Age of the Earth II

[jdrbts]

What I seek in attempting to resolve the matter of the age of the earth is security in faith, or as much so as is possible. Security is for me only possible if the Bible is factual. If it is factual, then I can have security in faith, and security in interacting with others when speaking about the Bible: a measure of security is especially important when speaking with intelligent, scientifically oriented persons who, given the impressive achievements of science, have the right to examine - to take a hard, cold look, and examine or question - anything, including anything and everything in the Bible.

The reason resolving this matter of the age of the earth is so difficult is that I suspect that Matthew and Luke, in giving genealogies concerning Jesus in their respective Gospels with the intent of establishing the credibility of Jesus, intended the genealogies to be a literal string of persons going straight back from Jesus to Adam: what greater proof could there be , Matthew and Luke perhaps thought, for skeptics at that time, of the claim that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah?

If Matthew and Luke intended a literal tie back to Adam, then the credibility of both the genealogies in Matthew and Luke and of the account of creation in the book of Genesis, becomes very important.

All I am doing here is weighing two bodies of evidence concerning the age of the earth. (I am not otherwise concerned with "quibbling about genealogies," as Paul warns against.) One body of evidence - that presented by evolutionary scientists - is, I think, after doing some research on the matter of evolution, refutable. The other body of evidence - that presented by the Bible, and especially both the alleged tie from Jesus to Adam, and the account of creation in Genesis - seems more likely, yet has me concerned because, again, I suspect the tie from Jesus to Adam was intended to be literal for the purpose of establishing the credibility of Jesus as the Messiah, and a literal tie would conflict with evidence of scientific methods for dating the earth.

Readers may be interested, though, in viewing www.icr.org, the Website for The Institute for Creation Research, which, if you contact them and request it, will forward literature that provides evidence for a young earth.

Thank you.

[Jack777]

So, ummm, how old is the earth?

[acct pending]

So, ummm, how old is the earth?

4.5 billion years old. Give or take a day or two.

[A Beautiful Truth]

What I seek in attempting to resolve the matter of the age of the earth is security in faith, or as much so as is possible. Security is for me only possible if the Bible is factual. If it is factual, then I can have security in faith, and security in interacting with others when speaking about the Bible: a measure of security is especially important when speaking with intelligent, scientifically oriented persons who, given the impressive achievements of science, have the right to examine - to take a hard, cold look, and examine or question - anything, including anything and everything in the Bible.

The reason resolving this matter of the age of the earth is so difficult is that I suspect that Matthew and Luke, in giving genealogies concerning Jesus in their respective Gospels with the intent of establishing the credibility of Jesus, intended the genealogies to be a literal string of persons going straight back from Jesus to Adam: what greater proof could there be , Matthew and Luke perhaps thought, for skeptics at that time, of the claim that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah?

If Matthew and Luke intended a literal tie back to Adam, then the credibility of both the genealogies in Matthew and Luke and of the account of creation in the book of Genesis, becomes very important.

All I am doing here is weighing two bodies of evidence concerning the age of the earth. (I am not otherwise concerned with "quibbling about genealogies," as Paul warns against.) One body of evidence - that presented by evolutionary scientists - is, I think, after doing some research on the matter of evolution, refutable. The other body of evidence - that presented by the Bible, and especially both the alleged tie from Jesus to Adam, and the account of creation in Genesis - seems more likely, yet has me concerned because, again, I suspect the tie from Jesus to Adam was intended to be literal for the purpose of establishing the credibility of Jesus as the Messiah, and a literal tie would conflict with evidence of scientific methods for dating the earth.

Readers may be interested, though, in viewing www.icr.org, the Website for The Institute for Creation Research, which, if you contact them and request it, will forward literature that provides evidence for a young earth.

Thank you.

All you need is Jesus, really. Jesus came from the Hebrews and quoted from Hebrew scriptures. That is enough for me to shore up the O.T., even though this says nothing about the WAY in which Genesis is to be understood. For me, that it is TRUE (because Jesus came from the Hebrews and quoted from the Hebrew scritures) is enough.

As far as the geneologies go, the Christian who believes the earth is old but that the Genesis account is literal would say that because the Hebrews often counted grandfathers as a father and grandsons as a son, there may be gaps in the geneologies. Often the most prominent figures were chosen in the geneologies. With the gaps, you can push back humanity somewhere in the range of 60,000 years ago or so. This has no bearing on the age of the earth, only of modern humanity. So, you could have an old earth but a young humanity.

As for me, I am not sure how to take the accounts yet. There seems to be so much symbolism, as if it were intended to convey the message of what the symbols represent.

[Jack777]

There is symbolism in the OT. A lot.

[CatholicSage]

Yes, it was my understanding that the word "begat" does not necessarily imply the very next generation.

[Mark_S]

Yes, it was my understanding that the word "begat" does not necessarily imply the very next generation.

I think it would be an anachronism if there weren't gaps. Haven't seen JDRBTS turn up again here, I think it may be a subtle plug for a website. None the less, I find this attitude a bit frightening. I don't think the age of the earth matters much to anything (unless you get paid to study rocks that is) And expecially not a whole lot as far as Christianity is concerned. Sure it would be nice to dig up a fossil and have the whole scentific community look at and go "Yup the earth is young and them Christians are right" dust off our hands and walk away screaming "WE WIN" I just don't see it happening. All I see happening is a bunch of Christians putting more of their faith in "science" than athiests. Its really becoming quite frightening. We hear about Red Blood Cells from Dinosaur bones and our faith swells, we find James' Ossuary and people talk about the evidence that demands a verdict. Then the fanfare dies and the truth is revealed.

I'm sorry, I lost the source of this quote

The ossuary's announcement was news because it impacted the Faith of members of the world’s largest religion, Christianity.

© source where applicable

It impacted our faith?! This needs to stop, we need to start putting our faith where it belongs, and we need to start now. While there is nothing wrong with dating a chunk of granite, or digging up some dusty old relics buried in a cave, we are in for a serious spiritual beating when we begin trusting the "security of our faith" to them.

[A Beautiful Truth]

...All I see happening is a bunch of Christians putting more of their faith in "science" than athiests.

Good point, (and good use of quotations...)

~Charleen