How Old Is The Earth

[BNR32FAN]

Since you can't seem to accept that Yahweh is an independent figure in the Old Testament, we just have to pull out a text that has both Yahwey and Jesus together at the same time, in which Yahwey is not enthroned.

The Bible is so excessively clear on this. But you just, for whatever reason, seem to have a problem with what the Bible says.

I have no problem with what the Bible says since I’ve said it over and over and over that Yahweh can either refer to God The Father or Jesus since it means God. So my interpretation of the word Yahweh presents no problem at all with this passage from Daniel or any other passage in the entire Bible. Your interpretation of Yahweh on the other hand directly contradicts what Jesus said in John 6:46 because Genesis 18 says that Yahweh spoke directly to Abraham face to face. I say it was Jesus which doesn’t contradict any passage of scripture. You say it was God The Father which directly contradicts John 6:46. So who’s having a problem with what the Bible says?

 

[frienden thalord]

I have the answer to this very age old question .
I know exactly HOW old the earth is .
ITS OLDER THAN ME , YOUNGER THAN THE GOD WHO CREATED IT . Now raise them hands up , ITS TIME TO PRAISE THE GLORIOUS LORD .

 

[Job 33:6]

I have no problem with what the Bible says since I’ve said it over and over and over that Yahweh can either refer to God The Father or Jesus since it means God. So my interpretation of the word Yahweh presents no problem at all with this passage from Daniel or any other passage in the entire Bible. Your interpretation of Yahweh on the other hand directly contradicts what Jesus said in John 6:46 because Genesis 18 says that Yahweh spoke directly to Abraham face to face. I say it was Jesus which doesn’t contradict any passage of scripture. You say it was God The Father which directly contradicts John 6:46. So who’s having a problem with what the Bible says?

Look at that. You can't even respond to what I said. You didn't even make even the slightest note on Daniel 7. Nor did you reflect on Moses seeing God in Exodus (not Yahwey's face, but still seeing Him nonetheless).

 

[Job 33:6]

Look at that. You can't even respond to what I said. You didn't even make even the slightest note on Daniel 7. Nor did you reflect on Moses seeing God in Exodus (not Yahwey's face, but still seeing Him nonetheless).

And I'll keep quoting the passages over and over again if I need to.

But you know them, Yahweh says that Moses will not see his face, but he did still allow Moses to see his backside.

So indeed it is a fact that in the Bible, people did see Yahweh. And Moses, his face was glowing afterwards. But Moses still saw Yahwey. And that's just how it is in Exodus.

But then still, Yahweh is seen plenty of times in visions as well. And you're trying to call them all passages about Jesus, well what about Daniel 7?

The Ancient of Days is there, the one like the son of man riding the clouds approaches the ancient of days.

Are you going to argue that both figures are Jesus?

And the ancient of Days took up the throne after the thrones were set.

Just face it. Yahwey is there. The Father. And he is not enthroned.

@BNR32FAN

‭Daniel 7:9-10, 13 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. [10] A river of fire was flowing, coming out from his presence. Thousands upon thousands served him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was convened, and the books were opened.
[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.

NASB if preferred:
‭Daniel 7:9, 13 NASB1995‬
[9] “I kept looking Until thrones were set up, And the Ancient of Days took His seat; His vesture was like white snow And the hair of His head like pure wool. His throne was ablaze with flames, Its wheels were a burning fire.
[13] “I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him.

‭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.”

It's not Jesus giving Moses the ten commandments. That's the father, Yahweh. That's why Moses's face was glowing after he saw him. His backside (because His face could not be seen).

 

[Job 33:6]

Let me ask you this, when Moses sees God, Yahweh, to receive the ten commandments on the tablets. And Yahweh says that his face shall not be seen, but Moses still sees God, His figure and body, and under his feet was a pavement of sapphire stone, and God shows Moses his backside.

Do you think that this was Jesus and not God the Father?
@BNR32FAN

‭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.”


And his face was shining after he saw Yahweh too, you think that this is Jesus? And not the Father?

‭Exodus 34:29-30, 32-35 NASB1995‬
[29] It came about when Moses was coming down from Mount Sinai (and the two tablets of the testimony were in Moses’ hand as he was coming down from the mountain), that Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone because of his speaking with Him. [30] So when Aaron and all the sons of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to come near him.
[32] Afterward all the sons of Israel came near, and he commanded them to do everything that the Lord had spoken to him on Mount Sinai. [33] When Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil over his face. [34] But whenever Moses went in before the Lord to speak with Him, he would take off the veil until he came out; and whenever he came out and spoke to the sons of Israel what he had been commanded, [35] the sons of Israel would see the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face shone. So Moses would replace the veil over his face until he went in to speak with Him.

 

[tdidymas]

Wasn't the first life on Earth IN the WATER? According to AI: "Scientists believe that life on Earth may have originated underwater, possibly in the ocean or near deep-sea hydrothermal vents". It could be that the Bible says live began on the land.

Life on Earth is thought to have begun at least 3.5 billion years ago, and possibly as early as 3.8–4.1 billion years ago. The earliest known fossils of life on Earth date back to 3.5 billion years ago, but chemical traces of life have been found in even older rocks.

This needs to be taken into consideration to determine the age of the earth. All the pieces have to fit into the puzzle.

I don't believe the age of the earth can be determined by fossils, because much of the age of the rocks are assumed to be the ages they claim. Many times ages of fossils are set by age of rocks around them, but age of rocks are sometimes set by age of fossils in them, so it's circular logic. When determining the age of rocks using potassium-argon method (or any other scientific method, for that matter), they don't mention the assumptions they are making which make their dating method inaccurate. They simply make the assumptions, and form their conclusions after their measurements. I find most dating methods highly suspect. One thing assumed in geology is what is called uniformitarianism, which means that geological formations happened slowly over long periods of time. This remains an assumption, even though they have proven that there were cataclysmic events. They just don't think that the Bible's narrative about a worldwide flood is feasible. In my mind, the flood can explain the separation of fossils which is commonly thought of as evolution. But the flood could have allowed the smaller and more dense creatures to sink faster than the larger less dense creatures. Thus you have trilobites down in the "Cambrian" rocks and dinosaurs near the surface. My point is that scientists who think that life began 3.5B yrs ago are making general assumptions which may or may not be true. I've learned to question everything, both "accepted science" and "accepted religious tradition."

It just seems to me that God could have created life on earth 6k years ago. But if that could be determined, it certainly would have by now. All we know is that human history began about 6k years ago. We also know that the universe shows evidence of B of yrs of existence. Therefore, I feel confident to question both traditions.

 

[tdidymas]

You’re completely free to believe whatever you want, I believe Exodus 20:11.

I know that you mean you believe YOUR INTERPRETATION of Ex. 20;11.

 

[tdidymas]

So what you’re saying is that either God lied in Exodus 20:11 or Moses lied in Exodus 20:1. What it boils down to is either God lied to Moses in Exodus 20:11 or Moses lied about what God actually said in Exodus 20:11. Oh and Genesis 2:1-3 is also a lie. That’s the only way what you’re saying can be correct.

Your exaggeration saying either one "lied" is a straw man argument. Neither lied. Your narrow-minded crass literalism is your assumption, not mine. The issue is "how old is the earth," not "how literal do you have to interpret the Bible."

But if you really want others to believe your tradition that all creation was made in 6 literal days, then you have the burden to prove how we can observe events in the cosmos that point to an old age. But I suspect you can't do that.

 

[tdidymas]

I absolutely agree, what it is tho is a history book that gives us specific information about things that took place in the past.

It may be that your assumption about the historical accuracy is incorrect. ANE culture did not necessarily define accuracy or preciseness. This is partly why origins, numbers, dates, etc. are controversial, because we have to face the fact that ancient Hebrew writings aren't as precise as people would like it to be. People naturally impose a modern western scientific paradigm into the scripture (called "projection"), and there is where controversy is rooted. This is why I keep saying that the Bible is not a science book, and neither is it a precise history textbook. It's about belief in God and obeying what He commands. Science and history are side issues, and remain in man's realm to figure out.

 

[Ace777]

I don't believe the age of the earth can be determined by fossils,

I have a child like faith in Science. I do not see any reason to question it. But there is a lot science can not do for us and God can go far beyond what man can do. If Science could solve my problems and answer my questions I would not need religion. But Science falls short so that religion and the Bible can take over.

uniformitarianism, which means that geological formations happened slowly over long periods of time. This remains an assumption, even though they have proven that there were cataclysmic events.

This was an issue with the dam that broke in California and they narrowly avoided disaster. They simply did not take into consideration the water pressure of Catastrophic events. Usually engineers know their stuff but they were lead astray by gradualism. Most likely the geologists were to blame. We see this with the Grand Canyon. Clearly this was a catastrophic event that took place when the glaciers melted. Gradualism does not have the pressure needed to erode the canyon the way it is.

 

[Ace777]

There is no literal firmament

I studied the physics of light in college. Most people are not even going to come close to figuring out what is going on. I was an electrician on the lighting crew for the Ballet. So I know the effect lighting can have on people. I use to love to climb up into the grid in the ceiling way up over the stage to set the lighting. Most people would rather avoid that if they can.

 

[Job 33:6]

I have a child like faith in Science. I do not see any reason to question it. But there is a lot science can not do for us and God can go far beyond what man can do. If Science could solve my problems and answer my questions I would not need religion. But Science falls short so that religion and the Bible can take over.

This was an issue with the dam that broke in California and they narrowly avoided disaster. They simply did not take into consideration the water pressure of Catastrophic events. Usually engineers know their stuff but they were lead astray by gradualism. Most likely the geologists were to blame. We see this with the Grand Canyon. Clearly this was a catastrophic event that took place when the glaciers melted. Gradualism does not have the pressure needed to erode the canyon the way it is.

Gradualism can erode away anything with time.

 

[Platte]

Trying to derive some sort of timeline using genealogies is to missus them.

I don’t even know how to respond to that.

In the Bible. There is no literal firmament, the sun, the moon and the stars are not literally in any firmament

Your opinion

the serpentine being in Eden was not a literal snake,

Your opinion

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

Of course

and some texts are simply scientificaly mistakes (though meant literally by the authors), like the flat earth or the firmament.

There are no scientific mistakes in the Bible

So you base changing the meaning of the Bible to fit your opinions. Good luck with that

 

[Platte]

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:

Maybe your silliest post ever

 

[Platte]

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.


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


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 reaction.


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).

Wow you are a tool. You are missing so much.

 

[Platte]

Bible is not the word of God

Enough said - you have no clue what you are even taking about.

Now I understand your confusion with The Bible. Your head must be really spinning when you read it.

Once you understand the Bible is the Word of God then your eyes will be open to much more than you see now.

 

[Ace777]

Gradualism can erode away anything with time.

I use to design sprinkler systems. If you do not have enough pressure you will not get the lawn watered. I can work with 35 or 40 psi if that is all they have but 50 or 60 would be alot better.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Look at that. You can't even respond to what I said. You didn't even make even the slightest note on Daniel 7. Nor did you reflect on Moses seeing God in Exodus (not Yahwey's face, but still seeing Him nonetheless).

Yahweh means God. God can mean either Jesus or The Father since they are both God. So when Moses saw Yahweh that means he saw God. Since Jesus said that no one has seen The Father the only other God Moses could’ve possibly seen was Jesus. What makes you think that this was The Father other than the word Yahweh being used in the passage?

As for Daniel 7 Daniel received a vision, Daniel perceived the white haired man as God The Father, Daniel didn’t actually see The Father with his own eyes and we don’t even know if what Daniel saw is actually what The Father even looks like. Daniel could’ve seen a figure that was intended to represent The Father. Should I say that Daniel saw The Father in a vision when Jesus said afterwards that no one has seen The Father? I can’t ignore one passage to accept another so the only option is to contemplate how both passages can be true. If I say Daniel saw The Father then I’m contradicting what Jesus said in John 6:46. So the only thing I can conclude is that either Jesus was referring to no one actually seeing The Father with their eyes or that the figure Daniel perceived as The Father isn’t really what The Father looks like.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I know that you mean you believe YOUR INTERPRETATION of Ex. 20;11.

No I mean I believe what it actually says.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Your exaggeration saying either one "lied" is a straw man argument. Neither lied. Your narrow-minded crass literalism is your assumption, not mine. The issue is "how old is the earth," not "how literal do you have to interpret the Bible."

But if you really want others to believe your tradition that all creation was made in 6 literal days, then you have the burden to prove how we can observe events in the cosmos that point to an old age. But I suspect you can't do that.

Oh I would love to explain how science’s assumptions have misinterpreted the age of the earth. Where would you like to start? Give me a topic and I’ll do my best to explain how it can be wrong.