Friday, December 11, 2009

Worn Hats, Worn Jeans...Worn Earth?

The other day in Target, I saw a dirty, faded Eagles hat for sale. It was brand new, but made to look worn out and beaten up. People like that kind of look. That made me think of how jeans today are often made that way too (like this photo). They actually sell jeans that look like that, at full price!

So if we like our hats and our jeans worn, is it possible that God also made the Earth to look worn? And that's why people dispute about whether the Earth is 'New' or 'Old'?

Of course, I'm not a scientist, and the age of the earth is not an area of theological study that I have spent much time contemplating.

Just sharing one of my musings from Target...I know, I need to get a life.

But does anyone else have any thoughts on this?


  1. Quite interesting! Also makes me think how we continually like to live in an old law mentality rather than being a Full gospel, new covenant believer.


  2. Yes, I'm a young-earth creationist, and now, Larry, you're going to throw me this softball right down the middle of the plate for me to swing at!

    Here's where I'm coming from: I'm a scientist (a physician) and I was a biology major at a secular college. So I've spent much time, even since my high school years, thinking about the issues of earth's origins. I don't know why -- I'm a geek, I admit it.

    I believe that the earth is less than ten thousand years old.

    Well then, what about carbon dating?
    I think carbon dating is an inexact science, which is BASED on the (unproven) assumption that the earth is hundreds of millions of years old. So, I disagree with the assumptions behind carbon dating.

    Even if carbon dating is "accurate", God probably created the earth with "age." (Just like the clothes and hats at Target.) He created Adam and Eve with age, right? (They weren't embryos, anyway!) So, following this logic, I don't buy the carbon dating "proofs" of the earth's old age. I think God created it all with "age" -- about 6-8,000 years ago.

    Why should we care?
    Because if we buy the carbon dating as proof of an old earth, then we have to fit it into the context of Genesis 1 and 2 creation accounts. Many Bible-believing, theologically orthodox men of God (who are much smarter than me) believe in an old earth which God created. And, though I disagree with them, I would not question their sincere faith in our loving and merciful God who provided salvation though His Son, Jesus Christ (who, by the way, was the agent of creation). That is what's MOST important.

    But I would ask this theological question: If the earth is millions of years old, and there was life on earth for millions of years before the first humans, when did death enter the world? Was not death part of the curse of Adam's sin? If you say yes, then you have to postulate that there was no death of animals/plants, even in microscopic lifeforms, for all those millions of years prior to the original sin.

    Food for thought, and interested in the thoughts of others,

    Jim W

  3. I KNEW I'd get a comment from Jim W on this one! I pretty much did throw this one out there for you, brother!

    I have a thought on the introduction of death into the world but I need to check a reference at home, so I'll hopefully post later tonight or tomorrow.

  4. For what it's worth, this is from Anthony Hoekema's book The Bible and the Future:

    "It seems quite likely that there must have been death in the animal and vegetable worlds before man fell into sin. We have fossil records of many kinds of plants and animals which have been extinct for thousands of years. Many of these species have died out long before man appeared on earth.

    "Further, death plays an important part in the mode of existence of many plants and animals as we know them today. There are carnivorous animals who subsist by eating other animals. There are plants and trees which are killed by animals or insects. Many of the cells of living plants are dead cells, and these dead cells serve a most important function.

    "Unless we wish to maintain that nature today is different in every respect from what it was before the fall, we must admit that in all likelihood there was death in the plant and animal world before the fall."

    Certainly not conclusive evidence, but just one voice coming from a book that overall I have benefited from. Of course it was written 30 years ago, so the scientific stuff might be outdated.

    I guess the more important question is, Does the Bible explicitly say that ALL death in the universe is the result of sin, or does it only say that of human death?

  5. I agree that that is a more important question, and I don't know the answer to it. If it is just human death that is one result of the fall, then I'm OK with that.

    I'm still not OK with the author's carte blanche take on plants that existed and became extinct even before men came upon the earth. I have no idea how someone could know that. Now, you will say we can tell from fossils, but I would likely disagree with that. Because, in the wake of a cataclysmic earth-wide flood, I would contend that all bets are off regarding fossils and the evidence that they lend to us regarding the sequence of life's appearance on earth.

    So, two issues arise:
    1. Do we let science aid in our interpretation of Scripture -- which I believe is the error that Hoekema makes. Or do we let Scripture guide our take on science? I am inclined to do the latter.

    2. I could be conviced of an old-earth creationist view if I saw enough incontrovertible evidence of such. But, I will never buy theistic (i.e., God-directed)evolution. Evolution is a construct of the unbeliever to explain life's origins on earth. It is irrational. But it's all the unbelieving world has got.

    Jim W