Age of the earth

[Tom]

Was the Great Flood an allegory, or a story written in “order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe.”

Does it matter if it was an allegory? Jesus uses these vehicles to convey His message, do you feel they are less important or reliable because He doesn’t use historical accounts alone? They are the ways God chooses to enlighten us. Read Matthew chapter 13 on why God uses parables. God doesn’t seem to feel:

Ultimately, when you begin to associate much of God’s Word with symbolism, allegories and metaphors you then begin to reduce God’s authority.

God most certainly does not teach that the use of parable, allegory, metaphor, reduce His message or make it unreliable. He teaches quite the opposite.

 

[Tom]

I have no problem with a young earth… because I dare not put God in a box that can define his sovereignty over what is possible or not, or what is reasonable or not.

I have no problem with either young or old earth. It’s a question which is totally irrelevant to Gods message. Again, God left us His Church to guide us. His Church says its teachings do not contradict either. That’s exactly what I believe, and why I believe it.

 

[TylerAlex]

Does it matter if it was an allegory? Jesus uses these vehicles to convey His message, do you feel they are less important or reliable because He doesn’t use historical accounts alone? They are the ways God chooses to enlighten us. Read Matthew chapter 13 on why God uses parables. God doesn’t seem to feel:God most certainly does not teach that the use of parable, allegory, metaphor, reduce His message or make it unreliable. He teaches quite the opposite.

It does matter… and, I also believe the use of parables, metaphors and allegories can be appropriate. The question becomes, who decides when it is an allegory (for instance) and when it is not; subsequently, what are the ramifications of those interpretations?

What will you say when people start to believe and profess that the crucified and resurrected Christ was simply an allegory… or, the miracles and prophecies Christ fulfilled were just “stories.”

It does matter.

 

[TylerAlex]

When we read the Old Testament we read it with knowledge from the New Testament, thereby reading Scripture in its proper context. Jesus clearly teaches us using parables, allegory, metaphors. It would make perfect sense to understand the Words of God in the OT in the same light. In fact, Jesus teaches us exactly this in John:

The quote I used was to illustrate to you that Jesus clearly reiterated the need to heed God’s word. He did not say “the parable” or the “story” of Noah… he referred to the days of Noah.

By reducing events… like Noah and the Flood… down to a parable, you reduce God’s authority and sovereignty as well.

 

[Tom]

The question becomes, who decides when it is an allegory (for instance) and when it is not; subsequently, what are the ramifications of those interpretations?

The answer to “who decides” is the Church. The OP was about the age of the earth, the Church has decided, Scripture is not in conflict with science. You are free to believe either young or old, it makes no difference. That is the teaching of the Church Christ established. You want to follow the young earth? Great. To me there is no conflict.

The quote I used was to illustrate to you that Jesus clearly reiterated the need to heed God’s word. He did not say “the parable” or the “story” of Noah… he referred to the days of Noah.

True, you mentioned the reference by Jesus of Noah. I have no problem believing Noah actually existed and the Scriptural story was about an actual person and events. I’m not saying every event in Scripture is a parable. The OP however is not about Noah, it’s about the “age of the earth”. In Gn 1 on the first day God creates “light” not the sun or moon, but another form of light. The first “day” was simply a period of light followed by a period on darkness. Where is there any mention of a 24 hour “day” here? Could this period of light (day) been 100 million years? You seem to feel it must be seven 24 hour days? Why? Does Scripture say this? No. Does the Church say this? No. Are you allowed to believe this? Sure. I feel the first three days were about 100 million years each. From day 4 - 7 the periods evolved into 24 hour periods.

By reducing events… like Noah and the Flood… down to a parable, you reduce God’s authority and sovereignty as well.

Again, God chooses to use these vehicles to reveal His message, it does NOT reduce His authority or sovereignty at all. You seem displeased at how God reveals Himself, I’m not.

 

[TylerAlex]

You orginally asked if it mattered whether descriptions of things that happened in the OT, in context of what is written in the New Testament, are allegoric in nature or are factual events that we can take God’s word on.

I stated that it did matter, you differed from me. I stated that when you reduce events in the Bible down to allegories, you have the ramifications of reducing God’s sovereignty and his authority. In the case of creation, once you dismantle God’s Word on how he created the world, you then open the door to interpretation of whether Adam and Eve really existed, or the Garden of Eden. From there, once you have discounted that, and thus orginal sin, you lose the whole debate.

I am not the one who is displeased with how God reveals himself, for I trust what was written to be true. However, you seem to have a hard time just accepting that the world was created just as he said it was.

When people start saying, “God didn’t really do/say that literally… what he meant to say was… what probably hapened was…” is where I become dubious. I am not saying that you, Tom, are saying that… but it gets implied when people start referencing events in the bible as if they are simply just stories or parables- when in truth, those evetns actually happened just like God’s word said it happened.

 

[TylerAlex]

The answer to “who decides” is the Church.

I agree. But the Church has not officially come out and said the the earth is billions of years old too. Until it says otherwise, I choose to believe God’s Word.

PhilVaz’s citations of St. Thomas, Ratzinger/Benedict and JPII are not official Magestrium positions as far as I am aware- so we can freely debate them. The fact that the Church does not come forward with more fervor and authority in declaring these things to be factual and true (to be accepted as literal in its meaning and interpretation) can be viewed as disappointing.

 

[HEAVY_HAND]

Welcome to the forums HH
What most people realize is that on the first day God created light, not necessarily the sun and moon, perhaps another light source which of course could have provided the necessary energy for the development of the “green trees, grass, and fruit bearing trees”.

Sorry; this is totally unconvincing, especially to those of us who have an astrophysics background…
…and realize that physical evolution ( no mattter how long you try to make each “day”) is totally incompatable with the Scriptural account, and specifically for the reasons I gave in my first post.

The astrophysics of the evolution of planets and stars goes WAY beyond merely having light …What most people (like yourself ) don’t realize is that NO proposed evolution theory allows plants and shrubs and green tress, etc. to be present on earth BEFORE the creation of sun, moon , and stars, (which is the order given in Scripture)…and therefore is the two are incompatible.

The two scenarios are completely incompatable…at least to those of us who have knowledge of both… Sorry; I cannot justify 're-writing ’ Scripture just to accomodate everyone’s different understanding of evolution theory.

unconvinced…
HEAVY HAND.

Scripture is not a complete history, it isn’t intended to be. God never says this is everything “I” did (John chapters 20 & 21).

Of course not, but what GOD did SAY He did DO, and I fully intend to believe it…Thank you very much>

HEAVY HAND

 

[HEAVY_HAND]

…

 

[HEAVY_HAND]

In God’s time, a day could have been a million years in our earthly human concept of what time is. Did God create the universe and everything in the universe in 6 “days”? sure, but His day may be our million years.

The reason many of us cannot buy this scenario is given in post #12 . Please read it.

The point (which Tom didn’t seem to realize either) is that you cannot simply ‘expand’ each creation ‘day’ into millions of years and expect it to conform to evolution theory; the ORDER of the Creation days in Genesis doesn’t allow it.

Heavy Hand