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

[Mike_Gantt]

@jammycakes

1. 4.543 billion years of purely natural processes.
2. 4.543 billion years of a combination of natural and supernatural processes.

Please tell me more about the second one - especially the what and when of the supernatural processes. Also, who is promoting this view in this thread?

[Mike_Gantt]

@Bill_II

Is this really that hard to see?

I agree that the supernatural-natural distinction is questionable, primarily because God is responsible for both. In my own thinking, I use the terms extraordinary and ordinary. Accordingly, when Aaron’s rod budded, it was extraordinary, but when any normal tree blossoms, its ordinary. Yet both are works of God and both to me are wonders. So, to go back to the old terms, natural processes are of God and are wondrous.

[Mike_Gantt]

@Bill_II

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.

I can understand that you’d see it this way, but do you think they see it this way?

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@Mike_Gantt

Please tell me more about the second one - especially the what and when of the supernatural processes. Also, who is promoting this view in this thread?

Not being a biologist, I can’t give much in the way of details here. However, what I know about evolutionary algorithms and their limitations as a computer programmer does seem to suggest to me that even if evolution and abiogenesis can fully explain the origin of species, life itself, and the human race, it would still have required some “coaxing” to get to where we are at today.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Mike_Gantt

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.

@Mike_Gantt

I guess you missed my post where the third choice was implied: the Big Bang can be miraculous… that happened 14.3 billions of years ago…so that the earth can be 5 billion years old.

[Bill_II]

@Mike_Gantt

Accordingly, when Aaron’s rod budded, it was extraordinary, but when any normal tree blossoms, its ordinary.

When Aaron’s rod budded that was a miracle. There is no natural process that can explain that. Just like there is no natural process that can explain the Cana wedding wine.

What do you think about rain? Did God establish the physics that explains it (think natural process) and then controls when it actually rains?

@Mike_Gantt

So, to go back to the old terms, natural processes are of God and are wondrous.

So could you consider evolution to be a natural process that is of God? Wouldn’t it be extraordinary?

@Mike_Gantt

I can understand that you’d see it this way, but do you think they see it this way?

If you mean “they” to be the YEC folks, they do consider this a problem for which they have no workable solution. They have come up with some highly imaginative solutions that just don’t work.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Mike_Gantt

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.

@Mike_Gantt , the problem with your approach is you seem oblivious to the fact no global flood, or even a succession of FLOODS, could create the geological evidence we find.

[pevaquark (Matthew Pevarnik)]

@gbrooks9

the problem with your approach is you seem oblivious to the fact no global flood, or even a succession of FLOODS, could create the geological evidence we find.

First time I’ve seen you be wrong here George. Clearly a global flood predicts billions of dead things in the ground and that’s exactly what we see!

(Never mind that we never seen any anachronistic fossils or that fossil layers with the same age always have the same creatures buried in them and the oldest rock layers always have the oldest creatures and vice versa)

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@pevaquark

First time I’ve seen you be wrong here George. Clearly a global flood predicts billions of dead things in the ground and that’s exactly what we see!

(Never mind that we never seen any anachronistic fossils or that fossil layers with the same age always have the same creatures buried in them and the oldest rock layers always have the oldest creatures and vice versa)

@pevaquark

Where did you buy your “Sarcasm Font”? It’s gorgeous! I know … you got it at the Noah’s Ark exhibit …

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Mike_Gantt

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.

I already wrote an entire separate post specifically on this subject, but I haven’t seen you reply to it. There is no obstacle.

@Mike_Gantt

Moreover, according to your infographic, they were both written by Moses.

If you had read my post you would have understood the Biblical evidence demonstrating that they were not written by Moses.

@Mike_Gantt

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?

Yes there is another way to look at it, the way several people have told you several times; both involve creation being the result of supernatural processes. As James has said:

@jammycakes

Billions of years and supernatural processes are not mutually exclusive.

As Bill has said:

@Bill_II

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.

And that’s what others have said. If you have missed this then you are not reading the posts in this thread and other threads. But you’ve solved the issue here anyway:

@Mike_Gantt

So, to go back to the old terms, natural processes are of God and are wondrous.

That is all that needs to be said. We don’t need to fuss about with questions like “Which are the supernatural processes?”, and agonize over trying to find them in the physical record of he universe.

[Mike_Gantt]

@Jonathan_Burke

I already wrote an entire separate post specifically on this subject, but I haven’t seen you reply to it. There is no obstacle.

Please send me a link to the post to which you’re referring. I don’t recall it.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Mike_Gantt

Please send me a link to the post to which you’re referring. I don’t recall it.

Here. Since the post is long, here is a summary.

This suggests that this explanation for the Sabbath was added by an inspired writer during the exile; as with the authorship of Genesis 1-11, Daniel is the most likely author. This does not mean the Sabbath is irrelevant to the creation, nor does it mean that the days in Genesis 1 are not intended to be understood as natural days. But it does mean that nothing in the Bible tells us the Sabbath was instituted by God in order to commemorate God’s day of rest, or to teach people that He created the universe and everything else in only six literal days.

We know that while Exodus contains the words of Moses, the book itself was not written by Moses, since it speaks of Moses in the past tense and in the third person. So it contains words Moses spoke and wrote, but it places them in the context of the past, from the perspective of someone who was not Moses. That later inspired writer has added explanatory commentary for a later audience.

As I have argued consistently, the days in Genesis 1 are literal 24 days, but the are days on which God gave a vision of creation; He was seen to create, in a vision. From that perspective God “created the heavens and the earth” in six days. But this does not mean He literally took only six days to create the entire universe.

[Mike_Gantt]

@Jonathan_Burke

Here. Since the post is long, here is a summary.

No wonder I didn’t recall it: it was not directed to me and it was posted to a thread in which I have not participated. I do well to recall things I have read; I really struggle to remember things to which I have never been exposed.

The view which you describe would indeed solve the problems outlined in the original post of this thread. However, in doing so, it would create even greater problems. It would be like solving the problem of an unwanted guest by burning down your house.

First, you violate your own views in that your infographic states Moses to be the author of Ex 20 and Ex 31, but you say that he did not write the portions of those chapters which say that the Lord created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. Second, you say that these portions were inserted by an unknown “inspired writer” (“Daniel is the most likely author”), but if an inspired author, why would these portions carry any less weight than if they’d been written by Moses himself?

Even if, however, we were to ignore these internal inconsistencies in your thesis and grant less weight to the “six days then rest” portions of Ex 20 and Ex 31, we’ve left ourselves in the situation that we cannot continue reading our Bibles without checking regularly with you about which portions to accept and which to disregard.

I take you to mean well, but your cure is worse than the disease.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Mike_Gantt

No wonder I didn’t recall it: it was not directed to me and it was posted to a thread in which I have not participated. I do well to recall things I have read; I really struggle to remember things to which I have never been exposed.

I linked to it in another discussion, so I thought you would have seen it.

@Mike_Gantt

First, you violate your own views in that your infographic states Moses to be the author of Ex 20 and Ex 31, but you say that he did not write the portions of those chapters which say that the Lord created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh.

I have already explained this. There is no violation. The book of Exodus itself was not written by Moses at all; it contains his words and writings, but the sections speaking about him in the third person were not written by him. The infographic provides a general overview, without providing specific information about every single exception. I have already described the exceptions in this case, in detail.

@Mike_Gantt

Second, you say that these portions were inserted by an unknown “inspired writer” (“Daniel is the most likely author”), but if an inspired author, why would these portions carry any less weight than if they’d been written by Moses himself?

They do not carry any less weight than if they had been written by Moses. This is nothing about them carrying less weight. They carry exactly the same weight as if Moses had written them. You have not addressed my argument at all.

@Mike_Gantt

Even if, however, we were to ignore these internal inconsistencies in your thesis and grant less weight to the “six days then rest” portions of Ex 20 and Ex 31, we’ve left ourselves in the situation that we cannot continue reading our Bibles without checking regularly with you about which portions to accept and which to disregard.

As I have already pointed out, this is nothing to do with them carrying less weight. Additionally, this is nothing to do with people needing to check with me about which portions to accept and which to disregard. That statement sends up very large red flags, not least because it’s attributing to me something I never said, and not only because it’s attributing to me the complete opposite of what I took great care to say, but also because it’s a transparently manufactured attempt to avoid addressing the argument (which you didn’t actually reply to at all).

The Bible itself provides clear guidance that we need to identify when a passage was written for an earlier audience, and when it was written for a later audience. Evidence of such editorial commentary is legion, and as I have already pointed out it was noted repeatedly by medieval Jewish commentators. This is how the Bible itself teaches us to read it.

This response of yours was not written in good faith, and is unfortunately part of an increasingly clear pattern of responses you give to others; there’s now a list of people who have had to explain several times, with great patience, that you have attributed to them statements and arguments they never made. That’s a warning sign.

[Mike_Gantt]

@Jonathan_Burke

I linked to it in another discussion, so I thought you would have seen it.

Fair point.

@Jonathan_Burke

The infographic provides a general overview, without providing specific information about every single exception.

Fair point.

@Jonathan_Burke

This response of yours was not written in good faith, and is unfortunately part of an increasingly clear pattern of responses you give to others; there’s now a list of people who have had to explain several times, with great patience, that you have attributed to them statements and arguments they never made. That’s a warning sign.

Unfair point.

@Jonathan_Burke

They do not carry any less weight than if they had been written by Moses.

If they do not carry less weight, please explain how the problems outlined in the OP are solved. That is, if you are maintaining that the “six days plus rest” portions of Ex 20 and Ex 31 are just as much the word of God having been written by an unknown inspired writer at a later date as they would be if written by Moses in the age of the Exodus, then how have you removed the two obstacles I identified in the original post?

(You may accuse me of being obtuse, but if you accuse me again of bad faith you are poisoning the well. Recall that I ended my last post to you with “I take you to mean well.” If you cannot reciprocate, there’s not much point in our continuing to dialogue.)

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@Mike_Gantt

Unfair point.

What’s unfair about it? Please be specific.

[Lynn_Munter]

I’ve been away for a couple weeks, and now find this thread length daunting, but I had a thought I wanted to share regardless.

I think our interpretation of the Bible can suffer if we attempt to focus too much on individual quotes and not enough on the big picture, the overall storyarc of what it’s telling us. In this case I would ask about the overall chronology.

What might we expect if the Bible consisted simply of God telling us the 6,000 year history of the world? Would the first sixth of the Bible tell us about the first thousand years, and the second and so on? Why and how is the actual Bible different from this? Why is there more detail as we go forward in time?

Obviously there are variations as more and less interesting things happen through the history, but I think the general trend of having more information about things that happened more recently is still pretty undeniable. And that’s not unnatural: it’s very normal for us to know more about what happened yesterday than five years ago, and more about what happened fifty years ago than two hundred.

But what is normal or natural for God? If God were to sit down and set out to record the entire history of the world, should we not expect Him to spend as much time on the beginning as at any other point in the narrative? And what does it say that that is not what we see?

To me, it says that the Bible was written by humans. Humans under the guidance and inspiration of God, it well may be, but the stories in Genesis were passed down for many years before Moses. And the timeline telescopes as you go back further in time. Six “days!” What does that mean? The history of the Bible starts with the history of the people who wrote it, because the Bible is about, to, and for people.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Mike_Gantt

Unfair point.

Why?

@Mike_Gantt

If they do not carry less weight, please explain how the problems outlined in the OP are solved. That is, if you are maintaining that the “six days plus rest” portions of Ex 20 and Ex 31 are just as much the word of God having been written by an unknown inspired writer at a later date as they would be if written by Moses in the age of the Exodus, then how have you removed the two obstacles I identified in the original post?

I explained it previously. Here it is again.

As I have argued consistently, the days in Genesis 1 are literal 24 days, but the are days on which God gave a vision of creation; He was seen to create, in a vision. From that perspective God “created the heavens and the earth” in six days. But this does not mean He literally took only six days to create the entire universe.

[Mike_Gantt]

@Jonathan_Burke

As I have argued consistently, the days in Genesis 1 are literal 24 days, but the are days on which God gave a vision of creation; He was seen to create, in a vision. From that perspective God “created the heavens and the earth” in six days. But this does not mean He literally took only six days to create the entire universe.

My powers of comprehension fail me.

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@Mike_Gantt

My powers of comprehension fail me.

Mike, you really need to be specific about your responses. If something isn’t clear, you need to say why and ask for clarification.

Take a read of this essay:

http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

Is it just me, or does anyone else think this thread is going round in circles now?