Do Christians really beleive the planet is 6000 years old?

Is this a popular belief? And if not then wouldn't the ones who don't belive it be doubting God's word? Genuinely interested in this and what the counter arguments could be.

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/121680633
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/121740985
youtube.com/watch?v=2NTxkS_yF0k
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>Old Testament
>Christians
pick one, rabbi.

Christians believed the planet was 6000 years ago until someone embarrassed them and now they pretend its metaphor.

The end.

It's called the disease of Abraham and found in all 3 major religions.

6k since the last pole shift maybe

Only common among retarded american protestants

Wouldn't this need to be a universally agreed upon statement between Christians? If God's word is true then why would so many question it?

>so many
Again, literally only common among a small number of retarded american protestants

Ok, but doesn't the bible infer that it is 6000 years old? People have done the math and that what it suggests.

>reading the Bible literally

For fucks sake people in the 200s understood this shit

...

Wouldn't taking it metaphoricaly mean not trusting the literal word of God? Is there any text saying to take it metaphoricaly?

>The bible was written by God
>Oh it's all metaphors? You mean you don't actually believe Adam and Eve ate a fruit and then thing happened? Lol guess you can't trust God or the bible!
>No one has ever written a story that symbolizes greater concepts of human life.
>The epic of Gilgamesh was also entirely true, after all, it was written down!

Do atheists really believe that something came from nothing?

Christians don't know how to read the Jewish book they worship. So yes they make stupid mistakes that cost them dearly.

The Jewish religious books are half dis-info in case goys get a hold of them, half deeply symbolic 4-d chess that you need talmudic kabbalism to decipher.

in the beginning there was darkness, dude it did, god created itself then created the universe.

>believing something can come from nothing

Weak strawman, but Christians take God's word as final and absolute. I'd say that's different from some play wright. So I think it's fair to question if taking something metaphorically is what he'd want

>If God's word is true then why would so many question it?
What is God's word? The psychotic, contradictory fables in the Bible?

>How can a year pass when a year does not even exist?

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

>And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

and this is where you can start to count days and years , it is gods perspective from earth

>1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This could have been billion of years because there were no earth years

I am referring to the sects of Christianity that disagree on the planets age, not everyone as a whole.

The bible is not the Koran dipshit

>Do atheists really believe that something came from nothing?
No. That's what theists believe: that God made the universe from nothing. Atheists believe the universe has always existed. You can't create something from nothing. Therefore something has always existed.

The most devout Christians including the great Pastor Anderson believe Earth is 6,000 or w/e years old because that's Biblical. Everyone else is a heretic.

So you deny causality?

>I am referring to the sects of Christianity that disagree on the planets age, not everyone as a whole.
Some Christians recognize that many parts of the Bible cannot be literally true. They choose science over faith, but not all the time, because they aren't smart enough to understand a nature-based morality. All they can do is clinging to the Ten Commandments, which were written as a guidebook for sociopaths, to keep them from slaughtering each other.

no

That's not true. Science gets a miracle, too: the Big Bang. Scientific materialists say "alright, if you give us the Big Bang, then we can explain everything since then".
But that's still saying the universe emerged from nothing (or, excuse me, from a singularity smaller than the head of a pin).
Come on, give me a break. Atheists take as much on faith as Christians do. Although, I haven't met anyone besides backwoods fundamentalists who take the genesis story as anything more than a metaphor.

Both good takes.

No. The Bible is a book of parables on how to lead a good and righteous life, it should not be taken as a serious scientific text.

Yes, even Christianity has its fair share of retards.

I think that realistically most christians these days dont believe the bible as literal fact but do recognize the world is by and large going to shit. They want a safe community to keep their kids safe from degenerate fags and fedora tippers and kids that are destined to be failures and so they go to church and make social connections based on their faith.

Hide the slide.

>So you deny causality?
The universe is the collection of all that exists. It itself is not an effect which needs to be caused. The individual things that make up the universe are subject to the law of causality. So the proper question is: what caused Earth, what caused the Sun, what caused this or that comet? We can ask how these particular things came about. But we can't ask how the whole collection of these things came about, because the collection itself is only an idea in our minds.

Early Christians recognized the figurative nature of Genesis. The more important part of Genesis is not the literal occurance but rather the truths that exist in the story, especially in such an obviously poetic story.

Augustine in ~400 AD was equally declaring the foolishness of taking Genesis literally, and further declared that any scientific truth that was attempt to be ascertained from the Bible would only served to embarrass the faith. Young Earth Creationism is a novelty that arose as a revolt against modernist philosophy so although I support the revolt against modernist philosophy they went about it all wrong.

This guy gets it

Oy vey. 6000 thousand years isn't much if your traveling thru time. Why don't you worthless cunts just die off. Most of you just bring dogshit thoughts upon a still Holy World.

They just so much into bible that they are not able to see reality that contradicts their beliefs.
Liberals are pretty much same with their human rights bs.

i like a challenge . i will defend the 6k year old earth concept using science

i present the melancholy of haruhi suzumiya defense. late in the series a event occurs . time had become a small loop. entire episodes were redrawn but the same shit happens each time. in the explanation of what was happening the past had ceased to exist. everything leading ip to yesterday was real at some point but it was removed from the time line some how by the time line looping into itself. so watching everything from start to finish you would just see everything pop into existence and people act like yesterday was real but it wasnt as far as the time line was concerned

scientist have put forward the concept that realities may peel away from one another and nobody would notice. like when the time line branches which would be often. what if 6k years is just the measure of when the dimension had peeled away 1 time out of all the times it had and it wasnt the original anymore and god existing in all of them with omnipresence simply sees this dimension as being 6k years old (assuming its still that one and other dimensions had peeled away from it each time and we are in that one that peeled away 6k years ago)

everything leading up to the split indicates its older but there is no proof of anything past 6k years ago if you could view all of time from this dimension. its a unknown and you cant prove im wrong

christians had been saying for generations that satan put dino bones in the ground to fool man. maybe man was never capable of understanding when the universe came into being because everything within it would indicate it was older than it truly was

>That's not true. Science gets a miracle, too: the Big Bang.
Not all atheists believe in the Big Bang. I don't. I agree that belief in a Big Bang is a belief in a miracle. Which is why I stop at the logical conclusion that something, whatever it is, must have always existed. Period.

Atheists don't believe anything. When you say that universe came out from nothing it means that in extreme heat and density basic nature laws don't work anymore. Concepts of matter and time do not exist - so you can't say that there is "something" or "something happening" in singularity. And more, you can't even guess the nature of singularity because it's totally impossible for our brains.

Bible wasn't written by God, Christianity is not Islam. Christianity views the Bible as the divinely inspired word (word meaning truth) of God. Errors could therefore exist given humanities imperfection. Early editors of the Old Testament actually left in the contradictions so as to not diminish any truth that could be present. As for when metaphor and non-metaphor occurs. Well let's say Paul says that "the resurrection is the foundation of our faith and Christianity needs to be thrown out if that's wrong". You can say rather solidly that if something is suppose to be taken literally they would give you the heads up. When identifying metaphor look for poetic evidence or just generally listen to the authorities on these issues.

Other stories that communicate truth are normally praised by Christians which is why monks in the Middle Ages copied Homer and Virgil.

So you accept causality but you deny that there was a first cause.

Mormon reporting in.

The first thing you need to understand is that Christianity is a complex and diverse belief system practiced differently by many different peoples. For instance, there will likely be at least one, probably more, responses to this post claiming I'm not a Christian. So it's hard to say do Christians really believe 'x,' because belief in 'x' may vary around the world, and even within denominations, except for defining characteristics, like a belief Christ died for the sins of mankind.

I'm not sure if you could say it's a popular belief. You'd have to consult statistics. Among Evangelical Christians, my experience (my family are practicing evangelicals) is that belief in a young Earth is extremely popular. I've seen Atheists throw statistics about a lot of Americans not believing in an old earth and organic evolution, but I'd blame that more on the political influence of radical evangelicals, rather than as a defining characteristic of Christianity.

As far as my personal beliefs and Mormon doctrine, I personally accept an old Earth, organic evolution, and pre-Adamic humans, and see no conflict between this and my belief in a personal God. My experience tells me among uneducated Mormons in Idaho/Utah and elsewhere, a literal interpretation of genesis is common, but among Mormons that have seriously attended any university, they either don't care or accept prevailing scientific theories. To my knowledge, the prevailing theories are taught, and presented in such a way as to make a rejection of them on Biblical grounds difficult for the thinking individual, in introductory science courses everyone takes at Church schools. Some leaders of the church have expressed a belief in a literal interpretation of genesis. Others, especially in the early 20th century, have aggressively argued the church officially recognize the contributions of geology and biology. To date the Church hasn't taken an official stance either way.

What we have learned and understand our history to be may be very different from what our history actually is. There are too many mysteries about our circumstances to take what historians and scientists as being the gospel truth. "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." - Cor. 13:12 The truth may be stranger than fiction.

archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/121680633
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/121740985

youtube.com/watch?v=2NTxkS_yF0k

>So you accept causality but you deny that there was a first cause.
Right.

When you say "first cause," you're not really talking about the law of causality. Causality is only a principle within the known universe. If you posit a cause of the universe itself, then that cause is outside the realm of causality. What makes you think the universe needs a cause? As I said, the universe is not a concrete thing like a planet or star. Originally God was not invented to explain the universe. He was invented to explain the existence of the Earth, the Moon, and the Stars, light and darkness. The concrete things that people back then saw. Christians today conceive the "universe" as an object in order to cling to their ancient idea of God.

so two retards?

>implying there’s something outside the universe

The universe is everything that exists.

Your position is that everything that exists needs not a cause.

But you believe in cause and effect.

So your belief is that there’s no first cause, rather a first effect?

>So your belief is that there’s no first cause, rather a first effect?
No. My position is that the basic stuff of the universe has always existed. It was not caused, and it is not an effect. It just is. It has always existed. What is this basic stuff? I don't know. That's what the great physicists are trying to figure out.

This isnt true. Some of the earliest christian writers believed that the creation story was allegorical

Reading it literally or figuratively depends on the genre and context of the writing. The Bible is over 60 books ranging from allegory, song, historical narrative, prophetic literature, ancient biography, eschatological literature, etc

'Nature based morality' is nonsense

I don’t doubt your intellectual sincerity I just find it odd that you can simultaneously hold the belief that cause and effect is the unbreakable truth and that there is no first cause.

I’m not quite sure you understand cause and effect we’ll see bough to form your opinion.

It’s fine to argue that the universe is infinite but that violates causality.

These beliefs are mutually exclusive.

White people are ''6,000'' years old since we came from Adam.
The Earth is much older than that.
Niggers and Yellows are pre-Adamic.

Retarded american protestants converted a lot of shitskins around the world, the majority of church going brazilians are protestants who believe the world is 6k years old for example
Christianity is only growing in these denominations, its pretty much alive because of them

>It’s fine to argue that the universe is infinite but that violates causality.
I don't argue for an infinite universe. I believe in a finite universe that is unbounded. It might be a hard concept to accept, but I believe it's the only one that makes logical sense. Like you say an infinite universe violates causality. And a bounded universe violates the law of identity. For a bounded universe would not longer be all that exists. There would be something else beyond the boundary.

You just contradicted yourself.

Refer to >Athiests believe the universe always existed

I still don’t know if you understand that universe means everything and not a portion of everything.

>I’m not quite sure you understand cause and effect
I açcept that the basic stuff has both always existed and always been in motion. Thus, no need for a First Cause or First Mover, which would only create an infinite regress, since you would have to ask who or what caused the first cause? At some point you have to stop and accept that something has simply always been and was never caused by something else.

Yes. Both Jews and Christians do. And some Muslims as well because they do not have a clear account of genesis. Other cultures around the world also believe that deities formed man out of clay and breathed life into them creating mankind,

>You just contradicted yourself.
You'll hàve to explain. The universe is finite in substance, not time.

It seems like you’re desperate for answers that are unanswerable.

That’s reality.

Why there exists anything instead of nothing is the most terrifying question a mind can delve into.

2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
To God time is malleable. He can make a thousand years seem as one day or a day seem a thousand years.

The more retarded ones do

I’m not sure how you can separate time from substance. And I’m not sure either can exist without the other.

The accepted curve is 8(miles squared)
or
8in.(distance in miles^2)

Which means to take the square root of the distance traveled in miles and then multiply that figure by eight inches.

So for example, if you traveled one mile, the formula would look something like this;

8(1×1) = 8 Inches of total curvature

And for the first ten miles traveled of curvature in inches…

8(1×1) = 8 Inches of total curvature
8(2×2) = 32 Inches of total curvature
8(3×3) = 72 Inches of total curvature
8(4×4) = 128 Inches of total curvature
8(5×5) = 200 Inches of total curvature
8(6×6) = 288 Inches of total curvature
8(7×7) = 392 Inches of total curvature
8(8×8) = 512 Inches of total curvature
8(9×9) = 648 Inches of total curvature
8(10×10) = 800 Inches of total curvature

Yet we can't measure any curvature AT ALL!! FROM ANY DISTANCE!!!

>I’m not sure how you can separate time from substance. And I’m not sure either can exist without the other.
Modern physicists have conflated space with time. Time is actually nothing more than a measurement of motion. The substance, the real thing, is that which moves. Time is our calculation relative to the duration of the motion observed. A year is how long it takes for the earth to go around the sun. A year's time doesn't exist as a substance in the universe. What exists is the earth moving around the sun.

No religious book specifies how long the days were in the beginning. Even you believe an asteroid made earth rotate.

Time is an illusion. Its simply shadow tracking. You act like time is a for sure thing. When you go out in space there is no time because there is nothing to cast a shadow.

Space is not a substance either. You are conflating space and matter.

Oy vey!! The know!!!

No it's literal, space doesn't exist. It's a big one to swallow.

ITT: bunch of atheist hipsters criticizing Christians meanwhile they believe human civilization is thousands of years younger than it actually is.

At least Christians have a saying for this... something about not throwing the first stone. What's your excuse?

As a Christian I know it could mean literally 6000 years or it could mean 6000 years of relevant history with many years in between many stories. I don't think God is getting too hung up on how old you think the Earth is, rather that you received his message and sought his guidance.

All atheists ever do is get hung up on inanities like "NO WAY GOD MADE THE EARTH IN SEVEN DAYS CHECKMATE THEISTS" but they never want to talk about biblical events being referenced by ancient civilizations or the western code of morality being almost entirely based off of Christian teachings, or how with the decline of religion the rise of nihilism and degeneracy have skyrocketed and become normalized. No let's focus on things that matter like "why does Dawkins dick taste so good, and what kind of fucking moron believes that god created the Earth when clearly it was the big bazinga theory"

For all you know our 80 years here could just be mon, tue, wed, thu, and fri. Death could be sat and sun. When we rest. And praise to god.

Nah, young earth creationists are still depressingly common in the US at least.

We could build an underwater dome at about 20 meters deep, pressurize the air in there to 1 bar and then add lights, grow food, release monkeys etc.

This is doable, space has absolutely zero evidence behind it except NASA's word. And nasa is a Hebrew word for deception, so I'll trust the Bible instead.

Young-Earth Creationism is only a feature of certain fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant sects.

Allegorical interpretation of Genesis goes back to Origen of Alexandria.

>And nasa is a Hebrew word for deception,

no it isn't

>Space is not a substance either. You are conflating space and matter.
Space is something, or it's composed of something, that exists. It might not fit our definition of matter, i.e. something physical, material. But it must be something. If it were nothing, then why is there any distance between us and the moon?

God's Word is the Eternal Logos, not an idol fashioned of paper, ink and leather binding by the hands of man.

Yes it is.

i don't really care. where the white woman at?

Non-literal interpretations have been around for centuries, and scientific hypotheses for the age of earth and the universe aren't brand spanking new.
Christians aren't all like US fundamentalist (((Christians)))