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

miamited said:

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….

Click to expand...

That's what makes is so wise.

Two things...

1. The Bible never states that the heavens and earth were created on day 1, just "in the beginning." An undetermined amount of time could have passed from the creation of the earth to the creation of life on earth. The Bible does not say, so the Gap Theory is plausible.

2. Adam and Eve were not the first humans. The first humans were the multitudes created in Genesis 1. This explains who Cain had to fear in his banishment, as well as who he married. Adam and Eve were the "parents" of the Hebrews, as they trace their genealogy to them. 6,000 years from Adam and Eve until now is fine, but only for tracing Hebrew genealogy, not the age of the earth.

Primi Agminis said:

Two things...

1. The Bible never states that the heavens and earth were created on day 1, just "in the beginning." An undetermined amount of time could have passed from the creation of the earth to the creation of life on earth. The Bible does not say, so the Gap Theory is plausible.

Click to expand...

Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement.
All that occurred from the beginning to the creation of light occurred on day one.
This is validated in Exodus 20:11.

2. Adam and Eve were not the first humans. The first humans were the multitudes created in Genesis 1. This explains who Cain had to fear in his banishment, as well as who he married. Adam and Eve were the "parents" of the Hebrews, as they trace their genealogy to them. 6,000 years from Adam and Eve until now is fine, but only for tracing Hebrew genealogy, not the age of the earth.

Click to expand...

So, not liking the Lord's version of things, you decided to write your own?
Please show Scriptures to validate your interpretation or retract it as false doctrine.
Genesis 2:15 states:
And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. Adam was the only man. there was no other at that time. There is nothing which precludes God from creating others after Adam was created, but the Bible specifically teaches that he was the first man. It also records the lineage from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, and from Abraham to Jesus. It is an absolute fabrication to say that Adam was only the first of the Hebrew race. There is no support for this in the Scriptures.

Primi Agminis said:

Two things...

1. The Bible never states that the heavens and earth were created on day 1, just "in the beginning." An undetermined amount of time could have passed from the creation of the earth to the creation of life on earth. The Bible does not say, so the Gap Theory is plausible.

Click to expand...

False. The Bible does state the creative events of the first day in the first 5 verses of Genesis 1. And while it's true "beginning" (re'[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]h) can be a beginning span of time, in this case, that time is actually defined in the verses that follow. We know from scripture that the beginning was the 6 days of creation.

This is why Christ said, "from the beginning of creation, He made them male and female."


Christ knew the beginning included the creation of man. But according to you, the creation of man was at the end of creation. Who should I believe?

Primi Agminis said:

2. Adam and Eve were not the first humans. The first humans were the multitudes created in Genesis 1. This explains who Cain had to fear in his banishment, as well as who he married. Adam and Eve were the "parents" of the Hebrews, as they trace their genealogy to them. 6,000 years from Adam and Eve until now is fine, but only for tracing Hebrew genealogy, not the age of the earth.

Click to expand...

Even the jews didn't consider Adam to be the father of the jews. They've always traced their race back to Abraham, whom God chose to procreate their nation. The Bible says clearly that all the nations of the world have descended from Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah's sons (Gen. 9:19), but that Abraham specifically was from the line of Shem (Gen. 11).

Also, the hebrew biblical word for mankind is actually adam. And that word is used back in Genesis 1. The reason adam is the word for mankind is because all men come from him. If there was another human race, they would not be called 'adam.'

Finally, there's nothing to explain as far as who Cain was afraid of. Seth was said to be Abel's replacement, and Seth was not born until Adam was 130 years old. That's means Abel was killed shortly before that. Thus, both Cain and Abel were likely over a century old when they had their conflict. If either of them were remotely obedient to God, they not only would have been married with children, they probably had a couple generations of descendants. And according to jewish tradition, just Adam himself had 56 children. I think after a century of procreation, Cain had plenty of hostile relatives to be concerned about.

And you may be under the impression that Cain "found" a wife in Nod. But that's not what the text says. Cain merely traveled with his wife to Nod. In fact, according to jewish tradition, both Cain and his wife were banished from the presence of God and traveled to Nod together. This is perfectly compatible with the Genesis account.

This article may be helpful on this issue: Cain’s Wife Still On Trial

Calminian said:

And you may be under the impression that Cain "found" a wife in Nod. But that's not what the text says. Cain merely traveled with his wife to Nod.

Click to expand...

Your disagreements are your opinion, and I respect that. However, the text does not say that Cain's wife traveled with him. It merely says that Cain traveled to the land of Nod. Once there, he had relations with his wife (who is unknown). His first born son was Enoch.

The text does not say who she was, where she came from, or where he met her. However, the only thing we can be sure of is that he was sent away from Adam and Eve (banished). It only makes sense if the multitudes created in Genesis 1 were the ones he had to fear, and allows for him to find a wife elsewhere, without trying to come up with some extra sons and daughters of Adam and Eve that the Bible has yet to mention up to that point.

Primi Agminis said:

Your disagreements are your opinion, and I respect that. However, the text does not say that Cain's wife traveled with him. It merely says that Cain traveled to the land of Nod. Once there, he had relations with his wife (who is unknown). His first born son was Enoch.

The text does not say who she was, where she came from, or where he met her. However, the only thing we can be sure of is that he was sent away from Adam and Eve (banished). It only makes sense if the multitudes created in Genesis 1 were the ones he had to fear, and allows for him to find a wife elsewhere, without trying to come up with some extra sons and daughters of Adam and Eve that the Bible has yet to mention up to that point.

Click to expand...

Who are these 'multitudes' created in Genesis 1, Adam and Ever were created on day six and that's all it says.

KWCrazy said:

Adam was the only man. there was no other at that time. There is nothing which precludes God from creating others after Adam was created, but the Bible specifically teaches that he was the first man. It also records the lineage from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, and from Abraham to Jesus. It is an absolute fabrication to say that Adam was only the first of the Hebrew race. There is no support for this in the Scriptures.

Click to expand...

That's the old adage of a Darwinian presumption, human populations were never just two people. It makes sense given the fact that now if a species falls below 100 it is considered to be doomed to extinction due to bottle necks. What they don't factor in is that the genomes at creation were complete, mutations had not accumulated and adaptations had not become fixed. Most of the debates are not Biblical, that's expected. What I find most interesting is the ones who pretend to defend science don't understand the dynamics of cause and effect as it relates to population genetics.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Primi Agminis said:

Your disagreements are your opinion, and I respect that. However, the text does not say that Cain's wife traveled with him.

Click to expand...

But conversely, it does not say he found her there, which your whole case rests on. That's something you've imported to the text, that's simply not there. By every indication, Cain already had a wife, and it's very possible he already had kids, and may have even had several generation of descendants. A lot can happen in 100 years.

Primi Agminis said:

The text does not say who she was, where she came from, or where he met her.

Click to expand...

Exactly! Thus you admit your entire argument is from silence. There's no reason why the multitudes he was afraid of couldn't have been the descendants of Adam and Eve and their first generation children.

Primi Agminis said:

It only makes sense if the multitudes created in Genesis 1 were the ones he had to fear, and allows for him to find a wife elsewhere, without trying to come up with some extra sons and daughters of Adam and Eve that the Bible has yet to mention up to that point.

Click to expand...

The problem you're having is, you stopped reading Genesis after chapter 4. Had you kept reading you'd see Adam and Eve did not just have these 3 sons (Gen. 5:4). Noah's genealogy contains a brief recap of Adam's life. It only mentions Seth, and that Adam had other sons and daughters. It doesn't indicate Seth's birth order either, but we know from the previous account that Seth was not the firstborn. Thus many siblings could have been born before and after him. In fact, it's likely that none of the other patriarch's mentioned in Noah's genealogy were firstborns either, considering their father's age at their birth. They were merely mentioned because they linked Noah to Adam, as is the case with all genealogies.

Considering that Eve was to be the mother of all the living, the scenario I've outline above fits much better with the Genesis text.

Hi cal,

Just to add some info to your reply about the children of Adam and Eve, we also don't know that Cain was the firstborn of Eve. Every translation that I know of says that Eve rejoiced that she had given birth to a man, male child or son. This would indicate that Cain was the firstborn male child of Adam and Eve. There may well have been a half dozen daughters already in the family and then Eve had a son. This might even further explain Eve's joy at having given birth to a son.

Even today we have couples who have a daughter and another daughter and perhaps another, but when a son comes there is a certain joy that a son has been born for the son carries on the family name even through marriage. Now, before anyone jumps on me, I don't have any ill will for women. I'm just offering this up as a plausible explanation that would fit with all the evidence we have in the text. Quite frankly, I don't really see that some unattached family would necessarily be so angry at Cain. Even today, the people who express the most desire to kill a murderer are the immediate family members.

Eve had daughters first and then Cain and Able and probably daughters afterwards and Cain took one of his sisters, a daughter of Adam and Eve, to be his wife. Then Cain kills Able and all the brothers and sisters and Adam and Eve themselves would have been angry with him and he took his wife and moved to Nod to separate himself from his nuclear family to allow such anger against him to recede.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

miamited said:

Hi cal,

Just to add some info to your reply about the children of Adam and Eve, we also don't know that Cain was the firstborn of Eve. Every translation that I know of says that Eve rejoiced that she had given birth to a man, male child or son. This would indicate that Cain was the firstborn male child of Adam and Eve. There may well have been a half dozen daughters already in the family and then Eve had a son. This might even further explain Eve's joy at having given birth to a son.

Even today we have couples who have a daughter and another daughter and perhaps another, but when a son comes there is a certain joy that a son has been born for the son carries on the family name even through marriage. Now, before anyone jumps on me, I don't have any ill will for women. I'm just offering this up as a plausible explanation that would fit with all the evidence we have in the text. Quite frankly, I don't really see that some unattached family would necessarily be so angry at Cain. Even today, the people who express the most desire to kill a murderer are the immediate family members.

Eve had daughters first and then Cain and Able and probably daughters afterwards and Cain took one of his sisters, a daughter of Adam and Eve, to be his wife. Then Cain kills Able and all the brothers and sisters and Adam and Eve themselves would have been angry with him and he took his wife and moved to Nod to separate himself from his nuclear family to allow such anger against him to recede.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Click to expand...

Well obviously Cain married one of his sisters, I think Abraham and Sarah were pretty close in that regards as well. As far as Cain, God put a seal on Cain so no one could hurt him and I think your right, they really would have wanted to. As a result Cain became a wanderer, built cities and one of his sons was a craftsman who made tools, bronze if memory serves.

Grace and peace,
Mark

miamited said:

Hi cal,

Just to add some info to your reply about the children of Adam and Eve, we also don't know that Cain was the firstborn of Eve. Every translation that I know of says that Eve rejoiced that she had given birth to a man, male child or son. This would indicate that Cain was the firstborn male child of Adam and Eve. There may well have been a half dozen daughters already in the family and then Eve had a son. This might even further explain Eve's joy at having given birth to a son.

Click to expand...

It's a good point and I see the same possibilities as i read the text. It would seem very possible that daughters preceded Cain, and would make sense of Eve's statements upon his birth.

miamited said:

Quite frankly, I don't really see that some unattached family would necessarily be so angry at Cain. Even today, the people who express the most desire to kill a murderer are the immediate family members.

Click to expand...

That's true huh? Why would some foreign race be mad and Cain for killing Abel? But a few dozen of his brothers and nephews would be absolutely terrifying. I'll be borrowing that. Hope you don't mind.

Hi cal,

Yes, you have my full authorization and permission to use anything I offer in explanation of the Scriptures.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Thanks. I was probably going to use it anyway.

mark kennedy said:

Who are these 'multitudes' created in Genesis 1, Adam and Ever were created on day six and that's all it says.

Click to expand...

Not quite.

The multitudes are the ones created on day 6.

Adam and Eve were not created until after day 7, and thus Genesis 2. Their purpose was the story of original sin and the Garden of Eden.

Besides, the English translations are confusing the Hebrew use of "ha-adamah" which simply means "the man." It is not a name. Of course, they won't admit the mistake.

I am fine with one Hebrew saying to another (via oral tradition) "Eve is the mother of us all," to mean "mother of the Hebrews." But the entire human race...nah.

Primi Agminis said:

Not quite.

The multitudes are the ones created on day 6.

Click to expand...

This isn't a multitude, it's a couple:


Or did you mean the living creatures, because they were created day 5 and they are the only multitude mentioned:

Adam and Eve were not created until after day 7, and thus Genesis 2. Their purpose was the story of original sin and the Garden of Eden.

Click to expand...

They were obviously created day 6. The purpose of the passage is to tell us how God created man in the beginning.

Besides, the English translations are confusing the Hebrew use of "ha-adamah" which simply means "the man." It is not a name. Of course, they won't admit the mistake.

Click to expand...

Did the New Testament writers make a mistake because they all regarded Adam (see Adam) as the first parent of humanity:


The New Testament witness is incontrovertible on this point of doctrine

• Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, G76 which was the son of God. (Luke 3:38)
• Nevertheless death reigned from Adam G76 to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's G76 transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Rom 5:14)
• For as in Adam G76 all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1Cor. 15:22)
• And so it is written, The first man Adam G76 was made a living soul; the last Adam G76 was made a quickening spirit. (1Co 15:45)
• For Adam G76 was first formed, then Eve. (1Ti 2:13)
• And Adam G76 was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. ( 1Tim. 2:14)
• And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, G76 prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, (Jude 1:14)

I am fine with one Hebrew saying to another (via oral tradition) "Eve is the mother of us all," to mean "mother of the Hebrews." But the entire human race...nah.

Click to expand...

That's the Scriptures, you either believe them or you don't.

Have a nice day
Mark

Primi Agminis said:

Not quite.

The multitudes are the ones created on day 6. ...

Click to expand...

That's impossible. The hebrew word for mankind used in chapter 1 on day 6 is adam. Descendants are named in accordance with their ancestors. The Israelites get their national name from Israel. Hebrew is a term derived from one of Abraham's ancestors, Eber. Semites come from Shem. But Adam is the father of us all, and thus were are known as adam (humanity).

If the human race mentioned in Genesis 1 came from a different line, then the author would not have used the name adam to describe them. Eve, incidentally, is also considered to be adam in that she also comes from Adam (his side).

The biblical hebrew text makes your assertion impossible.

We all pray for wisdom and guidance in understanding Scripture. I have my opinion and you (whomever) have your's. So where does that leave us? I obviously am not going to prove anything to you, and vice versa. We view things differently, as do the numerous denominations that claim to be Christian.

When you say things such as, "that is impossible because..." that is your opinion on the matter, but it's not absolute, especially if you base it strictly on an English translation.

Then there is science...genetics has shown that it is impossible for all of humanity to come from 2 individuals some 6,000 years ago.

Primi Agminis said:

Then there is science...genetics has shown that it is impossible for all of humanity to come from 2 individuals some 6,000 years ago.

Click to expand...

I'd like to rerun that experiment. Please cite the Journal.

SkyWriting said:

I'd like to rerun that experiment. Please cite the Journal.

Click to expand...

He is talking about bottlenecks, it's an effect from inbreeding, it shrinks the gene pool dramatically, even dangerously. Charles Darwin was a guy who knew so much about how favorable traits were inherited that he married his cousin. Then he becomes a full blown atheist because his daughters died, probably because of compromised immune systems, resulting from bottlenecks.

What he doesn't know is that it takes a while, sometimes generations for the bottlenecks to develop. The genomes of the new creations would have been complete genomes with no mutations and no adaptive traits permanently fixed. That kind of a massive gene pool is prime for adaptive evolution but he doesn't know that either, even though, it's pretty obvious.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Primi Agminis said:

...When you say things such as, "that is impossible because..." that is your opinion on the matter, but it's not absolute, especially if you base it strictly on an English translation.

Click to expand...

PA, I'm merely going by the argument you made. You made the argument that according to Gen. 1, a non-adamic race was made. I merely point out the impossibility of that argument based on the text you cited. The hebrew word used is adam. The argument you made from the text is literally impossible justify.

Gen. 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man (adam) in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man (adam) in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.​

Now if you want to make the argument from another source, perhaps another ancient religious text, or from modern man's view of origins, that's different. But the Bible is contradicting you.

Now of course we're all just putting out our opinions. Even the statement "that's your opinion" is merrily opinion. But I would think if someone pointed out where I made a mistake, not knowing the original hebrew, I'd appreciate it and at least stop making that particular bad argument.

And to be honest, I'm not even trying to change your mind. I agree with you that that's very difficult. I'm merely trying to point out to you a flaw in one particular argument you made. You can do with it what you will.