|
Post by crazedshredder on Feb 5, 2011 1:43:25 GMT -5
Just wondering your opinions on the debate. I personally am not sure.
|
|
|
Post by immortal_cacti on Feb 5, 2011 7:28:58 GMT -5
i think it's a young earth. 6,000ish years.
|
|
|
Post by behemoth on Feb 6, 2011 19:21:34 GMT -5
This may sound like a cop-out answer of sorts, but I really do not care how old the earth is. God created the earth, and whether it was 6,000 years ago, 4.5 billion years ago, or yesterday does not change that.
That is not to say that the answer does not have important ramifications in relation to proper interpretation of Scripture, etc. Nonetheless I get antsy because this conversation frequently devolves into a gross fight with both sides (from a Christian context) arguing that the other is abusing or misusing Scripture and shortly thereafter arbitrary, loaded, and yet somehow vague descriptors associated more accurately with American politics appear (i.e. "You're a liberal or conservative").
We sometimes fail to see that perhaps our box is a little bit too small for the God of the universe.
That said, if you pointed a gun at my head and demanded a response, I'd probably say old-earth...and that you're crazy for pointing guns at people over a question.
|
|
|
Post by dlectronic on Feb 7, 2011 0:01:22 GMT -5
This may sound like a cop-out answer of sorts, but I really do not care how old the earth is. God created the earth, and whether it was 6,000 years ago, 4.5 billion years ago, or yesterday does not change that. That is not to say that the answer does not have important ramifications in relation to proper interpretation of Scripture, etc. Nonetheless I get antsy because this conversation frequently devolves into a gross fight with both sides (from a Christian context) arguing that the other is abusing or misusing Scripture and shortly thereafter arbitrary, loaded, and yet somehow vague descriptors associated more accurately with American politics appear (i.e. "You're a liberal or conservative"). We sometimes fail to see that perhaps our box is a little bit too small for the God of the universe. That said, if you pointed a gun at my head and demanded a response, I'd probably say old-earth...and that you're crazy for pointing guns at people over a question. I am in your shoes with this one. I don't see that it is pressing enough to my faith to really take a rock-solid side on this. Are we just being lazy with this? What if, scripturally, we ought to believe in a young earth? The answer to this question really does lie in a good study of the old testament.
|
|
|
Post by Radiant Magnificence Alastair on Feb 7, 2011 2:08:42 GMT -5
Young earth, if anyone says old earth they should be shot.
|
|
|
Post by dlectronic on Feb 7, 2011 2:36:20 GMT -5
Young earth, if anyone says old earth they should be shot. Metalman5000 is yours to execute, then. Lucky for me, I am agnostic in this regard.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Feb 7, 2011 16:45:17 GMT -5
Same. I have no idea. Tried to make a well grounded well informed opinion once and failed.
A lot of evidence points to an old earth. But, there's still some things that make it so I don't want to completely rule out new earth theory. (when I say new earth I mean 6,000-12,000ish yrs old)
|
|
|
Post by davo on Feb 7, 2011 17:42:05 GMT -5
Old earth for me too. My dad's a young-earther, which I've had a couple of discussions about.
|
|
|
Post by behemoth on Feb 8, 2011 18:15:24 GMT -5
Young earth, if anyone says old earth they should be shot. OLD EARTH!
|
|
|
Post by Radiant Magnificence Alastair on Feb 8, 2011 21:03:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by behemoth on Feb 10, 2011 19:24:26 GMT -5
Fine! Young earth then...
|
|
metalphil
New Member
I'm back! I was "Hardcore4therisen" then "In Christ, the metalhead". Word.
Posts: 27
|
Post by metalphil on Feb 11, 2011 22:42:50 GMT -5
Young.
I know some of y'all have argued for "well it doesn't really matter" and while I agree: it's not necessarily something to split churches about and though it doesn't really have much to do with salvation/justification (the core/central issue!), this discussion is still important because of what the Scriptures say about the earth and, as behemoth has suggested, an issue of interpretation.
If you're reading through Genesis 1 and much of the rest of the Scripture and take the day, "yom (in Hebrew)" to mean day as it does when we use it, aka a normal 24 hour day as context suggests (day and night, 1st day, 2nd day, etc), then you have to settle for the earth being a few thousand years young.
What I'm saying is this is an issue of hermeneutics (science and art of interpretation, aka how to read something). So, what my point is if we can trust what Scripture says about things like end time events, who Christ is, and salvation, why can't we trust Him in His own creation account? Does God mean what He said or do we need to help Him out? Does He mean what He say's throughout Scripture or does it change? If so, who decides that?
Anyway, its for these reasons and more that I argue for a young earth. I'm beginning to realize consistent and literal (normal) hermeneutics is extremely important when we read the Scriptures. Again, while it's not a core issue, it's still an issue and one that deals with communication, hermeneutics, and God's own trustworthiness.
|
|
metalphil
New Member
I'm back! I was "Hardcore4therisen" then "In Christ, the metalhead". Word.
Posts: 27
|
Post by metalphil on Feb 13, 2011 22:12:30 GMT -5
Sure, but our understanding of the Scriptures should be as normal/literal/straightforward as possible. I mean, this is how we communicate. No one likes having a conversation where it's just talking in circles or where you can't get your point across or where no one cares what you're saying. Ya know. So, I mean, what indications do we have Biblically to understand what Moses is saying as not historical and chronological?
I agree about the "trusting the Scriptures" thing. What I was getting at was that it's an issue of reading the Bible the same throughout unless given reason not to. Again, hermeneutics. The "means what it says" approach to Scripture and communication and whatnot doesn't need to be altered unless there is good reason to do so. For example, the Song of Solomon has often been taken as a love story between God and the Church or God and Israel. The problem is you have to ignore normal ways of understanding communication, grammar, and language to reach that conclusion. Also, Israel and the Church are never mentioned in the text. (There are more reasons than that, btw lol.)
So my point is, what reason do you have to read it like that? When does your literary framework theory stop? Should it stretch through to the rest of Genesis or continue on all the way through the books of the Law? Why? Who decides that?
You say "...this means I'm trying to stay as true to the Scriptures original meaning as possible..." but is that what the original audience (Israel in the wilderness) understood it to mean? Does this best fit what God was trying to communicate?
|
|
|
Post by behemoth on Feb 14, 2011 17:04:33 GMT -5
Sure, but our understanding of the Scriptures should be as normal/literal/straightforward as possible. I mean, this is how we communicate. No one likes having a conversation where it's just talking in circles or where you can't get your point across or where no one cares what you're saying. Ya know. So, I mean, what indications do we have Biblically to understand what Moses is saying as not historical and chronological? I agree about the "trusting the Scriptures" thing. What I was getting at was that it's an issue of reading the Bible the same throughout unless given reason not to. Again, hermeneutics. The "means what it says" approach to Scripture and communication and whatnot doesn't need to be altered unless there is good reason to do so. For example, the Song of Solomon has often been taken as a love story between God and the Church or God and Israel. The problem is you have to ignore normal ways of understanding communication, grammar, and language to reach that conclusion. Also, Israel and the Church are never mentioned in the text. (There are more reasons than that, btw lol.) So my point is, what reason do you have to read it like that? When does your literary framework theory stop? Should it stretch through to the rest of Genesis or continue on all the way through the books of the Law? Why? Who decides that? You say "...this means I'm trying to stay as true to the Scriptures original meaning as possible..." but is that what the original audience (Israel in the wilderness) understood it to mean? Does this best fit what God was trying to communicate? I'm not taking a stance in this post one way or the other, but an old earth creationist would say that we determine how passages are to be properly interpreted on a case by case basis using careful exegesis, a part of which would be both social-historical criticism, literary criticism, and form criticism. (As an aside, when I say 'criticism' here, I do not mean to attack, tear down, or criticize in the connotation of which we generally think of criticizing people; but rather I mean criticism in the sense of close and careful examination...taking a 'critical look' at something.) People write fiction. People write allegory. I am not saying that the Bible is either fiction or allegory here, just using those as examples of non-literary genres of writing. A person holding to the described form of argumentation would say that a part of reading anything 'literally' requires taking into account the genre in which the writing discussed is written (literal having the same root word as literature). I would not interpret apocalyptic with the same hermeneutic that I would apply to the Psalms because they are different forms of writing, for different purposes, accomplishing different literary goals. It makes a difference whether Paul is writing situational letters in response to specific problems arising in church congregations or if he is instead writing epistolatory messages intended to be broad sweeping directives. As I said while it is an issue of true gravity and importance, I am somewhat ambiguous as to which way I lean, so this post is not meant as a challenge or anything, just an attempt at what a person might say, which is to say that an old earth creationist would argue that Genesis 1-11 are written in a genre and style that if not wrong, it would at least be missing the point to interpret as a 'literal' and chronological series of events. Questions that make me lean old earth-ish... 1. Why are Genesis 1 and 2 so different. It does not seem to be simply a matter of a different perspective on the same series of events. The chronologies are entirely different, from the order of creation to the focus point/culmination of that creation. It really looks like two creation accounts to me. 2. The Hebrew used is different in Genesis 1-11 and the rest of Genesis. There is even a substantial difference between 1 and 2. Based off of questions one and two, if this is one creation account to which I should subscribe literally, which chronology do I follow, and why not the other? 3. Speaking of Hebrew, is it really coincidence that the first man is named Adam and the generic word for mankind is adam? Or that the earth/ground from which he is molded is adama? 4. Where did Cain's wife come from, and who were all those people he feared? Again, though this seems pretty one-sided I'm not set in stone in my position with regards to any of this.
|
|
|
Post by tohellwithhades on Jul 9, 2011 17:44:20 GMT -5
Heh, I think this has been added as topic numerous times. I'm one for the thousands of years opinion.
|
|