How Old Is The Earth

[BNR32FAN]

Yes. And you are the one saying "maybe", even though you read Genesis without any "maybe", interestingly. Why the inconsistency?

Do you also believe that God literally fought a literal dragon during the creation?

I said maybe because the Bible doesn’t specifically say exactly how He did it, it only says that He stretched out the heavens. As for fighting a dragon, I’m not familiar with that verse. What verse are you referring to?

 

[trophy33]

I said maybe because the Bible doesn’t specifically say exactly how He did it, it only says that He stretched out the heavens.

With his right hand. Is this literal? If not, why Genesis 1 or Gen 2 is literal?

As for fighting a dragon, I’m not familiar with that verse. What verse are you referring to?

Psalm 74:13-14, Job 26:12-13, Is 27:1, Is 51:9, Psalm 89:9-10

 

[tdidymas]

I'm reading Wikipedia article on the book of Enoch right now.

Book of Enoch - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

From the article:

In 1838, Laurence also released the first Ethiopic text of 1 Enoch published in the West, under the title: Libri Enoch Prophetae Versio Aethiopica. The text, divided into 105 chapters, was soon considered unreliable as it was the transcription of a single Ethiopic manuscript.

I am still looking into it more, and other Apocrypha.

God Bless.

This looks like a different thread. There are a dozen reasons why I don't accept it, on both internal and external evidences.

 

[tdidymas]

I assure you I don’t lie about my Biblical beliefs. Those were 2 different statements.

I believe Adam was created as a man probably 18-35 years old. Same with Eve. I believe God created tall trees and ripe vegetation at creation. I believe the animals he created were mating age. They we all created at a practical age. Wouldn’t be very practical to create Adam as a newborn baby.

God created the perfect environment for man to thrive. Earth is the only place that we are aware of in the universe that can sustain life. Everything had to be in an exact and precise manner in his creation of the universe for Earth to be able to sustain life. The universe as we see it is what was created (understanding the minute changes in the universe that have occurred over the past 6000 years)

The age of the universe as you see is the age it had to be for man to live on Earth.

And the purpose of creation was for man to live on earth.

So the universe was indeed created 6000 years ago. But it’s age when it was created like Adam, the trees, the ripe vegetation, the animals(or anything else God created 6000 years ago)…was much older.

So I get from what you say here that you believe in the "created mature" theory, that the U came into existence 6k yrs ago looking like a U that existed for 13B yrs or more? Is this what you're saying?

 

[SuperCow]

I don't think that the concepts of 1 Enoch are true. Maybe some small details are. Such as any mention of Noah, or God sending the flood. But other parts I would say are clearly just not true in any historical sense. Especially not the parts involving man eating giants. Why? Because there's no archaeological evidence for such things. The giant nephelim in Enoch are described as being something like 300 feet tall and they ate people. We find giant dinosaur bones, but there's no evidence for people that large in history (contrary to AI generated fake images).

Technically, it says Nephilim were 3000 ells in height, which scholars (experts) feel is an error in the text, thereby suggesting 300 ells. However, the scholars think an "ell" is the same as a cubit which actually makes them 450 ft. tall. (Or the ridiculous 4500 ft tall.) So basically you're talking about a head size like one on Mount Rushmore with an appropriately sized body.

If an "ell" means something different, then it would help remove the insanity of the imagery. A giant doesn't have to be anywhere near that height to be scary. (The 20th century real-life giant below is just under 9 ft. tall, which gives you a glimpse of the stated size of Goliath.)

The cannibalism isn't particularly unbelievable. There are still normal sized cannibals on the earth today.

 

[trophy33]

(The 20th century real-life giant below is just under 9 ft. tall, which gives you a glimpse of the stated size of Goliath.)

However, modern people with gigantism have various deformities and health problems. They are not able to move, walk, run etc properly (and also die significantly younger than the common population). Even on the photo its visible that the shape of the tall man "is not quite right".

On the other hand, Goliath and other giants in the Bible were described as dangerous warriors, not as basically disabled people. So, if they were literal, they would need to be a different kind of giants.

 

[BNR32FAN]

With his right hand. Is this literal? If not, why Genesis 1 or Gen 2 is literal?


Psalm 74:13-14, Job 26:12-13, Is 27:1, Is 51:9, Psalm 89:9-10

I don’t see any of these saying that God fought with Leviathan before or during creation.

 

[trophy33]

I don’t see any of these saying that God fought with Leviathan before or during creation.

Because you do not understand the cultural background and the connection between primeval waters, mythical Leviathan and creation.

I could give you sources to learn more about it, but I guess it would lead to undending "why should I trust the scholars", again.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Because you do not understand the cultural background and the connection between primeval waters, mythical Leviathan and creation.

I could give you sources to learn more about it, but I guess it would lead to undending "why should I trust the scholars", again.

So what you’re really saying is that it’s not actually stated in the scriptures. Otherwise you would’ve just quoted that verse.

 

[Job 33:6]

Technically, it says Nephilim were 3000 ells in height, which scholars (experts) feel is an error in the text, thereby suggesting 300 ells. However, the scholars think an "ell" is the same as a cubit which actually makes them 450 ft. tall. (Or the ridiculous 4500 ft tall.) So basically you're talking about a head size like one on Mount Rushmore with an appropriately sized body.

If an "ell" means something different, then it would help remove the insanity of the imagery. A giant doesn't have to be anywhere near that height to be scary. (The 20th century real-life giant below is just under 9 ft. tall, which gives you a glimpse of the stated size of Goliath.)
View attachment 351940
The cannibalism isn't particularly unbelievable. There are still normal sized cannibals on the earth today.

Well, I don't see any reason we cant just understand the text to be describing literal mountain sized giants. Wasn't it Og, the other giant of the Bible that had Extrabiblical literature in which he picked up a literal mountain, and threw it at an enemy army?

from wiki:
The Jewish Talmud embellishes the story, stating that Og was so large that he sought the destruction of the Israelites by uprooting a mountain so large, that it would have crushed the entire Israelite encampment. The Lord caused a swarm of ants to dig away the center of the mountain, which was resting on Og's head. The mountain then fell onto Og's shoulders. As Og attempted to lift the mountain off himself, the Lord caused Og's teeth to lengthen outward, becoming embedded into the mountain that was now surrounding his head. Moses, fulfilling Yahweh's injunction not to fear him, seized a stick of ten cubits length, and jumped a similar vertical distance, succeeding in striking Og in the ankle. Og fell down and died upon hitting the ground.[10] Many great rabbis, notably Shlomo ibn Aderet, have explained this story in an allegorical manner.[citation needed]

 

[SuperCow]

However, modern people with gigantism have various deformities and health problems. They are not able to move, walk, run etc properly (and also die significantly younger than the common population). Even on the photo its visible that the shape of the tall man "is not quite right".

On the other hand, Goliath and other giants in the Bible were described as dangerous warriors, not as basically disabled people. So, if they were literal, they would need to be a different kind of giants.

Putting aside the disability aspect for the moment, the point was that the nephilim didn't have to be 450 feet tall to terrorize people.

 

[SuperCow]

Well, I don't see any reason we cant just understand the text to be describing literal mountain sized giants. Wasn't it Og, the other giant of the Bible that had Extrabiblical literature in which he picked up a literal mountain, and threw it at an enemy army?

from wiki:
The Jewish Talmud embellishes the story, stating that Og was so large that he sought the destruction of the Israelites by uprooting a mountain so large, that it would have crushed the entire Israelite encampment. The Lord caused a swarm of ants to dig away the center of the mountain, which was resting on Og's head. The mountain then fell onto Og's shoulders. As Og attempted to lift the mountain off himself, the Lord caused Og's teeth to lengthen outward, becoming embedded into the mountain that was now surrounding his head. Moses, fulfilling Yahweh's injunction not to fear him, seized a stick of ten cubits length, and jumped a similar vertical distance, succeeding in striking Og in the ankle. Og fell down and died upon hitting the ground.[10] Many great rabbis, notably Shlomo ibn Aderet, have explained this story in an allegorical manner.[citation needed]

Okay, presumably you're talking about Og, king of Bashan in Deuteronomy, not the Og from the Talmud who survived the flood by hanging onto the outside of the ark during the flood of Noah.

In either case, I think this is where you need to use some discernment. The first Og of Bashan has Biblical support that he existed. The second Og does not exist in the Bible. As you quoted from wiki, the story is "embellished" in the Talmud, kind of like historical movies that are made all the time with 20-80% fact and the rest is all made up. Whenever you read Midrash, it needs to be understood that quite often stories have an origin that may have begun from some legitimate source, but have been altered and enhanced to be more interesting to the reader.

The Bible does not specifically say how tall Og was. It only describes in detail the size of his bed. He was probably larger than average, but didn't necessarily fill the bed. Maybe it was built that large just because he could, or perhaps he liked multiple courtesans to serve him at the same time. (as Mel Brookes once put it "It's good to be the king.") Moses pole-vaulting over a mountain at the age of almost 120 years is almost as ridiculous as an earthbound giant that is almost a mile high. (as per the translated meaning of 3000 ells) Remember that when he was 40 years younger Moses needed help holding his arms in the air during a battle with the Amalekites. (Exodus 17:12)

So I can postulate that my choices regarding Enoch's giants are that I can (a) discount the text entirely, (b) expect that significant changes have been made to an ancient record, (c) accept that minor copyist or translator issues have occurred., or (d) I can believe mile high giants once existed and all evidence was destroyed in the flood. Either (c w/minimal errors) or (d) is required to argue for canonicity. However, with (b) or (c) the story can have partial truth, but you then need to really do significant research if you're going to try to use it for anything significant. Otherwise it's just an interesting story.

 

[Job 33:6]

Okay, presumably you're talking about Og, king of Bashan in Deuteronomy, not the Og from the Talmud who survived the flood by hanging onto the outside of the ark during the flood of Noah.

In either case, I think this is where you need to use some discernment. The first Og of Bashan has Biblical support that he existed. The second Og does not exist in the Bible. As you quoted from wiki, the story is "embellished" in the Talmud, kind of like historical movies that are made all the time with 20-80% fact and the rest is all made up. Whenever you read Midrash, it needs to be understood that quite often stories have an origin that may have begun from some legitimate source, but have been altered and enhanced to be more interesting to the reader.

The Bible does not specifically say how tall Og was. It only describes in detail the size of his bed. He was probably larger than average, but didn't necessarily fill the bed. Maybe it was built that large just because he could, or perhaps he liked multiple courtesans to serve him at the same time. (as Mel Brookes once put it "It's good to be the king.") Moses pole-vaulting over a mountain at the age of almost 120 years is almost as ridiculous as an earthbound giant that is almost a mile high. (as per the translated meaning of 3000 ells) Remember that when he was 40 years younger Moses needed help holding his arms in the air during a battle with the Amalekites. (Exodus 17:12)

So I can postulate that my choices regarding Enoch's giants are that I can (a) discount the text entirely, (b) expect that significant changes have been made to an ancient record, (c) accept that minor copyist or translator issues have occurred., or (d) I can believe mile high giants once existed and all evidence was destroyed in the flood. Either (c w/minimal errors) or (d) is required to argue for canonicity. However, with (b) or (c) the story can have partial truth, but you then need to really do significant research if you're going to try to use it for anything significant. Otherwise it's just an interesting story.

Is it not an option to view Enoch as an embellishment, similar to og in the talmud? And my understanding is that og of the talmud is og of bashan.

 

[Job 33:6]

Okay, presumably you're talking about Og, king of Bashan in Deuteronomy, not the Og from the Talmud who survived the flood by hanging onto the outside of the ark during the flood of Noah.

In either case, I think this is where you need to use some discernment. The first Og of Bashan has Biblical support that he existed. The second Og does not exist in the Bible. As you quoted from wiki, the story is "embellished" in the Talmud, kind of like historical movies that are made all the time with 20-80% fact and the rest is all made up. Whenever you read Midrash, it needs to be understood that quite often stories have an origin that may have begun from some legitimate source, but have been altered and enhanced to be more interesting to the reader.

The Bible does not specifically say how tall Og was. It only describes in detail the size of his bed. He was probably larger than average, but didn't necessarily fill the bed. Maybe it was built that large just because he could, or perhaps he liked multiple courtesans to serve him at the same time. (as Mel Brookes once put it "It's good to be the king.") Moses pole-vaulting over a mountain at the age of almost 120 years is almost as ridiculous as an earthbound giant that is almost a mile high. (as per the translated meaning of 3000 ells) Remember that when he was 40 years younger Moses needed help holding his arms in the air during a battle with the Amalekites. (Exodus 17:12)

So I can postulate that my choices regarding Enoch's giants are that I can (a) discount the text entirely, (b) expect that significant changes have been made to an ancient record, (c) accept that minor copyist or translator issues have occurred., or (d) I can believe mile high giants once existed and all evidence was destroyed in the flood. Either (c w/minimal errors) or (d) is required to argue for canonicity. However, with (b) or (c) the story can have partial truth, but you then need to really do significant research if you're going to try to use it for anything significant. Otherwise it's just an interesting story.

All I'm really saying is that, if you read Enoch and it talks about 400 foot giants canabalizing people, you don't have to read it as if it's a straight historical reading of actual events that happened. There may be some historical background in which there were people, maybe they were physically strong, and maybe some of them were cannibals. But, ultimately, it's just not reasonable to run at the text like a modern history textbook that might confuse someone into searching for giant bones in the desert of Iraq.

These texts are better understood as mythological history or theological history etc. they're embellished with really grand and fanciful concepts that were not literally or scientifically accurate. And for that reason, we can say, in a broad sense, no, we don't believe Enoch in any literal or historical sense. Aside from maybe a few brief mentions of Noah or a historical flood event.

 

[Platte]

So I get from what you say here that you believe in the "created mature" theory, that the U came into existence 6k yrs ago looking like a U that existed for 13B yrs or more? Is this what you're saying?

I’m not sure what you mean by “created mature” theory. Never heard of that.
I believe God created things in a functional state. The earth was created in a state that was hospitable and fully functional for Adam and life to live and thrive. Adam was created at an age that would make him functional.

Obviously science agrees that the universe has to be exactly right, mathematically unable to calculate the odds of things lining up just right, for earth to support life like it does.

The universe as we see it is exactly what it should be if you wanted to create a fully functional Earth to support life immediately upon Creation.

 

[SuperCow]

Is it not an option to view Enoch as an embellishment, similar to og in the talmud? And my understanding is that og of the talmud is og of bashan.

Yes, I think the option would be a sub-category of my option (b).

Regarding Og, sources ('m not sure if this if from the Talmud or Midrash) claim that he convinced Noah to let him live outside of the ark (hanging onto it like a life preserver), and Noah agreed and gave him food every day through a hole made in the ark. This would be 800 years before Moses defeated Og of Bashan in Numbers, and retold in Deuteronomy. Personally, I don't believe God would have allowed any Nephilim to survive the flood.

 

[tdidymas]

I’m not sure what you mean by “created mature” theory. Never heard of that.
I believe God created things in a functional state. The earth was created in a state that was hospitable and fully functional for Adam and life to live and thrive. Adam was created at an age that would make him functional.

Obviously science agrees that the universe has to be exactly right, mathematically unable to calculate the odds of things lining up just right, for earth to support life like it does.

The universe as we see it is exactly what it should be if you wanted to create a fully functional Earth to support life immediately upon Creation.

That the U and E and mankind is functional is a given. The question is HOW OLD is the U and the E. You have previously stated that the E is 6k yrs old, not billions. So then, you must be advocating that God created the U 6k yrs ago, for a crass literal interpretation of Gen. 1.

I find it hard to believe that you never heard of the idea that God created all things in a mature state. You said that Adam was created as a young man fully functional. However, you seem to be evading the question about when the U was created. You already said that the E is 6k yrs old.

So I'm trying to get from you what you're avoiding, do you believe in a straight literal interpretation of Gen. 1, as if the whole thing is an instantaneous miracle done in 6 literal 24-hr periods, and the whole U is 6k yrs old. Is this what you believe?

 

[SuperCow]

All I'm really saying is that, if you read Enoch and it talks about 400 foot giants canabalizing people, you don't have to read it as if it's a straight historical reading of actual events that happened. There may be some historical background in which there were people, maybe they were physically strong, and maybe some of them were cannibals. But, ultimately, it's just not reasonable to run at the text like a modern history textbook that might confuse someone into searching for giant bones in the desert of Iraq.

These texts are better understood as mythological history or theological history etc. they're embellished with really grand and fanciful concepts that were not literally or scientifically accurate. And for that reason, we can say, in a broad sense, no, we don't believe Enoch in any literal or historical sense. Aside from maybe a few brief mentions of Noah or a historical flood event.

I would agree for the most part. I do find it interesting, though certain stories have unnatural details for their time period, but coincide with later scientific or religious understanding, meaning they make sense today, but would seem to not make sense back then.

For instance, in the story of Og, the floodwaters and the rain are said to be boiling hot, but God protected the area around the ark. Now why would someone think to add that the flood water was hot? It certainly isn't indicated in Genesis or by anyone's experience with rain. But one of catastrophism models for the flood involves a comet. An argument against a comet being the source of the flood is that as it entered the atmosphere, the friction would heat the water to a lethal point. So could the writer know, was it coincidence, or was this passed down, but never noted in the Bible?

 

[Platte]

That the U and E and mankind is functional is a given. The question is HOW OLD is the U and the E. You have previously stated that the E is 6k yrs old, not billions. So then, you must be advocating that God created the U 6k yrs ago, for a crass literal interpretation of Gen. 1.

I find it hard to believe that you never heard of the idea that God created all things in a mature state. You said that Adam was created as a young man fully functional. However, you seem to be evading the question about when the U was created. You already said that the E is 6k yrs old.

So I'm trying to get from you what you're avoiding, do you believe in a straight literal interpretation of Gen. 1, as if the whole thing is an instantaneous miracle done in 6 literal 24-hr periods, and the whole U is 6k yrs old. Is this what you believe?

The Bible says Creation was approximately 6000 years ago and took God 6 days to complete. That’s what I believe. Adam was not created as a baby, he was created as a man. Whatever age God determine was appropriate for him to be fully functionally. God knew the complete life cycle of Adam - I repeat. God knew the complete life cycle of Adam before he created him. And God chose the appropriate age in his life cycle to create him. As a man. He did the same thing with EVERYTHING that he created. Whether it was a tree, a fruit, an animal, the Earth. God created everything to be fully functional from the beginning. That includes the Universe. God knows the entire life cycle of the universe. And just like He created Adam He created the universe in the perfect point in its life cycle to sustain life on Earth. That’s where the universe is right now - perfect for life on earth. Science will tell you it hasn’t always been that way and won’t always be that way. But it is right now as was created by God 6000 years ago.

 

[trophy33]

So what you’re really saying is that it’s not actually stated in the scriptures. Otherwise you would’ve just quoted that verse.

Its in Scriptures, but you do not have the ability to see it there, without knowing what the text means - what the waters/seas are, what or who is Leviathan, Rahab, why they were/are in a struggle with God etc.

You would need to study it, because Scriptures do not include explanatory notes for modern readers. And I know you do not want to study it, because it would lead to a different view of the Scriptures than the one you are used to.