6,000 Years?

[Jipsah]

Yep. I got written proof handed down from ancestors who were on the Ark. They knew Noah very well and he explained it all...

"I was with Noah when he built his famous ark
I slipped into it one night when it was dark.
I saw Jonah swallow the whale
And I pulled the lion's tail
And I'll lick the man who says it isn't so!"

 

[Jipsah]

I think the Catholic Church learned the lesson to leave the science to the scientists after the whole Galileo affair.

They're seldom matters of dogma anyway.

 

[Jipsah]

The only way the earth is "young" (6000-ish) is that God created it in a manner to make it "look" older.

Which kinda makes God into a grifter. Ain't going there...

 

[Jipsah]

Adam was created on the 6th day, and he lived for 930 years. From there we can calculate the world is around 6,000 years old. Christians need to stick to the Word of God over what sinful man teaches.

Psalms 90:4 says “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.”, with the "1000 years" there presumably means "years" as we perceive them.
St. Peter reaffirms this in the New Testament: 2 Peter 3:8 “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (2 Peter 3:8). The "days mean solar days!"

And please, spare us the "Oh, but what those verses really mean is..." rubbish. God doesn't reckon time as we do, end of.

 

[Jipsah]

Lord Jesus is not literally a piece of bread any more so than he is a "the true vine" (John 15) or "the gate" or "door" (John 10:7-10). Your insinuation that Lord Jesus is a piece of bread is ridiculous.

"He can't really have meant that". That;s what the followers who left Him said as well, innit?

What Lord Jesus gave them to eat was bread, but represented his body broke for them

"Take, eat, this represents My Body"

You are making the same mistake the Jews made when he said those words. They were taking literally what Lord Jesus was meaning figuratively.

Take, drink, this represents My Blood...".

Gospel of Salvation is about coming to (eating) Lord Jesus and believing (drinking) in Him to be saved, and NOT by eating his literal flesh and drinking his blood.

If only He'd expressed it more clearly He wouldn't have lost all those followers.

If you want to continue believing that you have to literally eat Christ's body and drink his blood to be saved, you are free to do so

Well thank you; it was a long road getting here.

 

[Niels]

Psalms 90:4 says “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.”, with the "1000 years" there presumably means "years" as we perceive them.
St. Peter reaffirms this in the New Testament: 2 Peter 3:8 “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (2 Peter 3:8). The "days mean solar days!"

And please, spare us the "Oh, but what those verses really mean is..." rubbish. God doesn't reckon time as we do, end of.

Agreed. "1000 years" means a very long time in this context. It's poetic. Especially considering how the word "like" is used. It doesn't mean 1001 years is too long or 999 years is too short. If this life is finite and God is infinite then I would expect that we perceive time differently.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

The only way the earth is "young" (6000-ish) is that God created it in a manner to make it "look" older.

Which kinda makes God into a grifter. Ain't going there...

Yes... exactly. Which He is not. So I have to conclude that He did not,

 

[Vambram]

We affirm our belief in one God, infinite Spirit, creator, and sustainer of all things, who exists eternally in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. These three are one in essence but distinct in person and function.

We affirm that the Father is the first person of the Trinity and the source of all that God is and does. From Him the Son is eternally generated and from Them the Spirit eternally proceeds. He is the designer of creation, the speaker of revelation, the author of redemption, and the sovereign of history.

We affirm that the Lord Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity. Eternally begotten from the Father, He is God. He was conceived by the virgin Mary through a miracle of the Holy Spirit. He lives forever as perfect God and perfect man: two distinct natures inseparably united in one person.

We affirm that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity, proceeding from the Father and the Son and equal in deity. He is the giver of all life, active in the creating and ordering of the universe; He is the agent of inspiration and the new birth; He restrains sin and Satan; and He indwells and sanctifies all believers.

We affirm that all things were created by God. Angels were created as ministering agents, though some, under the leadership of Satan, fell from their sinless state to become agents of evil. The universe was created in six historical days and is continuously sustained by God; thus it both reflects His glory and reveals His truth. Human beings were directly created, not evolved, in the very image of God, as either biologically male or female from the womb. As reasoning moral agents, they are responsible under God for understanding and governing themselves and the world.

We affirm that the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, though written by men, was supernaturally inspired by God so that all its words are the written true revelation of God; it is therefore inerrant in the originals and authoritative in all matters. It is to be understood by all through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, its meaning determined by the historical, grammatical, and literary use of the author’s language, comparing Scripture with Scripture.

We affirm that Adam, the first man, willfully disobeyed God, bringing sin and death into the world. As a result, all persons are sinners from conception, which is evidenced in their willful acts of sin; and they are therefore subject to eternal punishment, under the just condemnation of a holy God.

Doctrinal Position | About Liberty | Liberty University

Read Liberty University's doctrinal statement of beliefs.

www.liberty.edu

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Psalms 90:4 says “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.”, with the "1000 years" there presumably means "years" as we perceive them.
St. Peter reaffirms this in the New Testament: 2 Peter 3:8 “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (2 Peter 3:8). The "days mean solar days!"

And please, spare us the "Oh, but what those verses really mean is..." rubbish. God doesn't reckon time as we do, end of.

If you examine the Hebrew word 'day' in Genesis 1, and you examine the context in which it appears, you will reach the conclusion that 'day' means a literal, 24-hour period of time.

The Hebrew word Yom (day in English) in Genesis 1 refers to the 24-hour period of time that it takes for the earth to rotate on its axis.

This was the standard interpretation of the days of Genesis 1:5-2:2 for all of the Jewish history, and most of Christian history.

I often see 2 Peter 3:8 as an argument to bolster the point that the 1000 years in rev 20 is not literal. 'See, not even God considers 1000 years to really be 1000 years. In Rev 'a thousand years' is simply a biblical literacy device used to refer to an extended period.'

I will readily agree that Peter uses that phrase as a tremendously effective literacy device the long-suffering nature of God. However, just because the words 'thousand years' are used in one place as a literacy device doesn't mean that elsewhere, they are considered off-limits for denoting real time. Otherwise, the prophetic phase 'day of the Lord' would negate any possible usage of the word 'day' to refer to a 24 hour period.

Ultimately it once again comes down to how you interpret Scripture. Do you take literal approach to the Word of God unless a passage is clearly meant to be taken otherwise based on its context and verbiage? Or do you approach Scripture with a logical bent, always on the hunt for the supposed deeper meaning behind the words? There are plenty of theologians on either side of the coin.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Does anybody have proof that the earth and the entire universe really is 6,000 - ish years old beyond the usual arguments that science has debunked over and over again? Arguments like the rocks in the Grand Canyon or some other such weak examples? I’m looking for reputable scientists who’ve written peer reviewed papers on the subject and gained the support of other reputable scientists?

Time in science is measured based on the solar cycle introduced on the fourth day.

Time in Genesis is measured based on the light introduced on the first day of creation.

The first day light was hidden under the firmament in favor of us having sun, moon, and stars.

Thus there is no proof, the time metric cannot be measured and thus cannot be "scienced"

Thus this is why the author of Hebrews said "by faith" we understand God formed the world.

 

[Jipsah]

If you examine the Hebrew word 'day' in Genesis 1, and you examine the context in which it appears, you will reach the conclusion that 'day' means a literal, 24-hour period of time.

I.E., "an evening and a morning, a solar day, Which works fine when there's a sun to create evenings and mornings, and if you're not God, since Scripture states (as I noted) that God's "days" are significantly different than ours.

The Hebrew word Yom (day in English) in Genesis 1 refers to the 24-hour period of time that it takes for the earth to rotate on its axis.

Now there's a surprise!

This was the standard interpretation of the days of Genesis 1:5-2:2 for all of the Jewish history, and most of Christian history.

Sorry, no sun, no evening, no morning, no solar days. And again, Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 aren't going away.

I often see 2 Peter 3:8 as an argument to bolster the point that the 1000 years in rev 20 is not literal.

That's not at all what St. Peter said, though, is it? He's saying that God doesn't reckon time as we do.

'See, not even God considers 1000 years to really be 1000 years.

You can take that up with the Psalmist and St. Peter when you get the chance.

In Rev 'a thousand years' is simply a biblical literacy device used to refer to an extended period.'

Not what St, Peter said, though, is it?

I will readily agree that Peter uses that phrase as a tremendously effective literacy device the long-suffering nature of God. However, just because the words 'thousand years' are used in one place as a literacy device

Sorry, but that's simply an attempt to evade what St. Peter said. It's a variant of "Oh, but he didn't really mean that!"

doesn't mean that elsewhere, they are considered off-limits for denoting real time.

Yeah, that kind of wrecks some strongly held but weakly supported doctrines, doesn't it? LIke a six solar day creation (without the benefit of a sun) and six thousand solar year age o the earth, both of which require lot of shucking and jiving to explain the plain evidence of a lot longer times period for both.

Otherwise, the prophetic phase 'day of the Lord' would negate any possible usage of the word 'day' to refer to a 24 hour period.

I thnk that makes a great argument against 2 Peter 3:8 meaning anything at all.

Ultimately it once again comes down to how you interpret Scripture.

And how big a doctrinal ax you're trying to grind.

Do you take literal approach to the Word of God unless a passage is clearly meant to be taken otherwise based on its context and verbiage?

Rather depends on whether it runs contrary to readily evident empirical evidence, and if it speaks to a period of time that makes since from God's perspective and none from ours.

Or do you approach Scripture with a logical bent

As opposed to...?

, always on the hunt for the supposed deeper meaning behind the words?

Nope, always working on the assumption that God doesn't play tricks or run scams, and that if something exhibits massive amounts of evidence that it took a lot longer than we have reason to believe the universe has existed, then we're probably working with God's time scale rather than our own rather limit ideas.

There are plenty of theologians on either side of the coin.

Yep, and logical defenestration isn't unknown amongst theologians when there's a favorite doctrine to be defended.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Now there's a surprise!

Sure. Ignore the Word of God and trust the scientist who say there is no God. Have a good day

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Yeah, kind of like someone else just responded with, none of this acknowledges the potential for people outside of Eden.

There is nothing in the Bible suggesting there were people outside of Eden, it is not Biblical.

The only humans in Eden are Adam and Eve, but Eden is not equivalent to the world.

There was no one living outside of Eden.

And Adam can introduce sin into the world, but that doesn't say anything about whether or not there are already people in the world.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.
All sinned because Adam was first man created and thus in him, all of humanity sinned. If there were other humans, then not all would have sinned.
As Romans 3:23 says 'For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;'

There is a reason Adam and Eve were blamed for the fall of humanity, because all humanity comes from them.

1 Cor 15:45 confirms Adam was a first human being 'Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.'

The same thing could be said for the fish and the birds in Genesis, or the Stars, God doesn't create just two fishes or two birds.

Animals were not created as an image of the living God. Why you comparing this. It has no relevance?

People assume that when God created humanity, male and female he created them, people assume that this is talking about Adam and Eve, but it doesn't actually say that.

Yes it does. And you have been proved so by many of us on here. But you trust scientists who say there is no God,

 

[David Lamb]

Psalms 90:4 says “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.”, with the "1000 years" there presumably means "years" as we perceive them.
St. Peter reaffirms this in the New Testament: 2 Peter 3:8 “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (2 Peter 3:8). The "days mean solar days!"

And please, spare us the "Oh, but what those verses really mean is..." rubbish. God doesn't reckon time as we do, end of.

But Psalm 90:4 is the psalmist saying to God that a thousand years in God's sight are but as yesterday, and Peter says that with the Lord a day is as a thousand years. Genesis 1 is not talking about how time appears to God, but is a description of Creation for mankind, so the days are mankind's days. That is why we read: "the evening and the morning were the .....th day." Evenings and mornings do not last for a thousand years!

 

[Job 33:6]

There is nothing in the Bible suggesting there were people outside of Eden, it is not Biblical.

That's not true. When Cain is kicked out of Eden, he builds a city and gets married. He also worries that someone outside of Eden will kill him. Yet the Bible has yet to mention the birth of any other children. And Genesis chapter 1 mentions the creation of humanity, leaving that possibility open.

Genesis 4:1-2, 8-17, 25 ESV
[1] Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord.” [2] And again, she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a worker of the ground.
[8] Cain spoke to Abel his brother. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him. [9] Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” [10] And the Lord said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground. [11] And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. [12] When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.” [13] Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is greater than I can bear. [14] Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” [15] Then the Lord said to him, “Not so! If anyone kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him. [16] Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. [17] Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.
[25] And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, “God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.”

All sinned because Adam was first man created and thus in him, all of humanity sinned. If there were other humans, then not all would have sinned.

5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.

Having people outside of Eden does not contradict Adam being the first to sin.

As Romans 3:23 says 'For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;'

There is a reason Adam and Eve were blamed for the fall of humanity, because all humanity comes from them.

Adam introducing sin into the world, does not contradict there being people outside of Eden.

1 Cor 15:45 confirms Adam was a first human being 'Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.'

1 Corinthians 15:45-49 ESV
[45] Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. [46] But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. [47] The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. [48] As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. [49] Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

Jesus was neither the second man, nor the last man to live. This isn't about biology. It's theological in nature. In fact, Paul even points out that we are all dust, just like Adam. But that doesn't people that I am the first man, just because I am of dust like Adam.

And we can read this passage and see that it also has nothing to do with human origins. Jesus is talking about the resurrection in this section and what kind of body we will have.

Animals were not created as an image of the living God. Why you comparing this. It has no relevance?

I'm pointing out that Genesis 1 never actually mentions just 1 male and 1 female fish, or 1 male or 1 female bird. Indeed, even on day 6 it never mentions just 1 male and 1 female person either.

Yes it does. And you have been proved so by many of us on here. But you trust scientists who say there is no God,

Nope. Adam and Eve are never mentioned in chapter 1. You assume that to be the case, but, they aren't.

 

[River Jordan]

Ultimately it once again comes down to how you interpret Scripture. Do you take literal approach to the Word of God unless a passage is clearly meant to be taken otherwise based on its context and verbiage?

Genesis clearly has some poetic elements to it, such as:

So God created mankind in his own image,​

in the image of God he created them;​

male and female he created them.​

And what's the literal translation of:

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.​

Also, "Adam" in Hebrew can also mean "mankind", which is one of the reasons why Jews don't tend to be young-earthers.

So altogether, plus given how the earth and universe really do seem to be very, very old, I think an old earth understanding is justified. But the good thing is, it's not a salvation issue either way.

Ignore the Word of God and trust the scientist who say there is no God.

FYI, there are plenty of Christian scientists who aren't young earth creationists.

 

[Jipsah]

But Psalm 90:4 is the psalmist saying to God that a thousand years in God's sight are but as yesterday,\

Very explicitly so.

and Peter says that with the Lord a day is as a thousand years.

And a thousand years as a day. Yep, I cited both those verses.

Genesis 1 is not talking about how time appears to God

I'm sorry, but who else was around then to perceive the passage of time at all?

, but is a description of Creation for mankind,

So I've heard. But I still haven't seen anyone come up with any reasonable basis for saying that each evening-and-moring "day" of creation was 24 solar hours long, when there was no sun to delimit those periods of time. Saying "Oh, but there was light" doesn't signify, because the simple existence of light doesn't create hours and days any more than the existence of water creates ice bergs or cups of tea. Plus Scripture makes no reference to the existence of any non-solar light source that would have served to create "evenings and mornings", leaving "Six Day Creationists" with the disturbing necessity of creating one "ex nihilo". It's bad enough that so many of them feel the need to embrace the repellent notion that "God made everything look old..." as though God was peddling cosmic snake oil.

so the days are mankind's days.

"Literary days" would be a better description. The writer of Genesis needed a unit of measure of some sort to express the idea that the universe was created in stages, and "days' were as good as any.

That is why we read: "the evening and the morning were the .....th day." Evenings and mornings do not last for a thousand years!

How long does Scripture say a "day" is for God? Looks like another of those Scriptures that have to be "interpreted away" lest they step on strongly held/weakly formed doctrines.

 

[Jipsah]

Sure. Ignore the Word of God and trust the scientist who say there is no God. Have a good day

OK, just say "God just made everything look old". It kind of mke God look like a cosmic used car salesman, but it still leaves room for pious posturing.

 

[Vambram]

FYI, there are plenty of Christian scientists who aren't young earth creationists.

There are also plenty of Christian scientists whom are YEC.

Creation scientists and other specialists of interest

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.

creation.com

 

[FaithT]

There are also plenty of Christian scientists whom are YEC.

Creation scientists and other specialists of interest

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.

creation.com

I’d venture to say that far more scientists aren’t YECs than are and that the ones who are, have less credibility in their respective fields than those who aren’t.