Young Earth - 6,000 or 10,000 Years?

Jesus chose fishermen to be His disciples. If they could understand what the Scriptures say, I daresay we can, too.

The 'education' Craig is speaking of has to do with learning to refuse a straightforward reading of the Bible in favor of men's interpretations about what it 'might' mean in the light of what little men currently understand.

On the other hand, men like my husband who have studied intensively in their areas of expertise for thirty years or more and who reach conclusions which disagree with men like Craig are considered delusional, nuts, fakes, crackpots...the list is rather long, actually!

But the one thing Barry and I have learned from our combined years of study (about sixty...) is that the Bible can be trusted just the way it is. We have found that whenever current 'science' and the Bible disagree, when enough information comes to light, it is the Bible that is correct, every time.

Which is perhaps one reason why most the major branches of science as we know it today were initiated by Bible-believing men who were also scientists.

 

Scott J wrote, (among other things)

I believe that you misunderstood my entire post. The words that I posted in bold type were posted that way as a reference to the Bristlecone Pine that God has made and that tells with absolute certainty that an absolute minimum of nearly 9,000 years have elapsed since the flood, proving with absolute certainty that the earth is more than 10,000 years old.

(I hope that you don’t believe that God made the Bristlecone Pine to fool us or trick us!)

 

Helen,

On the other hand, men like my husband who have studied intensively in their areas of expertise for thirty years or more and who reach conclusions which disagree with men like Craig are considered delusional, nuts, fakes, crackpots...the list is rather long, actually!

But most men (or women) who have studied for 30 years have NOT reached the same conclusions as you and your husband.

Unfortunately you're right that many scientists automatically assume that any creationist is a crackpot. That's a shame.

 

Helen wrote,

MORE ABSOLUTE NONSENSES!!!

Point # 1. James and John Zebedee were the sons of the owner of a fishing business and they were not just common folks but close friends with the high priest. We also know for a fact that John was well educated and widely read in Oriental apocalyptic literature because he borrows words and expressions from that literature to describe for us the visions that he had. And of course, there is the little detail that ordinary fishermen living in the first century could neither read nor write Greek.

Point #2. Peter was at least tri-lingual and he could both read and write Greek, proving that he had much more education than an “ignorant fisherman.”

Point #3. Andrew was Peter’s brother and there is not the slightest hint in the Bible that he had any less education than Peter.

Point #4. Matthew was a tax collector for the Roman government, a position that required an education, and he was at least tri-lingual and he could both read and write Greek.

Point #5 Paul was much better educated that James, John, Peter, and Andrew, and it is not until we get to Paul that we find a clear presentation of the Gospel message and its relationship to the Law.

Point #6. The apostles of Jesus, despite their education, had very much difficulty understanding Jesus.

Point #7. The doctrine of the Trinity was not formalized or clearly understood until the church fathers had spent nearly three centuries studying the matter.

 

Helen wrote,

Helen,

This is simply NOT true.

• The education that I am speaking of has to do with learning Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Ethiopic so that we can read the Holy Scriptures in their original languages and in the very early languages into which the Hebrew text was translated before parts of it became corrupted.

• The education that I am speaking of also has to do with learning German and French so that we can read the works of other scholars who did not write in English.

• The education that I am speaking of also has to do with reading what the Holy Spirit has taught others throughout the history of the Jewish and Christian peoples.

• The education that I am speaking of also has to do with an objective study and understanding of the sciences free from the entanglements of ill-conceived and very ignorant religious beliefs.

• The education that I am speaking of also has to do with an objective study and understanding of literature.

• The education that I am speaking of also has to do with an objective and well-rounded education.

• The education that I am speaking of also has to do with learning the basic principles of hermeneutics and their application to the study of the Bible and other literature.

 

Helen wrote,

This quote from Helen is an excellent example of how Christian fundamentalist extremists misrepresent the facts.

In this quote Helen is contrasting what they, husband and wife, have studied with what men like myself have studied. This gives us:

Helen and Barry vs. men like Craig

There is absolutely no suggestion, in this comparison, of the objective fact that Helen and Barry are in a miniscule minority of “scholars,” and that the “men like Craig” are all the other scholars! Neither is there any suggestion, in this comparison, of the fact that those in Helen and Barry’s camp almost invariable have less education, have received their education from lesser institutions, and have academic appointments from lesser institutions.

An absolutely essential aspect of science is objectivity:

• objective observation
• objective analysis
• objective conclusions
• objective reporting

The research done by Barry is radically lacking in objectivity. This post by Helen is also radically lacking in objectivity, not to mention a fair and honest presentation of the pertinent facts.

Is it any wonder, therefore, that those in Craig’s camp look askance at those in Helen and Barry’s camp?

 

Hi Helen, I presume that you do not hold to a 6000 year old earth.
The only negative responders so far have been us "old earth" creationists and theistic evolutionists.
I'd be curious how a "young-earther" would answer the question posed by Artimaeus.

"Why do even Young Earth Creationists frequently allude to a time period of 10,000 years? I am mostly interested in the reasons why it might be 10,000 and not the 6,000 that the Bible indicates."

Rob

 

Helen wrote,

Let’s be at least a little bit honest here!

Helen, Barry, and I ALL agree that “the Bible can be trusted just the way it is.” What we disagree about is the correct interpretation of the Bible. Science and the Bible NEVER disagree with each other. Science, however, unmistakably and most clearly disagrees with the crude and ill-informed interpretation of the Bible by Helen and Barry. The problem is not with the Bible; the problem is not with science; the problem is with the grossly careless and inadequate study of the Bible by Christian Fundamentalist Extremists.

 

Charles we are close to a quasi-agreement!

Now from this scripture, I see no time table for creation; just that it WAS!

Therefore I will not argue that the earth (earth only) may be ancient. However, from this point on, a timetable IS given and I accept it just as God had Moses to record it.

Also, if I interpret your comments correctly, you are agreeing that this all (either position of YE or OE) must be taken by faith, as there is absolutely no way to prove either stance.

I can accept that, but note that I still hold to a YE because the "evidence" for an OE is still based on faith that all processes (seasons etc) are now as they have always been; which just ain't provable.

So, Craigbythesea, your bristlecone example does not prove anything except that the tree(s) went through 9,000 growth cycles, not necessarily 9,000 years.

As I stated earlier, the flood could have disrupted the weather patterns for hundreds of years before stabilization occurred, so there could have been hundreds of growth cycles in far fewer years.

Provable? NO!! But neither can you prove consistency since creation; so either option is by faith, not science!

This, in spite of the tomes of "proof" that the evolutionists offer!

 

A few reponses before I head downtown for some stuff:

1. If we go back to the earliest LXX -- the Alexandrian, which is the translation which agrees with the NT quotes, by the way -- we find that the cipher for 100 was dropped in the later Masoretic texts and Masoretic-influenced texts in many of the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11. When these are corrected, the age of the earth is closer to 8000 years, which puts us in line with Egyptian chronology, etc.

2. Most men and women who have studied for 30 or more years have been chained to an institution which governs what they publish and what they study! With evolution-controlled instutions being the primary supports of so much research, it is impossible to know if the conclusions many have reached really are what they have published. This is not an empty statement or wishful thinking, but based on personal knowledge of several professors, several university-connected researchers, and the heads of three departments in radio-isotope dating laboratories. What they must publish and their private beliefs based on what they have discovered themselves are radically different. I assume I do not know the only people in the world this is the case with!

3. The doctrine of the Trinity may not have been 'formalized' for some time, but it was certainly known from earliest times. Ref. Deut. 6:4, Psalm 2, Prov 30:4, etc. etc. as well as the research done by Hislop in Two Babylons and the research done by others through time.

4. So the majority of the apostles were educated fishermen! They were fishermen. If they could have earned money in a more educated position, I assume they would have. It would have supported the extended families better, certainly! Therefore there is no reason to assume they were any more educated than the majority of Jewish men who had been bar mitzvah'd.

5. I didn't say they understood Jesus! You are trying to put words in my mouth again, Craig. You know better than that, with all your education. I said they had no trouble understanding Scripture.

6. Regarding the education Craig is speaking of, then, I prefer that of Bernard Northrup, Greek and Hebrew scholar and professor (retired now) who has helped, upon request, numerous translators of the Bible into different languages. He is a young earth creationist and an excellent amateur geologist.
Here's a bit of his material:
http://www.ldolphin.org/taphon.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/genages.html

7. To suggest that Barry's research is lacking in objectivity is to show dismal ignorance of his research! He started as a long-age theistic eovlutionist! If he was NOT being objective, that is where he would still be. Instead, he looked at the evidence objectively and went, in humility, where it led. It is not easy to change an entire world-view, but he did. This is where true objectivity leads -- one follows the evidence.

8. Craig, you have said he does not post a fair and honest representation of the facts. I challenge you to show where this is the case. Thank you.

9. Craig, it is nonsense to say you believe the Bible the way that it is. Especially in the next sentence when you say that it all depends on a 'correct interpretation.' As someone in this thread mentioned earlier, you are not 'interpreting' Bible, you are calling God a liar and trying to rewrite it!

 

Helen wrote,

They had no trouble understanding Scripture

They did not understand the teachings of Jesus

Conclusion: The teachings of Jesus are not Scripture!

LET’S NOT TRY TO TURN THIS BAPTIST BOARD INTO A JEWISH BOARD!!!

 

All's normal!!

When all else fails, hit the rabbit trails!

 

Helen wrote,

This IS true of fundamentalist extremist institutions, but is most certainly NOT true of ANY our most academic institutions. If one of the ICR “faculty” members were to pull his head out of the sand and look at the evidence for an old earth with an open mind, and publish a paper defending his enlightened point of view, he would be dismissed from that institution immediately. Academic, institutions, on the other hand, encourage their faculty members to think and perform their research with an open mind. If one of them published a paper supporting a young earth, their colleagues would be a bit surprised, but that would be the extent of it.

Helen, have you ever even set foot on the campus of a University that is known around the world for its academic excellence and academic freedom?

 

Helen wrote,

 

Helen wrote,

. . . . and out of line
with the Bristlecone Pine!

Helen’s post is an excellent example of a ploy used by the Christian fundamentalist extremists. They “prove” that one of the 100,000,000 pieces of evidence does not necessarily contradict their interpretation of the Bible and they try to fool us into believing that doing so proves that all of the 100,000,000 pieces of evidence support their interpretation of the Bible.

 

This IS true of fundamentalist extremist institutions, but is most certainly NOT true of ANY our most academic institutions. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh. That must be why they are embracing the challenges of ID...

No. Evolutionists don't want debate about their presuppositions or premises. They want to force those down everyone's throat. They realize their theory is fragile and requires acceptance of farfetched explanations and unproveable assumptions.

They are adamently opposed to ID being presented not because it has no merit but because it reveals the weaknesses of evolution and provides a scientific, reasonable set of alternative premises and presuppositions. There is nothing unscientific about approach something that appears to be designed on the premise that an unnamed designer created it.

What you don't want to see is that these "most academic institutions" will accept debate but only within the philosophy of naturalism. They have equated naturalism with science without a basis for doing so. They have made a subjective, group think choice that places artificial limits on what can be considered "true" or "scientific".

 

Helen wrote,

What a monstrous thing to say!

The Bible does not need to be rewritten (Christian fundamentalist extremists have already done enough of that); the Bible needs to be read and studied—NOT just carelessly read in an English translation.

 

This IS true of fundamentalist extremist institutions, but is most certainly NOT true of ANY our most academic institutions. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh. That must be why they are embracing the challenges of ID...

No. Evolutionists don't want debate about their presuppositions or premises. They want to force those down everyone's throat. They realize their theory is fragile and requires acceptance of farfetched explanations and unproveable assumptions.

They are adamently opposed to ID being presented not because it has no merit but because it reveals the weaknesses of evolution and provides a scientific, reasonable set of alternative premises and presuppositions. There is nothing unscientific about approach something that appears to be designed on the premise that an unnamed designer created it.

What you don't want to see is that these "most academic institutions" will accept debate but only within the philosophy of naturalism. They have equated naturalism with science without a basis for doing so. They have made a subjective, group think choice that places artificial limits on what can be considered "true" or "scientific". </font>[/QUOTE]This is nothing but nonsense, and your posting of it leads me to suspect that you have not spent so much as one hour in a highly-academic university classroom where graduate-level courses in evolutionary biology are being taught. It also leads me to believe that you are not personally acquainted with very many biologists or geologists who teach in highly-academic universities.

To put this matter more simply, you simply don’t know what you are talking about in the post that I am quoting from.

 

That is not relevant since this is not what the writer of Genesis said that he did.

Yes. It is unreasonable since Moses recorded that he spent significant time in direct conversation with God Himself. He identifies those interactions as the authority for his writings.

Another presumption based on nothing more than convenience to your argument. Nothing in scripture indicates that this is how Moses got his information. OTOH, we do have a record of him meeting with God in person.

Unless Moses was a liar, his writings have the soundest basis for direct supervision by God than any other.

Oh. So God lied, God was incorrect, or Moses didn't pen Genesis under inspiration?

IOW's the Bible is a human book of human origin- fully subject to the fallibility of man?

The Bible is not subject to the rules or classifications of human literature- modern, ancient, or any other classification you might imagine.

Jesus nor any of the NT writers treated Genesis this way.

The case you seem to be building is that Genesis was not inspired at all. To be honest, that is probably the best position for you to take since you ascribe to the infallibility of the naturalistic presupposition that masquerades as science.

Neither you or anyone else have shown any reason whatsoever to conclude that this is "epic literature". That is simply an argument of convenience that allows you to claim you believe the Bible given by God while molding it around a theory wholly created by men.

God didn't tell us to go to people operating from atheistic/naturalistic presuppositions to derive our standards for interpretting scripture.

Unfortunately, you have no clue but presume in any case to characterize people who believe the Bible against your conclusions about the scientific evidence for creation as ignorant, dishonest, stupid, or lazy.

You certainly have the liberty to believe whatever you want. That is ultimately for God to judge. However, it is pompous and prideful to assume that those of us who disagree with you aren't informed, honest, intelligent, and diligent... though it apparently makes you feel secure to condescend, demonize, and use names like "extremist fundamentalist".

 

JWP,

I can accept that, but note that I still hold to a YE because the "evidence" for an OE is still based on faith that all processes (seasons etc) are now as they have always been; which just ain't provable.

I'll agree that the evidence for old earth theories is well, theoretical. You're right. I cannot be proven empirically. As such old earth adherents are "taking it by faith."

But I believe that God gave us intellectual ability - and that we shouldn't be afraid to use. it.

To me it seems that the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of an old earth. That leads me to wonder if the traditional biblical interpretation is in error.

After examining the Genesis account closely I see features that suggest it was written in the vain of ancient near eastern theological epic. Again, not proven - but not without premise.

So putting it all together it seems to me that there is a good bit of evidence that perhaps we have misread Genesis 1-11 and thus are not advancing God's cause by ardently defending a literal Genesis.

Just theoretical, yes. But when I look at the reasons to hold a young earth stance I see only a theory which, to me, seems just as human in origin as evolution. People want something concrete that they can see as a bedrock, something which cannot be questioned. I think that God intended to show that He created the world and all that is in it. But I think the insistence on a literal 7 day creation is the fruit of the human desire and not the will of God.