How Old Is The Earth?

Roosh

Cardinal
Orthodox
Originally posted on RooshV.com

tree-rings-1024x725.jpg

A potential stumbling block for many Christians is the age of the Earth. Scientists have normalized an Earth age in the billions of years, allowing them to present all manner of grotesque and fake intermediary species into the archeological record. Meanwhile, the Bible suggests an Earth age that is not much older than 7,000 years. These wide differences cannot be easily reconciled, leaving the Christian in a tough position. Should he reconfigure the Bible into a timeline presented by atheist scientists, or should he stick to a more literal view? One thing that may help him in his decision is understanding that God created the Earth with an inherent age.

Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

When God created the animals, they were fully grown. In other words, on the day after Creation there were some animals that were already many years old. There were animals living alongside parents that were not physically born from those parents. If a scientist was present on this day, he would estimate the ages of the animals based on their size and maturity, but again, everything was only one day old.

The same was true for the plants and the trees. God created fully grown trees from nothing, in instant time. A scientist could cut down the trees and count their rings to come up with an age in years, but he would be wrong no matter how sure he was, because the tree would only be one day old.

How about the rocks and mountains? The moment after creation, the valleys and the hills were already in a state of lushness and completion. The mountain tops were covered with snow, home to various vegetation and critters that could handle the thin air of the high altitude. Would the scientist approach the mountain and say, “This is obviously one day old”? No, he would drill through the layers underneath, of which God fashioned like an artist using layers of paint on a canvas, and conclude that the mountain was too old for his instruments to measure. He would have to conclude that the Earth was thousands or millions or billions of years old, because the Earth was in completed form when God created it even though it would have taken billions of years of time had it been formed through the handful of natural processes that feeble man can only slightly understand.

badlands-1024x683.jpg

Badlands National Park, South Dakota, USA

Techniques like carbon dating or DNA analysis do more to reveal the arrogance of man than the truth of our world. Scientists believe the Earth is old, and are already in a state of rebellion against God, and so settled on techniques that confirmed their tightly-held convictions. They hate God and so they will believe that which allows their hatred to manifest. They will invent animals that never existed and use the discovery of one oddly-shaped finger bone to declare a brand new human species. Consider that all the bones found of pre-Homo Sapien man can fit in a medium-sized cardboard box. Is that what you base your history of man on? People have more faith in a box of dubious bones than in the truth God gave us through his prophets, which becomes more self-evident by the day as the field of science degrades into politics, fraud, and death.

From Father Seraphim’s Rose Orthodox Survival Course:

There are certain basic principles, presuppositions, which these dating systems must have. The carbon-14 system, which traces the radioactive decay of half-life of carbon-14 to carbon-12, requires: 1) that there is absolute uniformity — that the decay rate has always been the same for as long as the process has been going on, 2) that there has been no contamination from outside sources — which they admit does happen, and 3) that the thing being dated has been isolated, buried somewhere and nothing else has been touching it from outside, no organic matter, and finally, 4) that there was no carbon-12 in the first place, it was all carbon-14. All these things are assumptions; they are not proved.

Many people, even among non-evolutionists, will admit that carbon-14 is the most reliable of all the dating systems; even the scientific creationists admit that it has an accuracy back perhaps 2,000 years. It has been tested on certain articles whose age has been determined and it has proved to be not too far off in most cases. But beyond 2,000 or 3,000 years it becomes extremely dubious. And even those adherents to this system admit that because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,600 years or so, it cannot be accurate beyond 20,000 or 30,000 years at the most. The other systems, potassium-argon, uranium and so forth claim to [have a] half-life of one billion, three-hundred million years; and therefore when they talk about improving the age of old rocks they use these systems.

The carbon-14 system is used only on organic matter, on the fossils themselves; and potassium-argon and uranium systems on rocks. But the same things are true: there must be uniformity throughout the billion years, no contamination from outside. We must assume that it was all potassium in the beginning before it decayed to argon; and all these things you have to take on faith. And if you try to measure anything recent, say only a million years ago, and you take this system with a half-life of a billion years, it is like trying to measure a millimeter with a yard stick; and is not very accurate even assuming it is valid. And there have been numerous cases when they have applied this system to new rocks; and they give them a life of two billion years old. Therefore, the whole thing is very shaky. And it requires that those billion years exist in the first place.

I don’t know exactly how old the Earth is, but I don’t believe it to be older than 10,000 years. Since I don’t work in a dinosaur museum, there is nothing in my daily personal experience that begins to even hint to an age older than that. What I notice on my path to salvation is that there is nothing new under the sun, and that what was written in the Holy Bible about man and faith has not at all clashed with what I encounter experientially. The Bible speaks to me, the scientists lie to me, and so I have thrown in my lot with God, for I cannot have two masters. I ignore the studies that suggest a fossil was a gazillion years old, I ignore DNA studies that state we’re just like the apes, and I continue building my faith in the God of creation, because when he created my ancestors, Adam and Eve, they were already a fully grown man and woman, and once they were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, they encountered a world that—modern civilization and technology aside—was not that much different from ours.

Read Next: God’s Revelation To The Human Heart
Permalink
 

Elipe

Pelican
Holy war thread? Holy war thread!


In seriousness though, in my early years as a Christian, I really dug into this whole topic. I read a lot of literature from creationists, ID, and atheistic evolutionists. I remember getting so proficient in the subject that I was able to run circles around the average internet forum evolutionist.

But now, in the advanced years of clown world, we've seen so much evidence of scientific malpractice and fraud that it's also really not hard anymore to imagine that the scientific disciplines have kind of gone down a wrong road somewhere along the way, and the stubborn insistence of the scientific establishment to adhere to that wrong road has led to a situation where what we call "modern science" is really built on an erroneous foundation. The math is kind of sound, it kind of works in an internally consistent way, but over the years, so much of it was built up in this internally consistent way that the science has basically just become about maintaining that internal consistency without really considering why external reality so frequently disrupts the whole thing. That's why every time they discover some old human skeletons that's millions of years older than the previous oldest known fossil, it kind of forces them to do a whole "recalculation" of everything because it throws so much of that internal consistency out of whack. It's a huge shock to the system because again, all their works are based on building off previous works which are based on building off even more previous works...

Vox Day, years back, had a meme for this kind of thing.
ATHEIST LOGIC.jpg
Basically, evo-biologists defer to physicists, who in turn defer to evo-geologists, who in turn defer to evo-biologists... it's a huge scientific circle jerk (can we still use that term like that on this forum?), but one where we now know that at least 75% of published papers cannot be reproduced and are thus in question.

"This fossil must be X years old because it was found in a geological strata X years of old."
"This geological strata must be X years old because that fossil was found in this strata."
"Trust me, I'm a physicist, decay rates were constant!"
 
Devil's Advocate here...

As a Christian, I can tell you that science, and the scientific method is nothing to fear, or discount. Christians, and the Christian worldview, invented the scientific method.

In John 1:1, God is described as "Logos" we get our word "Logic" from that Greek word. Christians then said: "God is logical. God must make sense, and the world God created must make sense." The demonic (and clown world) doesn't make sense. Because God makes sense, and the world God created makes sense, we can test it, and understand it.

I fear that in Christianity today there is movement similar to what happened in islam with "Occasionalism". They did away with cause and effect, at least in islam their "philosophical and theological system" allows for such nonsense when the god they worship is "pure will." When your answer to every scientific question is: "allah wills it!" Then progress grinds to halt.

There is the fact the Scientific Method was invented and firmly established in the 19th century. The Holy Bible was written long before then, c. 1400 BC for Genesis to c. 100 AD with John's Gospel . It was not written as a scientific textbook, and to treat it as such is a misuse of Sacred Scripture. I wouldn't want a Newton's Laws recited in place of the Gospel at Mass, and I wouldn't want Sacred Scriptures read in a scientific classroom or lab.

In Christianity, the sort of thinking that happened in islam doesn't work. You're asking me to believe in a God who lies, "It looks like it's old, and everything you can come up with to test it shows it is very old... But really it's only one day old."

That is a lie, and the scientific method should be thrown out entirely.

Lying is a sin, and God cannot sin. If God can deceive us about that, then what else can God deceive us about? If you really believe that God CAN LIE, and that God is lying about that, then what else can God lie about? Maybe God is lying about this: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

I think that young-earth creationism is from The Devil himself, meant to horribly distort people's view of The Almighty's Wonderful and Awe-Inspiring Creation. (I also think taking things too far in the other direction and removing The Almighty entirely is equally wrong.)
 

J.E.

Robin
It was not written as a scientific textbook, and to treat it as such is a misuse of Sacred Scripture. I wouldn't want a Newton's Laws recited in place of the Gospel at Mass, and I wouldn't want Sacred Scriptures read in a scientific classroom or lab.
The Holy Scriptures are a library of ancient history, recorded chronologically and metaphorically. It is the latter we have to consider in passages that seem symbolical. Problem is, we interpret the Bible through modern eyes; modern languages are very literal and lack the depth of symbolism older languages have, and we lack tenses that would make us understand old texts better. Interpreting Scripture by yourself is therefore quite dangerous without the spiritual guidance of a priest, or at the very least the proper resources. You can buy, for example, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible and look up every single word in the King James Version and their Hebrew and Greek meanings and various definitions.

Guess what, the Hebrew word used for 'day' in Genesis 1 is 'yom', which has many meanings, such as:

yom: day​
Original Word: יוֹם
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: yom
Phonetic Spelling: (yome)
Definition: day
afternoon* (1), age (8), age* (1), all (1), always* (14), amount* (2), battle (1), birthday* (1), Chronicles* (38), completely* (1), continually* (14), course* (1), daily (22), daily the days (1), day (1115), day of the days (1), day that the period (1), day's (6), day's every day (1), daylight* (1), days (635), days on the day (1), days to day (1), days you shall daily (1), days ago (1), days' (11), each (1), each day (4), entire (2), eternity (1), evening* (1), ever in your life* (1), every day (2), fate (1), first (5), forever* (11), forevermore* (1), full (5), full year (1), future* (1), holiday* (3), later* (2), length (1), life (12), life* (1), lifetime (2), lifetime* (1), live (1), long (2), long as i live (1), long* (11), midday* (1), now (5), older* (1), once (2), period (3), perpetually* (2), present (1), recently (1), reigns (1), ripe* (1), short-lived* (1), so long* (1), some time (1), survived* (2), time (45), time* (1), times* (2), today (172), today* (1), usual (1), very old* (1), when (10), when the days (1), whenever (1), while (3), whole (2), year (10), yearly (5), years (13), yesterday* (1).
One of the first meanings is 'age' and this is the only correct way to interpret 'day' in Genesis 1. God didn't create our universe in six 24 hour days but in six eras, ages, periods. How long these were we will never know, but anthropology and many creations myths suggest our universe exists way longer than young earth creationists would like us to believe.

I talked about this very topic with my priest in my catechumen lessons and he told me exactly the same, that 'day' means 'age' and that (apparently) we live in the seventh day (age).
 
Last edited:

TheFunto

Pigeon
Devil's Advocate here...

As a Christian, I can tell you that science, and the scientific method is nothing to fear, or discount. Christians, and the Christian worldview, invented the scientific method.

In John 1:1, God is described as "Logos" we get our word "Logic" from that Greek word. Christians then said: "God is logical. God must make sense, and the world God created must make sense." The demonic (and clown world) doesn't make sense. Because God makes sense, and the world God created makes sense, we can test it, and understand it.

I fear that in Christianity today there is movement similar to what happened in islam with "Occasionalism". They did away with cause and effect, at least in islam their "philosophical and theological system" allows for such nonsense when the god they worship is "pure will." When your answer to every scientific question is: "allah wills it!" Then progress grinds to halt.

There is the fact the Scientific Method was invented and firmly established in the 19th century. The Holy Bible was written long before then, c. 1400 BC for Genesis to c. 100 AD with John's Gospel . It was not written as a scientific textbook, and to treat it as such is a misuse of Sacred Scripture. I wouldn't want a Newton's Laws recited in place of the Gospel at Mass, and I wouldn't want Sacred Scriptures read in a scientific classroom or lab.

In Christianity, the sort of thinking that happened in islam doesn't work. You're asking me to believe in a God who lies, "It looks like it's old, and everything you can come up with to test it shows it is very old... But really it's only one day old."

That is a lie, and the scientific method should be thrown out entirely.

Lying is a sin, and God cannot sin. If God can deceive us about that, then what else can God deceive us about? If you really believe that God CAN LIE, and that God is lying about that, then what else can God lie about? Maybe God is lying about this: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

I think that young-earth creationism is from The Devil himself, meant to horribly distort people's view of The Almighty's Wonderful and Awe-Inspiring Creation. (I also think taking things too far in the other direction and removing The Almighty entirely is equally wrong.)
For being a Christian with such an emphasis on the word lie, would you believe the Bible is true? If so, how can it be true and not mean what it says when the words are quite unambiguous in Genesis?

Brother, there is no scientific method in a LOT of the purported sciences:

Was there any reproducible experiment in ascertaining the causality, or aetiology, of the so called "Wuhan pneumonia"? Go back for the papers published in January and February 2020. That's a productive devil's advocate to play.
 
Devil's Advocate here...

As a Christian, I can tell you that science, and the scientific method is nothing to fear, or discount. Christians, and the Christian worldview, invented the scientific method.

In John 1:1, God is described as "Logos" we get our word "Logic" from that Greek word. Christians then said: "God is logical. God must make sense, and the world God created must make sense." The demonic (and clown world) doesn't make sense. Because God makes sense, and the world God created makes sense, we can test it, and understand it.

I fear that in Christianity today there is movement similar to what happened in islam with "Occasionalism". They did away with cause and effect, at least in islam their "philosophical and theological system" allows for such nonsense when the god they worship is "pure will." When your answer to every scientific question is: "allah wills it!" Then progress grinds to halt.

There is the fact the Scientific Method was invented and firmly established in the 19th century. The Holy Bible was written long before then, c. 1400 BC for Genesis to c. 100 AD with John's Gospel . It was not written as a scientific textbook, and to treat it as such is a misuse of Sacred Scripture. I wouldn't want a Newton's Laws recited in place of the Gospel at Mass, and I wouldn't want Sacred Scriptures read in a scientific classroom or lab.

In Christianity, the sort of thinking that happened in islam doesn't work. You're asking me to believe in a God who lies, "It looks like it's old, and everything you can come up with to test it shows it is very old... But really it's only one day old."

That is a lie, and the scientific method should be thrown out entirely.

Lying is a sin, and God cannot sin. If God can deceive us about that, then what else can God deceive us about? If you really believe that God CAN LIE, and that God is lying about that, then what else can God lie about? Maybe God is lying about this: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

I think that young-earth creationism is from The Devil himself, meant to horribly distort people's view of The Almighty's Wonderful and Awe-Inspiring Creation. (I also think taking things too far in the other direction and removing The Almighty entirely is equally wrong.)
according to a book from an orthodox saint i read (the ladder of the divine ascent), lying is not recommended for anyone who is not spiritually mature, but it is not always bad. he just says as a rule dont do it unless you have conquered you passions and will already. so i think it is indeed possible for god to lie or deceive. like when he deceived Abraham into almost sacrificing his son (and then told him truth at end)
 

FourMarks

Pigeon

Both the Council of Trent and Vatican Council I taught that no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture “contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.” In the words of Fr. Victor Warkulwiz:


“The Fathers and Doctors of the Church unanimously agreed that Genesis 1-11 is an inerrant literal historical account of the beginning of the world and the human species as related by the prophet Moses under divine inspiration. This does not mean that they agreed on every point in its interpretation, but their differences were accidental and not essential. Pope Leo XIII, following St. Augustine, affirmed the Catholic rule for interpreting Sacred Scripture, ‘not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires.’”

For the first five centuries of the Church, all of the Fathers believed and proclaimed:

-that less than 6,000 years had passed from the creation of the world to the birth of Jesus.

-that the creation of the cosmos took place in six 24 hour days or in an instant of time

-that God created the different kinds of living things instantly and immediately

-that Adam was created from the dust of the earth and Eve from his side

-that God ceased to create new kinds of creatures after the creation of Adam

-that the Original Sin of Adam shattered the perfect harmony of the first-created world and brought human death, deformity, and disease into the world.

(See: “The Traditional Catholic Doctrine of Creation”, The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation)
 

Joe316

Robin
In seriousness though, in my early years as a Christian, I really dug into this whole topic. I read a lot of literature from creationists, ID, and atheistic evolutionists. I remember getting so proficient in the subject that I was able to run circles around the average internet forum evolutionist.

By rejecting "big bang" and "evolution" I received the gift of faith. Something a lot of my Christian fellows struggle with.

When I read in the Old Testament, that humans reached ages of several hundreds of years, which I treat as historical fact, then something in present day human timekeeping must be off with humans barely reaching three digits.

One possible answer to the mystery could be radiation or the absence of it. Funnily enough when all that 19th century old-earth-craze took place, no-one had a clue about nuclear energy and what it does to the DNA.
 

Elipe

Pelican
The Holy Scriptures are a library of ancient history, recorded chronologically and metaphorically. It is the latter we have to consider in passages that seem symbolical. Problem is, we interpret the Bible through modern eyes; modern languages are very literal and lack the depth of symbolism older languages have, and we lack tenses that would make us understand old texts better. Interpreting Scripture by yourself is therefore quite dangerous without the spiritual guidance of a priest, or at the very least the proper resources. You can buy, for example, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible and look up every single word in the King James Version and their Hebrew and Greek meanings and various definitions.

Guess what, the Hebrew word used for 'day' in Genesis 1 is 'yom', which has many meanings, such as:



One of the first meanings is 'age' and this is the only correct way to interpret 'day' in Genesis 1. God didn't create our universe in six 24 hour days but in six eras, ages, periods. How long these were we will never know, but anthropology and many creations myths suggest our universe exists way longer than young earth creationists would like us to believe.

I talked about this very topic with my priest in my catechumen lessons and he told me exactly the same, that 'day' means 'age' and that (apparently) we live in the seventh day (age).
The biggest, most glaring problem with this interpretation is that it pulls a subtle bait and switch into the text. For example, consider that Genesis 1:3-5 says that God created light and then separated it from the darkness, calling the light "day" and the darkness "night". And then there was evening, and there was morning - the first day.

The KJV says "And the evening and the morning were the first day."

The Orthodox Jewish Bible says "And the erev (evening) and the boker (morning) were Yom Echad (Day One, the First Day)".

The Blue Letter Bible website also points out that this is what the Hebrew says, that it clarifies the first day as being the evening and the morning.

So if we go by the "age" interpretation of day, this implies that the Earth was in darkness for millions of years, and the light for millions of years, and that this repeated for the other five "ages". Except, that's not what science says happened. Science says days on the primeval Earth were still about 24 hours. Also, science says that Earth is slowing down its revolution, not speeding up. For Earth to have started out with a day-cycle of millions of years and then sped up to the 24 hour cycle is completely anti-science.

But the standard theistic evolutionist's cop-out is to introduce a kind of bait and switch, and claim that this is just saying that the millions of years consisted of the standard day cycle. But this is not supported by the text, as the text makes no distinction there. The text clearly says that the first day was the evening and the morning, which clearly establishes the context that "yom" refers to day, and is correctly translated as day.

There is the fact the Scientific Method was invented and firmly established in the 19th century. The Holy Bible was written long before then, c. 1400 BC for Genesis to c. 100 AD with John's Gospel . It was not written as a scientific textbook, and to treat it as such is a misuse of Sacred Scripture. I wouldn't want a Newton's Laws recited in place of the Gospel at Mass, and I wouldn't want Sacred Scriptures read in a scientific classroom or lab.
The scientific method as invented by Christian scientists isn't even in use anymore in modern mainstream science. Scientism and scientistry are not scientody.

I wouldn't want Sacred Scriptures read in a scientific classroom or lab.
You're right, you really are an advocate for the Devil. Sacred Scriptures should be a guide for science, because scientists too are fallen beings that can sin, and it would be better if scientists made a regular study of the Bible so that they could learn to hold their studies in alignment with Truth, and conduct their science with honor. If anything, we need it more in the scientific classroom, because the profession of science should be governed by faith and the awe of God, not by the funding of greedy oligarchs. The early Christian scientists would also call you anathema for suggesting this.

In Christianity, the sort of thinking that happened in islam doesn't work. You're asking me to believe in a God who lies, "It looks like it's old, and everything you can come up with to test it shows it is very old... But really it's only one day old."
I've talked with others of similar mind as you on this forum, and I've seen this line used before. It's such a ridiculously stupid argument, especially coming from someone who purports to practice a belief in the miraculous resurrection of dead bodies to life. Was it lying when Jesus turned water into wine? By your logic, it would be, because if we had a sample of that wine and tested it, the tests would show that it was just ordinary wine. But where did the grapes for it come from? Where did the alcohol come from? Where did the water go? But really, it's just wine. Oh, and not just wine. Aged wine. Jesus turned water into ostensibly aged wine, which provoked compliments as to its flavor. That's right, Jesus "poofed" fully mature wine. It looks like it's old, and everything you can come up with to test it shows it is old... but really, it's only one minute old.

So congratulations, I guess you'd be calling Jesus Christ a liar. Nice job, Devil's Advocate.

I think that young-earth creationism is from The Devil himself, meant to horribly distort people's view of The Almighty's Wonderful and Awe-Inspiring Creation. (I also think taking things too far in the other direction and removing The Almighty entirely is equally wrong.)
I've been really restraining myself from calling you Satanic, because even the archangel Michael would balk at making an accusation of such gravitas. But with this last bit, you are blaspheming that which you do not understand. Beware, for making such statements bring you in danger of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, which is the one unforgivable sin.
 

emjspanish

Chicken
If we consider the Earth as the center of the universe and the sun and the moon moving around it, and time as the number of motion (following Aristotle), then the age of the earth wouldn't exist in the mind of God because time is a human creation and God wouldn't care about it and it is just a human struggle.

So, I think the age of the earth includes the discussion if you accept the heliocentrism (discussion about time). If you accept it, so the discussion is scientific and that means is political. But either theory you accept, I'd say it doesn't have any direct influence in your every day life more than undermine your faith.
 

The_Trigg

Robin
Originally posted on RooshV.com

tree-rings-1024x725.jpg

A potential stumbling block for many Christians is the age of the Earth. Scientists have normalized an Earth age in the billions of years, allowing them to present all manner of grotesque and fake intermediary species into the archeological record. Meanwhile, the Bible suggests an Earth age that is not much older than 7,000 years. These wide differences cannot be easily reconciled, leaving the Christian in a tough position. Should he reconfigure the Bible into a timeline presented by atheist scientists, or should he stick to a more literal view? One thing that may help him in his decision is understanding that God created the Earth with an inherent age.



When God created the animals, they were fully grown. In other words, on the day after Creation there were some animals that were already many years old. There were animals living alongside parents that were not physically born from those parents. If a scientist was present on this day, he would estimate the ages of the animals based on their size and maturity, but again, everything was only one day old.

The same was true for the plants and the trees. God created fully grown trees from nothing, in instant time. A scientist could cut down the trees and count their rings to come up with an age in years, but he would be wrong no matter how sure he was, because the tree would only be one day old.

How about the rocks and mountains? The moment after creation, the valleys and the hills were already in a state of lushness and completion. The mountain tops were covered with snow, home to various vegetation and critters that could handle the thin air of the high altitude. Would the scientist approach the mountain and say, “This is obviously one day old”? No, he would drill through the layers underneath, of which God fashioned like an artist using layers of paint on a canvas, and conclude that the mountain was too old for his instruments to measure. He would have to conclude that the Earth was thousands or millions or billions of years old, because the Earth was in completed form when God created it even though it would have taken billions of years of time had it been formed through the handful of natural processes that feeble man can only slightly understand.

badlands-1024x683.jpg

Badlands National Park, South Dakota, USA

Techniques like carbon dating or DNA analysis do more to reveal the arrogance of man than the truth of our world. Scientists believe the Earth is old, and are already in a state of rebellion against God, and so settled on techniques that confirmed their tightly-held convictions. They hate God and so they will believe that which allows their hatred to manifest. They will invent animals that never existed and use the discovery of one oddly-shaped finger bone to declare a brand new human species. Consider that all the bones found of pre-Homo Sapien man can fit in a medium-sized cardboard box. Is that what you base your history of man on? People have more faith in a box of dubious bones than in the truth God gave us through his prophets, which becomes more self-evident by the day as the field of science degrades into politics, fraud, and death.

From Father Seraphim’s Rose Orthodox Survival Course:



I don’t know exactly how old the Earth is, but I don’t believe it to be older than 10,000 years. Since I don’t work in a dinosaur museum, there is nothing in my daily personal experience that begins to even hint to an age older than that. What I notice on my path to salvation is that there is nothing new under the sun, and that what was written in the Holy Bible about man and faith has not at all clashed with what I encounter experientially. The Bible speaks to me, the scientists lie to me, and so I have thrown in my lot with God, for I cannot have two masters. I ignore the studies that suggest a fossil was a gazillion years old, I ignore DNA studies that state we’re just like the apes, and I continue building my faith in the God of creation, because when he created my ancestors, Adam and Eve, they were already a fully grown man and woman, and once they were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, they encountered a world that—modern civilization and technology aside—was not that much different from ours.

Read Next: God’s Revelation To The Human Heart
Permalink


Ecclesiastes​

1:9

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

I struggle with the above- referenced verse more than others, because obviously there are new things under the sun every day, like Tinder, the internet, etc. Even though, sexual immorality itself is not new, the means by which sexual immorality is accomplished do change. I believe we, as Christians need to understand and be aware of these changes. I often feel like this verse leads one to inaction, or passivity. One of several perceived contradictions I've noticed in reading the Bible. Maybe I am misinterpreting. Thoughts?
 

Roosh

Cardinal
Orthodox

Ecclesiastes​

1:9

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

I struggle with the above- referenced verse more than others, because obviously there are new things under the sun every day, like Tinder, the internet, etc. Even though, sexual immorality itself is not new, the means by which sexual immorality is accomplished do change. I believe we, as Christians need to understand and be aware of these changes. I often feel like this verse leads one to inaction, or passivity. One of many contradictions I've noticed the more I read the Bible. Maybe I am misinterpreting. Thoughts?
Tinder facilitates fornication. That's not new. Internet is just a form of communication. That's not new. Technology is just a tool that allows old human behaviors to occur (sin, transport, etc).
 
I hold the view that Genesis is literally true (with some elements of poetic language), and the universe is billions of years old. Of course, it seems contradictory that the universe was created in 6 days, and that it was created over the course of billions of years. However, these do not have to contradict given the theory of relativity.

We now know that time moves at different rates in different reference frames. Everything is reconcilable if the days of creation are told from one reference frame, and the rest of Genesis from another. In fact, there is a calculation showing that, in a reference frame defined by the cosmic microwave background radiation (light left over from the big bang), it has been 6 24-hour days since the big bang.

More details on this view can be seen in Sarah Salviander's blog here:

Seeing this really helped me in my journey to faith. This may not have everything exactly right, but I believe something like this is the truth. The evidence for young earth creationism never stood up to scrutiny in my eyes, but one can read the bible entirely literally without being a young earth creationist.
 

Polyhistor

Pigeon
Roosh makes fine argument which seems to solve the chronological problem, but I believe it creates more problems than it solves. On the one hand, if this argument is correct, God would have designed a significant of his creation in order to lead man into temptation, as Slide-Rule had pointed out. On the other hand, chronology is not the only problem with a verbatim interpretation of Genesis. What are we going to do with the description of the sky as a cupola surrounded by water? How do we explain that in Genesis 1, man is created after the animals, but in Genesis 2, animals are created after Adam only?
Furthermore, the basic concept of the universe is not unique to the Bible, it is far older. Sumerians believed "the earth was a flat disk surrounded by a vast hollow space, completely enclosed by a solid surface in the shape of a vault. ... Surrounding the 'heaven-earth' on all sides ... was the boundless sea in which the universe somehow remained fixed and immovable. ... Following the separation of heaven and earth and the creation of the light-giving bodies, plant, animal and human life came into existence. ... Sumerian thinkers ... never asked themselves what preceded the sea in time..." (Kramer 1971: The Sumerians). This sounds pretty much like Genesis 1, only God is missing. Shall we believe that God revealed the technical details of the creation to the Sumerians, but nothing about Himself and his law?
Therefore, it seems to me that God did not bother to reveal anything about the technical details of creation (we would find out in time by ourselves), because this technical knowledge is completely irrelevant for our salvation. Therefore, He did not inspire the authors of Genesis to write a scientifically correct account, but he allowed them to use the commonly accepted theory about the universe but added repeatedly: "GOD MADE ... AND IT WAS GOOD", because this knowledge is relevant for our salvation.
Actually, I do not understand why there is so much conflict about the historicity Genesis: God loves to speak in parables. Daniel's and Ezechiel's visions were obviously parables. Jesus used parables all the time, and nobody ever asks if there was really wheat sawn on rocks, or if there were ever virgins without oil.
 
Consider that all the bones found of pre-Homo Sapien man can fit in a medium-sized cardboard box.

I'm not an expert but you're downplaying this. I believe there's significant evidence for pre-homo sapien, even from my somewhat limited knowledge. However, as a Christian, I also don't stay up at night worrying about it.

Not knocking your article, Roosh, and maybe it's my age talking, but I stopped worrying about what I don't know or don't understand about the universe a long time ago. Where's all the water, more than is currently available on the planet, from the flood? How old did the ancient kings really live to be? Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?

I know Christ saves; the world can keep the rest of whatever it is they say happened or will happen.
 

PaulC

Robin
Originally posted on RooshV.com

The Bible speaks to me, the scientists lie to me, and so I have thrown in my lot with God, for I cannot have two masters.
This was the crux for me. We have been manipulated and gaslighted to the point that it feels as if we can't ever really know the truth of things on our own. We must decide to choose a touchstone for our lives and work things out from there. Roosh has chosen wisely.

I find the age of the Earth argument no different than the one concerning the size of the universe. Compare :

"Why would God choose to manifest himself in Palestine at that particular time when other civilizations have existed in other cities with other gods for thousands (or millions) of years"

to

"Why would God choose to manifest himself on Earth at that particular time when other civilizations have existed on other planets with other gods for thousands (or millions) of years".

The Earth is flat ( provable with a consumer-grade camera and basic maths) and young. Humans are not evolved animals. Mankind is made in God's image and called to be like him.
 
Top