Does the Bible teach the young Earth?

[McCulloch]

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Universe is 6,000 years old. That calculation comes from one James Ussher, an Irish archbishop of the 17th century, who was neither a saint, a prophet, nor a scientist.. It has been, shall we say, disputed.

My point is only this; even if one takes the Bible as the literal Word of God that does not require one to believe in a young Earth. That is an extraBiblical doctrine and not required by any reading of the Bible but Archbishop Ussher's.

Question for debate: If you take the Bible as the literal Word of God, would it require a belief in a young Earth? What about a young Universe?

Notes: For the purposes of this debate, let's define young as less than 10,000 years, so we need not quibble over rounding errors and such.
Remember, for this debate we are discussing whether the young earth is a necessary consequence of taking the Bible as the literal Word of God, not whether the Bible is the literal Word of God. That question is for other debate threads.

[Thought Criminal]

I don't think I can add much to what my friend Goat said above (which I have corrected slightly), but I would make this observation; I can't see, and never have been able to see, why the time and manner of Creation is anything more than a minor side issue in either of our religions.

To put it in Christian terms, belief in a seven-day Creation 6,000 years ago does not seem to me to be essential to either preaching the Gospel or believing in Jesus. Surely one can be a faithful, believing, and "saved" Christian without being required to sign off on that idea. I didn't believe that when I was a Christian, and relatively few members of my denomination did, either. It just wasn't that important to our faith or our mission, and I frankly don't understand why so many conservative Christians seem to think that it is.

It's a threat to literalism. If a week-long creation is just a metaphor, perhaps God is, too.

TC

[cnorman18]

It's a threat to literalism. If a week-long creation is just a metaphor, perhaps God is, too.

TC

I would say that any theist who has not confronted and seriously contemplated that possibility has not thought about his or her faith deeply enough.

[Thought Criminal]

It's a threat to literalism. If a week-long creation is just a metaphor, perhaps God is, too.

TC

I would say that any theist who has not confronted and seriously contemplated that possibility has not thought about his or her faith deeply enough.

And I would say you need to get out there and speak to more fundies. Their belief is as strong as it is brittle. They know the facts aren't on their side, so they have to work extra hard on their blind faith.

TC

[cnorman18]

It's a threat to literalism. If a week-long creation is just a metaphor, perhaps God is, too.

TC

I would say that any theist who has not confronted and seriously contemplated that possibility has not thought about his or her faith deeply enough.

And I would say you need to get out there and speak to more fundies. Their belief is as strong as it is brittle. They know the facts aren't on their side, so they have to work extra hard on their blind faith.

TC

[humor]
Well, I'VE been here since November of last year. Where have YOU been?
[/humor]

[Fisherking]

I had forgotten about this rabbit trail....

It is the evidence that drives the 'old earth view'. No one who has actually had a scientific education and actually understood the concepts would deny that.

I've shown on several occasions how this assertion is incorrect--why keep making it? There are those with a scientific education who understand the concept and reject it.

Yes, there are those who have an alleged scientific education that reject it

Thank you. Does this mean you are retracting the " No one who has actually had a scientific education and actually understood the concepts would deny [the old earth]" statement?

Heck no

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point is that even two millenia back, Jews did not think the Creation took place only four millenia before.

Do you believe the the new testament writers were Jews?

I personally do not believe Paul was Jewish, although he made that claim. His outlook was too divergent, and had more to do with the theology of the predominate religion of Tarsus from that time period rather than Judaism.

So although Paul claimed to be Jewish (tribe of Benjamin), he was not Jewish because his outlook or theology wasn't Jewish? Would you gentlement be considered Jewish by the same standard?
Were any of the other new testament writers Jewish?

If so, why did they apparently teach a literal Genesis regarding creation?

if you are addressing a story , to people who know the story is merely a story, you don't have to emphasize it is only a story

Why did they address it as a literal story instead of a figurative one?

[Goat]

Why did they address it as a literal story instead of a figurative one?

Do they? Or is that just your misconception because you don't understand the culture and people of that time period? Or, could you be reading the passages with your misconceptions?

[cnorman18]

Why did they address it as a literal story instead of a figurative one?

Jews do this all the time; it's the traditional way to discuss the issues that are raised in a Biblical text.

I mentioned awhile back that in a Torah study at my synagogue, when we were discussing the Akeidah (which is what we call the near-sacrifice of Isaac), someone asked; "But did this really happen?" Everyone else in the room, including the rabbi, dismissed the question with a wave of the hand: "What difference does that make?"

Jews may regard the Biblical accounts as literally true or not, as they choose; the issue is considered irrelevant to the lessons taught in the Bible and generally unimportant.

Also: For the record, I never said that Paul was not Jewish. I said that there was doubt about it, and there is.

Linguistic and cultural issues aside, his attitude toward the Law was far from the Jewish norm at his or any other time. He regarded the Law as a trial and a burden and as leading to death and not life. That is as bizarre to Jews as describing the Gospel as "the Bad News" would be to Christians. Pick a Psalm; Jews have always regarded the Law as "a lamp to my feet and a light to my path," sweet as honey, a delight, and God's greatest gift.

Paul also taught that the entire Law must be fulfilled and followed to the letter or else it is totally broken and the believer condemned, and that has never been Jewish teaching, either.

Paul may have been Jewish, but he patently did not understand Judaism. And for that very reason, few Christians understand Judaism today, though they may think and even insist that they do.

[Fisherking]

Jews may regard the Biblical accounts as literally true or not, as they choose

I understand, but the questions and parameters for the debate in this thread are:

Question for debate: If you take the Bible as the literal Word of God, would it require a belief in a young Earth? What about a young Universe?

Notes: For the purposes of this debate, let's define young as less than 10,000 years, so we need not quibble over rounding errors and such.
Remember, for this debate we are discussing whether the young earth is a necessary consequence of taking the Bible as the literal Word of God, not whether the Bible is the literal Word of God. Can one who regards the Biblical accounts of creation as literally true

Wouldn't Jews (or anyone else for that matter) that take the bible as the literal word of God come to the conclusion that the earth and possibly the universe are under 10000 years old?

[cnorman18]

Jews may regard the Biblical accounts as literally true or not, as they choose

I understand, but the questions and parameters for the debate in this thread are:

Question for debate: If you take the Bible as the literal Word of God, would it require a belief in a young Earth? What about a young Universe?

Notes: For the purposes of this debate, let's define young as less than 10,000 years, so we need not quibble over rounding errors and such.
Remember, for this debate we are discussing whether the young earth is a necessary consequence of taking the Bible as the literal Word of God, not whether the Bible is the literal Word of God. Can one who regards the Biblical accounts of creation as literally true

Wouldn't Jews (or anyone else for that matter) that take the bible as the literal word of God come to the conclusion that the earth and possibly the universe are under 10000 years old?

Well, very many Jews regard the Torah (as opposed to the Bible) as the literal word of God, to the point that they believe it was dictated to Moses letter by letter at the summit of Mount Sinai; but they do not believe that the Torah was intended to teach specific scientific or historical truths.

That seems to have been the view of the Kabbalists mentioned earlier, since Kabbalah depends on the unity of the Torah and its direct authorship by God; and yet they calculated the time of Creation as being billions of years ago.

So no, not necessarily.

[Goat]

Jews may regard the Biblical accounts as literally true or not, as they choose

I understand, but the questions and parameters for the debate in this thread are:

Question for debate: If you take the Bible as the literal Word of God, would it require a belief in a young Earth? What about a young Universe?

Notes: For the purposes of this debate, let's define young as less than 10,000 years, so we need not quibble over rounding errors and such.
Remember, for this debate we are discussing whether the young earth is a necessary consequence of taking the Bible as the literal Word of God, not whether the Bible is the literal Word of God. Can one who regards the Biblical accounts of creation as literally true

Wouldn't Jews (or anyone else for that matter) that take the bible as the literal word of God come to the conclusion that the earth and possibly the universe are under 10000 years old?

Very few Jews take the bible as literal , and are 'young earth creationists'. The ones that creationists quote tend to be Jews that lived 1000 years ago or more..

Most of the 'Jews' who are YEC are the 'messianic Jews(read evangelistic christians). There are a few Jews that are YEC's, but they are rare, and it actually has very little support in any of the mainstream Jewish variations.