How Old Is The Earth

[Doug Brents]

Nope. The number and the depths of craters fit to a billions of years old earth. Similarly also with the craters on the Moon.

LOL, if you start with a preconception that the world is billions of years old, then you interpret what you see based on it fitting into billions of years of "evolution". But if you take Scripture, and thus God, at His Word, then you must interpret what you see based on it being only 5927 years old.

One example of this is found in the Grand Canyon. Evolutionists and Old Earth proponents say it took millions of years to carve the Grand Canyon. But when Mt St Helen's erupted, just 44 years ago, the dust and debris that fell out created a pile of 140 feet deep almost exactly replicating the strata found on the walls of the Grand Canyon in 1/4 scale. Then, in less than a week, a mudslide from melted snow carved a canyon through that debris again almost exactly replicating the Grand Canyon's channel in miniature. This demonstrates that there are explanations for what we find in nature that do not require millions or billions of years, but can be accomplished in weeks.

The book of Genesis is not created for any such research. Its a prelude to the Mosaic covenant. We do not live under that covenant. We are not under Genesis any more than we are under Leviticus or under Deuteronomium.

Correct, we are not "under" Genesis any more than we are under the Old Covenant. But it is still part of world history, and the only history we have that goes back before the Flood. Everything we see in the world around us (including the meteorite craters) dates back, not to Creation, but to the Flood which occurred in the year 1657 from Creation (2247BC), which means that everything we see on Earth is at most 4271 years old.

 

[trophy33]

LOL, if you start with a preconception that the world is billions of years old, then you interpret what you see based on it fitting into billions of years of "evolution". But if you take Scripture, and thus God, at His Word, then you must interpret what you see based on it being only 5927 years old.
One example of this is found in the Grand Canyon. Evolutionists and Old Earth proponents say it took millions of years to carve the Grand Canyon. But when Mt St Helen's erupted, just 44 years ago, the dust and debris that fell out created a pile of 140 feet deep almost exactly replicating the strata found on the walls of the Grand Canyon in 1/4 scale. Then, in less than a week, a mudslide from melted snow carved a canyon through that debris again almost exactly replicating the Grand Canyon's channel in miniature. This demonstrates that there are explanations for what we find in nature that do not require millions or billions of years, but can be accomplished in weeks.

I said meteorites. I said neither evolution nor Grand Canyon.

Correct, we are not "under" Genesis any more than we are under the Old Covenant. But it is still part of world history, and the only history we have that goes back before the Flood.

Its a part of the Mosaic Law, not of the world history. The literature of origins (Greek: Genesis) in those times was more about myths and legends than about historicity. You can witness it in the Babylonian, Egyptian, Persian, Roman, Greek, Chinese, Slavic etc origin stories.

You try to work with the book of Genesis out of its time and place - like written by a modern historian after the era of rationalism of the 17th century.

 

[Job 33:6]

LOL, if you start with a preconception that the world is billions of years old, then you interpret what you see based on it fitting into billions of years of "evolution". But if you take Scripture, and thus God, at His Word, then you must interpret what you see based on it being only 5927 years old.

One example of this is found in the Grand Canyon. Evolutionists and Old Earth proponents say it took millions of years to carve the Grand Canyon. But when Mt St Helen's erupted, just 44 years ago, the dust and debris that fell out created a pile of 140 feet deep almost exactly replicating the strata found on the walls of the Grand Canyon in 1/4 scale. Then, in less than a week, a mudslide from melted snow carved a canyon through that debris again almost exactly replicating the Grand Canyon's channel in miniature. This demonstrates that there are explanations for what we find in nature that do not require millions or billions of years, but can be accomplished in weeks.

Correct, we are not "under" Genesis any more than we are under the Old Covenant. But it is still part of world history, and the only history we have that goes back before the Flood. Everything we see in the world around us (including the meteorite craters) dates back, not to Creation, but to the Flood which occurred in the year 1657 from Creation (2247BC), which means that everything we see on Earth is at most 4271 years old.

Genesis describes an ancient Israelite cosmology, not modern geology.

Genesis was not written by James Hutton.

 

[Doug Brents]

I said meteorites. I said neither evolution nor Grand Canyon.

Point taken. I sometimes lump evolutionists, old Earth proponents, and others of a similar bent into one group (in my head at least), and maybe I shouldn't, but since their ideas lead to the same place most of the time, it is hard not to.

Its a part of the Mosaic Law, not of the world history. The literature of origins (Greek: Genesis) in those times was more about myths and legends than about historicity. You can witness it in the Babylonian, Egyptian, Persian, Roman, Greek, Chinese, Slavic etc origin stories.

You try to work with the book of Genesis out of its time and place - like written by a modern historian after the era of rationalism of the 17th century.

The author of Genesis is God Himself. Genesis is not to be compared with the literature of the Babylonian, Egyptian, Persian, Roman, Greek, Chinese, Slavic etc. because those authors were writing based on their observations of what was in there time, and with their cultural bias. Genesis is authored by a first hand witness of the events chronicled, and His only bias was that He was telling the story of a particular family line. Genesis is neither myth nor legend.

 

[Doug Brents]

Genesis describes an ancient Israelite cosmology, not modern geology.

Genesis was not written by James Hutton.

Who?

 

[Job 33:6]

Who?

James Hutton, the father of modern geology.

Come on now. First you don't seem to acknowledge ancient near eastern context or the Bible, and now you don't seem to be aware of concepts of science either?

What are we going to do with you, Doug?

 

[Job 33:6]

The author of Genesis is God Himself.

No? What, do you think that Genesis just fell out of the sky?

Genesis describes ancient Israelite cosmology. It was authored by an ancient Israelite to an audience of ancient Israelites:

The authorship of Genesis is traditionally attributed to Moses, inspired by God, and selected by God, to author Genesis.

 

[Doug Brents]

James Hutton, the father of modern geology.

Come on now. First you don't seem to acknowledge ancient near eastern context or the Bible, and now you don't seem to be aware of concepts of science either?

What are we going to do with you, Doug?

I have never studied geology more than watching a few videos on it, and what I learned briefly in high school and college. I don't remember the name James Hutton in any of that, and I did not take the time to look him up. Sorry.

As for acknowledging "ancient near eastern context or the Bible", I am not sure what you are getting at.

 

[Doug Brents]

No? What, do you think that Genesis just fell out of the sky?

Genesis describes ancient Israelite cosmology. It was authored by an ancient Israelite to an audience of ancient Israelites:

The authorship of Genesis is traditionally attributed to Moses, inspired by God, and selected by God, to author Genesis.

Mose put pen to paper (or stone as the case may be), but since God inspired it, God was the Author. All Scripture is inspired by God, so God is the author of ALL Scripture, which makes all of Scripture on uniform, seamless, error free writing.

 

[Job 33:6]

Mose put pen to paper (or stone as the case ma be), but since God inspired it, God was the Author. All Scripture is inspired by God, so God is the author of ALL Scripture, which makes all of Scripture on uniform, seamless, error free writing.

Ok. Well Genesis still describes ancient Israelite cosmology through the vantage point of its human author. However you'd like to rationalize that, you may. But regardless, it has nothing to do with the age of the earth.

 

[Doug Brents]

Ok. Well Genesis still describes ancient Israelite cosmology through the vantage point of its human author. However you'd like to rationalize that, you may. But regardless, it has nothing to do with the age of the earth.

Genesis does describe the history of the earth through the vantage point of its human author, but not exclusively. Moses was not there for any of what happened in Genesis. He was not even born until Exodus 2:2. So all of what he wrote about in Genesis was revealed to him by God.

As for cosmology, what we find in Genesis (along with Job and Isiah) is far beyond any other ancient cosmology. The ancient Israelite people understood the world to be round, when other peoples thought it was flat. They understood the earth to be hung in the void with only God supporting it, when other peoples though that it was riding on a turtle, or supported by a strong man, or some other support.

And it has everything to do with the age of the Earth. Everything that is (including Adam) was made by God in the first 6 days that the Universe existed. Then when Adam was 130 his son Seth was born, and Adam lived another 800 years and died at age 930. Seth was 105 when his son Enosh was born, and then he lived 807 more years and died at 912. Enosh was 90 when his son Cainan was born, then he lived 815 more years and died at 905, etc. All of this is found in Gen 5:3-32 and Gen 11:10-26. Then Abraham is in Gen 21:5, and Isaac is in Gen 25:26. There is much more in there that I could list, but there is not room here, but it is very detailed.

 

[Job 33:6]

Genesis does describe the history of the earth through the vantage point of its human author, but not exclusively. Moses was not there for any of what happened in Genesis. He was not even born until Exodus 2:2. So all of what he wrote about in Genesis was revealed to him by God.

As for cosmology, what we find in Genesis (along with Job and Isiah) is far beyond any other ancient cosmology. The ancient Israelite people understood the world to be round, when other peoples thought it was flat. They understood the earth to be hung in the void with only God supporting it, when other peoples though that it was riding on a turtle, or supported by a strong man, or some other support.

And it has everything to do with the age of the Earth. Everything that is (including Adam) was made by God in the first 6 days that the Universe existed. Then when Adam was 130 his son Seth was born, and Adam lived another 800 years and died at age 930. Seth was 105 when his son Enosh was born, and then he lived 807 more years and died at 912. Enosh was 90 when his son Cainan was born, then he lived 815 more years and died at 905, etc. All of this is found in Gen 5:3-32 and Gen 11:10-26. Then Abraham is in Gen 21:5, and Isaac is in Gen 25:26. There is much more in there that I could list, but there is not room here, but it is very detailed.

Ancient Israelites did not understand the earth to be round you've just made that up. And the cosmology identified in Genesis is ancient Israelite cosmology. It's essentially the same as the cosmology of every other nation around them at that time.

 

[Doug Brents]

Ancient Israelites did not understand the earth to be round you've just made that up. And the cosmology identified in Genesis is ancient Israelite cosmology. It's essentially the same as the cosmology of every other nation around them at that time.

Isaiah 40:22 says, "It is He who sits above the circle (or sphere) of the earth,"
Job 26:7 says, "He stretches out the north over empty space, And hangs the earth on nothing."
Isaiah was written around 700-681 (very early in the 7th century), and Job was written around (most likely) in the 6th century BC, Genesis was written sometime between 1445 and 1405 BC. While that is certainly a good long time (700+ years), the fact remains that the world was not considered to be round by other cultures until around 500 BC, almost 200 years after Isaiah was written.
And the same God who inspired Isaiah and Job and authored their writings, was the same God who inspired Moses and authored his writings.

 

[Job 33:6]

Isaiah 40:22 says, "It is He who sits above the circle (or sphere) of the earth,"
Job 26:7 says, "He stretches out the north over empty space, And hangs the earth on nothing."
Isaiah was written around 700-681 (very early in the 7th century), and Job was written around (most likely) in the 6th century BC, Genesis was written sometime between 1445 and 1405 BC. While that is certainly a good long time (700+ years), the fact remains that the world was not considered to be round by other cultures until around 500 BC, almost 200 years after Isaiah was written.
And the same God who inspired Isaiah and Job and authored their writings, was the same God who inspired Moses and authored his writings.

Last I checked, a circle is not a sphere.

You have an entire Bible jam packed with verses about earth resting on pillars, not moving, the ends of the earth, etc. and your best response is to reference a verse that refers to earth as a "circle".

And no, Isaiah 40:22 does not have the word "sphere" in it. Unless you made up your own translation while writing that out.

Your passage of Job also ignores the original context of the Bible. "Nothing" or "emptiness" in which the earth hangs, is also used in the description of the earth in Genesis. It doesn't mean empty space as though it were written by Stephen Hawking. It means empty space like a desert or a vast empty ocean. Hence tohu being a common adjective for tehom or wastelands such as in the book of Jeremiah.

The Bible is not a science textbook. Not sure how many times I have to repeat this.

The spherical Earth, the Grand canyon, volcanoes, big bang ex nihilo material creation, gas accretion in formation of the stars etc.

These concepts and more, are all anachronisms of a modern scientific mind. The Biblical authors knew of no such thing. Just as we don't find verses on the internet or social media, verses about AI or space shuttles, the Bible is not a science textbook.

Look closely. What do you see?

Daniel 4:11 ESV
[11] The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT


This thread had a small clean up a number of pages back. Please stay on topic.

​

 

[davetaff]

Hi
How old is the earth we don't know exactly there was a creation before the flood and acreation after the flood I believe God was responsible for both how long did the one before the flood take we don't know the creation account in Genesis should be applied starting with Noah the creation before the flood was destroyed in the flood ceased to exist except for Noah and everything on the ark.
So God began a new creation but it would only be a creation of man in his image everything else was on the ark.
The first man he created was Israel the man of flesh which must come first then the spiritual man Jesus Christ his creation will be completed when Christ presents his body of believers to the Father at his second comming everything is based on the creation account in Genesis.

Love and Peace
Dave

 

[Doug Brents]

Last I checked, a circle is not a sphere now is it?

You are correct, a circle is not necessarily a sphere, although a sphere does have a circle as its cross-section. But as I noted, the Hebrew word used there can mean circle or sphere.

Your passage of Job also ignores the original context of the Bible. "Nothing" or "emptiness" in which the earth hangs, is also used in the description of the earth in Genesis. It doesn't mean empty space as though it were written by Stephen Hawking. It means empty space like a desert or a vast empty ocean. Hence tohu being a common adjective for tehom or wastelands such as in the book of Jeremiah.

"Tohu" can mean wasteland, but it more correctly refers to nothingness, emptiness, void.
As for verses that speak of the "pillars of the Earth", those are all metaphorical in nature, and, as with the phrase we still use today "the four corners of the Earth", should not be taken to imply that the people using those phrases believed that the Earth is sitting on pillars, or that the world is square, or that it is flat, etc.

 

[SuperCow]

Last I checked, a circle is not a sphere.

And no, Isaiah 40:22 does not have the word "sphere" in it. Unless you made up your own translation while writing that out.

I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but It's easy for anyone here to fact check this with an online Hebrew Intelinear Bible and Google Translate. The word in Isaiah 40:22 is "חוּג"

This is potentially translated as circle, class, ring, orb, sphere, tropic, horizon, boundary or party.

Isaiah 40

Hebrew->English Translation

 

[Job 33:6]

You are correct, a circle is not necessarily a sphere, although a sphere does have a circle as its cross-section. But as I noted, the Hebrew word used there can mean circle or sphere.

"Tohu" can mean wasteland, but it more correctly refers to nothingness, emptiness, void.
As for verses that speak of the "pillars of the Earth", those are all metaphorical in nature, and, as with the phrase we still use today "the four corners of the Earth", should not be taken to imply that the people using those phrases believed that the Earth is sitting on pillars, or that the world is square, or that it is flat, etc.

Hm, let's see, your favorite source:

Bible > Strong's > Hebrew > 2329
◄ 2329. chug ►
Berean Strong's Lexicon
chug: Circle, circuit, compass
Original Word: חוּג
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: chug
Pronunciation: khoog
Phonetic Spelling: (khoog)
Definition: Circle, circuit, compass
Meaning: a circle

Word Origin: Derived from the root חוּג (chug), which means to encircle or encompass.

Corresponding Greek / Hebrew Entries: The Greek equivalent often used in the Septuagint for "chug" is "γῦρος" (gyros), which also means circle or circuit.

Usage: The Hebrew word "chug" primarily denotes a circle or a circuit. It is used to describe the circular nature of the earth or the heavens, emphasizing the completeness and perfection of God's creation. The term can also imply the idea of a boundary or limit, as seen in its usage in the context of the earth's horizon or the heavens.

Nothing about a sphere here at all. In fact, this circle is described as being compass inscribed. It's even specific to "Earth's horizon" which of course is flat, where the sun sets. Compasses are drawing tools used for drawing circles:

There is a reason that perhaps every credible Bible translation that exists, uses the translation "circle".

The same term is also used elsewhere in the Bible for a circle that is inscribed on the face of the waters, and waters also have a flat surface (like at the ocean when you look off toward the flat horizon).

Proverbs 8:27 ESV
[27] When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,

Again, when it says "circle", that's what it means.

You can't draw a sphere on the flat face of water. That's a complete misunderstanding of the subject.

Again, the Bible is jam packed with countless verses about earth resting on pillars, not moving, having a hard sky, being above sheol, the earth having ends etc etc

And all you guys are doing, is focusing in on 1 verse, trying to force translations to say "sphere" when no such word is ever used in Hebrew or in any translation of the Hebrew.

 

[Job 33:6]

You are correct, a circle is not necessarily a sphere, although a sphere does have a circle as its cross-section. But as I noted, the Hebrew word used there can mean circle or sphere.

"Tohu" can mean wasteland, but it more correctly refers to nothingness, emptiness, void.
As for verses that speak of the "pillars of the Earth", those are all metaphorical in nature, and, as with the phrase we still use today "the four corners of the Earth", should not be taken to imply that the people using those phrases believed that the Earth is sitting on pillars, or that the world is square, or that it is flat, etc.

I didn't mention the 4 corners of the earth. Here is the verse that I shared:

Daniel 4:11 ESV
[11] The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.

And yes, I agree that these verses should not be taken as scientific fact. But at the end of the day, they describe an earth that is flat. Regardless of their metaphorical nature.

And trying to force the Bible to talk about a spherical Earth, when it doesn't, involves an effort to force metaphorical verses, into becoming scientific verses. Such as when people try to argue that a circle is the same thing as a sphere.

And thank you for acknowledging that "tohu" in the Bible, is used to refer to things like empty wastelands.

Indeed, the term is never used to refer to empty space as in what we might anticipate in a discussion by Carl Sagan on astronomy.

The Bible is not a science textbook.