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

Well here we are again. We will agree to disagree.These discussions are an exercise in futility.

 

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

In my mind the literalist stance which insists that we read everything through 20th century American glasses is a PRIVATE INTERPRETATION, ignoring the context.

 

So if I really want to know what the Bible is saying I should just consult Deacon or Charles Meadows and use them as my ultimate authority of what God's Word says.

 

One thing you'll learn is that the religion of Israel was astoundingly different from that of her neighbors. And 99% of her scriptures stand in radical contrast to other ANE texts.

 

"Some old Earth conundrums:"

You may want to reconsider your sources. They mislead you.

"If man had been on the Earth 3 million years starting with a single male and female, and breeding at our present rate, there would now be 150,000 people per square inch of ground on the entire Earth."

And if we started 4000 years ago with a single pair of breeding rabbits....

You know full well that this is not how populations work. Most populations of most animals exist within some osrt of stable bounds. They do not increase exponentially indefinately. This is just silly.

"Speaking of Egyptians; they described Sirius as a red star. And Seneca described it as a red star. Ptolemy listed it as a red star. Yet Sirius is a white dwarf star today."

YE sources have no trouble telling out and out mistruths.

Sirius is not a white dwarf, it is a blue giant. Spectral class A1Vm if you want to be specific.

It is true that it may have appeared red in the past. But this was because of a passing dust cloud. See J.M. Bonnet-Bidaud & C. Gry, The Stellar Field in the Vicinity of Sirius and the Color Enigma, Astronomy and Astrophysics v252(1): 193-197 (1991 Dec).

A fourteen year old reference. Your source should have found that by now if they think they have a good claim. They are either sloppy or dishonest.

"Jupiter's moon Ganymede has a magnetic field caused by a hot liquid metal core. If the Galaxy was billions of years old the moon would have cooled by now being so far from the Sun."

Ganymede is as big as some planets. The magnetic field is most likely produced the same way as the earths. A solid, iron core surrounded by a fluid outer core or mantle. Radioactivity should be sufficient to keep it going. Ganymede might also get some benefit from tidal forces from Jupiter.

"Our moon is leaving the Earths pull at a rate of a few inches a year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close to the Earth that the tide would have eroded away all land mass."

This is a claim that should have died a cruel death long ago.

The moon receeds currently at 3.7 cm/yr. At this rate, the moon would have been about 220,000 km away 4.5 billion years ago compared to 384,400 km. That is not close enough to have eroded anyhting away.

Second, theory and observation show that the arrangement of the continents today produces about as high a rate of recession as is possible. It would have been lower in the past. Here are some references for you to look up.

Touma & Wisdom, Evolution of the Earth-Moon System, Astronomical Journal v108(5): pp1943-1961 (1994 Nov).

Touma & Wisdom,Resonances in the Early Earth-Moon System, Astronomical Journal v115(4): pp1653-1663 (1998 Apr).

Again, notice the dates. They have been available long enough for it to be unexcusable for your source to either not know about these or to have ignored them.

You should also know that there is another way to check. There are rocks known as tidal rhythmites which can be used to determine the rate of rotation of the earth in the past. These can be used to check the predictions of the work such as I just cited. Here is one such example.

Williams, Precambrian tidal and glacial elastic deposits: implications for Precambrian Earth-Moon dynamics and palaeoclimate, Sedimentary Geology v1201-4) 55-74 (1998 Sep).

"Comets keep losing material and last no more than 10,000 years."

Yes, but they are constantly resupplied from the Kuiper belt and the Oort cloud. You cannot have missed the rain of announcements of observations of Kuiper belt objects that has been pouring down for several years now. And for the Oort cloud, the orbits of the new comets that are observed shwo that their original location was in the Oort cloud. In addition, such material has been observed around other stars.

"The Earth's spin is slowing down at a rate of about a second every 1 1/2 years (called a leap second). Millions of years ago it would be spinning too fast for any life to exist."

Oh boy...

The leap second is required because the rotation of the earth is not exactly 24 hours. The leap second corrects that discrepancy.

Now the rotation really is slowing down. The slowdown is caused by angular momentum being transferred from the earth to the moon. This is the cause of hte moon receeding. If you look back at the dicsussion on the moon, you will see that observation and theory allows us to predict the period of rotation in the past. Tidal rhythmites then allow us to check these predictions. There is no such problem as you claim.

 

As I have already posted in this thread, we know for a fact, that sometime after the flood, a Pinus logaeva (Bristlecone Pine) seed germinated and grew into a tree and that this seed germinated almost 9,000 years ago. Tree rings don’t lie!

Therefore we have two choices:

1. The Bible is wrong.

2. The Bible is true, but some people interpret incorrectly.

I don’t know about you, but as a conservative, evangelical Baptist Christian I vote for #2—The Bible is true, but some people interpret incorrectly. Do you have to have a post-doctoral degree in rocket science to understand the Bible? No, but a little common sense, a little bit of study, and a lifetime of daily prayer for God to teach you the truth and to protect you from error are a big help.

 

Scott J wrote,

Scott J,

You are confusing what you interpret God to have said with what God actually did say. None of us are disputing what God said, we are simply disputing some inadequate interpretations of what God said, and we know that they are inadequate interpretations because they directly contradict what God has chosen to reveal to us through the earth and universe that He created.

Rom. 1:18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19. because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (NASB, 1995, my emphasis)

 

What is your source of this information?

 

What is your source of this information? </font>[/QUOTE]The science of dendrochronology. This science has many applications, mostly in the study of climatology and long-range forecasting of weather based upon the rainfall in a specific area over a period of thousands of years. It is also used for dating old structures in which wooden beams are used, and it can pinpoint the date for the building of a structure to a specific year, or very close to it. Young earth advocates are not able to refute the absolute accuracy of this method of dating so they have no choice but to admit that the earth is at least 10,000 years old. There are, of course, other means of determining for a fact that the earth is substantially older than 6009 years.

However, this does prove incontrovertibly that a casual reading of the King James translation of the Bible will give the reader a false idea as to the age of the earth. In other words, even young earth “scientists” have no choice but to admit that the earth is 10,000 years old and that the Masoretic text and the textual basis for the King James Version is in error if it is interpreted in a strictly literal manner. Therefore, they really have the same contradiction to deal with if one says that the earth is 10,000 years old or 4.5 billion years old.

Therefore we have two choices:

1. The Bible is wrong.

2. The Bible is true, but some people interpret incorrectly.

 

This is not a young earth verses old earth debate.
Artimaeus asked in the OP:

This thread doesn’t have to discuss ages over 10,000 years. Many, [perhaps most] young earth advocated do not agree with Ussher’s chronology and extend the estimated date of creation further than what a simple addition of the genealogies would suggest.

Interpretation is an art. Some are better at it than others.
There are rules we follow that guide us into proper sense of the meaning of what the
Scriptures mean.
Ignoring the rules or choosing to remain ignorant of them means that you may end up with an improper interpretation... and this has happened.

God’s Word is not always crystal clear. In many instances God has made it clear that a mystery exists. Try explaining the Trinity.

As to the “no hope” statement: God gives hope to the foolish and disheartened, why He even gives hope to you and me! Praise Him loudly.

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (Westminster Confession of Faith)

Rob

 

Pipe,

And 99% of her scriptures stand in radical contrast to other ANE texts.

The contrast was that the Israelites were monotheists.

 

Suppose a skeleton was discovered that was Adam.

Now whether we knew or could find out it was Adam is not relevent, just that it WAS Adam.

All our learned scholars studied the remains and came up with an age at death of the ancient male of 1000 years, give or take a century.

Do you really think this would happen? They most likely would determine his age at death at somewhere around 100 (+/-25) years old.

Why? Simply because an age of 1000 yrs is so far removed from todays norm that it would be ludicrous to even consider the true age of Adam as accurate.

I think the same logic can apply to all the THEORIES of age of the earth and mankind.

Extreme weather conditions (as after the massive Noahic flood) could have created many mini-seasons for hundreds of years afterward.

Did this happen? I don't know, but it is feasible unless you dismiss the extent of the flood.

If true, this could account for hundreds or thousands of "apparent" seasonal growth rings in trees.

And this is a great example of "assuming"!

If the annual seasons are now as they have always been, then those Bristlecones ARE thousands of years old!

However, if the seasons were drastically modified due to some disturbance (as the flood) then the seasons now are NOT as they have always been, & therefore there is no way to accurately interpret the rings as "years".

So, you either believe what God said as He said it, or you believe what man says God said.

It's a faith issue in either case, since neither can be scientifically proven!

 

Why? Simply because an age of 1000 yrs is so far removed from todays norm that it would be ludicrous to even consider the true age of Adam as accurate.

That's a valid point. Most scientists would not even consider that a man could be 1000 years old based on their preconceived notions.

But I would argue that many young earth adherents would not even consider that an old earth is possible or that Genesis 1-11 was not intended to be literal history - based on their presuppositions (namely that all of the Bible was intended to be literal).

 

It is not hard to accept that some of the generations could have been left out that is often done in the Bible.Most of the geneologies are put together for specific purposes to make certain points.That does not mean the I believe in an old earth it just means we cannot be date specific.By date specific I mean september 14th 4004B.C. or something like that.We should keep in mind there could be a plus or minus factor that is within some kind of reasonable limits.

 

Scott J,

You are confusing what you interpret God to have said with what God actually did say.</font>[/QUOTE] No Craig.

If you told me without any indication that you were speaking non-literally that you built a piece of furniture in 6 stages over six hours, I might be amazed at your speed and ability. I might even suspect that you were lying. However, there would be no basis for me to assume that your account was allegorical in nature... even if in my experience, judging on the limitations that I can observe where I am- I can't perceive how you did it.

It is the responsibility of the communicator to give indications when they aren't speaking literally or else they are lying by conveying a not-literal message that they know will be taken literally.

No. You are disputing what God said. God said that He created all animal life for instance in one day as defined by a morning and evening with no evidence whatsoever that He meant anything other than a literal day. He further clarified that these animals would reproduce after their own kind which precludes upward evolution.

Genesis 1 and 2 read like a general recounting of events. Your suggestion that this is a matter of interpretation is an argument of convenience- not context nor even sound theology. You must assume that either God could not have done it or else cannot effectively communicate.

It would be just as valid to suggest the Christ's miracles, His death, His resurrection, and His ascension were allegorical stories. The only concrete, direct proof we have for these things is the Bible.

No it doesn't. It contradicts interpretations of what God revealed that are based on naturalism... an idea that demands that all things in nature must be explained without appealing to a supernatural creator.

What you are basically proposing is that what God revealed in nature acts as a proof against His existence or the necessity of His existence.

This is a gross abuse of this scripture by you. If anything, it applies to those "scientists" whose darkened heart presupposes naturalism.

This text is a catch all for mankind that says that what we observe in nature should lead everyone to the conclusion that there must be a Creator God. Evolution says just the opposite. It says that no creator or creative intelligence was required for what exists in nature.

You bolded "through what has been made". Notably, it doesn't say through what evolved or what developed or what was began. It says through what was "made". That is a creative act not the results of undirected processes.

 

There is only one account in the entire Bible that describes what it means for the Bible to be “given by inspiration of God.” That account is given to us by Luke,

Luke 1:1. Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
2. just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3. it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
4. so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Luke says himself that he “investigated everything carefully from the beginning” and, having investigated “everything carefully,” he wrote it out in “consecutive order.”

I do not think that it is totally unreasonable to believe that Moses did the same thing. That is, that he gathered together all the information that he could find and he then wrote it out for us in consecutive order. Does that mean that all the names and dates were correct? Of course not! God inspired him to undertake the project, and he did the best that he could with what information he was able to gather, and for the most early period (Gen. 1 – 11), that information was, in all likelihood, in the genre of literature that was common to that time and culture, namely epic literature.

The first step in interpreting any literary document is to determine the genre of literature one is dealing with. Several individuals in this thread have bypassed that first step and they are trying to interpret redacted epic literature as though it were the same genre of literature that we find in the Book of Acts.

God has placed in the church pastors and teachers who have education and knowledge of these things to teach the layman who does not. Most unfortunately, however, we find some laymen in the pulpit who have neither an education nor knowledge, and the members of their congregations are left to grope in the dark.

 

Scott J

Well, then I am a liar—and so is God! I most strongly urge you, therefore, to stop reading my posts and to place your Bible up on the shelf with your science fiction novels. I sometimes use the rhetorical first person singular in my posts on this message board, I frequently use the rhetorical first person plural when teaching, preaching, and talking with my friends. Paul used the rhetorical first person singular in several places in his Epistle to the Romans. John never told us not to take his Revelation literally. And Jesus does not tell us that his parable of the prodigal son was not to be taken literally as an historical account.