Age of the earth

[jjpasinella]

Hey all, I wasn't sure where to put this so I will just post here. I have a question - hopefully someone will be able to help me out. I was reading Genesis and was going through Chapter 5 (Adam to Noah) and I was just wondering; I've heard the earth is only around 6,000 years old or so, maybe that was my misinformation right there, but what I did because each person seemed to live around 800-900 years, with a few exceptions was take the person's age when they died and subtracted from their fathers age when the son was born. For instance, Adam was 130 years old when he gave birth to Seth, Seth had lived 912 years, so take 912 (Seth's total years lived) and subtract 130 (Adam's age when Seth was born) to get 782 years (in regard to earth's age). This goes on a total of 10 times until Noah is born, and when I did the math I came out with a number of over 7,000 years (this ends with Noah becoming 500 years of age minus the 182 years Lamech had lived when Noah was born). I may be doing some math errors, although I can't find any by looking over it, or maybe my thought was years wasn't in regard to actual years, but I wasn't sure, if anyone can help clear this up for me it would be much appreciated.

 

[MiccyNarc]

Maybe because it's all an analogy and the age of the earth is actually alot closer to 4 billion years than 7 thousand

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hi. You might want to check out the C&E board as I started a thread just on that a few days ago.

http://christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=70
Creation & Evolution

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7263017&page=11
How old is the Earth

I decided to just make a simple poll concerning the age of the Earth and/or Universe.
I made it public so everyone could see the diversity in both how other religions/non-religions, atheists and various denominations/sects in Christianity view it.
So the question is how old is this ole Earth of ours. Thanks.

 

[champuru]

I never tried to do the math before... so I dont know if it is accurate, but I will say that many say there is a period of time between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2. Therefore you would just be calculating from the creation of Adam, and not the creation of the earth

 

[dead2self]

I am not sure I understand why you are usinf the numbrs you are using.

For instance, you use 782 years for the age of the earth with Adam to Seth. That is incorrect. To add up the years in this geneaology, you need to only add up the time each man oved beore the next generation was born. Using your numbers creates a great overlap. The total number of years lived is irrelevant. Adam was still alive when Methuselah was born.

Adam - 130
Seth - 105
Enosh - 90
Kenan - 70
Mahalalel - 65
Jared - 162
Enoch - 65
Methuselah - 187
Lamech - 182
Noah - 500

Total age of the earth when Noah had his sons: 1556 years. Seeing as how the earth is approximately 6000 years old and the flood happened about 4500 years agor this number is right onthe money.

Now on to the matter of day-age theory and gap theory. Neither of these has any basis in the Hebrew texts. In fact, any serious Hebrew scholar can tell you this. The language used simply does not allow for us to take one day as meaning anything other than a 24 hour period. Scholars are almost universally agreed that The account of creation was meant by it's author to be taken literally. Furthermore Jesus Himself authenticated the creation account in Genesis as the word of God. So now we have a text that Jesus claims was inspired by God, which was originally inteneded to be taken literally. Either you believe God or you believe man, trying to insert his own theories into a text that cannot support them.

Of course, if these texts could support these theories, then you still have a major and insurmountable theological problem. If the earth is millions of years old, death existed before Adam. The garden of Eden has to have been a fairy tale and by extension original sin could not have happened. Claiming that there was death before Adam guts the gospel and basically negates the cross. The first death was when God killed animals to cover Adam and Eve. This presented the concept of death to cover sins, culminating in Jesus' death to cover all our sins.

 

[dead2self]

BTW, one should note that even those scholars who do not believe the creation account or the inspiration of the Bible agree that it was meant by it's author to be taken literally.

 

[miguel_de_luis]

Well, I don't know, but if you are right, I'd have to stop being Christian.

 

[walt2000]

Maybe because it's all an analogy ,and the age of the earth is actually a lot closer to 14 billion years ,than 7 thousand.
Latest estimate is 14.5 billion years.And that is just a modest estimate.Seven thousand ,ridiculous,Take your grade 9 science again ,and show up for classes, if you agree to that.
walt2000

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Claiming that there was death before Adam guts the gospel and basically negates the cross. The first death was when God killed animals to cover Adam and Eve. This presented the concept of death to cover sins, culminating in Jesus' death to cover all our sin.

I think the 'death' that Christ atoned for by his sacrifice is the eternal spiritual death resulting from unrepentant/unforgiven sin and applies only to mankind.

owg

 

[ebia]

.

 

[champuru]

Well, I don't know, but if you are right, I'd have to stop being Christian.

I hope thats sarcasm... otherwise that would be pretty sad

 

[miguel_de_luis]

I hope thats sarcasm... otherwise that would be pretty sad

It isn't.

My point is never put people between a sword and a hard place, because in that situation your only choice left is to attack.

 

[MiccyNarc]

Maybe because it's all an analogy ,and the age of the earth is actually a lot closer to 14 billion years ,than 7 thousand.
Latest estimate is 14.5 billion years.And that is just a modest estimate.Seven thousand ,ridiculous,Take your grade 9 science again ,and show up for classes, if you agree to that.
walt2000

We're talking the age of the earth here, not the age of the universe.

 

[champuru]

It isn't.

My point is never put people between a sword and a hard place, because in that situation your only choice left is to attack.

so if the earth was more than 6000 years old you would stop believing that jesus died for our sins? they have no realy effect on each other.

 

[Cribstyl]

The bible is true. The seven days of creation are not literal. Genesis account is condensed but yet inclusive of all existance.

The seventh day is more indicative of a place for God in the realm of time that did not exist prior to His rest (end of creating).

The forth day is when sun and moon was put in place to synchornized the earth's days and night. The sun to other planets are more or less division of time.

We cannot deny bones of prehistoric animals found on every continent, having sharp teeth and meat in their bellies.
Science supports God's word, the error lies with is our understanding.

There are more questions than answers about God's creation, so let God be true and listen to His prophets and apostles, they teach us about Jesus the Son of God of whom it is revealed, that all thing were create by Him.


CRIB

 

[miguel_de_luis]

so if the earth was more than 6000 years old you would stop believing that jesus died for our sins? they have no realy effect on each other.

Not exactly:

If

Earth > 6000 years old
​

AND
​

The Bible must always be interpreted literally
​

THEN
​

The Bible is false.
Faith:= Faith * 0
​

ENDIF
​

ENDIF
(And I would have the mother of the faith crisis)

 

[dead2self]

I simply ask all who claim emphatically that the Genesis account is not to be taken literally to explain this. It is a simple request for people who are so sure of their claims.

1. It is accepted by religious and secualr scholarship that the Genesis account was meant to be taken literally by it's author. This is not really just an opinion. It is verifed by Hebrew scholars who have examined the orginal texts and the grammar and word usage. It simply is not an allegory. The author really intended his audience to take it as a naration of actual events.

2. Jesus authenticates this account as the word of God. So then, God intends for this account to be taken as a narration of actual events, not an allegory.

This leaves us with few options.

1. It is literal
2. Jesus lied - of course that's a sin so then his work on the cross meant nothing
3. Jesus was wrong - not a good opinion to hold about your Lord
4. God lied - if that's the case how can any of the Bible be trusted
5. God was wrong - then we'd have large problem with the whole all-knowing bit

 

[Korah]

We don't know what Jesus said. The four gospels are not easily harmonized, and among the most questionable parts are attributing prophetic fulfillment in Jesus and what Jesus actually said about the Old Testament, or what He meant when He said "Law". And of course we cannot say Jesus said the New Testament is fully inspired and inerrant, because none of it was written by the time He was on Earth.
Nor has even the Church ever decided what's in the Bible. The nearest approach to that was the Roman Catholic Council of Trent (1549-1563), and it included the deuterocanonicals that Protestants reject.
So don't bring up Jesus as if He told us the world was created in six days 6,000 (or 7,400 according to the Septuagint) years ago. That's your Baptist or "non-denominational" or other Fundamentalist bias.
Korah

 

[dead2self]

OK, no offence, but I've no desire to discuss scripture with those who don't believe it is inspired and inerrant on this thread as that's not the issue. I want to know how those who believe the Bible can harmonize the facts with an allegorical reading of the creation account.

 

[miguel_de_luis]

Where does Jesus say that the account(s) of Creation is(are) to be taken literally?