How old is the earth?

[tonychanyt]

If you say so. Please keep in mind of the historical context, that worship of nature deities was the norm, the default status, and it still is in modern time - cue "save the planet”. Genesis 1 specifically debunked these nature deities.

Let proposition P1 = The creation account was written for the purpose of polemics.

False.

Is P1 true to you?

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Let proposition P1 = The creation account was written for the purpose of polemics.

False.

Is P1 true to you?

Do your own research, friend. I'm not gonna take you for a ride or sell you anything.

 

[tonychanyt]

Do your own research, friend. I'm not gonna take you for a ride or sell you anything.

Are you asking me to do my own research to support your claim that P1 is true?

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Are you asking me to do my own research to support your claim that P1 is true?

I'm asking you to reconsider proposition P2 = earth is 4.5 billion years old, according to "scientists". Real science corroborates the bible, and it is always progressing, there's no absolute certainty, as there's always something new to discover. Those scientists are not god, their theory is not the gospel, what you believe and revere today could be debunked tomrrow by new discoveries. with new evidence

 

[Halbhh]

The Bible says everything was created 6000 years ago...

No such verse exists.

Nor any similar, nor any verse suggesting the age to be 'thousands' etc...

None.

The only verse even that even seem slightly about the age of the Earth are the 'ancient' verses.

"He stood, and shook the earth; he looked, and made the nations tremble. The ancient mountains crumbled and the age-old hills collapsed— but he marches on forever."

Habakkuk 3:6 He stood, and shook the earth; he looked, and made the nations tremble. The ancient mountains crumbled and the age-old hills collapsed— but he marches on forever. | New International Version (NIV) | Download The Bible App Now

He stood, and shook the earth; he looked, and made the nations tremble. The ancient mountains crumbled and the age-old hills collapsed— but he marches on forever.

www.bible.com

The Bible is wiser than us, and entirely silent about the numerical age of the Earth in years.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

No such verse, nor any similar, nor any verse suggesting the age that is somewhat like that.

The only verse even that touches on the age of parts of Earth are the 'ancient' verses.

"He stood, and shook the earth; he looked, and made the nations tremble. The ancient mountains crumbled and the age-old hills collapsed— but he marches on forever."

Habakkuk 3:6 He stood, and shook the earth; he looked, and made the nations tremble. The ancient mountains crumbled and the age-old hills collapsed— but he marches on forever. | New International Version (NIV) | Download The Bible App Now

He stood, and shook the earth; he looked, and made the nations tremble. The ancient mountains crumbled and the age-old hills collapsed— but he marches on forever.

www.bible.com

The Bible is wiser than us, and entirely silent about the actual age of the Earth.

Just because something is not a direct quote from the Bible doesn’t mean it’s from the devil. Use your intellect, do some math, add up all the numbers in genealogies, chronicles and prophecies and it will reach about 4030, that’s the age of the earth when Christ was baptized at about 30. There’re plenty of such resources, seek and you shall find.

 

[Halbhh]

If you believe in the bible, then the earth is merely about 6000 years old,

I believe in 100% of every word in the Bible -- but read fully in full context with real listening.

Just to aid you to know, I'm among those that take Genesis chapters 1-3 literally (and for that matter, all the events in Genesis too...)....

Hearing me?

And I definitely do not believe the theory/doctrinal idea (of some churches but not most) that the Earth is 6000 something years old.

So, the wording "If you believe in the bible, then the earth is merely about 6000 years old" is mis worded.

Instead, you could have said (correctly) "if you believe my church or my doctrine or my theory, then the earth is about 6000 years old".

 

[Halbhh]

Just because something is not a direct quote from the Bible doesn’t mean it’s from the devil. Use your intellect, do some math, add up all the numbers in genealogies, chronicles and prophecies and it will reach about 4030, that’s the age of the earth when Christ was baptized at about 30. There’re plenty of such resources, seek and you shall find.

If you believe in the Bible in a real way, then this applies to you also:

Bible Gateway passage: Romans 14 - New International Version

The Weak and the Strong - Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the...

www.biblegateway.com

This means that if you disagree with someone, you can discuss in a friendly way, but if you try to insist the other ideas that are unlike your preferred Earth age doctrine are from the devil when in reality they are about 'disputable matters', you can end up condemning yourself if you try to condemn others in that way.

 

[tonychanyt]

I'm asking you to reconsider proposition P2 = earth is 4.5 billion years old, according to "scientists".

So how old is the earth according to you?

 

[Halbhh]

Concerning doctrines, Paul told Timothy that the problem was not with doctrine in general but that some were departing from sound doctrine and promulgating fables instead. Paul's view of sound doctrine is shown in what he decided to put to the Corinthians. He determined not to know anything among them save Christ and Him crucified. Therefore sound doctrine centres around Christ and His shed blood on the Cross.

Interpretations around whether YEC or OEC is more accurate are fodder for interesting and stimulating debate, but it is a sideline to the important doctrinal matters that are crucial to our salvation in Christ. The Trinity, for example, is crucial for our salvation, even though the word "Trinity" is not actually used. But there is sufficient evidence that there is a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, and they are referred to as God, and yet they are three separate persons. But this is somewhat off topic.

Good points. Indeed the 'sound doctrine' in that verse is about the correct/real understanding of who Christ is and what we must do to be saved -- to believe in Christ and be baptized, and we don't need to be circumcised, etc. -- and that we rely on Christ....therefore not a combination of stuff, like a little bit of Christianity, some B'aal thrown in, maybe Jupiter, some soothsayers, this and that...).

And that they emphasize (as Paul did) the actual gospel of salvation through faith in Christ, instead of other gospels people come up with.

1 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2 Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

 

[Diamond72]

That’s irrelevant because there’s only one truth.

Paul makes it very clear that NO ONE has full understanding. We know in part and we understand in part.

Now we see but a dim reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.1 Corinthians 13:12

Also I am talking about Science. Even people with PhD's can have very limited understanding based on what they focus on.

I began my study of Ancient History in High School. Our Principal and Director were German "Jews" and Holocaust survivors because of their education. So I got a little different education then you get in public schools. I still study Biology and Ancient History and I have for over 50 years.

 

[Diamond72]

You’re assuming that scientists dating methods are correct and that the genealogy records in the scriptures are wrong.on. I

Old Earth Creationism (OEC), Young Earth Creationism (YEC), and Dispensationalism—are distinct theological and interpretive frameworks that address different aspects of the relationship between science, the Bible, and religious beliefs. While it is possible for individuals to hold these viewpoints simultaneously, it's important to note that there are differences in their interpretations of the Bible and scientific evidence.

Many people believe that there is no inherent conflict between a sincere appreciation for scientific inquiry and a devout interpretation of religious teachings.

Science is Science and Bible is Bible. I see no conflict. There are no contradictions between true Science and true Bible translation and interpretation. I interpret the Bible myself from Hebrew and I do not need anyone to do that for me. There is LOTS more information in the original language than what they manage to translate.

Science may contradict individual interpretations. I question interpretation before I question Science.

Also, I made it very clear that I have put a LOT of study into the genealogies in the Bible. Adam and Eve were real people who lived 6,000 years ago. That in and of itself makes me a type of YEC. I have Bishop Ussher's book and I feel it is accurate and a good source for reference. YEC is based on Ussher and his book.

 

[Diamond72]

to believe in Christ and be baptized, and we don't need to be circumcised,

Circumcism does not save us. Just as rituals do not save us.

To circumcise your heart then is to respond to the work of Christ in repentance and faith. We “cut-off” our old man, our calloused hearts, and we turn in faith and devotion to Jesus Christ. True repentance as outlined in Jeremiah involves far more than changing a few practices or rituals.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Old Earth Creationism (OEC), Young Earth Creationism (YEC), and Dispensationalism—are distinct theological and interpretive frameworks that address different aspects of the relationship between science, the Bible, and religious beliefs. While it is possible for individuals to hold these viewpoints simultaneously, it's important to note that there are differences in their interpretations of the Bible and scientific evidence.

Many people believe that there is no inherent conflict between a sincere appreciation for scientific inquiry and a devout interpretation of religious teachings.

Science is Science and Bible is Bible. I see no conflict. There are no contradictions between true Science and true Bible translation and interpretation. I interpret the Bible myself from Hebrew and I do not need anyone to do that for me. There is LOTS more information in the original language than what they manage to translate.

Science may contradict individual interpretations. I question interpretation before I question Science.

Also, I made it very clear that I have put a LOT of study into the genealogies in the Bible. Adam and Eve were real people who lived 6,000 years ago. That in and of itself makes me a type of YEC. I have Bishop Ussher's book and I feel it is accurate and a good source for reference. YEC is based on Ussher and his book.

You also said that that Neanderthals were the first man and they were the inhabitants of the city of Nod which is contradictory to what the scriptures say. So it’s not sound theology. It can’t be sound theology if it directly contradicts the scriptures. So while you believe that Adam lived 6,000 years ago you still believe that man lived before Adam which I proved to be wrong by quoting 1 Corinthians 15:45 that specifically states that Adam was the first man.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Paul makes it very clear that NO ONE has full understanding. We know in part and we understand in part.

Now we see but a dim reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.1 Corinthians 13:12

Also I am talking about Science. Even people with PhD's can have very limited understanding based on what they focus on.

I began my study of Ancient History in High School. Our Principal and Director were German "Jews" and Holocaust survivors because of their education. So I got a little different education then you get in public schools. I still study Biology and Ancient History and I have for over 50 years.

There’s still only one truth that the Bible actually teaches. I feel like you’re trying to use Paul’s words to promote the idea that we can interpret the scripture any way we please so long as it fits our preference. The Bible is not about preference of interpretation it’s telling real stories that actually took place which means that it’s not open to or subjective to personal interpretation. Only one interpretation can be the correct interpretation.

 

[Diamond72]

I feel like you’re trying to use Paul’s

Have you ever talked to Paul?

 

[Diamond72]

Only one interpretation can be the correct interpretation.

We are to be of one mind and one accord. We are all to have the Mind of Christ and the divine thoughts of God. I attended a church where the pastor preached 360 sermons on the mind of Christ. So I am going to call you on this and accuse you of what you are accusing me of. I will not give you the scripture for that because you will accuse me of twisting the word of God to somenow serve whatever purpose it is you think I have.

 

[Diamond72]

You also said that that Neanderthals were the first man and they were the inhabitants of the city of Nod which is contradictory to what the scriptures say

No, I did not say that. I have nothing to say about Neanderthals. You have me confused with someone else.

In fact, that is the OPPOSITE of what I say. Hunter Gathers do NOT live in cities and they are not civilized. There are old camp sites that eventually become a city. But Neanderthals whatever they were, they were never civilized. That would require the breath of life.

In Genesis 1:28 they were told to subdue and populate the Earth. In Genesis 2:8 Adam and ever were put in the Garden of Eden to till the ground. Science has done a LOT of study on how food gathers became food producers and how this spread from the Middle East to Europe.

1. Hunter-Gatherers: Hunter-gatherer societies are characterized by small groups of people who rely on hunting, fishing, and foraging for wild plants, fruits, and other resources to meet their nutritional needs. They typically live in nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyles, moving from place to place in search of food. Hunter-gatherers have an intimate knowledge of their local environment and its resources. Their social structures are often relatively simple, and they tend to have egalitarian social arrangements.
2. Food Producers: Food-producing societies, also known as agricultural or farming societies, emerged with the development of agriculture and the cultivation of crops and domestication of animals. This marked a significant shift from relying solely on wild resources to deliberately cultivating and managing crops and livestock. Agriculture allowed for a more stable and predictable food supply, leading to the growth of larger settled communities. Over time, food producers developed more complex social structures, including the rise of cities and civilizations.

 

[Diamond72]

So while you believe that Adam lived 6,000 years ago you still believe that man lived before Adam

Of course I believe people lived before Adam and Eve. You would have to throw away your Science book and your History book to believer otherwise. I say there is no contradiction between Science and the Bible. I understand most people believe that requires us to manipulate our translation and interpertation to get Science and the Bible to agree. But my main point is no one has any evidence at all that there is a conflict between Science and the Bible. We can all agree that not everything in the Bible can be proven by Science.

This is where Dr Kurt Wise usually enters the conversation.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

If you believe in the Bible in a real way, then this applies to you also:

Bible Gateway passage: Romans 14 - New International Version

The Weak and the Strong - Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the...

www.biblegateway.com

This means that if you disagree with someone, you can discuss in a friendly way, but if you try to insist the other ideas that are unlike your preferred Earth age doctrine are from the devil when in reality they are about 'disputable matters', you can end up condemning yourself if you try to condemn others in that way.

Look, friend, I never meant to lecture on anybody with any doctrine, if I did I sincerely apologize, but you have to realize that the age of the earth is just a wedge issue, it was raised to create division among the body of Christ. What really matters is the sovereignty of God, is whether the world is the creator or a creation, whether the world came into being all by itself or a supreme being OUTSIDE of this world created it, and the answer lies within the first line of the entire bible. If the first line of the entire bible gives you the impression of a myth, then the whole bible is a myth, and you subconsciousnly read it as a book of myth.