next »

[veggie]

What does the Bible say about how old our world is? 

That is my question.  Thanks!   

[jchthys]

I believe the earth is somewhere between 6000 and 10 000 years ago, judging from the genealogies in the Bible and the fact that if it were older, as I see it, the population would have been larger than the area of the earth would permit, since people lived much longer.

[Cherika Four Seasons]

But we don't really know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before they sinned.......right?    I think the earth  is much older than 10, 000 years, but I've been wrong before!   

[Cherika Four Seasons]

oh, thats true about the population jcthys, I never thought of that. hmmmm....I wonder if Adam and Eve had any children BEFORE leaving the garden of Eden. 

p.s. I think  God created the  earth prior to the seven days of creation. That's what I understand from reading Genesis 1- that it first existed but was "without form".  Then He added firmament and water and light and all the other pretty and wonderful things .  So it would be impossible for us to know how old the earth is!

[Gabriel Anast]

OK, lets just move this to the history board.

In my experience, the "Bible" answers to this question are... well... really strain believability (IMO).

However, the question is VERY interesting to me in general... and putting this in the history thread allows me to replace the deleted posts.

--gabe

[Cherika Four Seasons]

oops. I thought this was a 'paths of God and man' question. That means I answered a bible question which Im not meant to do. SORRY 

[Gabriel Anast]

Yeah.. I have now moved it to the Paths of God and Man... and I don't think you answered the question anyway... its just that if the Q was going to the Bible Discussion board, I didn't want the non-Bible discussion there... anyway... discuss away.

By the way, one of my favorite "age of the Earth" anomalies is this HUGE carving that absolutely surrounds the lake Titicaca in Bolivia...

Weird things about it:

1) It is at an elevation of 13,800 feet
2) It is partly covered by sedimentary sandstone which after being deposited was then largely removed... evidently by water...
3) It appears to be a giant record of some sort... ie: it seems to be writing!
4) It pre-dates the Incan empire

My thoughts: Obviously older than the flood...

--gabe

[amy3js]

oh, thats true about the population jcthys, I never thought of that. hmmmm....I wonder if Adam and Eve had any children BEFORE leaving the garden of Eden. 

About this...I believe it is possible that they did have children (or child) before the fall because of the curse that was given to Eve by God:

Genesis 3:16
" Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee"

God says He will multiply Eve's sorrow, can you multiply something that doesn't exist? Not saying she did have children, just saying its possible. But even at that, we know how old Adam was when he died, so I believe we can pretty accurately know how long it has been since the creation account. I believe the counting of Adams days began with his creation, not beginning with his leaving the garden. But that is all JMHO and some thoughts. 

[andiclare]

[I believe] The earth is somewhere between 6000 and 10 000 years ago, judging from the genealogies in the Bible and the fact that if it were older, [as I see it], the population would have been larger than the area of the earth would permit, since people lived much longer.

Well I'm not sure that this can be mathematically proven. I mean, how many people are on the earth now? Something like 6 billion. And although some people lived much longer in those days, a.) we don't know for a fact (as far as I know, from the Bible) that everyone lived that long, and b.) obvioulsy the average life span of a human being dramatically and possibly steadily decreased as time went on, until we reached NT times when the life spans seem to be similar to what they are now.

Another point: some of the great thinkers in the early Church proposed that each "day" of the creation story may not represent 24 hours. They claim a day could have equalled a few thousand or hundred thousand years. I don't know of anything in the Bible that contradicts this possibility, and since it would also square up with the archeological evidence for an older earth, I think it's a very plausible idea.

My fiance believes the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old.

Personally, although I have no problem accepting the "young earth" theory, I'm more of an agnostic on the age of the earth question because the answer doesn't impact my salvation (...unless yall know something I don't about it). But this is a fascinating topic. I was actually going to post a thread about this a few weeks ago but I forgot! lol

[khix]

Another point: some of the great thinkers in the early Church proposed that each "day" of the creation story may not represent 24 hours. They claim a day could have equalled a few thousand or hundred thousand years. I don't know of anything in the Bible that contradicts this possibility, and since it would also square up with the archeological evidence for an older earth, I think it's a very plausible idea.

What about when the Bible says, "There was evening & morning the first day"....and "the second day"  and so on.  Evening & morning....that seems to suggest a regular day.  If it doesn't, then what else could "evening" & "morning" possibly mean?

Regarding evidence for an older earth....scientists look at the same data & come away with different conclusions based on their pre-suppostitions & their worldview.  Some look at the different rock layers & think that the rock layers must have been laid out slowly & formed over millions of years.  Others look at those same rock layers & see how it all could have been laid out very quickly due to a catastrophe...such as a global flood.  So, even though mainstream scientists say something, it doesn't necessarily mean they are right.  "It is better to put your trust in God rather than in man".  (Sorry, I don't have my Bible with me now, but I know that verse is in Proverbs somewhere.)  (Found it - Psalm 118:8
It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.)

A good website to check out regarding topics such as this is

www.answersingenesis.org

I hope I don't come across as harsh or like I'm teaching, but I am very passionate about issues such as this....I mean, if you can't trust what God says in Genesis (that He created in 6 days, etc)...how can you really trust what He says in the rest of the Bible?

Also, another point to consider:

If a person believes the earth has a history of hundreds of millions of years, then they have to accept that a history of millions of years of death, disease, violence, and suffering led up to man’s existence. The reason for this is that those who believe in millions of years think that the fossil record (in which they see those supposed millions of years) was laid down over this huge amount of time—and the fossil record is a record of death, disease, violence, and suffering.

But the Bible makes it clear that death is an intrusion—an enemy. There was no death of animals or man before Adam sinned, as at the end of the sixth day of creation, God pronounced everything “very good.” What this means is that if a Christian accepts the history of millions of years of death before man, they’re telling the world that the Bible’s history is wrong!

In other words, the Bible’s history of death is incompatible with the history of death given by those who accept “millions of years.” The Bible is Truth—which means one can’t logically believe in millions of years.

[Cherika Four Seasons]

Another point: some of the great thinkers in the early Church proposed that each "day" of the creation story may not represent 24 hours. They claim a day could have equalled a few thousand or hundred thousand years. I don't know of anything in the Bible that contradicts this possibility, and since it would also square up with the archeological evidence for an older earth, I think it's a very plausible idea.

I don't know Andiclaire, that would have left the fruit trees surviving without the sun for millenia  doesn't mean its impossible though, i'm sure God could've supplied the energy Himself if He felt like it.   

But even at that, we know how old Adam was when he died, so I believe we can pretty accurately know how long it has been since the creation account. I believe the counting of Adams days began with his creation, not beginning with his leaving the garden. But that is all JMHO and some thoughts. 

Gosh, I completely forgot that Adam's age was recorded!!! so, I assume that it would be possible to figure out how long it has been since God created the world based on the geneologies and recorded history. Haven't tried it though. But, these are two seperate things right? I mean, the age of the created world and the age of the earth?

[Cherika Four Seasons]

By the way, one of my favorite "age of the Earth" anomalies is this HUGE carving that absolutely surrounds the lake Titicaca in Bolivia...

This took me awhile. But....wow.....this was a CITY  . And if it's older than the flood, that probably means it was destroyed by the flood.    so hey... maybe Noah used to live there! 

That's got to do with what Jcthys said said about the population and people living longer. Maybe the reason we "only" have 6 billion now is because so many were destroyed during the flood and other instances of disasters and endemics. 

[amy3js]

Gosh, I completely forgot that Adam's age was recorded!!! so, I assume that it would be possible to figure out how long it has been since God created the world based on the geneologies and recorded history. Haven't tried it though. But, these are two seperate things right? I mean, the age of the created world and the age of the earth?

The counting of the genealogies is how they came up with 6 thousand years, and though I haven't actually counted them myself (yet), I believe its probably an accurate count. As for the age of the created world and the age of the earth, I know what your saying. My husband is a firm believer in a 6 thousand year old earth, so I'm gonna have to ask him about this. Somewhere in the dark recesses of my brain I think I remember him commenting on this issue at one point, but I can't remember for sure now so I will have to ask and see if he has an explanation. You've got me all curious about it now. 

[andiclare]

Just for the record you guys...I do not have strong feelings about this one way or another and I am not an evolutionist. I just think that when it comes to the age of the earth, there are valid points on both sides...

What about when the Bible says, "There was evening & morning the first day"....and "the second day"  and so on.  Evening & morning....that seems to suggest a regular day.  If it doesn't, then what else could "evening" & "morning" possibly mean?...

I hope I don't come across as harsh or like I'm teaching, but I am very passionate about issues such as this....I mean, if you can't trust what God says in Genesis (that He created in 6 days, etc)...how can you really trust what He says in the rest of the Bible?

This has nothing to do with not trusting what God has said...I trust what God says in the entire Bible.  A "day" actually equals 900 years elsewhere in Genesis. Remember in Gen 2:17, when God tells Adam that the day he sins (eats of the tree of the knowlege of good and evil) he will die? Adam later eats from the tree and he does die...900 or so years later. So I don't see any problem with believing that a "day" can mean 24 hours or a thousand years, because in Genesis 2 God says "day" when he actually means 900 years.

Other times in Genesis, it refers to roughly 24 hours. Neither is incorrect, but in one of those cases the word "day" is being used more figuratively/symbolically than in the other case.

(Don't worry, you're not coming off as harsh at all. Passionate is good, IMO. )

I don't know Andiclaire, that would have left the fruit trees surviving without the sun for millenia  doesn't mean its impossible though, i'm sure God could've supplied the energy Himself if He felt like it.  

Well the sun (Gen 1:3-5) was actually created before the fruit trees (Gen 1:11)...

[Cherika Four Seasons]

Well the sun (Gen 1:3-5) was actually created before the fruit trees (Gen 1:11)...

I thought the sun was one of the two great lights created in verse 16? But light was created before the fruit trees! that is odd though, light, and THEN the sun.

nd God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:he made the stars also.

I just think that when it comes to the age of the earth, there are valid points on both sides...

I agee! I gave up paying attention to scientific studies caus they just can't keep their darn stories straight!  I appreciate your point of view, Andiclaire, and am just as agnostic as you are about the age of the earth! 

[amy3js]

This is from an article on http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-christians-shouldnt-accept-millions      I really suggest reading the whole article, as I think it's pretty good, but the literal day portion is particularly beneficial to this discussion, I think. Most of aig's stuff (what I have read anyway) is well written and researched. I particularly love their articles on astronomy.

#1 The Bible clearly teaches that God created in six literal, 24-hour days a few thousand years ago. The Hebrew word for day in Genesis 1 is yom. In the vast majority of its uses in the Old Testament it means a literal day; and where it doesn’t, the context makes this clear.

#2 The context of Genesis 1 clearly shows that the days of creation were literal days. First, yom is defined the first time it is used in the Bible (Genesis 1:4–5) in its two literal senses: the light portion of the light/dark cycle and the whole light/dark cycle. Second, yom is used with “evening” and “morning.” Everywhere these two words are used in the Old Testament, either together or separately and with or without yom in the context, they always mean a literal evening or morning of a literal day. Third, yom is modified with a number: one day, second day, third day, etc., which everywhere else in the Old Testament indicates literal days. Fourth, yom is defined literally in Genesis 1:14 in relation to the heavenly bodies

[khix]

A "day" actually equals 900 years elsewhere in Genesis. Remember in Gen 2:17, when God tells Adam that the day he sins (eats of the tree of the knowlege of good and evil) he will die? Adam later eats from the tree and he does die...900 or so years later. So I don't see any problem with believing that a "day" can mean 24 hours or a thousand years, because in Genesis 2 God says "day" when he actually means 900 years.

Other times in Genesis, it refers to roughly 24 hours. Neither is incorrect, but in one of those cases the word "day" is being used more figuratively/symbolically than in the other case.

Yes, you have a point, but that still doesn't explain the "evening & morning" part....what do those words mean if they don't mean "evening" & "morning"?

I don't know Andiclaire, that would have left the fruit trees surviving without the sun for millenia  doesn't mean its impossible though, i'm sure God could've supplied the energy Himself if He felt like it.  

Well the sun (Gen 1:3-5) was actually created before the fruit trees (Gen 1:11)...

Actually the sun was created later...see verse 16.  There was light (verse 3) before there was a sun.  Amazing....but not impossible, because even in Revelation 21:23, it talks about there not being a need for the sun/moon, because God will be the city's light.

[khix]

But, these are two seperate things right? I mean, the age of the created world and the age of the earth?

Regarding the above question, the following addresses it:

http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/letters/questions-answered/archive/2007/december/10/gap-answered/

Mod Edit: Please excerpt pertinent points when quoting... or just suffice with a link.

[Charles Churchill]

Just as a side note, regarding the length of a day and it's relationship to Adam's sin. I read it this way: Adam died that very day in the same way that Paul says that we are "dead in trespasses and sins". In the same way that in the day that God imputed his righteousness to Abraham, Abraham did not receive every implication of God's righteousness in that moment (he was not glorified, or made perfect in his heart/made sinless, etc) Adam did not receive every implication of his death, but he did die in that day.

Anyway, just my take on it.

[Gabriel Anast]

@Charles, maybe put this in this thread: Two questions in Genesis 3 or in a new thread in the Bible Discussion board... and link it here for interest.

@The idea of a day being 900 years... its 1000 years... see this: Two questions in Genesis 3

@The question about geneologies being used to partially determine the age of the Earth, see these:

Anti-Gap Article, other useful info
Similar to above
Amazingly detailed page... great diagrams and charts... no comment on "gap theory"

--gabe

[andiclare]

Yes, you have a point, but that still doesn't explain the "evening & morning" part....what do those words mean if they don't mean "evening" & "morning"?

I have no idea...lol. It could mean the evening and morning of a completely literal 24-hour day, or it could be used more figuratively to mean the beginning and the end of one of God's 1000-year (or however long) days of Creation.

Actually the sun was created later...see verse 16.  There was light (verse 3) before there was a sun.  Amazing....but not impossible, because even in Revelation 21:23, it talks about there not being a need for the sun/moon, because God will be the city's light.

and...

I thought the sun was one of the two great lights created in verse 16? But light was created before the fruit trees! that is odd though, light, and THEN the sun.

nd God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:he made the stars also.

Whoa, I never even noticed that! I always assumed the light from "Let their be light" was the sun. Thanks ladies, yall taught me something today about Genesis!

I agee! I gave up paying attention to scientific studies caus they just can't keep their darn stories straight!  I appreciate your point of view, Andiclaire, and am just as agnostic as you are about the age of the earth! 

Wooo! I'm not alone! LOL About the unrelability of science...this is my fiance's view as well. I personally believe that faith and reason are not necessarily at odds because God created us in His own imagine and He gave us our reason and our thinking minds. So...as a general rule I do trust science. Except when it begins to deny the supernatural or presents politically correct "theories" (*cough*globalwarming*cough*) as undisputed fact.

[khix]

So...as a general rule I do trust science.

We can only trust operational/observational science, really.  See these links:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/science-or-the-bible

To help people clear up the confusion, we have found it helpful to distinguish between two types of modern science, and compare how each one seeks to discover truth:

1. Operation science uses the so-called “scientific method” to attempt to discover truth, performing observable, repeatable experiments in a controlled environment to find patterns of recurring behavior in the present physical universe. For example, we can test gravity, study the spread of disease, or observe speciation in the lab or in the wild. Both creationists and evolutionists use this kind of science, which has given rise to computers, space shuttles, and cures for diseases.
Can a creationist be a real scientist?

2. Origin science attempts to discover truth by examining reliable eyewitness testimony (if available); and circumstantial evidence, such as pottery, fossils, and canyons. Because the past cannot be observed directly, assumptions greatly affect how these scientists interpret what they see.

So, for example, how was the Grand Canyon formed? Was it formed gradually over long periods of time by a little bit of water, or was it formed rapidly by a lot of water? The first interpretation is based on secular assumptions of slow change over millions of years, while the second interpretation is based on biblical assumptions about rapid change during Noah’s Flood.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/science

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science

To help us understand that science has practical limits, it is useful to divide science into two different areas: operational science and historical (origins) science. Operational science deals with testing and verifying ideas in the present and leads to the production of useful products like computers, cars, and satellites. Historical (origins) science involves interpreting evidence from the past and includes the models of evolution and special creation. Recognizing that everyone has presuppositions that shape the way they interpret the evidence is an important step in realizing that historical science is not equal to operational science. Because no one was there to witness the past (except God), we must interpret it based on a set of starting assumptions. Creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence; they just interpret it within a different framework. Evolution denies the role of God in the universe, and creation accepts His eyewitness account—the Bible—as the foundation for arriving at a correct understanding of the universe.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/02/04/do-creationists-reject-science

Also causing confusion is the simple distinction some try to make between “faith” and “science.” Answers in Genesis believes this dichotomy is in error, because some form of faith (in a religion) is required to believe in creation or evolution. Both creation and evolution make claims about an unrepeatable past that was not observed by humans. Thus both creation and evolution fall under the category of historical science. This is distinctly different from operational (observational) science, which is a methodological system governing directly observed, repeatable results (such as laboratory experiments). Take a look at the differences between operational science and its counterpart, historical or “origins” science, which requires extrapolation beyond the presently available data—in other words, faith in a story about the unobserved past.

[andiclare]

So...as a general rule I do trust science.

We can only trust operational/observational science, really.  See these links:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/science-or-the-bible

So do you believe all historical science is suspect, or only where it seems to contradicts the Bible? I guess I'd say I believe the latter, but I can't think of any historical science (facts, not theories) offhand that do actually contradict the Bible...except of course for those "theories" that intentionally set out to disprove the Flood or Creationism or Intelligent Design, etc., and are put forth as "facts".

[Gabriel Anast]

So...as a general rule I do trust science.

We can only trust operational/observational science, really.  See these links:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/science-or-the-bible

So do you believe all historical science is suspect, or only where it seems to contradicts the Bible? I guess I'd say I believe the latter, but I can't think of any historical science (facts, not theories) offhand that do actually contradict the Bible...except of course for those "theories" that intentionally set out to disprove the Flood or Creationism or Intelligent Design, etc., and are put forth as "facts".

I think the article writer would assert that historical "science" is just as valid as observational "science" but that the two must be handled differently. That collecting legal evidence is a totally different procedure than making repeated lab experiments... both are valid, but the results must be interpreted differently.

The problem being that commonly they are mixed, used to argue each other, and sometimes set to defend each other in inappropriate ways.

--gabe

[AndysDad]

HUGE anamoly in Bolivia...

Weird things about it:

1) It is at an elevation of 13,800 feet
2) It is partly covered by sedimentary sandstone which after being deposited was then largely removed... evidently by water...
3) It appears to be a giant record of some sort... ie: it seems to be writing!
4) It pre-dates the Incan empire

My thoughts: Obviously older than the flood...
--gabe

Wow, incredible. Thanks for the link!  There were other gigantic pre-flood inscriptions, as reported by Flavius Jospephus:

Now this Seth, when he was brought up, and came to those years in which he could discern what was good, became a virtuous man; and as he was himself of an excellent character, so did he leave children behind him who imitated his virtues. (9) All these proved to be of good dispositions. They also inhabited the same country without dissensions, and in a happy condition, without any misfortunes falling upon them, till they died. They also were the inventors of that peculiar sort of wisdom which is concerned with the heavenly bodies, and their order. And that their inventions might not be lost before they were sufficiently known, upon Adam's prediction that the world was to be destroyed at one time by the force of fire, and at another time by the violence and quantity of water, they made two pillars, (10) the one of brick, the other of stone: they inscribed their discoveries on them both, that in case the pillar of brick should be destroyed by the flood, the pillar of stone might remain, and exhibit those discoveries to mankind; and also inform them that there was another pillar of brick erected by them. Now this remains in the land of Siriad to this day.

AndysDad

[ForeverGirl]

There is an amazingly similar bit in the Timeaus (I think) where, according to Socrates (written by Plato), the "Egyptians" have a similar thing: the Nile allegedly protecting them (and thus their knowledge of history) from both destruction of fire and water. The implication possibly being that these towers are in Egypt... or not.

Anyway, Beka and I spent an afternoon thinking about the structure of information as presented on those Bolivian mountains... seriously wish I had more time for things like this... 

--gabe

[HappyWifey]

Could you repost the link to the huge carvings, it doesn't seem to work.

Dr. Hovind has a lot of great material on why the earth cannot be older than 6-10,ooo years old, based on things such as, the dust on the moon would be thicker, the moon would have been a lot closer, thus bigger tides.. etc. I am pretty sure all of his seminar is on youtube. Possibly his website www.drdino.com, it's been a while since I was there so I'm not sure if the seminar is online there still.

Advanced search

• 1 Timothy 3:16 GOD was manifest in the flesh, or the Vatican versions "he"?: Translation Questions and Discussion byandiclare (3)
• Revelation 18:20 - Bible critics and "ye holy apostles and prophets": Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• What About the 2011 NIV Old Testament?: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• 1 Samuel 6:19 Is your Bible the 100% historical truth of God? 50,070 or 70 slain: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (3)
• What About the new NIV 2011?: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (2)
• Answering the Typical Anti-KJB Only sites: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• We are Gods?: Bible Discussion bySoffi (0)
• Every Man For Himself Bible Versions: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• Answering James White's Question - Which KJV?: Translation Questions and Discussion byAndysDad (6)

• Japanese/English Bible?: Translation & Publishing—Resources, Questions & Interaction byGarlicMomma (5)
• Beka....?: Announcements & Updates byandiclare (0)
• HELP? Hubby can't sleep (I tried to search this): Healthcare @ Home byandiclare (1)
• Where is everyone?: Nothing Deep byGarlicMomma (5)
• Introduce Yourself!: Nothing Deep bypiperjameson (325)
• The scoop on Soap: House and Home byCherika Four Seasons (1)
• Ideas: Children serving each other: Parenting byjenibee (0)
• My husband needs help with something I think is wrong: Relationships byjackiee (4)
• like minded moms?: Parenting byHomeschool_Newbie (2)
• "Courtship" discussions/questions: Relationships byHomeschool_Newbie (15)
• Announcing....: Announcements & Updates byBJ_BOBBI_JO (5)
• 80 days dream: Announcements & Updates bybasething (16)
• strabismus: Healthcare @ Home byFree Woman (10)
• Prayer Requests -- Health Related: Healthcare @ Home byBJ_BOBBI_JO (640)
• Translations in Guatemala...: Translation & Publishing—Resources, Questions & Interaction byAndysDad (5)
• Boring christian life: Sarah's Daughters byBJ_BOBBI_JO (6)
• Is this site for real?: Relationships byandiclare (2)
• Emergency food: canned or powder?: Nothing Deep byGarlicMomma (9)
• A heart issue for my children?: Parenting byandiclare (9)
• Keeping Warm, Heating Tips & Tricks: House and Home byherbalmom (60)

[Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.Did you miss your activation email?]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

February 09, 2012, 02:29:49 AM

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 6896
• Latest: ESTel987

Stats

• Total Posts: 243886
• Total Topics: 21906
• Online Today: 28
• Online Ever: 437
• (April 01, 2008, 03:09:36 PM)

Users Online

• Users: 0
• Guests: 28
• Total: 28