Why do You Believe the World is only 6.000 years old? (sinners, salvation)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Bible does not tell us the earth is 6,000 years old. In fact, if we go according to the Scriptures, the earth could be millions, even billions of years old.
For instance, if we go to Genesis 1 we have this:
Gen 1:1 Created by the Elohim were the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 Yet the earth became (Heb. hawyaw) a chaos and vacant, and darkness was on the surface of the submerged chaos. Yet the spirit of the Elohim is vibrating over the surface of the water (Concordant Literal Old Testament).
Why did they translate verse two as "become"? It is a change from what was before. For instance there was darkness and then it became light. So there was a change:
Gen 1:3 And saying is the Elohim, "Become (Heb. hawyaw) light!" And it is becoming light.
There needed to be an atmosphere and a separation between the water below in the oceans and water in the atmosphere:
Gen 1:6 And saying is the Elohim, "Become (Heb. hawhaw) shall an atmosphere in the midst of the water, and coming is a separation between water and water.
So, to get to my point: Genesis 1:1 is when the earth was originally created and millions, possibly billions of years passed. Then the earth became chaos and vacant or sterile of all plant and animal life. Roughly 6,000 or so years ago God made the earth habitable again and created Adam, the plants and animals and then Eve.
Yeah...no...Pretty much all data says that is false.
I have never read Harry Potter but, I'm pretty sure the author has never claimed the story to be real. The significance of the bible being accurate historically is two fold:
Firstly, there are a large number of bible scholars who imagine and develop theories to try to explain the many fulfilled prophesies found within the bible without giving credit to almighty God. One easy way to accomplish this is to theorize that the prophesies were written down after the events occurred and just pretend to be of an earlier date. These theories lack any serious merit unless you are looking for an excuse to discount fulfilled prophesy or miracles. The fact that the writers of the 66 books of the bible had intimate knowledge of the times and areas where they lived helps to dispel these theories.
Except it's obvious that in a lot of books of the bible they don't have intimate knowledge of the time period they are writing in. That pretty much casts aside the belief that they were written in the same time period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by awsmith
Secondly, the historical accuracy of the scriptures provides a basis for belief in the miracles and work of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ conducted a very public ministry for three and a half years where he healed all who came, raised the dead on a couple occasions, and preformed other miracles like changing water into wine or commanding the wind. He did this while being followed around by religious leaders who were trying to find fault in Him and His ministries.
Nobody knows how long he taught for and there are only the Gospels that report any of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by awsmith
Jesus' resurrection from the dead was also witnessed by hundreds of people if not thousands over the course of 40 days. He ate food; he was touched; he spoke to individuals and groups. Paul tells us that on one occasion he was seen by over 500 people at once. These people became the base of the first church in Jerusalem and then because of persecution they spread out and became pillars in churches all over Judea and other parts of the Roman empire.
Yes, according to CHRISTIAN sources which have a vested interest in supporting that claim. How many secular and contemporary sources make the same claim though?
Quote:
Originally Posted by awsmith
The witnesses to the miracles and the resurrection suffered for what they claim to have seen. They lost families, were imprisoned, and many died for their testimonies. There is no record of any of them denying what they claimed to have witnessed. This is remarkable because if they were telling stories they would have been dying for a lie. People often have been willing to die for a belief but, for a lie? Highly unlikely.
There is pretty much no record of them at all outside of Christian sources.
Faith is a belief. Nothing else, as none of the assertions you make can be replicated, can they?
Science is based on the ability to replicated the premises proposed.
No one can see, measure, touch or in any way, shape or form define the spiritual you talk about. It boils down to a feeling.
We testify to what we have experianced and it is not merely a feeling. True Faith brings to the soul, the substance, the reality of His Spiritual matters not replicated by natural sciences but indeed replicated by the Spiritual laws of God [for many do testify of the same] that do not change any more than the natural sciences.
Out of your spirit comes forth your ideas and expressed by your physical mouth to physical hears. Do you deny that the inner you exists just because I nor you for that matter can not measure it with a yard stick, or weigh it on a scale?
What you are missing is all the sciences that are used to compute the age of the earth. It means all of them are denied... geology, geography, physics, chemistry, astrology, biology and others.
You see, science does not care what the facts are, it just reports them. Human prejudice distorts those. If you deny those sciences when it comes to the age of the earth, why are you not denying them when it comes to modern medicine or electronics? The process is the same.
"Science - here are the facts, now what can we conclude from them"
"Religion - here are the conclusions, now, can we find any facts that support those."
That is the difference.
Science can provide some facts. But it cannot intrpret itself so you always have a persons bias involved. But science cannot replicate the creation of the universe or the earth, therefore there is no science to prove the age of either. There is personal views of how to intrpret the data we do have. The honest truth is, we cannot prove it.
I don't believe the world is only 6,000 years old. Probably more like 10,000. That seems like a much more believable number.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
Why is 10,000 years old any more believable than 6,000 years old?
Take a look at Keith Richards. 6,000 years wouldn't be nearly enough time for him to look like that. It would have had to take pretty close to 10,000 years to explain that.
We testify to what we have experianced and it is not merely a feeling. True Faith brings to the soul, the substance, the reality of His Spiritual matters not replicated by natural sciences but indeed replicated by the Spiritual laws of God [for many do testify of the same] that do not change any more than the natural sciences.
Out of your spirit comes forth your ideas and expressed by your physical mouth to physical hears. Do you deny that the inner you exists just because I nor you for that matter can not measure it with a yard stick, or weigh it on a scale?
Do you realize that millions, if not billions, of believers in other Gods would attest to the same experiences? What makes your experiences any more real than theirs?
I was raised Catholic and Catholic schools teach evolution and try not to contradict science, however many evangelicals still think the world is only 6,000 years old which leads to distrust of Biology and many other areas of science like climate science. Why this conflict?
The main problem is most Evangelicals think of the Bible as the literal word of God and not metaphorical. The Bible doesn't really come up with a date for creation however. The 6,000 year age of the earth comes from James Ussher, the Archbishop of Armagh, who added up all of the Begats in the Bible and came up with the date of the creation of everything at nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC
My question is, why do these people believe the ignorant guess of one person back around 1640, to the accumulated knowledge of most scientists since then?
Some scientist do not believe others .It has gone on for centuries. So why should religious people not disagree. Doesn't take much thought to see that is humans. The greatest celebrated mind of modern age was a Jew like many others.
Some scientist do not believe others .It has gone on for centuries. So why should religious people not disagree. Doesn't take much thought to see that is humans. The greatest celebrated mind of modern age was a Jew like many others.
Most scientists, especially those in the biology, geology, and astrophysics, are in agreement about the age of the Earth. Those in disagreement are likely being paid by AIG or CRI.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
