The structure of the argument in the infographic, if applied to Mark Twain and Huckleberry Finn, would only allow those sentences quoted in book reviews to be attributed to Twain. The rest would be presumed as “author unknown.”
What biblical reasons are there to accept the scientific view of the earth as billions of years old?
No, this is a false analogy. The Bible is a collection of works by different writers. Sometimes the writer is not made explicit, and we need to identify it from a range of texts. This is not analogous to Mark Twain’s books, which are all known to be the work of a single author who explicitly laid claim to all of them. The very fact that the Bible differentiates between texts written by Moses and texts which were not written by Moses, tells us that he didn’t write everything you think he did.
Again, as with the genealogies, I find it odd that you start with an idea which isn’t found in the Bible, base your arguments on ideas which aren’t in the Bible, and argue against the Bible passages which actually present evidence against your idea. This is particularly curious because you give the appearance of someone who takes the Bible very seriously. Yet your arguments typically involve trying to contradict what it says.
1 Like
I do not think authorship was viewed as we do today, with copyright rules and legal requirements and moneys. Moses has often been referred to because he taught Israel - some things he may have written, others he taught verbally, and I suspect other matters are recounted in various settings. However, Moses was called by God to lead Israel and deliver the Law to them - he acted as God’s servant and the writings carry that authority.
1 Like
Indeed, it is. However, the Torah, its first and foundational set of books, has, for most of its history, been accepted as the work of Moses. Skepticism about his authorship has been an invention of relatively modern times. As I’ve said, I don’t think you and I are going to settle an argument that’s been going on vigorously for a couple of centuries.
Indeed, I do - notwithstanding the vigor of your characterizations otherwise.
You’ve asked about hermeneutics. Here is what I take as the prime hermeneutic: Jesus Christ. All things point to Him. All things come from Him. All things are resolved in Him. Once I realized that He thought Moses was responsible for the Torah, that was enough for me.
A Possible Avenue
In my exchanges with @Casper_Hesp, I have come to see a possible avenue to acceptance of scientifically-generated history (SGH) over biblical history. I’d like to outline it.
Jesus calls us to imitate Him. My simple logic therefore is, since He exhibits an almost childlike acceptance of Old Testament history - regarding the set of writings in which it is contained as the word of God which cannot be broken - therefore, so should I.
At this point, someone could say to me, “But you don’t live in Israel, and you don’t wear first-century clothes, and you’re not an itinerant preacher.” And I would say, “You’re right; I think Jesus expects us to exercise wisdom in our imitation of Him and those things you mention are outside the focus He had when He commanded us to follow Him.” That someone could then say to me, “Well, given His kenosis, Jesus had no conception of modern science, but in His present glory He would want you to accept SGH just as you accept all the other knowledge that the responsible study of science has brought forth.” My reply to this is, “I’m willing to consider this; let’s talk about it.”
Jesus’ interpretation of the Old Testament is what animates the New Testament. That interpretation includes an acceptance of OT history as history - not as “true myth” or other figurative paradigm. If we are going to prefer SGH to OT history where, if ever, do we draw the line? I’m referring to the fact that SGH doesn’t just challenge a six-day supernatural creation and Noah’s global flood - it challenges all sorts of events and their dating depicted as historical in the Bible, especially when you consider that archaeology is a science. I won’t try to give you a list but anyone familiar with liberal scholarship knows that it is a long one. In fact, you could say that most supernatural events in the Bible (aka miracles, signs, wonders) have been challenged either in essence or in dating by some quarter of the scientific community at one time or another.
Whatever flaws are found in the view that OT history is actual history, there’s virtue in its simplicity. (As corny as it sounds, “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.”) In a scientific world where we should be open to superior history coming from the scientific community, how do we sort out what we should accept and what we should reject?
1 Like
But this is tradition, not Scripture. And it’s late tradition.
No this isn’t true. Devout Jewish commentators from the era of the Talmud (seventh century), as well as from the eleventh century (Isaac ibn Yashush), twelfth century (Abraham ibn Ezra, Joseph Ben Isaac), thirteenth century (Hezekiah ben Manoah), all argued that Moses was not responsible for the entire Pentateuch (and this is only the short list). They argued this on the basis of the Bible text itself. In fact it later seventeenth century scholars used their arguments to investigate the topic.
I haven’t characterized you otherwise. I have pointed out a contradiction between what you believe and what you actually do.
But how did you come to that realization when the Bible never says it, and the Bible’s own record of what Moses wrote says otherwise? Not from the Bible; it’s just a human tradition.
I agree. And I accept evolution. What’s the problem? The problem is with your interpretation, not with science or Jesus or the accuracy of the Bible. The problem is with your interpretation of the Bible. It’s not based on the actual Bible.
4 Likes
I don’t know!
For discussion’s sake, let’s say I fully reject my position on Mosaic authorship and accept yours in its place - how would that advance the pursuit of this thread?
That is a dead wrong conclusion, full stop.
Confidently knowing the age of the Universe is not the same thing as knowing whether the Big Bang is miraculous or not.
I hope others have called you out as well in this fully erroneous deduction.
1 Like
Yes? But What else do we find in those layers of rock?
Alternating layers of sea bed and undisturbed land plants, deer and other ungulate fossils ALWAYS Above dino bones… even such giants as Brontosaurs… as though virtually any mammalian creature could outswim any dinosaur … even marine dinos!
100,000 years of seasonal weather patterns have been found in miles deep ice cores.
Mike, when you say you don’t understand science… that should warn you that you don’t know nearly enough to even risk refuting science.
1 Like
I’m on my smartphone. Can you post those 2 texts in full?
Believing 100% of all grazing mammals can and did outswim 100% of all marine dinosaurs is not rational.
1 Like
It would help you understand how to interpret Genesis 1-11. It would help you understand for example that they consist of a textual unit which was written during the Babylonian exile, for exilic and post-exilic Hebrews, not for Westerners in the twenty first century. Then you would come to a better understanding of what it was saying and how it should be read, because you would understand it is addressing their needs, not yours and mine.
You would understand why it spends so much time rebutting the pagan beliefs of the Mesopotamians (rather than Canaanites or Egyptians, as Moses would have done), you would understand why it cites Mesopotamian literature, you would understand why it has Hebrew words in it which are only used from the period of the monarchy or later, you would understand why Adam and Eve and the fall and the flood are never mentioned by anyone from Genesis 12 to the end of 2 Kings, and you would understand how to interpret the genealogies correctly. It would be of tremendous value.
It also helps us understand why it is essential that Genesis 1 present the universe as a cosmic temple, and why it is so important that Genesis 1 is focused on the temple functions rather than the matter making up the temple (this is a glaring gap in Walton’s otherwise excellent treatment, in my view). And this is not to say that Genesis 1 does not say anything at all about material origins; it does.
2 Likes
2 Peter 3:8 NIV
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
Psalm 90:4 NIV
A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.
2 Likes
[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:345, topic:36256”]
But 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”?[/quote]
No, it simply means that we can determine the age of the earth, not whether its origin was supernatural or natural.
Maybe it’s irrelevant to you, but most of us don’t see it that way. From my perspective, you are putting words in the mouths of others.
You just switched from the earth to the universe. And more importantly, you omitted the possibility that everyone, IIRC, has included: that God created in 6 days, yet made the earth with an old appearance.
The fact that most of us reject this possibility for theological reasons in no way justifies your omission of it to present only two alternatives.
[quote]Thus you are “saying” that we can know whether God created the universe naturally or supernaturally by scientifically investigating it. I don’t see how any human being can make such a claim
[/quote]I think that instead of telling people what they are allegedly saying or implying, it would be far more modest and productive if you asked questions of the form, “Since you wrote X, may I infer Y?”
1 Like
Even if I were to accept everything you say in this and your preceding post, it would not move the obstacle I explained in the OP of this thread. That is, take Gen 1-2 out of the OP, and you still have two passages - Ex 20:8-11 and Ex 31:12-17 - saying that the Lord made the universe in six days, resting on the seventh. Moreover, according to your infographic, they were both written by Moses.
As I understand it, there are basically two views of the age of the earth on offer in this thread: 4.543B years of natural processes or 6 days of supernatural processes. To choose an age of the earth is therefore bound up in the choosing of natural versus supernatural processes. Is there some other way to look at it?
As I’ve said, I have to leave the scientific argument for the Flood and its effects to those knowledgeable enough to make it. All I know is that if there was a global flood, a lot of stuff died.
Yes there is another way to look at it, Mike. The views on offer are as follows:
- 4.543 billion years of purely natural processes.
- 4.543 billion years of a combination of natural and supernatural processes.
- 6 days of supernatural creation of evidence for 4.543 billion years of events that never happened.
- Not getting your facts straight.
Billions of years and supernatural processes are not mutually exclusive.
1 Like
Yes, God spent 4.543B years, which would be a blink of his eye, carefully creating the earth. A natural process (that is what science says) that is under supernatural control (that is what the Bible says). Just as God sustains everything to this very day. Rain is a natural process which falls under his direction, if the Bible is to be believed.
Is this really that hard to see?
1 Like
The problem is not that a lot of stuff died. The problem is how did it get so carefully sorted out. BTW, the YEC folks haven’t come up with a good idea yet to explain this.
2 Likes