God as a causal force and never has. It has been that way for 400 years, and it is now the law of the land in the US too.
The first principle of theists is that God exists - all other considerations follow on from this. If you can provide a test for this principle, than as an atheist you may have a case - but if not, your statements are without any scientifically valid content.
I thought you didn’t accept the documentary hypothesis. Or am I misremembering what you have said before?
To go back to the original point, if the supernatural is said to have some effect on our reality (such as God creating the world in six days) then those effects can certainly be scientifically analyzed and information gained, including information about the supposed supernatural cause.
Thanks for the link, very interesting article. I was most interested to see what preceded your quote, but I was a bit nonplussed.
Logically, if there are omnipotent powers in the universe, it is impossible to hold their effects constant, to “control” them in the scientific sense. An omnipotent power could interfere, or not interfere or interfere but make it look like it’s not interfering — that’s omnipotence for you!
I think this really misses the point. It’s not as if non-onmipotent supernatural entities can be regarded by science, after all.
I think the answer is simpler, and lies in the definition of supernatural entities. They do not have any presence in the observable natural world, and this is the reason they can’t be measured. Science is left with the natural by default. I agree with Taq in the sense that if the definition of God offered by a theist excludes the possibility of scientific measurement, science isn’t excluding it from its purview on its own volition. It would be interesting to see the text of the original document which included the words “impersonal” and “unsupervised”. I believe I would agree with Scott that they shouldn’t be included, but I think it could be fair for example to note that no signs have been found that evolution is either personal or supervised, as they certainly could be.
1 Like
Chris, you have written here a sweeping indictment of me. It’s a soft indictment, to be sure, when compared to @Jonathan_Burke’s hard indictment. He is the iron hand; you are the velvet glove. The two of you agree that it’s “the eyeglasses” I insist on continuing to wear that are preventing me from seeing what’s right there in the Bible. To be fair, however, and to better understand the situation, you should admit to yourselves that it would be more accurate to say that it has been my unwillingness to exchange my glasses for yours that has frustrated you. Jonathan has his Revelation Day / Vision Day view and I’ve spoken with him about that. You seem to hold primarily to the Walton view so I’ll deal with it for the remainder of this post. (I know you profess support for all four of the views I listed above, but you mention Walton more than the others so it seems to be primary for you.)
I have tried to convey to you the aspects of Walton’s proposal that I find helpful and distinguish them from the parts of his proposal that I find weak and unconvincing, yet you continue to charaterize me as someone who is unappreciative of cultural differences. I first analyzed Walton’s arguments several years ago, and I have been going back through his material since coming here to see what I may have missed. In going back over his material, I have found him to be, if anything, even less convincing in his main thesis (that Gen 1 is exclusively speaking about functional and not material origins) than I originally thought.
I am not the only one who thinks this way about Walton’s proposal. William Lane Craig is an outspoken advocate for an old earth. He fully accepts the scientific dating of the universe as ~14B years and the earth as ~5B years. And although he does not profess personal belief in evolution, he says belief in it is “fully compatible with Christianity.” Craig has also spoken very disparagingly of YEC’s. Yet Craig says that Walton’s insistence that Gen 1’s focus on functional origins to the exclusion of material origins is “is drawing a false dichotomy which is foreign to these ancient texts.” He calls Walton’s view “bizarre” and says that there is “a deep incoherence in his interpretation.” Therefore, for me to say Walton is unconvincing in his main thesis is not merely the mindless rejection one should expect from a YEC.
I’m going to ask you to be more specific about the assumptions you think I hold which are holding me back, but first let me address the assumptions that you did seem to specify. As I do, please keep in mind that you have assumptions, too. What’s at issue here, therefore, is not that I have assumptions and you don’t. Rather, it’s a question of whether I should exchange my assumptions for yours.
Your assumption is that there are different kinds of history in the OT. My assumption is that there aren’t. I’ve examined my assumption by reviewing in my mind the way Jesus referred to OT events. I cannot see where He speaks of more than one kind of history in the OT. He seems to speak, for example, about Lot’s wife or people in the time of Noah the same way He speaks about people in the time of Elijah or Elisha. If you want me to exchange my assumption about how Jesus viewed history for yours, you need to do more to show me Jesus regarding Gen 1-11 history differently from Gen 12-Malachi 4 history.
I do not for the life of me understand why the subject of genealogies keeps arising in this thread. Until someone can show how a different way of interpreting genealogies can bridge the gap between an earth that is thousands of years old and one that is billions of years old, genealogies are not material to the discussion.
In general, I am in complete agreement with you that “the Scriptures were written for us but not to us” and that the prophets were men of their times. However, my assumption is that “the extent to which God might have accommodated His revelation to the cultural state of the original audience” has much more applicability when the subject is science than it does when the subject is history. And, as I’ve been saying, it’s the Bible’s history versus scientifically-generated history (SGH) that is at issue here - not the Bible versus science. If you want me to exchange my assumption for yours, tell me more about how you assume God had to accommodate His revelation in historical terms. For example, what was it about ancient people that required God to tell them that creation took a very short time when it in fact took a very long time. I’m not asking why Gen 1 and Ex 20:11 and Ex 31:17 don’t have the word “billions” in them; I’m asking why God would make statements about creation’s duration that would seem absolutely silly to an educated 21st-century person.
This appears to me to be Walton’s assumption which you want me to adopt. Again, my assumption is that while I’m appreciative of Walton’s emphasis on the functional view ancients held and, particularly, the temple motif he employs, he fails to show how this would exclude material ontologies. If you want me to let go of my assumption to take hold of yours, you’re going to have to do a better job of justifying this dichotomy than he has.
Does this exhaust the assumptions that you think are holding me back from accepting an old earth and all that goes with it? If not, please tell me the others and I’ll address them as well.
I can’t tell whether you think your stint in Africa enabled you to read the Bible without eyeglasses, or whether you recognize that you exchanged the ones you had for another pair. I’m perfectly willing to admit that your new pair may have fewer smudges and thus enable you to see more clearly, but that’s what you need to show me. It is simply not the case that I’m wearing eyeglasses and that you see 20/20 without any. Therefore, put your assumptions out there alongside mine and let’s see which ones are more faithful to Jesus.
You are not misremembering. I do not accept the documentary hypothesis. Nor did I see in your stated view a dependence on the documentary hypothesis. On the contrary, your statement - “In that culture the source is what is important not the scribe that wrote it all down” - would seem to exclude acceptance of it. Moses would not have been available to direct any scribes living during the Babylonian exile.
For these reasons, I could direct @benkirk to your view as a reflection of my own. If you are amending your view to say that it is dependent on acceptance of the documentary hypothesis, I’d have to say I cannot share it.
I have tried to follow the reasoning behind the voluminous comments regarding the age of the earth, and this is my best effort to an understanding of the issue.
You say that you need biblical teachings that would persuade you on an earth age (say about 4 billion years). I will put to one side the 7 days of creation.
I think all would agree that the bible does not give a clear command such “the age of the earth is X years”. We are left with a question – can we work out an age for the earth based on biblical narratives?
On this question, I see a preference for some figure, so that some may site some verses to support their preference, while others chose alternate verses to support an alternate view.
My own view is that the bible is explicit in showing us that only God determines events and the concept of time to God differs from our understanding. Thus regarding people deciding on dates and ages, we are admonished not to think we have biblical authority for such events – this is especially so when Christians try to work out when Christ would return, but I believe the teaching applies to all matters pertaining to times, ages and biblical based conclusions.
My conclusion is that you will not find biblical basis for an age for the earth, be it 4billion, 4 million, or 4 thousand years.
2 Likes
Would you say the same thing about the age of the human race - that is, do you similarly think that we cannot find a biblical basis for a timeline of human history in even general terms?
I have no reservations on Adam and Eve as stated in Genesis, nor do I see any scientifically valid argument on this matter. The age of the human race would be approximated at 6-10,000 years based on modelling which is based on recorded history and various artifacts - however the modelling is just that so I am not fussed if these numbers were to vary depending on the model used. However these numbers would vary in the thousands and not by many millions.
I get to an age of the earth in the thousands of years by this sort of thinking…plus six days. (I recognize that there are folks who believe the age of the earth is rightly counted in the billions even if the age of the human race is rightly counted in the thousands. I would only add that it is not the Bible that gets them to billions of years for the earth, and I assume most of them would agree with me. I say this not for purposes of persuasion, but rather for the purpose of explanation.)
Your answer shows me that you think an age of the human race can be legitimately inferred from the Bible even if an age of the earth cannot. This answer seems much more reasonable to me than someone saying that the history in the Bible (including genealogies) provides no way to estimate an age of the human race. Thanks.
I have stated an age for the human race (sometimes referred as true humans descendent from Adam and Eve) may be obtained using scientific models based on historical records and artefacts. I have not arrived at such figures using biblical teachings -although I am happy that my understanding of biblical teachings are consistent with such observations.
I again state that genealogies are meant to show that true humans descended from Adam and Eve, and the lineage goes to Abraham, Moses, David and ultimately Christ - that is central to biblical understanding.
1 Like
First I came to my view of Genesis without every knowing what the documentary hypothesis means.
Second, this is the crux of my view:
When I use author I mean the inspired person who comes up with the words to write down not just a scribe that is making copies. I believe this fits in the definition of the documentary hypothesis, but I might be wrong given I don’t put a lot of store in labels.
Instead of using source I could say “in that culture the inspiration for a text is more important than the author who comes up with the words.” This is in contrast to the modern view that the author is more important than their sources.
Bottom line is I am pretty sure we don’t share the same view and it was my poor choice of words that lead you to think that.
I am pretty sure that you hold to the tradition that Moses was the only author.
1 Like
The documentary hypothesis, and it has come to take multiple forms, holds that the Torah comes from multiple sources and was written over multiple centuries. It is therefore inconsistent with the idea that Moses was the source; he could be, at most, one of the sources in that hypothesis.
I believe that Jesus, and practically all His Jewish contemporaries as identified in the NT, held Moses to be the authoritative source for the Torah. That would require it to have been produced in his time but would not require him to have held the stylus that recorded every word. Prophets in the OT frequently had helpers: as Elisha had Gehazi, and Jeremiah had Baruch, so Moses had Joshua. Moreover, Moses had the entire tribe of Levi, including the family of his brother Aaron, at his disposal for 40 years. It is not hard to imagine him having help in assembling the Torah.
Another possible explanation I have pondered is that God permitted a “supernatural link”, offering us the ability to interact with Him in that 6-10,000 year time frame. Other members of the race could have existed without this capability.
1 Like
[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:594, topic:36256”]
I can’t tell whether you think your stint in Africa enabled you to read the Bible without eyeglasses, or whether you recognize that you exchanged the ones you had for another pair.[/quote]
That’s a false dichotomy, and it’s easy to tell that the former is false, as Chris explicitly stated so.
That comes across as extremely narcissistic. I thought you were here to learn?
It’s perfectly clear to me that Chris is claiming no such thing. He even explicitly admitted that he wears them:
Do you have anything to contribute other than straw men at this point? It’s clear that you aren’t really reading what other people are writing before responding.
[quote]Therefore, put your assumptions out there alongside mine and let’s see which ones are more faithful to Jesus.
[/quote]You’re not coming across as someone who is open-minded and here primarily to learn, Mike.
It’s obvious that you aren’t willing to let your assumptions (which are not in the Bible) go, which is why you are attacking Jonathan and Chris by misrepresenting their positions, in addition to misrepresenting the fundamental nature and practice of science.
You have not even attempted to rebut this. Instead of lashing out, why not think about (and address) Chris’s wise comment here?
2 Likes
After reading this response and seeing that it has already received a “like,” I understand how Alice felt.
Given the deterioration in the discourse, I think it’s clear I’ve overstayed my welcome in this forum. If anyone else has anything to say to me, now would be the time to make it known. I expect to be signing off within the next day or so.
I would say more in my defense but I have lost all hope in being understood.
To me holding Moses to be the authoritative source does not require that Moses actually wrote the whole thing. I think some parts were written by Moses, other parts were written by people who were taught by Moses, other parts may well have been written by people recording the oral traditions that had been pasted down for generations. In all cases the message came from Moses but not in his words. Given the inspiration of the Holy Spirit which is what generated the text that we have I believe we can trust the message that has been preserved it is just not the literal words of Moses. How much of this you allow to inform your interpretation of Scripture is a personal decision.
Have you ever read a novel that had two authors. Usually when I do it is clear when the writing changes from one author to the other by changes in the style. I have heard that if you read the Torah in Hebrew it is likewise possible to determine when the style and word choices change which would indicate different authors.
Alright @moderators it is time start enforcing some gracious discourse rules around here. I would hate to see a Christian chased off of a Christian website by fellow Christians.
@Mike_Gantt it would be nice if the forum had a “ignore this person” button but AFAIK it doesn’t so please just do the filtering yourself. There is no rule that says you have to reply to every comment, even if it hard to do.
Which Alice? In Wonderland or Go Ask? I am missing the reference I think.
1 Like