A Serious Question: Literalism v. Time

It seems to me that a major component of the tension between Bible literalists and modern biology, cosmology, geology and to some degree just about every natural science, in addition to several social sciences such as archaeology and anthropology, is the issue of time.

Cosmologists say the universe is billions of years old.
Geologists say that the earth is millions of years old.
Evolutionists say that fossils are much older than thousands of years.

The Bible indicates that nothing is older than about 5000 years.

This week's Serious Question: Suppose that the observations of science were in accord with the Bible's 5000 year threshold. Suppose that cosmologists' theory of the Big Bang, independent of the Bible, predicted that it happened precisely at the same time that Genesis says God created the heavens and the earth. Would you be more or less amenable to accepting the cosmologists' theory as a physical explanation for God's interface with our universe? Is your primary obstacle to accepting the Big Bang model the fact that cosomologists say that it occurred billions of years ago rather than 5000?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
The Bible indicates that nothing is older than about 5000 years.

This assertion is patently false. Misreading the Bible leads to the conclusion that the world is perhaps 6000 years old (6009 according to the terribly influential eighteenth century calculations). But, the Bible makes no such statement. The literalist hermeneutics upon which such claims are based are practically indefensible, and none of those advocating a young earth in these forums have even put forth a serious effort to defend these principles. Indeed, they more often argue that they have no principles, they simply read, but they read neither Hebrew, Greek, nor Aramaic. Rendering any of these languages into consistent English (or any other Indo-European language) requires principles of translation and interpretation.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
This assertion is patently false.

Is it? I know the Bible doesn't explicitly assert it, but one can deduce from the scriptural geneology the time that Adam lived.

From http://www.nwcreation.net/biblechrono.html

"The Bible contains a genealogical record from Adam to Jesus, and our existing calendar is associated with the life of Jesus (BC/AD). The Bible also specifies the age of each man in this lineage at the time he had his first son. Therefore, the age of our world can be easily calculated by adding these years together. According to this Biblical chronology the earth is almost exactly 6000 years old."

Which premise of this is incorrect?

In the interest of accurary, I will adjust my original figure of 5000 to 6000.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
It seems to me that a major component of the tension between Bible literalists and modern biology, cosmology, geology and to some degree just about every natural science, in addition to several social sciences such as archaeology and anthropology, is the issue of time.

Cosmologists say the universe is billions of years old.
Geologists say that th ...[text shortened]... g model the fact that cosomologists say that it occurred billions of years ago rather than 5000?

Could it not be true that man's concept, of the length of a day, did not begin, until Adam was forced out of the Garden of Eden? When GOD created the heaven and the earth, there was only GOD'S concept of a day. Or the length of a day. PSALMS 90:4 does say that GOD looks at a day/time different then we do.
Also have we really looked at science in a view that GOD created science and mathmatics as well. We really do not know what the length of a day in GOD'S view. We do not know whether the earth traveled arround the sun slower than it does now.
Also has science taken in account of the flood that was in Noah's day? The errosian of the earth as the water receeded? Also what makes the value of the mentioned science, understanding of time more believeable than what the BIBLE says?

Originally posted by blindfaith101
Could it not be true that man's concept, of the length of a day, did not begin, until Adam was forced out of the Garden of Eden? When GOD created the heaven and the earth, there was only GOD'S concept of a day. Or the length of a day. PSALMS 90:4 does say that GOD looks at a day/time different then we do.

Of course. But then one is no longer reading Genesis literally. So now let us consider that the terms used in Genesis can mean different things to God and man. If God's concept of a day can mean something different than man's concept of a day, then God's concept of creating animals could mean something quite different than man's concept of creating animals, and His concept of that could very well take the form of evolving them rather than molding them from clay.

Originally posted by blindfaith101
Could it not be true that man's concept, of the length of a day, did not begin, until Adam was forced out of the Garden of Eden? When GOD created the heaven and the earth, there was only GOD'S concept of a day. Or the length of a day. PSALMS 90:4 does say that GOD looks at a day/time different then we do.
Also have we really looked at science in a v ...[text shortened]... value of the mentioned science, understanding of time more believeable than what the BIBLE says?

You sound like a shifty defense lawyer BF.

You argue that science doesn't support other science.
Then you argue that science supports some "facts" in the bible, but not others.
Then you argue why anyone should trust science over the word of the bible.

Well done. Johnny Cochran just applauded you from his grave.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
"The Bible contains a genealogical record from Adam to Jesus, and our existing calendar is associated with the life of Jesus (BC/AD). The Bible also specifies the age of each man in this lineage at the time he had his first son. Therefore, the age of our world can be easily calculated by adding these years together. According to this Biblical chronology the earth is almost exactly 6000 years old."

Which premise of this is incorrect?

The premise that the Bible's tables of nations are literal genealogies is false. Many of the names among the "begats" refer to families and tribes, ie nations, not individuals.

Inasmuch as the ages given are clearly absurd if they refer to individuals, we must look for an alternative to the literalism advocated by the young earthers. No one lived 969 years, as is the claim for Methuselah. Rather, his descendants maintained his family name that long.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
The premise that the Bible's tables of nations are literal genealogies is false.

Regardless of whether it is false, literalists believe that it is true, and the intent of my question is to operate under that premise in asking this Serious Question.

But if what you say is true, that the geneologies refer to families rather than individuals, that still means that the Bible indicates that the earth is actually no older than 6000 years.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Of course. But then one is no longer reading Genesis literally. So now let us consider that the terms used in Genesis can mean different things to God and man. If God's concept of a day can mean something different than man's concept of a day, then God's concept of creating animals could mean something quite different than man's concept of cre ...[text shortened]... ncept of that could very well take the form of evolving them rather than molding them from clay.

THE BIBLE says that a thousand years to GOD is like one day. Also GOD did the creation of the heaven and the earth, before HE created man. Would that not be in HIS timeframe and not ours. GOD did not create man until the sixth day. So would it not impossible for man, to know how long those days were before he was created.
All the principles of Science and Mathmatics were in place before man was created were they not.There are problely many more principles that mankind has yet to come upon, that GOD, has created. But even to this day man is understanding more and more, about himself and planet earth. Just as the early man did not think in the depth that we do.
What I am saying basicly is that all things, thoughts, understanding, and the like were created by GOD. And they exsisted long before the time that man began, or was created on this earth.
I personally believe that every word of THE WORD OF GOD, is true. I believe that every word is to be taken as it is written/literrally. But I also believe that all the knowledge that man has gained and learned since his creation is all from the hand of GOD. And that it is up to man to learn the truth about science and mathmatics. For that too is from the hand of GOD.
For there are many things about the WORD OF GOD, I believe that man has only touched the surface of.

Originally posted by blindfaith101
Would that not be in HIS timeframe and not ours. GOD did not create man until the sixth day. So would it not impossible for man, to know how long those days were before he was created.

Well, you tell me.

You say that "I believe that every word is to be taken as it is written/literrally."

The term 'day' was written by a human author to convey a meaning to a human reader. Let us take it as it is written and consider what humans mean when they use the term. It denotes either the period between sunrises or the amount of time between sunrises. This would be a literal interpretation.

You are invoking an abstract interpretation, where 'day' denotes some unknown but specific period of time, measured from God's perspective, and obviously unrelated to sunrises. This is not a literal reading of the term 'day'. You are not taking the term "as it is written."

Consider "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life."

Does this mean to you that God literally breathed into the part of the body that we commonly refer to as the nostrils, or could it mean something more abstract, like 'day' does? Could it mean something as different from a literal breath into a nostril as "God created a language of DNA that allowed organisms to evolve respirating lungs to consume molecules of air which fuels their persistence"?

Originally posted by wib
You sound like a shifty defense lawyer BF.

You argue that science doesn't support other science.
Then you argue that science supports some "facts" in the bible, but not others.
Then you argue why anyone should trust science over the word of the bible.

Well done. Johnny Cochran just applauded you from his grave.

Yes I believe that some Science does support the thruth of THE BIBLE. As well as the thruth of THE BIBLE supports some of the facts of Science.
Now the principles of things such as evolution, THE BIBLE, does not support .
As well as those that feel that the earth is older than the timeline of THE BIBLE how do you know their calulations are right?

Originally posted by blindfaith101

Now the principles of things such as evolution, THE BIBLE, does not support .

Does the Bible support the principles of electricity or magnetism?

Does the Bible need to support every scientific theory in order for that theory to have merit?

Given your stance that the days of Genesis could have been arbitrarily long, and your stance that the terms used in the account might mean vastly different things to God than they do to man, the Genesis account is perfectly consistent with the principles of evolution. It doesn't directly support them, but it doesn't contradict them. It doesn't directly support magnetism either. You do believe in magnets, don't you?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Does the Bible support the principles of electricity or magnetism?

Does the Bible need to support every scientific theory in order for that theory to have merit?

Given your stance that the days of Genesis could have been arbitrarily long, and your stance that the terms used in the account might mean vastly different things to God than they do t ...[text shortened]... ct them. It doesn't directly support magnetism either. You do believe in magnets, don't you?

You do believe in magnets, don't you?


I'm sure he believes in these magnets: http://www.heritage-signs.us/ten/ten_commandments_car_magnet2.phtml

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Of course. But then one is no longer reading Genesis literally. So now let us consider that the terms used in Genesis can mean different things to God and man. If God's concept of a day can mean something different than man's concept of a day, then God's concept of creating animals could mean something quite different than man's concept of cre ...[text shortened]... ncept of that could very well take the form of evolving them rather than molding them from clay.

Wow. Excellent observation, Doctor.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Wow. Excellent observation, Doctor.

Isn't it just a re-write of the penultimate moments of Spencer Tracy's cross-examination of Fredric March in Inherit the Wind?