[_ Old Earth _] 6000 Year-Old Earth a Scriptural Concept?

[Packrat]

Points I should make before the discussion begins:

1. They did not use the Gregorian Calendar so many thousands of years ago.
2. I hold to the day-age interpretation of Genesis.
3. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the world is 6000 years old.
4. There seem to be gaps in the genealogies and possible translation errors with regard to 'son of' and 'father of', etc.
5. It is my opinion that you are forced to guess at the passage of time between some births and deaths (I may be wrong, but otherwise it becomes a bit difficult to accurately depict the passage of time).
6. Empirical data, while possibly in error, tells us that the world is far older.

Your thoughts, arguments, and perspectives?

 

[LittleNipper]

Points I should make before the discussion begins:

1. They did not use the Gregorian Calendar so many thousands of years ago.
2. I hold to the day-age interpretation of Genesis.
3. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the world is 6000 years old.
4. There seem to be gaps in the genealogies and possible translation errors with regard to 'son of' and 'father of', etc.
5. It is my opinion that you are forced to guess at the passage of time between some births and deaths (I may be wrong, but otherwise it becomes a bit difficult to accurately depict the passage of time).
6. Empirical data, while possibly in error, tells us that the world is far older.

Your thoughts, arguments, and perspectives?

1> You might wish to consider the Hebrew calender.
2> I hold to the morning and evening day as presented in the Scriptures.
3> No where in the Bible does it say that anything evolved.
4> There seems to be a human misunderstanding between the genealogies of Mary and that of Joseph.
5>It is my understanding that time was GOD's invention.
6> Empirical data is limited to present day observation and is no match to GOD's REVELATION.

 

[Packrat]

6> Empirical data is limited to present day observation and is no match to GOD's REVELATION.

Of course, but what is God's Revelation? What I'm wondering is if the 6000 year old estimate of the age of the world is Scripturally sound or if it goes against Scripture.

1> You might wish to consider the Hebrew calender.

I think that it's the Lunar calendar. I've heard that it reckons the current date of the world by cutting 200 years out of the time the Israelites spent in slavery to Egypt. I'm not certain on this, so correct me if I'm wrong.

3> No where in the Bible does it say that anything evolved.

Nope. But I don't believe God verbally spoke everything into existence either. I don't believe that would be an accurate interpretation of the text even if it is accurate to our culture today.

5>It is my understanding that time was GOD's invention.

I'm not sure what you're getting at there. It'd help, though, if you could elaborate a little.

2> I hold to the morning and evening day as presented in the Scriptures.

So do I. But do you believe that 'the Day of the Lord' means a two-set period of several hours, consisting of evening and morning, in which God visits judgement on a number of people or simply a period of time when God judges those who conflict with his desires for humanity?

Here's where I stand at the moment. I've always taken for granted that the Bible states that the world is 6000 years old. But where did this doctrine come from? Can it be found in the sciptures? If the genealogies are incomplete - and even if they're not - we already know that the world is more than likely not 6000 years old exactly. How far off is this estimate then? Is it a few hours off? Is it a few days off? Is it off by years? Or is it off by generations? I also took for granted that at the year 2000, the world would be 6000 years old. Pretty naive, right? Now, if Scripture does not support a 6000-year age of the earth, then would it be wise to spread this belief or to hang on to it?

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/sld011.html

 

[LittleNipper]

So do I. But do you believe that 'the Day of the Lord' means a two-set period of several hours, consisting of evening and morning, in which God visits judgement on a number of people or simply a period of time when God judges those who conflict with his desires for humanity?

Here's where I stand at the moment. I've always taken for granted that the Bible states that the world is 6000 years old. But where did this doctrine come from? Can it be found in the sciptures? If the genealogies are incomplete - and even if they're not - we already know that the world is more than likely not 6000 years old exactly. How far off is this estimate then? Is it a few hours off? Is it a few days off? Is it off by years? Or is it off by generations? I also took for granted that at the year 2000, the world would be 6000 years old. Pretty naive, right? Now, if Scripture does not support a 6000-year age of the earth, then would it be wise to spread this belief or to hang on to it?

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/sld011.html

Well, actually, the age of the earth is not a Doctrine. The general age comes from adding up all the ages listed in the Scripture. I do feel that GOD created an established ecological system during a 6 day period. What came first the chicken or the egg? The Creationist would say the chicken. The Creationist would understand that Adam very likely appeared as a thirty year old man at the time of his creation. The Creationist would have no problem with the concept that Adam's age may only represent those years he lived AFTER he sinned. Could Adam theoretically have existed on the perfect earth in a perfect garden for several hundred or thousand years prior to his fall? This is certainly a possibility, but that does not aid evolutionism. The Creationist understands variety and accepts changes brought on by the FALL of man and changes that happened as a result of the FLOOD. The Creationist does NOT accept survival of the fittest concept of evolution. The Creationist does not believe dogs and cats had the very same ancestors. Creationists do not consider humans as animals.

 

[Packrat]

Well, after questioning my original view of the time spent living in Egypt and the time spent living under slavery in Egypt, I came up with the same basic answer: 400 years under slavery but 430 years total living in Egypt (and possibly Canaan?). The passages which state this clearly can be found in Genesis 15:13 and Exodus 12:40. Unlike these passages, I don't believe the Bible ever states clearly how old the world is or how old human civilization is.

 

[Packrat]

Well, actually, the age of the earth is not a Doctrine.

Rmmm... Well, it's always been for me. I always accepted it as taught to be 6000 years old.

The general age comes from adding up all the ages listed in the Scripture.

Yep, well, the list is somewhat incomplete in my mind. Did you check out that site I listed at the bottom of my post? The first slide and the following five slides should explain my concerns.

I do feel that GOD created an established ecological system during a 6 day period.

And that might be more feasible to me if God had started by creating the sun and the moon first before he used the illustration of evening and morning instead of in Genesis 1:16. If there were no sun and no moon, then how can evening and morning describe the passage of daylight which we rely upon to tell us when our days are ended and when they begin? It seems to me that evening and morning refer to something different than our conventional dusk and dawn. Without the waxing and waning of light brought by the moon and the sun, evening and morning could be used to describe any length of time.

The Creationist would understand that Adam very likely appeared as a thirty year old man at the time of his creation.

That may be how God created him... But it doesn't say in the Bible that Adam appeared to be a 30 year-old when he was created.

The Creationist would have no problem with the concept that Adam's age may only represent those years he lived AFTER he sinned.

I've heard this suggested too, but in Genesis 5:3-5 it explicitly tells us how long Adam lived and gives us no reason to believe that the text is metaphorical in nature or varying from conventional standards in meaning.

Could Adam theoretically have existed on the perfect earth in a perfect garden for several hundred or thousand years prior to his fall?

I believe it's possible, but given my understanding of Genesis 5:3-5 I don't believe it to be probable.

This is certainly a possibility, but that does not aid evolutionism. The Creationist understands variety and accepts changes brought on by the FALL of man and changes that happened as a result of the FLOOD.

I'm not completely for or against evolution. As far as I'm concerned, we know who created life - we just don't know how He did it.

The Creationist does NOT accept survival of the fittest concept of evolution.

Do you mean natural selection? If so, I accept that view. Happens all the time in my opinion. Some animal living up north - for some reason - grows longer or thicker fur than another of its kind (we're all different and our bodies vary). It is allowed to mate before it dies because it is more fit to survive. The other animal with shorter or sparser fur would be forced to migrate southward or die. If it migrated southward, then its descendants would - through natural selection - sooner or later adapt to their environment or migrate in various other directions in order to survive.

The Creationist does not believe dogs and cats had the very same ancestors. Creationists do not consider humans as animals.

I agree with the last part. Although, we are the ones classifying what living organism is a human and what organism is an animal, save for God's original differentiation of humans & animals in Genesis. We're all flesh and blood. I, personally, don't know if animals are spirits as humans are and just are clothed with tissue. In fact, I don't even know what a spirit is exactly. If you can refer me to passages in Scripture that might explain what a spirit is, then that'd help. As for the cats & dogs thing, I really don't know what to believe. I'm not a genetic engineer, and I don't know whether it's possible or not.

 

[samuel]

When I did the math I came up with an earth age between six, and seven thousand years. Actually to round it off; seven thousand.

Adams age is given as nine hundred, and thirty six years, I believe this was after Adam sinned. Before Adam sinned he was created as a eternal being, Gen 2:7
7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. - KJV.

So Adam would have had no record of age before he sinned. There would have been no keeping of time, as God does not mark time in years, months, weeks, days, hours, or minutes as we do. Eternal has no limits, so the time in the garden could have been several years, to several thousand; or more.

I am not suggesting millions, or billions, but more than seven thousand. I would not even hazard a guess, but if pressed, I would say possibly ten to fifteen thousand; just to satisfy a question.

 

[Packrat]

When I did the math I came up with an earth age between six, and seven thousand years. Actually to round it off; seven thousand.

If you had notes you could post up so that I could review them, I'd be thankful. I still may not arrive at the same conclusion. However, I think I would agree that with the names the Bible lists, you can come to an estimate around 6000 years - that is, taking into account their life times. But unless you have a correct translation, you may read, "And Jane Doe was the daughter of John Doe," when in fact it may mean, "And Jane Doe was the granddaughter of John Doe," or simply "the female descendant of John Doe."

So Adam would have had no record of age before he sinned. There would have been no keeping of time, as God does not mark time in years, months, weeks, days, hours, or minutes as we do.

The first part of that I can understand. However, considering that the Bible says that Adam lived 930 years, I believe that it means that rather than is just an estimation of years. The reason why I believe that is because Adam could have spent a relatively small amount of time in the Garden of Eden before he was banished for his sin. I believe he must have known that he was going to die when he sinned, for God had told them that. After that he may have been concerned enough to count the years of his life or he may have been questioned by his children how long he had lived in the Garden (how many moons, etc. etc. :-D ) and how long afterward.

 

[samuel]

I arrived at the approximate 7000, actually 6700 and something. By using the Bibles record of Genesis and the rule of thumb 1k Adam to Noah, 1k to Abraham, 1k to david, Christ 2k to present. Plus the 125 years Noah spent building the ark, which is there but not in a family record.

As I stated I don't know, or claim to know the time in the garden whether a day or a thousand years?. But I do believe that Adams age began with his sin, whether Adam even kept track of his life I don't know. As God gave man 125 years in the book of Genesis, I believe these are more God given times, rather than a mans record.

 

[JohnR]

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the world is 6000 years old.

The modern world that we now live in began 6,000 years ago with Adam and Eve in the Garden in the Land of Eden.

According to the GAP or the ruin and reconstruction theory there was a world here before. Actually, for anyone that knows anything about science there is no way to deny that the world itself is much older than 6,000 years.

They did not use the Gregorian Calendar so many thousands of years ago.

Bishop Ussher worked all of that out a long time ago. He had books available to him to translate events between the various calenders. You can read his book where he covers recorded history from 6,000 bc to 70 ad. He lists each year and everything in history that happened on that year.

 

[MarkT]

Actually the 'days' of creation were periods of light. We know this because the Bible says, 'In the day that the LORD God made the heavens and the earth' and then it says 'when'. This would indicate it happened during creation within that period which was before there were any plants of the field. This period was the period that preceded the period of agriculture. So it stretches back to the beginning. Shortly before the period of agriculture began, man was created.

Also we know a period of light was a period of wisdom and knowledge and understanding because we know, 'The LORD by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding he established the heavens; by his knowledge the deeps broke forth, and the clouds drop down dew.' Proverbs 3:19 So a period of light was a period of information entering the void.

 

[Salazar]

Points I should make before the discussion begins:

1. They did not use the Gregorian Calendar so many thousands of years ago.
2. I hold to the day-age interpretation of Genesis.
3. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the world is 6000 years old.
4. There seem to be gaps in the genealogies and possible translation errors with regard to 'son of' and 'father of', etc.
5. It is my opinion that you are forced to guess at the passage of time between some births and deaths (I may be wrong, but otherwise it becomes a bit difficult to accurately depict the passage of time).
6. Empirical data, while possibly in error, tells us that the world is far older.

Your thoughts, arguments, and perspectives?

I don't have any arguments with that but I must say after living my life for so many years believing beyond a shadow of a doubt that the universe and earth is old, it sure is strange -- and refreshing -- to truly believe that it's all quite young. I don't know how many thousands of years life has been on earth -- but it's certainly not anywhere close to what evolutionists say. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[jwu]

What exactly changed your mind?

 

[Salazar]

What exactly changed your mind?

I would say one of the things that started me on my way to YEC was the soft tissue found in the dinosaur bones. From there I learned that there was lots of evidence for dinosaurs being young....evidence that, in my opinion, is not disputed very well by evolutionists. And if dinosaurs are young, that pretty much uproots the whole uniformitarian concept....and when that happens, it opens the way for the flood explanation. I also do not believe humans could have evolved from apes or rats or lizards. I do not believe in a primordial pond. There is only one way humans got to be here: divine creation. It is so obvious we are special and we are loved. The universe was created for us.

Oh, and Jesus died on the cross for our sins -- which invalidates evolution because Jesus died on the cross for the original sin that condemned all of mankind....if humans were just animals, then there would have been no original sin because there would have been no created Adam.

 

[Raphe]

I think that time is relative to the will of God alone. Our understanding of time is linear while it surely cannot be from the point of God where He stands in command of all things. We just do not see or understand such elemental powers with any great degree of knowledge. Therefore, I give God and His word the benefit of the doubt everytime I see questions in my mind about time and eternity. I see science actually proving that the big bang could have happened in six days or six seconds; all depending upon ones relative position, along with the speed of such great mass expanding at speeds approaching that of light.

 

[jwu]

Apologies for the delay, i completely missed this thread...i hope you're still active on these forums.

I would say one of the things that started me on my way to YEC was the soft tissue found in the dinosaur bones.

Actually there was no soft tissue found, just something that became soft when it was rehydrated. It isn't even clear if this is original tissue or something else.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371_1.html

From there I learned that there was lots of evidence for dinosaurs being young....evidence that, in my opinion, is not disputed very well by evolutionists.

Like what?

And if dinosaurs are young, that pretty much uproots the whole uniformitarian concept....and when that happens, it opens the way for the flood explanation.

Well, even if actual soft tissue had been found, this still would have to stand against many more things which are incompatible with a young age, such as massive limestone deposits which cannot form quickly. And the flood is falsified either way, due to things like evaporites. It couldn't possibly have happened unles God intentionally left false evidence of droughts within the strata which supposedly was laid down by that flood. And it's falsified by genetics as well, there was no bottleneck in human history 4400 years ago.

I also do not believe humans could have evolved from apes or rats or lizards. I do not believe in a primordial pond. There is only one way humans got to be here: divine creation. It is so obvious we are special and we are loved. The universe was created for us.

Personal incredulty is not a logically valid argument ;)
And there is tons of evidence of humans evolving from other apes. We even still are apes.

Oh, and Jesus died on the cross for our sins -- which invalidates evolution because Jesus died on the cross for the original sin that condemned all of mankind....if humans were just animals, then there would have been no original sin because there would have been no created Adam.

What distinguishes humans from animals is the soul, isn't it? Evolution makes no statement at all about a soul. Don't confuse evolution with atheism. The majority of Christians worldwide are theistic evolutionists.

And besides...let's assume there was no literal adam. Aren't we all sinners regardless of that? I knew i screwed up many times on my own, i don't need an Adam having commited sins for me to consider myself a sinner.
I find the whole concept of inheritable sin rather absurde myself, and it causes all those nasty problems with dying newborns going to hell without any chance of salvation.

 

[Silverchild79]

someone here mentioned the rotation of the earth as marking day and night in the 7 day creation theory.

Fact is every year we've measured the rotation of the earth it has become slower then the last. The rotation of the earth is slowing meaning a day is slightly longer not in hours but in the rise and fall of the sun.

that being known it is not safe at all to assume the first seven full rotations of the earth measured at 24:00:00HRS, it could have been any duration of time and as we know God has little use for our measurements of time...

EDIT: To add to that in the last ten years we've found water erosion on the Sphinx which is very different from anything found on the pyramids (for those of you scrambling to check facts both the pyramids and the Sphinx were present during the great flood and they're separation by only a few hundred yards).

Sander erosion occurs horizontally, water erosion is obviously top to bottom. If the water erosion found on the Sphinx isn't on the pyramids (and it isn't) and both were present during the great flood (roughly 1700-1400BC and they were) then you would have to go back to the last significant rainfall was in that region. That's 10,500BC according to leading experts in the field and would mean that the earth is AT LEAST twice again the 6,000 yr estimate. I for find find it really hard to stick my fingers in my ears when confronted with this.

 

[LittleNipper]

someone here mentioned the rotation of the earth as marking day and night in the 7 day creation theory.

Fact is every year we've measured the rotation of the earth it has become slower then the last. The rotation of the earth is slowing meaning a day is slightly longer not in hours but in the rise and fall of the sun.

that being known it is not safe at all to assume the first seven full rotations of the earth measured at 24:00:00HRS, it could have been any duration of time and as we know God has little use for our measurements of time...

EDIT: To add to that in the last ten years we've found water erosion on the Sphinx which is very different from anything found on the pyramids (for those of you scrambling to check facts both the pyramids and the Sphinx were present during the great flood and they're separation by only a few hundred yards).

Sander erosion occurs horizontally, water erosion is obviously top to bottom. If the water erosion found on the Sphinx isn't on the pyramids (and it isn't) and both were present during the great flood (roughly 1700-1400BC and they were) then you would have to go back to the last significant rainfall was in that region. That's 10,500BC according to leading experts in the field and would mean that the earth is AT LEAST twice again the 6,000 yr estimate. I for find find it really hard to stick my fingers in my ears when confronted with this.

The FLOOD is Biblically dated about 4 to 5 thousand years ago. That would place it before the pyramids but possibly after the Sphinx.

 

[Silverchild79]

touche

the great flood was roughly 2900BC, quoting off the top of your head is dangerous

and Great Pyramid is 2500BC which would place it 400 years after

The Sphinx (I think based on evidence) was built thousands of years before the great flood. BUT, it's roughly 75ft above sea level meaning that in a down pour that would flood the entire earth the accumulation of water would be very quick, too quick to cause that kind of erosion as the Sphinx would have been one of the first things covered.

 

[Packrat]

someone here mentioned the rotation of the earth as marking day and night in the 7 day creation theory.

Fact is every year we've measured the rotation of the earth it has become slower then the last. The rotation of the earth is slowing meaning a day is slightly longer not in hours but in the rise and fall of the sun.

that being known it is not safe at all to assume the first seven full rotations of the earth measured at 24:00:00HRS, it could have been any duration of time and as we know God has little use for our measurements of time...

Ah! Good to see that someone else has heard about this as well. I came across this a while back before I made this thread. So even if God created the Earth in six days and it was somehow rotating during this process, it is unlikely that its full rotation would occur in 24 hours which is one of our standard days today. And since the word 'day' in the Hebraic culture can mean a period of sunrise and sunset (if my memory proves correct - if not please correct me), that would mean that you have 6-month-long days at the poles of the Earth because the angle the Sun makes with the horizon. So where was God measuring this time when he created the world in six 'days'?

Sander erosion occurs horizontally, water erosion is obviously top to bottom. If the water erosion found on the Sphinx isn't on the pyramids (and it isn't) and both were present during the great flood (roughly 1700-1400BC and they were) then you would have to go back to the last significant rainfall was in that region. That's 10,500BC according to leading experts in the field and would mean that the earth is AT LEAST twice again the 6,000 yr estimate. I for find find it really hard to stick my fingers in my ears when confronted with this.

In my opinion, considering that the world is not 6,000 years old is not the heresy as nowhere in the Bible does it say that the world is 6,000 years old. I've been wondering lately about the 50-year period in Hebraic festival. Where you would have six years and then a sabbath year to make for a period of seven years. Then you would do that cycle seven times to make for a total of 49 years. After those 49 years, there would be a year of Jubilee which would be the 50th year. I believe that such ceremonies - just like sacrifice - are, at least in part, prophetic. What are they prophetic or revealing about? Where did the doctrine for Christ's 1000-year reign come from? Could it be linked to the year of jubilee? And if so, is the age of humanity close to 49,000 years old and the Earth older yet?

Anyone care to comment?