Where is a "6000 year old earth" found in scripture?

[Lollerskates]

There's actually no periods and hebrew, and some days have more than one sentence even in english translations. That Genesis 1:1 is someone separated from the rest of the chapter is a made up modern view with the purpose of enabling the millions of years secular naturalists believe in.

And yes, the creation week is the absolute beginning for the world.

There are no periods/marginal punctuation but there is context. It would be a lie, and a deception to say that the Bible is compiled in a way that it required advanced Hebrew knowledge in history and language to understand - after translated. God won't let His word become a labyrinth of language, no matter who tried to mess with it.

It is very clear that the earth was created in the beginning, with HEAVEN. It is also clear earth was created before God separated light, made the celestial bodies, and even before a day was designated (evening, morning). No literal gymnastics needed. Even in the many definitions of the Hebrew - the deeper meanings - a child can still gather that there is a chronology in Genesis: a sequence. Earth and Heaven were here before it all.

 

[Lollerskates]

An issue? It just says that light predated the sun, which I believe. God is light.

The earth became without form; it wasn't made that way. God separated the light from darkness (or[e] and choshek.) Or[e] means "illumination in every way." Choshek" means dark, like sunset, but it also means destruction, ignorance, dread, terror... Without the presence of any heavenlies, the definitions including heavenlies becomes, dare I sail it, void.

If you read the passage in a straightforward way, without an agenda, there was a light source prior to day 4. This was likely emanating from God Himself, or from angels who are called beings of light. Or it could have been another unspecified light source.

But the only real issue is, do you believe the Genesis account? Or do you trust man's version of origins?

Yes, angels and God, but then by context darkness is some"one" else. Again, the earth became void, it was not made that way.

I believe the Genesis account, which is why I do not believe the earth is 6000 years old, or even quantitatively aged. 5,000,000,000 years is the best estimate, but I do not agree with evolution either.

 

[Calminian]

There are no periods/marginal punctuation but there is context.

Indeed.

It would be a lie, and a deception to say that the Bible is compiled in a way that it required advanced Hebrew knowledge in history and language to understand….

I would agree. The english translation we have is all you need to properly understand the simple message of Genesis. You're the one that brought up the hebrew.

It is very clear that the earth was created in the beginning, with HEAVEN.

You are correct. As Moses said, the heaven, land and sea were all made in the 6 days—the beginning.

It is also clear earth was created before God separated light, made the celestial bodies, and even before a day was designated (evening, morning).

Yes, it seems to be very clear that the unformed, unfilled earth and unfilled and unexpanded heaven were created on day 1, even before there was light. Day one, (yom ehod) contains the acs of God from v.1 to v.5.

No literal gymnastics needed. Even in the many definitions of the Hebrew - the deeper meanings - a child can still gather that there is a chronology in Genesis: a sequence. Earth and Heaven were here before it all.

Was here all before what? If you're still trying to prove a gap, you've failed miserably. There is no gap. There's nothing in the english or hebrew text to imply it. There is a paragraph mark (added by the Masoretes) in the hebrew after v.5 and paragraph marks after the other days as well, but no paragraph mark after v.1. Obviously the Masoretes didn't see a gap either. Thus verse one is included as the events that took place on day one.

The creation of the sky and the land is precisely what is described in the 1st chapter of Genesis. A child can see this. Only an intellectual wanting to fit billions of years into the story would come up with a gap.

 

[Lollerskates]

Indeed.



I would agree. The english translation we have is all you need to properly understand the simple message of Genesis. You're the one that brought up the hebrew.



You are correct. As Moses said, the heaven, land and sea were all made in the 6 days—the beginning.



Yes, it seems to be very clear that the unformed, unfilled earth and unfilled and unexpanded heave were created on day 1. Day one, (yom ehod) contains the acs of God from v.1 to v.5.



We all before what? If you're still truing to prove a gap, you've failed miserably. There is not gap. There's nothing in the english or hebrew text to imply it. There is a paragraph mark (added by the Masoretes) in the hebrew after v.5 and paragraph marks after the other days as well, but now paragraph mark after v.1. Thus verse one is included as the events that took place on day one.

The creation of the sky and the land is precisely what is described in the 1st chapter of Genesis. A child can see this. Only an intellectual wanting to fit billions of years into the story would come up with a gap.

Day (yom) means morning and evening, but when there is no sun or moon, what is it then? Yom also means age, a period of time, era, etc. Again, in the absence of a subject, the definition including the subject becomes void. I am not suggesting gaps; I am saying what it is. The heaven and earth were made before any day was mentioned. Before the generic definition of a day was given. There was even evening and morning before a sun and moon. You don't have to suggest what is already there.

 

[Calminian]

Day (yom) means morning and evening, but when there is no sun or moon, what is it then?

As long as there is a morning and evening, there was a day. That God chose to change that source to the sun on day 4 should be no problem for Him. He's God.

Yom also means age, a period of time, era, etc.

You're back to the hebrew again, but it's completely unnecessary. Day in english can also be age. "My grandfather's day." There's no need to cite the hebrew as if there's some nuance there that can't be seen in english. Any word in any language can be used in figurative ways.

I am saying what it is. The heaven and earth were made before any day was mentioned….

Absolutely true, and every young earther would agree with you. But if you're implying that the filled heavens and formed earth were made before or on day one, you haven't pulled that front the text. The earth was created formless and void and the heavens unexpanded. We then see the expansion and forming and filling in the subsequent days.

day 2 expanding of the heavens
day 3 forming of dry land and sea
day 4 filling of the heavens with the luminaries
days 5-6, the filling of the land and sea with their hosts

It's very clear that the heavens in verse 1 is the same heavens of day 2, and the earth of verse 1, is the same earth of day 3. This is what happened in the beginning.

What you're implying is there is a undefined gap between the moment creation started, and the moment day one started. This of course cannot be derived from the text.

 

[KWCrazy]

Day (yom) means morning and evening, but when there is no sun or moon, what is it then?

There was light and a solid planet which was dense enough to separate light from darkness. That is the only requirement. Any light source would do.

Yom also means age, a period of time, era, etc.

Never with a named day or with evening and morning; twice never with both.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi skywriting,

Yes, I will absolutely allow, as I always have, that there may be an error factor of a couple of hundred years.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Does that apply to the length of creation week? Or how old Jesus was when the wise men visited? Or how long Moses was on the mountain?

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi skywriting,

Jesus didn't have to. God had already done that. Jesus didn't discuss a lot of things that God had already commanded and revealed. For example, Jesus didn't mention that the whole earth was flooded, nor did he discuss the parting of the sea outside of Egypt. Jesus didn't speak about the sun standing still or even going back in its course. Jesus didn't talk about Balaam's donkey speaking to him. Jesus didn't discuss with anyone how long Israel was in captivity in Egypt.

Just because Jesus didn't mention something doesn't offer any proof of the validity of all of God's word. Jesus only came to show us the way, not to rehash all that his Father had already revealed to us. He dealt more with the reality of how we are to live our lives not retelling all of the truths of the past. Although, on a few occasions he did harken back to earlier things.

You post a cute little cartoon of Jesus defeating Satan saying, 'rats. I lost this fight a million years ago.' How do you know it was a million years ago that Satan lost the fight?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

All those thing are for the Jews of Jesus day to debate in synagogue. None of those things are part of the Gospel message or part of evangelism.

Those are the kind of weird details that Jehovahs Witnesses use to evangelize.

The million years reference on my cartoon was not a biblical quote. "Before time began" would be more appropriate.

 

[SkyWriting]

Exactly right, Ted. And Jesus did say that man and woman existed from the beginning of creation (Mark 10:6). This rules out the gap between Gen. 1:1 and1:2 that so many are clinging to.

Mark 10:6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’​

The question then becomes, do we believe Him? For if you're trying to harmonize the Bible with the modern naturalistic model, man was created at the very end of the creation. In fact we're just a spec. at the end of the cosmological timescale. But Christ disagreed. He believed that God created the heavens and earth and all in them in 6 days. In fact, He is the God that created the heavens earth and sea and all them them.

I also go for the 6 days, but one instant is more likely. Evidently God wanted to teach us that the 7 day model would work best for us.

And theologically, you have to decide if death and suffering came from Adam's sin, or was part of the very good creation.

From sin of course.

answersingenesis

These are the real issues that old earth creationists have to deal with.

The answers are not at the Creation Science cult site. I say that kindly because those cult leaders showed me that Creation was not young in the plain and simple reading of it.

Now, Sky, you keep bring up the Watchtower, but you still don't realize that your position is identical to theirs.

Only in cases where you are guessing at my position.

Just as Jesus turned water into wine and caused the blind to see:

The Cosmos was created in 6 days and it was good (Age appropriate for the task at hand.)​

 

[SkyWriting]

There is nothing in the Bible, old testament or new, which is consistent with an old earth or evolution.

Breeding techniques are not important though the topic is covered lightly.

All descriptions of the earth in are of an age appropriate earth.
The trees bearing fruit, the dirt (made up of "years" of organic matter)
the fruit ready to eat, the stars in the sky, the light from the stars,
the mountains, even the apparent age of Adam and Eve.
All consistent with and "old" earth, not young.

The genealogies of the Bible are very specific and show us with very little room for error what the age of the earth is according to the Lord.

Not correct. 100's of years variation. Which show us that the years should not be estimated.

For those who try to sneak billions of years into Genesis 1,

I'm just trying to sneak a few months of aged wine into this story, can you give me a few months to age some wine then?

1 On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”...Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim. Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.” They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”


So if you accept aged wine in a moment,
then you can accept an aged earth in 6 days.

 

[Calminian]

...The answers are not at the Creation Science cult site….

What is a creation cult site?

Only in cases where you are guessing at my position.

You've advocated old earth creationism in the past. Have you changed your mind?

 

[miamited]

Does that apply to the length of creation week? Or how old Jesus was when the wise men visited? Or how long Moses was on the mountain?

Hi SW,

No. What gets 'messy' in counting up the time of the existence of this realm is not so much the early account of the years of the genealogies from Adam to Moses, but rather the years since then. It begins to get a little more difficult as we muddle through all the judges and then the kings of Israel up until Jesus first coming, to have a really accurate account of the years. But, there is plenty of extrabiblical evidence that we can then look to to confirm, within a few years, of these times.

The creation week doesn't have that problem. How old Jesus was when the wise men visited him isn't even hinted at. How long Moses was on the mountain is also a specific given.

All those thing are for the Jews of Jesus day to debate in synagogue. None of those things are part of the Gospel message or part of evangelism.

Those are the kind of weird details that Jehovahs Witnesses use to evangelize.

The million years reference on my cartoon was not a biblical quote. "Before time began" would be more appropriate.

Oh, I absolutely agree that none of these issues are a part of the gospel message or necessarily an integral part of anyone's evangelizing, but I wasn't aware that we were limiting our knowledge and discussion to these two areas of the Scriptures. As I understand what the Scriptures teach us, based on the writings of the new covenant writers, the gospel message and evangelizing are for the lost. The wisdom and knowledge of the whole of the Scriptures is for those who are being saved. I'm allowing myself to 'assume' that the general poster on these 'christian only' threads are for those who are a part of the second group. Of course, I will always allow, that for any specific individual on these boards, that may or may not be the case.

I disagree with you that these kinds of weird details are more in line with JW's use to evangelize. As I have just said, I wasn't aware that we were only developing ideas that would apply to evangelizing, but rather seeking for the deeper things of God, as Paul wrote. The meat and potatoes and not the pablum of babes. The title of this thread is: where is a 6,000 year old earth found in Scripture? I guess I missed all the 'qualifiers' that said this information should only be based on the gospel or the work of evangelizing. My apologies if I stepped outside of the scope of this discussion.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Calminian]

...As I understand what the Scriptures teach us, based on the writings of the new covenant writers, the gospel message and evangelizing are for the lost. The wisdom and knowledge of the whole of the Scriptures is for those who are being saved….

Hmmm. Not to get too off-topic, but I would disagree actually. If you solely define the gospel as "good news" this is not sufficient to reach the lost. Before one understands the good news, he has to be told the bad news (through the foolishness of preaching). Paul understood this very well when he met the philosophers at Mars Hill. Instead of going right to the good news, he actually went back to Genesis, and preached the bad news of their history and origins (Acts 17). And interestingly enough, when the philosophers rejected his message of the bad news, Paul left them, and didn't bother with the good news. Some of those who believed the bad news followed Paul, and were saved, but Paul knew it was futile to give the good news to someone who doesn't believe the bad news.

Ken Ham has been trying to get the modern church to understand this for 30 years. It's one of the biggest failures of the modern church—skipping the bad news of our origins and going right to the good news. Christ is a stumbling block to the jews, but foolishness to the greeks.

Many in Paul's day had the foundation of the Genesis history, and therefore needed nothing but the message of Christ and him crucified. But that was not everybody. Many did not have that foundation, and desperately needed to hear it, such as the philosophers at Mars Hill. Today, those are Americans and it's frustrating that the church refuses to explain the bad news to them. They have a totally different view of origins, and do not understand the concept of a fallen world. In fact, most churches will tell them that this is exactly how God intend the world to be. They have no concept of what sin is, and what it's affects are.

Leaving the Genesis message out of evangelism is a terrible mistake.

 

[miamited]

All descriptions of the earth in are of an age appropriate earth.
The trees bearing fruit, the dirt (made up of "years" of organic matter)
the fruit ready to eat, the stars in the sky, the light from the stars,
the mountains, even the apparent age of Adam and Eve.

Hi SW,

Maybe I don't understand your position. You believe that God can just say: "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds", that what He actually caused to immediately exist were seeds in the ground that 'became' grass and trees and bushes and so forth?

That when God commanded the earth to exist there wasn't any dirt because the trees and foliage hadn't yet been created that would, over years, degrade into dirt through the natural processes of organic material, which wouldn't ever happen because there wouldn't ever be any foliage to degrade unless there was foliage, but there can't be foliage because there is no dirt, but there can't be dirt because there is no foliage.

Let me ask you: When God commanded the foliage to 'be', what were the seeds or roots of that foliage in?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hmmm. I would disagree actually. If you solely define the gospel as "good news" this is not sufficient to reach the lost. Before one understands the good news, he has to be told the bad news (through the foolishness of preaching). Paul understood this very well when he met the philosophers at Mars Hill. Instead of going right to the good news, he actually went back to Genesis, and preached the bad news of their history and origins (Acts 17). And interestingly enough, when the philosophers rejected his message of the bad news, Paul left them, and didn't bother with the good news. Some of those who believed the bad news followed Paul, and were saved, but Paul knew it was futile to give the good news to someone who doesn't believe the bad news.

Ken Ham has been trying to get the modern church to understand this for 30 years. It's one of the biggest failures of the modern church—skipping the bad news of our origins and going right to the good news.

Many in Paul's day had the foundation of the Genesis history, and therefore needed nothing but the message of Christ and him crucified. But that was not everybody. Many did not have that foundation, and desperately needed to hear it, such as the philosophers at Mars Hill. Today, those are Americans and it's frustrating that the church refuses to explain the bad news to them.

Hi Cal,

I'm trying to stick with what seems to be SW's limited view of 'what' constitutes the gospel. However, I am in agreement that what the Scriptures call the gospel can be defined as much more. For example:

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Mark seems to have claimed that there was a beginning of the gospel 'about Jesus Christ'. He then draws back on some of the prophecies concerning Jesus and John the baptist. So, here it seems clear that the gospel, at least the gospel of Jesus, does revolve primarily around only that which speaks directly to and about Jesus.

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God--

Now, Paul speaks of the gospel of God and we know that he went well beyond just the account of Jesus in much of his teaching. He spoke about the beginning of the creation of this realm and how men had constantly and continually turned away from God since that day.

We need to understand that 'gospel' is just the word of that day for 'good news'. Yes, absolutely, God has given us good news and so has Jesus come to deliver good news. SW, however, seems to feel that the word 'gospel' only applies to the work and sacrifice of Jesus.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Calminian]

I didn't want to stray too far off either. I've just evolved a bit on this (forgive the pun). I truly believe creationism is for the lost world, as well as for the church—particularly the issue of the approximate age of the earth—specifically in regard to no death preceding Adam's sin. I don't think the exact number of years is an issue, but the relative youth of the world is definitely part of it.

On a bigger scale, however, I believe the message of creationism needs to be embraced by the church in order for it to have an impact on the world. I think reformation needs to precede revival.

But on a personal scale, bad news creationism is a great introduction to the good news.

 

[KWCrazy]

All descriptions of the earth in are of an age appropriate earth.
The trees bearing fruit, the dirt (made up of "years" of organic matter)
the fruit ready to eat, the stars in the sky, the light from the stars,
the mountains, even the apparent age of Adam and Eve.
All consistent with and "old" earth, not young.

And all created by the end of the calendar day, as designated by "The evening and the morning were the fourth day."
The earth was created in its matures state. All the animals were created as adults. The trees were created intact. The birds were created in their multitudes and the waters were filled with life by immediate creation.

Exodus 20:11
"11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." - God

 

[miamited]

Hi Cal,

In all of that, I am in agreement with you. I believe that the understanding of the truth and foundation of the creation account gives one the correct understanding of the true awe and power and glory of who God is and what He can do and what He has done.

I just snicker when I discuss with old earthers this idea that we can measure the age of the earth by our ability to see the light of stars that are a bzillion light years from us. I know in my heart that they have no real understanding of this power, glory and wisdom of the God who created this realm for the express purpose that the magnum opus of His creating abilities displayed in this realm (us) would have an eternal home where we can and will live. But, God will, one last time. display that awesome power and glory to everyone when He rolls up the heavens like a scroll. He laid it out like the unrolling of a scroll and He will close it all up again like the unrolling of a scroll.

The revelation tells us that God will roll up the heavens and that there will no longer be need of the light of the sun or moon. It may well be that when we enter the eternal existence, when we look up from the earth, all we will see is nothing but black empty space. Won't the scientists then be confounded in trying to answer how life can exist upon the earth? Although, He then goes on to explain that He will make a new heaven and a new earth. He is going to make everything new according to His promise to us. We will just have to wait and see just exactly how that all works out.

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

 

[Calminian]

Hi Cal,

In all of that, I am in agreement with you. I believe that the understanding of the truth and foundation of the creation account gives one the correct understanding of the true awe and power and glory of who God is and what He can do and what He has done.

I just snicker when I discuss with old earthers this idea that we can measure the age of the earth by our ability to see the light of stars that are a bzillion light years from us. I know in my heart that they have no real understanding of this power, glory and wisdom of the God who created this realm for the express purpose that the magnum opus of His creating abilities displayed in this realm (us) would have an eternal home where we can and will live. But, God will, one last time. display that awesome power and glory to everyone when He rolls up the heavens like a scroll. He laid it out like the unrolling of a scroll and He will close it all up again like the unrolling of a scroll.

The revelation tells us that God will roll up the heavens and that there will no longer be need of the light of the sun or moon. It may well be that when we enter the eternal existence, when we look up from the earth, all we will see is nothing but black empty space. Won't the scientists then be confounded in trying to answer how life can exist upon the earth? Although, He then goes on to explain that He will make a new heaven and a new earth. He is going to make everything new according to His promise to us. We will just have to wait and see just exactly how that all works out.

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

As is your custom, well put.

 

[miamited]

Hi Cal,

Thanks, but it's just what the Scriptures and the Spirit have revealed to me. It isn't really any wisdom of my own. I'm actually waiting here with bated breath to get SW's answer to the foliage and dirt dilemma. I'm really curious to know how, if the only way to get dirt upon the earth is through the natural breaking down of foliage over many years, we ever got any foliage, since foliage requires dirt for the roots to feed from. So, unless one is willing to understand that God can make a pile of dirt from nothing just as He did everything else, we can't ever get any foliage on the earth. If the foliage requires the dirt and the dirt requires the foliage, then neither could ever exist upon the earth unless one or the other or both are merely created by the wisdom and power and glory of God!

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted