The Age of the Earth

[Athanasius]

You use a version of the Bible that supports your view of what you want to believe. Here is how it is worded in the KJV.

2pet 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Now unless you are going to derail the thread and start debating versions. My opinion of the earth's age is validated by what is said in the KJV.

One day being with the Lord, is being in His presence. Which is in Heaven. So the comparison is not about time as much as it is the difference between Heaven and where we are at.

Hey now, don't accuse me of wanting to derail this thread and start debating translations when you're the one bringing it up (In case case the NASB vs. the KJV). Now, whether I use my version or your version it makes no difference. The KJV still renders 2 Peter 3:8 as a simile (notice that word: as?) and verse 9 is still going to mean the same thing (in fact, verses 1-9 are going to mean the same thing). The context is still the same and your application of the verse is still eisegetical not exegetical.

It's according to whether you prefer to believe in the justification of faith through temporal evidence only, or whether you are willing to have pure faith in the ability of God's power to create.

Not in this case it isn't. I really do appreciate what you're trying to do and good on you for it, if you can do it without using eisegetics, I'd fully support you. I'm not a fan though when you have to take verses out of context to support what's not inherently in the text.

[ikester7579]

Hey now, don't accuse me of wanting to derail this thread and start debating translations when you're the one bringing it up (In case case the NASB vs. the KJV). Now, whether I use my version or your version it makes no difference. The KJV still renders 2 Peter 3:8 as a simile (notice that word: as?) and verse 9 is still going to mean the same thing (in fact, verses 1-9 are going to mean the same thing). The context is still the same and your application of the verse is still eisegetical not exegetical.

Here is what you said in post #18:
See that word 'and' at the beginning of verse two? It doesn't exist. It's a poor translation (I know, not the KJV!) of the phrase ura erets

Not in this case it isn't. I really do appreciate what you're trying to do and good on you for it, if you can do it without using eisegetics, I'd fully support you. I'm not a fan though when you have to take verses out of context to support what's not inherently in the text.

So now you are going to tell me how to worship, and what to believe, how to study, and what to read?

This thread is really getting derailed now.

[Athanasius]

Here is what you said in post #18:
See that word 'and' at the beginning of verse two? It doesn't exist. It's a poor translation (I know, not the KJV!) of the phrase ura erets

So now you are going to tell me how to worship, and what to believe, how to study, and what to read?

This thread is really getting derailed now.

You're the one derailing it, ikester. The post you're referencing has absolutely nothing to do with what you've said but is in response to a different posters suggestion at the Gap Theory. In regards to the 'exegetic' you're applying to 2 Peter 3:8... Yeah, if you're interpreting the verse wrongly (and you are), someone's going to have to tell you. If that someone happens to be me - because you're posting in Apologetics and Evangelism - then I've no problem doing it.

[Noblesurvey]

Hi Xel'Naga,

Thanks for your interest in the thread.

So how old do you beleive the earth is?

I still think it is about 10,000 years, and there have been a lot of ideas as to why the earth "dates" as being older. I can't say for sure which one has the most plausibility but I am leaning towards the idea that everything was created with age.

I am interested to know your thoughts though. (In an attempt to get back on topic )

Thanks and God Bless

[Studyin'2Show]

Okay guys, let's play nice. We don't have to agree but we do have to show the love of Christ!

God Bless!

[Athanasius]

Hi Xel'Naga,

Thanks for your interest in the thread.

So how old do you beleive the earth is?

I still think it is about 10,000 years, and there have been a lot of ideas as to why the earth "dates" as being older. I can't say for sure which one has the most plausibility but I am leaning towards the idea that everything was created with age.

I am interested to know your thoughts though. (In an attempt to get back on topic )

Thanks and God Bless

I'm a Young Earth Creationist, but at the same time I don't fully buy into the figure most use (6,000 - 10,000 years) as it was calculated based on genealogies and that to me is a bit sketchy. I don't see much of a problem with the idea that "everything" was created with age, even though it is theology by implication... Some might say it is God deceiving (creating false time) us, but I don't see it like that.

[Old Earther]

I don't see much of a problem with the idea that "everything" was created with age, even though it is theology by implication... Some might say it is God deceiving (creating false time) us, but I don't see it like that.

Why don't you see it like that?

We know how fast the speed of light is, and we know how far away various stars are from Earth. What you are doing is denying the math.

[Athanasius]

Why don't you see it like that?

We know how fast the speed of light is, and we know how far away various stars are from Earth. What you are doing is denying the math.

To come to the conclusion that I'm denying "the math" of the speed of light relative to the distance of various stars from earth (thereby extrapolating the "age of the universe") because I see no logical contradiction in the view that God created with age is non-sequitur, I have no made no such denial. You're reading into what I'm saying something I haven't said.

You know, though, since you want to pursue this I could definitely take the opportunity to learn, since you seem to be educated. Stephen Hawking (I believe) on the basis of quantum mechanics (in relation to the Big Bang theory) proposed what is known as 'imaginary time'. What are your thoughts on this? Does this in any way relate to the idea that God 'created in motion', as it were, then allowed the laws of nature and physics to take over?

[Lamplighter]

2pet 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Here Peter is simply saying, that time is of no consequence to God. This is why Peter says one thing and then reverses it right after. First off, Peter says that 1 day = 1 thousand years, and then he reverses it and says 1 thousans years = 1 day. Which is it? Neither. It's a superlative to show that man's time system is of no consequence to God.

[Old Earther]

To come to the conclusion that I'm denying "the math" of the speed of light relative to the distance of various stars from earth (thereby extrapolating the "age of the universe") because I see no logical contradiction in the view that God created with age is non-sequitur, I have no made no such denial. You're reading into what I'm saying something I haven't said.

Please explain this notion of God "creating with age". How does this get you out of your dilemma regarding the speed of light?

You know, though, since you want to pursue this I could definitely take the opportunity to learn, since you seem to be educated. Stephen Hawking (I believe) on the basis of quantum mechanics (in relation to the Big Bang theory) proposed what is known as 'imaginary time'. What are your thoughts on this? Does this in any way relate to the idea that God 'created in motion', as it were, then allowed the laws of nature and physics to take over?

I won't pretend to know the first thing about Hawking's "imaginary time". What did you want to say about it?

[Athanasius]

Please explain this notion of God "creating with age". How does this get you out of your dilemma regarding the speed of light?

I have no dilemma regarding the speed of light.

I won't pretend to know the first thing about Hawking's "imaginary time". What did you want to say about it?

Simply wondering if you were familiar with it.

[Old Earther]

I have no dilemma regarding the speed of light.

So you agree that the light emanating from a star 10 million light years away from the Earth would take 10 million years to reach Earth? If not, wherein lies your dilemma?

[Athanasius]

So you agree that the light emanating from a star 10 million light years away from the Earth would take 10 million years to reach Earth? If not, wherein lies your dilemma?

I don't recall ever questioning the speed of light... But to answer your question, yes I agree with you. Assuming there are no spatial anomalies which could potentially affect that speed of said light (so lets assume there isn't). How could light come to earth from 10 million light years away in less than 10 million years? Using the same phrase I used previously: God created in motion. I think I like that explanation until someone points out the philosophical difficulties of it.

[crawfish]

Not when it involves bad exegesis.

I'm not a young-earther, and I even I agree with this statement.

[GitRDunn]

I don't recall ever questioning the speed of light... But to answer your question, yes I agree with you. Assuming there are no spatial anomalies which could potentially affect that speed of said light (so lets assume there isn't). How could light come to earth from 10 million light years away in less than 10 million years? Using the same phrase I used previously: God created in motion. I think I like that explanation until someone points out the philosophical difficulties of it.

Could you explain what you mean by God created in motion? By this are you saying that God created the universe far apart like it is and then let everything take over? Basically the creating the Earth with age, only applied to the universe?