Age of the world

[Bustem' Down]

I don't think the age of the world has to be a religious question.

Had an argument with someone and I was curious how old Christians thought the Earth was.

 

[jazz lady]

I don't think the age of the world has to be a religious question.

But shouldn't it be? If you believe what the Bible says about God creating the heavens and earth, then it is MOST relevant.

 

[Tonio]

But shouldn't it be? If you believe what the Bible says about God creating the heavens and earth, then it is MOST relevant.

In my view, one can believe that God created the heavens and earth without reading Genesis literally. Plenty of people have accepted scientific evidence that goes against Genesis while believing in God. (That's not the same thing as "intelligent design," which makes what I see as a mistake in trying to prove God's existence.)

In another thread I posted a quote from the Dalai Lama about the distinction between a religion's core values and mutable doctrines. If the human race obtained absolute, empirical proof that the universe is billions of years old, would believers from Christianity or any other religion suddenly give up their religions' core values? I don't think so. Why would they? Why should they?

 

[2ndAmendment]

Does that put the garden at 4000 BC?

My problem with that young of an age is we rely too heavily on genealogies that are likely non sequential (that is....gaps)
I am "in the line of Olthoff"...but my last "Olthoff" ancestor was born in the 1840's.

I do believe in vast catastrophies that doesn't fit the uniformity models that scientists heavily rely upon...and science has been exploring these calamities for decades. I am convinced that these mass disturbances "screw-up" the Old earth theories.
However...The multiple ice-age geologic evidence...the strata layers found in ice & rock--I just am unwilling to accept the idea that God created that with implied age.---I also do not believe (as some do) that the dinosaurs came thousands (millions...?) of years before Adam. Sin brought death...the great lizards became extinct sometime after man's presence.

But the Jews can trace their linage father by father to Abraham and the Bible traces the linage from Adam to Abraham. The book of Matthew starts by providing the linage of Jesus to Abraham. According to the Jewish calendar, this is 19 Nissan 5766.

 

[jazz lady]

In my view, one can believe that God created the heavens and earth without reading Genesis literally. Plenty of people have accepted scientific evidence that goes against Genesis while believing in God. (That's not the same thing as "intelligent design," which makes what I see as a mistake in trying to prove God's existence.)

But doesn't that fly in the face of what 2A and others have said? That the Bible is THE truth? That's probably the reason I have so much conflict with religion. My scientific side wars with my spiritual side.

In another thread I posted a quote from the Dalai Lama about the distinction between a religion's core values and mutable doctrines. If the human race obtained absolute, empirical proof that the universe is billions of years old, would believers from Christianity or any other religion suddenly give up their religions' core values? I don't think so. Why would they? Why should they?

Interesting supposition. What would you do if everything you ever believed in was shown to be totally false? Would you still hold onto your beliefs or be able to embrace this new truth? Definitely food for thought.

 

[Tonio]

But doesn't that fly in the face of what 2A and others have said? That the Bible is THE truth? That's probably the reason I have so much conflict with religion. My scientific side wars with my spiritual side.

I think it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing proposition. There are plenty of Christians who don't read all the Bible literally. In my view, whether a Christian reads Genesis literally or metaphorically is between the Christian and Christ and no one else.

Interesting supposition. What would you do if everything you ever believed in was shown to be totally false? Would you still hold onto your beliefs or be able to embrace this new truth? Definitely food for thought.

Valid point. I'm suggesting that a Christian's belief in the Resurrection and Redemption may not require a literal reading of Genesis.

 

[itsbob]

I'll go out on a limb and speculate that according to Ice core strata (which I feel is FAR more reliable than radioactive isotopes)

45,000 max....very possibly less,...and only a slim chance older.

ICE core data?? Doesnt ice MELT!?? So the age of THAT ice is 45000 years old, how old was the ice that was there before it was replaced with THAT ice??

 

[jazz lady]

I think it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing proposition. There are plenty of Christians who don't read all the Bible literally. In my view, whether a Christian reads Genesis literally or metaphorically is between the Christian and Christ and no one else.

Again, based on what I've seen, it IS an all-or-nothing proposition. You either believe the Bible in its entirety or you don't. :shrug: Again, it's that struggle between what my senses tell me on a scientific basis and having trust in what the Bible says is the only truth.

Valid point. I'm suggesting that a Christian's belief in the Resurrection and Redemption may not require a literal reading of Genesis.

There are many ways of interpreting the Bible but there are fundamental truths on which it is based. If you remove one of those truths, a foundation of that religion, what is the ripple effect on the entire faith in that religion? It would be like discovery one of the laws of physics is not valid; thus anything based on that law could be faulty. I don't see how you can NOT reevaluate what you know or believe in based on this new information.

 

[Tonio]

Again, it's that struggle between what my senses tell me on a scientific basis and having trust in what the Bible says is the only truth...

There are many ways of interpreting the Bible but there are fundamental truths on which it is based. If you remove one of those truths, a foundation of that religion, what is the ripple effect on the entire faith in that religion? It would be like discovery one of the laws of physics is not valid; thus anything based on that law could be faulty. I don't see how you can NOT reevaluate what you know or believe in based on this new information.

I wonder if religious dogma will change when we finally discover life on other planets. When the Old Testament was first written, no one could imagine Earth not even being the center of the solar system. The idea of a vast universe filled with billions of galaxies is only a century old.

 

[2ndAmendment]

So what if the science of men was found to be wrong. That has often been done. Flat earth (Bible says it is round in the Old Testament), earth center of the universe, man can't travel faster than a galloping horse, universe made of four elements, the list goes on and on. What if carbon-14 dating is not correct? Based on bad assumptions? http://drdino.com/articles.php?spec=73 Now this comes from a Christian site, so I know it will be suspect in the scientific purists eyes, but it is food for thought.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I wonder if religious dogma will change when we finally discover life on other planets. When the Old Testament was first written, no one could imagine Earth not even being the center of the solar system. The idea of a vast universe filled with billions of galaxies is only a century old.

Nothing in the Bible even suggests that there in not life elsewhere in the universe. It say God created the heavens and the earth and all things in it. Now how would you feel if intelligent alien life is discovered and they believe in the God of the Bible and the Biblical account of creation? Shake your universe?

 

[jazz lady]

I wonder if religious dogma will change when we finally discover life on other planets. When the Old Testament was first written, no one could imagine Earth not even being the center of the solar system. The idea of a vast universe filled with billions of galaxies is only a century old.

I don't know, but something tells me it would be a struggle even with irrefutable proof. Old ideas and beliefs die hard. My scientific side says there is life out there somewhere. To think we are the only sentinent beings around is arrogance itself.

 

[Tonio]

Nothing in the Bible even suggests that there in not life elsewhere in the universe. It say God created the heavens and the earth and all things in it. Now how would you feel if intelligent alien life is discovered and they believe in the God of the Bible and the Biblical account of creation? Shake your universe?

What I'm saying is that some (not all) Christians have used the Old Testament to argue that there is no life elsewhere in the universe, because Genesis does not mention life being created elsewhere.

And if the aliens believed in the Bible, I would have no problem as long as they didn't use their "Independence Day" weapons to force humans to convert or be exterminated.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Arrogance is humans expecting God to conform to human understanding of the workings of energy and matter.

I believe that God created the universe and all things including beings in it.

Life is energy. Energy can neither be created or destroyed according to the laws of physics. Physics is the study of the physical. God is spirit. He created the physical.

Now if God is the Creator of all energy and matter that we can perceive and He spoke it into existence, why should we humans expect Him to conform to our way of thinking? We keep changing our minds every 10 to 15 years.

 

[2ndAmendment]

What I'm saying is that some (not all) Christians have used the Old Testament to argue that there is no life elsewhere in the universe, because Genesis does not mention life being created elsewhere.

And if the aliens believed in the Bible, I would have no problem as long as they didn't use their "Independence Day" weapons to force humans to convert or be exterminated.

That is not what I asked. If "they" came here and said, "Oh. You have the word of God, too. We have researched it and to the best of our understanding, the universe is about 6000 years old. We found that we could travel what seems to be great distances just by ..." Would that change how you believe about the Bible.

 

[czygvtwkr]

Can someone tell me where in the bible this 6000 years comes from?

We have trees that are 4000 years old.

I have always viewed the bible as mans interpretation of God. If God doesn't have to conform to how man thinks maybe the bible is only the closest approximation that humans can understand.....food for thought.

 

[Tonio]

That is not what I asked. If "they" came here and said, "Oh. You have the word of God, too. We have researched it and to the best of our understanding, the universe is about 6000 years old. We found that we could travel what seems to be great distances just by ..." Would that change how you believe about the Bible.

I'll have to think about it. Jazz Lady's posts imply that scientific observation and religious dogma are always going to conflict. I don't think it has to be that way. I like the idea that science can help us understand the "how" of life while faith can help us understand the "why" of life. I think about Galileo and how the Church practically called for his head, on the claim (which I don't believe) that heliocentrism conflicts with the Bible. I'm fascinated by what happened to Galileo because I hate being told what to believe and what not to believe. Whenever people are told to accept the teachings of any holy book, to me, the reason boils down to "Because I said so, that's why." It's like the Church worried that Galileo was making it all up as a deliberate effort to undermine Christianity.

We keep changing our minds every 10 to 15 years.

You imply that we as humans should never trust our senses and our perceptions of the universe. If that's the case, why should we have scientific exploration and inquiry in the first place?

 

[jazz lady]

I'll have to think about it. Jazz Lady's posts imply that scientific observation and religious dogma are always going to conflict. I don't think it has to be that way. I like the idea that science can help us understand the "how" of life while faith can help us understand the "why" of life. I think about Galileo and how the Church practically called for his head, on the claim (which I don't believe) that heliocentrism conflicts with the Bible. I'm fascinated by what happened to Galileo because I hate being told what to believe and what not to believe. Whenever people are told to accept the teachings of any holy book, to me, the reason boils down to "Because I said so, that's why." It's like the Church worried that Galileo was making it all up as a deliberate effort to undermine Christianity.

I've yet to see where science and religion don't clash, and I have a hard time getting the two to converge in my mind. Like you say, the Bible says one thing but scientific evidence points somewhere else.

You imply that we as humans should never trust our senses and our perceptions of the universe. If that's the case, why should we have scientific exploration and inquiry in the first place?

My thoughts exactly. Why bother if God created it all and we shouldn't have to seek answers.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Can someone tell me where in the bible this 6000 years comes from?

We have trees that are 4000 years old.

I have always viewed the bible as mans interpretation of God. If God doesn't have to conform to how man thinks maybe the bible is only the closest approximation that humans can understand.....food for thought.

Maybe we do have trees that are 4000 years old ... and maybe not. Rings are evidence of periods of growth; a period of growth followed by a period of dormancy. In many areas of the United States there have been two periods of growth this year; cold, then unseasonably warm for an extended period (leaves sprout), and then cold again. But whether the trees are 4000 years old or not does not matter; it is still within the 5766 years of the Jewish calendar.

There are several reasons the Jews are the children of God. The primary reason is that he knew from creation that He would come as man as Jesus through the Jews. Another reason is that the Jews are Gods time keepers. They have kept the history. Despite what forgetful humans think now, the Jews have been writing the written history for about 5766 years.

Want to see where the earth is in God's time line? Look at what is happening to the Jews, specifically, the Israelites and read the books of prophesy.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I'll have to think about it. Jazz Lady's posts imply that scientific observation and religious dogma are always going to conflict. I don't think it has to be that way. I like the idea that science can help us understand the "how" of life while faith can help us understand the "why" of life. I think about Galileo and how the Church practically called for his head, on the claim (which I don't believe) that heliocentrism conflicts with the Bible. I'm fascinated by what happened to Galileo because I hate being told what to believe and what not to believe. Whenever people are told to accept the teachings of any holy book, to me, the reason boils down to "Because I said so, that's why." It's like the Church worried that Galileo was making it all up as a deliberate effort to undermine Christianity.



You imply that we as humans should never trust our senses and our perceptions of the universe. If that's the case, why should we have scientific exploration and inquiry in the first place?

We were free to eat of the tree of life until we ate of the tree of knowledge.