Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
News Feeder

Flaws in dating the earth as ancient

Recommended Posts

I believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. I also believe the universe is 13.8 billion years old. The expansion rate using galaxies flying apart from each other was used to date the universe. This does not contradict scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How do you explain the scientific evidence that shows it must be much younger?

 

https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/20...issing-navels/

 

I disagree with that evidence. There is too much evidence showing an old universe, an old solar system, and an old earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I disagree with that evidence. There is too much evidence showing an old universe, an old solar system, and an old earth.

 

There is one question that needs to be answered before evaluating the evidence; was the universe created by God or did it come into existence by natural processes alone? All evidence showing the earth is old begins by assuming that the second alternative is true. For example, if you try to measure the age of the earth by radioactive decay such as the transformation of uranium into lead you need to know how much lead existed at the start of the process. If all the lead that exists was produced by the decay of uranium then the earth must be old; if God created the world already containing lead it might be very young.

 

What is your starting point? Do you believe the Bible's account of God creating the earth or do you think the earth came about by natural processes?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theistic Evolution (IMO and nearly 35 years of serious Bible study) is totally founded upon theory that starts with the intention of disproving the Scriptural account of creation.

 

When students enter college or a university most all teach Darwin's theory. Unless the College or University is Christian, the factual Biblical account of how the world and man came to be will not be the central focus of creation. Even some so called Christian Colleges and Universities teach Theistic Evolution rather that the Biblical account of creation. These schools are generally liberal, and subscribe questioning the facts presented in Scripture.

 

Unless a young man or women has had a solid background in the Bible, by being in Sunday School, and Church, and home Bible study, they are ripe and ready to be persuaded to question the Bible and its genuine account of creation and the Authority of the Bible.

 

The Seminary my wife and I graduated from was a great solid place, now 3030 years later is it a liberal place we can no longer recommend. Times are really changing and mostly not for the good of Jesus Christ.

 

 

justme

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is one question that needs to be answered before evaluating the evidence; was the universe created by God or did it come into existence by natural processes alone? All evidence showing the earth is old begins by assuming that the second alternative is true. For example, if you try to measure the age of the earth by radioactive decay such as the transformation of uranium into lead you need to know how much lead existed at the start of the process. If all the lead that exists was produced by the decay of uranium then the earth must be old; if God created the world already containing lead it might be very young.

 

What is your starting point? Do you believe the Bible's account of God creating the earth or do you think the earth came about by natural processes?

 

I believe God created the universe 13.8 billion years ago and the earth 4.54 billion years ago using the processes discovered in science. Old Earth Creationism (Day-Age Interpretation) completely fits with God's creation and science.

 

See the chart at the site below for more information:

 

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Theistic Evolution (IMO and nearly 35 years of serious Bible study) is totally founded upon theory that starts with the intention of disproving the Scriptural account of creation.

 

When students enter college or a university most all teach Darwin's theory. Unless the College or University is Christian, the factual Biblical account of how the world and man came to be will not be the central focus of creation. Even some so called Christian Colleges and Universities teach Theistic Evolution rather that the Biblical account of creation. These schools are generally liberal, and subscribe questioning the facts presented in Scripture.

 

Unless a young man or women has had a solid background in the Bible, by being in Sunday School, and Church, and home Bible study, they are ripe and ready to be persuaded to question the Bible and its genuine account of creation and the Authority of the Bible.

 

The Seminary my wife and I graduated from was a great solid place, now 3030 years later is it a liberal place we can no longer recommend. Times are really changing and mostly not for the good of Jesus Christ.

 

 

justme

 

I agree. I do not believe in common ancestry or Darwinian evolution (macro-evolution). I do believe in micro-evolution and an old earth though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree. I do not believe in common ancestry or Darwinian evolution (macro-evolution). I do believe in micro-evolution and an old earth though.

 

For me this is an important isue, but a secondary one in fellowship with other believers. We are good. Blessings!

 

 

justme

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For me this is an important isue, but a secondary one in fellowship with other believers. We are good. Blessings!

 

 

justme

 

Same here, I agree. God bless.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We're here! Get over it! :RpS_laugh:

 

Please enplane your self a little further, as this seems like a very rude remark. Is that how you intended it? I don't do well with snarky remarks, as it shows no respect or Christian love. I doubt this is what the forum leaders intended for us to treat one another like.

 

 

justme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My words and deeds divided by your thoughts about them results in your response. Your thoughts came up with "rude," "snarky," "no respect, "no Christian love," and your doubt (your doubt) that I was treating others alike. You have to own that.

 

My response was intended to be light-hearted, first of all, and secondly, to wonder why we Christians estimate the age of the earth, when we know who we are and where we are going. Nothing more. :RpS_smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My words and deeds divided by your thoughts about them results in your response. Your thoughts came up with "rude," "snarky," "no respect, "no Christian love," and your doubt (your doubt) that I was treating others alike. You have to own that.

 

My response was intended to be light-hearted, first of all, and secondly, to wonder why we Christians estimate the age of the earth, when we know who we are and where we are going. Nothing more. :RpS_smile:

 

Thank you.

 

 

justme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Earth Creationism (Day-Age Interpretation) completely fits with God's creation and science.

 

If you assume the Day-Age interpretation is true, you can reconcile the Bible with belief in an old earth. But what is your reason for adopting that interpretation in the first place? Here is how the Bible describes the first day.

 

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

 

It had a period of light and one of darkness. It consisted of an evening and a morning. How could that possible be an age rather than a literal day?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you assume the Day-Age interpretation is true, you can reconcile the Bible with belief in an old earth. But what is your reason for adopting that interpretation in the first place? Here is how the Bible describes the first day.

 

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

 

It had a period of light and one of darkness. It consisted of an evening and a morning. How could that possible be an age rather than a literal day?

 

I believe that was the beginning of the Big Bang and the creation of stars hundreds of thousands of years later but for the Lord only one day had passed. God transcends time so as one day for Him was going by, eons inside this universe were passing by. See 2 Peter 3:8, "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I believe that was the beginning of the Big Bang and the creation of stars hundreds of thousands of years later but for the Lord only one day had passed. God transcends time so as one day for Him was going by, eons inside this universe were passing by. See 2 Peter 3:8, "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.".

 

You need to examine the context of this verse.

 

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. (1 Peter 3:8-10 ESV)

 

He was talking about what will happen in the future, not what happened in the past. But just before this he does discuss the past and what people will think about it.

 

Scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. (2 Peter 3:3-7 ESV)

 

Unbelievers will make two erroneous assumptions regarding the past. They will say the laws of nature we observe today have always been in effect and they will deny that there was ever a worldwide flood. It is natural that unbelievers would make these assumptions but they have been so persuasive in their teaching that they have even convinced so believers that they are right. Of course if you believe these things then you must also believe that the earth is old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You need to examine the context of this verse.

 

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. (1 Peter 3:8-10 ESV)

 

He was talking about what will happen in the future, not what happened in the past. But just before this he does discuss the past and what people will think about it.

 

Scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. (2 Peter 3:3-7 ESV)

 

Unbelievers will make two erroneous assumptions regarding the past. They will say the laws of nature we observe today have always been in effect and they will deny that there was ever a worldwide flood. It is natural that unbelievers would make these assumptions but they have been so persuasive in their teaching that they have even convinced so believers that they are right. Of course if you believe these things then you must also believe that the earth is old.

 

I think that verse can apply to all of Scripture because it is true that God transcends time. I believe there was a flood but that it was more local in nature. I also believe the Earth is old. I believe both of these fit with Scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think that verse can apply to all of Scripture because it is true that God transcends time. I believe there was a flood but that it was more local in nature. I also believe the Earth is old. I believe both of these fit with Scripture.

 

If the flood was local why did God tell Noah to build and ark and take two of every kind of animal to preserve them? Why didn't he just tell him to take his family and move away from the area that would be flooded.

 

I agree that the earth is old. It is more than six thousand years old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If the flood was local why did God tell Noah to build and ark and take two of every kind of animal to preserve them? Why didn't he just tell him to take his family and move away from the area that would be flooded.

 

I agree that the earth is old. It is more than six thousand years old.

 

It may have been more of a global flood. This one I am not certain about. Since He commanded the animals on the ark, it may have been more global.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
Articles - News - Privacy Policy