Is it possible that the earth is only 6,000 or so years old?

[chris4243]

For God, a day can be anything He chooses. For us, reality dictates that it is 23 hrs. 56 min. But the length of the day in Genesis is one literal 24 hr (approx) period. and it has to be that way. Why? Because when Moses established the six day working week with one day of rest it was based upon the creation week; that week was not 7 thousand years long, nor 7 million yrs, nor 7 billion. Such a time frame would be ludicrous for what God intended.

How about when Moses established the 6 years of planting and the 7th year of rest for the land -- are those 24 hour periods too?

 

[jpcedotal]

How about when Moses established the 6 years of planting and the 7th year of rest for the land -- are those 24 hour periods too?

Any farmer knows this works very well for the land. We try to get around this by rotating different crops but in the end, doing it this way produces the most.

the 7th year is 61320 hours plus 24/48 hours depending on how many leap years u catch.

 

[shernren]

As I understand the creation account in Genesis, God is giving us the answer to how we got here. That it was none of it accomplished by natural and scientific processes, but that each and every form in the entire universe that we gaze upon today in our microscopes and telescopes was, in fact, made just as we see it now by the hands of God. It was all made for the purpose, just as the angelic realm was made, by a God who loves and desires to be loved by what He has created in men and angels.

Last I checked, miamited, you're not Adam, and I'm certainly not Eve. So Genesis 1-3 certainly can't be about how we got here, can it?

If you are being accurate with the Scriptures, Genesis 1-3 only talks about Adam and Eve. Does it say "And God said, 'Let there be Cain', and there was Cain"? No, it says:

Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord.” And again, she bore his brother Abel. (Gen 4:1-2a, ESV)​

Don't you wonder what she meant when she said "I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord"? Did God have to teach them how to get jiggy with it? Did He have to be the first midwife, too? But regardless, you will surely agree with me that there was nothing supernatural about the coming of Cain and the coming of Abel. Their origins lie solely in human sex and pregnancy and birth, the way of a man and a maiden - mysterious, to be sure, but surely not in defiance of the laws of physics.

And so it was with your birth, miamited, and mine as well, regardless of what one believes about Adam and Eve - none of us were created in the way that they were. So, ironically, when you try to put these words in our mouths:

I am not a miracle! Sure, sure, the first living molecule of life was probably some miracle of,.... uh, God? But I, me the person sitting here at this computer reading all this ignorant ramblings of some 'born again' believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, I am the form and body of a creature that lived billions of years ago and over naturally, scientifically explainable processes -- turned into me.

you are very accurately expressing your own views. You are not a miracle. Sure, sure, the first two humans were. But you, the person sitting there at that computer, ascribing fictional insults to evolutionists in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,

you are the form and body born out of the sperm and ovum of creatures that lived years or decades ago and over naturally, scientifically explainable processes -- turned into you.

Unless you're saying that it's a miracle that your dad ever had sex with your mum, that's exactly what you must believe as a creationist. Whatever miraculous process was used to make Adam and Eve wasn't used to make you.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Any farmer knows this works very well for the land. We try to get around this by rotating different crops but in the end, doing it this way produces the most.

the 7th year is 61320 hours plus 24/48 hours depending on how many leap years u catch.

His reply was yet another attempt to escape reality. Genesis was talking about the creation of the world, not planting season nor the time of summer fallowing.

But it is such a foolish position. Even if the days of Genesis were meant to be understood as thousands or perhaps millions of years...how could the plant life created on the third day survive until the creation of the sun on the fourth day? Furthermore, animal life was not created until the fifth day so how was the required plant pollination performed? But none of this was a problem in the literal six day scenario that Moses gave us. That time frame would not keep anything from being logically completed.

Nor does his ridiculous notion answer to Gen. 1:14 and the natural divisions of time as God gave them in those words.

 

[Assyrian]

His reply was yet another attempt to escape reality. Genesis was talking about the creation of the world, not planting season nor the time of summer fallowing.

You mean the seven year cycle in the bible with land being left rest on the seventh year isn't based on the same pattern as the Sabbath command?

But it is such a foolish position. Even if the days of Genesis were meant to be understood as thousands or perhaps millions of years...how could the plant life created on the third day survive until the creation of the sun on the fourth day? Furthermore, animal life was not created until the fifth day so how was the required plant pollination performed? But none of this was a problem in the literal six day scenario that Moses gave us. That time frame would not keep anything from being logically completed.

I don't think they are a problem for OECs either. There are problems with the literal six day interpretation, for example, at what time of day does each Genesis day begin?

Nor does his ridiculous notion answer to Gen. 1:14 and the natural divisions of time as God gave them in those words.

Have you read verse 15 along with it too?
Gen 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
How can the lights in the heavens have already been signs for seasons, days and years if not even a day had passed when Genesis says 'And it was so'? Or is verse 15 showing us a lot more time had passed than your literal six day interpretation allows for?

 

[Gozreht]

How about when Moses established the 6 years of planting and the 7th year of rest for the land -- are those 24 hour periods too?

You mean the seven year cycle in the bible with land being left rest on the seventh year isn't based on the same pattern as the Sabbath command?

I don't know about farming. And this may be in refernce to the Sabbath idea, but it is clearly defined by Moses as "year", just as it is clearly defined as "day" in Genesis.

Last I checked, miamited, you're not Adam, and I'm certainly not Eve. So Genesis 1-3 certainly can't be about how we got here, can it?

Now you know he meant that as mankind and not himself specifically. That is a little nit-picky.

There are problems with the literal six day interpretation, for example, at what time of day does each Genesis day begin?

It says there was evening and there was morning, the first day. Then another evening and morning, the second day and so forth. How about 6 PM? Of course that is just a guess . Man came up with the clock. God came up with time. Although He is beyond all conceot of time no matter how we look at it. But the Bible is written for MAN to understand his own beginnings not God's beginning. If this was a time period longer than a day as we know then that night was a long time in darkness. Maybe that was the dark ages...

Have you read verse 15 along with it too?
Gen 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
How can the lights in the heavens have already been signs for seasons, days and years if not even a day had passed when Genesis says 'And it was so'? Or is verse 15 showing us a lot more time had passed than your literal six day interpretation allows for?

Days, not day. These will be a sign for how many days we can count for seasons. There was light even before the sun, this was God. Then He established these two satellites to be set in the sky for these things. If you read it in order word for word it is written very simply.

 

[Assyrian]

Days, not day. These will be a sign for how many days we can count for seasons. There was light even before the sun, this was God. Then He established these two satellites to be set in the sky for these things. If you read it in order word for word it is written very simply.

Days is the the problem, as are seasons and years. How did the lights in the heavens mark out days, seasons and years as Genesis tells us happened before even one day had passed?

 

[WingsLikeEagles]

Could all the scientific evidence that says the earth is around 4.54 billion years old be wrong?

Is it possible that God used super natural methods to create everything and we are unable to measure these?

Is this the best science can do or are scientist blinded by satan to the possiblity that the earth is around 6,000 years old?

Doesn't the bible say that some people's minds are blinded?

Creationists have some very coherent theories that can solve the conundrum for Biblicists. It isn't some "trick" by God to make us doubt His word--it is just the nature of the universe that not everything is as simple as the Old Earthers would have us believe.

 

[Gozreht]

Days is the the problem, as are seasons and years. How did the lights in the heavens mark out days, seasons and years as Genesis tells us happened before even one day had passed?

What do you mean? Scripture says these were created on day 4. Are you asking how was there evening and morning before the sun was created? In verse 3 God created light. And he separated the light from darkness. Then in verse 14 he created lights. Now if he already created light then why would he create lights later? The first light is (in translated english lettering) owr. This means light as opposed to darkness. The second light(s) is maowr which is a more specific light source, like a light bulb. It never says the sun was the source of "LIGHT", but the source of light. Google the term "inflation" with "creation" or "big bang" anf read some resources. It is interesting. Even science says there was a source of light before the sun had developed (created).

 

[Assyrian]

What do you mean? Scripture says these were created on day 4. Are you asking how was there evening and morning before the sun was created? In verse 3 God created light. And he separated the light from darkness. Then in verse 14 he created lights. Now if he already created light then why would he create lights later? The first light is (in translated english lettering) owr. This means light as opposed to darkness. The second light(s) is maowr which is a more specific light source, like a light bulb. It never says the sun was the source of "LIGHT", but the source of light. Google the term "inflation" with "creation" or "big bang" anf read some resources. It is interesting. Even science says there was a source of light before the sun had developed (created).

Where do you get that owr maowr thing I can't see it in the text. It is not what I was talking about though. My question was your interpretation that Genesis 1 takes place in six days, when the lights marking out days and years and seasons suggests much longer was passing. In fact Genesis never actually says the heavens and the earth were created in six days. The nearest in Gen 2:4 which describes everything being created in a single day.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Gozreht;

Did you catch that brilliant bit of wisdom?

How about when Moses established the 6 years of planting and the 7th year of rest for the land -- are those 24 hour periods too?

Why would one suggest such a thing to begin with? We already know from Jewish theology that the Hebrews planted their fields for six years and then summer fallowed their land for one year. WHY therefore, is there any question about such things?

Look at this: Ex 23:12 Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.

Ex 34:21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.

We can tell here by the context that this is six literal days...for no one could work steadily for six years without rest and certainly no one needs a full year of rest. It was the land in consideration in the former (Leviticus 25:3-4) but man in the latter (Exodus 23 & 34).

But the truth is that we are not dealing here with honest people who approach the scriptures with an honesty of heart. Like I said before, they sold their souls to Darwin and so they deliberatey pervert the meanings of scripture in an attempt to save their commitment to Darwinism.

Those who accept lies into their thinking about God's creation end up getting more and more ludicrous in their pronouncements.

 

[chris4243]

Exodus 21:2
[ Hebrew Servants ] “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything.

Leviticus 25
The Sabbath Year
1 The LORD said to Moses at Mount Sinai, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When you enter the land I am going to give you, the land itself must observe a sabbath to the LORD. 3 For six years sow your fields, and for six years prune your vineyards and gather their crops. 4 But in the seventh year the land is to have a year of sabbath rest, a sabbath to the LORD. Do not sow your fields or prune your vineyards. 5 Do not reap what grows of itself or harvest the grapes of your untended vines. The land is to have a year of rest. 6 Whatever the land yields during the sabbath year will be food for you—for yourself, your male and female servants, and the hired worker and temporary resident who live among you, 7 as well as for your livestock and the wild animals in your land. Whatever the land produces may be eaten.

The Year of Jubilee
8 “‘Count off seven sabbath years—seven times seven years—so that the seven sabbath years amount to a period of forty-nine years. 9 Then have the trumpet sounded everywhere on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the Day of Atonement sound the trumpet throughout your land.

Deuteronomy 15:1
[ The Year for Canceling Debts ] At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts.

2 Chronicles 36:21
The land [of captive Israel] enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah.



The weekly Sabbath may have been the most talked about, but there was also a sabbath of 7 years, a super-sabbath of 7 x 7 years, etc. God really likes the number 7, and not only in divisions of 24 hours. But why, I might wonder, do you focus only on the 7 day sabbath?

 

[Gozreht]

Where do you get that owr maowr thing I can't see it in the text. It is not what I was talking about though. My question was your interpretation that Genesis 1 takes place in six days, when the lights marking out days and years and seasons suggests much longer was passing. In fact Genesis never actually says the heavens and the earth were created in six days. The nearest in Gen 2:4 which describes everything being created in a single day.

I get it now. First of all try and see it this way for now, Genesis is not written as a complete linear historical book. It has accounts that are separated and man put them together into one book called Genesis and separated the chapters and verses. The Bible Lessons: (1) Book of Genesis

Chapter 1:1 to 2:3 probably should be the same "book" or chapter. It explains all the beginnings of creation, especially man as in existence. Chapter 2:4-2:25 is the beginning of mankind. It is deeper detailed than chapter 1.

With that said you can also look at the wording. This first account plainly states, [BIBLE]in the beginning[/BIBLE]. In the second account, it states [BIBLE]in the day[/BIBLE]. The first account will use the term day as light/dark. It is about the specific days of creation. The second account uses the term as back in the day. It is about the generic days of creation.

Now take a look at a very important part, 2:1-2:3,

1. Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.
3. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

If 2:4 is still one day, then how was all their vast array done in one day and then talk about the day still going on in 2:4? Answer: these are two different accounts as stated above.

2:2-3 clearly states that God had rested, not rests. The seven days of creation were over. But the time of interaction was about to begin (on day 8 ). So, Genesis does say the earth (and all around it) specifically was created in 6 days.

 

[Gozreht]

Where do you get that owr maowr thing I can't see it in the text.

If you go back to Hebrew, Genesis 1:4 says Let there be light (owr). In verse 16 God created (formed) two lights (maowr).

 

[Assyrian]

If you go back to Hebrew, Genesis 1:4 says Let there be light (owr). In verse 16 God created (formed) two lights (maowr).

OK get you

light:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

is different from

a light:

 

[Gozreht]

Exactly.

 

[Assyrian]

I get it now. First of all try and see it this way for now, Genesis is not written as a complete linear historical book. It has accounts that are separated and man put them together into one book called Genesis and separated the chapters and verses. The Bible Lessons: (1) Book of Genesis

Chapter 1:1 to 2:3 probably should be the same "book" or chapter. It explains all the beginnings of creation, especially man as in existence. Chapter 2:4-2:25 is the beginning of mankind. It is deeper detailed than chapter 1.

With that said you can also look at the wording. This first account plainly states, [bible]in the beginning[/bible]. In the second account, it states [bible]in the day[/bible]. The first account will use the term day as light/dark. It is about the specific days of creation. The second account uses the term as back in the day. It is about the generic days of creation.

I agree with the chapter divisions, though it is not so clear if verse 4 or the first half of verse 4 belongs with the first account. It isn't an issue though, Gen 2:4 shows us is that day was used quite flexibly by people then. Even in chapter one it is used in two different ways, the period of light in 1:5a and including night in the second half of the verse (if it is even speaking literally of course). But my point was that Genesis doesn't say the earth was created in six days or that the days are even consecutive (it actually counts them differently from any other series of day in the OT).

Genesis 2 is a much more comprehensive creation account than simply mankind, it leaves out the sea and sea creatures, but the perspective of the writer seem to be barren wilderness we see in verse 5. Presumably if you lived you life pushing sheep and goats around the desert scrub, the sea and sea creatures wouldn't be foremost on you mind. The account doesn't mention God creating the heavens and the earth (unless you include verse 4 ) but it does look at God creating man and women, animals, birds and plants. It starts of very similarly to Gen 1:2 with God creating order from a barren desolation, only in Genesis 2 it is a dry wilderness rather than a watery one.

Now take a look at a very important part, 2:1-2:3,

1. Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.
3. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

If 2:4 is still one day, then how was all their vast array done in one day and then talk about the day still going on in 2:4? Answer: these are two different accounts as stated above.

2:2-3 clearly states that God had rested, not rests. The seven days of creation were over. But the time of interaction was about to begin (on day 8 ).

No Genesis 2 can't be set in day 8, it is set before there were any plants or animals before God created man and woman. It is another description of God's creation another creation account.

But Gen 2:4 is referring to one of these two accounts when it says: These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. So either the creation in Genesis 1 is being described as in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, or it is the description in chapter 2 of God creating man and woman plants animals and birds. Either way you realise it is not a literal use of the word day, which raises questions about interpretations that insist day has to mean day. Clearly people back then were quite happy speaking in metaphors and using day metaphorically.

So, Genesis does say the earth (and all around it) specifically was created in 6 days.

No it doesn't. People assume it does, but it doesn't say that.

 

[SkyWriting]

No it doesn't. People assume it does, but it doesn't say that.

That's true. People assume that this describes normal days, because of how it reads in these not all that vague terms:

Genesis 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

Genesis 1:8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day.

Genesis 1:13 And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day.

Exodus 19:16 On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast. Everyone in the camp trembled.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

That's true. People assume that this describes normal days, because of how it reads in these not all that vague terms:

The days in Genesis one were literal 24 hr days and they could not be anything else.

 

[Gozreht]

Genesis 2 is a much more comprehensive creation account than simply mankind, it leaves out the sea and sea creatures, but the perspective of the writer seem to be barren wilderness we see in verse 5. Presumably if you lived you life pushing sheep and goats around the desert scrub, the sea and sea creatures wouldn't be foremost on you mind. The account doesn't mention God creating the heavens and the earth (unless you include verse 4 ) but it does look at God creating man and women, animals, birds and plants. It starts of very similarly to Gen 1:2 with God creating order from a barren desolation, only in Genesis 2 it is a dry wilderness rather than a watery one.

Agreed for the most.

No Genesis 2 can't be set in day 8

That was jus a joke. I didn't mean day 8 literally.

But Gen 2:4 is referring to one of these two accounts when it says: These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. So either the creation in Genesis 1 is being described as in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, or it is the description in chapter 2 of God creating man and woman plants animals and birds. Either way you realise it is not a literal use of the word day, which raises questions about interpretations that insist day has to mean day. Clearly people back then were quite happy speaking in metaphors and using day metaphorically.

Agreed, if we are talking about Genesis 2. Genesis 1 is different. I am not excluding metaphors at all but only if the writer is explaining something we can't understand such as parables, prophecy, or poetry. Genesis is none of these. But still some words may have two meanings. Read in context, it all makes sense.

No it doesn't. People assume it does, but it doesn't say that.

I can't see it any other way. Could you explain to me why how it may be something different please?