toldailytopic: How old is the earth?

[MaryContrary]

I understand that concept - it was morning, it was evening, the __ day. What I don't understand is why it HAS to be 24 hours. Is God confined by the conception of time - which is essentially a human construct?

Why would you assume "day" means anything other than "day"? If scripture referenced a carrot, would you argue that it might, possibly, maybe mean some other tuber-like vegetable or other that's maybe, sorta, kinda like a carrot but not really?

Sure, it could mean something other than day but assuming so and even arguing so just doesn't make sense. You have a long roe to hoe establishing that's anything other than ridiculous. Granted, the current science on the subject does lend somewhat to that argument but considering even that is arguable it doesn't lend much. Even if it were beyond doubt...it'd still be in conflict with clearly, plain scripture and thus still suspect, at least.

 

[GoingGoldenWCU]

Why would you assume "day" means anything other than "day"? If scripture references a carrot, would you argue that it might, possibly, maybe mean some other tuber-like vegetable or other that's maybe, sorta, kinda like a carrot but not really?

Sure, it could mean something other than day but assuming so and even arguing so just doesn't make sense. You have a long roe to hoe establishing that's anything other than ridiculous. Granted, the current science on the subject does lend somewhat to that argument but considering even that is arguable it doesn't lend much. Even if it were beyond doubt...it'd still be in conflict with clearly, plain scripture and thus still suspect, at least.

God didn't write the Bible. Humans who were limited by their scientific knowledge of the time wrote the Bible. Time is a human construct. And since science definitely backs me up with the age of the Earth, I don't think the row is that long.

Also this is a little unrelated and I'll have to find my original source but, the Bible is filled with instances of the authors using numbers as an expression for "a long time." The number 40 played a large part in that kind of idea.

 

[MaryContrary]

God didn't write the Bible. Humans who were limited by their scientific knowledge of the time wrote the Bible. Time is a human construct. And since science definitely backs me up with the age of the Earth, I don't think the row is that long.

Then you're being silly. The bible is a worthless old book to you, why bother arguing it? Go ahead and sneer at the silly old book, point to current science for the answer and quit pretending what scripture says matters to you.

 

[GoingGoldenWCU]

Then you're being silly. The bible is a worthless old book to you, why bother arguing it? Go ahead and sneer at the silly old book, point to current science for the answer and quit pretending what scripture says matters to you.

When did I say that? The answer would be never. I don't have a problem with science and faith being reconciled. And I don't have a problem seeing human errors and limitations in a divinely inspired text.

 

[Stripe]

And what does any of that have to do with the subject at hand?

Nothing. :idunno:

 

[branch]

Then you're being silly. The bible is a worthless old book to you, why bother arguing it? Go ahead and sneer at the silly old book, point to current science for the answer and quit pretending what scripture says matters to you.

if one believes the Bible is written by humans, you assume it makes them believe it's a "silly old book"?

 

[Persephone66]

Nothing. :idunno:

then why even bother bringing it up?

 

[Stripe]

then why even bother bringing it up?

I didn't. :idunno:

 

[MaryContrary]

When did I say that? The answer would be never. I don't have a problem with science and faith being reconciled. And I don't have a problem seeing human errors and limitations in a divinely inspired text.

Well, color me confused then.

You have no problem with science and faith in what being reconciled? Faith in an old book you just said was filled with human error and not divinely inspired? Why would you want to reconcile science with such a thing in the first place? How does that make any sense?

If you don't believe the bible is divinely inspired then there's no reason whatsoever for you to even attempt to reconcile science what it...other than to try, in a very dishonest manner, those who do so believe.

Or maybe I'm missing something and you can explain why that book should matter a whit in regards to this topic.

Edit: Okay, wait. I missed that. The bible is filled with human error and divinely inspired? Seriously? :squint:

 

[Persephone66]

I didn't. :idunno:

neither did I.

 

[Oh no... it's Sozo]

I agree. Therefore...why is the Earth 6,000 years old if the "morning/evening" doesn't necessarily have to be 24 hours because God is outside of time?

God is not outside of time. Time is not a thing. God is no more outside of time than He is outside of communication or movement.

 

[MaryContrary]

if one believes the Bible is written by humans, you assume it makes them believe it's a "silly old book"?

If one does not believe the bible is divinely inspired then it is, in regards to this topic, just a silly old book. How about not putting words in my mouth, hm?

 

[Oh no... it's Sozo]

God didn't write the Bible. Humans who were limited by their scientific knowledge of the time wrote the Bible. Time is a human construct. And since science definitely backs me up with the age of the Earth, I don't think the row is that long.

We get it, science is your god.

 

[Sonrise]

Carl Sagan, the astronomer, taught that the earth is ancient but the sun is about 6000 years old. That backs up what I believe about a first creation...the gap theory/truth...

:angel:

 

[Zeke]

God did tell man to be fruitfull and replenish the earth, the same type of statement was made to Noah after a judgment, replenish, so I take the position that this creation age is possible to fit into the six thousand years senario following a possible judgment, but we also have those who believe in long creation days so the debate goes on.

The speed of light is a problem for the young earth creationist view, the dinosaurs being another big problem that I have yet to hear a young creationist show how there was enough time for them to exist, we also know that God hids things from man like the cucifixian, and other things, so I believe we see through a glass darkly and don't have a clear vision of when God created the universe, or if this is the only one concerning this solar system.

 

[Stripe]

neither did I.

Yeah, you did. You are always very vocal about being a homosexual.

 

[GoingGoldenWCU]

We get it, science is your god.

Science is not my God. And won't ever be.

 

[vnctblzn]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for April 9th, 2010 09:38 AM

toldailytopic: How old is the earth?

although humanity is only 6000 years old, the earth may be many millions of years older.

 

[GoingGoldenWCU]

Okay, wait. I missed that. The bible is filled with human error and divinely inspired? Seriously? :squint:

I think that the Bible is divinely inspired. But, over the hundreds of years the Bible as been around, it has been changed and edited by humans. It is filled with human error and additions that come from the countless editions that have arisen since its conception. I don't understand how you're that confused about what I was saying.

 

[GoingGoldenWCU]

If one does not believe the bible is divinely inspired then it is, in regards to this topic, just a silly old book. How about not putting words in my mouth, hm?

You're putting words in my mouth by saying that I think it is "just a silly old book." Take your own advice please.