Lewis
Member
How Old is the Earth According to the Bible and Science?
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
[_ Old Earth _] How Old Is The Earth ?
- Thread starter Lewis
- Start date
TOG
Member
I didn't read all the article. I only read to the part where they claim that God created seeds and not plants. My Bible doesn't say he created seeds.
But how old is the earth? That depends on what you mean. Consider another question. How old was Adam when he was created? Did God create an embryo or a baby and allow time for it to grow to be an adult? I hardly think so. We are not told the exact level of maturity Adam had, but we know God told him and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply", which would imply they would have seemed to us to be at least teenagers. Some amount of time passed between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve, but if you measured the time from Eve's creation to God's command for them to multiply, it would probably have been just a few days. But if you consider how old they appeared, it would be 15 years or more. There are a number of other things in the creation account that indicate that God created the world and the things in it with the appearance of age. I believe that the actual age of the earth, measured from it's creation, is only a few thousand years, but that God created it with the appearance of great age.
But why would God do this? Wouldn't He be deceiving us by making us think the earth is older than it actually is? For the answer, we need to look back at Adam and Eve again. Why did God create them with the appearance of age, instead of creating babies and allowing them to grow up in the normal way? The answer is that God had a purpose for them, which included procreation. For them to be able to fulfill that purpose, they had to have a certain level of physical maturity. The same applies to the plants (which were already baring fruit), the animals (which were also told to multiply) and the earth itself. God had a purpose for these things, and they had to have a certain level of "maturity" to fulfill that purpose. The purpose of the earth was to support life. But life couldn't exist the way God wanted it to on bare rock. There had to be soil, which ordinarily takes time to form. It also needed both water and dry land, which required a difference in elevation of the ground. If it happens only through naturalistic means, it takes millions of years to form the mountains, valleys and continents needed for this. God created the world with these things already in place, which makes it look billions of years old to us.
But how old is the earth? That depends on what you mean. Consider another question. How old was Adam when he was created? Did God create an embryo or a baby and allow time for it to grow to be an adult? I hardly think so. We are not told the exact level of maturity Adam had, but we know God told him and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply", which would imply they would have seemed to us to be at least teenagers. Some amount of time passed between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve, but if you measured the time from Eve's creation to God's command for them to multiply, it would probably have been just a few days. But if you consider how old they appeared, it would be 15 years or more. There are a number of other things in the creation account that indicate that God created the world and the things in it with the appearance of age. I believe that the actual age of the earth, measured from it's creation, is only a few thousand years, but that God created it with the appearance of great age.
But why would God do this? Wouldn't He be deceiving us by making us think the earth is older than it actually is? For the answer, we need to look back at Adam and Eve again. Why did God create them with the appearance of age, instead of creating babies and allowing them to grow up in the normal way? The answer is that God had a purpose for them, which included procreation. For them to be able to fulfill that purpose, they had to have a certain level of physical maturity. The same applies to the plants (which were already baring fruit), the animals (which were also told to multiply) and the earth itself. God had a purpose for these things, and they had to have a certain level of "maturity" to fulfill that purpose. The purpose of the earth was to support life. But life couldn't exist the way God wanted it to on bare rock. There had to be soil, which ordinarily takes time to form. It also needed both water and dry land, which required a difference in elevation of the ground. If it happens only through naturalistic means, it takes millions of years to form the mountains, valleys and continents needed for this. God created the world with these things already in place, which makes it look billions of years old to us.
The TOG
Barbarian
Member
More to the point, God is not deceitful. Hence, He would not produce "the appearance of age", which would deceive people. If you cannot trust that God is always trustworthy, then none of His promises to us mean anything.
We cannot judge God by man's standards. Why would a few million years matter to God at all? He made nature, and He tells us that He then used it to create other things. Why not just accept His word as it is?
We cannot judge God by man's standards. Why would a few million years matter to God at all? He made nature, and He tells us that He then used it to create other things. Why not just accept His word as it is?
TOG
Member
Millions of years don't matter to God. That's not the issue. You yourself said "More to the point, God is not deceitful." God told us, through Moses, that He created the world and everything in it in 6 literal days (each one had one evening and one morning, not millions of each). If He didn't do it in 6 days, but in billions of years, then God lied to us. I accept God's word just as it is, and it says that creation took 6 days.
The TOG
Doulos Iesou
Member
You're ignoring the fact that Moses had an original intended audience. That audience was ancient Israel, and I don't think he intended to give mankind a scientific understanding of how the physical world came to be as it is. Your saying that it was "6 literal days," begs the question, you ASSUME that they are literal days. Despite the fact that a day cannot be measured without the sun, and the sun is not created until the fourth day.
This hyperliteralization of the Bible, especially Genesis, is what is destroying our credibility as Christians. People have lived for FAR more than 6,000 years, and for you guys to claim that is just silly.
Your reply seems to ignore the point.
If God may be judged by us (He can't) we find Him trapped. Regarding Adam and by your unsound reasoning God is either a liar or guilty of deceit. Seems to me that the truth of the matter is that He is smarter than that: "God catches the wise in their cleverness."
jasoncran
Member
so the shabat and jewish calendar was based on millions of years? when a proto adam murdered god called that ok but the just decided to judge able for doing the exact same thing?
Barbarian
Member
No. He didn't say it was literal. In fact, when He said the Sun was created after the first morning and evening, He said it was not literal.
Only if you assume that God is logically absurd, and never speaks in parables or allegories. The evidence clearly shows that neither of these assumptions is correct. And of course, "Yom", in the Bible, is used to mean a number of things besides a day.
TOG
Member
I already addressed that issue. But, as always, you totally ignore large portions of what I've said and quote me out of context. Go back and see what I said about the sun not being created until the 4th day and reply to that, if you can.
The TOG
Barbarian
Member
Barbarian observes:
No. He didn't say it was literal. In fact, when He said the Sun was created after the first morning and evening, He said it was not literal.
No, you merely denied that it's a problem.
It's not arguable. "Morning" is when the Sun comes up over the horizon. "Evening" is when it goes down. No Sun, no mornings or evenings. By definition. Denial won't help. And no, "Morning" does not mean "big light in the sky."
No. He didn't say it was literal. In fact, when He said the Sun was created after the first morning and evening, He said it was not literal.
No, you merely denied that it's a problem.
It's not arguable. "Morning" is when the Sun comes up over the horizon. "Evening" is when it goes down. No Sun, no mornings or evenings. By definition. Denial won't help. And no, "Morning" does not mean "big light in the sky."
Barbarian
Member
Look at the other side. A morning can't be literal, but "Yom" must mean "day", even if it's used many different ways in the Bible. I'm just pointing out that the YE creationists are picking and choosing which elements of the account they want to be literal. I'm pointing out the logical inconsistency.
If you recognize that the account is not a literal history, no logical inconsistencies remain. Isn't that an important clue?
TOG
Member
No, I didn't just deny it. I explained how there could be morning and evening without a sun. Go back and read it again.
You should really get a better dictionary. According to the Random House Dictionary, Morning can mean:
- the first part or period of the day, extending from dawn, or from midnight, to noon.
- theh beginning of day; dawn: Morning is almost here.
- the first or early part of anything; beginning: the morning of life.
- the first appearance of daylight in the morning: Dawn broke over the valley.
- the beginning or rise of anything; advent: the dawn of civilization.
Whether or not God created light before He created the sun (which I believe He did, since that's what the Bible says), the fact is that today our primary source of light is the sun. Even moonlight is reflected sunlight, and the light coming from the stars is negligible in comparison. The definitions I gave above are dictionary definitions, used by ordinary people in everyday conversation. There are also official used by people who, for various reasons, need more precision than "the early part". There are three generally accepted such definitions of the word "dawn". These different types of dawn are referred to as "civil dawn", "nautical dawn" and "astronomical dawn". These definitions do involve the sun. In each case, the sun is rising and a specific number of degrees below the horizon.
- Civil dawn: The sun is 6 degrees below the horizon
- Nautical dawn: The sun is 12 degrees below the horizon
- Astronomical dawn: The sun is 18 degrees below the horizon.
According to the official definitions (you don't get to make your own), morning is not "when the sun comes up over the horizon". Morning starts before the sun is visible. There's no reason there could not have been a morning without the sun, as long as there was light coming from a single direction.
Sorry to take your post slightly out of order, but I wanted to address the other things you said before I came to this. I think this is where the real problem lies. Everyone believes that their particular opinion about things (whether the age of the earth or anything else) is the correct opinion. That's why we have the views we have. We believe they are right. If we believed them to be wrong, we would have different views. This is perfectly normal. Many opinions or beliefs rule out other beliefs. For example, the belief that God created the world 6000 years ago rules out the belief that life evolved over millions of years and vice versa. People therefore often believe that their views are the only correct ones. This is also normal. The problem arises when people think their views are the only possible views. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't want to misrepresent your views. But it seems to me, from reading your posts, that you believe that there is no other possible explanation of the origin of life and of the universe as a whole, other than evolution and the big bang. It seems that you don't just believe that those are the best explanations we have or that those are the theories with the most evidence to back them up. You believe that they are the only possible explanations, and that there is no evidence that supports anything else. That's called being closed minded. If scientists of the past had been that closed minded, we'd still believe that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun, moon, stars and planets all orbited it.
The TOG
TOG
Member
The main "logical inconsistency" you've pointed out is that there couldn't have been a morning and an evening without the sun. I've pointed out that this would be possible, as long as light came from a single direction. That's one "logical inconsistency out of the way. Do you have any others?
The TOG
And I am pointing to the logical inconsistencies of both sides. According to some, 'YOM' may mean anything from a millisecond to a billion years but it can never mean 24 hours in this context. From there we find the strange insistence on today's thinking for the term 'morning': that it demands a sun and an orbiting earth for it to even be used. Some (on both sides) go as far as to cry "Deceiver!" about such things. God is not a man that He should lie.
It is as Peter declared it would be: "They will say, '...Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.'" They deny the fact that God has changed things in the past and will change them again.
As you know, I don't buy the "God is a deceiver" concept from either 'side' of this argument. The simple alternative is an admission: "I was not there." That fact (our ignorance) applies to both sides and is too often omitted. It is also my 'official stance' on such matters.
- Mark 10:6 says, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’”
- Jesus made a similar statement in Mark 13:19 indicating that man’s sufferings started very near the beginning of creation. The parallel phrases of “from the foundation of the world” and “from the blood of Abel” in Luke 11:50–51 also indicate that Jesus placed Abel very close to the beginning of creation, not billions of years after the beginning.
- In fact, in Luke 13:14, in his response to Jesus healing a person on the Sabbath, the ruler of the synagogue, who knew the law of Moses, obviously referred to this passage when he said, “There are six days on which men ought to work; therefore come and be healed on them, and not on the Sabbath day.” The Sabbath Day here was an ordinary 24-hour day, and the six days of work were ordinary 24-hour days.
Last edited:
Barbarian
Member
Once you redefine words to mean what you wish, then anything is possible.
"Maybe things were different in those days" is a weak reed to lean on, I think.
There are many cases, as in Genesis, where God does not tell us things we wish to know. The age of the Earth is one of those. Fortunately, He gave us intelligence and a knowable universe by which we can find out for ourselves.
Genesis 1:1 says what is there at the beginning of creation, and neither male nor female are there. Unless God contradicts Himself, this means from the beginning of humankind.
Let's see...
Mark 13:19 For in those days shall be such tribulations, as were not from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, neither shall be.
No, as God says, at the beginning of creation, no tribulations were noted. Would have been impossible without anyone there to have them.
So, if God spoke figuratively of creation as a series of days, it could not have application to the command to work six days and rest on the seventh? How so?
God says that he wasn't there at the beginning. Of course we are also created, but we count ours from the moment of birth or conception.
Barbarian
Member
And Christians realized this well over a thousand years before we knew the Earth was billions of years old.
No. Morning does not mean "big light in the sky." Augustine and others were quite aware of this, and knew the "yom" in Genesis could not mean literal days. Again, it's not a salvation issue for you, and if you want to keep your new doctrine, it won't cost you heaven. But it's not supported by Scripture.
Your statement applies both ways. You've heard the saying, "Clean the inside first."
Who are you quoting? I quoted Peter who corrected the misconception. There is no "maybe" except in your hearing.
Start by admitting that Adam was created with the appearance of age. I know that admission will cost you something but think of it as a sacrifice to the truth. The implication that the earth also could have been created with the appearance of age minus the demand, "God therefore is the Deceiver," is not under discussion. We both know that allegation has no merit.
How old was Adam when he was created? Clearly he was not born, don't you agree?