Why is earth's AGE important to you?

[oikonomia]

Why is the age of the earth an important matter to you (if it is)?

What is the most important thing that knowing the age of the earth will tell you?

 

[HTacianas]

Why is the age of the earth an important matter to you (if it is)?

What is the most important thing that knowing the age of the earth will tell you?

It is of no real importance to me.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Why is the age of the earth an important matter to you (if it is)?

What is the most important thing that knowing the age of the earth will tell you?

It has importance when spreading the Good News. There would be more success if the Genesis 6 day creation story was not presented as literal. It does become a non- starter for some unbelivers. Blessings.

 

[oikonomia]

It has importance when spreading the Good News. There would be more success if the Genesis 6 day creation story was not presented as literal. It does become a non- starter for some unbelivers. Blessings.

Thankyou.
If I understand you, you mean the importance of the earth's age is about how it effects the success of Gospel preaching.

Let me ask you this. Would there be other things in the Bible if not presented so literally (like the virgin birth of Jesus) which would make more success in spreading the Good News?

 

[oikonomia]

It is of no real importance to me.

Thankyou. I got it.

 

[HTacianas]

It has importance when spreading the Good News. There would be more success if the Genesis 6 day creation story was not presented as literal. It does become a non- starter for some unbelivers. Blessings.

The Genesis creation story is only presented as literal among some protestant groups.

 

[oikonomia]

The Genesis creation story is only presented as literal among some protestant groups.

But, you have no dog in the fight so to speak.
I mean as far a the literal age of the planet being deduced from an interpretation of Genesis, you're not concerned about it.

I don't think an age to the universe can be figured out from my reading of Genesis.
Other than that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, I think it is an unknown.

Maybe we can see something there about the timing of the presence of man's arrival in the universe.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Thankyou.
If I understand you, you mean the importance of the earth's age is about how it effects the success of Gospel preaching.

Let me ask you this. Would there be other things in the Bible if not presented so literally (like the virgin birth of Jesus) which would make more success in spreading the Good News?

People who push back always start at the beginning, the earth 6000 years old or millions. Its becoming more and more apparent that the creation story just doesn't hold so we appear naive. As far as adding all the miracles, including the virgin birth, they stand on their own as miracles.
Blessings

 

[oikonomia]

People who push back always start at the beginning, the earth 6000 years old or millions. Its becoming more and more apparent that the creation story just doesn't hold so we appear naive. As far as adding all the miracles, including the virgin birth, they stand on their own as miracles.
Blessings

I think the biggest miracle is that out of absolutely nothing God called into being everything.
That has to be a miracle.

God whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls the things not being as being. (Rom. 4:17b)

Anyway, I came to believe the Old Testament through first being perusaded that the integrity of Jesus was beyond questioning.
I first came with a big sckeptical filter when I started reading the Bible on my own.

Eventually, I saw that Jesus took the Old Testament seriously. So I decided that if it was good for Christ it must be good.

The issue in this Earth Age matter to me is "What did it actually SAY?"
Exodus 20:11 I don't think says that God CREATED the world in six days.
It says He made these things in six days.

Some overlap between "made" and "created" does exist in the Hebrew Bible.
But it should not be always the case.

We have "made" for instances of trimming finger nails or trimming a beard or preparing a cake (I think).
I would have to double check.
That is working with something which really has some existence.

I would ask some fellow believers this:
"If there was some world that was destroyed and rendered without form and chaoticly waste, and God prepared it
for a brand new order of things in six days, wouldn't Exodus 20:11 still be true?

For in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it.

 

[HTacianas]

But, you have no dog in the fight so to speak.
I mean as far a the literal age of the planet being deduced from an interpretation of Genesis, you're not concerned about it.

I don't think an age to the universe can be figured out from my reading of Genesis.
Other than that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, I think it is an unknown.

Maybe we can see something there about the timing of the presence of man's arrival in the universe.

I personally don't have a dog in the fight because to me it doesn't matter. But what does matter to me is when someone tries to pass off a literal six day creation or a 6000 year old earth as a matter of Christian doctrine. There has never been a defined doctrine on the age of the either the earth or the universe, so when someone demands that there be, it is only their own opinion.

 

[oikonomia]

I personally don't have a dog in the fight because to me it doesn't matter. But what does matter to me is when someone tries to pass off a literal six day creation or a 6000 year old earth as a matter of Christian doctrine. There has never been a defined doctrine on the age of the either the earth or the universe, so when someone demands that there be, it is only their own opinion.

This could be kind of like arguing that three wise men came to visit the baby Jesus.
Well, it just says plural wise men came. And it mentions they brought three gifts.

Two wise men can bring three gifts.
Five or eight wise men can also bring three gifts.

It didn't say how may wise men came other than it was more than one.

I don't think the Bible tells how many years ago the universe came into existence.
That it was "In the beginning" is clear.

 

[Divide]

Well Proverbs 25:2 says it is the glory of God to coneal a matter, and a kings privledge to seek it out. So I would not think it beyond God to confuse us about the age of the earth. ?? Maybe.

Think of a cone curled from construction paper. It is small at one end and gets bigger at the other end. The small end represents Creation. The large end represents the expansion of spacetime. God is still at the beginning, lookong forward in time. We on the earth are at the large end and can only look backward, but not forward in time. (It has something to do with light and red shift) So from God's perspective at the small end/beginning he can see it all in time and it took him 6 24 hour days to create the earth and man.

But since we can only look backward in time, it appears to us that somewhere between 13.5 billion years and 16 B years is the earths age because we are not looking with spiritual clarity but with dark glasses. I havent did the math, but man could be right (from his perspective) and the truth still be that we are 6 thousand years old from the Lord's perspective.

 

[southwestforests]

As for me, I'm not concerned with pinning a number on the Earth's birthday cake. And I'm of the opinion that doing so is also not the goal of the Genesis account, but the account's goal is to tell that the Earth has a cause, that it came in to existence by an orderly and deliberate process, that it has a reason to exist, and that there is a goal for its existence.

 

[notworthconsideration]

Why is the age of the earth an important matter to you (if it is)?

What is the most important thing that knowing the age of the earth will tell you?

The age of the planet, if known, would not be what God wants us to focus on.

He gave us the intended starting point to tell His story, which was when He arrived* and created an environment suitable for Him to live with His special creation.


*’when He arrived’ does not disregard either point of view, as God doesn’t indicate whether He had created the entire universe right then, (not likely), ten minutes prior, or 10,000 years prior. His written story is only about His home on a plot of land equal to just 1% of the planet’s total surface. And, He numbered all the years, in genealogies & chronologies, from the starting point He gave us to follow. We’re not to concern ourselves with it, although, it is an intriguing mystery.

 

[didactics]

Why is the age of the earth an important matter to you (if it is)?

What is the most important thing that knowing the age of the earth will tell you?

Good question, it is important to me to know the general age of the earth or that the earth was made in 6 days (and not just made but created, spoken into existence by his word) because this usually ties into what we think about Noah's flood. But then that pushes the question to why is it important to know that it was a global flood. This is important, to consider a worldwide flood because it highlights the sinfulness of man, that God would kill all land animals not found on the ark and all people. A worldwide catastrophe is in view. Because if this was a local flood, then what does the promise mean that it would never happen again? Sin has tainted all of the earth that even animals die as a consequence. Even if we agree that most of the world population had not spread out, it certainly did when the waters came. Sorry that was out of line.

 

[oikonomia]

Good question, it is important to me to know the general age of the earth or that the earth was made in 6 days (and not just made but created, spoken into existence by his word) because this usually ties into what we think about Noah's flood. But then that pushes the question to why is it important to know that it was a global flood. This is important, to consider a worldwide flood because it highlights the sinfulness of man, that God would kill all land animals not found on the ark and all people. A worldwide catastrophe is in view. Because if this was a local flood, then what does the promise mean that it would never happen again? Sin has tainted all of the earth that even animals die as a consequence. Even if we agree that most of the world population had not spread out, it certainly did when the waters came. Sorry that was out of line.

I think the Bible reveals a pre-Adamic world. And though this is not spoken about much, it is important.
It makes naked the enemy of God, Satan, as to his career, past, and the reason for Satan's insane jealousy and hatred of man.

The most important thing about this earth age matter is the previous origin and career of our enemy.
How long ago that pre-Adamic kingdom was is not important to me.
But that he rose and fell before man is created should not be obscured.
Placing this creature simultaneously in Eden with Adam confuses and obscures Satan's origin.

Do you think that God commanding that the animals multiply that insects (before the sin of Adam) were to live forever?
I mean then roaches, flies, termites woud have more than filled the earth.

 

[oikonomia]

The age of the planet, if known, would not be what God wants us to focus on.

I see it this way. What only was essential for us to know He revealed to us.

He gave us the intended starting point to tell His story, which was when He arrived* and created an environment suitable for Him to live with His special creation.


*’when He arrived’ does not disregard either point of view, as God doesn’t indicate whether He had created the entire universe right then, (not likely), ten minutes prior, or 10,000 years prior. His written story is only about His home on a plot of land equal to just 1% of the planet’s total surface. And, He numbered all the years, in genealogies & chronologies, from the starting point He gave us to follow. We’re not to concern ourselves with it, although, it is an intriguing mystery.

Gerald Shroeder of MIT, an Orthodox Jewish physics professor proposed something like this in his book - "The Science of God."

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

For me, it's about the coherence, integrity, and consistency of my Reformed systematic theology and biblical world-view. For example, Article 2 of the Belgic Confession of Faith affirms that one of the ways by which we know God is "the creation, preservation, and government of the universe; which is before our eyes as a most elegant book, wherein all creatures, great and small, are as so many characters leading us to see clearly the invisible things of God, even his everlasting power and divinity," among other things. If we take that seriously, then we have to believe that God is no less the author of nature than he is of scriptures, thus we should read nature with the same solemn commitments and reverence that we do scriptures. Furthermore, if God is the one and same author of both, then nature and scriptures will not (and cannot) contradict one another.

As Cornelius Van Til argued, "God's revelation in nature, together with God's revelation in Scripture, form God's one grand scheme of covenant revelation of himself to man. The two forms of revelation must therefore be seen as presupposing and supplementing one another. They are aspects of one general philosophy of history." If God is the same author of both nature and scriptures, then we must respect "the necessity, authority, sufficiency and perspicuity of natural revelation, as these correspond to the necessity, the authority, the sufficiency and the perspicuity of Scripture" (ibid.).

If what we read in scriptures conflicts with what we read in nature, then we have interpreted something wrong—of that we can be certain. And we must be self-conscious and humble enough to admit that even a traditional and revered understanding of a biblical text is nevertheless fallible (i.e., liable to error or capable of being mistaken), for all human interpretation is by definition the product of fallen humans. "We should not assume at the outset that the scientists are wrong," John Frame once cautioned. "It is also possible that our interpretation of Scripture is wrong, though it is not possible for Scripture itself to be wrong." We must be ever mindful of the difference between divine revelation and human interpretation, and resist the tendency to conflate them.

And we must not suppose that nature is inherently untrustworthy. Nature, like scriptures, is divine revelation and therefore infallible; it is incapable of error or lying.


-----
References:

Cornelius Van Til, “Nature and Scriptures,” in The Infallible Word: A Symposium, eds. Ned B. Stonehouse and Paul Woolley (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1946), 255-293.

John M. Frame, The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2002).

 

[oikonomia]

tural revelation, as these correspond to the necessity, the authority, the sufficiency and the perspicuity of Scripture" (ibid.).

If what we read in scriptures conflicts with what we read in nature, then we have interpreted something wrong—of that we can be certain. And we must be self-conscious and humble enough to admit that even a traditional and revered understanding of a biblical text is nevertheless fallible (i.e., liable to error or capable of being mistaken), for all human interpretation is by definition the product of fallen humans. "We should not assume at the outset that the scientists are wrong," John Frame once cautioned. "It is also possible that our interpretation of Scripture is wrong, though it is not possible for Scripture itself to be wrong." We must be ever mindful of the difference between divine revelation and human interpretation, and resist the tendency to conflate them.

And we must not suppose that nature is inherently untrustworthy. Nature, like scriptures, is divine revelation and therefore infallible; it is incapable of error or lying.


-----
References:

Cornelius Van Til, “Nature and Scriptures,” in The Infallible Word: A Symposium, eds. Ned B. Stonehouse and Paul Woolley (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1946), 255-293.

John M. Frame, The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2002).

Not being really familiar, I have over the years picked up some interesting things from John Frame and Cornelius Van Til,
a modest bit here and there on the Internet.

I particarly found this last two paragraphs helpful. Thanks.
Many speak of their interpretations as infallible.
James does say the teachers of His word will be judged more strictly because we all make missteps and stumble.

Do not become many teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive greater judgment.
For in many things we all stumble. If anyone does not stumble in word, this one is a perfect man
, able to bridle the whole body as well.
(James 3:1)

Paul says we know in part and prophesy in part.

Another Chrtistian put it this way.
The Bible is God's revelation. Science is man's invention.
If there is a discrepancy between the two the mistake must be on the side of man's invention.
That is because God knows all the facts.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I think the biggest miracle is that out of absolutely nothing God called into being everything.
That has to be a miracle.

God whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls the things not being as being. (Rom. 4:17b)

Anyway, I came to believe the Old Testament through first being perusaded that the integrity of Jesus was beyond questioning.
I first came with a big sckeptical filter when I started reading the Bible on my own.

Eventually, I saw that Jesus took the Old Testament seriously. So I decided that if it was good for Christ it must be good.

The issue in this Earth Age matter to me is "What did it actually SAY?"
Exodus 20:11 I don't think says that God CREATED the world in six days.
It says He made these things in six days.

Some overlap between "made" and "created" does exist in the Hebrew Bible.
But it should not be always the case.

We have "made" for instances of trimming finger nails or trimming a beard or preparing a cake (I think).
I would have to double check.
That is working with something which really has some existence.

I would ask some fellow believers this:
"If there was some world that was destroyed and rendered without form and chaoticly waste, and God prepared it
for a brand new order of things in six days, wouldn't Exodus 20:11 still be true?

For in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it.

" Miracle " is defined as an event that is inexplicable by natural or scientific laws. We have laws of nature and those laws were created by God.
The problem with your argument is it tells us that He decided to circumvent His own laws and create with the fake age of milliions of years already built into a 6000 year time frame. I dont think God wants us to chase a lie so it would be better to glorify Him through the unveiling of His creation through the truth in science. We can not deny the great strides being made through DNA especially in the field of forensics! The truth is in DNA and scientists are able to age archeological findings through it. So we can not say it works in forensics but not on archeological sites.

We should keep in mind that Adam did not just "come into existence " he came from dust and though we do not know how He made Adam from dust , we do know He made him in His image and breathed in life with a soul.

In conclusion, related to the OP, there is no risk to our Christian faith if one decides to take 6 days represented as time periods rather than literal days.
Blessings.