How old is the earth?

[BNR32FAN]

What about all the natural evidence that God gives us to study and examine? He wants us to know what He has done and what He is doing. There is a huge amount of fossil evidence. The geology society here has a gemstore show a few times a year. The fossils they sell are abundant and plentiful. Even I went with my son one year and there was an amateur gemologist that wanted to give him fossils for free.
View attachment 334593

The age of these hang on the notion that if their data is correct then these are X amount of years old. Who’s data is more complete, scientists’ or God’s?

 

[Platte]

In a way He did, by giving the Hebrew word "yom" which has around four different meanings depending on the context. Being able to use the meaning "epoch" for "yom" successfully marries the Scripture record with scientific evidence. It enables us to see the Book of the Bible, along with the Book of Nature and see that they are compatible with each other. What it does is to enable atheists to be won to Christ in spite of them not believing the Biblical record, convincing them of the absolute design of the cosmos to show that it was designed and constructed by a Creator who is 10 to the power 30 guadrillion more intelligent and powerful than what we can imagine. Being unbending that the cosmos had to be created in 6 24 hour days will never turn any atheist to Christ just by quoting the Bible at them.

However, most Hebrew scholars agree that the context requires the meaning of "yom" to be "epoch" rather than a 24 hour day.

First the hebrew words are already translated for the KJV so no need to try to translate again. Unless you think the kjv translation is wrong - which I don’t.
Second, And the evening and the morning examplifies the day. End of story

 

[BNR32FAN]

First the hebrew words are already translated for the KJV so no need to try to translate again. Unless you think the kjv translation is wrong - which I don’t.
Second, And the evening and the morning examplifies the day. End of story

In this case I would agree but there are other bad translations in the KJV.

 

[BNR32FAN]

What about all the natural evidence that God gives us to study and examine? He wants us to know what He has done and what He is doing. There is a huge amount of fossil evidence. The geology society here has a gemstore show a few times a year. The fossils they sell are abundant and plentiful. Even I went with my son one year and there was an amateur gemologist that wanted to give him fossils for free.
View attachment 334593

If scientists are right and man as we are today has existed for 300,000 years then that would mean that the genealogies in the Bible are wrong. That would mean that either the people in that chronology were actually living for tens of thousands of years before having a child or that there are people missing in the genealogies which causes a bigger problem because that means that they’re just flat out false. You can’t have a direct line of ancestry from Adam to Jesus if people are missing from that bloodline because then the scriptures would be saying that certain people had children that they didn’t actually have. That’s not an interpretational matter that becomes an outright false statement and this would have to occur numerous times in order for there to be a 294,000 year gap in the genealogies. If that’s the case then we’ve just proven that the Bible is not trustworthy.

 

[Halbhh]

Basically I was talking about the term “there was evening and there was morning”. So far I haven’t seen a single OEC interpretation that incorporates this term. It’s always like a left over piece of the puzzle that never gets inserted into the interpretation.

? (look below please, and notice parts in red)

But the following post excerpts were written directly to you:

Now if you care -- and it's not an important topic at all! -- my mere opinion: my guess is that the days in the vision in Genesis 1 were actual days like we have in a very ordinary human sense (just my guess) -- plain human style 24 hour days, and even though God could do anything (He isn't limited by our understandings or guesses....)..

To me, in Genesis 1, for example verse 8, it's a 24 hour day (that's my guess):

"And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day." -- Gen 1:8
"day."
י֥וֹם (yō·wm)
Noun - masculine singular
Strong's 3117: A day

As I was writing to you before (but let me try to make it more clear and complete here), my own guess is these are 24 hour days (I might be wrong on that), and they are (as I wrote above) not video or photo reproductions in the vision, but a representation of an actual specific day (my guess), and those days are like snapshots in time (as I wrote above), meaning moments in time over a longer time: like photos you have of a child growing up over the years.

you are repeating to me what I've repeatedly already written above (several times now) -- the days in Genesis 1 were real, 24 hour days, with an evening and a morning -- there were 6 real 24 hour days, as I said several times).

While even 1 post should be enough, as you wrote that you were reading my posts:

but I assure you that I have read all of your posts in full.

So.....?

What's going on here?

 

[Halbhh]

That sounds somewhat speculative to me. Anyway, I have seen pictures of modern humans identical to the images of Neanderthals. It is always best to stick to the literal text of the Bible and not try to add stuff to it.

Yes, evolutionary science involves a lot of deductions and inferences it seems to me, which you could characterize as speculative, or 'educated guessing'.

I like the inclination to simply stick to the text of the Bible.

Simply reading and listening to the text of the Bible would not include YEC, OEC, etc. -- as all of those theories are of course not actually anywhere in the Bible (which never gives a number for the age of the Earth....).

All such ideas involve interpretations and usually also added ideas not in the text (often just assumed without even having awareness), as soon as they try to specify an amount of time for creation, in that the 'days' can be interpreted in a number of ways, such as obediently to the truth of Bible Gateway passage: 2 Peter 3:8 - New International Version
-- which would instantly mean (if we believe 2nd Peter 3:8 literally) that we cannot specify the mere duration time of the 'days' for God (and perhaps we should not even wish to do so!).

And...
There is an even bigger fish here, you are touching on.

The great majority of doctrines all various churches have involve interpretations and often inferred ideas (conclusions reached by bringing in our own thinking, like for the Trinity Doctrine, which like most any doctrine can fit scripture quite well).

I (just like you I would guess) believe in the Trinity Doctrine, but....nevertheless (even though some doctrines are almost universally thought true) it's wise for us not to use doctrines to filter scripture as we read.


And....anyone is filtering out and ignoring scripture whenever they read with a doctrine in mind as they read...

The thoughts talk over the text.

So, I've tried here at CF in about 100-200 posts to encourage people to just read with pure listening, silencing all other thoughts, including doctrines, to just listen and hear.

Without then needing to reform the text to just be a doctrine, doctrine D.2 or G.7, etc....

What use is a doctrine then? Well....in fairness, doctrines are what caused churches to split, and so it's reasonable to admit that in general, together as a whole when we include all doctrines that exist -- doctrines have done more harm than good.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Some Christians think that the earth is between 6000 to 15,000 years old (coinciding with the Neolithic Age). Scientisgts 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 a scientist 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, 3-d space + 1-d time. Space-time is calculated by mathematical formulas.

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. Witnessed-time (or testified-time) is based on human memories from Adam downward.

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 end-products 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 witnessed-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 historical witnessed-time. Scientific research speaks in terms of space-time. Both are real as far as today's people are concerned. In terms of First-Order Logic, they are both true. Both are real depending on your definition of time. It only proves God's creative power

See also Adam, Eve, and Evolution.

For sure the age of the earth is 4.5 billion or is that the age of universe.

Have you factored in time dilation

 

[tonychanyt]

For sure the age of the earth is 4.5 billion or is that the age of universe.

Have you factored in time dilation

I leave that to scientists.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I leave that to scientists.

here is a scientist for you. MIT trained

The Age of the Universe: One Reality Viewed from Two Different Perspectives | Aish

Can the universe be young and old simultaneously?

aish.com

 

[Halbhh]

here is a scientist for you. MIT trained

The Age of the Universe: One Reality Viewed from Two Different Perspectives | Aish

Can the universe be young and old simultaneously?

aish.com

Well, I was pleasantly surprised to see a good understanding of day 4 (as I've laid out many times here at CF also in a very similar way):

(underlining added)

"Fourth Day: ...

"Bible (Gen. 1:14-19): The Sun, moon and stars become visible in the heavens (Talmud Hagigah 12a). The Hebrew now states me’or’ot which means the actual bodies that emit light are visible. Previously the text stated or’ot which means light but not the actual luminaries that give the light.

"The text here describes a view looking upward from the earth’s surface since the sun and moon are described as “two great bodies.” The only location in the entire universe where both the sun and the moon each appear as a great body is from the earth. Although the diameter of the sun is 400 times greater than the moon’s diameter, the moon is 400 times closer to the earth than is the sun. Hence, they both appear as the same size.

"Science: During the period of the fourth day, the Earth cooled sufficiently for the moisture in the previously cloud-covered earth to condense. As a result, the atmosphere cleared and the sun, moon, and stars became visible. Prior to this period, although the sun’s light could reach the earth, the actual body of the sun was not visible from the earth due to the heavy cloud cover. I personally have measured the photosynthetic production of oxygen on days that were so heavily overcast that although there was light penetrating the clouds, there was no indication of the glow of the sun behind the clouds."

The Age of the Universe: One Reality Viewed from Two Different Perspectives | Aish

Can the universe be young and old simultaneously?

aish.com

It's nice to be not the only one saying this (over and over by myself). This is what we can notice if we will merely allow the text to teach, instead of imposing our preconceived ideas onto it ahead of time, like the old (and entirely different, and I think wrong) idea that the 'light' on day 1 has to be the big bang.

 

[tonychanyt]

here is a scientist for you. MIT trained

The Age of the Universe: One Reality Viewed from Two Different Perspectives | Aish

Can the universe be young and old simultaneously?

aish.com

Thanks for the reference. This is how to do referencing in a scholarly manner:

1. Display and indent the quoted text.
2. Selectively bold the relevant keywords that are important to the point that you are making. No need to bold the entire sentence. Have a laser-sharp focus.
3. Be concise and precise to the point. No need to quote the whole chapter.

This is what I do for others who read my posts. It is a standard high-school scholarship. If you practice this, I guarantee you: it will improve your analytical thinking. In any case, no one is required to do it

 

[BNR32FAN]

? (look below please, and notice parts in red)

But the following post excerpts were written directly to you:







While even 1 post should be enough, as you wrote that you were reading my posts:


So.....?

What's going on here?

Well there were several problems during our conversation brother. Yes I know you said you believe in a 6 day creation, then as the discussion continued you said that Genesis 1 :1 and Genesis 1:2 didn’t not take place on the same day which contradicts the idea of a 6 day creation.

The wonderful verses 1 and 2 are of course not about time, but still we can notice that particular time duration (from the beginning in verse 1 and whatever duration that had to the later moment in verse 2) isn't even suggested in any way:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

no time duration stated in verse 1 for these actions...
then, eventually, this moment comes:

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.

We aren't told how much time passed during verse 1 until the moment in verse 2 where the Spirit comes to the waterworld Earth, because that's not the point of the scripture.

It's not about mere duration of time, but it's about something vastly more profound, wonderful and important.

Comparatively, mere time duration in mere mortal days is of no matter (if the time in verse 1 until the moment in verse 2 was 2.6 years or 1 hour or 9 billion years....all of these mere time durations are not of importance in comparison to the real point of the text).

Right here you’re saying that the time between verse 1 and verse 2 could’ve been 2.6 years, 1 hour, or 9 billion years. So obviously that is not a 6 day creation if verses 1 & 2 did not occur within one day.

Then when I quoted Exodus 20:11 as proof that verses 1 & 2 in Genesis did happen on the same day that’s when things got even worse. First you said that Exodus 20 is not about creation so we can’t apply it to the creation account in Genesis 1 & 2. I’m sorry but that just doesn’t fly because now we’re expected to just ignore certain parts of the Bible because they’re not the main focus of the message. So then I began starting with the book of Matthew and showing you just how much information we would have to omit from the scriptures if we followed that line of reasoning because there are tons of useful information given in the scriptures that are not part of the main topic.

Then that’s when you came up with this idea that Moses allegedly misinterpreted a vision that he had received about the creation process and that’s why it doesn’t coincide with what science tells us. First of all we have no idea how the book of Genesis was revealed to Moses or if it was written by Moses to begin with. That information has never been revealed anywhere. So this idea of an alleged vision is purely made up with absolutely zero evidence to support it.

What Moses wrote was a 6 day creation. So if you’re saying that Moses misinterpreted some alleged vision then again you’re saying that he wrote it wrong and it was not actually a 6 day creation. So by this time you’ve contradicted yourself twice when you said you believe in a 6 day creation because what you were posting was not supportive of a 6 day creation it was actually contradicting a 6 day creation.

So I just wanted to just leave it alone at this point because I don’t enjoy calling people out and I felt that I had presented enough evidence already. That’s why I didn’t continue in the conversation with you. I just wanted to let it go and forget about it.

 

[The Liturgist]

For sure the age of the earth is 4.5 billion or is that the age of universe.

Have you factored in time dilation

The universe is reckoned to be around 13.8 billion years. Time dilation would become highly noticeable in distant galaxies which are moving away from ours at immense velocities, and also in close proximity to black holes, although a small amount of time dilation affects the clocks on GPS satellites.

 

[Halbhh]

Right here you’re saying that the time between verse 1 and verse 2 could’ve been 2.6 years, 1 hour, or 9 billion years. So obviously that is not a 6 day creation if verses 1 & 2 did not occur within one day.

Ah! That explains some things.

I think verse 1 is when God created the entire Universe and Earth too, but at that moment -- at the end of verse 1 -- the Earth is still "formless" -- Earth is created in verse 1 in an early form -- it is not yet as we see it today....

So, in Verse 1 God has created all the Universe and the Earth, but the Earth isn't yet finished....

Next, verse 2 happens -- after verse 1 -- it's the next thing that happens for Earth in the things we are told:

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.

-------
See? I think this is a sequence. Earth exists at the end of verse 1, but is still formless....then the Spirit comes to hover over the waters....

In subsequent verses, in order, God will change Earth in many ways.

------
This you need to remove, as I never said it nor thought it:

you came up with this idea that Moses allegedly misinterpreted a vision

I did say a significantly different thing (and I did not involve Moses at any time by the way. Moses was responsible for writing down (or dictating perhaps) many things, and certainly Exodus through Deuteronomy, and perhaps Genesis in part or whole by writing down what he got in some combination of already existing revelations and perhaps new ones (if Moses was involved in Genesis, which isn't the only mainstream view -- but it doesn't really matter: "The words of 2 Peter 1:21 stand as a testament to the fact that all Scripture was written by humans under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit: “Prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” Whether Moses used ancient clay tablets as a resource, or whether God revealed the material directly to Moses, God’s Word was accurately recorded and preserved. The inspiration of Scripture explains the enduring nature and life-changing power of the Bible." What is the tablet theory of Genesis authorship, and is it biblical? | GotQuestions.org

But the real problem here is you put in this new idea I didn't have -- "misinterpreted" -- which is very unlike what I think or said.

So, part of the trouble we have is that you fill in pieces I did not say, which are over and over things unlike what I'm trying to say, and it ends up being very different from anything I think, and then you attribute that new, very unlike my own thoughts/writing to me as being what I said, and my fault, etc.

 

[FaithT]

here is a scientist for you. MIT trained

The Age of the Universe: One Reality Viewed from Two Different Perspectives | Aish

Can the universe be young and old simultaneously?

aish.com

Can you give me a summary in layman’s terms?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

can You give me a summary in layman’s terms?

Time is flexible, something can appear old when it's actually Young. Also, something can appear Young when it's actually old. It depends on your point of view.

He did the math.

 

[Platte]

In this case I would agree but there are other bad translations in the KJV.

Yeah I'm sure there are some debateable ones but regarding Creation I just don't understand the controversy. The Bible says everything was created 6000 years ago...what is the problem with Christians accepting this? Why the debate? There is no controversy or contridiction within the History of mankind or Civlization timeline. I say to Christians accept Creation as the Bible says and move on to more important issues to discuss like The Gospel/Salvation.

 

[FaithT]

Time is flexible, something can appear old when it's actually Young something can appear Young when it's actually old. It depends on your point of view.
He did the math.

Yeah, well I’m bad at math. Really bad. So the world CAN be young?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Yeah, well I’m bad at math. Really bad. So the world CAN be young?

Universe can be young and so can the Earth

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Universe can be young and so can the Earth

He did the math for you it's in the paper