• 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!

God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

Do you believe God possibly recreated the Earth 6,000 years ago?

  • Yes, it's possible that God recreated the Earth 6,000 years ago.

    Votes: 13 11.6%
  • No, there is no way that the Earth could have been recreated 6,000 years ago.

    Votes: 99 88.4%

  • Total voters


Veteran Member
Science has CMBR ( cosmic microwave background radiation dating ) which is accurate rational dating because of the accuracy of microwaves.


Even in English rationally we fit numbers into ' days '. We speak of grandfather's ' day ' and we know that is Not a 24-hr. day.

A number of nation have named a specific day for this. It is still day, 24 hour period by definition of the word.

So, Noah's day ( Matthew 24:37 ) was also Not a 24-hr. day.

Days of Noah not day. Your example failed


So, as Genesis 2:4 sums up all of the ' creative days ' by the use of the rational singular word ' day ' does Not make all of the creative days created in one 24-hr. day.

Still post hoc rationalization in which the text never provides a specific then you fit a specific, from science, into it.


Well-Known Member

I believe that the biblical story of creation doesn't describe God's original creation of Earth, but it actually describes the recreation of the Earth 6,000 years ago by God for the benefit of newly formed life who would have souls such as Adam, Eve and their descendants. I believe that according to the first few verses of Holy scripture in the book of Genesis, the Earth already had existed with water during the first day of its recreation. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" - (Genesis 1:1-2)

I believe there was an older version of Earth that God had destroyed with a cloud of darkness and water, so that He could recreate the Earth with the right conditions for us humans who have souls. I think the first chapter of Genesis is widely misinterpreted as a narrative about the creation of Earth; whereas, it should be correctly interpreted as a narrative about the recreation of the Earth with more favorable conditions for human souls to exist. Does anybody else agree that the first few verses in the book of Genesis have been widely misinterpreted as a creation narrative; whereas, it should be correctly interpreted as a recreation narrative?
There could be any amount of time between the general statement that God created the heavens and the Earth, and the Earth becoming waste and ruin.

It is notable that Satan had already rebelled against God when he was in Eden -and was cast down to Earth -likely back down to Earth.
To attempt that coup, he needed to ascend above the heights of the clouds.... Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
It is possible that rebellion had an adverse effect on the earth -which was joy-inspiring when first completed at some point in the past....
Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding..............................Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.
Though the Earth had become (H1961) waste and ruin, there is little detail about its state at the time.
Some assume that there was no life on earth at that point, but that is not actually stated. That which caused its state was not necessarily a complete extinction event.
Though it is stated that God caused certain species to exist at that time, it is not stated that they were the very first physical life forms on earth -or that they were not based on previous life forms.
Though Adam was apparently directly created, that is not to say his DNA would be radically different -or that all DNA would indicate he was the first "man" -as we do not know the process by which he was created -or whether or not information/genes from previous humanoids was referenced. Also, he was the first "man" by biblical definition -to be made in the image and likeness of God, and with the potential to become immortal. That has nothing to do with whether or not there were humanoids on Earth before Adam.
Eve was made based on material from Adam, so why might not Adam be at least genetically similar to other humanoids of the time?
Also note that when Cain left Eden, he went to Nod and somehow found a wife.
Last edited:


Rogue Theologian
a day in the life of God I like unto a thousand years.....
I think that can be found in Psalms....

and if the comparison has flex to it....
the evening and morning in the perspective of a God.....
would be different than our own


Veteran Member
Yes, a thousand years as a day. Compare Psalms 90:4 with 2 Peter 3:8

Cain found a wife among one of his sisters or cousins because Adam and Eve had both sons and ' daughters ' according to Genesis 5:4 B


Rogue Theologian
Yes, a thousand years as a day. Compare Psalms 90:4 with 2 Peter 3:8

Cain found a wife among one of his sisters or cousins because Adam and Eve had both sons and ' daughters ' according to Genesis 5:4 B
I don't see it that way.....

Day Six would be Man as a species.
no names....no garden...no law....
go forth, be fruitful and multiply.

Adam is chosen son of God (new testament)
Eve is a clone....no navel
Adam was given his twin sister for a bride
Last edited:


Just old
Premium Member
And without incestual behavior to please your god,
what would the scripture speak of ?
Wow...the errors of it all !
But....something to live by, what has man written ?


and open minds....

Your calling the pot calling the kettle black?

There is a difference between open mind and those who pervert knowledge to adhere to 100% faith. They are not the same.

You have nothing to support your claim not even the mythology makes the claim you do.

That means you are proselytizing your own mythology by using imaginative leaps of faith and faith alone. Which is the opposite of an open mind.


Veteran Member
Unless there's additional sources of radiation feeding in, they are exact and linear, which is why physicists use the term "half-life".

There are so many sources of redaction that it takes six years to learn how to "interpret" mass spectrometry readings! That is my point. It is not simply multiply by a power to calculate years "accurately".


Veteran Member
Any phenomenon interfering to speed up the decay rate, regardless of how it works, still produces the same problem: they generate enough heat to melt the Earth. You haven't addressed that problem yet.

I've seen you say this before but I don't think I've ever seen you provide a source for it. You're saying that the isotope ratio numbers published in scientific papers are not what is actually present in the rock? You're basically accusing scientists of lying who publish those numbers.

Not lying. The case can be made that a relatively minute number of scientists calculates the ages of rocks and then sets standards, so that a relatively large number of scientists says, "X rock here is like Y rock there, already dated (by other scientists) to X years." This is actually what happens when dating organic life to old dates. A paleontologist who finds a dinosaur fossil cannot use carbon dating on that fossil but may rely on another scientist's examination of neighboring rock that is similar to other rock.