• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

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

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You write that there is a 'huge' number of plus or minus years. It's good of you to say so, but perhaps you could provide some evidence to that statement. After all, I can say of myself that I am the queen of England, but I'd be hard pressed to provide any evidence to support that self-professed claim.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Estimates RANGE from 6000 to 10,000.

The reasons why are yours to study. In this thread it is said

"So, now the creation of this realm which God made for man is now 1,988 years old +/- 60 years. I added the median number of years (140) and that should put us either up or down 60 years from 1,988 years to the birth of Abram."

My point being that the EXACT number of years are not listed and that every accounting includes some estimated number.

So,
the age of Creation is not an issue except for in the Watchtower magazine where they hodge podge together such things and call them important.

The age of Creation is not part of the gospel message. Those who focus on the age of creation are attempting to start a cult.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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

Such estimates are reserved for cultists. Jesus never taught an age for the earth.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.

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

very-good.gif


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

Now, Sky, you keep bring up the Watchtower, but you still don't realize that your position is identical to theirs. They also reject a young earth just as you do, and opt for the day age theory. The also, as you, believe that death and suffering existed long before Adam. They also, as you, believe that mankind was created at the very end of creation. They, like you, don't feel the actual age of the earth is important.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Delia Smith
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟98,077.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
How old is "Dirt" exactly?
Dirt would have been formed when the earth cooled on day one.
How old is "dust" that man was made from?
At the time, six days old.
How old are fruit trees that Adam ate from?
It doesn't say exactly, but trees bearing fruit existed on day three.
How old is dirt that fruiting trees produced that Adam ate from?
Five days older than Adam.
My "worldview" is that of scripture and Jesus and the prophets.
So you believe Jesus when He spoke of Adam and Eve, mentioned Noah by name, confirmed the story of Jonah, the Exodus, and every word of the scriptures. Good. So do I.
The gospel message does not include the age of the earth.
There exists no passage of Scripture which states that any element of the creation account is untrue. In fact, Jesus taught from the Scriptures with authority. There is nothing in the Bible, old testament or new, which is consistent with an old earth or evolution. 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. For those who try to sneak billions of years into Genesis 1, let me remind you that the earth was without form and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep. If there was a universe in existence there would be stars. There was no light until God said "Let there be light." Afterward, the sun, moon and stars were created on day four.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Delia Smith
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟98,077.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.
We don't know this.
We know some of the things Jesus taught, but not every word he ever spoke.
He taught from the Scriptures as a young boy and the priests marveled at His knowledge. What He was teaching had to have been from the Old Testament.

What we have recorded is what Jesus added to the Scriptures, not what He affirmed. That does not give evidence that Jesus discounted earlier events in the Scripture. To the contrary, He believed in every jot and tittle of the Scriptures.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi KW,

Yes, you are correct. As a matter of fact the Scriptures do mention that Jesus spent alone time with only his disciples teaching them things that we have no record of. I agree with you that he may have covered many of these subjects, but unfortunately, all we have left for evidence doesn't answer skywriting's question any better.

However, I would also ask you where you get the idea that the earth had to 'cool' when it was created. Why? As I understand the Scriptures there was this vast and limitless area of nothing but black, inky emptiness (which we call space) and in a moment God said let there be and the earth came to exist, covered with water but the dirt was there, it was just covered with water. The Scriptures allude that the continental body of earth was revealed as God caused the waters to part or recede so that it was revealed beneath the water. I don't really subscribe to any theory that there was some 'cooling off' period for the earth.

As far as the rest of your reply, I am in complete agreement. Plants were commanded to exist in their full and fruitful maturity and then from those plants seedlings later grew just as the Scriptures attest. Just as the first man was created fully formed and adult in size and stature, so were all of the animals and plants that God created.

As I understand the Scriptures, God created a fully formed and functioning universe of stars, planets and other heavenly bodies and all that existed upon the earth mature and ready to live or exist in its fully formed state. He did this by merely speaking that something exist and literally 'poof' it came to exist. The light of all the stars was immediately visible all across the universe in the moment that those heavenly bodies were created by the power of God. Remember always that God can do what seems impossible to us. He can cause water to stand dozens of feet high straight up with not a single evidence of anything holding it in place even though we know that water seeks its level, by merely commanding that it do so. He can cause the sun to turn back or stop in its course by merely commanding that it do so. He can cause a donkey to speak a humanly understandable language by merely commanding that it do so. He can cause a statue to fall flat on its face by merely commanding that it do so. He can cause dew to be on just a small piece of cloth and nowhere else around it by merely commanding that it be so. In the last days we read that the whole earth will shake and that will be because God commanded it to do so. Finally, God can cause a young virgin woman to be impregnated by merely commanding that it be so.

God is good! And He can do all things merely by the command that those things be. He could, if it were his purpose, right now command that I be sitting 200' in the air with absolutely nothing to support me and there I would be. That's the God that I have come to know and love. The most amazing thing to me is not all that God did and how He did it so much as the fact that He did it for me. It is because of Him that I even exist. It is because of Him that this planet is here with all that I need to live. It is because of Him that absolutely every single atom in all of the universe of this realm exists.

And He did it all pretty much instantaneously by nothing more than commanding that it be so. Everything is Gods. Created by Him. There is nothing that our eyes can see, our fingers can touch or our ears can hear that was not created by God for the express purpose of providing for mankind a home in which to live. May God be praised!

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
  • Like
Reactions: Delia Smith
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟98,077.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
However, I would also ask you where you get the idea that the earth had to 'cool' when it was created. Why? As I understand the Scriptures there was this vast and limitless area of nothing but black, inky emptiness (which we call space) and in a moment God said let there be and the earth came to exist, covered with water but the dirt was there, it was just covered with water.
"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep."
Water is without form, but not void. Gas is formless and void. Matter has three basic states (unless you include plasma); solid, liquid and gas. When gas cools it becomes liquid, which cools to become solid. It reads to me like the Lord intentionally chose a process we would later discover to hold true to the world around us. The Bible never says the Lord spoke the earth into being. We can only reason that since He later in Exodus 20:11 told Moses that the entire process only took six days that on that first day the earth was created in its entirety. The light that was created was NOT the sun, moon and stars. I believe those bodies and the rest of the galaxie was created on day four as detailed.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
…..God said let there be and the earth came to exist, covered with water but the dirt was there, it was just covered with water. The Scriptures allude that the continental body of earth was revealed as God caused the waters to part or recede so that it was revealed beneath the water. ….

It's an interesting thought, and I'll afford a lot of grace for how that initial primordial process looked. But I would even be careful saying dirt was there initially. Genesis doesn't, in fact it would appear that the waters themselves were a description of the unformed land in the initial stages of Genesis. Land (earth) was described as formless initially. If initially land was a solid mass under the waters, it would not be formless, just covered.

Remember too, it also would not be proper to think of these waters as an ocean. The ocean was not formed until day 3, and it was formed by these same initial primordial waters.

I don't think Genesis 1 intended to describe a flooded solid landmass, but rather an unformed land—a land that was formless like liquid. Then God formed the solid land out of these non-solid waters. Both the land and sea were formed out of these.

One clue we get from the N.T. is Peter's revelation in which he says:

2Pet. 3:5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.​

Perhaps the waters were the initial particles/building blocks of our entire planet. And actually, to be precise, only a portion of them were used. On day 2 we're told that God divided these initial primordial waters, and thrust one dividend above us, far away, to the other side of the heavens. The remaining waters were used to make the land and sea.

That's my take currently, anyway. I'm am definitely open to more clues from the text.

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep."
Water is without form, but not void. Gas is formless and void. Matter has three basic states (unless you include plasma); solid, liquid and gas. When gas cools it becomes liquid, which cools to become solid. It reads to me like the Lord intentionally chose a process we would later discover to hold true to the world around us. The Bible never says the Lord spoke the earth into being. We can only reason that since He later in Exodus 20:11 told Moses that the entire process only took six days that on that first day the earth was created in its entirety. The light that was created was NOT the sun, moon and stars. I believe those bodies and the rest of the galaxie was created on day four as detailed.

I would agree with much, but be careful mixing modern nomenclature with ancient ones. Liquid can also be thought of as non-solid, as well as void or empty so long as nothing solid is submerged within it. Plus, God chose to use the term waters as the initial primordial substance, not gas or air or wind. Peter refers to the earth (land) being made from water not air.

And let's also consider the miraculous. Christ formed wine from water. He certainly could have formed a planet (land and sea) from water. The natural processes we understand today, would not have been needed in a creative act such as this.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Delia Smith
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi KW,

Certianly if we use present definitions of form and void that might be the understanding, but I try to encourage through prayer that the Holy Spirit would give me understanding of God's definition 6,000 years ago of 'form' and 'void'.

What He seems to have impressed upon me is that God's use of the word 'form' was merely that it wasn't what it would eventually be as God continued to work with the planet to bring about dry ground and plants and animals. I guess to be more specific, my understanding is that its initial construct was not yet 'fully formed'. This allows that 'void' is pretty much saying the same thing. It was yet void of all that God intended for it to be.

However, I can see how one might understand it as you do, so on that particular point of exactly 'what' the earth was when God created it, we'll have to wait until we are able to ask Him.

To cal,

And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.

To me, it seems that the whole earth was covered in water as the initial creation of the planet seems to say, but then God 'gathered' the water together which caused the dry ground beneath it to 'appear'. Following the outline of the rest of creation, it doesn't say that God 'made' the dry ground as He does in the rest of His creating. It says that it 'appeared'. Just as in the Revelation when it speaks of Jesus 'appearing', we know that Jesus was always there, but now he is revealed to us. He 'appears' to us.

So, my understanding is that the earth was 'covered' in water. Not that it 'was' water through and through, but that the earth, the part that is dirt and hard substance was covered with water.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heissonear
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
...To cal,

And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.

To me, it seems that the whole earth was covered in water as the initial creation of the planet seems to say, but then God 'gathered' the water together which caused the dry ground beneath it to 'appear'. Following the outline of the rest of creation, it doesn't say that God 'made' the dry ground as He does in the rest of His creating. It says that it 'appeared'. Just as in the Revelation when it speaks of Jesus 'appearing', we know that Jesus was always there, but now he is revealed to us. He 'appears' to us.

So, my understanding is that the earth was 'covered' in water. Not that it 'was' water through and through, but that the earth, the part that is dirt and hard substance was covered with water.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Which is completely reasonable. Appearing can mean that it was already there, already solid. I'm not going to say you're wrong. But it doesn't have to. I may have just appeared because land was created solid at that time.

I'm just trying to tie this in with what God says about the earth and "waters" in previous verses. The earth was formless in the beginning on day 1. What exactly does that mean? And it appears to me, God doesn't work on it again until day 3.

And what does the text says happened to those initial waters? The text is very clear God divided the waters with the expanse He called heaven. Then God used the waters below to make the earth and sea. Those are some details often overlooked.

What we won't debate is that the heavens land and sea and all in them were created within the 6 days of creation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
To me, it seems that the whole earth was covered in water as the initial creation of the planet seems to say, but then God 'gathered' the water together which caused the dry ground beneath it to 'appear'. Following the outline of the rest of creation, it doesn't say that God 'made' the dry ground as He does in the rest of His creating. It says that it 'appeared'. Just as in the Revelation when it speaks of Jesus 'appearing', we know that Jesus was always there, but now he is revealed to us. He 'appears' to us.

So, my understanding is that the earth was 'covered' in water. Not that it 'was' water through and through, but that the earth, the part that is dirt and hard substance was covered with water.

That is a subtle transition in the way the wording describes God's work in Creation.

Then God made (06213) two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made (1443) the stars also. (Gen. 1:16)​

Basically it's saying God made `asah ( עָשָׂה Strongs H6213 ), the sun to rule the day and the moon to rule the night. That doesn't mean he brought them into existence but the idea is that he made them visible enough that they could 'rule' the day and night. The stars underwent no actual changes but were set, 'nathan' ( נָתַן nä·than' Strong's H1443) in the heavens, probably based on the same clearing of clouds or whatever atmospheric changes were required.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
….Basically it's saying God made `asah ( עָשָׂה Strongs H6213 ), the sun to rule the day and the moon to rule the night. That doesn't mean he brought them into existence….

Actually it does. 'asah and bara' are interchangeable words, and are even used interchangeably in Genesis 1. For instance, God said,

Gen. 1:26… “Let Us make ['asah] man in Our image, according to Our likeness; ….27 So God created [bara'] man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.​
While 'asah and bara' are distinct words, and have have different ranges, they absolutely can mean the same thing, namely creation, when used in the context that they are. What is more, the verse above shows that they are virtually synonyms when used in Genesis chapter 1.

but the idea is that he made them visible enough that they could 'rule' the day and night. The stars underwent no actual changes but were set, 'nathan' ( נָתַן nä·than' Strong's H1443) in the heavens, probably based on the same clearing of clouds or whatever atmospheric changes were required.

The problem is, there's a word for "appeared" that's actually used in Genesis 1—ra'ah. And let the dry land appear. This would have been the perfect word, if the sun and moon already existed. And it was readily available to the writer, having already used it in the previous passage. Yet God says He made the sun and moon on day 4, just as Moses affirmed.

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them...

And Moses fully understood how 'asah was used in Genesis 1 and he penned it himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Luke17:37
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The earth is as old as heaven. Age old. Before light* was created, and separated from darkness*.

*"ore" and "choshek" have more implications than literal light and darkness according to their Hebrew meanings.

But virtually all words in any language can be used in non-literal ways. Of course 'or and hoshek have other uses. But that in and of itself does not tell us when to take them literally and when not to. What is it from the context that tells you the author was not speaking literally?
 
Upvote 0

Lollerskates

Junior Member
May 2, 2013
2,992
250
✟4,340.00
Faith
Non-Denom
But virtually all words in any language can be used in non-literal ways. Of course 'or and hoshek have other uses. But that in and of itself does not tell us when to take them literally and when not to. What is it from the context that tells you the author was not speaking literally?

And, it is worth noting that "light" and "darkness" were an issue WAY before a sun, moon and stars were created. So, the "other" meanings of "or[e]" and "choshek" are applicable, since there was no moon, stars or sun werent there when they were first mentioned.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.

(Period.)

Was this in the [absolute] beginning, or when time was documented?



After this, we can deal with the matters of the Hebrew of light and darkness.

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.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And, it is worth noting that "light" and "darkness" were an issue WAY before a sun, moon and stars were created….

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

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?
 
Upvote 0