Why Do We Insist on a Young Earth?

The earth is not young.  It is over 6,000 years old!
 
Ignorance and bad exegesis, if I had to venture a guess
 
I started reading it...way too much subjective opinion....I will just stick with reading the Scripture and not so much time reading someone's opinion of what it says.
 
Did you get past the introduction? That's where the more objective exegesis starts.
 
ddgently said:
Did you get past the introduction? That's where the more objective exegesis starts.
Click to expand...

Actually, I skim read it all....still pretty subjective with the conclusion in the sense that the author seems to have a view he is trying to prove through his subjective application...nothing new under the sun.  I would agree the Bible is not intended to be a science book, but neither does it conflict with real science, but seems to conflict with the made up kind.
 
theophilus said:
The earth is not young.  It is over 6,000 years old!
Click to expand...

^This.

And I don't insist, I just happen to think it's relatively young.  How much older than 6,000 years?  I don't know.  Maybe 1,000 years more, 10,000, who knows?  Maybe 3 billion years or more.  It wouldn't rock my world either way. 

 
T-Bone said:
ddgently said:
Did you get past the introduction? That's where the more objective exegesis starts.
Click to expand...

Actually, I skim read it all....still pretty subjective with the conclusion in the sense that the author seems to have a view he is trying to prove through his subjective application...nothing new under the sun.  I would agree the Bible is not intended to be a science book, but neither does it conflict with real science, but seems to conflict with the made up kind.
Click to expand...

What makes your perspective objective?
 
ddgently said:
T-Bone said:
ddgently said:
Did you get past the introduction? That's where the more objective exegesis starts.
Click to expand...

Actually, I skim read it all....still pretty subjective with the conclusion in the sense that the author seems to have a view he is trying to prove through his subjective application...nothing new under the sun.  I would agree the Bible is not intended to be a science book, but neither does it conflict with real science, but seems to conflict with the made up kind.
Click to expand...

What makes your perspective objective?
Click to expand...

Where did you read that I claimed it was... There is only one truly objective truth and that's the Scripture & that is so whether my subjective perspective agrees or not.
 
T-Bone said:
ddgently said:
T-Bone said:
ddgently said:
Did you get past the introduction? That's where the more objective exegesis starts.
Click to expand...

Actually, I skim read it all....still pretty subjective with the conclusion in the sense that the author seems to have a view he is trying to prove through his subjective application...nothing new under the sun.  I would agree the Bible is not intended to be a science book, but neither does it conflict with real science, but seems to conflict with the made up kind.
Click to expand...

What makes your perspective objective?
Click to expand...

Where did you read that I claimed it was... There is only one truly objective truth and that's the Scripture & that is so whether my subjective perspective agrees or not.
Click to expand...

So why do you dismiss the article as "pretty subjective with teh conclusion" and "way too much subjective opinion."
 
I really want to believe the old earth crowd but no one will explain the Fall.
If the earth is billions of years old then why does the NT call Adam the first man? There are too many problems with the old earth in conjunction with Genesis 3.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
I really want to believe the old earth crowd but no one will explain the Fall.
If the earth is billions of years old then why does the NT call Adam the first man? There are too many problems with the old earth in conjunction with Genesis 3.
Click to expand...

I have no problems with old earth, evolution, etc. I start with what makes someone human. I have problem believing some intelligent, proto-humans were walking around for years and years. But, until God give one of them His spirit/breath/image, they are not human, but shadows of humans. I believe at some point in the (more) recent past, God did just that and created humans. (I also don't believe that Gen 1-11 are meant to necessarily be history lessons but are instead stories told that speak of deeper truths than what a strictly historical reading would allow.)

And it doesn't matter either way. My faith isn't based on how or when God created, but the fact that, through the scope of time, He has been proven trustworthy over and over. Like I tell my homegroup, our faith comes by looking backwards, our hope comes by looking forwards, and our love comes by looking at those around us now.
 
ddgently said:
T-Bone said:
ddgently said:
T-Bone said:
ddgently said:
Did you get past the introduction? That's where the more objective exegesis starts.
Click to expand...

Actually, I skim read it all....still pretty subjective with the conclusion in the sense that the author seems to have a view he is trying to prove through his subjective application...nothing new under the sun.  I would agree the Bible is not intended to be a science book, but neither does it conflict with real science, but seems to conflict with the made up kind.
Click to expand...

What makes your perspective objective?
Click to expand...

Where did you read that I claimed it was... There is only one truly objective truth and that's the Scripture & that is so whether my subjective perspective agrees or not.
Click to expand...

So why do you dismiss the article as "pretty subjective with teh conclusion" and "way too much subjective opinion."
Click to expand...

Because I don't agree with its premise...that's okay isn't it?
 
God created Adam as a man, not an infant. So I do think it's possible that the Earth was also created "old". That should be clear as mud!
 
aleshanee said:
T-Bone said:
ddgently said:
T-Bone said:
ddgently said:
Did you get past the introduction? That's where the more objective exegesis starts.
Click to expand...

Actually, I skim read it all....still pretty subjective with the conclusion in the sense that the author seems to have a view he is trying to prove through his subjective application...nothing new under the sun.  I would agree the Bible is not intended to be a science book, but neither does it conflict with real science, but seems to conflict with the made up kind.
Click to expand...

What makes your perspective objective?
Click to expand...

Where did you read that I claimed it was... There is only one truly objective truth and that's the Scripture & that is so whether my subjective perspective agrees or not.
Click to expand...

very true.... 8).... .... and subjective perspectives.. found scripturally neglective.. are hardly objective.... but rather highly selective.... thus utterly rejective.....  :-\

was that too perplective?....  ???
Click to expand...

I love it!
 
Izdaari said:
Why do we insist on it? I don't. I think the scientists are right about the age of the Earth.
Click to expand...

Sure they are.... They've been right about everything else they've said.... haven't they????  :eek:

I don't think they even know enough to be in the "ballpark". It is impossible to accurately judge the past solely by the present. Add the fact that scientifically we do not know all the variables in the equation..... Its rather arrogant to claim they "know" something.

I found the article to generally be complementary to what I generally believe about God's divine action in creation. Though I do believe the earth, in some form, existed before Genesis 1:1. I've never heard any argument to contrary that makes any sense.
 
Izdaari said:
Why do we insist on it? I don't. I think the scientists are right about the age of the Earth.
Click to expand...

Scientists are always right. 

Like physicist William Thomson, who calculated the age of Earth to be between 20 million and 400 million years.  And physicists Hermann von Helmholtz and astronomer Simon Newcomb figured it to be between 18 and 22 million years.  They were right, too.  That is until Thomson was made Lord Kelvin, and he recalculated the earth to be 100 million years old.  That is, until he changed his mind, and went back to 20 million years.

Rutherford and Boltwood used radiometric dating to calculate the age of the earth to be 92 to 570 million years, until Boltwood recalculated it to be 1.3 billion years old.  And then scientists used radiometric dating to recalculate the age of the earth to be 1.6 to 3.0 billion years.  That is, until they started using radiometric dating on meteorites, which put the earth at about 4.5 billion years old. 

Well, at least this proves one thing.  These scientists all proved that as time goes by, the earth gets older. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top