I don't have the answer, obviously, but here is the short version of Dr. Gerald Schroeder's attempt to harmonize these seemingly contradictory ideas.

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html

There is an audio of a lecture somewhere which I will post if anyone is interested.  I think I have posted the audio on another thread.

I have been contemplating this for a few months, but not too in depth (my math and physics is limited to a lay person's understanding), so I would be interested to hear your thoughts and ideas.  It is an interesting approach from someone who isn't a quack.

who cares??? Why do people really care?  It's an honest question, would it change anything? no, not really!  So it's as old as you want it to be. 

This is old. I probably heard this 10 years ago.

I honestly don't know what it proves.  Other than that the world is a lot older than 6,000 years as we measure years. I must admit my math is not good enough to pick holes in his version of events either.

I know he came in for a lot of flack from the literal creationists when he first published his theories. There are some who will go to all sorts of lengths to try and prove their version is right. No matter how much proof is presented that they are wrong. A lot of them call this faith. I am not sure I can call it anything other than scary.

What is your opinion of the literal creationists?

I pretty much stopped reading after the first paragraph when he said "The torah does not have the option of changing".  One can waste one's time and one can spend it.  I for one think it is a waste of my time to even continue reading something where the author of such a piece cannot be honest enough with himself to see that it is his interpretation of the Torah that is unchanging and not the text itself (which I am sure has been through even major revisions after all these years in existence).

Btw Mark I just call it "trying to correct cognitive dissonance through rationalization".  They believe something dogmatically so the facts must fit into their understanding in order for their "faith" aka false peace to continue.

There is no such thing as evidence with these people when it comes to evidence challenging their dearly held dogmatic ideas of the world and yes I agree, that is a little scary.

I think you mix Torah and Old testament, Zarm. While similar, they are quite different. Torah is kept in the language it was written in, and Jews do their best to keep it unchanged for thousands of years - much like their customs and devotions.

Peter M. Lopez wrote:

I don't have the answer, obviously, but here is the short version of Dr. Gerald Schroeder's attempt to harmonize these seemingly contradictory ideas.

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html

There is an audio of a lecture somewhere which I will post if anyone is interested.  I think I have posted the audio on another thread.

I have been contemplating this for a few months, but not too in depth (my math and physics is limited to a lay person's understanding), so I would be interested to hear your thoughts and ideas.  It is an interesting approach from someone who isn't a quack.

Peter, yeah,
It's an interesting point of view put in boring words. Sorry I was not able to read all the way through - but I think I grasped the idea, and I do think it has a merit.

Sandy,
No, it won't change anything - but what will? Aren't we just having conversations here for a sake of enjoying the good company?

Misha wrote:

I think you mix Torah and Old testament, Zarm. While similar, they are quite different. Torah is kept in the language it was written in, and Jews do their best to keep it unchanged for thousands of years - much like their customs and devotions.

Perhaps I am wrong then, perhaps it has not been through any major revision at all, however I still do not understand how forced esotercism is any different from selective interpretation (albeit a much longer held selective interpretation).

I mean, a text, any text, can be looked at at least several ways and interpreted several ways.
Who, or what is to say which is the right interpretation?  Rabbi's whose sacred task it is to pass on the tradition?  From whence does their authority emanate?  God? YHWH in the form of Yahweh? Or Elohim? 

Even if somehow this book has not changed (and that I seriously doubt), an assumption of the validity of the authority of their particular "unchanging" interpretation is needed before you can even get to step two of that particular form of multiple out.

I am not saying this interpretation is correct or the only TRUE one

I find it interesting, though, and well worth friendly discussion

As for validity of interpretations in general - I think ALL what we read or hear we necessarily interpret, everybody in his/her own unique way, and I don't see anything wrong with it, it is just how our brains work.

I'll add a few points of clarification for what they're worth:

The Torah only contains the first five books of the Bible, Genesis-Deuteronomy.

Also, YHWH, Yahweh and Elohim are all different names for the same God, the God of the Bible.  YHWH is the original spelling (since the Hebrew language didn't have vowels until much later) and Elohim is just another name for YHWH but it comes from "el."

Maybe that clears a few things up...

WeddingConsultant wrote:

I'll add a few points of clarification for what they're worth:

The Torah only contains the first five books of the Bible, Genesis-Deuteronomy.

Also, YHWH, Yahweh and Elohim are all different names for the same God, the God of the Bible.  YHWH is the original spelling (since the Hebrew language didn't have vowels until much later) and Elohim is just another name for YHWH but it comes from "el."

Maybe that clears a few things up...

You are correct Wedding Consultant  .  I just wanted to add Jehovah is another version of the name Yahweh.

Misha wrote:

I am not saying this interpretation is correct or the only TRUE one

I find it interesting, though, and well worth friendly discussion

As for validity of interpretations in general - I think ALL what we read or hear we necessarily interpret, everybody in his/her own unique way, and I don't see anything wrong with it, it is just how our brains work.

Haha touche !!

Thx Misha for clarifying, at the end of this I will certainly know what other people believe about this topic.  It won't amount to anymore than that probably.  Nice to know we can all talk about it.

This thing about everybody interpreting things in his/her own unique way, hmm sometimes I wonder if we all just have inherent blinders on and that people allowed to have their own preferences can pick a certain thing but it all amounts to viewing the same thing from different angles so to speak.

Like some people prefer to sit on a ledge on the middle of the cliff after a good climb and get that view, others prefer to peek over the top while still others like to stand at the bottom and look up before they move on.

I wonder if it could all just be that simple.

If it was then people agreeing to disagree would ensure that everyone would live their lives without trying to convince anyone of anything that conflicted their worldview ever.

Lol, I wonder if such a thing were possible if it truly would be the salvation of mankind.

Well Zarm,

The problem is - there are people who are tolerant (or they think they are tolerant) to other people's opinions. And then there are people who are not. They think they shouldn't tolerate this and that. This is their opinion.

Now, people who are tolerant cannot tolerate those who are not, and always try to convince them that they should be tolerant

I think I'm guilty in this, too...

The only solution I see here is to change myself first

Here's a different perspective: an overview of the *scientific* evidence for the age of the earth, written by a practising Christian:


http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens2002.pdf


It's rather long and detailed - but, if nothing else, the Introduction and the Appendix (page 23) may be worth reading.

Zaim,

Have you read Becker's "Denial of Death"?

It may help you to make peace with the craziness of human nature.

Jenny

I have other problems to worry about than thinking about how old earth is.

The entire entity of what we are is crazy yet fascinating.  Humanity or life in general is the most fascinating creation, creation by God force or accidental occurance, neither one is more important than being. 

God serves us, we don't serve God.  What would we give him that he doesn't already have?  My heart, my soul, my life? 

Was Jesus God?  Nope, but God served Jesus. 

sandra rinck wrote:

God serves us, we don't serve God.  What would we give him that he doesn't already have?  My heart, my soul, my life? 
 

in my opinion, God doesn't need us.

God is just testing us.

the question is: why is he testing us? does he have advantages out of this?
why would he have advantages if he is perfect?

sandra rinck wrote:

Was Jesus God?  Nope, but God served Jesus. 

Jesus was a human  used to eate, talk and do everything just like us.
the only difference is that he was nearly perfect comparing to other humans.
also, he was born in a miracle without a father.

Eng.M wrote:

sandra rinck wrote:

God serves us, we don't serve God.  What would we give him that he doesn't already have?  My heart, my soul, my life? 
 

in my opinion, God doesn't need us.

God is just testing us.

the question is: why is he testing us? does he have advantages out of this?
why would he have advantages if he is perfect?

sandra rinck wrote:

Was Jesus God?  Nope, but God served Jesus. 

Jesus was a human  used to eate, talk and do everything just like us.
the only difference is that he was nearly perfect comparing to other humans.
also, he was born in a miracle without a father.

The only difference is Jesus believed God would.

sandra rinck wrote:

The only difference is Jesus believed God would. 

would? would do anything?

Eng.M wrote:

sandra rinck wrote:

The only difference is Jesus believed God would. 

would? would do anything?

Jesus believed that God believed in him.