Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:There is no gray area that the fall of man presents TE a problem if there is no historical Adam.
Pretty much every TE knows this.

Convenient, isn't it?

Kurieuo wrote:My next post shall be my last. Yay!

Before your last post, I wanted to thank you for the all the work you've put into this. I hope when I offer some thoughts, they will be as well presented and as relevant as your own have been. I absolutely don't want to add to your list of things to do, but I do wonder if for posterity's sake, you could offer a bullet point list of some sort summarizing what you find to be the most relevant, and perhaps put a link in the OP to that last post. I'm just thinking back to the Shroud of Turin thread. It's incredibly helpful, but it has gotten so long with so much information, that it is hard for a new reader to benefit from it. And some of the information you've provided here is really good. It would be a shame to lose any of it. I'd make a programming analogy with pointers and libaries, but you could probably provide a better one than I could.

If not, I understand. Probably a lot of extra work to do that. All the same, I want you to know that I've thoroughly enjoyed (and, more importantly, at times seriously challenged by) your presentation.

RickD wrote:

RickD wrote:
Thanks K,

That leads me to my next point. If only one of the members at the summit was YEC, then the remaining members had to have at least some Theistic Evolutionists, right?

K wrote:
I'm not sure, since Geisler specifically comments that being off the table.
I really can't picture any TE's who would have put their signature to the statements?
They wouldn't have signed on, unless they put their signature to something they didn't believe.

Some TEs do believe in a literal, historical Adam and Eve. And, I find it kind of difficult to believe that out of all the members, besides Morris, all were Progressive Creationists of some sort.

In the Chicago Statement of Biblical Hermeneutics which happened 5 years after discussion on Biblical inerrancy and that statement. Some who signed the first, may not have signed the second. I can't find a list of names who signed the second.

To quote the introduction to the CSBH:

• Summit I of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy took place in Chicago on October 26-28, 1978 for the purpose of affirming afresh the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture, making clear the understanding of it and warning against its denial. In the years that have passed since Summit I, God has blessed that effort in ways surpassing most anticipations. A gratifying flow of helpful literature on the doctrine of inerrancy as well as a growing commitment to its value give cause to pour forth praise to our great God.
  
  The work of Summit I had hardly been completed when it became evident that there was yet another major task to be tackled. While we recognize that belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is basic to maintaining its authority, the values of that commitment are only as real as one's understanding of the meaning of Scripture. Thus, the need for Summit II. For two years plans were laid and papers were written on themes relating to hermeneutical principles and practices. The culmination of this effort has been a meeting in Chicago on November 10-13, 1982 at which we, the undersigned, have participated.

Just trying to set the scene....
BUT, it is at this second council -- discussion on valid hemeneutical principles and practices -- that evolution receives specific mention and denial in the formed statement:

• Article XIX: "WE DENY that Scripture should be required to fit alien preunderstandings, inconsistent with itself, such as naturalism, evolutionism, scientism, secular humanism, and relativism."

and

• Article XXII
  
  WE AFFIRM that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.
  
  WE DENY that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.
  
  Since the historicity and the scientific accuracy of the early chapters of the Bible have come under severe attack it is important to apply the "literal" hermeneutic espoused (Article XV) to this question. The result was a recognition of the factual nature of the account of the creation of the universe, all living things, the special creation of man, the Fall, and the Flood. These accounts are all factual, that is, they are about space-time events which actually happened as reported in the book of Genesis (see Article XIV).
  
  The article left open the question of the age of the earth on which there is no unanimity among evangelicals and which was beyond the purview of this conference. There was, however, complete agreement on denying that Genesis is mythological or unhistorical. Likewise, the use of the term "creation" was meant to exclude the belief in macro-evolution, whether of the atheistic or theistic varieties.

That is not saying most were all PC and I don't intend to imply that.
You don't need to have a position in order to reject some beliefs.
Some may have just left it more as an open question.

Geisler mentions other ideas some some held to in his article, Does Believing in Inerrancy Require One to Believe in Young Earth Creationism?

Some may have changed their position since, considering we all form beliefs over time.
I'd be interested to hear any names of people on the list who are TE now/what they believed then.

Jac3510 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:My next post shall be my last. Yay!

Before your last post, I wanted to thank you for the all the work you've put into this. I hope when I offer some thoughts, they will be as well presented and as relevant as your own have been. I absolutely don't want to add to your list of things to do, but I do wonder if for posterity's sake, you could offer a bullet point list of some sort summarizing what you find to be the most relevant, and perhaps put a link in the OP to that last post. I'm just thinking back to the Shroud of Turin thread. It's incredibly helpful, but it has gotten so long with so much information, that it is hard for a new reader to benefit from it. And some of the information you've provided here is really good. It would be a shame to lose any of it. I'd make a programming analogy with pointers and libaries, but you could probably provide a better one than I could.

If not, I understand. Probably a lot of extra work to do that. All the same, I want you to know that I've thoroughly enjoyed (and, more importantly, at times seriously challenged by) your presentation.

Thanks Jac, really appreciate how charitable you have been here.

When I wrote, while there are a lot of arguments being made, it was largely an exploratory task into hermeneutics (hist-gram), exploring your challenge of divine & human authorship, and then finally age of the Earth in the face of a valid hermeneutic that we both would affirm (even if there are some difficulties with our using it).

You know, the first few chapters might make it seem I'm anti-Historical Grammatical, since I explore some weaknesses or limitations I see. But, then obviously in later posts I affirm this method as valid. So obviously it would be pointless defend HG against the weaknesses I state, if it is felt I'm attacking it, since I nonetheless embrace it. I'm just being honest with what I explore, the questions I ask and how I answer.

I did summarise in note form as a conclusion to the first section (Summary of Divine and Human Authorship) -- as that was perhaps the most complicated, and people may have lost interest. I really highly recommend reading that summary. It deals with perhaps the most complicated parts of my posts here.

After I conclude I'll try give an overview of my approach so you. Hopefully that will give you a better feel of what I was responding to and how I structured everything.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The reconciliation of Adam and Eve having a spirit and other humans not having a spirit is addressed in a few ways by some:
One is that A&E where the first fully evolved Humans and they were the first to receive the spirit and then others got it too either by virtue of evolving to the right point or by being off springs of "spirit being" humans.
The first humans with a spirit basically out breed and out survived their non-human, non-spirit possessing "cousins".
Some think that ALL humans were given the spirit at the right time and that Adam and Eve were simply the first and that from them came the line of Judah, to which the OT focus on and the other "lineages" of humans did their own thing under the watch of the sons of God ( divine council/angels).
Some view them as being special created as representatives of humans to share in life with God and when they fell, they lost the chance for immortality for the rest of mankind.

Maybe "some" believe that, but it's ridiculous. Especially if a TE believes Adam and Eve evolved first. Because we all know that life doesn't evolve in pairs, but in groups. At least that's what we're told when they say all humanity couldn't have come from one pair.

We are told that humanity could not have come from ONLY ONE pair of humans in ONE GIVEN location, yes.
That said, whether or not there was a time where there was only one human or one pair, we have no way of knowing.

Concluding Thoughts

Throughout my various posts here, it has not been my intention to knock a young Earth position in relation to Scripture. Rather, my aim was to give others here, who believe in an old Earth – specifically Day-Age/Progressive Creation – strong reassurances that they really can accept the words of Scripture while embracing beliefs in an older Earth. That people who believe in an old Earth are in no way compromising Scripture.

Over and over, I kept reading constant accusations of eisegesis, that belief in an older Earth was incompatible with Scripture and indeed even broke the gospel message. These are serious allegations, and if wrong can cause much damage not only to new Christians but also non-Christians. As Norman Geisler comments:

• Given this history of the Young Earth view [it’s rejection as a requirement of Biblical inerrancy, and it never being assigned important doctrinal status throughout history by historic Fundamentalists], one is surprised at the zeal by which some Young Earthers are making their position a virtual test for evangelical orthodoxy.
  
  … to make it a tacit test for orthodoxy will serve to undermine the faith of many who so closely tie it to orthodoxy that they will have to throw out the baby with the bathwater, should they ever become convinced the earth is old. One should never tie his faith to how old the earth is.

The sophistication of some who argued for YEC took their claims to new levels – stressing the importance of a “literal” or “plain” interpretation of Scripture and in particular the Historical-Grammatical hermeneutic. Furthermore, authorities were invoked which made it seem like the YEC was really the only acceptable interpretation.

In order to reassure those who embrace Scripture as God’s specially revealed truths, and who believe in an Old Earth interpretation such as Day-Age/Progressive Creation (or simply believe in an older Earth), I necessarily had to confront these false allegations head on, and so began my research and posts.

Hopefully I’ve given some who might have been questioning their affirmation of Scripture and an interpretation that supports an old Earth the re-assurances they need to know they’re on solid ground. If I have, that my job here is done. That’s all my goal here was. The age of the earth is not a matter of Scriptural orthodoxy.

Appeal to Jac
Jac, when you tell others here that they are not following a correct hermeneutic, you are so adamant and convincing with your words and elegance with which you present them.

Evidently, that is your opinion – and although I don’t want to diminish that into some subjectivity heap – your opinion is clearly what many other conservative Biblical scholars believe to be the objective truth of the Scripture.

I am not sure if you realise, but you also write so persuasive that I’m sure prior to my posts here, many may have perhaps been questioning whether in fact they were distorting Scripture. I’d be lying even if I said that I didn’t.

BUT, pause for a moment. Reflect upon the purpose of what you would love to happen. If you’re desiring to have the desired effect of getting people to accept your interpretation, it can actually backfire and polarise them to the other extreme.

I pray that some brothers and sisters can now find satisfaction in my words here that they are on very solid grounds when it comes to Scripture and believing in an older Earth.

It might be your opinion that such is unacceptable, but certainly there are much greater authorities than you who believe interpretations supporting an old Earth belief are Scripturally sound using a conservative hermeneutic like the Historical-Grammatical method that you rightly promote.

Something that really frustrates me with your writings is that not only do you tell those who disagree with YEC that “they’re unscriptural” or “don’t believe in the Gospel” – you take it to more serious and sophisticated levels. Such that many, even on this board, I dare say are unable to respond and have doubts.

This is the main reason I went to such great lengths here to respond to you, for my own sake as well as others. I wanted to afford Christians a peace of mind that they can embrace Scripture as truth while believing the Earth is old. I’m not here just standing alone in my own light, or “light of science”, but many conservative authorities including the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy and even those before them.

Something else that concerns me, is what seems to be a disregard for knowledge about the natural world. You seem generally relaxed about holding a conflict between what “science says” and what you interpret Scripture to say. BUT, you should not relax on this any more than a faulty interpretation.

I can tell that the Biblical scholar in you screams out to correct another Christian should they make a mistake in their interpretation of Scripture. On the other hand, matters of nature, well you seem less interested as though what we experience in the world doesn’t count for anything. Any contradiction of truth -- not just Scripture vs Scripture -- should be of concern to us.

As people who accept objective truth (like you and I do), surely you see the importance of having compatible truths in the reality of our world as well as Scripture. To remain complacent on truths about our world vis-à-vis Scripture I believe is to not love God with our mind. If you're after neo-orthodox when it comes to matters of truth, then an interpretation of Scripture that ignores truths in other areas removes it from objective reality. And I dare say it can only result in subjugating Scripture according to ones whimful fancies of faith (a common accusation from non-Christian including as our very own Audie).

I’d like to here again re-emphasize Waltke’s words who was a part of the ICBI and tasked with presenting weaknesses to the Historical-Grammatical method in true scholastic fashion:

• Now, while the paradigms proposed by the systematic theologian is essential for exegesis [of Scripture], we should be fully conscious of the problems associated with them… [First] While they assist us in understanding certain aspects of Scripture we must be careful not to absolutize them in such a way that we rule out of our thinking data that does not fit them. A second problem is that we get attached to them. For psychological reasons once we commit ourselves to a paradigm we are reluctant to give it up. A third problem is that even when we have a paradigm that has problems in it we will not let go of it until we are sure we have a better one. Then too, we absolutize them so that they become authoritative as the text itself, though in theory we deny this. Finally, we find it difficult to believe that our paradigms are relative to our understanding and that with more maturity we should let them go for better ones. In short, the problem with paradigms is that we absolutize them. We fail to understand what they really are: human models to advance our understanding of the text.

@Jac, I’d encourage you to simply reflect upon this, whether it might be true in your case. I think it was DanielTwoTwenty, or maybe PaulS who was saying we as Christians can be Pharisee-like with Scripture. There is perhaps some truth to that. Not that we -- you and I -- should not take Scripture seriously as truth, but rather there is much man-made baggage – systematic theology and our so full-of-ourself interpretations that actually sets us above Scripture itself and ultimately God.

It doesn’t leave my notice that your change in perspective regarding the Day-Age interpretation happened as you became more educated in theology and certain systems of thought that you were taught. I still remember you asking me questions, even involving your lecturer's responses for whom you appeared to have great respect for. Sadly, at the time I did not have time to respond and correct your teachings.

I have no doubt that such provided you with solid foundations and solid theological thoughts. The way many Christians on this board respect your opinion (even fear it should it contradict their own beliefs ) is evidence to that. However, just on the topic of creation, and I hope you don’t take offense… but I feel that perhaps you have absolutszed a certain way of interpreting the text that such taught doctrines have been so influential to you that they have become as authoritative as – indeed the same as – the text itself. At least in your eyes.

You don’t see how your own interpretation, anyone's interpretation, is ultimately waxed with bias. For me to suggest this to you wreaks of neo-orthodoxy, and by that I’m assuming you think I’m saying there is no real objective truth to Scripture (which couldn’t be more wrong)! These beliefs are being superimposed, such that to you, an interpretation other than YEC is breaking the Word of God, is not a “literal” or “plain” reading in that it contradicts the Historical-Grammatical method (despite many relevant authorities, including Radmacher whom you quote, who would disagree! The weight of highly valid authorities are against you).

I don’t know whether it is possible for you to try and take a more objectively neutral stance, but hopefully some things I’ve mentioned herein have made you think twice about different issues. Hopefully you don't just see each and every point I've made as something to be refuted.

Ending with Scripture

What could be more fitting then ending my posts here with Scripture? I’d like to make mention of some important ones I feel are relevant, as well as commenting with some very real feelings I have (be forewarned, some comments may infuriate some but it’s how I truly see matters):

• “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.” (Psalm 19:1-4)
  – What passage could be more appropriate? A classical passage used by those who believe that correct understanding of Scripture and correct natural knowledge ought not conflict.
• “Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul.” (Luke 10:27; Mark 12:30)
• “Always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you.” (1 Peter 3:15)
• “We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5) – I know this will hurt some YEC feelings, but I can’t help but strongly feel that Satan uses YEC theology as a stumbling block to people coming to a knowledge of God. For I see it happening – Atheists thinking Christians are just crazy and will believe anything. Christians being pushed to reject Scripture, because they’re forcefully told to accept a young Earth or they’re compromising Scripture.
• “Always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you.” (1 Peter 3:15)
• “'Do not fear, for I am with you; Do not anxiously look about you, for I am your God. I will strengthen you, surely I will help you, Surely I will uphold you with My righteous right hand.'” (Isaiah 41:10) – I believe this is as true with matters of social and intellectual persecution, as it is physical.
• “But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron.” (1 Timothy 4:1-2) – the interesting part of this verse is that YECs would believe this of those who believe in Progressive Creation or Day-Age interpretation. And yet, I believe many YEC beliefs are actually like a trojan horse that somehow made its ways into the 20th century to put off many coming to Christ. (sorry, but that’s just my honest feeling)
• Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.” (Ephesians 6:10-12) – let us not forget who our real battle is against.

Overview To My Posts

Introduction: Finding Agreement
Setting the stage of my writings that follow. Introducing some of your previous arguments against me, and also the ICBI who we both found to be an acceptable authority on Scripture and correct methods of interpretation. @Jac, I’d be interested to know whether you still accept them as such.

Ch.1: Single Meaning – Divine and Human Authors
Purpose to explore the concept of “single meaning”, critiquing your own papers on messianic psalms, what is allowable re: human and divine intentions and understandings, and also some related issues.

• Critiquing Your Paper
  • Jewish Messiah Expectations
  • So, what is my point against your paper?
  • Jac’s response and my follow up response
• Problems Understanding the Human Author’s Intended Meaning
  • Can We Know What the Human Author Intends
  • What the Author Isn’t Allowed to Know
  • Prejudicial Influences on Author’s Knowledge
  • Age of Earth. Is There An Objective Interpretation?
  • Time Out: Side Note on the Creation Debate
  • Problems with Divine Dictation to Human Authors
  • Divine Dictation = “Doesn’t Matter What Moses Means”
  • What the Divine Author Saw that the Human Author Didn’t (plus an addendum)

Summary of Divine & Human Authorship
An overview of many main arguments in everything previous.

• “Subjectivity Creep” in Historical Grammatical Interpretations
• Hard to Know the Human Author’s Intentions
• What the Human Author Isn’t Allows to Know
• Prejudicial Influences on Human Author’s Knowledge
• No Objective Scriptural Interpretation on Creation
• No Real Problem with Divine Dictation
• Moses and Divine Dictation: No Real Issue
• Nothing Wrong with God Knowing Fuller Implications of Scripture

Ch.2: Unlocking Old Earth Understanding on YEC Terms
I here attempt to provide an interpretation of Genesis 1 that not only conforms with the Historical-Grammatical method, but also conforms with additional more extreme requirements including the divine author not specially imparting understanding to the human author (i.e., no divine dictation, or even special revelation to author).

• Clarifications on Accepting Jac’s Premises
• God’s Knowledge of “Fuller Implications” is Key
• Single Meaning: The Sabbath Day and 6-1 Pattern [an interesting interpretation adhering to Historical-Grammaticism]
• Unlocking an Old Earth – “Fuller Implications”
• Is This An Acceptable and Viable Interpretation?

ICBI on Hermeneutics
A look at what the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy saw as valid hermeneutics when interpreting Scripture in a framework that greatly values a belief in Biblical inerrancy. (@Jac, some of these you appear to have explicitly denied and place at the mercy of your own “literal” interpretation).

• Scripture Interpreting Scripture
• Extrabiblical Sources of Truth
• Nature and Scripture

Authoritative Support for an Old Earth
Rather than just present my own opinion on this matter, I offer up valid authorities on Scripture and Biblical inerrancy. These include an authority that you used (Radmacher), someone extremely respected and talented in languages including interpreting Hebrew (Archer), a person who directed the ICBI and essentially set the rules for a valid Scriptural interpretation adhering to the Historical-Grammatical method (Geisler) and then the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy itself.

• Earl Radmacher
  • Use of Rachmacher Undermines Claim that OEC Isn't Warranted by the Text
  • Radmacher Support Old Earth Interpretation
• Gleason Archer Supports Old Earth Interpretation
• Norman Geisler Believes Age of Earth Is Not a Matter of Scriptural Orthodoxy
• ICBI Response to Scripture & Young-Earth Creationism

Kurieuo, I tremendously appreciate the substantial, time, effort and detail you have put into this.

When a theologian of the stature of Norm Geisler says that, after 50 Years of studying it, he has concluded that discerning the truth of the age issue from Scripture remains unclear to him - EITHER way (even though he HOPES that the "days" we're literal ones) - this tells me that, at the very least, the truth of this age of the earth issue is in no way the simple slam dunk many YECS assert it to be. Because if it were nearly so obvious, why would so many evangelical scholars of relevant training and expertise think otherwise? Are they all so clueless, so oblivious, so agenda-driven, or merely careless?

And I much agree that those who so casually dismiss the relevance and importance of scientific data and analysis, must not take much notice that what is being studied is the very handiwork, indeed, ANOTHER testimony of, God's Glory - something that should be taken very seriously. And as so much rigorous analysis does not support a young earth, it seems not espescially open minded to merely dismiss its conclusions. Again, IF the YEC view is correct, it would seem that God does not want the truth of this matter to be clear - ESPESCIALLY as our scientific analysis, over so much data and so many decades of study, show exactly the opposite. As well, the Scriptural analysis reveals a range of possibilities that textual analysis can variously conclude, and with a wide range of opinions amongst those exceptionally qualified to render an opinion. And so, I wonder why another testimony (the Creation) of God to man - with our best and brightest sincerely and diligently seeking the truth of the matter - would be provided in such ways that we would reach such poor understandings of it, with massive evidences that seem to contradict the YEC interpretation. Why would God not want His scriptural and Creative testimonies to reinforce each other?

Philip wrote:Kurieuo, I tremendously appreciate the substantial, time, effort and detail you have put into this.

When a theologian of the stature of Norm Geisler says that, after 50 Years of studying it, he has concluded that discerning the truth of the age issue from Scripture remains unclear to him - EITHER way (even though he HOPES that the "days" we're literal ones) - this tells me that, at the very least, the truth of this age of the earth issue is in no way the simple slam dunk many YECS assert it to be. Because if it were nearly so obvious, why would so many evangelical scholars of relevant training and expertise think otherwise? Are they all so clueless, so oblivious, so agenda-driven, or merely careless?

... Why would God not want His scriptural and Creative testimonies to reinforce each other?

Thanks Philip.

I think your final question there is actually a loaded one, in that it is assuming many truths.
So I can't answer your question, because I disagree with some truth claims embedded within it.
Namely that, Scripture and creation do not reinforce either other.

And, then "reinforce" seems like a strange term to use. Are they meant to reinforce each other? For what purpose?
I'd much more think they just ought to complement each other as sources of truth.
And, as someone who believes all truth sources ought to be compatible, I do believe they complement each other when correctly understood.

Also, is it God, Satan or humans that cause confusion over what is true? I think it is wrong to claim that it is all God.
Especially in light of the fact, according to our Christian beliefs, people willfully hide from God and don't seek after Him.

At the same time, the purpose of Scripture isn't to give a scientific accounting.
Yet, where it does touch upon truths whether historical, about the world, spiritual or the like -- then I do believe they are accurate.
And I believe the real world when also properly interpreted will bear this out.

I much prefer an approach like Geisler who wants to create an umbrella of acceptable interpretations rather than forcing ONE onto people.
BUT, because Geisler values this so much, it leads to what looks like indecisive statements. For example, he says something like he believes in a YEC interpretation half the week and OEC the other half.
Such is just Geisler's way of being sensitive to YECs. He's just valuing unity with the broader Christian community, because he doesn't want to cause conflict.
It is quite apparent to me in my reading of him (and AiG's reading of Geisler given their response), that Geisler is firmly persuaded of an old Earth and that a PC interpretation is correct.
But, he values people getting along a lot more, so wants to allow others to believe in what he also considers to be orthodox interpretations of Scripture.
At least, that's what I'm picking up with him.

So then, I'm not sure where that leaves your question now.
I think I've unpacked it enough and adequately responded to it?

Kurieuo, yes, perhaps, "complement" is a better word. I agree that much of the seemingly relevant texts should not be read per scientific understandings. I find it interesting that the heavens not only declare God's glory, but also "reveal knowledge." Now, is that knowledge to be merely awareness of His obvious existence and immense power and beauty, or does it have more to say?

Clearly, the the heavens are another testimony. We must remember that when the age calculations truly began once it was realized that the static universe view was wrong. Of those qualified to research such things include many scientists who are Christians - earnestly and sincerely seeking what the stars tell us. And as they are such a key and powerful testimony, would God allow Satan to hide their truth? Does Satan even have such ability? Man can easily delude himself; he can look accurately and properly discern various truths about God, but he can easily deny them through self delusion, Satan obviously further manipulating those who truly don't want to know or are avoiding God's testimonies (Scripture and His Creation). Just as God has protected Scripture, I believe He has kept an uncorrupted testimony of what He has done. Now, that doesn't always mean we can correctly interpret it. Also, is there not the fact that many believe because of what can be observed? I just don't buy the Satan argument, that he has been allowed to cloud the testimony - least not to those sincerely seeking the truth of things. God always knew we would be intensely studying the heavens for answers. So, I think it's a reasonable question to ponder - does God want us to know the truth of the age issue? If so, why would He make this so difficult and "potentially" divisive?

I think we can know the truth of the age. And do. Just some believe otherwise.
You might well be asking, does God want us to know the truth of whether the earth is flat?
Well... err... I'd equally respond I think we can know the truth that the earth is not flat. Just some believe otherwise.

You know, this is a personal belief based up my musings of life, but I believe God provides "get out of jail" cards.
Only they are not "get out of jail" cards but to the contrary "bury God" cards.

It might sound strange to some, but truly, I think God wants us to seek Him out and so he makes it possible for us to be blind.
Consider the world we live in. God is clearly not present in every way. The world is good for the purpose of people seeking God out, or burying God.
People can see patterns in nature, and say, "hey! look at that we're just a random product of our world which has always existed."
And even when there is good evidence and reasons for believing in God, just don't go telling that to someone who doesn't see it.
They'll laugh at you, or scoff, play a card of being much smarter or something the like.

No. The way God created the world wasn't to make Himself known, but nor do I think it was to hide.
Rather, God provided ways out of belief for those who seriously want to reject God.

Consider someone famous, extremely wealthy or powerful.
If they truly want another's heart, revealing their power, fame or fortune could cloud matters.
How much more then if God didn't provide "ways out" to allow people to con themselves?
If God didn't, but rather made Himself known in every way it'd kind of be like: "Hear ye, hear ye... I am your God... Love me now." (obviously I'm playing the words for some effect, but hopefully you get the point)
And truly, that would be a quite pitiful act for God. Who could seriously stand up to God to deny him?

As for the age. I really don't think God cares. He'd look down and see we all carry such dumb beliefs.
Scripture also doesn't really care. People do though. And only Christians in the 20th century started to care to the extent they started making it a test of orthodoxy.
Maybe Scopes escalated the issue so some Christians felt it was a matter of "you're either for us, or against us." I don't know.

Kurieou, my question is to mostly just emphasize it, as I really am not convinced that that really is THE question or that it's even possible for that to be answered (I don't think it is).

As for the age. I really don't think God cares.

And I think that's correct. He doesn't, else He would have made it unmistakably clear to the point there could be no reasonable debate - but there is, REASONABLE debate by Christians, many of them scientists, theologians, Bible and language scholars.

I think, along the path of trying to determine the true age, we begin to realize that Scripture is truly God's Word and that we can see His handiwork all over what has been powerfully made, to the point that it is unreasonable to think otherwise. But the nuances of WHAT precisely He did, WHEN and HOW, are ultimately beyond us, as they point to an intelligence and wisdom beyond our comprehension. So, likely, in God's eyes, it's not some definitive, end-result understanding He wants for us now, but what we do and can learn along the way to trying to understand what He knows is so important to so many. As most of those definitive certainties, for us, will have to wait until the next world. To me, just knowing that He is the Creator is enough to satisfy my what I ultimately need to know (as to the world and universe). I'm totally in awe of just what little I do know, scientifically, of what God has done. And the more I know, the more my awe grows.

I think the error many of us are making is that some of us think that the ultimate truth about the approximate age of the earth CAN be known - and that's whether they have come to their conclusion per Scripture only, sciences only, or through a combination of both. Whatever one's beliefs concerning this matter, the debate will continue, until Jesus returns.

And, also -- because God has all knowledge -- He knew that evolutionary thought Would be entering the picture -- He told us Exactly how HE brought this world into existence and the amount of time He took to do it. "In the beginning God created....." And an evening and a morning made up even the 1st day a 24 - hour day.
There are those who would limit God's power to allow for the Big Bang to take place and then step aside -- thus allowing for theistic evolution. But WE need to give God the credit for Being the all-powerful / all knowing God that He truly Is. Because He was Also all-powerful enough to raise His Son from the dead -- thus - Christianity has been made possible for Everyone. Though not everyone Will receive.

crochet1949 wrote:And, also -- because God has all knowledge -- He knew that evolutionary thought Would be entering the picture -- He told us Exactly how HE brought this world into existence and the amount of time He took to do it. "In the beginning God created....." And an evening and a morning made up even the 1st day a 24 - hour day.
There are those who would limit God's power to allow for the Big Bang to take place and then step aside -- thus allowing for theistic evolution. But WE need to give God the credit for Being the all-powerful / all knowing God that He truly Is. Because He was Also all-powerful enough to raise His Son from the dead -- thus - Christianity has been made possible for Everyone. Though not everyone Will receive.

There are those who'd limit "god's power' such that he didnt have the capacity to figure out how to set up a universe that can run itself, but has to constantly step in and tinker with it as if it were an old British sports car.

But are we Meant to 'run ourselves''? His Word gives us Lots of guidelines to follow -- for our health and well-being. Philippians 4 talks about taking our cares , prayers, petitions to Him.

He gave us a perfect environment With Him in the Garden of Eden -- enjoying the beauty of His creation and fellowshipping with Him and each other. He also created us with free will / we're not robots. We learn that every action has a re-action involved. Good and negative as well.