How Old is the Earth?

[BNR32FAN]

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

It’s a discussion my friend, anyone is free to engage in it or not engage in it. I’m confident that most of us here don’t go around badgering people out in the public on such issues. This is a place where we can come together and discuss topics like these and get other perspectives, it helps us to learn.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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

I'll make an effort to give a fuller response later. But just wanted to address this particular detail first. The word in Genesis 2:7 is different than the one used in the Genesis 1 creation story. In Genesis 2:7 it's yasar, "formed"; in Genesis 1:1 it's bara' "to shape" "to fatten".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GenemZ]

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.

Why can't some realize that Satan and his demons wish to replace God, and will attempt to take on God's characteristics in a desire to counterfeit the attributes of God. And, when they have? Some believe we are the ones imitating paganism.

There is an irony to be found in that.

 

[dlamberth]

Why can't some realize that Satan and his demons wish to replace God, and will attempt to take on God's characteristics in a desire to counterfeit the attributes of God. And, when they have? Some believe we are the ones imitating paganism.

There is an irony to be found in that.

I was pretty sure that you would have issues with my answer to your question. Having answered your basic premise, I'll attempt to go a bit deeper in answer to your question. When we look at what the Earth shows us, the nature of God is to create. I don't know how God can not be creating new life forms. Thats His nature. His tapestry is the whole of the cosmos. His brush of use is evolution, the colors of which is LIfe itSelf.

 

[Michael Snow]

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

You are not reading Ex. 20 in context. It corresponds to the six days of Genesis, NOT to "In the beginning..."
Heaven and earth in Ex. corresponds to the limited sense used in those days, not to verse 1, the heavens and the earth which is a figure of speech (merism) for the whole, the universe See here and follow the context. Exodus 20:11 Misused by Ken Ham and Young Earth Creationists

 

[BNR32FAN]

I'll make an effort to give a fuller response later. But just wanted to address this particular detail first. The word in Genesis 2:7 is different than the one used in the Genesis 1 creation story. In Genesis 2:7 it's yasar, "formed"; in Genesis 1:1 it's bara' "to shape" "to fatten".

-CryptoLutheran

Ok if you’re going to discuss the definitions of the Hebrew words you should include all the definitions that are provided, not just the ones that support your theology. You know full well that every single lexicon and concordance has the definition to create for both of those words.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You are not reading Ex. 20 in context. It corresponds to the six days of Genesis, NOT to "In the beginning..."
Heaven and earth in Ex. corresponds to the limited sense used in those days, not to verse 1, the heavens and the earth which is a figure of speech (merism) for the whole, the universe See here and follow the context. Exodus 20:11 Misused by Ken Ham and Young Earth Creationists

I completely disagree, the same exact words for heavens and earth are used in both Genesis 1:1 and Exodus 20:11.

 

[GenemZ]

How old is the earth?

(it's a dirty secret)

 

[Michael Snow]

I completely disagree, the same exact words for heavens and earth are used in both Genesis 1:1 and Exodus 20:11.

Yes the words for heaven and earth, both given a more limited definition during the Days. Fact remains that 1:1 is a familiar figure of speech for the whole, the universe. But the key words of difference are Gen 1:1 "created" and EX. 20:11 "made" i.e. set in order (during the Days) that which was created in Gen. 1:1.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes the words for heaven and earth, both given a more limited definition during the Days. Fact remains that 1:1 is a familiar figure of speech for the whole, the universe. But the key words of difference are Gen 1:1 "created" and EX. 20:11 "made" i.e. set in order (during the Days) that which was created in Gen. 1:1.

Why is "heaven" singular in Genesis 1:1, but plural in Genesis 2:1?

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yes the words for heaven and earth, both given a more limited definition during the Days. Fact remains that 1:1 is a familiar figure of speech for the whole, the universe. But the key words of difference are Gen 1:1 "created" and EX. 20:11 "made" i.e. set in order (during the Days) that which was created in Gen. 1:1.

Genesis 1:26 says “let us make (asah) man” then verse 27 says God created man and woman using the words create & created (bara) three times. Then Genesis 2:7 says “then the Lord God made (asah) man”.

Then Genesis 2:4 says

“This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭2‬:‭4‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Then in Genesis 1:21 says

“God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1‬:‭21‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

But Exodus 20:11 says that the heavens the earth and the seas and everything in them was made (asah) in 6 days.

So it becomes obvious that the words asah (made) and bara (created) can be used interchangeably since they are used interchangeably in reference to the creation of man, woman, the seas, all the creatures in the seas, and the heavens & the earth.

 

[GenemZ]

Why is "heaven" singular in Genesis 1:1, but plural in Genesis 2:1?

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Genesis 1:1 = planet yet without a atmosphere. Only Heaven and earth.

Genesis 2:1 = planet with the various levels of atmosphere surrounding the earth.

..........

 

[Pommer]

How old is the earth?

(it's a dirty secret)

How ever old it is, I’m pretty sure that the Warranty has expired some time ago!

 

[Michael Snow]

...

But Exodus 20:11 says that the heavens the earth and the seas and everything in them was made (asah) in 6 days.

So it becomes obvious that the words asah (made) and bara (created) can be used interchangeably since they are used interchangeably in reference to the creation of man, woman, the seas, all the creatures in the seas, and the heavens & the earth.

The Six Days begin in verse 3 AFTER the creation of the heaven and earth in verse 1

Created, bara, can only be used of God, as in verse 1 which is creatio ex nihilo Asah can be used of God or man.
Gen.1:8, “God called the expanse heaven.” This has the limited sense of our ‘sky’ as some versions render it. In Gen.1:10, “God called the dry land earth [not the planet], and the gathering of the waters he called seas.” These were not something new created, but setting in order that which came into existence in verse 1. Try to follow the Parallels of the Two Texts, Gen. and Exodus within the boundaries of each.

The creation of life-plant, animal, man- brings into existence, also, something that did not exist prior to that. But it is a combination of making and creating: Gen. 2 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

[Astrid]

Created, bara, can only be used of God, as in verse 1 which is creatio ex nihilo
Gen.1:8, “God called the expanse heaven.” This has the limited sense of our ‘sky’ as some versions render it. In Gen.1:10, “God called the dry land earth [not the planet], and the gathering of the waters he called seas.” These were not something new created, but setting in order that which came into existence in verse 1.
The creation of life-plant, animal, man- brings into existence, also, something that did not exist prior to that. But it is a combination of making and creating: Gen. 2 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Used "of" god?

 

[BNR32FAN]

The Six Days begin in verse 3 AFTER the creation of the heaven and earth in verse 1

Created, bara, can only be used of God, as in verse 1 which is creatio ex nihilo Asah can be used of God or man.
Gen.1:8, “God called the expanse heaven.” This has the limited sense of our ‘sky’ as some versions render it. In Gen.1:10, “God called the dry land earth [not the planet], and the gathering of the waters he called seas.” These were not something new created, but setting in order that which came into existence in verse 1. Try to follow the Parallels of the Two Texts, Gen. and Exodus within the boundaries of each.

The creation of life-plant, animal, man- brings into existence, also, something that did not exist prior to that. But it is a combination of making and creating: Gen. 2 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The creation of man & woman is described by both bara and asah on the 6th day. The words can be used interchangeably in relation to God creating.

 

[FaithT]

It's old hat. AiG tells falsehoods about science all the time. Many are so blatant and require actual understanding of what they lie about that the intent to deceive is obvious. There are numerous examples all over the place where the lies are revealed, including on this site in this forum. I am confident in my statement.

How do you know they’re lying? Maybe they really believe the stuff they say, even if it is wrong.

 

[FaithT]

To use your own terminology prove it.

AIG use circular arguments by assuming from the start the earth is 6,000 years old which is the conclusion then working backwards to dishonestly fit the examples to reach the conclusion which they have already assumed to be true!!

Let’s look at one of the examples given, the earth’s decaying magnetic field which YEC use as proof the earth is 6000 years old.
A decaying magnetic field indicates a magnetic field reversal is in process.
Zircons containing inclusions of magnetite when molten orientate to the magnetic field and when solidified provide a record of the orientation of the field at the time.
In areas such as the Atlantic mid ocean ridge where magma is continuously upwelling resulting in sea floor spreading, a symmetrical record of stripes of magnetic field reversals on either side of the ridge is recorded.

View attachment 335990​

Scientists have calculated there have been 183 reversals in the last 83 million years.
So much for AIG honesty by conveniently ignoring the evidence.

From my post #13.
“Chondrules are commonly dated using ²⁰⁷Pb-²⁰⁶Pb radiometric dating have been confirmed with ¹⁸²Hf-¹⁸²W dating giving consistent results for the age range.”
Verification or confirmation comes in the form of using different dating techniques on meteorites to verify each other’s results.
When it comes to dating earth rocks billions of years old there are a variety of techniques available and it would be an extraordinary coincidence they would all be unreliable to the same degree.

View attachment 335991​

I’m sorry to disappoint you but measurements have disproven a creation age of 6000 years as the oldest earth rocks found have been dated to 4.3 billion years old and meteorites at around 4.54 billion years old.

This is slightly off topic but one of the things that gets me about AIG is how, on their internet news program (whatever it’s called) the “experts” fake laugh whenever they’re talking about the other side. It really makes them sound as if they’re trying to convince themselves of the things they’re spouting off.

 

[Astrid]

How do you know they’re lying? Maybe they really believe the stuff they say, even if

It can be difficult to determine intent
However
Since falsehoods are their stock in trade it's hard to
believe that they are unaware.

Regard their statement of faith in which they set
out in bullet points a policy of scientific / intellectual
dishonesty. It's a fine line between lying and deliberate
dishonesty.

Statement of Faith

answersingenesis.org

So whether some of the staff are so plain
stupid that they believe what they are putting
out my vote is for deliberate.

And really, it's basically irrelevant what the intent
of certain individuals is.

The fact is that AIG is a fraud.

 

[FaithT]

It can be difficult to determine intent
However
Since falsehoods are their stock in trade it's hard to
believe that they are unaware.

Regard their statement of faith in which they set
out in bullet points a policy of scientific / intellectual
dishonesty. It's a fine line between lying and deliberate
dishonesty.

Statement of Faith

answersingenesis.org

So whether some of the staff are so plain
stupid that they believe what they are putting
out my vote is for deliberate.

And really, it's basically irrelevant what the intent
of certain individuals is.

The fact is that AIG is a fraud.

What is dishonest of them written in their Statement of Faith?