How Old Is The Earth?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
T

Tintin

Guest
Well, what would you consider "side issues?" Some Christians would argue that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is NOT a side issue, because it is the Body and Blood of the Lord; some would say it is. I've seen in another thread that you are Lutheran. I was a devout Lutheran myself at one point. The doctrines still have a place in my heart, even though I don't hold them as certain anymore. The Real Presence was something I used to get really worked up over. I mean, how is the word "IS" symbolic? :) I'm sure you can relate.

Well, what if Moses, when relating the story of the flood, was exaggerating because that was his perception? Noah, who didn't know that the world is round and much more massive than it looks, would be inclined to record that the whole world was flooded, because that was all he knew at the time.

Columbus thought that he would land in India when he set sail. This whole continent didn't even know the Americas were an ocean away. And these were people WITH the Scriptures.

In order to get around this, and say the whole earth was flooded, you would have to say that Noah's limited perception just happened to be correct, or that his perception was inspired.
Yes, but God's Word is inspired by the Holy Spirit, all of it. Therefore, God directed His people what to write. Genesis is written as historical accounts. Therefore, the account of Noah is history and God reported to Moses to write that the Flood really did cover the whole world. If the Flood was only local, God would be a liar. But He's not, He's Truth. It's only since the so-called "Enlightenment Period" that people have questioned the reality of the Flood.
 

jamie26301

Senior Member
May 14, 2011
1,154
10
38
39
Theres a difference in studying on your own and taking someone elses word for it. Just because someone wrote a book about it doesnt make it factual.
If you have faith that God can reveal truth to you through the Bible solely, then I can respect that. If you go to it searching for God, I'm sure that He will reveal to you what you need to achieve salvation and peace. Because your intent is to know God; and anyone who's intent is to know God, God will certainly reveal Himself too. God is not hindered in what direction we take if we really want Him. I firmly believe that not everyone comes to the same understanding, and that that is ok. Everyone must believe for themselves.

I personally take a historical approach to the Bible, because I personally feel that the Bible is a complex book, and therefore must be studied in a complex way. But that's me. Everyone's different.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
Well, I think the thing to understand is that in order to understand any of the Bible's messages, you have to understand the people who wrote it... and the only way to do that is to read other books that have researched that topic. We are a different culture, with a different language - what we read in the ancient text today, with the English nuances, is not going to be the same message the Hebrews meant to convey. So, in effort to understand what the Hebrews meant, we need to investigate the text in it's original language and any archeological revelations we find of the Hebrew culture.

By the way, even in looking at these things, scholars are still going to disagree. Proving the Bible says one thing or another really isn't as simple as "Flip to Genesis 6-9. That's all you need."
Heh I would disagree on this point here. It seems to me that the people who write books about the Bible often are the ones that pollute its meanings. Perhaps this is why we were forewarned not to trust those scribes over the accoutns in the Bible. Honestly, from before I read the Bible I had seen many arguments that sounded logical against just about everything in the Bible. Only problem is that in order to make any single one of those arguments work one must twist their actual scripture (and often common sense) out of context.

When I actually read the Bible it seemed very easy for me to understand most of it, at least when it related to the historical happenings (I admit some of those prophecies are tricky to decipher indeed!) Really it seems pretty clear cut to me and the writers of the Bible were extremely intelligent indeed. To use an example; I would trust what Moses said about himself before I would trust what a scribe in today's time has to say about Moses.

As for understanding the original Hebrew, this in fact is one you do not have to do. Having once been a huge enemy of the Bible I all ready tried to find where the translations would differ thus proving the Bible is a forgery. Lol what I found is that beyond all other ancient and modern texts, the Bible is actually the most scrutinized and translated collection of books of literally all known time and as thus is the most confirmable at least in terms of textual integrity. So you can save yourself some time and just read The Bible in English (I personally prefer KJV cause I like ye olde style english better) because for the fact it is most translated and scrutinized book of all time if any version misprints or errs in their translation it is always swiftly caught since there is more documentary cross-reference material for the Bible than any other collection of books.

As for our current culture, honestly it's not so different. One of the things that I really enjoyed about reading the entire Bible was just how humanistic and relevant to today's time it is above all other religions and philosophies. While indeed not everything is the same as when the fathers fell asleep, so too all the toils and terrible troubles of humanity and the redemption from God spoken of in the Bible are still on-going today proving that trully nothing is new under the sun.
 

Elizabeth619

Senior Member
Jul 19, 2011
6,397
109
48
Why is it a bad thing that I don't want to read a book someone recommended? Why is this an issue?
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
Yes, fossils are found at the highest elevations, but this is because of age old upheavals in the earth's crust. Mountain ranges were formed this way. The fossils, in other words, are on a mountain because the mountain was once at and/or below sea level. There are even mountain ranges below sea level (deep in the sea).
Lol or a bunch of water rose up real high all over the face of the planet and deposited them there. in a short space of time.

If the Earth is extremely old, just how long do you think it would have taken Everest to go from being below the sea to being the tallest peak in the world? Lol seems to me just this little quandry would force the OEC and atheists to have to revise the age of the earth upwards, yet again.
 

jamie26301

Senior Member
May 14, 2011
1,154
10
38
39
Yes, but God's Word is inspired by the Holy Spirit, all of it. Therefore, God directed His people what to write. Genesis is written as historical accounts. Therefore, the account of Noah is history and God reported to Moses to write that the Flood really did cover the whole world. If the Flood was only local, God would be a liar. But He's not, He's Truth.
Ok, that's a good argument. I can understand why you believe that. Part of that comes from one of Paul's letters to Timothy that the Scriptures (and Paul would've been referring to Genesis) are God-breathed.

It's only since the so-called "Enlightenment Period" that people have questioned the reality of the Flood.
The Enlightenment may have yielded some bad grapes, but there were good things too. The Protestant Reformation is part of the Enlightenment. Mary Wollstonecraft got the ball rolling on women's rights. Rousseau inspired Direct Democracy, where everyone's vote mattered. The Declaration of Independence is part of it. Capernicus, Newton, and Galileo formed their ideas in this period, that no Creationist would deny.

And these things would not have been possible without the general attitude of the Enlightenment, which is "think for yourself."
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
Lol or a bunch of water rose up real high all over the face of the planet and deposited them there. in a short space of time.

If the Earth is extremely old, just how long do you think it would have taken Everest to go from being below the sea to being the tallest peak in the world? Lol seems to me just this little quandry would force the OEC and atheists to have to revise the age of the earth upwards, yet again.
Also just wanted to add (but pesky EDIT time denied me):

Also if you believe the Himalayas were underwater at one point and rose over billions of years and seeing as they take up a good bit of central asia, you must now throw away all those theories about the OEC model of ancient Earth Eras since it would be impossible for several of the periods it describes to have occured if most of Asia was underwater for billions or even just multi-millions of years lol.
 

jamie26301

Senior Member
May 14, 2011
1,154
10
38
39
As for our current culture, honestly it's not so different. One of the things that I really enjoyed about reading the entire Bible was just how humanistic and relevant to today's time it is above all other religions and philosophies. While indeed not everything is the same as when the fathers fell asleep, so too all the toils and terrible troubles of humanity and the redemption from God spoken of in the Bible are still on-going today proving that trully nothing is new under the sun.
I commend you that even though you were an unbeliever, you have at least studied the arguments on both sides. (Please note that I AM a believer.)

Well, I would disagree that the cultures are the same. Just compare any two cultures today on the East and the West. Completely different ways of looking at things. Ancient cultures would therefore be different too, I imagine.

I agree that the Bible has timeless lessons, and that some human emotions are very similar, but it's not the same. If I went to a bank to sign up for a loan, and I put my hand on the banker's thigh instead of writing my signature... yeah, I would probably get kicked out at best, committed at worst. The cultures are not the same, and we have to know cultural customs to discern some of the meanings behind the texts.

Well, we don't HAVE too. The message of salvation is there without going into other sources.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
Ok, that's a good argument. I can understand why you believe that. Part of that comes from one of Paul's letters to Timothy that the Scriptures (and Paul would've been referring to Genesis) are God-breathed.



The Enlightenment may have yielded some bad grapes, but there were good things too. The Protestant Reformation is part of the Enlightenment. Mary Wollstonecraft got the ball rolling on women's rights. Rousseau inspired Direct Democracy, where everyone's vote mattered. The Declaration of Independence is part of it. Capernicus, Newton, and Galileo formed their ideas in this period, that no Creationist would deny.

And these things would not have been possible without the general attitude of the Enlightenment, which is "think for yourself."
True, true. I'm not saying there wasn't good fruit but the focus from divine revelation and working from there to make sense of the self and world etc. to human reason and working from there to understand the self and world etc. This shifted the focus from God at the centre of everything to man at the centre of everything. And we see the fruit of that choice to this very day.

Another problem is that there are many theologians who are interested in the Bible and dedicate their lives to it, but don't believe a word of it is God-breathed or even true. Then these theologians are given credence by Christian theologians, scholars etc and the Christians start to take more of their truth about the Bible from these learned professionals than from God's Word itself. God's Word is simple, His Gospel message is simple. The particulars about human history and walking in faith aren't quite so simple. The Bible is both complex and simple. There is much of the Bible that can be mined for a better understanding - these include: historical, cultural, theological, linguistical. But we must adhere to the Bible genres and recognise them for what they are. And Genesis is history.

Capernicus, Newton and Galileo were all Christians. Why would creationists deny them?
 

jamie26301

Senior Member
May 14, 2011
1,154
10
38
39
Capernicus, Newton and Galileo were all Christians. Why would creationists deny them?
Well, that's a good point. The reason Creationists don't deny them is that they don't feel these scientists' theories contradict Scripture. But there are plenty of scientists today that are Christians that is said they don't hold God's word as the ultimate authority.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
I commend you that even though you were an unbeliever, you have at least studied the arguments on both sides. (Please note that I AM a believer.)

Well, I would disagree that the cultures are the same. Just compare any two cultures today on the East and the West. Completely different ways of looking at things. Ancient cultures would therefore be different too, I imagine.

I agree that the Bible has timeless lessons, and that some human emotions are very similar, but it's not the same. If I went to a bank to sign up for a loan, and I put my hand on the banker's thigh instead of writing my signature... yeah, I would probably get kicked out at best, committed at worst. The cultures are not the same, and we have to know cultural customs to discern some of the meanings behind the texts.

Well, we don't HAVE too. The message of salvation is there without going into other sources.
Heh, thank you for the compliment. The one talent/blessing I think I can say with confidence that I do have is I always do love to analyze everything from as many angles as is possible.

Lol I get your point on the bankers stuff and modern culture, however I would argue that in fact systems like banking are even mentioned in the Bible. Now on the face of things yes it seems that culture even today in the West and East is very different. However the past two years I been real big on studying Far East Asia culture and to be honest, its actually quite shocking how similar to Western culture it is. I would go so far as to even argue that the country that is most similar to America in culture is in fact China.

I think some things look like they're different than the cultures the Bible describes on the face of it (usually if you are more affluent there is a major disconnect between your world and the Bible's world.) Yet if you look a little deeper you will actually see very stark similarities. A great bit where I see similarity is with Empires, Governance, and Warfare. Though we might have a bit of new spiffy technology, warfare and politics has the same problems today as it did yesterday. Both for the good and the bad.

Really though its when I look at just common man society though is where I see the greatest amount of similarity to the Bible Era and our current era. I see heroes and villains, witches and holy men, the plight of the poor and the emptyness of the wealthy, true believers of God and foul pagans, people like Moses and people like Jezebel, etc.
 

jamie26301

Senior Member
May 14, 2011
1,154
10
38
39
Really though its when I look at just common man society though is where I see the greatest amount of similarity to the Bible Era and our current era. I see heroes and villains, witches and holy men, the plight of the poor and the emptyness of the wealthy, true believers of God and foul pagans, people like Moses and people like Jezebel, etc.
"There's nothing new under the sun." :)

Thank you for your thoughts. They are clearly well thought out and researched.

I would be intereted to hear you expand on the similarties in Empires, Governance, and Warfare, between the ancient world and American culture. I'm quite ignorant on the matter.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
"There's nothing new under the sun." :)

Thank you for your thoughts. They are clearly well thought out and researched.

I would be intereted to hear you expand on the similarties in Empires, Governance, and Warfare, between the ancient world and American culture. I'm quite ignorant on the matter.
Lol well really you just have to breakdown each one into smaller subgroups because those three topics we could have an entire topic on. For better or worse, humanity has a lot of eery parallels throughout time echoed in the Bible and even history outside the Bible. Heh a good example be look at the Olympics which have just recently passed and how prominent that was in Hellenism and ancient Greece and Rome. Ay, look at the American Sports Athletic Culture, even the stadiums are similar in architecture to the Romans. American pop culture and TV "teen" dramas are highly sexual and modelled after many Hellenistic, Roman, and ye olde Englishe notions of romance (ever wonder why Hollywood movies suck so much? It's because you can only rehash and mutilate the old mythologies so much til it gets stale lol.) Much of the Mainstream Corporate American ideas and images of fleshly beauty are actually quite ancient from areas like Ptolmey era Egypt and the pre-islamic pagan Middle East. Though I suppose this changes frequently too though and you get fun synergies of style. Like the Mohawk hairstyle of course traditional native american hairstyle, hgihly counter culture hairstyle of 1980-207until it reached brief cultural acceptance and popularity in 2007-2008 though has kinda faded since (even had a few friends suspended in high school for this then two years later it was acceptable lol.) Even a lot of the 1960s-1970s fashion, music, themes in media are rehashes and mixtures of a lot of far east/india meets native american and british styles lol.

In terms of politics, nothing is new under the sun. Lol, like most American politics and theory our very concept of Citizenship and Rights are mostly a synergy of English Common Law and ideals of the Roman Republic (which explains why in our culture these two cultures are the most frequently glorified and represented.) Then we get into good old fashioned Machiavelli politics, which really even goes back before Machiavelli, and all the other ill parts of politics are nothing new and hearken back far far into history of scandals, affairs, subordinates falling on their swords literally or metaphorically, The Political Elite vs the Merchant Class, protests, riots, and crackdowns, and the clash of World Leaders. American Politics is great just by how many different factions and intrigues and very public knowledge there is of it because of this lol. Ancient Politics, again mostly Roman Republic/British hybrid, has had deep influence on our society and fact we do not have a king. George Washington only served two terms and our public schools say he set "precedent" when he only served two terms. However, Washington was not setting a precedent, he was living out a precedent set for him because Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus set the precedent of a roman dictator surrendering absolute dictatorship thousands of years beforehand and Washington was a member of the Society of the Cincinnati which at that time basically espoused political philosophical views reflecting on Cincinnatus life. (also whom the city in Ohio is named after and has a statue of in fact.)

Then we have Empire, for this maybe I should call it Geo-Politic. Look at the Russians taking over Crimea. This surprised many people, didn't surprise me so much that they choose to take Crimea, I was just surprised they took it so quickly with no resistance when historically they've had to shed major blood to gain Crimea. If one even looks at economic systems, modern capitalism theory comes from Adam Smith of Britain, however, capitalism and trade has always been around beforehand. Even much of our central banking practices (federal reserve type stuff) has been practiced before for instance with Kubilai Khan according to Marco Polo. Or how about the issue of Piracy, which has been a problem stretching back as far as ancient history goes even up to today. America actually has stuck to its own rules of never paying a ransom as far as I am aware of and our first conflicts as a nation, the Barbary Wars when we captured Tripoli (quite an ancient city!) because the Barbary Coast pirates of the region were well... pirates harassing our nation's sea routes and vessels. This is why we didn't pay ransom and elimianted the Somalian Pirates in the Maersk Alabama incident. China is a good example too in and of itself. America has taken a different approach at empire though, it's again sort of a synergy of Rome and Britain but with American flavor. Like Rome we put many nations under our yolk by mutual treaty and alliance. Like Britain our focus is mostly on gaining strategic fortress locations typically upon wate routes. Unlike both instead of straight up conquering and annexing lands, what America does is it "liberates" lands by regime change and then has the new regime sign favorable agreements, primarily Base Agreements which allows our Empire to stretch worldwide and control much commerce and militarily strategic locations making America today ironically one of the most far-reaching and most powerful empires in history but at the same time it is one of the smallest by total land size.


Lol and that's all jsut scratching the surface really. Lol like I said we could probably spawn a few good topics on any of these smaller topics or the broader topics of Empires and Warfare and Culture throughout the ages both in the Bible and outside of it.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
I'm OEC and I don't believe in evolution.

You can't blindly lump what you don't understand into the same bucket...

that is a contradiction of terms, OEC and evolution go hand in hand, evolutionary science is what brought about the OEC doctrine.

open your eyes and see the truth.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
You do the same as they do. You're ashamed, and don't want to be condemned as stupid by the worldly wise as Bunyan put it. Talking snakes, talking donkeys, and dead men rising... it's all the same.
they all come from the same mindset. anything to disprove Gods word. and thus disprove God as no more of a figment of mans imagination, and creation and the flood nothing more than a fairy tail
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
The OEC interpretation has no need to fear anything.
nor does the YEC, It is proven more and more every year wiht open minded scientists who do not care what the world thinks about them.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
No, Jamie, that's true and it's not a salvation issue but it's also not a side issue. One must always begin with the Bible and work from there (look at other resources etc. - compare and contrast them with the Bible. If they say something different, the Bible wins out). Not look at other sources and then try to cram them into the Bible. Always go back to the Bible.
thats the problem with secularism.

They try to force the bible to meet their beliefs, and do not try to interpret their beliefs to line up with the word of God.


Anytime we have used the word of God to interpret our secular beliefs, We have never been let down. Anytime we do the opposite. We may not realise it at the time, but one day we realise we have made a mistake and the word of God was right after all.