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

[Mike_Gantt]

@benkirk

And how do you explain your repeated claims about the nature of science as mere retrospective examination of evidence?

I can understand the difference between a scientist reporting what he has observed of an occurrence versus what he thinks would have been observed had anyone been alive at the time of the occurrence.

[Mike_Gantt]

@benkirk

BioLogos invites the church and the world
to see the harmony between science and biblical faith
as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.

Yes, I’m open to your telling me more about the italicized part.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Mike_Gantt

I can understand the difference between a scientist reporting what he has observed of an occurrence versus what he thinks would have been observed had anyone been alive at the time of the occurrence.

That wasn’t the question. How do you explain your repeated false claims about the nature of science as mere retrospective examination of evidence?

Here’s an example: Did evolutionary theory and biology PREDICT the particular strata and location in which a transitional fossil like Tiktaalik would be found, or were the scientists digging blindly?

Or was it more along the lines of what your representations of science, in that the scientists were merely interpreting a fossil that someone else dug up?

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Mike_Gantt

Yes, I’m open to your telling me more about the italicized part.

We have been, but you are resistant:

@Mike_Gantt

I’m not hear to discuss or learn science.

I’m open to you retracting your claimed dichotomy, too.

[Casper_Hesp]

@Mike_Gantt

I must admit to having more of a problem with “myth” than its connotation, or than can be solved by using a less controversial term in its place.

Thanks for sharing your study on the use of the word myth in the Bible. No doubt the word myth has had an association with pagan mythology even since ancient times. So it must have had a negative connotation for the Jews too, which was also expressed in the biblical passages you quote. However, my intention was merely to highlight the etymological roots of “myth”, which are associated with the Greek verb “mytheomai”, which simply means “to speak” or “to tell”.

Now, since we know that all accounts from before Moses’ time were passed on through speech / narration, we can’t escape from that association (whether we like it or not). Fortunately, there’s a cop out! If we look at the “plain” meaning of speaking of or telling an account / story, there is nothing wrong with that per se. I hope we can agree on that. However, when the account or story being told is promoting falsehoods and/or false teachings, that becomes a problem. If I understand correctly, that is the root of your concern. Because under your current stance, the conclusions of mainstream science about history appear to be in contradiction with the historical claims of the Bible.

@Mike_Gantt

I am not inclined to argue against it - not because I don’t have arguments against it, but simply because I think we have covered this ground already…and I don’t think doing so has moved any of us from our respective positions.

I’m always open to more of your thoughts on that topic in case you will be inclined to share them later on!

@Mike_Gantt

Where do you find yourself coming down on biblical supernatural claims about which there is currently no scientifically-generated history (SGH) to dispute it: such as Balaam’s talking donkey, Gideon’s fleece, Elisha’s floating ax head, Daniel in the lion’s den, or Jonah’s sojourn in the fish? That is, do you tend to take such things as historical? And, if not, in what way do you take them?

I have no qualms at all with miracles in the Bible. One of the reasons these miracles were recorded in the first place was because they defied “common sense” in some way relevant to the story. So it would be fallacious to reject them because of that defiance, which made them noteworthy in the first place! I take all those accounts within the “historical comfort zone” (nice term!) as literal-historical (no matter how astonishing they are), unless the biblical texts themselves imply otherwise. For example, there are indications that the Book of Job was meant as an extended parable because he is called “a man among the people of the East” but in all other ways behaves completely as an exemplar of an observant Jew.

Casper

[Bill_II]

@Mike_Gantt

I can understand the difference between a scientist reporting what he has observed of an occurrence versus what he thinks would have been observed had anyone been alive at the time of the occurrence.

I have a little story that might explain what we have been trying to say.

It was a dark and stormy night. Sorry wrong story.

Say a home owner always parks his car on the north side of the street. One morning he goes out and finds the car facing the other direction on the south side of the street. A stranger comes up and says God must have supernaturally moved the car from one side of the street to the other. A neighbor who works in CSI comes by and notices that there are car tracks leading from the space the car was parked to the space where the car is currently parked. These tracks are quite clear and match the tread pattern of the car down to the tread defects that are as unique as finger prints. He concludes someone drove the car from one side of the street to the other. He is unable to say exactly who drove the car without further testing but it definitely wasn’t transported from one side directly to the other. The stranger replies that we shouldn’t believe what the car tracks say, we should believe what he says. Perhaps the tracks were left by a different car with exactly the same tread patterns. Perhaps the tracks were created on a different day even though it rained the day before. Perhaps God left the tracks as a test of our faith. The home owner believes the stranger, but how does he explain the car tracks? Yes I know this story breaks down when applied to creation because of the authority of the Bible. I was just trying to point out that the CSI can report what did happen in the past even if he wasn’t there if there is physical evidence for what happened.

I have no problem accepting that God could transport the car from one side of the street to the other if he so desired. The problem is why did He leave car tracks that tell us something different?

I know people tend to jump on you and your get quite busy in your replies, but I would like your comments on my post here

[Mike_Gantt]

@Bill_II

Yes I know this story breaks down when applied to creation because of the authority of the Bible.

The analogy breaks down for more reasons than this. It breaks down in the very beginning:

@Bill_II

Say a home owner always parks his car on the north side of the street. One morning he goes out and finds the car facing the other direction on the south side of the street.

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.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Mike_Gantt

A supernatural creation in six days presents a reality that never existed prior to that time,

Do you understand why this is a problem?

[Mike_Gantt]

@Bill_II

I would just say the first. Noah’s Flood is more of an interpretation problem, i.e. it was a regional not a global flood.

It seems clear to me that the text would not lead you to this conclusion. And I struggle to see how it would in the end even allow this conclusion.

@Bill_II

I did, but will put it in-line here to be absolutely clear.

What do I consider those (your list of miracles) to be? A historical record of a miraculous event for which we can trust the record.

I must have stated the question poorly because your answer gives me none of the information I was seeking.

@Bill_II

Exactly what would you expect to see after a six day creation? A miracle for which the physical evidence still exists.

After the wedding in Cana, any leftover miraculously-created wine would have been evidence that the miraculously-created existed but would it have contained evidence of having been miraculously created? That is, would it have looked any different to a chemist than the leftover non-miraculously created wine? I woud not be surprised if the miraculously-created wine carried no sign of having been miraculously created.

@Bill_II

Did you ever take a look at these?
Antoine’s Treatment of Original Sin
Antoine’s theory about the flood

I skimmed them. I’m not focused on the subject of original sin, and I found his explanation of Noah’s Flood unpersuasive and biblically tenuous. That said, I admire his desire to harmonize Scripture and science by giving substantial attention to both.

@Bill_II

Simple question, if God created in 6 days 6000 years ago how do you explain the size of the universe? Did he create it complete with a false history of it’s age?

You keep begging the question. That is, you keep asking a question with the answer already embedded in it. I don’t think you are doing this intentionally. Rather, I think you’re just blind to your own assumptions. You’re assuming, based on your knowledge of the natural and ordinary processes of light, that it’s communicating billions of years. But it’s only if those processes have been at work for billions of years that this could be the case. You don’t seem to have left open the possibility that just as miraculously-created wine might look to a chemist just like aged wine, a miraculously-created universe might look to an astronomer like an aged universe.

[T_aquaticus]

@Mike_Gantt

Neither would I. However, if there had only been one no-hitter ever thrown in the history of baseball, and it was preceded by God saying there would be this no-hitter thrown by this pitcher, and followed by God saying there would never again be a no-hitter thrown by any pitcher, and no one had ever seen or heard of a no-hitter by any pitcher in the thousands of years that followed, then I might think it was fair to call that no-hitter supernatural.

Would this no hitter produce evidence consistent with natural processes?[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:462, topic:36256”]
My understanding is that the YEC folks seek to integrate the supernatural (the Bible) and the natural (what science studies). Whether they would call their arguments for the flood “naturalistic,” you would have to take up with them.
[/quote]

Since you are saying that they incorporate the supernatural I would like to take it up with you. How do their explanations of the fossil record incorporate the supernatural?

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Mike_Gantt

It seems clear to me that the text would not lead you to this conclusion. And I struggle to see how it would in the end even allow this conclusion.

The problem is that when you read the text, you automatically read with an interpretation in mind. Some of the earliest Jewish expositors interpreted the flood as a local flood. This has nothing to do with science. It had to do with what the text actually says. 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

After the wedding in Cana, any leftover miraculously-created wine would have been evidence that the miraculously-created existed but would it have contained evidence of having been miraculously created? That is, would it have looked any different to a chemist than the leftover non-miraculously created wine? I woud not be surprised if the miraculously-created wine carried no sign of having been miraculously created.

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. This is why your repeated appeal to this instance is a false analogy. Do you think Eve was created with fake memories of a childhood she never had?

[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?