Is the earth only a few thousand years old?

[rational experiences]

YEC's are hung up on the word "day" used in Genesis, but the English is translated from the Hebrew "yohm" which can mean a 24 hour day, or it can be used in a much broader sense as Genesis 2:4 states....there the whole 6 days of creation are called a "day". We use the word more broadly ourselves when we speak of our grandfather's "day".
So it doesn't mean that each "day" was 24 hours long with a big magician 'poofing' things into existence.

Creation was a process.....a very lengthy one by all accounts.

There is also nothing to suggest that the first verse in Genesis ch 1 is anything but a statement about "the big bang" which could have been billions of years before the planet was considered for habitation.
What followed is an account about how a formless and waste planet was transformed into a place suitable for living things...that process could have taken million of years also, because the Hebrew does not restrict the "days" to 24 hours. Science and the Bible have to mesh because we believe that the Creator is the scientist responsible for all of it....

A day is a human experience only.

Humans apply counting for human reasons.

Gases burning in a space void is a gas burning in a space void. Owns no other status.

O earth has to exist to be a planet moving one cycle around a sun to claim one cycle.

One only in fact ever is one as earths age count is one cycle only.....with no time count. No age given.

Human reason says the same O earth body one cycle. Movement. God is one as movement a cycle.

Six days means a human counting endured change to life on earth for six days notating the change stopped on the seventh day.

An advice how a human caused the earth to attack their life and evict them from cohabitation with the garden nature.

Made deserts as a wilderness by mass radiation as a numbered factor. Garden incinerated removed in conversion. As ark moved slowly destroying attacking mountain form.

Said why it then rained for forty days flooding and stopped the irradiation destruction I had caused. Sin of man activated. Flooding saved earth from stone ark attack.

God reaction O was earths man forced it. God reaction stopped was when natural life was then saved but evicted from living within earths garden.

Seeing he had burnt irradiated the ground bush his statement.

Bible science man's confession. To contradict natural form.

 

[firedragon]

YEC's are hung up on the word "day" used in Genesis, but the English is translated from the Hebrew "yohm" which can mean a 24 hour day, or it can be used in a much broader sense as Genesis 2:4 states....there the whole 6 days of creation are called a "day". We use the word more broadly ourselves when we speak of our grandfather's "day".
So it doesn't mean that each "day" was 24 hours long with a big magician 'poofing' things into existence.

Creation was a process.....a very lengthy one by all accounts.

There is also nothing to suggest that the first verse in Genesis ch 1 is anything but a statement about "the big bang" which could have been billions of years before the planet was considered for habitation.
What followed is an account about how a formless and waste planet was transformed into a place suitable for living things...that process could have taken million of years also, because the Hebrew does not restrict the "days" to 24 hours. Science and the Bible have to mesh because we believe that the Creator is the scientist responsible for all of it....

Its not just the word yowm. Its also the description of "day".

God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

 

[rational experiences]

Its not just the word yowm. Its also the description of "day".

God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

In space gases alight are said to give light is not named a day in space.
Darkness in space owns multi reasons. Emptiness. Carbon is black. Clear gases allow black to be seen not a count either.

Hence man in science thought upon light said it was a day and night clear gas not alight as he observed to speak about science on earth as stories and themes.

Relative only to observed life on earth.

Creation exists first in space states.

 

[firedragon]

Relative only to observed life on earth.

Yes. According to the Bible

 

[IndigoChild5559]

This came as a surprise for me, though I knew there are many people, especially Christians who believe the earth was somewhere like 6,000 years old due to the timelines provided in the Bible. The Bible does provide a time line and some have ventured to calculate the age of the earth. Well, it does seem like it is a 6000 plus year timeline. Though I know that this belief is there, unexpectedly in a conversation regarding Noah and the flood, a YEC doctrine came up again with carbon dating and the non-existence of carbon beyond a certain point. I am not a science major for sure, but as kids we all learn about carbon dating. So its pretty easy for anyone to understand it. Also, since carbon dating is extensively used in dating documents of old, it is a pretty well known subject. To make a claim like "Carbon 14 didnt exist" during a particular time (In this case 3000 years ago to be specific) one has to make the case that no living thing existed prior to that time. Wow. That was a surprise.

The method of carbon dating itself runs up to 60000 years in age. But the claim is the earth is 6000 years old. Also this is neglecting the other methodologies of radiometric dating.

Is the idea of a 6k year old earth absurd and absolutely unscientific? Or, do Christians who still have this idea have some solid foundation scientifically?

Hello my friend. Radiometric dating uses far far more sources than just carbon 14. Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dating is the most widely applied technique of radiometric dating. These other types of Radiometric dating don't just go back tens of thousands of years, but millions and billions of years.

The idea of a 6K y.o. earth is utterly unscientific because it contradicts all that we know from radiometric dating. In addition to that, there are other ways to age the earth as older than 6K years, such as ice layers in glaciers. There is the problem that many rock formations have formed through simple plate tectonics and erosion, which in no way could have happened in a mere 6K years.

I have heard that some fundamentalists, because they are daunted by the strength of the science, are now teaching that God simply created an earth that already looked old,that had mountains that looked built up by plate tectonics, and Grand Canyons eroded by rivers and stuff.

The problem with that is that it makes God into a liar. What kind of God would create an earth deliberately designed to deceive us into thinking it is older than what it is?

No, my friend. We need to look at Genesis from a different angle.

If I told you a creation myth from ANY other people on the face of the earth other than the Israelites, you would recognize it as a creation myth right away. Why is it that we have such a hard time acknowledging the fact that such a great wise book of God as the Bible includes the genres of myth and legend?

I realize that sometimes people use the word "myth" as a synonym for "lie." But that is not what *I* mean when I say myth. Myth as a literary genre is extremely powerful. Although it is not historical, it is perhaps the best way to teach a cultures most important values and ethics. The question I ask is, for goodness sakes, why WOULDN'T God use myth in his word?

I suggest to everyone in this forum to read the classic essay on myth by JRR Tolkien called "On Faerie Stories." You will come away with a whole new admiration for the genre of myth and feel proud that part of the Bible is myth.
https://coolcalvary.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/on-fairy-stories1.pdf

 

[Deeje]

Its not just the word yowm. Its also the description of "day".

God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

It has been discussed before....how long a period is between "evening and morning"? Think about it....
The Jewish "day" began at sundown and finished at sundown the following day....This is not talking about a 24 hour period.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This came as a surprise for me, though I knew there are many people, especially Christians who believe the earth was somewhere like 6,000 years old due to the timelines provided in the Bible. The Bible does provide a time line and some have ventured to calculate the age of the earth. Well, it does seem like it is a 6000 plus year timeline. Though I know that this belief is there, unexpectedly in a conversation regarding Noah and the flood, a YEC doctrine came up again with carbon dating and the non-existence of carbon beyond a certain point. I am not a science major for sure, but as kids we all learn about carbon dating. So its pretty easy for anyone to understand it. Also, since carbon dating is extensively used in dating documents of old, it is a pretty well known subject. To make a claim like "Carbon 14 didnt exist" during a particular time (In this case 3000 years ago to be specific) one has to make the case that no living thing existed prior to that time. Wow. That was a surprise.

The method of carbon dating itself runs up to 60000 years in age. But the claim is the earth is 6000 years old. Also this is neglecting the other methodologies of radiometric dating.

Is the idea of a 6k year old earth absurd and absolutely unscientific? Or, do Christians who still have this idea have some solid foundation scientifically?

It is my firm belief that the Earth was formed either last Thursday or 4.543 billion years ago.

 

[rational experiences]

Yes. According to the Bible

O earth stone not speaking.
O first one mass.

O mass creator not speaking owned an erection.

Mountain volcano correct science terms

Man who owns erections did comparison falsely.

Volcano released gas Hot from mass O into space. A hot dense state surrounded by its sealed stone caused it.

God O stone never did. Not gods son earth seal stone in reality was hot dense states spirit.

Just another coercive lie.

Science a man as a human lying.

Man owned description by his man presence a thesis.

Ask a man how did you know science was wrong?

I got life sacrificed the answer.

Reason science on earth argues science on earth. No other argument is real. Experience is the truth not thesis.

Less of the son.

Two less statements.

God's son alight gases in vacuum womb became less. Not actually a real Son as humans say if gases not alight life would die. Never said light as gas burning was life.

My life as man father and son became sacrificed and less. My man son a baby.

Baby in God as newly born spirit saviour on earth was ice body reborn end of year. Spirit of earth heavens changed into new form.

Beware says as human teaching of false statements by scientists.

Man's life was sacrificed.

Saved sacrificed.

Water lost was put back to live an irradiated mutated alive sacrificed sick and suffering life. We were told by Satanists it was our karma.

What elitist falsify to condition arguments.

 

[firedragon]

Hello my friend. Radiometric dating uses far far more sources than just carbon 14. Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dating is the most widely applied technique of radiometric dating. These other types of Radiometric dating don't just go back tens of thousands of years, but millions and billions of years.

The idea of a 6K y.o. earth is utterly unscientific because it contradicts all that we know from radiometric dating. In addition to that, there are other ways to age the earth as older than 6K years, such as ice layers in glaciers. There is the problem that many rock formations have formed through simple plate tectonics and erosion, which in no way could have happened in a mere 6K years.

I have heard that some fundamentalists, because they are daunted by the strength of the science, are now teaching that God simply created an earth that already looked old,that had mountains that looked built up by plate tectonics, and Grand Canyons eroded by rivers and stuff.

The problem with that is that it makes God into a liar. What kind of God would create an earth deliberately designed to deceive us into thinking it is older than what it is?

No, my friend. We need to look at Genesis from a different angle.

If I told you a creation myth from ANY other people on the face of the earth other than the Israelites, you would recognize it as a creation myth right away. Why is it that we have such a hard time acknowledging the fact that such a great wise book of God as the Bible includes the genres of myth and legend?

I realize that sometimes people use the word "myth" as a synonym for "lie." But that is not what *I* mean when I say myth. Myth as a literary genre is extremely powerful. Although it is not historical, it is perhaps the best way to teach a cultures most important values and ethics. The question I ask is, for goodness sakes, why WOULDN'T God use myth in his word?

I suggest to everyone in this forum to read the classic essay on myth by JRR Tolkien called "On Faerie Stories." You will come away with a whole new admiration for the genre of myth and feel proud that part of the Bible is myth.
https://coolcalvary.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/on-fairy-stories1.pdf

So you are saying that the Bible is of myth genre?

 

[firedragon]

It has been discussed before....how long a period is between "evening and morning"? Think about it....
The Jewish "day" began at sundown and finished at sundown the following day....This is not talking about a 24 hour period.

Well. Everyone knows the Jewish day. But the genesis account is speaking of morning and night. Consecutively. And calls it a day. Its a day with morning and evening. If you think the period is longer, then some evidence or at least a philosophical theory has to be presented that at that time the day was longer. Yet, it is still a morning and evening in every verse depicting a day.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So you are saying that the Bible is of myth genre?

Oh, certainly not all of it. The Bible is comprised of many genres, including myth. Think for a moment. There are books of law, history, songs, proverbs, a drama, a love poem, books of prophecy... I'm simply saying that we need to include myth and legend in this list. When we read something like 2 Chronicles recording the triumphant return of the Jews from Babylon and the building of the second temple, we know that's history. When we read about a global flood, we know this to be a legend, meant to teach a lesson.

 

[sayak83]

Which is why I was surprised. But the bigger surprise was that he has extensive scientific assumptions to back the notion up. So I want to hear more.

I don't know what his arguments are. Here is evidence that oldest rocks on earth are 4.4 billion years old.
Confirmed: Oldest Fragment of Early Earth is 4.4 Billion Years Old | Live Science

 

[rational experiences]

Well. Everyone knows the Jewish day. But the genesis account is speaking of morning and night. Consecutively. And calls it a day. Its a day with morning and evening. If you think the period is longer, then some evidence or at least a philosophical theory has to be presented that at that time the day was longer. Yet, it is still a morning and evening in every verse depicting a day.

Memory if reality would quote a day longer status would be by earths atmosphere owning a larger mass and it's cycle around the sun longer as earths mass status would allow for a slower cycle.

For earth to keep a sun position would mean the whole universe lost form in mass and was sucked deeper into colder space to still cycle the same but own shorter days.

The Mayan vision showed mars on fire when their civilization self combusted. Nuclear chemical reacting atmospheric like a volcanic taint in underground water proof. Surrounding crops land burnt.

 

[Neuropteron]

But the claim is the earth is 6000 years old.

Hi,

Christians make many claims, they should always be carefully verified.

The bible does not mention a time for the creation of the earth and never claimed the earth to be 6000 years old.
It can easily be confirmed by cross reference that the 7 Creative days are, firstly not literal 24 hrs days, secondly in reference to the formation of the already existing earth.

Just like a building constructed out of Lego are build by pre-made Legos, the time of construction of the building does not include the manufacturing of the Legos.

A quick look at the first comment relating to the earth (7 creation days) is Gen 1:2 "God's spirit was moving to and fro over... the surface.... ". The surface of what ? the earth's surface. From this scripture alone we can conclude that the earth was already in existence. We are however not restricted to Gen 1:2 to conclude that the earth was already there before the 7 creation days.

The sentence of Gen 1:1 "in the beginning" gives no indication of the time this :beginning" took place.

 

[Deeje]

Well. Everyone knows the Jewish day. But the genesis account is speaking of morning and night. Consecutively. And calls it a day. Its a day with morning and evening. If you think the period is longer, then some evidence or at least a philosophical theory has to be presented that at that time the day was longer. Yet, it is still a morning and evening in every verse depicting a day.

Read it again.....the 'evening' comes before the 'morning'...so evening is sundown, morning is sunrise....it is speaking of the period between sundown and sunrise......that is not a day.....sundown to sundown was a Jewish day.

It is simply a symbol of one era closing and another beginning IMO.

 

[firedragon]

Oh, certainly not all of it. The Bible is comprised of many genres, including myth. Think for a moment. There are books of law, history, songs, proverbs, a drama, a love poem, books of prophecy... I'm simply saying that we need to include myth and legend in this list. When we read something like 2 Chronicles recording the triumphant return of the Jews from Babylon and the building of the second temple, we know that's history. When we read about a global flood, we know this to be a legend, meant to teach a lesson.

Do you use a methodological genre criticism or is it just a confirmation bias? If it is methodological, what is the method you use? What criticism do you apply? Please explain if you dont mind.

 

[firedragon]

Hi,

Christians make many claims, they should always be carefully verified.

The bible does not mention a time for the creation of the earth and never claimed the earth to be 6000 years old.
It can easily be confirmed by cross reference that the 7 Creative days are, firstly not literal 24 hrs days, secondly in reference to the formation of the already existing earth.

Just like a building constructed out of Lego are build by pre-made Legos, the time of construction of the building does not include the manufacturing of the Legos.

A quick look at the first comment relating to the earth (7 creation days) is Gen 1:2 "God's spirit was moving to and fro over... the surface.... ". The surface of what ? the earth's surface. From this scripture alone we can conclude that the earth was already in existence. We are however not restricted to Gen 1:2 to conclude that the earth was already there before the 7 creation days.

The sentence of Gen 1:1 "in the beginning" gives no indication of the time this :beginning" took place.

God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

Thats the text. So its a day with morning and night. It is clearly explained, not just stated "Day".

 

[firedragon]

Read it again.....the 'evening' comes before the 'morning'...so evening is sundown, morning is sunrise....it is speaking of the period between sundown and sunrise......that is not a day.....sundown to sundown was a Jewish day.

It is simply a symbol of one era closing and another beginning IMO.

Read it again.

And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day.

Even if its a jewish day, it is still a day. It does not say "Era". So you are just making things up. At least if the word was a plural, and the explanation of morning and evening is non-existent in these verses you could try and make the case you are making.

But this is very clear, God did a lot of work, and there was evening, and there was morning, the third day, and so on.

 

[Neuropteron]

God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

Thats the text. So its a day with morning and night. It is clearly explained, not just stated "Day".

God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

Thats the text. So its a day with morning and night. It is clearly explained, not just stated "Day".

Hi,
I can understand your objection.
However, both the term "morning" and " night" can be figurative or literal.
We should also consider that literal days start with the morning not the evening.
The reason the creation days begin with the evening is to show that the beginning of those days were incomplete and unclear.

If we arbitrarily decide that words are literal without consulting the context or listen to those that do, we should not be surprised that the bible makes little sense.

 

[firedragon]

However, both the term "morning" and " night" can be figurative or literal.

Sorry but the verse doesnt say so. It is describing, not just saying words.