• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What does the Bible say about the origins of the Earth in relation to what science say?

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
What did the Earth look on the morning of day 3?
I don’t see how you could ever say. Given the text in question is highly poetic, has been translated and interpreted multiple times, can’t have been written by a direct eye-witness by definition and, of course, there being absolutely no reason to assume it’s anything other than ancient myth, I don’t how anyone could give a definitive answer to your question.

You could definitely invent answer which could be twisted to fit both the vague biblical description and any chosen version of current scientific understanding (it’s not as if you’d be the first) but that doesn’t really mean anything in practice.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
let's bear in mind......God was imparting a discussion unto a human

and that human was not equipped to handle the terms

creating earth on day three does not mean.....THIS planet

water above and below the firmament
a sphere of substance as the core is starting to gel

let there be light......fusion sets in

tell that to a wandering Jew...…
who climbed unto your mountain to meet his Maker
doing so with no intent of backing down the mountain

Moses went there to die

and the meeting with God went quite …..unexpected
 

Darkforbid

Well-Known Member
The description in the Bible is as follow.
Calculate the ages of the descendents of Adam up to Jacob.
Add 400 years for Egyptian captivity.
another 490 years for the Judges untill the dedication of the Temple.
count the Kings in Judah and Israel untill the first captivity of the 10 tribes with Schalmanezzar, and we get to 721 Bc.
from thereone we have the dates quite well sorted out, and we get +- 6 000 years.
Usher was quite good when he did this dating chronology from the given dates in the Bible.

However, you are correct, it does not say the Earth is 6 000 years old, but life is 6 000 years old.

Anyhow, thats how it is calculated for what it is worth.
And there is no contempory, and I think you will like what I will show.

Nope, the genealogy doesn't trace back to the start of life. Just the departure from Eden
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Some of us noticed a while back that no too
infallible readings of inerrant scrip are the same.

As for what the bible is really saying, who is
supposed to know? It is full of inaccuracies
and contradictions Oh,and things that simply are
not true.
And we can later talk about these so called inacuracies and contradictions.
I worked through over a thousand of it, and could not find any thing claimed by what the Atheists and Muslims claimed.
Shabir Ali with his 101 errors in the Bible, and the website Annodated Bible can all be proven as "Concoctions to create errors and contradictions"
Anyhow, what do you say, what was the appearance of the Earth on the 3rd morning.
Even if you are an atheist, it is a simple question to answer, and I think you can do it.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Not to mention how all the plants and animals were
suddenly poofed into their present forms.
It seems as if you just can not figure out what the appearance of the Earth was on the Morning of the 3rd day.
is it difficuilt?
 

Darkforbid

Well-Known Member
Some of us noticed a while back that no too
infallible readings of inerrant scrip are the same.

As for what the bible is really saying, who is
supposed to know? It is full of inaccuracies
and contradictions Oh,and things that simply are
not true.

Why would expect a collection of books written over a massive time period not to have differences. It seem illogical assuming they wouldn't
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
A few years ago I decided to do some Bible investigation (study) into what the Bible say about the creation of our universe. I had just about enough on what Atheists and Muslims told me what they perceived the Bible said.
  • The Bible say the Sun was created after the Earth, yet science knows that the Sun is part of the Universe, and our solar system is 8 billion years younger than the galaxy we live in. Therefore, the Bible is wrong.
  • The Bible say that the Universe is only about 6 000 years old, and science knows this is a huge error. It can be as old as 12.5 to 18 billion years! If the Author of the Bible could not describe the creation to syncronize with what science knows today, he can not be the God who created it all.
Well, so the argument goes. Quite frankly, these arguments are valid!
I never found anyone that could answer these questions, except for perhaps Creationists that denies science and twist the understanding of the Creation description to fit in with science. Some might even attempt to twist scientific facts to fit in with the Bible.

I just wondered "What is the Facts"?
I realised that I had to go to Genesis to see for myself what the Bible says about the way God created everything.
And I was quite surprised at what I found, was totally different from what I always believed the Bible said. Today I am delighted to know that what science says, the Bible described 4 500 years ago to Moses.
Lets first recap what Genesis 1 says about the first 5 days.
You say that science KNOWS. That is totally incorrect.

Based on evidence, and the interpretation of that evidence, science postulates and creates a theory.

Theories aren´t absolute knowledge.

I once read a brilliant article by an MIT physics professor who now teaches in Israel.

His position was that distance dialates time. I have it somewhere, I will try and find it.

His thought experiment was this.

If in a very distant galaxy a powerful laser released a beam toward earth every second, the light, because of dialation would not arrive on earth seconds apart, but rather weeks apart.

So, at the point of origin the time element was seconds, on earth it was weeks, or more.

Both are right. so looking back the universe appears to be 14 billion years old, but because of time dialation it may have been created a million years ago.

This is a crude summation of what I read some time ago, It will no doubt be picked apart by someone, but I hope to retrieve the article and rebut the pickers apart.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Nope, the genealogy doesn't trace back to the start of life. Just the departure from Eden
Sorry, I thought it was the age of Adam that is mentioned in Genesis.
I think Adam's age was counted in Paradise. it says that God gave the lights to be signs for days, seasons and years.
I dont know of anything that would suggest Adam's age was kicked off with the fall.
 

Darkforbid

Well-Known Member
You say that science KNOWS. That is totally incorrect.

Based on evidence, and the interpretation of that evidence, science postulates and creates a theory.

Theories aren´t absolute knowledge.

I once read a brilliant article by an MIT physics professor who now teaches in Israel.

His position was that distance dialates time. I have it somewhere, I will try and find it.

His thought experiment was this.

If in a very distant galaxy a powerful laser released a beam toward earth every second, the light, because of dialation would not arrive on earth seconds apart, but rather weeks apart.

So, at the point of origin the time element was seconds, on earth it was weeks, or more.

Both are right. so looking back the universe appears to be 14 billion years old, but because of time dialation it may have been created a million years ago.

This is a crude summation of what I read some time ago, It will no doubt be picked apart by someone, but I hope to retrieve the article and rebut the pickers apart.

I think if that's what he said he's confusing expansion the actual space between pulses with time dilation
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It seems as if you just can not figure out what the appearance of the Earth was on the Morning of the 3rd day.
is it difficuilt?
If I were to read Genesis literally as a scientific description of how the earth was form (hugely incorrect assumption), since the sun was not in existence until the next day, the earth would have no shape.

It would just be cosmic dust particles floating in space, occasionally attracting other dust particles to form small rocks it happened to attract. Basically, it wouldn't be a planet yet, because planets are formed by the gravitational force of large bodies, such as gas-giants or our familiar sun.

Why God would put plants on these dust particles is odd, don't you think?
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
You say that science KNOWS. That is totally incorrect.

Based on evidence, and the interpretation of that evidence, science postulates and creates a theory.

Theories aren´t absolute knowledge.

I once read a brilliant article by an MIT physics professor who now teaches in Israel.

His position was that distance dialates time. I have it somewhere, I will try and find it.

His thought experiment was this.

If in a very distant galaxy a powerful laser released a beam toward earth every second, the light, because of dialation would not arrive on earth seconds apart, but rather weeks apart.

So, at the point of origin the time element was seconds, on earth it was weeks, or more.

Both are right. so looking back the universe appears to be 14 billion years old, but because of time dialation it may have been created a million years ago.

This is a crude summation of what I read some time ago, It will no doubt be picked apart by someone, but I hope to retrieve the article and rebut the pickers apart.
And I agree with that also.
But for the most part, I want to play the Devils advocate's bluff and assume that science is correct.
If I were to go to an Atheist Or Muslim scholar that uses science as evidence that the Bible is wrong, and I can show him that "Science was plagerised from the Bible", they have zero footing to attack the Bible.

So let us not run into the wild with what we believe, but look at what the Bible say, and then compare it with the theories atheists uses to discredit the Bible.

What do you say?
What was the appearance of the Earth on the 3rd morning.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
If I were to read Genesis literally as a scientific description of how the earth was form (hugely incorrect assumption), since the sun was not in existence until the next day, the earth would have no shape.

It would just be cosmic dust particles floating in space, occasionally attracting other dust particles to form small rocks it happened to attract. Basically, it wouldn't be a planet yet, because planets are formed by the gravitational force of large bodies, such as gas-giants or our familiar sun.

Why God would put plants on these dust particles is odd, don't you think?
Yeeeehhh.
I agree with that too.
But what do you say, how did the Earth look on the morning of the 3rd day before God seperated land and sea?
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Dear all.
I need to leave now.
I will be back tomorrow with the answer, but I would like it if someone can give me the answer on how the Earth looked, appeared, on the morning of the 3rd day.
it is crucial to think about this, for it will reveal a chain event which will open the understanding of the Origins of the Universe.
Greetings
 

JJ50

Well-Known Member
Obviously this is your opinion because you never read it for yourself.
Funny that you cant answer me on how the earth looked on the 3dr morning.
The creation story is nonsense, as are Genesis 1v 9-13, describing the third day!
 
Last edited:

Darkforbid

Well-Known Member
And such non sensical entities are not in the Bible.
How sad for you.
Unicorns are in the Bible, and Dragons, and Foul wirth 4 legs.
Did you know that?
Oh, then I will play the card of Unicorns was the one horned rhinoserous, the Dragons some extinct Dinosaur, and the foul with 4 legs was the Archaeopterix.
But, lets see, what do you thingk the appearance of the Earth on the Morning of day 3 was?

Nope, a one honed beast is mentioned in the bible. Unicorn is just a bad but colourful translation, descriptions of its strengths point more towards that other mythical beast the rhinoceros
 

Darkforbid

Well-Known Member
Don't be so silly! The creation story is nonsense, as are Genesis 1v 9-13, describing the third day!

And, you don't think the inclusion of a second creation account in genesis means they were aware their understanding was a work in progress!
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Yeeeehhh.
I agree with that too.
But what do you say, how did the Earth look on the morning of the 3rd day before God seperated land and sea?
I think the question I would ask, is what was it that the writers of the Genesis mythology wanted to convey, to communicate through that language? That's a more reasonable and accurate question, than reading it literally and trying to make some naturalistic sense out of it.

To that point then, I'd have to say that maybe they were seeing the world unfold like a curtain drawing back to display the stage for the act of life to play itself out upon. It's poetic. "And the stage was set, the curtain drawn back, and the actors and the story of life begins". Very much like that, I imagine. So the earth was "unformed", undefined, unlit. And the "days of creation" are the lights coming on stage in sequence till it's all lit.

It other words, life and its origins was a cosmic mystery to the author(s), and it unfolded "magically", which from any poet's eyes, the world, the universe, our realities are the greatest Mystery of all, and the only language to speak to that Mystery, is myth. This is the language of myth, speaking into the Cosmic Void, or the Divine Reality. "God".
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
OK, here's a little thing I wrote up for the Biblical age of the Earth.

Genesis 5.3: And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:

Total: 130+105 = 235 years

Genesis 5:9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:

Total: 235+90 = 325 years

Genesis 5:12 And Cainan lived seventy years and begat Mahalaleel:

Total: 325+70 = 395 years

Genesis 5:15 And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:

Total: 395+65 = 460 years

Genesis 5:18 And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:

Total: 460+162 = 622 years

Genesis 5:21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:

Total: 622+65 = 687 years

Genesis 5:25 And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech.

Total: 687+187 = 874 years.

Genesis 5:28 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:
5:29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.

Total: 874+182 = 1056 years

Genesis 7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

Total: 1056+600 = 1656 years
This gives the date of the flood according to the Bible.

Genesis 8:13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.

Total: 1056+601 = 1657 years
This gives the date of the end of the flood.

Genesis 11:10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:

Total: 1657+2 = 1659 years
This is a bit ambiguous: is the two years measured from the beginning or the end of the flood?

Genesis 11:12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:

Total: 1659+35 = 1694 years

Genesis 11:14 And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber:

Total: 1694+30 = 1724 years

Genesis 11:16 And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg:

Total: 1724+34 = 1758 years

Genesis 11:18 And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu:

Total: 1758+30 = 1788

Genesis 11:20 And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug:

Total: 1788+32 = 1820 years

Genesis 11:22 And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor:

Total: 1820+30 = 1850 years

Genesis 11:24 And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah:

Total: 1850+29 = 1879 years

Genesis 11:26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Total: 1879+70 = 1949 years

Genesis 21:5 And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him.
Note: Abram and Abraham are the same person.

Total: 1949+100 = 2049 years.

Genesis 25:26 And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them.

Total: 2049+60 = 2109 years

Genesis 47:28 And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years: so the whole age of Jacob was an hundred forty and seven years.

Total: 2109+147 = 2256 years

This means that Jacob went into Egypt at

Total: 2256-17 = 2239 years.

Exodus 12:40 Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.
Note: this is an over-estimate: some people think the 430 years starts when Abraham went into Canaan.

Total: 2239+430 = 2669 years.

1 Kings 6:1 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.
Note: some would add to this the 40 years in the desert.

Total: 2669+480 = 3149 years.

The temple stood for 410 years:

Total: 3149+410 = 3459 years

Destruction of the temple of Solomon by Neuchadnezzer was in 587 BC.

This means that Adam was formed 3459+587 = 4046 BC.
The global flood, according to the Bible, was 4046-1657=2389 BC.mans have only existed about 6000 years.

But we *know* of cities (like Catal Huyuk) that have existed for 10,000 years, and evidence of humans going back 200,000 years. So even in the limited context of how long humans have been around, the Bible gives ages that are just contrary to the actual evidence.
 
Top