How Old is the Earth?

[Pommer]

Not THAT kind of rest.

THIS kind of rest:

Genesis 8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

Joshua 11:23 So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war.

It means He ceased.

Why did He cease?

He was finished with His work.

Which you think was ~6000 years ago?

 

[BNR32FAN]

We now know what causes the diurnal cycle, (the rotation of Gaia on her axis), the “daylight” being when that aspect of the planet is facing Sol; night when that aspect of the planet faces away from Sol.
According to Genesis Sol was not “created” until the fourth day.
Whence cometh the “days” that preceded Sol?

Except God created light on the 1st day and day & night is caused by the rotation of the earth not the rotation of the sun which means the day & night would still be a 24 hour interval.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which you think was ~6000 years ago?

Affirmative.

 

[Astrid]

Nope.
It's done by walking in Nature and breathing her air, smelling her scent, feeling her texture and playing in her back yard.

You mean..lmdividuals who know nothing about it
may actually nor know more about nature,than
what it reveals to those who actually do look
with care and attention?

 

[Michael Snow]

They’re separated by 6 days

Six days refers to the week in which God put in order the empty dark earth of verse 2. The earth was created, "In the beginning" verse 1. Verse 3, Day One, begins setting the creation in order. So, no the six days are not the length of time between verse 1 and Day One of verse 3. Had you read the article you would understand that.

 

[Michael Snow]

A poll would be interesting. It seems that many Christians when reading Genesis 1, (if they read it ) assume that Day One of verse 3 is "In the Beginning..." which it is not, as any simple reading of the text in its context tells us, and any evangelical (or liberal for that matter) OT scholar would tell us the same.

 

[dlamberth]

You mean..lmdividuals who know nothing about it
may actually nor know more about nature,than
what it reveals to those who actually do look
with care and attention?

I'm missing something. I think I'm missing your point.

 

[Astrid]

Its called? .... "Mother Earth."

Never ask a woman her age!

I'm still 21

I'm missing something. I think I'm missing your point.

Just a comment on those who think their
chosen way of reading Genesis gives them
deeper understanding of nature than anyone
who has studied it.

 

[Astrid]

A poll would be interesting. It seems that many Christians when reading Genesis 1, (if they read it ) assume that Day One of verse 3 is "In the Beginning..." which it is not, as any simple reading of the text in its context tells us, and any evangelical (or liberal for that matter) OT scholar would tell us the same.

And what does that distinction sans difference matter?

 

[AV1611VET]

Just a comment on those who think their chosen way of reading Genesis gives them deeper understanding of nature than anyone who has studied it.

I don't have a deeper UNDERSTANDING of nature.

I have a deeper APPRECIATION of nature.

I also have an understanding of nature's past that exceeds the understanding you'll get in a science textbook.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Six days refers to the week in which God put in order the empty dark earth of verse 2. The earth was created, "In the beginning" verse 1. Verse 3, Day One, begins setting the creation in order. So, no the six days are not the length of time between verse 1 and Day One of verse 3. Had you read the article you would understand that.

But that interpretation doesn’t take into consideration Exodus 20:11.

“For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭20‬:‭11‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

According to Exodus 20:11 verse 1 took place on day 1.

 

[BNR32FAN]

A poll would be interesting. It seems that many Christians when reading Genesis 1, (if they read it ) assume that Day One of verse 3 is "In the Beginning..." which it is not, as any simple reading of the text in its context tells us, and any evangelical (or liberal for that matter) OT scholar would tell us the same.

But that doesn’t line up with Exodus 20:11 brother.

 

[ViaCrucis]

But that interpretation doesn’t take into consideration Exodus 20:11.

“For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭20‬:‭11‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

According to Exodus 20:11 verse 1 took place on day 1.

That's not what Exodus 20:11 says though. It says that the work of creation took place over six days, a reference to the creation week which began in verse 3 of Genesis 1.

Genesis 1:1-2 describes the state of the cosmos (or, perhaps more accurately, proto-cosmos) prior to the act of creation. The earth lacked form, it was disordered; and there was nothing but the primordial waters.

Hebrew scholars note that, grammatically, Genesis 1:1 presents a thematic opening, which is why translations like the NRSV and NABRE translate Genesis 1:1 as "In the beginning when God created..." The grammatical construction is that of a thematic opening. God is already there in the beginning, and the first thing that happens is the ordering of creation, verse 3 therefore begins the creative act of God. Before this creative act there is only the formless "proto-cosmos" with the primordial waters. On day 1 light is created and split from darkness; on day 2 the waters are split between the waters above and the waters below; on day 3 dry land is split from the waters below; etc.

Genesis 1 is using ancient near eastern language to describe the creative activity of God, but unlike other ancient near eastern creation stories, the Hebrew account presents God as being in the beginning. The primordial waters are dead (contrast with the primordial waters of other ancient near eastern creation stories wherein the waters are alive and conscious as a primordial deity), only God is there breathing and blowing; and God alone is responsible for the creation, the ordering, and filling of the cosmos from formlessness to form.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BNR32FAN]

That's not what Exodus 20:11 says though. It says that the work of creation took place over six days, a reference to the creation week which began in verse 3 of Genesis 1.

No Exodus 20:11 does not say that at all. You’re completely changing what is actually written in the verse. You’ve completely removed the words shamayim (heavens) erets (earth) and yam (sea) from the verse.

God is already there in the beginning, and the first thing that happens is the ordering of creation, verse 3 therefore begins the creative act of God. Before this creative act there is only the formless "proto-cosmos" with the primordial waters.

So then God didn’t create the earth? The earth already existed before God began creating? That would contradict both Genesis 1:1 and Exodus 20:1:11. “Proto kosmos” is just word made up by a jazz musician that doesn’t exist anywhere in the scriptures. The waters couldn’t exist without gravity without dispersing everywhere into space. Gravity is what kept the waters from dispersing into space and gravity couldn’t exist without the earth’s mass. But all that aside the bigger problem is that you’re removing words from the scriptures. Genesis 1:1 clearly states that in the beginning God created the shamayim (heavens) and the erets (earth).

 

[GenemZ]

Why do some have a hard time realizing that if God wanted to?
He could have snapped his fingers, and instantly created the entire universe including the earth?

Its for our sake that He does things in time and in order.

 

[ViaCrucis]

No Exodus 20:11 does not say that at all. You’re completely changing what is actually written in the verse. You’ve completely removed the words shamayim (heavens) erets (earth) and yam (sea) from the verse.

I'm not. The creation of these is outlined in the six days of creation, beginning in verse 3 of Genesis.

So then God didn’t create the earth? The earth already existed before God began creating? That would contradict both Genesis 1:1 and Exodus 20:1:11. “Proto kosmos” is just word made up by a jazz musician that doesn’t exist anywhere in the scriptures. The waters couldn’t exist without gravity without dispersing everywhere into space. Gravity is what kept the waters from dispersing into space and gravity couldn’t exist without the earth’s mass. But all that aside the bigger problem is that you’re removing words from the scriptures. Genesis 1:1 clearly states that in the beginning God created the shamayim (heavens) and the erets (earth).

Trying to force our scientific knowledge about the universe into the Genesis 1 account just doesn't work.

The creation narrative isn't literal. Trying to read it literally while also trying to shoe-horn our modern scientific knowledge into the text completely butchers the text.

I simply don't believe that the author of Genesis 1 wanted us to read it that way. He wanted us to read it in the language and context in which it was written: as a proclamation of God's creative power over creation who set all things to order.

Genesis 1 is neither science nor history. It's theology. It provides us with a theology of creation, a theology of God as Creator; it does not provide us with a scientific explanation of material origins. It says, "See everything that exists? God did that". It uses the language of the ancient near east to provide us with a subversive story of creation. Compare the creation stories of other cultures surrounding ancient Israel with Genesis 1. It takes language and motifs and then turns them on their head.

One example: In the Sumerian creation myth the primordial waters are the source of everything, including the gods. The gods which emerged out of the chaotic waters of pre-creation then fight amongst themselves and it is their violence which--as a side effect--results in the creation of the world. In contrast the Genesis story says that God exists above everything, and He is over the primordial waters, He takes the formless and gives it form, He takes the emptiness and makes it full. The word used for "create" in Genesis 1 comes from a verb meaning "to fill up" or "to fatten"; God is the author of order.

No, the point of the story in Genesis isn't to say that there is literal water and a literal formless land which God didn't create; but to say that God creates and orders everything. Everything we see and experience, everything on the land, in the heavens above, and in the ocean depths is the result of God's ordering, it is God's work--and thus to be human holds a specific purpose. To be the image-bearer of God, as part of that creation we minister--reflecting God's providence toward creation through stewardship of creation and reflecting creation back to God as worship. To be human, in Genesis 1, is to be in right-relation with God and the rest of creation. This is good theology--and important theology as it pertains to subjects like the Fall, sin, and ultimately salvation in Jesus Christ, and the role of faith and good works in the here and now as well as what we look forward Eschatologically toward the restoration of all creation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

Genesis 1 is neither science nor history.

You were there?

 

[Pommer]

Do believers think that when they get to heaven that they will be commended for arguing about the Bible so much?

 

[dlamberth]

Why do some have a hard time realizing that if God wanted to?
He could have snapped his fingers, and instantly created the entire universe including the earth?

Its for our sake that He does things in time and in order.

I can only give an answer from own understanding of the nature of God:
What, in my opinion, you're describing is an image of a Greek/Roman Pagan God that sits apart from this Creation (up high in a cloud) instantly zapping the physical into place and/or controlling and manipulating it when upset/or not at it's own creation. This is not the God I pray to. I hope that points a little bit towards why my rejection of your premise.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I'm not. The creation of these is outlined in the six days of creation, beginning in verse 3 of Genesis.

If your beginning creation at verse 3 then you’re saying that God didn’t create the earth. If God didn’t begin creating until verse 3 then He merely altered what was already there, what already existed and He didn’t actually create the earth or the universe because you can’t have a preexisting earth with no universe for it to be in. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, that means creation began with the heavens and the earth. Those were the first things He created so you can’t say that creation began at verse 3 when verse 1 specifically states that God is already creating before verse 3.

Trying to force our scientific knowledge about the universe into the Genesis 1 account just doesn't work.

Tuchè I completely agree

The creation narrative isn't literal. Trying to read it literally while also trying to shoe-horn our modern scientific knowledge into the text completely butchers the text.

There’s nothing in the passage that gives any indication that it is metaphorical or not intended to be taken literally. The only reason people dismiss is as not being literal is because of modern science.

I simply don't believe that the author of Genesis 1 wanted us to read it that way. He wanted us to read it in the language and context in which it was written: as a proclamation of God's creative power over creation who set all things to order.

The author didn’t have to include any time frame in order to accomplish that. The time frame was added for a specific purpose just like the time frames given in the genealogies were also given for a specific purpose. These time frames aren’t necessary if the goal was only to give a record of what took place they were included for the sole purpose of demonstrating when all of these things took place. The author not only included what took place but when it took place. You can’t just acknowledge the what and ignore then when if that information has been provided by the author.

Genesis 1 is neither science nor history. It's theology. It provides us with a theology of creation, a theology of God as Creator; it does not provide us with a scientific explanation of material origins. It says, "See everything that exists? God did that".

Genesis absolutely is a history book, that’s exactly what it is. Claiming that it isn’t doesn’t change the fact that it does contain specific time frames for when certain things occurred. Time frames aren’t necessary for formulate a theology, however they are expected in historical literature.

It uses the language of the ancient near east to provide us with a subversive story of creation. Compare the creation stories of other cultures surrounding ancient Israel with Genesis 1. It takes language and motifs and then turns them on their head.

This is completely irrelevant and again time frames are not necessary to accomplish this purpose.

One example: In the Sumerian creation myth the primordial waters are the source of everything, including the gods. The gods which emerged out of the chaotic waters of pre-creation then fight amongst themselves and it is their violence which--as a side effect--results in the creation of the world. In contrast the Genesis story says that God exists above everything, and He is over the primordial waters, He takes the formless and gives it form, He takes the emptiness and makes it full. The word used for "create" in Genesis 1 comes from a verb meaning "to fill up" or "to fatten"; God is the author of order.

Again completely irrelevant and the author didn’t need to include specific time frames in order to accomplish this alleged purpose.

The word used for "create" in Genesis 1 comes from a verb meaning "to fill up" or "to fatten"; God is the author of order.

It also means to create. God didn’t “fill up” or “fatten” Adam when He created him from dust.

No, the point of the story in Genesis isn't to say that there is literal water and a literal formless land which God didn't create; but to say that God creates and orders everything. Everything we see and experience, everything on the land, in the heavens above, and in the ocean depths is the result of God's ordering, it is God's work--and thus to be human holds a specific purpose. To be the image-bearer of God, as part of that creation we minister--reflecting God's providence toward creation through stewardship of creation and reflecting creation back to God as worship. To be human, in Genesis 1, is to be in right-relation with God and the rest of creation. This is good theology--and important theology as it pertains to subjects like the Fall, sin, and ultimately salvation in Jesus Christ, and the role of faith and good works in the here and now as well as what we look forward Eschatologically toward the restoration of all creation.

And again if that was the author’s intention then there was no need to include specific time frames. The time frames were included for a specific purpose.