Do we ignore science?

[WConn]

Gman,

I see you are a "day-age progressive creationist." I assume that this means the 6 days it took God to do what he did, in your mind took about 12K years in that an age is about 2150 years long. While this makes more sense to me than the strict interpretation of 6 days to create everything, it still falls drastically short of the time period which science says it took to form the earth.

I realize that God would be able to do everything he wished to do in any amount of time he wished to do it. Perhaps we are miserably under interpreting the time frame here. I realize that you have said the bible doesn't really say how old the earth is, that I understand was an extrapolation by others based on their interpretation of the bible. Perhaps we are all wrong? Does it really make a difference? We are here nonetheless.

I guess I am trying to find where I fit into all his, what it is I believe. I fall somewhere between what my understanding of science tells me and what
the bible is trying to say. Very confusing and frustrating at times. Maybe this is unimportant, but I am trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together in my mind and have it make sense. Not sure that is actually possible.

Walt

[zoegirl]

Wconn,

You need to read some of the materials in the home site.

Day-age /Progressive creationists fall in line with what main-line sicence reveals about the universe. That it took place over billions of years.

Day-age refers to the idea that each "day" was, in fact, a long period of time...the "yom" in scripture referring to a period of days rather that just a 24 hour period of time.

Progressive creation refers to the idea that the creation of the animals across that time period.

see http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html

[Gman]

Gman,

I see you are a "day-age progressive creationist." I assume that this means the 6 days it took God to do what he did, in your mind took about 12K years in that an age is about 2150 years long. While this makes more sense to me than the strict interpretation of 6 days to create everything, it still falls drastically short of the time period which science says it took to form the earth.

Hi Walt.

I'm an old earther.. I believe that science and the Bible mix well. That being the universe is billions of years old. More here..

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... ssive.html

I realize that God would be able to do everything he wished to do in any amount of time he wished to do it. Perhaps we are miserably under interpreting the time frame here. I realize that you have said the bible doesn't really say how old the earth is, that I understand was an extrapolation by others based on their interpretation of the bible. Perhaps we are all wrong? Does it really make a difference? We are here nonetheless.

Yes, the Bible was never intended to be a science book. Much of it is poetic in nature filled with orientalisms, idioms, or figures of speech. In fact there are many Jews that believe the book of Genesis was to be read symbolically. Part of the problem is when we try to wrap our western minds around a middle eastern book and then stamp it with the label "thus sayeth the Lord". Of course once someone reads into the Hebrew (which the OT was written) one can grasp the deeper meanings.

I guess I am trying to find where I fit into all his, what it is I believe. I fall somewhere between what my understanding of science tells me and what
the bible is trying to say. Very confusing and frustrating at times. Maybe this is unimportant, but I am trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together in my mind and have it make sense. Not sure that is actually possible.

Walt

Just understand that the Bible was never really to be read as a science book. That is where some of the problem lies... Taking symbolic figurative meanings and trying to make them literal. Sometimes it doesn't work.. Especially in an eastern book.

[WConn]

Gman and Zoegirl,

I guess I am taking things too literally. I was raised Catholic, until I blew out my knee. I remember the nuns having a hissy fit when I would mention something I learned in school which didn't jive with their way of thinking. Perhaps this has colored my perception till this day. I agree with much of what is mentioned in the links both of you have sent me.

Here is my question: Are these time frames confirmed in the bible or are these interpretations of others based more on science? I agree that modern man is mot likely 50 to 100 thousand years old, many science books say more like 120K but this is at least in the ball park with each other. The bottom line here is that someone must be wrong. The young earth types? The Old earthers? I guess I am having trouble finding where I fit in.

Walt

[warhoop]

Here is my question: Are these time frames confirmed in the bible or are these interpretations of others based more on science? I agree that modern man is mot likely 50 to 100 thousand years old, many science books say more like 120K but this is at least in the ball park with each other. The bottom line here is that someone must be wrong. The young earth types? The Old earthers? I guess I am having trouble finding where I fit in.

Walt

The short answer would be, no. But neither are they denied. And this is where the interpretation rears its ugly head. As an old earther, "day"(yom) was subject to context and as such, is used to denote many different timeframes throughout the OT. My new perspective is that "my" context is different than the original audiences context and if I want to have a better understanding of their context, I need to learn more about them and stop worrying about where the shifting winds of "modern" science are blowing.

[WConn]

[quote="warhoop"

The short answer would be, no. But neither are they denied. And this is where the interpretation rears its ugly head. As an old earther, "day"(yom) was subject to context and as such, is used to denote many different timeframes throughout the OT. My new perspective is that "my" context is different than the original audiences context and if I want to have a better understanding of their context, I need to learn more about them and stop worrying about where the shifting winds of "modern" science are blowing.[/quote]

Well put. However the shifting winds of modern science seem to be where the old earthers are coming from. Not a bad thing in it self, I am beginning to consider myself an old earther. I have an easier time reconciling the science which I know and understand and agree with, with a bible that agrees with the old earth theory. Science say Homo sapien has been around for about 120K years here on OLD planet Earth. Hard to reconcile that with those who think the earth is only 6k years old. Just looking for the answers my friend, lots to understand it seems.

Walt

[warhoop]

Well put. However the shifting winds of modern science seem to be where the old earthers are coming from. Not a bad thing in it self, I am beginning to consider myself an old earther. I have an easier time reconciling the science which I know and understand and agree with, with a bible that agrees with the old earth theory. Science say Homo sapien has been around for about 120K years here on OLD planet Earth. Hard to reconcile that with those who think the earth is only 6k years old. Just looking for the answers my friend, lots to understand it seems.

Walt

My personal belief, so take it for what it's worth, no "thus saith the Lord" here, is that to deny "science," or to say science can give us artificial hearts, MRIs, and supercomputers, but it can't give us a ballpark age of the earth isn't credible. But on the other hand, to constantly have to mend our perception or interpretation of scripture to fit current scientific paradigm seems a little reactionary for words that we regard as "ultimate truth." That is why I agree more each day with Walton's perspective in that Genesis 1 does not say anything about a "material creation," but a functional creation, which, if indeed accurate or true, means 2 things: science can say anything it wants to with regards to the age of the earth and to a certain degree, evolution; and we, christians can say anything we want about what "yom" means. I cannot recommend his book enough.

[ageofknowledge]

Wconn, check out Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off by Fazale Rana

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/157683 ... d_i=507846

He carefully deals with this subject.

[WConn]

Well, I've read the information available on the links noted in the responses to my message. Seems there is a wide variety of belief's among Christians. Some believe in an old earth, others in a young earth. Some believe in a global flood, others in a more localized flood. I guess it's all a matter of interpretation or perhaps OPINION?

I now understand that the bible doesn't actually say the age of the earth, or the universe. Funny how one can perceive that something is said based on faulty information from those who appear to be in the know. My bad. I still have a lot to learn but I am intrigued by the disagreements among what appear to be otherwise good, knowledgeable Christians. Perhaps somethings are just not important.

Thanks for all your help.

Walt

[zoegirl]

Walt,

I am glad that you are checking into what we believe. I would say that it is definitely more of an interpreation issue and not just opinions. All of us here who have decided on an Old Earth/Day-age position do not treat scripture lightly.

[ageofknowledge]

Well, I've read the information available on the links noted in the responses to my message. Seems there is a wide variety of belief's among Christians. Some believe in an old earth, others in a young earth. Some believe in a global flood, others in a more localized flood. I guess it's all a matter of interpretation or perhaps OPINION?

I now understand that the bible doesn't actually say the age of the earth, or the universe. Funny how one can perceive that something is said based on faulty information from those who appear to be in the know. My bad. I still have a lot to learn but I am intrigued by the disagreements among what appear to be otherwise good, knowledgeable Christians. Perhaps somethings are just not important.

Thanks for all your help.

Walt

Not all opinions are correct. There is only one correct answer to the question of how old is the earth. But I think I get what you're trying to say. It's not a salvation issue and was never intended to create so much division in Christiandom. On that point, you are 100% correct.

[WConn]

Well, I've read the information available on the links noted in the responses to my message. Seems there is a wide variety of belief's among Christians. Some believe in an old earth, others in a young earth. Some believe in a global flood, others in a more localized flood. I guess it's all a matter of interpretation or perhaps OPINION?

I now understand that the bible doesn't actually say the age of the earth, or the universe. Funny how one can perceive that something is said based on faulty information from those who appear to be in the know. My bad. I still have a lot to learn but I am intrigued by the disagreements among what appear to be otherwise good, knowledgeable Christians. Perhaps somethings are just not important.

Thanks for all your help.

Walt

Not all opinions are correct. There is only one correct answer to the question of how old is the earth. But I think I get what you're trying to say. It's not a salvation issue and was never intended to create so much division in Christiandom. On that point, you are 100% correct.

AOK, do you have the answer to the question, "how old is the earth?" Apparently the Bible does not actually say. If it was important, God would have given us a date as to the beginning, would he not? Apparently God didn't think it was important.

Walt

[ageofknowledge]

Well, I've read the information available on the links noted in the responses to my message. Seems there is a wide variety of belief's among Christians. Some believe in an old earth, others in a young earth. Some believe in a global flood, others in a more localized flood. I guess it's all a matter of interpretation or perhaps OPINION?

I now understand that the bible doesn't actually say the age of the earth, or the universe. Funny how one can perceive that something is said based on faulty information from those who appear to be in the know. My bad. I still have a lot to learn but I am intrigued by the disagreements among what appear to be otherwise good, knowledgeable Christians. Perhaps somethings are just not important.

Thanks for all your help.

Walt

Not all opinions are correct. There is only one correct answer to the question of how old is the earth. But I think I get what you're trying to say. It's not a salvation issue and was never intended to create so much division in Christiandom. On that point, you are 100% correct.

AOK, do you have the answer to the question, "how old is the earth?" Apparently the Bible does not actually say. If it was important, God would have given us a date as to the beginning, would he not? Apparently God didn't think it was important.

Walt

No I do not. I only have my opinion. I'm not sure why you are taking issue with what I said. I said basically everything you did but added that there is only one correct answer. The origin of the earth didn't occur multiple times.

[Gman]

AOK, do you have the answer to the question, "how old is the earth?" Apparently the Bible does not actually say. If it was important, God would have given us a date as to the beginning, would he not? Apparently God didn't think it was important.

Walt

I think it's called trivia...

[WConn]

No I do not. I only have my opinion. I'm not sure why you are taking issue with what I said. I said basically everything you did but added that there is only one correct answer. The origin of the earth didn't occur multiple times.

AOK, I don't think I was trying to take issue with what you said, only to gain another answer to my questions. I have just scratched the surface of my quest, I have miles to go before I sleep. True, the origin of the earth did not occur multiple times. I again am simply trying to reconcile my understanding of science with the Bible. As previously pointed out, there are differences of opinion among Christians as to many things in the Bible, and as you said, there is only one correct answer or opinion.

I agree with the old earth opinion, I believe in the local flood as opposed to the world wide flood. These points would have earned me the wrath of a few Catholic Nuns in my past. Lots of reading and studying to do my friend.

W