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

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

I was at family camp with no internet for a week. I just logged on for the first time since last Friday five minutes ago, and it will take me a while to get caught up. Honestly, people, is this what happens when I leave you to play nicely amongst yourselves for a few days? :astonished:

Not at all. It’s just that you should be willing to defend your claims [edited by moderator]

A post was split to a new topic: Why is the firmament not a problem anymore

@Bill_II Wonderland.
@Christy I have no complaints about the moderating.

The deterioration is, I think, just the natural outcome of my inquiries having run their course. I was seeking answers and, not finding satisfactory ones, kept searching. I think wore out a number of people who eventually stopped commenting, and I frustrated the ones who continued with my unwillingness to accept what had been offered. People’s reactions were normal human reactions. I am leaving BioLogos disappointed, but not with any ill will.

My disappointment has to do primarily with not having found the biblical solution I was seeking. Secondarily, I was disappointed that my attempts to explain why certain solutions weren’t working, especially as time wore on, were, to a large degree, misunderstood - thus I was perceived as “preaching,” acting in “bad faith,” or having come here for purposes other than the one I repeatedly stated. It finally got to the point that I felt almost nothing I was saying was being understood in the way that I meant it. But, as I say, this is all secondary and is not worth discussing further except to say this: It was like I went to the store to buy a suit. When the clerk gave me one to try on, I explained that the sleeves were too long and the pants were too short because I was hoping some alterations might make the suit fit. But it was like the clerks thought I was someone who was so fussy, he probably didn’t really intend to buy a suit anyway.

I have not come to a conclusion (one way or the other) that I had hoped to reach when I first came here in late June. However, it’s not BioLogos’ responsibility to resolve this issue for me. I asked for help. I was offered help. And here we are. I’ll continue to mull over the things many of you said here.

2 Likes

Come back any time.

1 Like

I can certainly understand your thoughts on this. It is a reasonable assumption. However, have you researched how the aforementioned ministries respond to this question? Many of us have and we have been amazed at how little serious thought they’ve given to questions like “Why do fossils appear in an orderly sequences in predictable strata?” Moreover, we notice that they rarely, if ever, test their hypotheses. (When I was a “creation science” enthusiast back in the 1960’s, Young Earth Creationist speakers and authors constantly complained that they lacked the research grants and reliable funding which could allow them to extensively test their scientific hypotheses and to accumulate the quantities and qualities of data which could be published in academic journals. Half a century later there are many Christian organizations and institutions with enormous multi-million dollar annual budgets which are the envy of many scientists I know. Yet, have you noticed any scientific discoveries and paradigm-changing research projects published by ministries like AiG, ICR, or CMI? No, and for this sequential fossil strata topic they continue to cite the same vague, inconclusive, illogical, and poorly structured “studies” they referenced in the 1960’s! I’ll describe them shortly.)

One would think so. Yet, that is not at all the case!

I have the most experience with AiG so I will focus on their typical non-response to this particular question. The fossil sequence is a good example of a question which quickly got deleted at the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter Facebook pages when a group of us experimented with posting such questions a few years ago. [We were all former Young Earth Creationists who happened to organize an informal SIG group one evening at a Denny’s during an annual Evangelical Theological Society conference.] I can cite many other examples where the reaction to such a question was quite evasive if not also downright hostile. On the few occasions when we got any kind of direct answer, these were their declarations:

(1) Different kinds of animal corpses have different flotation properties. It just so happens that dinosaurs sink faster than the mammals we see today. Yes, that was their answer. On the rare occasions when there was an attempt to cite a source for this, they made vague reference to a lab experiment at Loma Linda experiment involving various dead animals and a water tank. Yet, nobody was ever able to find a published scientific paper or even an informal report about the alleged experiment on animal corpses.

(2) Different kinds of animals have different abilities to flee rising flood waters. (Yes, I guess that means that most flowering plants outran Triceratops and T rex.)

Do you consider these “confident” answers to be based on empirical evidence and the best of peer-reviewed scientific scholarship? I do not. Do you consider it credible science? I do not.

No wonder they are NOT confident of their answers and tend to delete such questions posed on their websites and even tend to ban those who insist on asking such questions.

OK. I can appreciate that. So it is always wise to investigate what the science academy has had to say about such hypotheses from AiG, ICR, and CMI. Peer-review is what keeps science on track and exposes flawed methodologies and illogical conclusions.

I would suggest that you are misapplying the context of “The first to tell his story seems right until another comes along.” It’s vocabulary and circumstance refers to what we would call a “courtroom situation” where the parties and witnesses disagree and tell of differing experiences and observations. It is not meant to apply to differences in opinion in general or, much less, to scientific disputes. (Yes, it is wise to always look for opposing opinions on all sorts of matters but that is unlikely to be what the author had in mind in that passage.)

I can’t find the post at the moment but I recall you saying that someone here had referred to AiG, ICR, and CMI as “scientific kooks”. I have not noticed anybody doing that on this thread but it is certainly possible that I missed such posts. Personally I don’t think of those ministry people as “scientific kooks” because (1) I consider them my brethren in Christ and I try to avoid extreme labels, and (2) I find most of what they claim and do not at all “scientific”. They don’t subject their claims to falsification testing. They misuse and incorrectly define scientific terms. They use equivocation fallacies and far too many logic fallacies in general. They misrepresent scientific concepts and erroneously (even deceptively?) quote-mine the writings of scientists. They complain of unfair bias and missing out on research grants yet rarely if ever apply for them and rarely show any kind of familiarity with scientific methodologies and peer-review. (Answer in General started their own “scientific journal” and then declared: “Look! We do too publish in peer-reviewed journals!” Sadly, their “peer-reviewed journal” disallows any papers which fail to conform to their predetermined conclusions and doctrinal position. AiG’s “science” must always agree with Ken Ham’s personal views on every topic.)

My greatest concern about AiG, ICR, and CMI is that they do great damage to our witness for Christ and tend to confuse the public about the Bible in general and what it means to be a Christ-follower. I have lots of Christian brethren who find the scientific evidence for evolution and billions of years uncompelling—and that’s fine. What concerns me far more is how AiG, ICR, and CMI misrepresent the evidence and the nature of science itself.

5 Likes

As I mentioned previously, the bible is explicit on matters such as Adam and Eve, Moses, Abraham and so on, and I accept these as given to us. On other matters, such as ages and times, the bible is not explicit and often mentions things in passing, or does not mention at all - on the latter people may become overly interested, or perhaps become fixated to the point of re-interpreting biblical teachings. If they are so inclined, I see this as a choice they make, and not biblical teaching.

Hi Mike,

My brother, I think that we are having some difficulties communicating. I’d like to try to work it out, if possible.

I tried really hard to make clear that disagreement is not grounds for accusation, much less indictment.

You seem to regard my disagreement with some of your ideas as an “indictment,” and frankly I am confused as to why you feel that way. I have done my best to communicate in a way that I hoped would convey my regard for you as my brother in faith.

I do have some other thoughts that could perhaps be productive. However, if my best efforts result in your thinking that I am “indicting” you, then I would rather not discuss the subject of this thread any further. The most important thing is that we love one another in Christ; that’s the true mark of a Christ-follower.

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter

1 Like

They have no trouble raising money for creation museums, ark parks, and movies like Genesis: Paradise Lost

The lists in Genesis 4, 5, 10, 11, 25 and 36 are king lists and do not represent the first people of Earth. These are the Horite Hebrew ancestors of Jesus Messiah.

There is a gap of time between Genesis 4:1 and Genesis 4:17. This is evident when we read the material in the Akkadian. The context of these early rulers is Nilotic, not Mesopotamian. Genesis states that Eve gave birth to the ruler (Kain, Qayan, Khan, king) whose royal line is listed in Genesis 4. When Eve gives birth, she declares in Genesis 4:2 kan-itti. The Bible scholar E.A. Speiser noted that Qany(ty) or Qanitti is related to the Akkadian itti, as in itti šarrim, which means “with the king.” Akkadian was the language of Nimrod’s territory (c. BC 2290-2215) and according to Genesis 10:8 Nimrod was a Kushite ruler, with a Nilotic cultural tradition. Akkadian shares many roots with Nilotic languages. Among the Oromo of Ethiopia and Somalia, itti is attached to names. Examples include Kaartuumitti, Finfinneetti, and Dimashqitti. That itti is associated with Nilotic rulers is evident in the name of the famous queen Nefertitti.

@Bill_II
@Chris_Falter

While I appreciated your interest in continuing the discussion we were having (written here and here, respectively), I felt no inclination to continue - even though @Christy had assured me that I had not worn out my welcome at BioLogos. However, this morning it occurred to me how we might have a productive continuation going forward.

The first step is the step I have already taken: that is, for me to cease posting to this thread or any of the other threads I have started at BioLogos. The next step is to launch a new thread and to confine all my posting to that thread only. Since the current state of our discussion here has been focused on the assumptions behind my view, that is where that thread will focus. This means a change in tack for me.

In this thread, I have been asking for biblical solutions to a biblical problem I face. I think this has yielded all the proposals that it’s going to yield…and, going on this long, has resulted in frustration for some because I have not yet accepted any of the proposals offered. In the new thread, the focus will be on my view and on the assumptions that underlie it. I will defend (explain) my views. I am not looking for a debate; rather, I’m looking for an exchange of views. If it turns out that I learn about assumptions that are more well-grounded than my own, then I gain helpful information. But in no case am I trying to convince you of anything; rather, I’m trying to convince myself of something - one way or the other.

The new thread is called: Examining the Assumptions of Mosaic Creationism vis-a-vis the Assumptions of Evolutionary Creationism

Since I will no longer be seeking biblical solutions from any of you to solve the problem I was describing, there’s no need for anyone to become frustrated because I haven’t accepted his or her solution. And although I have no way to control it, I would appreciate it if anyone who thinks that I’m operating in bad faith here at BioLogos he would refrain from participating. It only poisons the well of communication.

I am not calling for help or participation on this new thread. I’m only making myself available to anyone - like @Bill_II or @Chris_Falter - who might have a continuing interest in the discussion. And even if the two of them change their minds and lose interest, that’s ok, too.

1 Like

It is accurate. If God interacted with the natural world in a perceptible manner then it would be considered a natural process.[quote=“Swamidass, post:590, topic:36256”]
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.
[/quote]

Theists purposefully exclude God from science by claiming that God does not produce perceptible evidence in the natural world. That isn’t the fault of science. God, as defined by theists, can not be a part of science because theists have defined the actions of God as being imperceptible.

@T_aquaticus,

I don’t agree with this idea. The whole vocabulary of " ‘poof’ = the miraculous" is based on the idea that God can do things through natural law, without natural law (acknowledging, of course, that there is a 3rd likely category where God seems to do something miraculously, but is really invoking a natural law that we don’t comprehend (currently or maybe for eternity).

Then you write: “That isn’t the fault of science. God, as defined by theists, can not be a part of science because theists have defined the actions of God as being imperceptible.”

Perhaps you are having a bad day? I don’t know any theists who argue this as a central point. I know I have proposed that some things God does could be so imperceptible that it would be impossible to know if the process was perfectly natural or not.

I am talking about things like a pillar of fire or smoke that guides people through the desert. For the purposes of science, that would be part of nature and would satisfy the need for empirical evidence.[quote=“gbrooks9, post:621, topic:36256”]
Then you write: “That isn’t the fault of science. God, as defined by theists, can not be a part of science because theists have defined the actions of God as being imperceptible.”

Perhaps you are having a bad day? I don’t know any theists who argue this as a central point. I know I have proposed that some things God does could be so imperceptible that it would be impossible to know if the process was perfectly natural or not.
[/quote]

I don’t know of any theists who argue that the actions of God can be discerned in an empirical fashion. In fact, many theists have told me that God wouldn’t make his actions known so that we wouldn’t be forced believe in God. When asked for a discernible and empirical example of God acting in the universe around us I usually don’t get an answer.