Copied from re:thinking Discussion Board
Topic: Age of the Earth
website: http://server5.ezboard.com/brethinkingsbulletinboard
This compilation provided by Hill Roberts.
No edits of any content were performed.
Some of the sequence of posts were rearranged for clarity.
Some posts to this discussion are contained in other threads within
these archives.
[HRobLIB@aol.com]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Robson
12-7-99
Three Points
Hello to all,
Following are three points that I believe are vital to the current discussion. Others have already alluded to some of them, but I think it will be valuable to put them all together.
1. Scientific Data and Scriptural Record
Not very long ago, it was believed that life came from non-life on a routine basis. We laugh at this today, but it was firmly believed. Moreover, the people who believed it weren't stupid. Their conviction was based upon solid empirical evidence: they saw it with their own eyes! They could observe maggots emerge from a rotting carcass, for example. You see, to them, it was a fact. It was not an interpretation of the facts, but a solid, verifiable fact. It was a repeatable experiment - anyone who had the stomach for it could verify it for himself. Only a fool would deny the data.
I also remember learning about the simple cell. Scientists observed it with their microscopes in their laboratories. Here again, it was a fact, not an interpretation of the facts, that the cell was not much more than a tiny blob. The scientists could see it, after all. However, as microscopes became more and more powerful, we came to learn that there is no such thing as a "simple" cell, after all. As it turns out, every living cell has magnificently complex structures and processes that no man could have ever imagined possible in such a tiny space. Once again, the "facts" change over time.
We could think of many examples of this sort of thing, but the point is made: just because we are convinced that we know how something works, doesn't mean we are right. As our technology improves, we acquire the means to accumulate more detailed information. As time passes, and various researchers the world over amass more and more information, our knowledge of how things work improves. However, all the while this is happening, we still make mistakes. Moreover, our knowledge is still imperfect; there are many details to which we do not yet have access, even with all of our advanced technology. Therefore, to think that we are immune to the kinds of mistakes made in the past is to deceive ourselves. If we think we are more intelligent or more sophisticated than the intellectuals of past generations, we are either in denial of the facts, or we are ignorant of them. There are likely to be many things which today are considered to be verifiable fact that in truth are mistakes resulting from our imperfect knowledge - like the maggots coming out of the carcass.
The list of things for which modern science has no explanation whatsoever is endless. For example, my family recently visited the Mystic Aquarium here in Connecticut, where there is an exhibit featuring the work of ocean explorer Robert Ballard. One part of this exhibit is designed to give the visitor a feel for what it is like deep below the ocean surface. Here, one can stand on a circular glass plate, and look down at the bioluminescent (i.e. glowing) sea creatures below, and look up through a similar window and see more of them up above. This is very interesting, but all the while I was doing this, I was distracted by a loud and annoying throbbing sound. The museum guide explained that this noise is a constant of the deep sea (I forget what the depth was exactly). She further explained that the scientists simply do not know what causes it. They can't even tell what direction it's coming from.
To list the things that science does not know is not to impugn science. I applaud the advances made by the scientific community in many areas. However, for the purposes of our current discussion, it is vital that we keep clearly in view the limitations of science. It is a purely human and naturalistic endeavor. It is not comparable to the word of God.
Science is changeable and prone to error. God's word is neither. The word of God is unchangeable and inerrant. Therefore, it is a grievous error to base an "interpretation" of Scripture on the findings of modern science - even if those findings are regarded to be "data" as opposed to mere theory. Certainly, our observations of the natural world can help to enhance our understanding of Scripture. For example, an understanding of geography is very useful when studying the journeys of Paul, the Exodus, etc. However, when we decide that the plain understanding of a passage of Scripture is wrong because "modern scientific data" are contrary to it, we put the emphasis on the wrong syllable. We need to remember that God's word is constant and certain, whereas science is ever-changing and speculative.
If we simply open our minds to what God's word plainly teaches and accept it like children, we can never go wrong. Jas. 1:21; Mat. 18:4; Jer. 10:23; Psa. 119:97-105; Pro. 1:7. Are we willing to accept the Bible with such humility?
2. Creation and Revelation
Based upon my knowledge of art, if I were to go into an art museum and see a beautiful painting, I would probably make an astute statement such as, "Wow, that's nice!" I would no doubt think about how much talent would be required to produce such a painting. If an art expert were to come to me and begin explaining the artist's technique, and what paints were used, and that sort of thing, I would probably think, "Wow, this guy really knows paintings!" But now, suppose that the artist himself came up to me, and explained how he painted it. Suppose further that the artist and the expert had different explanations as to how the painting was made. All things being equal, if I regard both men as being trustworthy, whom should I believe? I think the answer is obvious: the man who painted it is the one who knows how it was painted. The expert, no matter how knowledgeable and trustworthy he is, could not possibly know how the painting was executed with the same accuracy as the painter himself, unless he were present while the painter did his work, and he were watching with undivided attention as it was done.
Now let's turn our minds from a human creation to God's creation. We look at God's creation, and we are filled with wonder. When we consider His creation, we are overcome with a sense of how indescribably powerful our Creator must be. When we encounter a scientist who explains to us how and when everything came into being, we are impressed with his detailed knowledge of how things in nature work. But, suppose the scientist offers some explanations that seem to be at odds with the plain words of Scripture. Considering that Scripture is the word of the Creator, whom should I believe? I think the answer is obvious: no matter how knowledgeable and trustworthy the scientist is, he cannot know as much about the universe as its Creator knows. Moreover, no man can ever be as trustworthy as God, because God makes no mistakes. Therefore, it is simply irrational to consider altering our understanding of Scripture based upon the statements of scientists.
A beautiful painting is evidence of a talented painter. Likewise the universe, when considered with an open mind and an honest heart, will lead us to understand that there is an eternal and all-powerful Creator. That is what Romans 1:18-20 says, and that's about as far as it goes. This passage does not say that we can stack our extremely limited knowledge of creation alongside the written revelation of the Creator, and use the former to interpret the latter. In fact, to suppose that we might be able to do so is absurd.
3. Faith and Sight
Many of you who are reading this can quote II Corinthians 5:7 by heart: "For we walk by faith, and not by sight." What is the "faith" being considered in this verse? From the rest of the chapter, it is evident that faith in Christ is the subject. How does one receive such faith? By the word (Rom. 10:17, another quotable verse). Therefore, since we are not receiving any direct revelations these days, we need to live according to what the written word says. We believe what the word says, and we act accordingly, regardless of what we might otherwise conclude by "sight" - i.e., our senses and experiences.
An interesting exchange between one who walked by faith and one who walked by sight is recorded in Acts 26:24-25. The Roman governor, Festus, had never seen or heard of anyone being raised from the dead. Therefore, he concluded that such is not possible. So, when he heard Paul preaching the resurrection of Christ, he reasoned that Paul had gone insane. We can think of many such illustrations from our own experience.
Before I was converted to Christ, I did a lot of bad things. In fact, I was a truly selfish and irresponsible individual. There are many people in the world who have a greater sense of altruism and self-discipline than I ever did. If one were to judge by sight, one would say that these people have a better chance of going to heaven than I do, because I didn't turn around until adulthood, whereas they were responsible citizens from the get-go. How could a loving God accept a loser like me, and reject all of those fine people? Well, if we walk by faith, we understand that no one earns heaven (Rom. 3:23; 6:23). We understand that salvation is reserved for those who come to believe in Jesus Christ and submit themselves to Him as their King (Jno. 14:6; Mat. 7:21). There is no other way to heaven, no matter how "good" a person is (Acts 4:12). By faith I know that God can love even a disgraceful bum like me, and yet He extends His eternal mercy only to such as will submit their wills to His Son. By faith I know that that is His choice, and that He has the right to make such a choice (Rom. 9:6-24). Anyone who walks by sight rather than faith will be convinced that such is impossible (I Cor. 1:18).
There are many Bible scholars who assume that every biblical account of a miracle is either a myth, or an allegory invented to reveal some "truth". Why do they assume this? Because they have never seen a miracle, they do not believe that one could ever happen. They are walking by sight, and not by faith.
Lots of ordinary people think it is impossible to understand the Bible. Why? Often, it is because they witness all of the disagreement among those who claim to believe in the Bible. They will note that one person claims a passage means one thing, while someone else claims it means something very different, and a third disagrees with them both, and so on. They observe this kind of disagreement not on one or two passages, but upon many different passages. Based upon empirical evidence and sound reasoning, they conclude that it is not possible to know for certain what the Bible teaches, and that "everyone has his own interpretation". They are neither stupid nor irrational: they are simply walking by sight rather than by faith.
If we walk by faith, we will realize that God has presented His word to us in a way that we can understand it (II Cor. 1:13; Eph. 3:4; II Pet. 3:16). Moreover, it is accessible to the simple and uneducated among us; it is not reserved for the learned (Mat. 11:25). Any person of normal intelligence can come to a proper understanding of God's word. We can understand what it means without any special training or education. The correct interpretation of Scripture - whether it be the opening chapters of Genesis or any other passage - is independent of a knowledge of science (Psa. 119:99). Therefore, we can approach Genesis as though we do not know anything of modern science, and come to a proper understanding of what it says.
If we walk by faith, we will accept what God's word plainly teaches, regardless of whatever "knowledge" we may receive from other sources - whether it be from our own experience or the teaching of others. Those who walk by sight may consider us to be crazy, even as Festus regarded the apostle Paul to be mad. However, we can trust God to sort all of those things out on the day of judgment.
But doesn't faith have a rational basis? Of course it does. The Bible proves itself to be God's word. The internal evidence of the Bible is sufficient to prove to the honest seeker that this book cannot be of merely human origin. When we consider the uniqueness of its message, its internal consistency, the fulfilled prophecies, the events foreshadowed centuries before they occurred, and the rock-solid testimony of the witnesses to the resurrection of our Lord, we are driven to conclude that this book must be from God. All we need to come to a saving faith is a willingness to open the Bible and give it an honest appraisal (John 20:30-31). It is God's word, and it is sufficient in and of itself (Rom. 1:16; Jas. 1:21; I Pet. 1:23-25).
This is not "philosophy", brethren. This is just applying scripture. Or, to borrow Paul's expression, "I am not mad, most noble Scientists, but I speak the words of truth and reason."
Conclusion:
The study of external evidences is useful, and it is interesting, and it has its proper place. However, when we as God's people start thinking that God's word needs to be defended on the basis of any man-made intellectual discipline, we err. God's word stands on its own, and does not need to be defended on scientific, historical, philosophical, or any other grounds. It is God's word, it proves itself to be God's word, and it will continue to be God's word when all of man's "latest discoveries" are proven to be either incomplete or downright wrong. Therefore, what we need to do is to put our trust in God, and take our stand on His word - come what may.
Brotherly,
Jim
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Mathews
12-18-99
Re: Three Points
Hello Jim,
I am pleased to see your comments. Your post is well written and I find very little that is objectionable. I disagree with the following: Any person of normal intelligence can come to a proper understanding of God's word. We can understand what it means without any special training or education. The correct interpretation of Scripture - whether it be the opening chapters of Genesis or any other passage - is independent of a knowledge of science (Psa. 119:99). Therefore, we can approach Genesis as though we do not know anything of modern science, and come to a proper understanding of what it says.
No one reads the Bible without special training and the acquisition of knowledge. Education instructs children in the skill of reading and comprehension. Translation provides access to the Biblical text for those who cannot read the original languages. In many cases, knowledge of English and the presence of a translation is not sufficient to provide a complete understanding of the Bible. For that reason, we have Bible encyclopedias, dictionaries of the ancient languages, commentaries and books. Christians have always sought to form an understanding of the Bible which coincides with their knowledge and understanding of the Universe. The relevance of science to the Bible is demonstrated by the extraordinary efforts that some have made to coordinate Biblical and scientific knowledge into a consistent whole. A Christian may read the Bible from cover to cover without forming an opinion about the age of the Universe, and even those Christians who seek to use the Bible as a means of learning the age of the Universe cannot find a specific defensible age based upon their studies. The truths of the Bible are not dependent upon time, and they do not expire after four billion years.
I appreciate very much your comments and am pleased to find another viewpoint represented.
David Mathews
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Robson
12-20-99
Special training etc
Hi David,
Thank you for your gracious comments. However, I am afraid my post wasn't written quite well enough! Let me try to clarify.
When I referred to "special training or education", I was thinking of something beyond the basics, such as reading. And, of course, I was assuming that the person has access to a copy of scripture in a language he can understand - otherwise, of course, he could not properly interpret it, no matter how much education he had.
Further, I do not object to efforts that people make to reconcile science and scripture. I only object when they place science on an equal level with scripture, or if they abandon the plain meaning of a passage of scripture because of their knowledge of science. I agree that the purpose of scripture is not to give us a specific date when God created the universe. However, when we attempt to understand what God was intending to convey to us in Genesis 1 - 2, it is the meaning of the words and their context that will tell us what God wants us to know about the creation. Our understanding of modern science has no bearing whatsoever on the meaning of Genesis, or any other passage of scripture.
In keeping with this, I reaffirm that a person does not need to have any knowledge of modern science to properly understand scripture. Even in the first century, when man's knowledge of how the world worked was much more limited, Jesus noted that the truth was revealed to the unsophisticated folk (Mat. 11:25).
Brotherly,
Jim
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Couchman
12-21-99
Re: Three Points
Jim:
Thank you for your thoughtful posts, and for adding a voice to this discussion. A few questions:
1. Concerning: "The correct interpretation of Scripture - whether it be the opening chapters of Genesis or any other passage - is independent of a knowledge of science (Psa. 119:99). Therefore, we can approach Genesis as though we do not know anything of modern science, and come to a proper understanding of what it says." And: "Our understanding of modern science has no bearing whatsoever on the meaning of Genesis, or any other passage of scripture." This question: How, if at all, would your interpretation of the story of Joshua’s long day be changed by "scientific" knowledge?
2. Concerning: "…when we attempt to understand what God was intending to convey to us in Genesis 1 - 2, it is the meaning of the words and their context that will tell us what God wants us to know about the creation." These questions: (a) does the context of Genesis 1-2 include the purpose for which that history was written; (b) does the text itself tell us the purpose; (c) if we knew that the purpose were not to give a "scientific" explanation as to how God accomplished creation, would that knowledge influence our interpretation of the text?
3. Concerning: "…the universe, when considered with an open mind and an honest heart, will lead us to understand that there is an eternal and all-powerful Creator. That is what Romans 1:18-20 says, and that's about as far as it goes." This question: does the fact that the Gentiles were held responsible for knowing God’s "eternal power and divinity" from looking at nature tell us anything about the way we are to study nature, and anything about the proper domain of science?
These are questions with which I wrestle. I would be interested in any comments you (or any other reader) had on them. Thanks again for your interest.
Your brother,
Tom
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Mathews
12-21-99
Re: Special training etc
Hello Jim,
Modern science must comment on Genesis because when Genesis speaks about the origin of the Earth and the Universe it is speaking about entities which mankind knows only by observation, experience and thought. When Genesis speaks about the origin of the Universe, mankind has every reason to ask: "What is the Universe?" and when Genesis speaks about the origin of the Earth, mankind has every reason to ask: "What is the Earth?"
God did not describe the Universe or the Earth within the Scriptures. For a reader of the Scriptures to comprehend God's message, a person must acquire knowledge of these entities. Otherwise, Biblical words will have little meaning or they will become meaningless, and all interpretations based upon that limited understanding may lead to incorrect or faulty conclusions. It makes little difference how many times a person may read the Biblical text if that individual does not have a knowledge of the words contained in the text.
Science reveals many things about the Universe and the Earth which the Bible can not either confirm or deny. When science reveals that galaxies are colliding or interacting, humans have reason to wonder exactly how these events happen. Seeking for an answer in the Scriptures will lead to no answer whatsoever because the Scriptures never mention the galaxies. Mankind is absolutely dependent upon science and math to answer these types of questions, and these answers cannot possibly contradict the Scriptures.
When examining the Earth, science reveals a complex crust taking two primary forms -- continental and oceanic. Continental crust is different from oceanic crust in many ways. The continental crust is more complicated, for one thing, composed of many different types of rocks. People may reasonably wonder why there exist continental and oceanic crust, and why continental crust is so complicated and composed of many different rock types. The Bible does not mention any of these properties of the Earth, nor does it offer any explanation for their existence. Answers are available, through scientific examination of the Earth's crust.
Even if an understanding of science is not necessary to acquire knowledge of Scriptural truth, knowledge of the Scriptures does not lead to any specific or reliable knowledge about the Universe and the Earth. The religious authors of the distant past had many faulty, incorrect and mistaken concepts of reality in spite of their devotion to God and the Scriptures. Even modern Christians have formed many false ideas about the Universe in spite of their devotion to the truth and the gospel.
I advocate knowledge and comprehension of the Universe, and I also advocate knowledge and comprehension of the Scriptures. Modern and ancient attempts to tie together scientific and religious thought has led to many dismal failures. For that reason, I encourage people to separate scientific questions from religious questions so that they may use tools appropriate to the question in an effort to find an accurate and reliable answer.
I am confident that the Scriptures do not lead to any specific age for the Universe, which means that the Scriptures may allow for a Universe that is ancient. I am also confident that science has accumulated evidence sufficient to demonstrate a vast age for the Earth and the Universe, and that these evidences are not successfully explained by Creation Science and Flood Geology.
These are my convictions, formed after many years of study of arguments and evidence presented by people on all sides of this question.
Thanks,
David Mathews
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Robson
12-22-99
Three questions
Hi Tom,
Thank you for your questions. I appreciate your thoughtful approach to these matters. I hope that my answers will be useful to you. Here goes:
1."How, if at all, would your interpretation of the story of Joshua’s long day be changed by "scientific" knowledge?" My understanding of Joshua 10 is not affected by my (extremely limited) understanding of modern science. Of course, if I were to speculate on the question of HOW God made the sun stand still, those speculations would be affected by what little I know of modern science. However, in understanding the history itself, astronomy really doesn't enter into it. I don't need to know how God did it in order to know that He did it. In fact, if everything God did was explainable in naturalistic terms, then there would be no miracles (e.g., see John 10:37f).
2. "does the context of Genesis 1-2 include the purpose for which that history was written"? You answered this yourself by using the word, "history". See 2:1 and 2:4. The word rendered "generations" or "history" in verse 4 is precisely the same word (toldot) used of the history of Adam in 5:1 and Noah in 6:9 and Terah in 11:27. Genesis 1 and 2 is the history of the creation of the physical universe. Because it is presented to us as history, I take it as fact, and not allegory (cf. Matt. 19:4-6). We are told that God spoke things into existence (Gen. 1:3; II Cor. 4:6; Heb. 11:3; etc.). This indicates power far beyond what we should expect to be able to explain in naturalistic (i.e. "scientific") terms. I think this addresses all three parts of your question; if not, please let me know, and I will try again.
3. "This question: does the fact that the Gentiles were held responsible for knowing God’s "eternal power and divinity" from looking at nature tell us anything about the way we are to study nature, and anything about the proper domain of science?" Yes, it tells us that if we are honest, we will acknowledge that God exists, and that He is immensely powerful. Therefore, we will begin our investigations into how things work with the firm understanding that everything was created by God. If we begin our investigations from an "agnostic" or atheistic viewpoint, and try to explain everything in naturalistic terms, we are taking an incorrect approach (cf. Prov. 1:7). If we begin our investigations with an incorrect approach, can we expect to come up with all of the right answers? I suspect that many of the "facts" reported by modern scientists would be very different if they all approached their work with a firm belief in the existence and power of God.
Please let me know if I missed the point of any of your questions.
Your brother,
Jim
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Couchman
12-23-99
Concerning my other, misplaced, post and your gracious response…
[Note: this is part of another post by Tom on same day.
Full post included in Thread4. HR]
Let me make my question about Joshua’s long day more pointed. The Bible says specifically that it is the sun which moves around the earth, and not vice-versa. Your posts appear to manifest an objection to using any "fact" discovered by science to help us understand the Bible. Please tell me how you "interpret" the statement in Joshua and certain texts in Psalms about the movement of the sun around the earth without extra-scriptural "scientific" knowledge about the relative positions of earth and sun.
My question about the "context" of Genesis 1-2 draws on my first question, and the more "pointed" version of it in the previous paragraph. Is the Bible intended to be a "scientific" treatise, so that we must regard every literal or historical statement as a datum to be evaluated according to the rules of science?
Concerning the Gentiles, I specifically have in mind the fact that they did not have a verbal revelation to guide their inquiry into nature. They must find God entirely from the natural revelation, and in fact God holds them responsible for correctly reading that natural revelation without guidance from a verbal revelation. I would agree with your statement that scientists who investigate nature from the perspective of a belief in God (as OEC scientists do) will sometimes get different answers from atheist/agnostic scientists. If you approached the study of nature, as the Gentiles were held responsible by God for doing, without the "guidance" of Genesis 1-2, what would you conclude about the methods God used to produce the natural features that we see today?
Your brother,
Tom
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Greene
1-3-00
Three questions
Hi, all.
(Introducing myself: My name is Todd S. Greene, referred here from Hill Roberts website.)
Just some more things to consider...
1. Joshua 10 is one specific example that we may "hedge on." However, there are other specific examples for which "evangelical Christians" (by which I'm purposely referring in a generic sense to all who proclaim to follow Christ and who advocate biblical inerrancy, regardless of what they believe in particular about baptism) in this day and age have clearly changed their interpretation of relevant biblical texts (i.e., appropriately modifed their biblical hermeneutics) based on scientific discoveries. These examples fall under the historical example of geocentrism. No one today can reasonably argue that the universe is geocentric. Therefore, to interpret the various relevant biblical texts to proclaim a geocentric universe from a scientific perspective is not considered acceptable to those who believe in biblical inerrancy. However, in centuries past, it was considered quite appropriate. Thus, there is indeed historical precedent and legitimacy for the concept of modifying biblical hermeneutics based on what we learn from other fields of exploration and examination.
2. This gets into the details of particular texts relevant to the subject of the age of the earth (and the age of the universe). But it must be said that now, in January, 2000, the information that we possess regarding the universe that we live in shows us that it has been around for millions - yes, even billions - of years, and it shows us this fact just as clearly as we know that the universe is not geocentric. Thus, to try to argue otherwise is to argue "in the face of" what we already know about the universe. Just as one simple example: When astronomers observed the stellar explosion SN1987a over ten years ago, they kept a close eye on it, and approximately one year later a gas ring around the star "lit up" from the energy from the explosion. Because we know the speed of light (from empirical measurement), astronomers were thus able to determine the distance to SN1987a from a trigonometric calculation, and found it to be approximately 169,000 light-years from the earth - meaning that the star exploded about 169,000 years ago. This, in turn, means that 169,000 years ago the universe was already a "going concern." (Incidentally, SN1987a resides in the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy, which, out of all of the literally millions of galaxies in the universe, is the second closest galaxy to the earth.)
3. You have to remember that much of the history of the development of the science of geology was by "churchmen" who believe in God, Christ, and the Bible, and who were, correspondingly, trying to be intellectually honest both with what they understood of the biblical text and with the details that they learned regarding the physical features that they explored and examined regarding the earth. They did not believe that the details of the earth would show something that is deliberately deceptive, but that the details themselves, once adequately gathered, would show genuine aspects of the earth. (Thus, you have, for example, people like Davis A. Young, an "evangelical Christian" and a geologist (see definition above) who started out as a young earth advocate who, as his expertise in geology developed and as he learned more and more about the geology of the earth, found his intellectual honesty forcing him to acknowledge that the earth did indeed show that it was ancient.) This discussion is not an argument between a "Christian" viewpoint and an "atheistic" viewpoint. The practical fact of the matter is that this discussion is a very active one within the "evangelical" community. Within the Church of Christ, for example, you have biblical scholars like J. D. Thomas, Batsell Barrett Baxter, and John T. Willis arguing that an "old earth" interpretation is appropriate. You have other CoC members like John Clayton, Hill Roberts, Neal Buffaloe, and so on (and some people right here in this discussion forum) arguing the "old earth" position. In the wider evangelical community, you have, as previously mentioned, Davis A. Young, and also Hugh Ross, Howard J. Van Till, and many, many others. Please note that I'm pointing these out not as a "bandwagon" argument of "This position is correct because of these people." I am pointing these out simply to show that this is not an "atheist versus Christian" discussion.
Take care.
Regards,
Todd S. Greene