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

[Hoghead1]

Oookay...sooooo

Genesis clearly implies a young earth and young mankind. It basically spells it out so simply a school boy could see it. The evidence we see in the field also clearly shows this as well ( or at least can be interpreted as such )

A clear straight forward reading of Genesis ( taking all known literary devices into account of course ) shows that it was intended to be understood as it reads. Talking snakes, boats filled with all animals on earth, the origins of different languages etc... There is no problem with science and Genesis as it reads.

The earth and man need not be millions of years old, God is quiet capable of creating such. ( he tells us this pretty clearly ).

The only problem comes when man, is willing to believe mans interpretation of the data over the Word of Gods interpretation.

Only when we beleive the fables and myths ( macro evolution and millions of years) that have been created in the minds of men rather than the revelation of God, then Genesis becomes a problem.

Peace!

Paloma

Where is your scientific evidence for your YEC position?

 

[paloma22]

Calling the conclusions of science "fables and myths" does nothing to advance your argument. Science is the best tool we currently have to observe the material universe, and to dismiss it so flippantly is folly. That's not to say it's settled, the scientific method itself ensures that it is always open to being challenged (that's it's main strength). To be credable you need to challenge science with science. Unless you are one of those who completely dismisses science, in which case I suggest you look into the nonsense that the flat-Earth and electric-universe people are saying. They may be wrong, but at least they are consistent.

Oh where to start... "Long agers" use assumptions as much as we do when trying to date the earth and the cosmos. Is there a sticker somewhere that tells us how old things are? Love top see that When Jesus pulled fish and bread out of a basket, how old were the fish? When he made water into wine how old was the wine? Science today uses assumptions ( in all kinds of areas ) to make their case on the age of things. Assumptions are not facts, sorry. Science is good but not infallible. Science has its place, but its not the holy grail of interpretations, sorry. the earth is not flat, but the electric universe does have some interesting theories, but they do not impact the old or young earth.

Sorry, I don't see any of these statements being true at all. Saying something doesn't make it so. On the other hand, when I was about a decade older than a school boy I believed in a young Earth, but I have since learned more and I no longer believe such things.

And you are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone, but as you correctly stated, this does not make it true. What exactly was the lynchpin that pulled you away from a YEC perspective. What's your biggest issue?

Every piece of writing is intended to be understood as it reads, so long as one takes the genre into account. Let me see, I have "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" in front of me. When I read it, I more-or-less understand it as the author intended. But I don't confuse it with history or a maths textbook.

Correct, every piece of writing has a true truth intended. Genesis's is clear. Genesis does not tell us deep detailed scientific truths, but it does tell us truths Such as when the foundation of the great deep opened up (Genesis 7:11) and released its waters to flood the earth, but it does not tell us EXACTLY how this happened. Genesis is what Genesis is, mans history and condition. Its the whole package.

This is so preposterous I can only assume that you are having a lend of me here.

Dead serious, sorry.

Actually I don't believe that He is capable of this, given that we have ample evidence that the Earth and the universe is billions of years old. There are some things that God cannot do. For example He cannot lie, and to create a universe that looks old but isn't actually old is about as big a lie as can be told. Besides, if you use that argument I'll just claim that the Earth was created 3am GMT last Thursday with apparent age, and you won't be able to disprove it and the discussion is over.

Well if you are making our God to be so small that He could not make it all in 6 days and roughly 6,000 years ago, then I can't help you, as you are clipping God right off the bat. There is ample evidence that the earth is young, in fact all the evidence points in this direction. I was cutting the lawn last Thursday at 3 GMT, so I can tell you this is not true. Appearance of age does make it so. Wine takes quiet a while to make, yes ? Yet Jesus Himself made it in minutes if not seconds...

No, just as we have to modify our reading of the Bible when we observe that Pi does not equal 3.0, we also have to modify our reading of the Bible when we observe that the Earth is billions of years old (and it's not even that difficult).
No, we do not have to modify the intended meaning of Genesis, but I do agree with you, that we should always strive to understand the intended meaning of any given text using all literary devices that we know about.

Click above for my answer, sorry, not familiar with this interface yet!

 

[paloma22]

You are reading Genesis as if it's history. It isn't.

Well Moses and Jesus thought it was history, so your issue is not with YEC's but with Jesus!

"Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, in whom you have put your hope. 46If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote about Me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?”…John 5:46

 

[greenguzzi]

Your earlier reply has a formatting problem that makes it difficult to reply to from a mobile device so I will reply to it later.

The quote from John 5:46 says nothing about the genre of Genesis. All it says is that Moses wrote about Him. He could have written in any form. Maybe it was historic, or poetic, or apocalyptic, maybe it was a play or a myth.

It is none of these genres. My point is that the fact that Moses wrote about Jesus in a truthful way says nothing whatsoever about the genre of that writing. It doesn't prove that it was historical, just that it was truth. A subtle but extremely important distinction.

 

[greenguzzi]

A quick question if I may. As a Young Earther, do you also believe in a young universe?

 

[greenguzzi]

...and are YEers consistent in this?

 

[Hoghead1]

Your earlier reply has a formatting problem that makes it difficult to reply to from a mobile device so I will reply to it later.

The quote from John 5:46 says nothing about the genre of Genesis. All it says is that Moses wrote about Him. He could have written in any form. Maybe it was historic, or poetic, or apocalyptic, maybe it was a play or a myth.

It is none of these genres. My point is that the fact that Moses wrote about Jesus in a truthful way says nothing whatsoever about the genre of that writing. It doesn't prove that it was historical, just that it was truth. A subtle but extremely important distinction.

Yes, very true. In ancient times, they had much different standards for determining authorship than we have today. Actually, for that matter, the 19th century did, too. All the rules we have today abut copyrights, author citations and the like, are pretty much 20th century. Getting back to ancient times. It was the accepted custom to attribute later writings back to some earlier major figure in order to legitimate them. So all the OT laws, which came way after Moses, were attributed back to Moses. So, saying Moses wrote the Pentateuch was right in line with the custom of the day.

 

[Hoghead1]

Well Moses and Jesus thought it was history, so your issue is not with YEC's but with Jesus!

"Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, in whom you have put your hope. 46If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote about Me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?”…John 5:46

Yes, but in ancient times, it was acceptable to attribute later ideas back to some earlier major figure in order to legitimate them. Christ was simply following the customs of the times here. I, for one, hold with the DH, when it comes to authorship of the Pentateuch.
Also, Jesus was not a science teacher. God realized he was dealing with a prescientific people and so did not intend to reveal advanced scientific knowledge to them. Did Jesus go to his fellow fisherman and say, "Hey, look, guys, here are the plans to built a steel boat with an engine. Let's get busy on this"? No, he certainly did not. He simply went with the custom of the times and sailed on those vessels which were a product of those times.

 

[SkyWriting]

If Adam was created in the same basic way as Jesus pulled fish from a basket, instantly, then he real age would be "zero" but he most likely appeared to be what ever age God made him, i.e. 30 or 40 years of age, whatever God made him as. The cosmos would be the same, appearing "old" but in fact, very young, if Genesis is to be believed, as it clearly says several times that the Heaven and the Earth were made in 6 days. I would prefer to believe Scripture over mans fallible interpretation of the evidence.

That's what I said.
Ask a Scientists to test Adam and his results would be "Past Puberty" or Middle age.
Ask a Scientist to test Creation and the results would be "Past Puberty" or Middle Age.

You would not test Adam and say he was "zero" on day 7.
You don't look at creation and say it was "Zero" on day 7.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes I know, and I've said as much. I'm using this fact to make a point.

The Bible is mathematically correct.
There is no tenth of a cubit.

The arguments against a young earth are completely different.
1. There is only one vague source not backed by any second author
or the new testament
2. Computing the "fact" results in variation by over 50%.
3. Jesus never speaks to this teaching
4. It's a very complicated process to reach the "truth'.
5. Scripture speaks multiple times specifically to "Ancient Mountains" and "Everlasting Hills"
suggesting the earth is nearly eternal.
6. Scripture describes a "fully mature" Adam & Eve and a "Fully Mature" earth.
7. Every act of Creation or "Miracle" results in a "Fully Mature" result, scientifically speaking.
This is a fully mature result we should expect to find.
8. At a creationist church rally I asked Astronaut James Irwin if the amount of dust on
the moon indicated it was less than 20,000 Years old. He said it did not.

 

[greenguzzi]

Is there a sticker somewhere that tells us how old things are?

Well no, and that's a good thing because stickers can lie. We have something much more reliable than that. We have the scientific method.

When Jesus pulled fish and bread out of a basket, how old were the fish? When he made water into wine how old was the wine?

I don't know because we don't have access to the fish or to the wine in question. You are assuming that the fish were created ex nihilo. Maybe they were just relocated from another place. It's a pointless question because unlike the Earth and the universe, we can't observe or test any theories we might have about the fish and the wine. This line of enquiry is a dead end. There are much more fruitful avenues to pursue.

Science today uses assumptions ( in all kinds of areas ) to make their case on the age of things. Assumptions are not facts, sorry. Science is good but not infallible.

This is difficult to answer because - judging from your statements above - your understanding of science is somewhat misinformed. I fear that if I were attempt to show where you are wrong we would end up talking at cross purposes. I might come back to it later if this conversation survives.

Science has its place, but its not the holy grail of interpretations

I agree with that. However it does have some place in interpretation. Science is a wonderful tool, we just need to learn how to use it properly.

the electric universe does have some interesting theories, but they do not impact the old or young earth.

The electric universe "theory" is a load of bunkum, and probably has no direct impact on the calculated age of the Earth. It's just that some Young Earthers have decided to abandon science completely, and adopt a pseudo-science instead. I can see how this would make things much easier for them, because they can then ignore any real science that might get in the way of their stubbornly held false beliefs.

And you are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone, but as you correctly stated, this does not make it true. What exactly was the lynchpin that pulled you away from a YEC perspective. What's your biggest issue?

Genesis does not "clearly imply a young earth and young mankind". That is only one of at least two different interpretations. If it were clear, then this debate would never occur. Also there is no evidence that clearly shows the Earth, mankind, or the universe as being young.

What's my biggest issue? I'm going to cheat a little here and say that scientific consilience is what pulled me away from the YE perspective. But that only took me part of the way. I had to wait many years until I was able to discuss the book of Genesis with an academic on the subject before I took the final leap. Between the two events I was in a state of resigned cognitive dissonance.

Genesis is what Genesis is, mans history and condition.

Except that it isn't. By that I mean that it isn't history as we understand modern historic literature. For example you can't read Genesis in the same way as you would read a history of Great Britain that was written in the last few hundred years. You can't even read Genesis in the same way as you would read the Acts of the Apostles. You would no more come up with useful data by adding up the ages in Genesis as you would by adding up the numbers in a poem.

Dead serious, sorry.

In that case I have absolutly no idea what you were talking about here, or what point you were trying to make.

Well if you are making our God to be so small that He could not make it all in 6 days and roughly 6,000 years ago, then I can't help you, as you are clipping God right off the bat.

You are putting words into my mouth here. I never said that God could not have made the universe in 6 days ~6000 yeas ago. He's God, and can do anything he likes. It's just that there's no scientific evidence to indicate that He did, and no scriptural reason to insist that He did.

There is ample evidence that the earth is young, in fact all the evidence points in this direction.

I'm pretty sure there isn't. But go ahead and show me how all the evidence points to a young Earth.

but I do agree with you, that we should always strive to understand the intended meaning of any given text using all literary devices that we know about.

That's good, now we have found two things we agree on.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

lol, no. The evidence in the field proves an old Earth not a young one. Any school boy who sees a young Earth in Genesis and "the field" would get a failing grade and would have to repeat the course.

But a Bible Scholar who knows the LORD and believes His Word would never, ever, claim the evidence "points" to earth being any older than what the Word of God states.
In fact: even a plain old born again Believer who reads the Word of God as it is written and believes God and puts no trust in men who deny the Word and who isn't even a Bible scholoar [such as Paul, for instance], would never make any such foolish claim that there is any evidence men can put forth to make the Word of God a lie.
God's Word is true from the beginning. The devil is a liar from the beginning. The first lie he told was to Eve, in the Garden of Eden/Paradise, in the third heaven.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

A quick question if I may. As a Young Earther, do you also believe in a young universe?

The Scriptures state that the heavens -all of the stretched out from earth stories/ascensions of them- are created one with the earth, in the beginning, and the "firmament of His powers" were not stretched out from the earth until day 2 of creation week.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but neither was named in the beginning, until they were formed out of the waters and the powers in them and over them, but first, light was called out of the darkness and divided from the darkness and set circling the globe of His powers, making evening and morning, one/first, day.
God then divided the waters of this creation into two, and stretched out the firmament of His powers between them, in layers called ascensions/stories. He then named the stretched out firmament between the cut in two waters of this creation "shamayim" =Hebrew for "two waters".
So the heavens were named on day 2, and the waters below the heavens were commanded to be gathered together in one place, and the "dry" to appear. He called the waters "seas", and the dry He called "earth".

So earth was named one day after the heavens were named, and each was named after they were formed, in the day they were formed, which was day two and day three of creation week.
The light of day one was stretched out with the firmament, and circled the globe from day one, and will continue to circle the globe forever, but the light was organized into stars, which are electric powers which stream their light to the sun in currents of super powers in the heavens, and the sun refracts that light back out to the entire creation as it circles the earth in the circle of the heavens, forever, and gives it's light to the moon, in measures which are described in the calendar of the heavens in the Book of Enoch.

 

[paloma22]

The Scriptures state that the heavens -all of the stretched out from earth stories/ascensions of them- are created one with the earth, in the beginning, and the "firmament of His powers" were not stretched out from the earth until day 2 of creation week.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but neither was named in the beginning, until they were formed out of the waters and the powers in them and over them, but first, light was called out of the darkness and divided from the darkness and set circling the globe of His powers, making evening and morning, one/first, day.
God then divided the waters of this creation into two, and stretched out the firmament of His powers between them, in layers called ascensions/stories. He then named the stretched out firmament between the cut in two waters of this creation "shamayim" =Hebrew for "two waters".
So the heavens were named on day 2, and the waters below the heavens were commanded to be gathered together in one place, and the "dry" to appear. He called the waters "seas", and the dry He called "earth".

So earth was named one day after the heavens were named, and each was named after they were formed, in the day they were formed, which was day two and day three of creation week.
The light of day one was stretched out with the firmament, and circled the globe from day one, and will continue to circle the globe forever, but the light was organized into stars, which are electric powers which stream their light to the sun in currents of super powers in the heavens, and the sun refracts that light back out to the entire creation as it circles the earth in the circle of the heavens, forever, and gives it's light to the moon, in measures which are described in the calendar of the heavens in the Book of Enoch.

Nicely stated. Amen!

 

[ewq1938]

But a Bible Scholar who knows the LORD and believes His Word would never, ever, claim the evidence "points" to earth being any older than what the Word of God states.

The bible doesn't state the age of the Earth.

The first lie he told was to Eve, in the Garden of Eden/Paradise, in the third heaven.

He didn't lie nor was the garden in the third heaven. And lastly, the garden isn't called paradise in scripture. So far you are wrong on every single thing you've said about the bible.

 

[paloma22]

The bible doesn't state the age of the Earth

Yes it does, it's clearly implied. Have you read it?

 

[ewq1938]

Yes it does, it's clearly implied. Have you read it?

It's clearly not implied. It's assumed.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

The bible doesn't state the age of the Earth.

He didn't lie nor was the garden in the third heaven. And lastly, the garden isn't called paradise in scripture. So far you are wrong on every single thing you've said about the bible.

Yes, the Bible states the age of the earth, as many have already pointed out.
It takes a certain blind denial of Bible facts to say that it is not so.
Adam was created on day 6, and Adam was 130 when Seth was born....down to Noah's age at the flood, and Shem's age at death, and Abraham's age at death....Shem outlived Abraham...
Isaac was born when Abraham was 100. Jacob born when Isaac was 60, Jacob was 127 when he entered Egypt, Jochebed, mother of Moses, born to Levi at the gates of Egypt. Moses led Israel out age 82.... Israel in Egypt 210 years, Jochebed age 128 when Moses was born, The Law was 430 years after the Land Covenant, Abraham was 70 when the promise was given.

Israel celebrated 3,000 years in 1995, since David conquered Jerusalem....the years from the entry into Canaan can also be numbered in the Bible, but there is a book of history -among others in the Jewish writings- that gives the exact chronology from the creation to the entry into Canaan, called the "Real Book of Jasher".

As to the Garden of Eden, you are wrong, for the word Paradise in the Greek to English is the Garden of Eden in the Hebrew. It is in the third heaven, and Paul states in 2 Cor. 12:1-4 that Paradise is in the third heaven, and Jesus states that the Tree of Life is in the midst of Paradise, in Revelation.

Rev 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

The Tree of Life has always been in Mount Eden, in Paradise, God's Garden, in the third heaven, from the beginning. That is where Adam was "raptured" to, and set to guard it and to labor in it, and to reign over earth from, and to have freedom to go and come, in and out, as a son of God of the human being kind, and the firstborn...Adam died in spirit and was cut off/divorced from the Father and cast out and down to earth and forbidden to go back in so as to keep from eating of the tree of Life, there, and living forever in the defiled body of corrupted flesh, which was God's Mercy to give us the opportunity to be born againn, of the Living Spirit and changed in our flesh body at the rapture or resurrection to the body made for the glory.

What Adam lost, the New Man Creation who is the Son of God come in flesh of second creation, is come to be our Redeemer and to ransom us back and the earth back, by His shed blood, for Himself....and we go back to Paradise, where we were in the loins of Adam, as seed, when our first father sinned and got cast down, was divorced from the Father and died in spirit, and sold himself and his entire kingdom into sin and corruption.

 

[paloma22]

im·plied
imˈplīd/
adjective

1. suggested but not directly expressed; implicit.
   "she was aware of his implied criticism"
   
   
   
   as·sume
   əˈso͞om/
   verb
   past tense: assumed; past participle: assumed
   1. 1.
      suppose to be the case, without proof.
      "you're afraid of what people are going to assume about me"
      synonyms: presume, suppose, take it (as given), take for granted, take as read, conjecture, surmise, conclude, deduce, infer, reckon, reason, think, fancy, believe, understand, gather, figure
      "I assumed he wanted me to keep the book"
   2. 2.
      take or begin to have (power or responsibility).
      "he assumed full responsibility for all organizational work"
      synonyms: accept, shoulder, bear, undertake, take on/up, manage, handle, deal with
      "they are to assume more responsibility"
   
   Feedback
   
   

 

[ewq1938]

Yes, the Bible states the age of the earth, as many have already pointed out.

The age of the Earth is not mentioned.

As to the Garden of Eden, you are wrong, for the word Paradise in the Greek to English is the Garden of Eden in the Hebrew.

How about actually providing any Hebrew or Greek words to prove what you are claiming?

It is in the third heaven, and Pauls states in 2 Cor. 12:1-4 that Paradise is in the third heaven, and Jesus states that the Tree of Life is in the midst of Paradise, in Revelation.

The paradise Paul wrote of is heaven not Eden or the garden. The tree of life is not in paradise in Rev. It's on Earth outside of new Jerusalem.

The Tree of Life has always been in Mount Eden, in Paradise, God's Garden, in the third heaven, from the beginning.

Not a word of this is biblically true. "Mount Eden"? Seriously?