How old is the earth?

[BNR32FAN]

Most of the things in it could not be accomplished as written in 24 hours.

God could not accomplish these things? That’s a bold statement for a believer.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Can you name me a single plant that produced vegetation in a single day?

Can you name a single man who was dead for 3 days and came back to life?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well the exact nature of God is unknown, and assuming he could create the universe instantly, the literary evidence suggests periods of time. Whether the time period is 144 hours or 14.4 billion years, it does nothing to diminish his glory or his might.

It does diminish His glory and might because you keep saying He couldn’t have possibly accomplished creation in 6 days. You’re saying that He is constrained to working within the set parameters of what we perceive as being possible instead of Him being able to do the impossible which is precisely what a miracle is. If God cannot do the impossible then He is no God, you’re basically diminishing Him to nothing more than a super intelligent extraterrestrial being.

 

[SuperCow]

God could not accomplish these things? That’s a bold statement for a believer.

God could accomplish it, but it doesn't say that. It says he created it and then the vegetation produced afterwards and he saw it was good.

 

[SuperCow]

Can you name a single man who was dead for 3 days and came back to life?

Lazarus, although I didn't personally witness it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

God could accomplish it, but it doesn't say that. It says he created it and then the vegetation produced afterwards and he saw it was good.

It says He created plants on the third day and 3 days later created Adam on the 6th day. The plants were to be food for Adam and the animals. They wouldn’t have had anything to eat if those plants were producing fruit by the 6th day.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Lazarus, although I didn't personally witness it.

Then by that logic I could point to Genesis 1 and say that all plants produced fruit by the 6th day because they were intended to be food for Adam and the animals. I was under the impression that your question was inquiring about plants that we can observe today that produce fruit in one day, so likewise my question was asked if we can observe today man coming back to life after being dead for three days.

 

[SuperCow]

It does diminish His glory and might because you keep saying He couldn’t have possibly accomplished creation in 6 days. You’re saying that He is constrained to working within the set parameters of what we perceive as being possible instead of Him being able to do the impossible which is precisely what a miracle is.

I'm not saying he couldn't have possibly accomplished creation in 6 days. I'm saying that the text does not imply that absolute. What possible constraints exist for God is impossible for us to comprehend, know or understand, if indeed there are any.

If God cannot do the impossible then He is no God, you’re basically diminishing Him to nothing more than a super intelligent extraterrestrial being.

God is the creator. If someone proved that life here was created by an alien species originating on a planet orbiting Betelgeuse, then that would technically be God. It would not be an almighty God. It would not be glorious. It might not even be alive anymore, but that would fit the definition. The God of the Bible is obviously much more than that.

If God accomplishes the impossible, then it is not impossible. It may be impossible for us, but not for God. It happened; therefore it is not impossible. We have physical limitations that God does not. We have limitations that angels do not.

Why is it any less extraordinary if God created the universe with a Big Bang rather than an instantaneous appearance? Why is 6 days somehow more miraculous than 6000 years or 6 billion years? If God is timeless, then the differences in time for us are meaningless to him. Why does it even take 6 days if nothing is impossible? Why does God destroy the earth with a flood, instead of instantaneously kill everybody except for Noah and his family. (like 2 Kings 19:35) It would still be just as dramatic and wouldn't also destroy animal life at the same time.

The point is I don't know and neither do you.

 

[SuperCow]

It says He created plants on the third day and 3 days later created Adam on the 6th day. He he plants were to be food for Adam and the animals. They wouldn’t have had anything to eat if those plants were producing fruit by the 6th day.

Exactly. But they produced in past tense. It doesn't say God created the plants with the fruits already on them. It says he created them and the plants produced the fruit. Anything else is twisting the words. (As you accused me)

 

[SuperCow]

Then by that logic I could point to Genesis 1 and say that all plants produced fruit by the 6th day because they were intended to be food for Adam and the animals. I was under the impression that your question was inquiring about plants that we can observe today that produce fruit in one day, so likewise my question was asked if we can observe today man coming back to life after being dead for three days.

I don't understand your logic. It almost seems like you are proving my point. Plants created on the third day were necessary for food for animals and man in subsequent days. Therefore the creative days would seem to be much longer than 24 hours.

And the equivalence would not be man coming back to life, but it would be man coming back to life, getting married and having a baby in 24 hours.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I'm not saying he couldn't have possibly accomplished creation in 6 days. I'm saying that the text does not imply that absolute. What possible constraints exist for God is impossible for us to comprehend, know or understand, if indeed there are any.



God is the creator. If someone proved that life here was created by an alien species originating on a planet orbiting Betelgeuse, then that would technically be God. It would not be an almighty God. It would not be glorious. It might not even be alive anymore, but that would fit the definition. The God of the Bible is obviously much more than that.

If God accomplishes the impossible, then it is not impossible. It may be impossible for us, but not for God. It happened; therefore it is not impossible. We have physical limitations that God does not. We have limitations that angels do not.

Why is it any less extraordinary if God created the universe with a Big Bang rather than an instantaneous appearance? Why is 6 days somehow more miraculous than 6000 years or 6 billion years? If God is timeless, then the differences in time for us are meaningless to him. Why does it even take 6 days if nothing is impossible? Why does God destroy the earth with a flood, instead of instantaneously kill everybody except for Noah and his family. (like 2 Kings 19:35) It would still be just as dramatic and wouldn't also destroy animal life at the same time.

The point is I don't know and neither do you.

The Bible specifically states that creation took 6 days, anything beyond that is unbiblical. How do you get 6000 years or 6 billion years from a text that specifically says 6 days?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I don't understand your logic. It almost seems like you are proving my point. Plants created on the third day were necessary for food for animals and man in subsequent days. Therefore the creative days would seem to be much longer than 24 hours.

And the equivalence would not be man coming back to life, but it would be man coming back to life, getting married and having a baby in 24 hours.

Ok so your average garden will take a minimum of 6 months to start producing fruit so you’re talking at least 1 month of sunlight and 1 month of darkness per day which no fruit bearing plant can survive. So that’s 6 months divided by 2 days equals 2 months per day so 1 month of sunlight and 1 month of darkness. Plants can only survive without sunlight anywhere from 3-20 days depending on the plant. And so what about Adam? Was Adam created as a newborn baby? Do the scriptures support that theory? If Adam wasn’t created as a newborn baby then why would the plants have to be created as new sprouts?

Also the Hebrew word translated to day, means a literal cycle of the earth around the sun. It’s a 24 hour period. Yes it can mean a period of time just like the way we use the word in English. For example if I were to say “back in my day” or “back in Jesus’ day” or “back in the days of Noah” those are examples of the word day referring to a proof of time that is not a 24 hour period. When you put a number in front of the word day it’s never used in the same matter, it would be grammatically incorrect. The Hebrews used the word day the same way we use it in English. People see the definition in a concordance and don’t realize how that definition is applied to the usage of the word. They think that because the definition can simply mean a period in time then that means that the creation account doesn’t have to be 6 literal days except they aren’t taking into consideration what verses that definition is being applied to because of the way it is used in that particular verse. That’s why that definition is in the concordances because of the way the word was being used.

 

[SuperCow]

The Bible specifically states that creation took 6 days, anything beyond that is unbiblical. How do you get 6000 years or 6 billion years from a text that specifically says 6 days?

It also specifically says a thousand years are like a day. Psalms 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8. That gets you to 6000 years right there. And in Genesis 2:4 it says it was created in a day. So clearly it is not unbiblical. It is your choice to interpret it that way.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It also specifically says a thousand years are like a day. Psalms 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8. That gets you to 6000 years right there. And in Genesis 2:4 it says it was created in a day. So clearly it is not unbiblical. It is your choice to interpret it that way.

But the Genesis creation account specifically states there was evening and there was morning for each day. And it doesn’t say that each period was like a day. These verses are merely referring to God’s omnipresence in which all of eternity would be instantaneous in God’s perception. They are not giving an exact length of time of how long God perceives 1000 years.

 

[Niels]

Time is more complicated than it seems. Even physicists aren't entirely sure what it is or how it operates. Much is known yet much is still unknown. Time will tell (pun intended) the true nature of time.

I don't think God is lying to us, but I also don't see a reason to disagree with current scientific estimates. Evidence is our friend. Not the enemy.

If God is truly the Alpha and the Omega, then he is beyond the bounds of time itself.

 

[SuperCow]

Ok so your average garden will take a minimum of 6 months to start producing fruit so you’re talking at least 1 month of sunlight and 1 month of darkness per day which no fruit bearing plant can survive. So that’s 6 months divided by 2 days equals 2 months per day so 1 month of sunlight and 1 month of darkness. Plants can only survive without sunlight anywhere from 3-20 days depending on the plant.

Some plants can be faster, but that's irrelevant. None of them do it in a day unless they are microplants like algae or something. That's why light was created on day one.

And so what about Adam? Was Adam created as a newborn baby? Do the scriptures support that theory? If Adam wasn’t created as a newborn baby then why would the plants have to be created as new sprouts?

They wouldn't, but then they wouldn't have produced it on their own. They would have been created with fruit. But anyway, it isn't written this way.

Genesis 1:11 "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb... and the fruit tree"
Genesis 1:12 "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb...and the tree..."

God enabled, and the earth complied.

Also the Hebrew word translated to day, means a literal cycle of the earth around the sun. It’s a 24 hour period. Yes it can mean a period of time just like the way we use the word in English. For example if I were to say “back in my day” or “back in Jesus’ day” or “back in the days of Noah” those are examples of the word day referring to a proof of time that is not a 24 hour period. When you put a number in front of the word day it’s never used in the same matter, it would be grammatically incorrect. The Hebrews used the word day the same way we use it in English. People see the definition in a concordance and don’t realize how that definition is applied to the usage of the word. They think that because the definition can simply mean a period in time then that means that the creation account doesn’t have to be 6 literal days except they aren’t taking into consideration what verses that definition is being applied to because of the way it is used in that particular verse. That’s why that definition is in the concordances because of the way the word was being used.

Even if that was true, it doesn't matter. If you are going to take the creation story 100% literally, then you have to take it all literally, which means that plants, created on day 3, existed before the sun, moon and stars which were created on day 4, instead of allowing for other more reasonable alternatives.

 

[SuperCow]

But the Genesis creation account specifically states there was evening and there was morning for each day. And it doesn’t say that each period was like a day. These verses are merely referring to God’s omnipresence in which all of eternity would be instantaneous in God’s perception. They are not giving an exact length of time of how long God perceives 1000 years.

Which is why you can't attach a human point of view to the perception of God. What possible meaning would a day have before distinguishing the sun and moon and stars on day 4? If the earth is formless and waste, as it was in the beginning, and a day is based on the earth's rotation, how can you assume that a day means what you define it as, when time hasn't even been defined?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Some plants can be faster, but that's irrelevant. None of them do it in a day unless they are microplants like algae or something. That's why light was created on day one.



They wouldn't, but then they wouldn't have produced it on their own. They would have been created with fruit. But anyway, it isn't written this way.

Genesis 1:11 "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb... and the fruit tree"
Genesis 1:12 "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb...and the tree..."

God enabled, and the earth complied.



Even if that was true, it doesn't matter. If you are going to take the creation story 100% literally, then you have to take it all literally, which means that plants, created on day 3, existed before the sun, moon and stars which were created on day 4, instead of allowing for other more reasonable alternatives.

That’s fine, plants can survive 24 hours without sunlight so I don’t see any problem with that scenario.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Time is more complicated than it seems. Even physicists aren't entirely sure what it is or how it operates. Much is known yet much is still unknown. Time will tell (pun intended) the true nature of time.

I don't think God is lying to us, but I also don't see a reason to disagree with current scientific estimates. Evidence is our friend. Not the enemy.

If God is truly the Alpha and the Omega, then he is beyond the bounds of time itself.

The problem I have with it is that is that the creation account is a miracle. By definition it’s not supposed to be explainable by science, it’s supposed to defy the laws of science otherwise it would cease to be a miracle.

Miracle-a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency:

What this comes down to is a choice between who is right and who is wrong. So a lot of people resort to a lot of scriptural acrobatics in order to coincide what is written in the scriptures with what scientists believe actually occurred. The problem is those interpretations never pan out without contracting what was actually written. It never works because scientists are just flat out wrong. I don’t see why this is so hard for people to see when the predictions scientists are giving are not based on facts they’re based on hypotheses. They’re based on what we know now not what we know about what happened 6000 years ago. Basically they have to say IF X, Y, and Z are true then the earth is X amount of years old. The problem is they don’t know that X, Y, and Z are true they just assume that they are based on the information we have now. So the age is the earth is not fact it’s a prediction based on incomplete data.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Some Christians think that the earth is between 6000 to 15,000 years old (coinciding with the Neolithic Age). Astronomers think that it is 4.5 billion years old. Here is an attempt to resolve this incongruity.

Jesus turns water into wine in John 2:

7 Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim. 8 Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.”​

How old is this wine?

If you ask the servants, the human observers/witnesses, they would say a few seconds old.

The story continues:

9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”​

If you ask the expert, the master of the banquet, "How old is this wine?", he would say it was some months or even years old.

So which answer is true?

Both are true depending on the perspective. The supernatural perspective tells us that it was only a second old. The natural perspective tells us that it was at least some months old.

Similarly, in Genesis 1:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 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. ... 31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.​

How old is the earth?

If we ask an astronomer from the natural perspective, he can only study the present-day physical data based on scientific calculation. It is 4.5 billion years old. That's the scientific space-time perspective.

On the other hand, from the supernatural angle, if we read the Bible literally, the present-day earth is only some thousands of years old. That's the biblical witnessed-time perspective.

So which answer is true?

Both are true depending on the time perspective. God created the earth with the embedded evolutionary records of billions of years. The Bible is not a scientific treatise. It focuses on the story of redemption. In terms of witnessed-time history, it is only some thousands of years old. On the other hand, from the scientific-time point of view, the earth is billions of years old.

Why would God deceive people or scientists?

God did not deceive people. The results of a miracle, have to obey the laws of physics and space-time.

Did not God create the universe last Thursday?

No, this is not the same as Last Thursdayism because God tells me the contrary. God did not create the universe last Thursday. Genesis contradicts this. As a witness, I can also contradict this. I was alive last Thursday. God was with me. God dwells in me. It happened in real live-time. I didn't see God create this universe last Thursday. I believe in the words of God, not Last Thursdayism.

Jesus spoke about it as a historical witnessed-time event in Mark 10:

6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’​

From the perspective of scientific time, the details of this embedding are amazing:
24,000-year-old animal found alive, well, and ready to reproduce
Fossils reveal what may be the oldest known case of the dino sniffles.

There are two different frameworks of time. Roughly, witnessed-time started when Adam opened his eyes. Space-time is measured by scientific calculations. Even scientifically, there is something funny about time.

I distinguish between these two concepts of time. The Bible speaks of events that happened in the real historical witnessed-time. Scientific research speaks in terms of space-time even when there were no live animals there to observe the original events.

The answer is pretty simple, the Earth is as old as dirt.

It becomes more complicated a matter, when people begin examining all the dirt to determine how old it is.