How Old Is The Earth

[trophy33]

Where did you get this idea that you shouldn’t take the Bible literally?

In the Bible. There is no literal firmament, the sun, the moon and the stars are not literally in any firmament, God did not literally killed a dragon to create the world, Jesus is not a literal door, the serpentine being in Eden was not a literal snake, the serpent's seed did not literally bite Jesus's heel, the king of Babylon did not rule literally over all people in the world etc.

Some texts and concepts in the Bible are not meant to be literal even by the original authors and some texts are simply scientificaly mistakes (though meant literally by the authors), like the flat earth or the firmament.

 

[trophy33]

Adam to Abraham is about 2000 years based on the genealogies. There is nothing in the Bible that says or implies not to take the Creation account or the genealogies literally.

There are plenty things in the Bible that imply to not take the Creation or the genealogies literally. Symbolism used in the texts, nice symmetrical divisions etc.

You can learn more about symbolism and symmetry in genealogies here:

 

[trophy33]

When do you think Adam was created?

I do not think Adam was created from literal dust and that his name was the Hebrew word "Adam". If he literally existed and is not just an archetypal priest created by Jews in the Babylonian exile, I guess he would live sometime after the ice ages, in the beginnings of the agriculture, animal domestication and first cities in Mesopotamia - 12,000 to 10,000 years ago. If somebody wanted to do a wrong thing and sum symbolic ages of patriarchs, it would actually match more with the Septuagint than with your Bible.

The concept of the lost Eden garden, fruit and animals and of the curse of the hard work in the fields may be allusions to the lost freedom of the nomadic hunter/gatherer life style.

But you agree the Bible does trace creation back to 6000 years ago based the genealogy presented

No.

1. The purpose of the symbolic numbers in patriarchal genealogies are not to trace creation back in time.
2. Septuagint numbers would not give you 6,000 years

Scientific kind of history? That’s a new one.

I know its new to you, but you will learn even in the elementary school that our modern concept of literal chronicles and history recording developed in various stages and was not there from the beginning.

"After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in Eridu.
In Eridu, Alulim became king. He ruled for 28,000 years. Alalgar ruled for 36,000 years..."
Sumerian King List.

I hope you can see that the ancients wrote history in a different, mythological and symbolic way. Differently from our modern, literal factual approach to history.

Dumb

Dumb reaction.

What’s that got to do with the Bible?

A lot. It will help you understand why it was important in the creation story to name things or animals and why it was important for the ancient author to ascribe the purpose for various domains of the world (time, weather, food).

 

[trophy33]

Based on the genealogies of the Bible Creation was approximately 6000 years ago. And yes the Bible gives the age of people and some lived 900+ years. The Bible is the Word of God. Keep changing the meaning and accuracy of what the Bible says to fit your worldview, it’s gonna serve you well.

If you use the Septuagint, it will not give you 6000 years ago.

Bible is not the word of God, Bible is a library of various writings - written by people, composed by people, copied by people, translated by people, canonized by people and interpreted by people. It has been developing to its current form you have in your home today for about 3 millennia.

Inspiration is not dictation and Bible did not fall from heaven in the 21st century USA. To understand it, you must understand the people who wrote it, composed it, canonized it, translated it, at least basically. Belief is not ignorance and half of Christendom even today has a different Bible than you do in many aspects.

 

[Ace777]

Yeah that interpretation doesn’t help much when you’re trying to get 4 billion years out of a text that says 6 days.

It gets more difficult when the days are not the same length. Each day is half the time of the day before it.

So according to this interpretation you’re at 6 years which is still a long ways from 4 billion years.

Everything is true. A day is 24 hours, a day is 1,000 years, a day is 8 billion years. You just have to look at it from that perspective. Even GAP fits between YEC and OEC. Time is relative.

 

[Ace777]

I do not think Adam was created from literal dust

Dust are elements. Science and the Bible agree on this one.

And so the 7 days of Genesis can be 24-hour days, and the text still doesn't or wouldn't have anything to do with the age of the Earth or universe.

I do believe the Bible is literal and symbolic at the same time.

 

[trophy33]

Dust are elements. Science and the Bible agree on this one.

Nope. Dust symbolizes mortality, "dust of the earth" symbolizes that we are bound to the earth, physical (we are not elohim) and it has nothing to do with science or scientific elements.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yahweh means God, it is not specific to The Father. It’s not The Father’s name otherwise we would see it in the New Testament. The Jews no doubt believed it was God The Father because they were monotheists, they didn’t believe in Christ’s divinity or the Trinity Godhead which is why they couldn’t understand why the word US is in Genesis 1:26. Nobody understood why until during Jesus’ ministry His divinity was revealed which gave us John 1:1-3. Then all the sudden everybody understood why the word US is in Genesis 1:26 because it was finally revealed. Another thing that was also revealed during Christ’s ministry is that NO ONE HAD EVER SEEN THE FATHER EXCEPT JESUS. So yeah you’re not going to find evidence of Jesus being referred to as God in the Old Testament without references from the New Testament. You’re completely trying to run away from the fact that Jesus specifically said that no one has ever seen The Father except Him because you don’t want to admit that you’re wrong.

No. Elohim means God. Yahwey is a proper name for Yahwey, the father, the one specific supreme Father. That's why the text says Yahwey Elohim. Yahwey is not specific to any other God. And yes, there are multiple Gods in the Bible, in case you didn't know. But only 1 has the name "Yahwey".

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and are completely unfamiliar with the old testament.

When you're ready to actually start reading the Bible and reflecting on what it says, I'll be around. But if you're in a state where you aren't even aware that Yahwey is a proper name for the father, then there's just nothing I can do for you. You're too far behind in your understanding of some of the most basic concepts of the Bible.

I mean honestly, when has anyone ever read "Yahwey" in Genesis or anywhere in the old testament and said "oh that's not the Father, that's Jesus". If you're understanding of the Bible is this broken, there's no point in even continuing our conversation.

 

[trophy33]

No. Elohim means God.

Interestingly, Michael Heiser argues that elohim means simply spiritual being and that the word is used even for dead people (like in the case of Samuel, when he was called from sheol by Saul).

God is elohim, but not every elohim is a god or even the highest God. However, every elohim is a higher being than people living in flesh.

 

[Job 33:6]

Interestingly, Michael Heiser argues that elohim means simply spiritual being and that the word is used even for dead people (like in the case of Samuel, when he was called from the dead by Saul).

God is elohim, but not every elohim is a god or even the highest God. However, every elohim is a higher being than people living in flesh.

Well yea, God, god, or gods, spirit beings etc.

The main thing is that, Yahwey is a name. That's THE name, for Yahwey, the almighty, the one and only.

The hebrew word for "God" or "gods" is elohim.

I've never heard of a Christian trying to argue that "Yahwey" isn't a name for God (the Father), and that alternatively "Yahwey" means "God".

I've never in my life heard any Christian say something so fundamentally wrong.

It's like saying that the name "George" actually just means "human". And that "George" isn't actually a name of a unique human. It just doesn't make any sense and I have no clue why anyone familiar with the Bible would say such a thing.

 

[trophy33]

Well yea, God, god, or gods, spirit beings etc.

The main thing is that, Yahwey is a name. That's THE name, for Yahwey, the almighty, the one and only.

The hebrew word for "God" or "gods" is elohim.

I've never heard of a Christian trying to argue that "Yahwey" isn't a name for God (the Father), and that alternatively "Yahwey" means "God".

I've never in my life heard any Christian say something so fundamentally wrong.

It's like saying that the name "George" actually just means "human". And that "George" isn't actually a name of a unique human. It just doesn't make any sense and I have no clue why anyone familiar with the Bible would say such a thing.

Well, I was not reading your exchange about Yahweh in Eden too closely, but I have heard some theologians to argue that Yahweh refers to the highest, triune God as such, not just to the person of Father. Therefore, even Jesus can be called Yahweh, because he is one with the Father.

Anyway, its not the topic of this thread.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And so the 7 days of Genesis can be 24-hour days, and the text still doesn't or wouldn't have anything to do with the age of the Earth or universe.

Until you get to Genesis 5.

No. Elohim means God. Yahwey is a proper name for Yahwey, the father, the one specific supreme Father. That's why the text says Yahwey Elohim. Yahwey is not specific to any other God. And yes, there are multiple Gods in the Bible, in case you didn't know. But only 1 has the name "Yahwey".

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and are completely unfamiliar with the old testament.

When you're ready to actually start reading the Bible and reflecting on what it says, I'll be around. But if you're in a state where you aren't even aware that Yahwey is a proper name for the father, then there's just nothing I can do for you. You're too far behind in your understanding of some of the most basic concepts of the Bible.

Yeah ok I’ve only been here on CF discussing the Bible since 2017 and have over 18,000 posts on the subject but I’ve never read it. Yeah who was Yahweh to the Jews in the OT? Yahweh was the only ONE GOD THEY KNEW ABOUT. They didn’t know anything about Jesus so when they spoke to God they used the word Elohim or Yahweh. So if anyone ever spoke to Jesus they would’ve used the same word. Oh but how would I know that if I had never read the Bible? How would I be quoting all these passages proving you wrong if I never read the Bible? AND STILL YOU RUN AWAY FROM THE QUESTION HOW DID ADAM & EVE SEE THE FATHER IN THE GARDEN IF JESUS SAID NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN THE FATHER? Your answer, “context”. That’s it, no actual explanation just throw the word context out there and pretend like you actually made a viable argument to support your claim. Then throw out some ridiculous false accusation saying I’ve never read the Bible before and again pretend that you’ve made some sort of viable argument to support your claim. Why not just answer the question so we can have an actual intelligent discussion about the subject? I’ll tell you why, because you don’t have an answer to it, you can’t explain it which is why you keep dodging the question over and over and over because you’re certainly not going to admit you were wrong so that’s your only defense.

 

[Job 33:6]

Until you get to Genesis 5.

Yeah ok I’ve only been here on CF discussing the Bible since 2017 and have over 18,000 posts on the subject but I’ve never read it. Yeah who was Yahweh to the Jews in the OT? Yahweh was the only ONE GOD THEY KNEW ABOUT. They didn’t know anything about Jesus so when they spoke to God they used the word Elohim or Yahweh. So if anyone ever spoke to Jesus they would’ve used the same word. Oh but how would I know that if I had never read the Bible? How would I be quoting all these passages proving you wrong if I never read the Bible? AND STILL YOU RUN AWAY FROM THE QUESTION HOW DID ADAM & EVE SEE THE FATHER IN THE GARDEN IF JESUS SAID NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN THE FATHER? Your answer, “context”. That’s it, no actual explanation just throw the word context out there and pretend like you actually made a viable argument to support your claim. Then throw out some ridiculous false accusation saying I’ve never read the Bible before and again pretend that you’ve made some sort of viable argument to support your claim. Why not just answer the question so we can have an actual intelligent discussion about the subject? I’ll tell you why, because you don’t have an answer to it, you can’t explain it which is why you keep dodging the question over and over and over because you’re certainly not going to admit you were wrong so that’s your only defense.

‭Exodus 3:15 LSB‬
[15] And God furthermore said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name from generation to generation.

Here is an example passage. "Yahwey, the God of your fathers".

Yahwey is His name. It's really that simple. And the Bible plainly states this.

How do you not know this?

 

[Job 33:6]

Until you get to Genesis 5.

Yeah ok I’ve only been here on CF discussing the Bible since 2017 and have over 18,000 posts on the subject but I’ve never read it. Yeah who was Yahweh to the Jews in the OT? Yahweh was the only ONE GOD THEY KNEW ABOUT. They didn’t know anything about Jesus so when they spoke to God they used the word Elohim or Yahweh. So if anyone ever spoke to Jesus they would’ve used the same word. Oh but how would I know that if I had never read the Bible? How would I be quoting all these passages proving you wrong if I never read the Bible? AND STILL YOU RUN AWAY FROM THE QUESTION HOW DID ADAM & EVE SEE THE FATHER IN THE GARDEN IF JESUS SAID NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN THE FATHER? Your answer, “context”. That’s it, no actual explanation just throw the word context out there and pretend like you actually made a viable argument to support your claim. Then throw out some ridiculous false accusation saying I’ve never read the Bible before and again pretend that you’ve made some sort of viable argument to support your claim. Why not just answer the question so we can have an actual intelligent discussion about the subject? I’ll tell you why, because you don’t have an answer to it, you can’t explain it which is why you keep dodging the question over and over and over because you’re certainly not going to admit you were wrong so that’s your only defense.

And yes people can see Yahweh.

‭Exodus 24:9-10 LSB‬
[9] Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, [10] and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself.

‭Exodus 33:21-23 LSB‬
[21] Then Yahweh said, “Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock; [22] and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. [23] Then I will remove My hand, and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.”

Here Moses sees His back, it's only His face that shall not be seen.

Again, what Bible have you been reading? You're completely lost. You don't even know that Yahwey is the name of our Lord, the father?

What, you think this is Jesus that Moses was speaking to on Mt Sanai?

Who or what Bible have you been reading?

Everywhere in the Old Testament that it talks about Yahwey, it's now just automatically Jesus. Even when Yahwey is described alongside the Son of Man, it's actually just Jesus enthroned and Jesus again at the right hand.

 

[Job 33:6]

Until you get to Genesis 5.

Yeah ok I’ve only been here on CF discussing the Bible since 2017 and have over 18,000 posts on the subject but I’ve never read it. Yeah who was Yahweh to the Jews in the OT? Yahweh was the only ONE GOD THEY KNEW ABOUT. They didn’t know anything about Jesus so when they spoke to God they used the word Elohim or Yahweh. So if anyone ever spoke to Jesus they would’ve used the same word. Oh but how would I know that if I had never read the Bible? How would I be quoting all these passages proving you wrong if I never read the Bible? AND STILL YOU RUN AWAY FROM THE QUESTION HOW DID ADAM & EVE SEE THE FATHER IN THE GARDEN IF JESUS SAID NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN THE FATHER? Your answer, “context”. That’s it, no actual explanation just throw the word context out there and pretend like you actually made a viable argument to support your claim. Then throw out some ridiculous false accusation saying I’ve never read the Bible before and again pretend that you’ve made some sort of viable argument to support your claim. Why not just answer the question so we can have an actual intelligent discussion about the subject? I’ll tell you why, because you don’t have an answer to it, you can’t explain it which is why you keep dodging the question over and over and over because you’re certainly not going to admit you were wrong so that’s your only defense.

Everywhere in the Old Testament that it talks about Yahwey, it's now just automatically Jesus. Even when Yahwey is described alongside the Son of Man, it's actually just Jesus enthroned and Jesus again at the right hand.

‭Daniel 7:13 CSB‬
[13] I continued watching in the night visions, and suddenly one like a son of man was coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was escorted before him.

It's just Jesus approaching himself. There is no Yahwey here.

‭Daniel 7:9 CSB‬
[9] “As I kept watching, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was white like snow, and the hair of his head like whitest wool. His throne was flaming fire; its wheels were blazing fire.

Look at this, the ancient of Days took his seat after the thrones were set in place.

So Yahweh is not seated on the throne, he then proceeds to take his seat on the throne, and then the son of Man approaches him.

Are we supposed to think that Jesus went and took the throne and then Jesus approached the enthroned Jesus, and that Yahwey is not in the picture here?

What Old Testament have you been reading?

To argue that Yahweh is not a distinct title for the Father is a complete misunderstanding of a very fundamental detail of the Old Testament.

And trying to say "well the Trinity is true, therefore every time Yahwey is mentioned it's just Jesus and the Father is nowhere to be seen" is just absurd.

And it awkwardly suggests that perhaps you knew the Bible better than Moses himself because Moses obviously wouldn't have been thinking about Jesus walking in the garden because Moses didn't know who Jesus was.

So now you know Genesis better than the author of Genesis himself?

Just because someone is a Trinitarian, that doesn't give us the right to then go and erase Yahwey from the Old Testament.

 

[SuperCow]

We do not know what the speed of light is

So then your position is that 299,792 km/s (186,282 mi/s) is incorrect? Isn't that kind of like believing the earth is flat or the moon landing never happened?

 

[BNR32FAN]

And yes people can see Yahweh.

‭Exodus 24:9-10 LSB‬
[9] Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, [10] and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself.

‭Exodus 33:21-23 LSB‬
[21] Then Yahweh said, “Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock; [22] and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. [23] Then I will remove My hand, and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.”

Here Moses sees His back, it's only His face that shall not be seen.

Again, what Bible have you been reading? You're completely lost. You don't even know that Yahwey is the name of our Lord, the father?

What, you think this is Jesus that Moses was speaking to on Mt Sanai?

Who or what Bible have you been reading?

Everywhere in the Old Testament that it talks about Yahwey, it's now just automatically Jesus. Even when Yahwey is described alongside the Son of Man, it's actually just Jesus enthroned and Jesus again at the right hand.

No I never said that Yahweh doesn’t include God the Father I said it’s not exclusive to the Father. Where did Moses write about Jesus?

“For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.”
‭‭John‬ ‭5‬:‭46‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[Job 33:6]

No I never said that Yahweh doesn’t include God the Father I said it’s not exclusive to the Father. Where did Moses write about Jesus?

“For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.”
‭‭John‬ ‭5‬:‭46‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

You said that it wasn't the Father, Yahwey, walking in the Garden. But it explicitly names Yahwey, the Father. Then you stated that "Yahweh" isn't a name and generically just means "God".

But this is fundamentally wrong. Yahwey is His name. His proper name. Just like Jesus is the name for Jesus.

Just because we are Trinitarian, doesn't give us the authority to essentially replace Yahwey with Jesus in the Old Testament.

Just like in Daniel 7. It just doesn't make any sense.

Everywhere in the Old Testament that it talks about Yahwey, it's now just automatically Jesus. Even when Yahwey is described alongside the Son of Man, it's actually just Jesus enthroned and Jesus again at the right hand.

‭Daniel 7:13 CSB‬
[13] I continued watching in the night visions, and suddenly one like a son of man was coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was escorted before him.

It's just Jesus approaching himself. There is no Yahwey here.

‭Daniel 7:9 CSB‬
[9] “As I kept watching, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was white like snow, and the hair of his head like whitest wool. His throne was flaming fire; its wheels were blazing fire.

Look at this, the ancient of Days took his seat after the thrones were set in place.

So Yahweh is not seated on the throne, he then proceeds to take his seat on the throne, and then the son of Man approaches him.

Are we supposed to think that Jesus went and took the throne and then Jesus approached the enthroned Jesus, and that Yahwey is not in the picture here?

What Old Testament have you been reading?

To argue that Yahweh is not a distinct title for the Father is a complete misunderstanding of a very fundamental detail of the Old Testament.

And trying to say "well the Trinity is true, therefore every time Yahwey is mentioned it's just Jesus and the Father is nowhere to be seen" is just absurd.

And it awkwardly suggests that perhaps you knew the Bible better than Moses himself because Moses obviously wouldn't have been thinking about Jesus walking in the garden because Moses didn't know who Jesus was.

So now you know Genesis better than the author of Genesis himself?

 

[SuperCow]

I’m sure Jesus will return much much sooner than that

So then you must agree.

Screwed it up? Man has done an amazing job. We’ve utilized the vast resources. We built things that are amazing (like this iPhone I’m on). We’ve set vast lands aside for wildlife.

And killed off thousands (at least) of species in the process, polluted or otherwise destroyed vast areas of land, wasted tons of resources trying to kill each other furthering the other points. Yes, we've built some monuments, some neat toys, and improved some lifestyles, but good stewards of the planet could have achieved these things without the negative affects of our reckless behavior.

I would guess Jesus will return way before we could travel to other planets.

I agree, which is why I said the universe cannot reasonably be said to be for man.

Silly

No more silly than making "evening and morning" literal when Genesis 1 clearly says there was no regular evening and morning until the 4th day. Clearly it implies something different.

Creation was 6000 years ago. Get over it and try to understand things from that perspective.

I will when you are able to understand that very few plants (let alone trees) grow enough to produce fruit in a single day like you purport to have happened in Genesis 1:12.

Convenient that you left out an evening and a morning. And the sabbath day that God set aside is a literal day.

Because the sabbath day is for humans. The day of rest is for God.

 

[Job 33:6]

No I never said that Yahweh doesn’t include God the Father I said it’s not exclusive to the Father. Where did Moses write about Jesus?

“For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.”
‭‭John‬ ‭5‬:‭46‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Just because someone is a Trinitarian, that doesn't give us the right to then go and erase Yahwey from the Old Testament. You just cant do that, that's like a fundamental heresy essentially. And I'm not calling you a heretic. But what I'm saying is that, you cant allow Trinitarian theology to ultimately erase there being 3 distinct persons.

If it says Yahwey, its talking about the Father. That's the Fathers name. So if the Bible says "Yahwey is walking in the garden" then that just is what it is. He is not enthroned in this particular passage.

Daniel 7, it says that the ancient of days took His seat, on the throne (he wasnt initially enthroned) and then the Son of Man approached Him.

Now again, we cant say, "Well the ancient of days is Jesus, and then the Son of Man (also Jesus) approaches Jesus on the throne.

That's completely misunderstanding the old testament. And you just cant let your theology erase Yahwey.

If the Bible says that Yahwey is walking in the garden, that just is what it is. Yahwey is walking in the garden, that is the Father. And there's nothing you can say to change that. You just have to accept the Bible as it is. Or, you can reject the Bible I guess, but that's not useful for understanding the text from a Christian perspective.