Prove It: The Earth
How old is the earth? It seems pretty old to me. At times in my life I have tasted dirt. It certainly didn’t taste fresh. It tasted kind of stale, nothing like fresh bread or hot pizza straight from the oven.
I am sure that I couldn’t put the earth on sale on EBay as new. It would defiantly have to be listed as used, and very used it would seem. I don’t think I could in good conscious put pictures of it and say it was in pristine condition. I don’t think anyone would believe a claim that it was only driven to and from church on Sunday. The earth is definitely high mileage.
I don’t have any idea how old the earth is and I wonder why people tell me I have to prove its age. Why does it matter? I realize when a company has in its name, “established in” that this gives one a since of dependability. They have been around for awhile so we know they can be trusted. Okay, but what about the earth’s age, would its age make it seem more dependable?
I don’t know why it matters. Can someone explain? It seems as old as dirt but that doesn’t really answer anything does it? I do know that I will never understand why people think they should use the Bible to date the earth. That would be like trying to use the notes I passed to the first girl I ever kissed for relational advice. It was not the purpose of the letters. They weren’t written to give people dating advice for the next 10,000 years. They didn’t even give good dating advice for the next ten days.
I didn’t write sweat nothings to be passed on to the love of my life for posterity to read and decipher. I wanted her to know something very specific, that I wanted to meet her behind the school by the jungle gym. It wasn’t so that others could equate the trip, measure the steps, and decide what an appropriate distance to walk for a rendezvous would be. No deep meaning of life or love or how to keep a romance for life.
I become frustrated when people use the Bible in ways that it doesn’t seem intended. Do we really think those early genealogies were recorded so that someone could mathematically piece together the age of the earth? Do we think that it was recorded so that in several thousand years people could critique it against known science? It doesn’t make any sense to me.
It would seem to me that God was more concerned with making sure we understood why the world is broken. That would seem like a lot more help to me then arguing the dates of dirt. What am I missing? Maybe someone can point out what this does matter, why knowing the age of the earth is on the same level as knowing that Jesus was both human and divine. I would appreciate it because I just don’t get it.
Unless someone had a video camera or one of those camera phones I don’t think anyone is going to know for sure. I suppose if we found a cave painting signed Adam then that would certainly help. Of course than all you would get would be some mean picture of a woman, a snake and some fruit, or was that an apple.
posted by Darin L. Hamm at
7:53 PM
4 Comments:
I don''t buy into the idea that the earth is a couple thousand years old. I believe it is billions. Does it really matter in the end what we believe about the earth and creation?
I look at Genesis and I see the pattern of evolution. The pattern of how the world and man was created...You have the heavens and earth, sea creatures, land creatures, then in the end man. I think alot of Christian forget that it is a THEORY? As a Christian I just know that God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth shouts of his power and glory. I do think it pretty nieve to think that the earth is a couple thousand years old. Science has ways to prove how old trees, soil, minerals, elements are...I don't we can dispute it. Time being something that God created for us. God lives in an eteral state.
As I mentioned in the end I don't think it really matters whether we prove how old the earth is...I doesn't matter.
I have no conclusion on the old earth/ new earth issue. Yes, science has many chemical tests that suggest the ages of things. The problem with those tests is that they just don't all say the same thing with anything like a dependable degree of agreement. It takes 12 people in agreement to convict someone of most crimes in America. If this were the requirement for dating fossils, if twelve different dating methods had to be used and their conclusions be in agreement before a date could be published, not a single fossil would bear a date.
The Genesis question is challenging because it speaks to our exegetical foundations. I agree that God wants us to know why the world is broken. The question is: what is he telling us? Is he telling us that, in the beginning, two people had one choice to make, and they sinned? (literal reading of Genesis 1-2)
Or is he telling us some timeless truths about the world in which we live, using the framework of an Ancient Near East creation narrative?
If A, then we have certain issues where popular Darwinian science disagrees with the Genesis narrative.
If B, then where does the metaphor stop and true truth begin? Maybe 'creation' is just a metaphor, and the universe really is eternally expanding and contracting, as Hawking suggests. Maybe 'in our image' is just a metaphor, and we need to move "Beyond Good and Evil" or "Beyond Freedom and Dignity".
I hope by now that you guys know that I don't mean these questions to be argumentative or to play devil's advocate. I'd tell you if I sought to fill those roles.
Jesus and the apostles speak of Adam and Eve as if they were just as historically real persons as you and I. Thus, I think we have to be careful when we approach the concept of relegating any part of Genesis to a metaphorical status.
Francis Schaeffer wrote a really useful book on this subject, called Genesis In Space And Time. I'd like to add his words to the discussion.
"We are considering here matters which lie far in the past and concern cosmic events. That raises a question: Can we really talk in any meaningful sense at all about them? It is helpful, first to distinguish between true communication and exhaustive communication. What we claim as Christians is that when all of the facts are taken into consideration, the Bible gives us true knowledge although not exhaustive knowledge. Man as a finite creature is incapable of handling exhaustive knowledge anyway. There is an analogy here with our own communication between men; we communicate to each other truly, but we do not communicate exhaustively. A Christian holding the strongest possible view of inspiration still does not claim exhaustive knowledge at any time.
"The Bible is a most efficient book. We must remember its purpose: It is God's message to fallen men. The Old Testament gave men what they needed from the Fall till the first coming of Christ. The Old and New Testaments together give all that men need from the fall until the second coming of Christ. Many other details which we need are also given, but the main purpose is kept central and uncluttered. For example, angels are touched on many times, but the Bible is not a boo on angelology. What is told us about angels is true and propositional, but always in relation to men. Heaven is the same; we are given factual knowledge concerning what we need to know about Heaven, but not a great deal of detail. Cosmic creation is included because we need to know these things which were before the Fall. What the Bible tells us is propositional, factual and true truth, but what is given is in relation to men. It IS a scientific textbook in the sense that where it touches the cosmos it is true, propositionally true. When we get to Heaven, what we learn further will no more contradict the facts the Bible now gives us tha the New Testament contradicts the Old. The Bible is NOT a scientific textbook, i by that one means that its purose is to give us exhaustive truth or that scientific fact is its central theme and purpose.
"Therefore, we must be careful when we say we know the flow of history. We must not claim, on the one hand, that science is unnecessary or meaningless, nor, on the other hand, that the extensions we make from Scripture are absolutely accurate or that these extensions have the same validity as the statements of Scripture iself. But all that does not change the fact that biblical revelation is propositional, to be handled on the basis of reason in relationship to science and coordinated with science. The content of Scripture is not upper-story {irrational, only to be accepted by rejection of reason}, and the whole of Scripture is revelational."
Whew. I know that was long, and a bit dry, but these are not simple matters you raise before us.
in HIS love,
Nick
Nick,
Wonderful addition to the discussion. I hope everyone knows that we can bring ideas to the table to discuss and disagree with. I like to throw out ideas and hear what others think.
To all, if I have stifled discussion by my responses than I ask your forgiveness.
Darin,
You have done absolutely nothing to dampen or dissuade or hinder fruitful and loving discussion. I just know how often we in public ministry have all been burned by speaking out of turn, or speaking up when we should have bitten our tongues, etc. So I'm usually prone to err on the side of caution and overpoliteness. Certainly, it is due to no fault of your writing voice, but rather to scars in my past.
in HIS love,
Nick
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home