/christian/ - Christianity

Religious discussions and spirituality

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.0 (updated 2021-01-10)

/meta/ - Announcing the Anon.cafe Broadcasting System, an Internet Radio platform

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules

(used to delete files and postings)

Age of the earth. Anonymous 04/26/2021 (Mon) 09:34:31 No.634
What is the exact age of the earth according to the Holy Bible? If we were to add everyone’s age from Adam until today, how old would the earth be? Has anyone tried this?
Open file (633.75 KB 450x339 65465132.gif)
>>634 The Bible doesn't specify the exact age of the Earth OP. >Has anyone tried this? Yes. Sir Isaac Newton (You know, single smartest man who ever lived? Yeah, that one) was the first scholar who made a concerted effort at answering your question. His answer? We don't know from the Biblical text. It is indeterminate. While I doubt many other scholars can hope to match his effort on the topic, we do have writings of the Church fathers. While very little was specifically written by them on this topic by relative volume of text, one thing they did affirm that has bearing on this question is to affirm the concordance of God's two books. Namely, the specific revelation of the scriptures, and the general revelation of the 'book' of nature. The creeds confirmed this perspective, and in particular the 2nd of the Belgic Confession from the 16th century affirms this perspective. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/belgic-confession-1561/ Psalms 19 is a well-known passage that affirms the concordant view. https://biblehub.com/psalms/19.htm While the Bible clearly isn't intended to be a science book, much of it's content touches directly on scientific discoveries since it was written. For example, the direct concordance between the creation accounts in the old testament (Genesis chapter 1 being the most well known of a couple dozen passages) that revealed both the singular origin of the entire universe (aka "The Big Bang"), and also the character and evolution of the earth, the stars, the sun, the moon, the oceans, and the land. Of course it also describes the sequence of the creation of life on earth, land, sea, and air. And finally culminating with the highest form of natural creature, we ourselves. The Bible outlined all of this many thousands of years before the modern scientific endeavor ever began. Certainly that fact is quite provocative, and suggests the supernatural origin of the book's writings.
>>642 I doubt Isaac Newton’s intelligence if he was unable to perform simple addition since all ages are written out plainly in the Bible.
>>643 >all If you have the kind of hubris that ridicules the intellect of Sir Isaac, then I'd say you have a hard row to hoe ahead of you in life. How many great leaps of intellect -- seemingly miraculous even -- have you performed lately friendo?
>>644 >argument of authority wow, you surely btfo'd him. you sure showed him how isaac newton is cool. you don't need to know the logic behind it, only that isaac newton said so, and that you will never be smarted than him, so everything he said is correct. god, if only people blindly followed these so called genius... what could society have been
>>644 I see that you are not born of the word of God. As you cannot receive the fact that God created the earth in 6 days as it is plainly written.
Open file (393.55 KB 960x1310 screenshot.png)
>>642 Anon, you could at least give us sources before simply repeating something someone told you. >Sir Isaac Newton (You know, single smartest man who ever lived? Yeah, that one) was the first scholar who made a concerted effort at answering your question. Wrong. You have plenty of ancient church witnesses, as well as the work of chronologists like James Ussher, who despite me not completely agreeing with him on every point, did a pretty thorough job on chronology, such that even Isaac Newton defended him. See attached. >We don't know from the Biblical text. It is indeterminate. If you want to go by the Biblical text, I can show you directly how we can place Adam's first day at 4270 ± 13 BC. This is by my own derivation, which is not too far removed from Ussher. Now, if you want to talk about how much time passed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, that is a deeper question. For this reason alone, I do not provide a creation date for the universe itself. But for Adam and the beginning of human history? The Bible tells you directly. In fact, I'll even tell you the short version of the explanation. The time from Adam to Jacob being 130 years old when he entered Egypt was 2308 ± 11 years. The time from the entrance to the exit of Egypt was 430 years (Exodus 12:40), plus 40 years of wandering in the desert. The time from the entrance into the promised land until the fourth year of Solomon was 480 years (1 Kings 6:1). From there, you can see that kings reigned in Judah according to Kings and Chronicles was 425 years ± 1 year. That ended in 586 BC, the well-attested 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:8), which is the year the First Temple was destroyed (Jeremiah 52:12), and this is where the Biblical calendar converges with the AD/BC calendar. See how simple that was? Praise the Lord. Amen.
>>657 My source was already plainly spelled out friend. To wit: Sir Isaac Newton himself. >Now for ye number and length of ye six days: by what is said above you may make ye first day as long as you please, and ye second day too. >before simply repeating something someone told you. With all due respect (and please pardon me if you are in fact authentically doing original Biblical or other exegesis research), but just out of curiosity; which bit of what you're claiming in your post was something that wasn't you simply 'repeating something someone told you'? Again, I'll refer to Sir Isaac Newton, who addressed this very topic concerning himself in likely his most famous quote: >If I have seen further it is by standing on the sholders of Giants. and also: >I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me. If a man so brilliant could say such of himself (the latter as he approached death), then I would argue that we could all use that as an example of personal humility. What do we have that we weren't given? None of us know the absolute truth of this universe's history, only the higher spiritual beings can make any such claim. Certainly God Himself is perfectly aware of literally everything. All we have to go on (naturally-speaking) of any highly-legitimate source of reliability is both the book of scripture, and the 'book' of nature. They are both reliable sources revealing both the character and handiwork of God, and by definition, are in concordance with each other -- both having the same perfectly honest 'Author'. All the rest is -- roughly speaking -- mere hearsay.
>>723 >My source was already plainly spelled out friend. To wit: Sir Isaac Newton himself. You never gave a source to show that there were no scholars to ever calculate the age of the earth before Newton. For instance, what about Sir James Ussher, who came before Newton, who was a scholar which made a concerted effort at answering this question (not to mention many ancient church writers) thus not making Isaac Newton the "first" to attempt this, as you claimed above? I can repeat this question if it is not answered below. >which bit of what you're claiming in your post was something that wasn't you simply 'repeating something someone told you'? The problem lies in the repeating of the tale without performing any attempt to verify the facts from any sources. In this case, your claiming that no one had ever attempted to date the earth before. That is, unless you want to define your own unique class of people called "scholars" which excludes everyone before him, simply for the purpose of making your misleading point that he was the first. >of any highly-legitimate source of reliability is both the book of scripture, and the 'book' of nature. The popular belief called "evolution" of the earth, etc, may be popular. But the belief is not really scientific as much as it is built on metaphysical axioms. Furthermore, this popular belief, which I believe you made a direct reference to above, clashes with the order of creation given in the first six days of Genesis. In the modernist theory that you are (it seems) going on, we didn't have herbs appear before the sun/moon appeared in the sky, and we didn't have all birds appear on the fifth day while all land creatures only appearing on the sixth day. The account given by Genesis actually conflicts with the popular theories of abiogenesis and evolution from common ancestry in said ways. It also conflicts with the statements made there that every kind reproduces after itself; not after each other, or one kind giving rise to many. Those who truly believe the Bible and don't reduce all of God's word entirely to one's own personal allegory have to reckon with this. So don't pretend like the Genesis account needs to bend to modern popular ideas with an air of pomp to them. Christ Himself, as recorded in the New Testament, refers to the events covered in the book of Genesis literally as factual events. By laying aside all the testimony of God like this, someone, who really just wants to believe in "popular" ideologies no matter what they are – and evolution (as the whole thing is commonly referred to) is popular with the lifestyle and ideology of today – has shown that they disagree with God's sacred account. They've shown their real predisposition, which is toward the world and the things that are of this world as opposed to accepting the true sayings of God. It shows that someone values prestige from the world more than they do the glory of God. What's even worse is when some are actually willing to claim to be followers of the Bible when really they reject it by trying to change it: and even try to publically mislead others about what it actually says to make matters even further worse still, as you have done here.
>>733 Anon is trying to compromise between reason and faith when there are some things that cannot be directly observed, that must be held on faith through its revelation in scripture for a full comprehension of the mechanics of salvation. He may not have nefarious intentions for doing so, because all men are by nature bent toward the world, and the world's pride is so-called reason. The object of this bargain is to convince that faith can be "proved" before peers as is done in the material sciences, to validate it was one would a hypothesis. In truth however, if they're not drawn by God's grace to become Christians the non-believers will never be convinced of the validity of the faith and of Christian morals and ethics; scripture isn't a hypothesis, materialists debase it by dragging it down to that domain. Then they bait those who are not aware of this sleight of hand to argue against their observational consensus not so much to prove that the scientific position has answers but rather to allow the world to make a mockery of inherent truth. Vast swaths of lukewarm Christians have fallen for this trick, once a breach is made in the wall of faith all the forces of doubt, of conceit, of covetousness, of mischief pour into the sanctuary of the believer's soul and corrupt in ever manifold manner. The devil issues a counterfeit of life, but taking a seat at the banquet of his world earns one death by poison.
>>734 Amen. What this lukewarm stuff describes is like it says in Proverbs 14:15, "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." And also 1 John 4:1, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God:" Christians are not to be naive and foolish. Like it says in 1 Cor. 14:20, "Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men." And again, Colossians 2:8. "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."
>>634 Adam was ignorant and so the testament is highly fictitious.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms

no cookies?