How old is the world?

[WalterPlinge]

Hello,

I'm Walter and this is my second question with the, "Exploring Christianity" section of this forum. My first one (A Bible Contradiction? Help Please!) received some really helpful replies, so I'm hoping for similar help here.

My question stems from the following argument.

If we say that Jesus is a real, historical person who actually lived in Israel about two thousand years ago doesn't this mean that Adam and Eve had to be real, historical people too? If Jesus heals the rift that was created between God and man in the garden of Eden, then these have to be real, historical events taking place in real locations, don't they?

Assuming that the answers to both of the above are, "Yes", then the account of the Fall from grace has to be a real and historical description of actual events. If that's so, to preserve the integrity of the historical narrative, the account of Creation has to be an accurate description of real and historical events, doesn't it?

This leads me inevitably (as an atheist) to ask the following question.

How old do the members of this forum think the world is?

Thanks,

Walter.


p.s.
If I've messed up in my arguments please correct me!

p.p.s
Depending on the answers I may well ask further questions, o.k.?

 

[Criada]

I agree with your conclusions above.
And many Christians will give you an age for the earth based on the generations mentioned in the Bible.
However, I really don't think that we can know... translation from words of uncertain meaning in terms of time periods and confusion about 'son of'/'descendant of' definitions make it, I think, impossible to know.
And, to be honest I don't think that it matters. The important thing is that God made it.. the when and the how are really irrelevant.

Sorry, that probably doesn't help a great deal!

 

[marktheblake]

How old do the members of this forum think the world is?

Archbishop James Ussher calculated the date of creation at 4004 BC by analysing the geneologies in the scriptures as well as cross referencing with external sources.

So some Christians beleive the world is 6012 years old.

Of course there are criticisms of Ussher, and lesser known alternatives based on scripture but there are criticisms of every theory of the earths age isnt there. (and that doesnt seem to be what you are asking anyway)

 

[Lukaris]

Many of us accept science to explain the basic physical universe as we know it (w/ God as creator) and do not divorce it from our faith. Nonetheless the intellect is subordinate to faith; so if we cannot literally understand all of the Genesis account (since some does agree w/ science as we know it) we leave this to faith. Yet we can look to the explanation of St. Paul in Romans 1 & 2 of sin & the human dilemma to see that what is told in Genesis is fathfully true and see the explanation of the salvation of Jesus Christ in the first verses. So it is from a framework like this that we know our faith & how intellectual knowledge is conformed to it. Hope this is helpful, God bless.

 

[AV1611VET]

How old do the members of this forum think the world is?

4.5 billion years old ± 4.499994000 billion years.

 

[drich0150]

How old is the world?

Older than recorded history will allow us to confirm. So no matter what you believe you will have to use a measure of faith to answer this question..

Whether your faith can be found in the accounts of scripture, or in text books there is no real proof.. Even with carbon dating and all that science has to offer, there isn't any proof of truth, that's why every ten years or so the world keeps getting older and older by billions of years..

 

[BereanTodd]

I personally, for a variety of convictions - both scientific and theistic - do hold to a literal, 6 day creation roughly 6,000 years ago.

That being said I will say that it is entirely possible and consistent with the Scriptural record to hold all of the following:

1. Adam and Eve were the first humans
2. The fall was literal
3. The earth is billions of years old

There are many theories that allow for this - the day-age theory and the gap theory are the most common, but there is also the possibility of the re-creation of the earth in the first couple of verses of Gen 1 also that I have heard others espouse.


Edited to add - I don't believe I have encountered you here in the past Walter, so I also want to point out that I myself grew up completely unchurched - I never set foot in a church in my life. I considered myself an atheist. When I first came to faith in Christ I held to what is generally called "theistic evolution". Again, both through theological and scientific evidences and studies since then I have grown to hold the opinion that I now espoused above.

 

[ebia]

Hello,

I'm Walter and this is my second question with the, "Exploring Christianity" section of this forum. My first one (A Bible Contradiction? Help Please!) received some really helpful replies, so I'm hoping for similar help here.

My question stems from the following argument.

If we say that Jesus is a real, historical person who actually lived in Israel about two thousand years ago doesn't this mean that Adam and Eve had to be real, historical people too?

No.

If Jesus heals the rift that was created between God and man in the garden of Eden, then these have to be real, historical events taking place in real locations, don't they?

No. It has to be a real problem, but the story that describes that problem can be "literal" or "metaphorical" (to oversimplify).

Assuming that the answers to both of the above are, "Yes", then the account of the Fall from grace has to be a real and historical description of actual events. If that's so, to preserve the integrity of the historical narrative, the account of Creation has to be an accurate description of real and historical events, doesn't it?

Since I answered no, this doesn't apply.

This leads me inevitably (as an atheist) to ask the following question.

How old do the members of this forum think the world is

I would use science, not the bible, to try to answer that question. The bible is a theology book, not a science book.

 

[solarwave]

If we say that Jesus is a real, historical person who actually lived in Israel about two thousand years ago doesn't this mean that Adam and Eve had to be real, historical people too? If Jesus heals the rift that was created between God and man in the garden of Eden, then these have to be real, historical events taking place in real locations, don't they?

Assuming that the answers to both of the above are, "Yes", then the account of the Fall from grace has to be a real and historical description of actual events. If that's so, to preserve the integrity of the historical narrative, the account of Creation has to be an accurate description of real and historical events, doesn't it?

How old do the members of this forum think the world is?

I don't believe this is true. I think it is fair to say that somethings in books are real and in the same book some things may be symbolic. I believe this is true of the Bible. Unless you believe that humans 4000 years ago could understand how the universe was actually created, then it is fair to say symbolism is needed to explain this. Also the Bible is not a science book, it is a book of mans relationship with God, therefore the point of the creation story is on God and man, not how exactly it happened. Jesus was a real man (even if you dont believe He was God) and there is good reason to believe He lived a life roughly how the Bible describes, whereas there isn't evidence for and 'Adam and Eve' and science says the universe is millions of years old. I tend to side with science and christianity, they dont conflict, they help each other.

I do believe that thought the creation story isn't literally true, it can be spoke of as true when used to explain things. This is because the meaning of the story is true even if the exact events arn't.

In conclusion I believe that the world is millions of years old and that this fits in with the biblical creation story.

 

[WalterPlinge]

Thank you one and all for your replies.

So far they certainly represent a wide spectrum of views.

To quote from an original Star Trek episode...

Nomad to Captain Kirk, "There is much to consider here."

I do believe that I'll take some time to think on your responses before returning to this thread.

Thanks again,

Walter.

 

[GoodNewsJim]

Its hard to say how old the world is.

How long is a day before the Sun was created?

 

[marktheblake]

How long is a day before the Sun was created?

Good point, there is a flaw in your logic though we dont need the sun to determine a day.

In any case, is there any reason why God needed a long period of time to create the earth? He could have done it in an *instant, but no, he chose to take 7 days (inc the rest day) as a teaching for us.

*instant: from God's perspective it didnt take God any period of time to create the earth. years, Days, instant and whatever is a constraint of time and God is not limited by time, he is timeless.

 

[Refurbished]

Hi Walter Plinge,

Your reasoning is sound and follows very logically. It's ironic, an atheist understands the Gospel message more accurately than many Christians...

I believe that the earth roughly six thousand years old, as can be calculated by the genealogies in the Bible that show the linage from Adam through to Jesus.

 

[WalterPlinge]

Hi Walter Plinge,

Your reasoning is sound and follows very logically. It's ironic, an atheist understands the Gospel message more accurately than many Christians...

I believe that the earth roughly six thousand years old, as can be calculated by the genealogies in the Bible that show the linage from Adam through to Jesus.

Hello Refurbished!

Thanks for replying.

Also thanks for checking out the reasoning in my initial proposition.

Umm, yes. I do find it puzzling that some folks here don't seem to see that a real, historical Jesus requires a real, historical Fall from Grace. To keep the internal consistency and accuracy of the Bible, this is an absolute necessity.

Perhaps that is a step too far for some people.

The catch, as I see it, is that if you accept that Jesus died for your sins, surely you should accept that he also lived - making him a real, historical person like Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte or Nelson Mandela?

This naturally leads to the next step...
Do you believe that Jesus died just for your sins or for ALL sin, including those you've inherited. If the answer is, "Yes" then you surely have to acknowledge the existence of inherited sin, originating all the way back to the Fall from Grace?

At this point I'm sure a lot of people will have second thoughts.
Saying, "Yes" to the above requires them to also say, "Yes" to the fact that there was a real and historical event where the perfect and innocent relationship between God and man was ruined.

Opt-out routes from this decision point usually run along the following lines...

* I believe in inherited sin but not that it originated in the way the Bible describes.

* The distant past remains too unknown to definitely say that this event happened and / or that it happened the way the Bible describes.

* It's wrong to look at Genesis as a guide to real, historical events; these passages should be understood metaphorically or symbolically.

* The Bible is not a Science book so it's wrong to use it as such to say meaningful things about Creation and the origin of human beings.

Now I could go on to point out the problems attending these four points but I feel that it's only fair to give others the chance to respond. Therefore I'll wait a bit to see what's said before replying further.

Thanks,

Walter.

 

[RyanLeeParis]

Don't believe everything you hear, just because some people in white coats believe it. The Bible says the Earth is about 2,000 years old. Would you believe God, the creator of time and the material world, or a mere human?

 

[Refurbished]

Hey WalterPlinge,

Do you believe that Jesus died just for your sins or for ALL sin, including those you've inherited. If the answer is, "Yes" then you surely have to acknowledge the existence of inherited sin, originating all the way back to the Fall from Grace?

Hmm, I don't believe that I will be held accountable for anyone else's sins other than my own. For example, I don't believe that I am held accountable for Adam's sin. I believe that as the head representative of the entire human race, through his sin all human beings as represented by him forfeited their right to life and our natures have been tainted to turn away from God.

I'm not certain that we are born with sin (what some could call inherited sin), because then how could infants who die go to heaven? Furthermore, how could God judge them? That's my personal opinion though - maybe it's special grace, who knows? I guess it's like what my mum used to say, "If you were there you would've done the same thing as Adam" and it's true ... not a single day passes that we do not face the same test that was set before Adam and not a day goes by when I flunk at least 50% of 'em.

I believe that we aren't sinners because we sin, rather, we sin because we are sinners. Not necessarily because we inherit Adam's sin, but because (IMHO) our nature has been tainted against God such that our actions result from that tendency.

The Calvinist view is what you described. I'm not that extreme in my theology to believe that I have inherited sin in addition to a sinful nature, though that said, I could be wrong and I'm not even certain about it myself. One site (Got Questions Ministries) that I often use for information seems to support the Calvinist view, but I personally am not that sure... Either way, the result is the same: I'm a sinner who is unable to save or change himself... and it still requires humanity's fall otherwise God would be to blame for creating us with tainted or sinful natures and that doesn't sound like the God I read about.

 

[solarwave]

Umm, yes. I do find it puzzling that some folks here don't seem to see that a real, historical Jesus requires a real, historical Fall from Grace. To keep the internal consistency and accuracy of the Bible, this is an absolute necessity.

Perhaps that is a step too far for some people.

The catch, as I see it, is that if you accept that Jesus died for your sins, surely you should accept that he also lived - making him a real, historical person like Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte or Nelson Mandela?

This naturally leads to the next step...
Do you believe that Jesus died just for your sins or for ALL sin, including those you've inherited. If the answer is, "Yes" then you surely have to acknowledge the existence of inherited sin, originating all the way back to the Fall from Grace?

I believe Jesus was a real person who died for my sins, and that humans did fall from grace, but that the way it is told in the Bible is a way for us to understand what happened easily. A seven day creation does not need to be literally real to be true, but the meaning must be true. Revelation doesn't need to be literally true for the Bible to be true does it.

Its sad that some scientists feel they need to disprove Christianity and some Christians feel they need to disprove science to justify belief. Science was/is another way to glorify God and can work with the Bible not against it.

 

[ebia]

Hello Refurbished!

Thanks for replying.

Also thanks for checking out the reasoning in my initial proposition.

Umm, yes. I do find it puzzling that some folks here don't seem to see that a real, historical Jesus requires a real, historical Fall from Grace. To keep the internal consistency and accuracy of the Bible, this is an absolute necessity.

You might see it as a necessity - most of the world's Christians don't. By the way, it's polite to address your points to the people to which they apply.

Perhaps that is a step too far for some people.

It's not a question of a step too far, it's a question of recognising what sort of literature each part of the bible is.

The catch, as I see it, is that if you accept that Jesus died for your sins, surely you should accept that he also lived - making him a real, historical person like Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte or Nelson Mandela?

There's absolutely no doubt Jesus was an historical person.

This naturally leads to the next step...
Do you believe that Jesus died just for your sins or for ALL sin, including those you've inherited. If the answer is, "Yes" then you surely have to acknowledge the existence of inherited sin, originating all the way back to the Fall from Grace?[/quote]
Depends what you mean by "inherited sin". "Fall" is a very real problem, but the stories in the early part of Genesis are stories that explain it, not historical/scientific accounts in any kind of modernistic sense.

At this point I'm sure a lot of people will have second thoughts.
Saying, "Yes" to the above requires them to also say, "Yes" to the fact that there was a real and historical event where the perfect and innocent relationship between God and man was ruined.

Opt-out routes from this decision point usually run along the following lines...

It's not an opt-out route because it never accepts the highly mechanistic, blank-and-white assuptions that your logic is based on in the first place. There no more needs to be an identifiable first human sin in theology than there needs to be an identifiable first human being in evolutionary theory.

The separation between God and us because of our behaviour (individual and collective) is best told as a story because stories are the best way of telling that kind of stuff. A modernistic world that has forgotten that and that thinks facts are more important that meaning, will always get its knickers in twist reading ancient literature. Biblical or otherwise.

* I believe in inherited sin but not that it originated in the way the Bible describes.

The Genesis 1-11 is a set of stories that describes it, not a factual account of it.

* It's wrong to look at Genesis as a guide to real, historical events; these passages should be understood metaphorically or symbolically.

Of course they should - though metaphor and symbol aren't the best way of expressing that.

* The Bible is not a Science book

of course it's not.

so it's wrong to use it as such to say meaningful things about Creation and the origin of human beings.

Genesis says all the important stuff about creation and the origins of human beings. It just isn't doing so from the point of view of (modernistic) history or science.

 

[WalterPlinge]

I believe Jesus was a real person who died for my sins, and that humans did fall from grace, but that the way it is told in the Bible is a way for us to understand what happened easily. A seven day creation does not need to be literally real to be true, but the meaning must be true. Revelation doesn't need to be literally true for the Bible to be true does it.

Its sad that some scientists feel they need to disprove Christianity and some Christians feel they need to disprove science to justify belief. Science was/is another way to glorify God and can work with the Bible not against it.

Hello Solarwave, Ebia & Refurbished.

Thanks for replying. (Sorry about my impolite messaging. I'll address that from now on.)

Please note that while I may be an atheist I'm not actually taking the scientific line for or against Genesis in this thread. I'm more interested in how accurately the forum members think the reported events in that book are. Hence my initial question, "How old do you think the world is?"

What is still puzzling me is the apparent divergence of thought amongst believers as to the factuality of the whole Bible.

Perhaps, before we can discuss Genesis, the Fall and inherited sin it might be best to see how we stand on the reality, factuality and historicity of Jesus Christ. If we can establish common ground here maybe we can then look at other parts of the Bible.

Please note that I'm not trying to be mechanistic or to take a black-and-white view of things. Rather, I'm trying to gain a better understanding of Christianity's basic tenets, which are based on the words of the Bible. While the symbolic and metaphoric meanings of some passages are up for interpretation surely the historical reportage of events, people and places is not? Surely that way undermines the value of the Gospels as accurate documents of historic events and converts them to a collection of tales that might be true and which you can interpret as you like?

So, am I right in thinking that the historical authenticity and reality of Jesus is fully accepted by Christians? They believe that he was a real person who was born, lived and died in what is now Israel, about two thousand years ago. The Gospel accounts of his life are taken to be accurate reportage of real events involving real people in real places. This accuracy and realism is what persuades many that he was not just a man but the Son of God.

Yes, when he preaches he uses symbolism and metaphor to explain his meanings, but many Christians do not think of his crucifixion as a metaphor - they understand that he really was nailed to a cross and died there, rising from the dead three days later. Acceptance of these events as fact is one of the basic tenets of the Christian faith, isn't it?

A Christian who puts their faith in Jesus becomes a "new creation" and is "born again" of the Holy Spirit. Are these metaphorical concepts or are they actual and real events that happened in the lives of true believers? Christians I've spoken to know the exact date, time and location they became new creations. For them this was a real event in the history of their lives. Take the Apostle Paul. His conversion event is documented in the Book of Acts. Is this meant to be taken metaphorically?

The change of his name from Saul to Paul, his ministry to the Gentiles, his letters to the churches and his many travels are all taken as real events and accepted as the early history of the Christian church. Historical fact or metaphor?

I accept that Jesus, Paul and other N.T. spoke in parables, used metaphors, symbols and other devices to explain their message, but the underlying factuality of their existence, lives and writings aren't in dispute, are they?

So can we agree on these matters?
Is the historical reality of all that Jesus did common ground for us to build upon?

Assuming so perhaps the next step would be to examine why he died on the cross? As you will have read earlier in this thread, I contend that Christ's death and resurrection (real, historical events) are God's response to the real and historical event where our relationship with Him was broken.

I look forward to your replies.

Thanks,

Walter.


p.s.

Dear Ebia,

I'm sorry but I must disagree with what you say here...

"There no more needs to be an identifiable first sin in theology than there needs to be an identifiable first human being in evolutionary theory."

Here's why...

Evolutionary theory does not posit the existence of a first human being in the sense of a first man and a first woman. Rather, it says that humans descended from a larger gene pool (several thousands of individuals perhaps) of primates. One of the main evolutionary objections to Adam and Eve being the first humans is the lack of genetic diversity two people would have. A much larger gene pool of several thousand is required to prevent inbreeding and rapid extinction.

No doubt we can discuss the concept of first sin in future postings.

Thanks,

Walter.

 

[solarwave]

Christ and His life, death and resurrection must be real and to be a Christian you have to believe this at that least, it is the center point of Christianity. I believe that the stories in the Gospels were real historical events that really took place in Israel about 2000 years ago.

When you accept Jesus, choose to follow Him and are filled with the Holy Spirit you become a 'new creation'/ 'born again'. I think this is a real thing that happens since belief in Jesus Christ has changed so many lives. I also think that the events of all of the Old and New Testament are real events except for parts of Genesis and the book of Revelation.

Jesus was a real person in history, regardless or whether you follow the Bible or not.

Jesus died on the cross to pay the price for our sins so that all we would have to do to go to heaven is to ask forgiveness. This also allows someone to personally know God and breaks the divide between man and God.