Where does the Bible teach that the earth is billions of years old?

[Right Divider]

To state the age of something you must have a starting point. Genesis was written for people who were living over 2,000 years ago & still the book of Genesis laid out our evolving lives at a level even the peasant could understand. Time is irrelevant, life’s development is not.

It was written for people who were living over 5000 years ago and it still just as valid today.

:mock: Darwin

 

[Stripe]

So let's say that the Bible is plain wrong.
Are you capable of discussing the actual evidence?

So let's say that the Bible is right.
Are you capable of discussing the evidence?

 

[Stripe]

If we are talking about scientific evidence.

:AMR:

Is there any other type?

then the Bible isn't relevant.

Why? Because you've assumed that nothing in it can be true?

If you insist that the Bible is literally true and accurate, then you must somehow, at any cost, interpret the physical evidence to match it.

If you insist that the Bible is not true then you must, at any cost, interpret the evidence to match your assumption.

If you want to have an honest discussion of the physical evidence, you have to ignore chair.

 

[Stripe]

Stripe, could you remind us again of the 3 things needed to make fossils?

You mean an actual engagement over the evidence? :noway:

With pleasure! :e4e:

Three ingredients are required:
Sediment.
Cement.
Water.

Three processes are required:
Inundation.*
Sediment supply.*
Drainage.
*A combination of those two is important when it comes to explaining rock grain sizes and other features of a stratum.

If you see a fossil, three physical features are important:
Three-dimensional extent of the strata.
Assemblage integrity of the fossil.
Vertical extent of the fossil.

 

[Stripe]

prove to me that "He has been raised from the dead"

Can't be done.

A more useful question to ask would be: What would it take to convince you that He rose?

edit: I don't think it is possible to prove this without referring to the Bible itself, in some sort of circular reasoning.

Looks like you have no idea what circular reasoning is.

 

[chair]

Can't be done.

.

QED

 

[Stripe]

QED

I'm fairly comfortable with the fact that you refuse to look at the evidence. :idunno:

 

[chair]

I'm fairly comfortable with the fact that you refuse to look at the evidence. :idunno:

We can discuss whether the Bible is true or evidence in a different thread.
This is one of 7D7's threads.

 

[Stripe]

We can discuss whether the Bible is true or evidence in a different thread.

You've already made up your mind. QED, remember? You demand proof and then claim victory when I stick to the scientific method.

This is one of 7D7's threads.

Yeah, and it was over before it started. The Bible leaves no room for Darwinism.

 

[7djengo7]

So let's say that the Bible is plain wrong.

Hello, chair,

That's you--a Darwin cheerleader--admitting that the Bible opposes Darwin cheerleaders' claim that the earth is billions of years old. That's exactly why you would like the Bible to be wrong. You're obviously not altogether as dumb as some Darwin cheerleaders, since--unlike them--you refuse to engage in the pathetically transparent charade of going about saying the Bible supports the Darwin cheerleaders' claim that the earth is billions of years old. You're candid with your hatred of the Bible by--while admitting that the Bible is obviously opposed to your Darwinism--saying that, therefore, the Bible has to be wrong. Some Darwin cheerleaders, however, lack the modicum of candor you happen to exhibit in this point, as they go about making clowns of themselves by peddling the manifest falsehood and absurdity that the Bible supports (or somehow "harmonizes with") Darwinism. Darwin cheerleaders such as these, of course, share your hatred of the Bible, but, unlike you, are not honest enough to own their hatred of and opposition to the Bible.

 

[7djengo7]

prove to me that "He has been raised from the dead"

By "prove to me", what exactly are you requesting us to do? To force you, against your will, to switch from your present denial that Jesus has been raised from the dead to belief that Jesus has been raised from the dead?

If not that, then what (if anything) do you mean by "prove to me"?

 

[7djengo7]

To state the age of something you must have a starting point. Genesis was written for people who were living over 2,000 years ago & still the book of Genesis laid out our evolving lives at a level even the peasant could understand. Time is irrelevant, life’s development is not.

Djengo7; below is what Darwin said, now it is your turn to tell us all how it really was/is--------
Djengo7; I await your response

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

In other words, you agree with what I wrote in the OP, viz., that the Bible nowhere teaches that the earth is billions of years old, and that the Bible nowhere teaches that the earth is not less than about 10,000 years old. Now, feel free to put this on your eye:

​

 

[7djengo7]

Again, in a discussion about the Bible?

:kookoo:

Good point.

Here are two separate, distinct questions:

1. Does the Bible teach that the earth is billions of years old? (And if so, where?)
2. Is the earth billions of years old?

I intended this thread, in the OP, to be about question #1. Nowhere did I bring up question #2. Yet notice how, reflexively, chair immediately brought up question #2, yet made not an overt peep about the question I had actually asked in the OP. I say "not overt", because, even though chair did not come right out and say, in so many words, "No, the Bible does not teach that the earth is billions of years old", he nevertheless did, in his very first post in this thread (#3), admit that the Bible doesn't teach that the earth is billions of years old. He admitted as much in his thinly veiled wish that the Bible is (to use his word) "wrong". From his standpoint, as a Darwin cheerleader, he would need the Bible to cease and desist its opposition to his billions-of-years belief, in order for him to be willing to say that the Bible is "right" (or, at least, "not wrong").

 

[7djengo7]

Ancient holy tests aren't part of Science.

I like how you Charles Darwin cheerleader cultists feel the need to capitalize your word, "Science", like how L. Ron Hubbard's followers capitalize their word, "Scientology". Don't think we don't know that you fake "freethinkers" would be happy to put a ® or a © next to "Science" ("Science®", "Science©"), if only you felt you could get away with it hassle-free.

 

[7djengo7]

prove to me that "He has been raised from the dead"

edit: I don't think it is possible to prove this without referring to the Bible itself, in some sort of circular reasoning.

Hmmm, let me guess, you'd also like to say, "I don't think it is possible to prove this WITH referring to the Bible".

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

This thread is making me dizzy. Why can't we just reconcile the Bible with science, without sacrificing scientific analysis and Biblical inerrancy. This is not new; it's done all the time.

 

[Jonahdog]

This thread is making me dizzy. Why can't we just reconcile the Bible with science, without sacrificing scientific analysis and Biblical inerrancy. This is not new; it's done all the time.

You cannot rationally reconcile 6000 years with 4 billion + years. You cannot rationalize special creation in 6 days with the real world.

 

[Right Divider]

You cannot rationally reconcile 6000 years with 4 billion + years.

Duh... the 4 billion is based on faulty ideas.

You cannot rationalize special creation in 6 days with the real world.

Wrong.

 

[JudgeRightly]

This thread is making me dizzy. Why can't we just reconcile the Bible with science, without sacrificing scientific analysis and Biblical inerrancy. This is not new; it's done all the time.

YE Creationists can and do reconcile science with the Bible.

OE creationists (if they're even creationists) take what atheists claim to be science as a matter of fact and then try to force the Bible to comply with what the atheists say.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You cannot rationally reconcile 6000 years

7 thousand. Not 6.

with 4 billion + years.

Duh.

You cannot rationalize special creation in 6 days with the real world.

Well, no, what you're doing here is called begging the question.

Assuming the truth of your position without supporting the claim won't work here, Jonah. You know this.

What evidence do you have that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob could/did not create the world in 6 literal, 24 hour days?