How Old Is The Earth

[Platte]

God gives us Science so we can better understand the Bible and creation. Everyone has to work it all out in their own head. If that is what they want to believe then they have all the freedom to believe what they want.

Amen.

 

[tdidymas]

There is no scientific burden of proof to show that Hitler was leader of Germany during WW2. History support quite nicely that Hitler was leader of Germany. And History supports quite nicely that there is no recorded History older than 6000 years. That’s not a coincidence.

Mankind being 6k yrs old doesn't prove the U didn't exist before that. Your argument falls flat.

 

[Ace777]

Nice vaccine.

The vaccine does more harm than the virus. So Gates can stuff money in his pocket. Money he does not need at all. He just wants to launder his money do he does not have to pay taxes on it.

 

[tdidymas]

I use the term old relative to a 1 day old baby. Whether Adam was 12 or 20…..relative to a 1 day old baby do you agree Adam was created old? With the appearance of age a lot older that you’d expect from a 1 day old baby?

Actually, the Bible doesn't say, so you are arguing from silence. It is reasonable to speculate that he was created old enough to feed himself. But arguing from silence, I suppose that angels could have taken care of him until he could feed himself. Anyone can invent a narrative to argue from silence. Like I said, trying to figure out the science is futile since it's not the point of scripture.

 

[tdidymas]

I’m sorry I must have missed it…what author, prophet, teacher in the Bible tells us not to take Genesis literally? That’s a pretty important thing to understand. Especially considering God told Moses that it was 6 literally days. Exodus 31:17

Many things in scripture are not to be taken literally. A figurative interpretation is acceptable if a literal interpretation doesn't fit what is observed in the real world. Again, Ex. 31:17 is not a scientific statement and is not intended to be. Moses is commanded to regard the days in a weekly cycle, and one day of the week is to be a day of rest and worship of God, which is the point of it. This follows the Gen. 1 pattern. So if Gen. 1 is meant only for ancient Israel because of their cosmological beliefs, Then Ex. 31:17 is simply accommodating that understanding, and using it to establish the weekly order.

But if you insist that "6 days" in Ex. 31:17 makes the 6 days of Gen 1 literal, then I guess you're stuck with a shallow understanding of Gen. 1, since you insist that it has to be literal in both cases. But if Jesus says that the hand that offends is to be cut off, why aren't you taking that literally?

 

[Jipsah]

It is still sunlight. However, in the ancient world, light did not need a material source, that is the sun.

In the words of the prophet, "Sez who?"

And to ancient people it did not need to come from a star or the sun.

They glowed in the dark?

Egyptians spoke of similar things, where light also existed before the sun.

Citations, please?

Which, seemingly was just describing the light visible at the horizon before the sun actually had risen.

In other words, sunlight. Now there's a surprise!

It might be world reminding everyone on this forum that the Bible isn't a science textbook.

Oh, so You Don't Believe The Bible, eh?

 

[Job 33:6]

In the words of the prophet, "Sez who?"

They glowed in the dark?

Citations, please?

In other words, sunlight. Now there's a surprise!

Oh, so You Don't Believe The Bible, eh?

For my citation, Id reference old testament Biblical scholar and expert of ancient near east background of the Bible, Professor of Old Testament studies at Wheaton College and former professor at Moody, Dr. John Walton. Specifically his books, The Lost World of Genesis One, and the Old Testament Background Bible Commentary.

Perhaps you're not understanding what I am saying.

Genesis often uses phenomenological language of the ancient authors. For example, the blue sky is described as "the waters above", but the sky of course isn't literally made out of water. That's just how ancient Egyptians and Babylonians described it.

And when it comes to the question of light before the sun, we see this occurrence in Egyptian creation texts as well. Coffin texts, pyramid texts, and the Memphite theology.

And when Egyptians described light before the sun, they were describing lights appearance before the sun god Ra had appeared above the horizon. It would logically follow that Genesis, which contains the same creation order as the Memphite theology, is simply doing the same thing. It's describing lights appearance in the sky, before the sun had risen and before the sun was actually appointed to rule the day.

I will additionally cite Old Testament scholar, and PhD Bible professor of Capital Seminary, Dr. John Soden, and Old Testament scholar Johnny Miller, PhD in Old Testament from Dallas Theological Seminary, in their book "In the Beginning...We Misunderstood":

"The starting point: Before the beginning of creation, there was an infinite dark, watery, chaotic Sea. There was nothing above the sea or below the sea - The sea was all there was. Immersed in the sea, Atum, the creator God and source of everything, brought himself into existence by separating himself from the waters. Egyptian cosmologies that view Amun has the creator, or even as one of the four initial qualities of the pre-creation matter from which creation emerges, within also understand the wind to be present in the water, because Ammon was also god of wind. Since Atum, Amun, and Re are all connected with the Sun, light was men in existence, even though the sun itself had not yet risen."

So what I am saying is, the light before the sun was viewed phenomenologically as something independent of the sun.

And in Egyptian texts, the god associated with the light was created in the chaotic waters and rose up out of them. Thus light existed before the sun was created. Entities beyond the firmament, those in the waters, did not yet exist until they were appointed a purpose.

 

[Jipsah]

lol. That is too funny. Nice vaccine.

It is indeed. It's why the death toll from Rona has dropped to near nothing.

I remember when Science got on TV and said you wouldn’t if you got vaccinated.

Could have, but I recally don't care. The Original Rona killed people my age like flies. Post vax, we treated it with NyQuil for 3 days. Maybe no difference to you. One of my buddies, 20 years younger than me took your position. He had all the argents by heart. He was unlikely to get it, he took huge quantites of vitamin D, he socially distanced, he went nowhere that he didn't have to, he wore the mask religiously ad infinitum. So he chose not to take the vax.

He got Covid. He took whatever anti-viral agent they were using post-infrction, no workee. A month later he was deader than Julius Caesar. Befpore he was too far gone to talk, he expressed his regretthat he hadn't taken the vax. Requiescat in pace, my brother.

An idiotic quasi-religious political posture sent a good many good people to early graves. Hilarious, huh?

No wonder anti-vax zealots are generally held in contempt.

You are still drinking that kool aid.

The 71 year old geezer with the bad heart is still around, however many scientific illiterates say I shouldn't
thave take the simple precaution of taking the shots.

And once again, I went where I pleased and did as I pleased insofar as the "law" allowed it. I'm sure you refused to wear a mask and stayed home in protest, right? You chose to Hide With Pride", huh?

Are you fully boosted up? Do you know how many shots that would require?

I'll forbear from expressing my opinion of the medical opinions of illiterates, flatearthers, conspiracy theorists, and garden variety nincompoops, as they might be taken personally. I'll simply note that I find both them and their dimwitted opinions contemptible.

You are a tool!

Your opinion is duly noted, and based on its value, I estimate that you owe me $1.18 for having read it.

 

[Jipsah]

Perhaps you're not understanding what I am saying.

It seems so. I thought you were maintaining that there were in fact pre-solar light sources of which the ancients were aware. My bad, I apologize.

 

[Job 33:6]

It seems so. I thought you were maintaining that there were in fact pre-solar light sources of which the ancients were aware. My bad, I apologize.

In Egypt, there was a god of light before the sun itself was created or appointed to rule the skies.

Phenomenalogically, they would have seen the light of dawn before the sun had actually risen. Thus, when describing these events, light precedes the sun.

Scientifically we know that light comes from the sun. But the ancient authors aren't describing the world or creation in scientific terms, so we shouldnt assume that their descriptions ought to align with modern astronomy.

This is just my personal guess as to why Genesis is saying that light existed before the sun. Of course this is all difficult for even the most well studied Bible scholars to understand given the ancient nature of the text.

But because we factually know that the ancient authors were describing the world through an ancient near east context that included an ancient cosmological perspective, and we know that their descriptions were phenomenological, it therefore follows that this would be a plausible understanding of Genesis verse 3.

 

[Job 33:6]

It seems so. I thought you were maintaining that there were in fact pre-solar light sources of which the ancients were aware. My bad, I apologize.

And I would highly recommend this video if you haven't seen it yet. References of this book has been circulated in some forums such as biologos.

 

[Ace777]

It is reasonable to speculate that he was created old enough to feed himself.

It is also reasonable to speculate that Adam was born the way Science says he was born. Going back to the beginning of the story what made Adam different was the breath of life. The fact that God breathed His life into Adam.

 

[Platte]

Mankind being 6k yrs old doesn't prove the U didn't exist before that. Your argument falls flat.

I agree it doesn’t prove it but it’s what you’d expect if you said the earth was only 6k years. While if I said it was billions you’d expect a lot more recorded history.

It’s odd to me that you would dismiss that fact so easily. That is a very significant fact.

 

[Platte]

Actually, the Bible doesn't say, so you are arguing from silence. It is reasonable to speculate that he was created old enough to feed himself. But arguing from silence, I suppose that angels could have taken care of him until he could feed himself. Anyone can invent a narrative to argue from silence. Like I said, trying to figure out the science is futile since it's not the point of scripture.

The Bible doesn’t say Adam was created as a man? That he named all the animals.
Im just trying to get you to agree Adam was created old relative to a 1 day old baby.

 

[Platte]

Many things in scripture are not to be taken literally. A figurative interpretation is acceptable if a literal interpretation doesn't fit what is observed in the real world. Again, Ex. 31:17 is not a scientific statement and is not intended to be. Moses is commanded to regard the days in a weekly cycle, and one day of the week is to be a day of rest and worship of God, which is the point of it. This follows the Gen. 1 pattern. So if Gen. 1 is meant only for ancient Israel because of their cosmological beliefs, Then Ex. 31:17 is simply accommodating that understanding, and using it to establish the weekly order.

But if you insist that "6 days" in Ex. 31:17 makes the 6 days of Gen 1 literal, then I guess you're stuck with a shallow understanding of Gen. 1, since you insist that it has to be literal in both cases. But if Jesus says that the hand that offends is to be cut off, why aren't you taking that literally?

When God says “For in 6 days the Lord made heaven and earth” I tend to take what He says literally. Especially when he literally sets aside a day as the sabbath. Nothing hyperbolic about that statement such as Jesus statement entails.

 

[Joseph G]

If a thousand years for us is but a day for God, in God's eyes this should make the earth 7 + 6 = 13 days old, am I right ?

I figure 6000 or a million billion years, not nearly as important as when it will end. At the end of our lives, or the end of humanity (coming soon, to a theater near you).

Revelation 21:1-4 NIV

"Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

biblegateway.com

 

[Platte]

he chose not to take the vax.

He got Covid. He took whatever anti-viral agent they were using post-infrction, no workee. A month later he was deader than Julius Caesar.

The majority of people who have died from Covid were vaccinated.

 

[Strong in Him]

Actually, the Bible doesn't say, so you are arguing from silence. It is reasonable to speculate that he was created old enough to feed himself.

He was created old enough to be able to work in the Garden, Genesis 2:15
He was created old enough to be given the command "you must not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", Genesis 2:17. If God had thought Adam incapable of understanding his command it would have been unreasonable to punish him for breaking it.
He was created old enough to have a wife, Genesis 2:25.
He was created old enough to be able to name all the animals, Genesis 2:20.
He was created old enough to know that he had done wrong, to hide from God and to blame his wife, Genesis 3:12.

He is referred to as a man throughout Genesis 2 - presumably they had a different word for boy, or toddler.

 

[Platte]

But because we factually know that the ancient authors were describing the world through an ancient near east context that included an ancient cosmological perspective, and we know that their descriptions were phenomenological, it therefore follows that this would be a plausible understanding of Genesis verse 3.

Except the information came from God

 

[Ace777]

That is a very significant fact.

Some of the translations will say before time or the end of time. But they are talking about the beginning of an age or era. So before time began means before the age or era we live in began. Everyone agrees that civilization began 6,000 years ago. No one questions Bishops Usshers book for the last 6,000 years. They only question what happened before this age or era began. We are all YEC to some degree because no one denys what has happened in the last 6,000 years. WE all agree on that. History, Science and the Bible are all in agreement. People try to find contradictions but there are none. The truth is true always has been and always well be.