How Old Is The Earth?

[oldhermit]

I never said that. I said inspired with errors. There is a difference from that and mere human insight.

Again, you never answered my question as to why I should accept those particular Scriptures over other Christian texts, or other world religious texts, for that matter. When did God every write in the sky "These are My words" pointing to the Protestant Bible?

You need to examine the implication of your own words. You said,
"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."
This is completely opposite of the biblical definition of inspiration. Those writers did not interject personal theologies into the text nor did they interject their own world views. What these writers personally believed was not the standard for truth. Truth comes from revealed knowledge, not human reason. They wrote only those things they were directed to write by the Holy Spirit. If this is not true then the Bible is nothing more than product of human intelligence and is therefore a worthless document.

As to the authenticity of the Bible as the exclusive word of God, let the Words of the Hebrew writer suffice. "For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it. For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will." Heb 2:1-4.

 

[TheAristocat]

Thank you! I just opened up my Lost Scriptures book last night and was reading some non-canonical gospels. Very interesting how a variant of Matthew's gospel was widely accepted for a long time, until it was ultimately denied as being inspired. And that was because it omitted Christ's birth - and thus put emphasis on Him being born just a man and chosen by God, instead of born of the Holy Spirit. Because we KNOW that "Almighty" God doesn't have the power to anoint a man to be the Messiah.

For anyone who is interested (for those who don't want to remain ignorant - and I mean actually look into the sources, instead of reading second-hand sources that tries to debunk them - about our varying Christian roots):

Amazon.com: Lost Scriptures : Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament eBook: Bart D. Ehrman: Kindle Store

The same man who compiled this book, also lead a very interesting and enlightening lecture series:

Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication: Bart D. Ehrman: 9791565856058: Amazon.com: Books

Admittedly I've never read any of the apocrypha in their entirety, but I think there is a legitimate reason why they differ in veracity as regards the commonly accepted Gospels that we have today. I would probably be interested in reading them, but my first inclination would be to understand the time period in which they were written.

 

[jamie26301]

You need to examine the implication of your own words. You said,
"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."
This is completely opposite of the biblical definition of inspiration.

Yes, biblical, another words, Paul's personal belief about the Old Testament Scriptures (and some Christians tend to extend this to the NT, even though in context, Paul was only referring to the OT). Paul and company also personally believed that Jesus was coming back in their lifetime or very soon after (or so they seemed to imply). So, should we take that literally and therefore conclude that Christ came back already? Since 2,000 years later is not "soon?" (I don't think so, anyway.)

There is no way I would be able to help you see my "inspired with errors" mindset, because I have a middle-of-the-road way of looking at the world, in most cases. The belief you stress here is the all-or-nothing approach. Which is dangerous, because if a believer starts to struggle and can't reconcile ONE passage in Scripture, chances are she/he will ditch the whole thing. I'm afraid we are talking cross purposes here, and while I understand you (because I used to hold that view, but come to feel it was too narrow of a perspective), I don't think you'd be able to understand why I feel the way I do. You may, like a lot of all-or-nothing Christians, think that I have distrust for God in my heart, or I'm rebelling against what I don't want to follow, or whatever. Believe what you want.

This is all ok. We are all entitled to our own perspective. Probably what turns me off about the all-or-nothing perspective is that it seems to create people who are intent on everyone seeing things exactly as they see it, and if the person disagrees on what a passage is saying, then that person is judged as rebelling against God - even though it could be turned around on the people who intend on it being seen a certain way - THEY are rebelling for not taking a liberal approach, some might argue. I know, it made ME that way too. That's largely why I abandoned it. With a middle-of-the-road approach, I find I relate to many more people a lot easier.

The Church has changed and morphed over the last 2,000 years. And it will be different in another 2,000 years. A lot of churches are in denial that the ancient, original church practices are not practiced today, and have been lost for a long time. They admit we don't have the original texts, yet treat the earliest copies we have as if they were copied flawlessly (which likely was not the case). The Church has survived all attacks and assaults against her. It's amazing that some YECers have so little faith in the durability of the church, that they stress misinterpretation (according to them) of the texts as if widespread belief in evolution will destroy the church and the faith along with her. Apparently, history has taught them nothing. And if one wants to "take God at His word," it would appear that the church was still in tact clear up until the very last days, when Jesus called them.

 

[oldhermit]

Yes, biblical, another words, Paul's personal belief about the Old Testament Scriptures (and some Christians tend to extend this to the NT, even though in context, Paul was only referring to the OT). Paul and company also personally believed that Jesus was coming back in their lifetime or very soon after (or so they seemed to imply). So, should we take that literally and therefore conclude that Christ came back already? Since 2,000 years later is not "soon?" (I don't think so, anyway.)

There is no way I would be able to help you see my "inspired with errors" mindset, because I have a middle-of-the-road way of looking at the world, in most cases. The belief you stress here is the all-or-nothing approach. Which is dangerous, because if a believer starts to struggle and can't reconcile ONE passage in Scripture, chances are she/he will ditch the whole thing. I'm afraid we are talking cross purposes here, and while I understand you (because I used to hold that view, but come to feel it was too narrow of a perspective), I don't think you'd be able to understand why I feel the way I do. You may, like a lot of all-or-nothing Christians, think that I have distrust for God in my heart, or I'm rebelling against what I don't want to follow, or whatever. Believe what you want.

This is all ok. We are all entitled to our own perspective. Probably what turns me off about the all-or-nothing perspective is that it seems to create people who are intent on everyone seeing things exactly as they see it, and if the person disagrees on what a passage is saying, then that person is judged as rebelling against God - even though it could be turned around on the people who intend on it being seen a certain way - THEY are rebelling for not taking a liberal approach, some might argue. I know, it made ME that way too. That's largely why I abandoned it. With a middle-of-the-road approach, I find I relate to many more people a lot easier.

The Church has changed and morphed over the last 2,000 years. And it will be different in another 2,000 years. A lot of churches are in denial that the ancient, original church practices are not practiced today, and have been lost for a long time. They admit we don't have the original texts, yet treat the earliest copies we have as if they were copied flawlessly (which likely was not the case). The Church has survived all attacks and assaults against her. It's amazing that some YECers have so little faith in the durability of the church, that they stress misinterpretation (according to them) of the texts as if widespread belief in evolution will destroy the church and the faith along with her. Apparently, history has taught them nothing. And if one wants to "take God at His word," it would appear that the church was still in tact clear up until the very last days, when Jesus called them.

Then I shall leave you to your errors.

 

[Cycel]

The belief you stress here is the all-or-nothing approach. Which is dangerous, because if a believer starts to struggle and can't reconcile ONE passage in Scripture, chances are she/he will ditch the whole thing.

I gave you a 'like' for this post as I agree with much of what you say. These two sentences in particular bring it home for me. I was raised with a literal understanding of scripture, and when that understanding failed my faith was brought low. I have often wondered whether I might still believe in God if I had been given a liberal education.

 

[Jda016]

If someone's faith is destroyed, because two scriptures don't make sense to them, I'd say they never had much of any faith to begin with.

 

[wordhasit]

This is all ok. We are all entitled to our own perspective. Probably what turns me off about the all-or-nothing perspective is that it seems to create people who are intent on everyone seeing things exactly as they see it, and if the person disagrees on what a passage is saying, then that person is judged as rebelling against God - even though it could be turned around on the people who intend on it being seen a certain way - THEY are rebelling for not taking a liberal approach, some might argue. I know, it made ME that way too. That's largely why I abandoned it. With a middle-of-the-road approach, I find I relate to many more people a lot easier.

That people judge others for not agreeing with them is not commendable. Personally I love it when people do some critical thinking, that's better than blindly accepting things. That goes for Christians as well as non believers. I think that God would possibly have been happier with Adam and Eve if they had voiced some reservations towards what he commanded them to do, rather then blindly or blatantly following someone else's opinion. God is not averse towards going into discussion about his viewpoint, as for example in Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."


But, I understand why many Christians want to push the all or nothing perspective, that there is only one way of seeing things. Simply because the continuous message in scripture is that God also takes the all or nothing approach. From, 'if you eat of that tree you shall die', to 'there is no way to the father but through me' and 'he that has the Son has life and he that has not the Son has not life.' Logical, because like everyone of us he has a particular way of doing things. Except when it comes to God, we have to take him absolutely serious since getting him wrong is a matter of life or dead. In the sense that without him there is no life possible, which lies behind what he said about not eating from the forbidden tree. So what God says to us is essential to getting and maintaining life. As Jesus said somewhere, "the words I speak to you are Spirit and Life!" As TinTin's signature so clearly says 'God is our only possible ally'. That's because only he can give and maintain life. By definition that makes everything totally dependent upon him. So to understand his perspective on things must be vital to us, we can't afford to be liberal about it. We are all to familiar with the concept of all or nothing though, only a fool would go beyond the sign that says "beware edge of Cliff." At a petrol station you don't ignore the sign that says "no open flame allowed." Or the instruction on the disinfectant bottle, "not for internal use." Nobody would want to be liberal with the interpretation of that. Adam and Eve were enticed by someone else to take the liberal approach, even though God had clearly said there is only one way to have life. We are still suffering for it, because there are so many opinions now that we sometimes can't see the wood for the trees anymore. So we have to find out what Gods opinion is, for only he holds the key to life and there is only one door, which leaves not much option for other perspectives. So what is God's perspective? We can get overwhelmed with a Mirriad of voices, but some inquiry, probing and a lot of discussion will help us on the way. That's why we are fortunate to have this forum. And not only that of course, we have God who said, "He that comes to me I will in no way disappoint!"

 

[GodIsSalvation]

I gave you a 'like' for this post as I agree with much of what you say. These two sentences in particular bring it home for me. I was raised with a literal understanding of scripture, and when that understanding failed my faith was brought low. I have often wondered whether I might still believe in God if I had been given a liberal education.

Lol well as one who was given a liberal public education in America (not sure if its same as in Canada) I would say you'd go one of three ways like me and brethren whom were also raised under modern public education's standards if that's what had been given unto you.

1. You'd simply not question what they teach you in which case you'd pretty much be exactly where you are at now.

OR

2. You'd see all the vast holes and contradictions in their "scientific theories" that we were taught in public school in the late 20th and early 21st Century and start to wonder why them snobby upper class private educational institutions have so many undeniably hard facts behind their theories and start to wonder why the private educated kids become atheists more than we public educated kids when they are given all the literal facts whereas we are given a bunch of ludicrous theories like darwinism, magical big bangs, revisionist history, etc. lol.

OR

3. You would be "too cool for school" not giving much a crap about the educational institution or what they're teaching and get lost in the web of public life in all its tumults and triumphs which are ironically well reflected in the Bible in a literal fashion.

Lol, your lament makes me ponder my lament that if I had just been given a chance to have a private education I'd have never been an atheist when I was an atheist. Plus just theology aside the private schooled kids all got to read better literature. It's very pitiful that in public schooling while we publicans were just starting to read Shakespeare and Poe that my Catholic-schooled friends were all ready on Dante lol. Guess its one of those "Grass is greener on the other side" arguments. Ah well though, I can't change the past due to lack of time travel capability and thus we can only move forward.

 

[jamie26301]

Then I shall leave you to your errors.

That's all I ask.

 

[jamie26301]

That people judge others for not agreeing with them is not commendable. Personally I love it when people do some critical thinking, that's better than blindly accepting things. That goes for Christians as well as non believers. I think that God would possibly have been happier with Adam and Eve if they had voiced some reservations towards what he commanded them to do, rather then blindly or blatantly following someone else's opinion. God is not averse towards going into discussion about his viewpoint, as for example in Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."

Thank you; I really appreciate this.

But, I understand why many Christians want to push the all or nothing perspective, that there is only one way of seeing things. Simply because the continuous message in scripture is that God also takes the all or nothing approach.

Sure, I can see that message in Scripture too. I also see people outside the Jewish faith being commended by Jesus, even though they don't follow God's laws, aka the Mosaic Law, which Jesus endorsed. I see Rehab in the Hall of Faith, even though it is not explicitly stated that she accepted all the Isrealits customs when she was spared. If you want to talk "all-or-nothing," what of "I will draw ALL men to Myself?"

That's because only he can give and maintain life. By definition that makes everything totally dependent upon him. So to understand his perspective on things must be vital to us, we can't afford to be liberal about it.

Well, if you take the eternal hell approach to what Jesus says, this all makes total since. However, if you begin wondering if it's just a hyperbole, then it's not so clear.

I believe that Christianity has the best road to God. I do not know if it is the ONLY road. But I find it hard to believe that God wouldn't give people a second chance to get it right. The people in hell got the Gospel preached to them when Jesus died, right? Isn't that like a "second chance?" Why weren't David, Abraham, and others in hell as well, if as well as those in hell, they had never heard the Gospel? You could say because they looked to the coming Messiah, but they "got it right" the first time around by believing in the one true God. So they didn't need a second chance, like these who never heard the Gospel. How come these who never heard the Gospel up until Jesus' day gets a chance to accept it after death, but those living today don't? There's no difference from them and those living in areas where they never hear of Jesus.

Also, unconditional Love (if you want to say God has that) and eternal damnation are just not logically compatible. If love has no conditions, then one couldn't do/not do ANYTHING to separate (eternally) themselves from that love. Another thing is that the doctrine is Jesus carried the sin of the world (or of solely the elect, depending on your doctrine), in His suffering. ALL sin. Yet, we say that if someone doesn't accept Him, they get ETERNAL suffering for ONLY their sins. What Jesus suffered is horrible, and very humbling, but even that doesn't come close to be equated with ETERNAL suffering, eternal fire - when His suffering was only what, 12 hours long?

That's why we are fortunate to have this forum. And not only that of course, we have God who said, "He that comes to me I will in no way disappoint!"

Ok, let's take this literally, since you're making a case for that. Why then, does some fall away from the faith, when He NEVER disappoints? And even Scripture can make a case against this literal perspective, is those that came to him, yet stopped walking with Him upon His preaching on the Bread of Heaven. They "came to Him," yet were disappointed, and followed Him no more.

All I'm saying is that there are logical reasons to question how the Church interprets the Scriptures. And the whole all-or-nothing perspective of Scripture - EVEN that could be debatable, as I have shown above.

God bless brother.

 

[jamie26301]

I gave you a 'like' for this post as I agree with much of what you say. These two sentences in particular bring it home for me. I was raised with a literal understanding of scripture, and when that understanding failed my faith was brought low. I have often wondered whether I might still believe in God if I had been given a liberal education.

There you have it, an example right here on this very thread.

I was guided when I first came to Christianity in the literal perspective. The same thing that happened to you might've happened to me, but I think what saved my faith was conversing on theology forums (not this one) and seeing people still maintaining their faith with a liberal perspective. So, if they can do it, why can't I?

 

[jamie26301]

Lol, your lament makes me ponder my lament that if I had just been given a chance to have a private education I'd have never been an atheist when I was an atheist. Plus just theology aside the private schooled kids all got to read better literature. It's very pitiful that in public schooling while we publicans were just starting to read Shakespeare and Poe that my Catholic-schooled friends were all ready on Dante lol. Guess its one of those "Grass is greener on the other side" arguments. Ah well though, I can't change the past due to lack of time travel capability and thus we can only move forward.

I think there are "general" rules of thumb regarding these issues, but really what it comes down to is the individual, their personality, and their background. (Some) Christians try to persuade atheists to read Scripture by pointing to other atheists who have changed their minds. (Some) Atheists try to persuade Christians to doubt their faith, by pointing to other Christians who have walked away from the faith. The point is that the migration from faith to non faith, or one faith to a different faith, goes BOTH ways. There are Christians who were raised or taught literal, and then after some consideration, decide to go liberal. And the reverse. It's all dependent upon the individual - there are no absolutes in this matter. (That's why, if you read my comment closely, I say "chances are," not "they certainly will.") I have started wondering if there are absolutes AT ALL, other than there being a higher power, whatever you wish to call Him. But I'm still in the stage of inquiry about that.

 

[wordhasit]

Ok, let's take this literally, since you're making a case for that. Why then, does some fall away from the faith, when He NEVER disappoints? And even Scripture can make a case against this literal perspective, is those that came to him, yet stopped walking with Him upon His preaching on the Bread of Heaven. They "came to Him," yet were disappointed, and followed Him no more.

looking back at it again, I actually misquoted the verse. It should be "He that comes to me I will not cast out." Hadn't given myself time to look it up! No time to answer your post yet, still working on some previous ones also. Can't keep up with everyone, you guys are fast! Either that or I need some practice. God bless you too sister!

 

[Cycel]

If someone's faith is destroyed, because two scriptures don't make sense to them, I'd say they never had much of any faith to begin with.

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.

 

[Bowman]

So what if the earth is billions of years old...?

 

[nl]

So what if the earth is billions of years old...?

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)

 

[nl]

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.

Did you ever believe...
...the Beatitudes and Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7)
...Jesus turned the water into wine
...Jesus healed the lame, deaf, dumb, blind, the demonized, the dead, the ten lepers...the servant with a missing ear
...Jesus fed the 5000
...Jesus walked on the water
...Jesus rose from the dead

Respectfully...

 

[pastac]

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.

 

[Cycel]

Lol well as one who was given a liberal public education in America (not sure if its same as in Canada) I would say you'd go one of three ways like me and brethren whom were also raised under modern public education's standards if that's what had been given unto you.

1. You'd simply not question what they teach you in which case you'd pretty much be exactly where you are at now.

Not where I am now. Now I am an atheist, but back then I was still a believer. If I hadn't asked any questions then I'd still be a believer.

OR

2. You'd see all the vast holes and contradictions in their "scientific theories"...

Kids often simply believe what they are taught. Why would someone receiving a liberal education think there are holes in scientific theories? I think that to reject science one must first be taught to reject science.

... that we were taught in public school in the late 20th and early 21st Century and start to wonder why them snobby upper class private educational institutions...

I don't know anyone who has received a private education.

... we are given a bunch of ludicrous theories like darwinism, magical big bangs, revisionist history, etc. lol.

May I ask, if you laugh at the Big Bang then do you also reject the expansion of the universe? If you don’t reject it then how do you think Genesis accounts for it?

History is my field. It was more history than science that led me away from belief.

Lol, your lament makes me ponder my lament that if I had just been given a chance to have a private education I'd have never been an atheist when I was an atheist.

You were an atheist?

I did not lament that I had lost my faith. That it is gone does not bother me.

 

[Cycel]

Did you ever believe...
...the Beatitudes and Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7)
...Jesus turned the water into wine
...Jesus healed the lame, deaf, dumb, blind, the demonized, the dead, the ten lepers...the servant with a missing ear
...Jesus fed the 5000
...Jesus walked on the water
...Jesus rose from the dead

Respectfully...

I believed it all.