Active Now

Chief Ten Beers
Discussion » Questions » Religion and Spirituality » Should God have destroyed the old Earth and created a new planet Earth that would make story of creation more believable?

Should God have destroyed the old Earth and created a new planet Earth that would make story of creation more believable?

Getting rid of all the dinosaur fossils and other evidence that our planet could have been 4.5 billion years old. 

Posted - April 23, 2017

Responses


  • October 23, 4004 BC
      April 23, 2017 5:54 PM MDT
    0

  • 32529
    ???
      April 23, 2017 6:04 PM MDT
    0

  • This was the date of creation calculated by Bishop James Ussher of Armagh, Ireland C. mid 1600s.
      April 23, 2017 6:11 PM MDT
    2

  • 32529
    But that is not in the Bible. That is what a man came up with. 
      April 23, 2017 6:30 PM MDT
    0

  • He came up with it using the begats in the Bible.
      April 23, 2017 6:53 PM MDT
    0

  • 32529
    But that does not go back to the original creation of the earth. 
      April 23, 2017 7:44 PM MDT
    1

  • 2657
    My2cents is correct. There is no chronology in the Bible that can be used to when the earth was created. However there is chronology that can be used to show when Adam was created. 4004 is close but not exactly correct.

    http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102009479?q=4026&p=par
      April 25, 2017 3:38 AM MDT
    0

  • 13395
     No.. but if God destroyed the old Earth and created a new planet then earth would be about 6000 years old I think. 
      April 23, 2017 7:52 PM MDT
    0

  • 32529
    He did not completely destroy it. It is not a completely new earth. It is new in like a remodel. We remodeled my bathroom last winter....I asked people to if they wanted to see my "new" bathroom. Yet it was the same bathroom all along.
      April 23, 2017 7:56 PM MDT
    2

  • LOL
      April 23, 2017 7:58 PM MDT
    0

  • 32529
    Glad you are enjoying yourself.....
      April 23, 2017 8:06 PM MDT
    1

  • That was funny 
      April 23, 2017 8:09 PM MDT
    1

  • 6477
    Good question :)
      April 23, 2017 3:43 PM MDT
    2

  • 22891
    thats up to god what he wanted to do with the earth
      April 23, 2017 3:53 PM MDT
    1

  • Um...it's a story passed down from the Bronze age with embellishments and changes made along the way like the children game of "post office".
    The assumption is being made that the story of the great flood is true and that God is real.  

    Dinosaur fossil and evidence were never wiped clean and if they were, we would never know about them

    So with that said, I prefer to stick with material that has less plot holes and makes more sense like those written by the Brothers Grimm, Aesop's Fables, or HP Lovecraft.

    If the Bible were written today, was published By Simon & Schuster, & turned into a screenplay, even Uwe Bowles or  M Night Shyamalan would pass it up.   

    This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at April 23, 2017 4:48 PM MDT
      April 23, 2017 3:59 PM MDT
    2

  • 1305
    I enclose a site from young earth creationists which shows the different calculations over the years.

    https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth/

    I often wonder if the explanation of the bible comes from a counting of when civilisation came in to being rather than a description of a literal creation?

    Cain and Abel were both farmers. Cain was also the first founder of a city.
    Lamech is the sixth generation, he was the first polygamist. With his wife Adah she bore Jabal "the father of such that dwell in tents,"  and Jubal the one who handles the organ and harp.
    With Zilldah they had Tubalcain an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron, whom the freemasons call the first Mason, the forefather of smiths,  and Naamah (which early Jewish Midrash recognises as Noah's wife while some associate her with singing her names means beautiful and pleasure.

    Or perhaps something different?

    In Rev 6:15 the heavens roll up like a scroll, what is more likely that this happens, or that what is being spoken about is written on a scroll, a scroll of the heavens?

    Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion? Can you bring out Mazzaroth (Hebrew zodiac) in its season? Or can you guide the Great Bear with its cubs? (Ursa Major and Ursa Minor/polaris the earths axis). Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you set their dominion over the earth?” (Job 38:31–33)

    “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years” (Genesis 1:14)

    Ezekiel 1:10

    As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man (aquarius) and the face of a lion (leo), on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox (Taurus) on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle (scorpio).






    This post was edited by kjames at April 23, 2017 7:54 PM MDT
      April 23, 2017 5:23 PM MDT
    1

  • 3680
    Your first question is more or less right: the first attempt to estimate the age of the Earth was made by counting Biblical generations and assigning some arbitrary constant to generation span.

    Yes, we know it was ridiculous, but don't forget that like the original Bible authors, they had no other evidence or background knowledge to draw upon.

    it's instructive to see the lack of evidence in calculating the planet's age scientifically. Lord Kelvin used thermodynamic laws to calculate it by cooling rate; but he could use only the knowledge of the time. Subsequent geological work showed it insufficient, and the problem was only solved by the discovery of radioactivity and the realisation that the Earth's internal heat source is the natural decay of Uranium and other radioactive elements.

    So although science and Biblical literalism are philosophically poles apart, we cannot criticise the original writers - but we can justly criticise those who refuse to accept these ideas have since been revised in the light of new, hard evidence open to rigorous, repeated study and analysis rather than mere dogma.
      April 27, 2017 11:38 AM MDT
    2

  • 1128
    No
      April 23, 2017 5:48 PM MDT
    3

  • 3680
    A point those desperately clinging to the Bible as some sort of supposedly absolute, divine truth miss every time this stance is questioned, is that theirs is just one of any number of religions with any number and type of deities and myths that have been invented by mankind since time immemorial!

    You CANNOT take the Bible seriously, let alone try to fit it to science or vice-versa, because it's merely a set of old statements of ancient religious beliefs, religions and sects world-wide; some still extant, others extinct but each true only to its own believers and no-one else.

    The Genesis story is superficially attractive only because it does look as if whoever invented it made some attempt to inject a little more logic - WITHOUT having the geological and astronomical knowledge we enjoy - into it, than the supporters of rival ideas such as those espoused by the Ancient Greeks and Romans with their soap-opera panthea. Consequently it is seized upon by Creationists and their not-too-bright "Intelligent Design" brethren as it somehow proves to them, something it does not really prove at all. The result of that folly is that such people limit themselves intellectually and theologically, try desperately to foist it onto others (I call that bullying), insult learning, the intelligence of the open-minded and the Hebrew tribal elder who set it down - and ultimately, unwittingly demean their deity they call God.

    Just because something is in the Bible does not make it somehow "true" or "special"! "Bible" only means "book"....
      April 23, 2017 7:11 PM MDT
    2

  • 7280
    The Bible is a myth (a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events).

    It is not a science book or text.  It is a story of a creator and the relationship between Him and His creation.

    I can take it seriously; and I am indifferent as to whether or not you are able to do so.

    My only obligation as a believer is to preach the "good news" it contains; I have no interest in trying to make a believer out of you.  One of us is wrong.  Place your bets and we'll find out who later.
      April 23, 2017 7:20 PM MDT
    5

  • 3680
    I take the Bible seriously as far as it goes - a guide to one a particular religion and its social background, among the many that have come and gone over human history, quite possibly from Palaeolithic times. To this end, the Introduction in the Gideon Bibles is an interesting summary of the region's and that society's archaeology.  And yes, genuine Christianity, i.e. Jesus' followers' NT versions of his social teachings, is "good news" in so far as it teaches basic humanity even if you don't believe the divine ideas. 

    I don't take it so seriously that I regard it as literally true - but I read you as agreeing there that it isn't. After all, if it were then we are all descended from a few, incestuous, illegitimate siblings and Pi = 3.00000.

    You say you are indifferent to my views and that you are not trying to convert me - then contradict yourself by saying one of us is wrong; a binary choice impossible to "prove" so hardly a betting question!
      April 25, 2017 3:13 PM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    I wasn't clear---sorry.

    (And illegitimate isn't all that bad---isn't Christ the bastard son of a carpenter according to civil law relations?  Of course, He is also God, so perhaps we just are describing him inaccurately.)

    Genesis is definitely a myth, with the probable point of asserting the existence of a God who's in charge of everything in creation.  Myths are not always untrue in what they are intended to teach.

    I do believe that God exists; I also believe that He authored the bible; and I further believe that he is executing the plan He intended, and there is probably some responses to Him that are appropriate.

    As a Christian and former Gentile, my only obligation is to preach the "gospel" (good news), not convert anyone.  I cannot place your intellect in possession of it's object by trying to somehow put it there---nothing I say can compel belief, so I don't waste my time on trying to convince anyone.

    I do not think that one can remain indifferent to what the bible says without some (possibly serious) consequences.  that's where "one of us is wrong" comes from.

    And here's the levels of interpretation of Scripture that I learned many years ago:  

    Aquinas on the Four Senses of Scripture---

    Traditionally, the Church has identified four levels of meaning or 'senses' of Scripture: the literal sense and three spiritual senses - the allegorical, the moral, and the anagogical senses. Aquinas explains these in his Summa Theologiae, in Article 10 of Question 1 in the Prima Pars:


      April 25, 2017 5:59 PM MDT
    0

  • 3680
    Thank you for explaining your point of view, Tom.  Myths generally arose to try to explain or give some meaning to what could not be explained by anyone at the time, but I can see their value as allegories, or metaphorical examples.

    There appears to be some deep, innate desire or yearning in humans to believe in a spiritual or religious aspect to everything in Nature, and it's striking that most known live or dead religions have essentially similar aims even if their deities and ceremonies are vastly different. 

    The most important of these aims are anchoring life as a whole and in human affairs within some larger framework, and acting as a sort of bereavement counsellor. The latter involves not just a rightful and respectful disposal of the body, but also lessening the fear of death and comforting the bereaved by holding out a promise of some form of after-life.

    So religion itself is not wrong, but individual religions are human constructs and "right" only to their own followers. Unfortunately it also prone to abuse and misuse by followers; while its central premise is totally improvable either way, for or against.
      April 25, 2017 6:45 PM MDT
    0

  • 7280
    A well thought out comment.

    I also believe that "truth" exists and is the proper object of study. So I would not agree that "religions are human constructs and "right" only to their own followers," but I wouldn't bother to argue the question of the existence of truth and / or its corresponding nature---way too much work.

    Regards....


      April 26, 2017 9:46 AM MDT
    0

  • 3680
    I don't think sniping at each other is answering the original question, which I would suggest is a bit ambiguous. Nor does quoting lumps of scripture - that is literally preaching to the converted for the believer, but meaningless to the non-believer except in so far as it might explain what the former is believing.

    The original questions is:
      "Should God have destroyed the old Earth and created a new one to make the story of Creation more believable?"

    Leaving aside the astronomical unlikelihood of any such event, it suggests that such replacement would have occurred within Biblical times - and that would ensure no-one would know the original story anyway!

    It also implies God would make His handiwork fit human ideas, rather than leaving humanity to try to understand what was created.

    I don't think anyone has actually tried to answer the question! Instead the debate degenerated into a sparring match between those who support Biblical literalism, and try to reject knowledge that cannot be made to fit their interpretation of the Bible, and those who may or may not believe in God but see the Bible for what it is, a guide to a particular religion and the beliefs of the society that founded that religion.

    I do not believe in God, but I do accept the Bible as a highly-flawed record of a Hebrew society's beliefs some 2 to 3 millennia ago. Many of the flaws spring from umpteen editions and translations since. However, if I did believe - if I were to be a practising Christian - I most certainly not be a Biblical literalist, for two reasons; one cultural, the other theological.

       My cultural reason is that hard-line literalism rejects and scorns Learning. It scorns efforts to understand the Universe, whose wonders Astronomy, Geology and Palaeontology seek to comprehend and explain; to show truth and beauty far, far beyond anything Moses could have ever comprehended. Actually I think if Moses could come back he would embrace modern knowledge scientific knowledge wholeheartedly for - in his terms - showing so much more than he could have imagined, of his God's work. The door-stepping cult evangelist would merely stick to the script he is ordered to promulgate, with the analytical depth of an advertisement for a new sink cleaner: "Tea Stains? Limescale? Try New Light!" ("Lite"?)

       My theological reason is that literalism unwittingly scorns what it is trying to support.   Treating as "true" a myth that could never have explained the creation, but only suggest a few metaphors, not only both scorns modern learning and patronises that story's writer; but also scorns the very God it is supposed to celebrate, and cheapens his Universe into some sort of celestial conjuring act of "just-add-water" instancy.

    So what is the answer to the original post?
    I don't believe there is one. Whether you are a hermetically-minded Bible-thumping member of some literalist cult, a radio-astronomer who is a lay Methodist preacher on Sundays, or an atheist with a PhD in Palaeontology, I am afraid the question does not stand up to its own logic.    
     

     
      April 24, 2017 3:28 PM MDT
    3