How Old Is The Earth?

[Cycel]

this is to funny knowing how old the earth is helping me win souls how or how does it help me live a better life for Jesus. Im enjoying this as much as any comedy.Too funny.

Well, I don't suppose knowing that the Earth orbits the Sun, that excessive UV exposure causes cancer, or that not washing your hands before eating can make you sick, helps win souls to Jesus either, but I think being well informed sets us above those who lived in the Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age, or Middle Ages. It certainly helps us live longer, and healthier lives. It hopefully also helps to lift us out of the mire that is superstition.

I take it you are a biblical literalist?

 

[jamie26301]

I don't think it happens over night. Loss of faith, when it occurs, is often drawn out over a number of years -- in my case six years.

May I inquire as to why you're on a Christian forum? Are you here to learn more about the different doctrines of the faith? It doesn't make much sense that you would be here, if not having faith doesn't bother you, unless you were here on the intent of learning more. If that's the case, kudos!

I've been reading apocryphal texts the past two days. I was reading a passage from Sirach to my husband, and he said "You know, just owning that book would discredit anything you say to 95% of the Christians around here." We live in the Bible Belt, you see. I don't know, I personally would like to read the texts for myself, rather than discredit them based on what the Reformers think constitutes inspired texts. (It's my understanding Sirach was part of the canon until the Reformation. But don't quote me on that.)

 

[jamie26301]

It hopefully also helps to lift us out of the mire that is superstition.

It's interesting how for most religious folks, superstition is what OTHER religious folks believe. I personally believe Jesus performed miracles, and had a bodily Resurrection - but am I going to get bent out of shape because somebody writes it off as superstition? Well no, because for me to expect everyone to accept these things as fact would be the equivalent of a Muslim expecting everyone to accept a flying horse as fact (to use the example you posted earlier). I feel Christianity is unique and superior than all other religions, in its message, way of redemption, and teachings - but being as it is a faith, in the world of academia it should be on equal footing with all other religions.

 

[Cycel]

All things are possible with God.

Well, maybe not all things.

The Bible speaks of great, dramatic changes that will happen quickly when the time arrives.

And the stars of heaven fell to the earth, as a fig tree drops its late figs when it is shaken by a mighty wind.

That's only possible in the minds of those who don't know what stars really are. Can you imagine how many stars in the sky the author of Revelation thought would fall to the Earth? He really believed that hundreds of stars would be shaken loose to fall on the ground. Perhaps he thought they would start innumerable fires? No, NL this is one of your best indicators that this is not prophecy at all, but an imaginative invention. Perhaps he dreamed this, and thought it prophetic, but I am sure that during his waking hours he would turn his eyes heavenward and imagine the astonishment on the faces of the enemy as the stars fell in their thousands from the sky.

You know this can't happen, so let me guess, you imagine he doesn't really mean the stars will fall from the sky. You think he must mean something entirely different.

Then the sky receded as a scroll when it is rolled up...

Can you provide a reasonable explanation of what this means?

I know that as per Genesis the Jews imagined that the vault of heaven held back the waters above the Earth, and to do that the sky must be solid. As the author of Job says, “Can you beat out the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal?” (Job 37:18) The author of Revelation most likely held the same view and imagined the vault of heaven being rolled up like a scroll.

You, however, know this isn’t possible. The sky is not hard and cannot be rolled up like a scroll, so you will imagine the author must mean something else.

So what say you?

 

[Pie]

The age of the earth is hotly debated among Christians today. Secular scientist insist the erath is millions or even billions of years old. Many Christians agree. How old do you believe the earth is and what do you base your belief on?

oooOooo. In church, I definitely avoid this question because of SOME of the attitudes displayed in this thread.

I tend to lean towards it being around 4.5 billion years old. What do I base it on? Um... science. I know that's a really vague answer. The evidence seems to lean that way. (I believe in Biblical inerrancy too. I think perceived problems lie in the interpretation.) Honestly, the argument I find most convincing is related to the distance of stars and the speed of light. However, I do think it's healthy to remain skeptical (there's unhealthy skepticism too) and hear out objections. After all, science is constantly discovering new things and changing old theories.

Now some of the responses to this post make me itch... According to some I've compromised God's Word and I'm going to hell. Oh and because atheists believe this, I'm believing in fallen man's word and people who hate God. This is an ad hominem. An argument's weight should be born of the argument's merit... not the person presenting it. However, it is true that some distort the evidence or come to unwarranted conclusions. So, obviously, if someone has extreme bias, we should be very skeptical of their findings and do our research to make sure the information is not being misconstrued. But we can't pose objections to their argument by saying.. "They're wrong because they're biased." That's just silly.

Like someone mentioned Bart Ehrman's works. He is definitely extremely biased and his works reflect that and should be handled delicately with a very healthy amount of skepticism. And if one chooses to read his books, they should further research his findings to make sure his facts are not being misconstrued. There's good, sound reasons why the vast majority of Bible scholars don't agree with him. That's all I'm going to say about that.

Now how can I think the earth is old and hold to Biblical inerrancy? Well, from my studies, it seems the Hebrew word "yom" translated to "day" in Genesis doesn't necessarily have to be translated to meaning a literal 24 hour period. It's used elsewhere in the Bible to describe an unspecified length of time. It's actually used many times to mean different amounts of time. So, I don't see a problem either way.

Why do I have to take it literally?
For example, Isaiah 55:12
"You will go out in joyand be led forth in peace;
the mountains and hills
will burst into song before you,
and all the trees of the field
will clap their hands."

No one screams heresy at me for not taking that at face value/literally or says I'm claiming the Bible is lying.


And who knows... maybe I'm wrong.. -shrugs- Maybe someday science will reveal that the earth is only 6,000 years old. However, that seems doubtful to me...but science has much left to discover.

And now I better run away while I still can....

 

[Bowman]

The heavens and the earth that Almighty God created can change in a day. All things are possible with God.

The Bible speaks of great, dramatic changes that will happen quickly when the time arrives.

And the stars of heaven fell to the earth, as a fig tree drops its late figs when it is shaken by a mighty wind. ‎Then the sky receded as a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island was moved out of its place... the great day of His wrath has come, and who is able to stand?” (Revelation 6:13-14,17)

End times do not preclude that it took billions of years to reach that point.

 

[nl]

End times do not preclude that it took billions of years to reach that point.

Almighty God is omni-potent, all-powerful and nothing is too difficult for Him. I think that God is not constrained by time like we are. It is likely that God created time along with height, width, length, intelligence, will and emotion.

In Revelation 10:6, the last phrase there appears to have a double-meaning and it has been translated more than one way. But, one understanding is this:

Time (a finite terminable period, as opposed to eternity) shall no longer exist but eternity shall be entered upon.

 

[Bowman]

Almighty God is omni-potent, all-powerful and nothing is too difficult for Him. I think that God is not constrained by time like we are. It is likely that God created time along with height, width, length, intelligence, will and emotion.

In Revelation 10:6, the last phrase there appears to have a double-meaning and it has been translated more than one way. But, one understanding is this:

Time (a finite terminable period, as opposed to eternity) shall no longer exist but eternity shall be entered upon.

It stands to reason that if time was created, then it will eventually end...

 

[Tintin]

this is to funny knowing how old the earth is helping me win souls how or how does it help me live a better life for Jesus. Im enjoying this as much as any comedy.Too funny.

You'd be surprised how evolutionary teachings have proved to be a stumbling block for many Christians. They then try to reconcile evolution or some variant of the billions or years 'creation' (day-age theories etc.) with their Christian faith, but to do so compromises the foundations of their faith and their witness.

 

[Pie]

You'd be surprised how evolutionary teachings have proved to be a stumbling block for many Christians. They then try to reconcile evolution or some variant of the billions or years 'creation' (day-age theories etc.) with their Christian faith, but to do so compromises the foundations of their faith and their witness.

I agree with your first point. It has been a stumbling block for many christians. Some jump from evolution to the conclusion God does not exist. I respectfully disagree with your second. These day-age theories/reinterpreting Genesis isn’t a modern idea. The interpretation of Genesis is an oooooold debate. Augustine of Hippo wrestled with the interpretation of Genesis nearly 1,500 years before Darwin's Origin of the Species. He wasn't trying to fit the Bible in with the theory of evolution. (There were others, he’s just the most famous one). The idea that this is a new debate in order to compromise the Bible to fit with evolution has been recently purported by those who disagree with the old Earth view.


How does it compromise the foundation of our faith and our witness? I saw your signature and thought you might be interested to know C.S. Lewis thoughts on Genesis… though I don't completely agree with him. I hold Lewis in high regard.And I don't see how his views compromised his faith or witness. But maybe you do?


"The earliest stratum of the Old Testament contains many truths in a form which I take to be legendary, or even mythical—hanging in the clouds, but gradually the truth condenses, becomes more and more historical. From things like Noah’s Ark or the sun standing still upon Ajalon, you come down to the court memoirs of King David. Finally you reach the New Testament and history reigns supreme, and the Truth is incarnate. And “incarnate” here is more than a metaphor. It is not an accidental resemblance that what, from the point of view of being, is stated in the form 'God became Man,' should involve, from the point of view of human knowledge, the statement 'Myth became Fact.'"(C.S.Lewis- Is Theology Poetry?).
You can read this essay in its entirety here http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/arts/lit/Theology=Poetry_CSL.pdf. The quote I have shown can be found on page 9.

Not surprisingly, due to this and some of his views concerning evolution, some have labeled him a heretic. But if leaning towards a different interpretation of Genesis throws me in this category with Lewis and Augustine, then it seems I’m in good company.

 

[jamie26301]

Now some of the responses to this post make me itch... According to some I've compromised God's Word and I'm going to hell. Oh and because atheists believe this, I'm believing in fallen man's word and people who hate God. This is an ad hominem. An argument's weight should be born of the argument's merit... not the person presenting it. However, it is true that some distort the evidence or come to unwarranted conclusions. So, obviously, if someone has extreme bias, we should be very skeptical of their findings and do our research to make sure the information is not being misconstrued. But we can't pose objections to their argument by saying.. "They're wrong because they're biased." That's just silly.

Thank you!

Like someone mentioned Bart Ehrman's works. He is definitely extremely biased and his works reflect that and should be handled delicately with a very healthy amount of skepticism. And if one chooses to read his books, they should further research his findings to make sure his facts are not being misconstrued. There's good, sound reasons why the vast majority of Bible scholars don't agree with him. That's all I'm going to say about that.

Yes, of course (the bold). I was not implying looking into these resources SOLELY for information about unorthodox texts. Indeed, Lost Scriptures doesn't include a number of those texts that have been found. However, it is an anthology, and the only thing that would be questioned is the introductions - and the translation, which that is a given. Being how most Christians would NEVER pick up the book to begin with (because it might "confuse" or "corrupt" them - especially the weak in faith, aka questioning/thinking Christians), I think this further research you speak of would be a moot point, unfortunately.

And now I better run away while I still can....

I really should myself. I'm going to post a few more thoughts and I'll be right behind you.

 

[jamie26301]

I agree with your first point. It has been a stumbling block for many christians. Some jump from evolution to the conclusion God does not exist.

You know why, right? They were taught that the Bible isn't true unless taken at face value. I remember a Baptist preacher talking about "Do demons exist? They are in the Bible. Right there in black and white." I agree with him, HOWEVER, I can appreciate the interpretation that the "demon-possessed" was in reality mentally ill.

I respectfully disagree with your second. These day-age theories/reinterpreting Genesis isn’t a modern idea. The interpretation of Genesis is an oooooold debate. Augustine of Hippo wrestled with the interpretation of Genesis nearly 1,500 years before Darwin's Origin of the Species. He wasn't trying to fit the Bible in with the theory of evolution. (There were others, he’s just the most famous one). The idea that this is a new debate in order to compromise the Bible to fit with evolution has been recently purported by those who disagree with the old Earth view.

So refreshing to see someone put the whole argument in perspective of the church's past. It was also something argued, maybe in a minor way, at the Reformation. I too have heard the sentiment that this is a "new" controversy in the church.

 

[nl]

The heavens and the earth that Almighty God created can change in a day. All things are possible with God.

The Bible speaks of great, dramatic changes that will happen quickly when the time arrives.

And the stars of heaven fell to the earth, as a fig tree drops its late figs when it is shaken by a mighty wind. ‎Then the sky receded as a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island was moved out of its place... the great day of His wrath has come, and who is able to stand?” (Revelation 6:13-14,17)

...Can you provide a reasonable explanation of what this means?

I know that as per Genesis the Jews imagined that the vault of heaven held back the waters above the Earth, and to do that the sky must be solid. As the author of Job says, “Can you beat out the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal?” (Job 37:18) The author of Revelation most likely held the same view and imagined the vault of heaven being rolled up like a scroll.

You, however, know this isn’t possible. The sky is not hard and cannot be rolled up like a scroll, so you will imagine the author must mean something else.

So what say you?

"And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament." (Genesis 1:6)


"But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." (Genesis 2:6)


I would say that the hydrology of the earth was once very different in the time before Noah and the first rainfall. The earth was watered by mist from the earth (Genesis 2:6) and this was the time that generated the great volume of fossil fuels (petroleum, coal and natural gas) that continue to be extracted from the earth in great volumes today.


The depiction of the heavens disintegrating in Revelation 6:13-14 was first communicated approximately 8-9 centuries earlier by Isaiah:


And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree. (Isaiah 34:4)


The language of Isaiah 34:4 is clearly not literal but comparative. The language is figurative and representative of a reality that might otherwise be difficult to describe.


As for Job 37:18, it has been a favorite of skeptics and I think that the answer is to viewing it correctly is an issue of semantics, translation and intentional use of figurative language. The Bible clearly makes use of metaphor and does it often. For example, the redemption at the time of the first Passover under Moses was a metaphor for the redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ at the time of a later Passover observance. I do notice the root "firm" in the English word "firmament" but I don't think that we should conclude that the Bible teaches that the sky was a hard surface or a literal curtain.


Covering Yourself with light as with a cloak, Stretching out heaven like a tent curtain. (Psalm 104:2 NASB)


The presumption of uniformitarianism as articulated by Charles Lyell (1797-1875) and others can be summarized by the phrase: 'the present is the key to the past.' Moving beyond such presumption, it is quite possible that the past was very different than the present and the future will also be quite different.


The Bible speaks of past traumatic changes such as the Great Deluge at the time of Noah and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. In our own lifetimes, sudden, traumatic, regional changes have taken place in the form of earthquakes, tsunamis and hurricanes. Some see asteroids as a potential threat.


WHAT the future holds is likely to be traumatic change at some point. We don't really need to know HOW it will happen. The answer to WHO is: God.


For clues on WHEN, the closing words of the Bible include these words of Jesus:


And, behold, I come QUICKLY; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. (Revelation 22:12)

 

[Cycel]

May I inquire as to why you're on a Christian forum?

I suppose it is mostly for the buzz that debating gives me.

Are you here to learn more about the different doctrines of the faith?

Sometimes I make such inquiries. I'm interested, for instance, in what people believe about demons. On my last forum someone asked, and I paraphrase, "I suppose you've heard that certain demons are in control of certain US cities?" In fact I had not heard this. Have you? When I inquired further no one responded. So I still don't have an answer.

It doesn't make much sense that you would be here, if not having faith doesn't bother you, unless you were here on the intent of learning more. If that's the case, kudos!

I have no interest in reviving my faith, however, I am interested in why others believe what they do. I love to hear from former atheists to learn what brought them back to belief in God. I'm always interested in broadening my understanding.

I've been reading apocryphal texts the past two days. I was reading a passage from Sirach to my husband, and he said "You know, just owning that book would discredit anything you say to 95% of the Christians around here." We live in the Bible Belt, you see. (It's my understanding Sirach was part of the canon until the Reformation. But don't quote me on that.)

It's in our Jerusalem Bible under the heading Ecclestiasticus. It is apparently also to be found in the Anglican Bible.

I personally would like to read the texts for myself, rather than discredit them based on what the Reformers think constitutes inspired texts.

This is a valid point. A number of early Christian writings are only known from those who condemned them.

 

[jamie26301]

I suppose it is mostly for the buzz that debating gives me.

I get that same buzz. I'm not trying to change any minds, I just wish the opposition would meet me half-way. There's been a number of posts, or points and supporting details in those posts that I have contributed in this thread that has gone ignored. Such as posts #1006, 1046, 1047, 1053, 1056, 1161, 1164, 1196, 1200, and 1203. It's really tragic how if you disagree with someone, instead of addressing your arguments, they resort to ad hominen attacks like you're uneducated (i.g. "you don't understand anything about the Bible") or assertions that you are deliberately and stubbornly ignoring the "obvious."

Certain points you made were also ignored.

Sometimes I make such inquiries. I'm interested, for instance, in what people believe about demons. On my last forum someone asked, and I paraphrase, "I suppose you've heard that certain demons are in control of certain US cities?" In fact I had not heard this. Have you? When I inquired further no one responded. So I still don't have an answer.

Yes, how I started my trek towards Liberal Christianity was by investigating what other Christians believe. First it started off as being a formerly devout (hyper-conservative) Lutheran and looking into the Catholic faith. Soon, I was learning all kinds of doctrines and visiting all manner of modern churches. Sorry but studying doctrine doesn't teach you about a church quite like actually going. How I got acquainted with unorthodox texts was that my priest at the Episcopal church lead a bible study on them (not in effort to debunk, but rather, to educate). The broader your scope of Christian history, the harder it is to keep a narrow, Sola Scriptura understanding of the Protestant Bible, or of the Catholic bible (they include Tradition as having equal authority, though.)

There will always be those who hear opposite points of view with deaf ears - I have to be careful not to do that myself. It's hard to do, sometimes. That's one of the reasons I respect atheists (not the militant ones though) - because they don't have a presupposition towards one god or the other, but have a blank slate for a mind and perspective, they can see things that spiritually minded folks can't, or would find VERY hard to. Atheists certainly have a valuable place in the marketplace of ideas. You know, I met my husband on Facebook through a mutual friend - who was an atheist. If I were one of those Christians who would unfriend someone because they post anti-Christian memes and ideas, I would've never met my husband. You never know what doors you close, when you live and act in a narrow-minded fashion.

No, I don't believe I've heard of that. Maybe demons was a hyperbole for politicians? Like you may call a really mean woman a witch, for example.

I have no interest in reviving my faith, however, I am interested in why others believe what they do. I love to hear from former atheists to learn what brought them back to belief in God. I'm always interested in broadening my understanding.

The way you talk, it sounds like philosophy would be an engaging topic for you. You certainly have a true, historian mind - wanting to understand why people do what they do. Knowing why people do what they do is the first step towards making good and productive change. I lean more towards psychology, in terms of trying to figure out people.

It's in our Jerusalem Bible under the heading Ecclestiasticus. It is apparently also to be found in the Anglican Bible.

Ah, I see. I thought so.

This is a valid point. A number of early Christian writings are only known from those who condemned them.

Yes, and I don't trust them to portray those writings in an honest and unbiased manner anymore than I trust a typical Protestant preacher to give an honest portrait of Catholicism to his congregation. Because report both the bad AND good of a position, you just may find your collection plate shrinking. The message of Christianity is not about material gain and power, rather, it is of bearing your cross whilst finding your future hope in Christ through His life, death, and Resurrection. But once Rome got a hold of the church, that became a driving force behind the things she did. The church went from being a marketplace of ideas about Jesus to having one, rigid way of looking at things. One of the reasons that (some) hyper-conservative Christians get so bent out of shape of opposing ideas being presented (I was branded as corrupting the youth, a few weeks ago) is because bad habits die hard, and she doesn't want to lose the political influence she has in the world. The Reformation brought great change, but somewhere along the way, (some) Protestants adopted the very attitudes that they supposedly stood against 500 years ago. But I digress.

 

[nl]

I get that same buzz. I'm not trying to change any minds, I just wish the opposition would meet me half-way. There's been a number of posts, or points and supporting details in those posts that I have contributed in this thread that has gone ignored. Such as posts #1006, 1046, 1047, 1053, 1056, 1161, 1164, 1196, 1200, and 1203.

Strawmen are convenient. You can treat them like bowling pins that you set up so that you can knock them down. You can imagine strawmen, set them up, mold them, shape them and control them. You can generalize against them and cubbyhole people into presumed profiles. You can pretend that real people are the strawmen. Then, you can insinuate and accuse and attack the real people.

I think that you can do better. I hope that you will do better.

 

[Tintin]

You know why, right? They were taught that the Bible isn't true unless taken at face value. I remember a Baptist preacher talking about "Do demons exist? They are in the Bible. Right there in black and white." I agree with him, HOWEVER, I can appreciate the interpretation that the "demon-possessed" was in reality mentally ill.



So refreshing to see someone put the whole argument in perspective of the church's past. It was also something argued, maybe in a minor way, at the Reformation. I too have heard the sentiment that this is a "new" controversy in the church.

There are no shortage of theistic evolutionists or day-agers. There are far fewer biblical creationists. I find your attitude that compromising isn't compromising, to be rather disturbing. Finally, for much of church history, Genesis was recognised as literal history and the world was seen as very young. Some though over allegorised Genesis or fell to the Greek philosophy teachings of billions of years. Yet. they were few and far between and the teachings weren't accepted by Christians. I'm very aware that to a degree, evolutionary theory isn't anything new (only now it's pretty much accepted as truth by everyone) but God's Word also warns us to keep worldly beliefs and teachings outside of the Church.

 

[Kerry]

In reality mentally ill is demon possessed. I meant only Satan and his cohorts would shoot up an elementary school.

 

[nl]

Ok, I have a very high opinion of the Bible. I was just reading (and marking in it, and journaling about it) it yesterday. I do not have to have an hyper-conservative mindset to gain value and revelation from the Bible. If I had a low opinion of the Bible (and yes, even its authority) I wouldn't be a Christian.

Please consider re-reading your own earlier posts where you question the authority of Scripture as you continue to do in this post.

...there are so many accounts and beliefs about Jesus' life. Saying that a select group of people voted on it, doesn't convince me. The four Gospels were chosen because of Irenaeus' document in which he (alone) went through all the available Gospels and choose those four particular ones - he thought four would be the best number because it would represent the four winds, or corners of the earth. Part of the reason they were chosen was because they were narrative and simple in form, while other Gospels are more complex and harder to understand and he wanted to choose Gospels that would be easily understood and accepted - not the same as a picking them because they are the absolute truth above all the "Gnostic rubbish." I don't know if other Gospels were even considered at that Council. But that particular work by him had a great influence on the decisions that day.

It looks like you are questioning the authority of the Biblical canon because you are. You are also claiming full factual knowledge of how the four gospels were placed in the New Testament canon and knowledge of the thoughts and motives of Irenaeus. The Word of God is a reliable discerner of the thoughts and intents (motives) of others (Hebrews 4:12). Are you claiming the same ability?

...I believe that the ancients wrote God's revelation in such a way to reflect what they personally believed and how they perceived the world...

It looks like you think that this is a bad thing and that personal beliefs were an over-ride to anything being inspired by God's Holy Spirit. Again, it looks like you are making a generalized insinuation or aspersion against every ancient writer and again questioning the authority of the Bible.

...while all other nations were still stuck in stupid.

Do you want to add more to your generalization about all other nations?

slaves

There are different types of slavery. Slavery can be initiated by events that include kidnapping and unpaid debt. There are voluntary forms of being a bond-servant. The Apostle Paul described himself as a bond-servant of Jesus Christ (Romans 1:1). What's your specific point and position?

Jamie26301, thank you for your participation. I hope to see good things in the future.

 

[Cycel]

I tend to lean towards it being around 4.5 billion years old. What do I base it on? Um... science. I know that's a really vague answer. The evidence seems to lean that way.

We all rely upon the expertise of others, I know I do, and in the matter of scientific knowledge this is very much a necessity. So when the geologists and the astronomers independently arrive at the same figure we should take notice. In the scientific endeavour one group of experts often independently corroborates the findings of another thus lending great weight to the conclusions of both.

(I believe in Biblical inerrancy too....)

Now this assumption results in an overwhelming bias against other possible interpretations.

After all, science is constantly discovering new things and changing old theories.

Theories infrequently change. Hypotheses, on the other hand, are often dropped in favour of those that better match a growing body of observations. Don't confuse theories and hypotheses. The theory of evolution, for example, has stood for 155 years, unchanged, but within it old hypotheses fall away as the body of evidence grows and is replaced with either new hypotheses or modified versions of earlier ones; and just so we are clear the theory states that all extant life forms on Earth evolved from earlier forms.

Now some of the responses to this post make me itch... According to some I've compromised God's Word and I'm going to hell. Oh and because atheists believe this, I'm believing in fallen man's word and people who hate God.

I not infrequently must explain to believers that I, an atheist, do not hate God, anymore than I can be said to hate Zeus. So often conservative Christians equate disbelief with hated, when they are not the same thing at all.

... obviously, if someone has extreme bias, we should be very skeptical of their findings and do our research to make sure the information is not being misconstrued. But we can't pose objections to their argument by saying.. "They're wrong because they're biased." That's just silly.

Agreed.

... someone mentioned Bart Ehrman's works. He is definitely extremely biased and his works reflect that and should be handled delicately with a very healthy amount of skepticism.

This view that Ehrman is extremely biassed is necessitated because of your assumption that the Bible is inerrant. Ehrman has shown the Bible is not inerrant, a very reasonable stance on any human work. Any literary work will contain human errors and biases and this is especially true if it is comprised of the writings of numerous authors, reflecting diverse backgrounds, and composed over many centuries.

There's good, sound reasons why the vast majority of Bible scholars don't agree with him. That's all I'm going to say about that.

My understanding is that Ehrman is middle of the road in his views. What’t he said that the majority disagree with?

Now how can I think the earth is old and hold to Biblical inerrancy? Well, from my studies, it seems the Hebrew word "yom" translated to "day" in Genesis doesn't necessarily have to be translated to meaning a literal 24 hour period. It's used elsewhere in the Bible to describe an unspecified length of time. It's actually used many times to mean different amounts of time. So, I don't see a problem either way.

Why do I have to take it literally?
For example, Isaiah 55:12
"You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace;
the mountains and hills
will burst into song before you,
and all the trees of the field
will clap their hands."

No one screams heresy at me for not taking that at face value/literally or says I'm claiming the Bible is lying.

People understand the poetic literary device of personification: the giving of human characteristics to animals or inanimate objects; but, “So evening came, and morning came, the first day” is not personification. If you are going to claim something is only a literary device you better have a good reason. Here the author is very specific, the first day, the second day, the third day, and so on. He clearly means 24 hour periods. You’ve only gotten into this difficulty because you want to insist on inerrancy. Now, once again, you have to explain away something that doesn’t make sense. The Genesis creation account is a Bronze Age cosmology. Once understood in that light all the difficulties that arise from the imposition of a literal interpretation disappear in the blink of an eye.