Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate

[Subduction Zone]

I had to give you a frubal winner thingy for that! To be honest, I'm not in bad nick for my age either - but I am fighting a losing battle in the middle bit - my six pack has definitely morphed into an economy pack in the last few years. I can't do superman push ups though - kudos for that! I do exercise most days and fairly intensively at that - but the belly just keeps on growing anyway!

For a while I did say "I traded in my six pack for a pony keg". But I am battling back right now. One clear enemy for me is alcohol. I never drank that much but I found when I quit that losing weight was possible. No more wine with dinner <sigh>. Also when I turned sixty I built up to the point where I did sixty of those suckers over the day. Then sixyone last year. I have to build up again because right now there is no way I could do 62. I would get up and do twenty. After a few hours twenty more. Then ten. Then a real weak ten. So a few more at the end of the day just to make sure. What bugs me about them is that I know that I can do them, but my body also knows that it will hurt a bit.

 

[Native]

Genesis 1 stated that the Earth (1:1-2) is older than the sun and stars (1:14-19).

That itself demonstrated the author have no real understanding of astronomy or of Earth science.

There are tens of billions of stars much older than the Sun.

Our Sun...in fact our entire Solar System were formed from older nearby supernovas, that predated the Earth.

Genesis 1 don´t speak of the creation of the planet Earth but the "first firm soil" which appears from the "heavenly waters" i.e. the cosmic clouds which is assembled in the creation center and put together to make the first firm soil or "mud". This explanation appears in several ancient stories of creation. So the author was fairly correct, but the later historic transations fails to grasp what is going on.

Our Solar System is an integrated part of the galactic rotation and logically also an integrated part of the galactic formation process which mostly takes place in the galactic center. The barred structure in the Milky Way speaks of this central formation of stars which is repelled out from the galactic center.

That is: Our Solar System wasn´t formed by a super nova but by the central galactic electromagnetic light and the ancient cultural stories of creation don´t speak of the creation of the entire Universe, but "just" of the creation of the Milky Way galaxy.

 

[ChristineM]

The oldest rocks are dated over 4 billion years old give or take 12 million years.

A young earth is not an option and is as laughable as a flat earth or an earth on pillers

 

[Audie]

I am a believer in scripture very literally and at the same time believe the Earth is the age that science tells us. So many readers of the OT (and New) have erroneously attempted to understand the words according to our present reality (of space and time) we now "see" outwardly. If one believes scripture truly is God's word (who is eternal), then wouldn't the words have an eternal reference point outside of space and time?

One HUGE and yet very subtle thing that some don't see is that Gen 1:1 speaks of "The-Earth" whereas Gen 1:2 speaks of "and-the-earth". These are two completely different things in the perfection of scripture. Verse 2 would be "the-earth" (unchanging, spiritual) wrapped in "and" (fleshly/change/natural life). This is more likely a spiritual body (current body we live in) than the round Earth we stand on or the spiritual side/body of the entire living Earth.

We are totally blind-sided by "and". However, once we see this we can realize that most of Genesis 1 (and most of scripture) is written (hidden) in the flesh as the verses or words start with "and". "And" simply has no start nor finish and is God's "clay" if you will. It is revealed here in John 1:14 about this special word "and".

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us John 1:14

We could rephrase it and say "The word 'and' became flesh".

So, I conclude there is no time even present here in these verses as this is all from God's view outside of time where change (and) occurs. Thus, there could be a million or a billion years from Gen 1:1 to Gen 1:2 according to the linear view of time. I personally believe it is all still occurring as the "and" is being added and removed. Do you see change or "and" in the Earth today?

Other things I have noticed about the days. Day "one" and day "The Sixth" are special. "The sixth" is the only one that has "the" in front of it. It is a special day when we receive a "duplicate portion" in Ex 16:22, 29.

"One" is a really special word (and day) especially considering John 10:30 "I and my father are ONE". This word appears 500 times in the OT which is quite a bit. However, the word "and" (flesh) appears a whopping 51,312 times in 19,873 OT verses and 9,278 times in 7,957 NT verses.

The word for "one" as in day "ONE" is also the same word of "place ONE" of Gen 1:9 (where all "the waters" are going to) and "flesh ONE" of Gen 2:24. Because Rev 17:15 reveals "the waters" are "peoples, multitudes, nations and tongues, I believe this is the one location, time, and body we are all going to where there is no division. All (space, time, body) will be "One". Hard to ponder... but is a beautiful view if one gets a glimpse.

I think a person can make a huge mistake in
making too much of a single word in something
that is not in the original writing and fully
understood in the context of the time.

The bible was not written by a team of lawyers
and grammarians, and it was not written by "god".

It is ambiguous, incomplete, approximate,
contradictory; it is poetry, folk wisdom, myth,
semi historical with much magic realism*,
it is the product of many authors and much
revision.

You know that, right? What you are doing is
like trying to appreciate a rose by studying the
refractive index and fluid pressure.

*a literary or artistic genre in which realistic narrative and naturalistic technique are combined with surreal elements of dream or fantasy.

 

[Audie]

I am not the spring chicken I used to be, but I am not exactly "round". .

Subzie Maru

 

[Audie]

How does science prove this exactly?

I just love the way science makes such confident statements about things that they can never really confirm. Have you been outside of the Milky Way lately? What planets have the scientists visited in our vast galaxy?

How does science categorically state the age of all the celestial bodies.....been there too eh?

Serious question here-is there anything in your faith
that suggests a person should lead by example,
show others what you faith does for you by how
you behave?

It is of course, what you are achieving, whether or
not is is what you intended. I wonder what you
think you are doing.

How does science prove this exactly?

Science does not 'prove" things,
so you merely look ignorant when you
keep using the word. Sarcastic ignorance,
on display!

Neither that,nor the display of arrogant ignorance
does nothing to enhance your ability
to attract anyone to be like you.

It is not at all that I am on your side here, but
I would like you to improve your game a
bit.

The forum would be better without
so many posts dripping with ponderous
(and misplaced) sarcasm.

 

[viole]

I would like to see how many of our users here believe in which theory (old earth or young earth) and why.

What are the core issues in the debate between old earth and young earth?

Do you believe the earth was created in 7 days? Give your argument for or against.

Nobody believes the earth has been created in 7 days. Unless we count one day doing siesta as a creative day.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Darkstorn]

Nobody believes the earth has been created in 7 days. Unless we count one day doing siesta as a creative day.

Ciao

- viole

Last Thusdayism practically believes that it could have happened in even less time, since part of the concept is that everything was made to look "aged" since everything was actually just created last thursday.

True, few people believe in literal version of that. But i have seen some who do.

 

[gnostic]

I just love the way science makes such confident statements about things that they can never really confirm. Have you been outside of the Milky Way lately? What planets have the scientists visited in our vast galaxy?

You really have no idea what you are talking about, Deeje.

Scientists, I am referring to astronomers, astrophysicists, and other related professions, understand that galaxy is "vast", as you put it.

What you don't understand that everything we see - stars, galaxies, nebulae, etc - take time for us to see them, whether through the naked eye or through telescope (be they be optical or radio waves).

What we are looking right at this second, is actually seeing the object in the past.

For instance, when we look at the Sun, we are looking what the sun actually look like about 8 minutes in the past, give or take 2 or 3 minutes (depending on the Earth's current position of the orbit).

When we look at the star Sirius right now, we are looking at what Sirius looked like about 8.7 years ago.

When we looked at Triangulum Galaxy, the most distant object we can see in the night sky, without the assistance of the telescope, what we really look at is what Triangulum about 3 million years in the past.

Andromeda Galaxy is the nearest spiral galaxy to us, and that's about 2 million years in the past, when we look at it tonight.

Do you understand what I am saying?

If the Bible indicated the Genesis Creation occurred about 6000 years ago (or 12,000 years ago, if you are using 2 Peter 3:8), then what we know about these galaxies, eg Andromeda, Triangulum and other more distant galaxies, shouldn't exist if Genesis is true.

The Milky Way isn't the only galaxy, and it isn't even the largest, because Andromeda is larger and have more stars than the MW.

Seriously, how can we see Andromeda that 2 million light years away from us, if Genesis creation is only 6000 years old?

Young Earth Creationism don't make sense, given what we do know about the stars and galaxies.

You are not thinking rationally.

 

[viole]

Last Thusdayism practically believes that it could have happened in even less time, since part of the concept is that everything was made to look "aged" since everything was actually just created last thursday.

True, few people believe in literal version of that. But i have seen some who do.

I like the idea. Last Thusdaism would entail a three days weekend. Sounds cool to me.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

You really have no idea what you are talking about, Deeje.

Scientists, I am referring to astronomers, astrophysicists, and other related professions, understand that galaxy is "vast", as you put it.

What you don't understand that everything we see.......

I think the way it works is, a JW knows for sure
what "God" did, as surely as if they had been there
taking part.

So.. whatever those secularist "scientists" do or say
that is different, is wrong The details hardly matter
any more than the colour of the dog that supposedly
ate the homework.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I would like to see how many of our users here believe in which theory (old earth or young earth) and why.

What are the core issues in the debate between old earth and young earth?

Do you believe the earth was created in 7 days? Give your argument for or against.

First science is wrong, seeing I don't follow man's teachings Nor any Pastor or Preacher.
If a person has knowledge and understanding in and about the bible, it's quite easy to see that the earth is Million to Billions of years old.
And not No 6000 years old, As man's teachings will say.

For example, how can the earth be
6000 years old, When you have the dinosaur bones standing in the way, As being Millions of years old.
Which out dates man's teachings that the earth is only 6000 years old.

There are many places in the Bible that supports the earth as being Millions of years old, however the Bible does give us an exact date, as to how old the earth is exactly. But what we do have, is the dinosaur bones which puts the earth Millions of years old and not some
6000 years old.
But as it is, people would rather follow man's teachings and not what the Bible actually does teach.
In the book of Genesis 1:1--"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Note it doesn't say when God created the heaven and the earth, only that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
When ever that was.
So we know the earth was here way before the 6000 years that man's teachings wants us to believe.
A good study in the bible, a person can come to the conclusion that the earth is much older than 6000 years, which man's teachings teach it is.

 

[Audie]

First science is wrong, seeing I don't follow man's teachings Nor any Pastor or Preacher.
If a person has knowledge and understanding in and about the bible, it's quite easy to see that the earth is Million to Billions of years old.
And not No 6000 years old, As man's teachings will say.

For example, how can the earth be
6000 years old, When you have the dinosaur bones standing in the way, As being Millions of years old.
Which out dates man's teachings that the earth is only 6000 years old.

There are many places in the Bible that supports the earth as being Millions of years old, however the Bible does give us an exact date, as to how old the earth is exactly. But what we do have, is the dinosaur bones which puts the earth Millions of years old and not some
6000 years old.
But as it is, people would rather follow man's teachings and not what the Bible actually does teach.

So how do you know what the bible "actually does"
teach?

 

[Faithofchristian]

So how do you know what the bible "actually does"
teach?

It's not hard, once you let the Spirit of God do the teaching.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned"
1st Corinthians 2:14

 

[Audie]

It's not hard, once you let the Spirit of God do the teaching.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned"
1st Corinthians 2:14

Lo and many a person quotes this same
passage, making the same statement
about their unerring ability to read scripture
correctly.

I would probably believe it except that there
are, so far, as many inerrant interpretations
as there are people who think they have the gift.

Why are you right and all the others are wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not hard, once you let the Spirit of God do the teaching.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned"
1st Corinthians 2:14

That has been shown not to work. The fact that there are tens of thousands of Christianity, all of them consider themselves to be true believers, confirms this.

You need something more reliable.

Perhaps if you could think of a reliable test for your version of God. That would mean that you would have to think of a reasonable test that your version of God could fail if it is wrong.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Gen 1:14 doesn't even mention the Sun. It mentions "luminary (bright) bodies" (the stars). The sun doesn't appear until Gen 15:12.

The sun is a star.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You really have no idea what you are talking about, Deeje.

Scientists, I am referring to astronomers, astrophysicists, and other related professions, understand that galaxy is "vast", as you put it.

What you don't understand that everything we see - stars, galaxies, nebulae, etc - take time for us to see them, whether through the naked eye or through telescope (be they be optical or radio waves).

What we are looking right at this second, is actually seeing the object in the past.

For instance, when we look at the Sun, we are looking what the sun actually look like about 8 minutes in the past, give or take 2 or 3 minutes (depending on the Earth's current position of the orbit).

When we look at the star Sirius right now, we are looking at what Sirius looked like about 8.7 years ago.

When we looked at Triangulum Galaxy, the most distant object we can see in the night sky, without the assistance of the telescope, what we really look at is what Triangulum about 3 million years in the past.

Andromeda Galaxy is the nearest spiral galaxy to us, and that's about 2 million years in the past, when we look at it tonight.

Do you understand what I am saying?

If the Bible indicated the Genesis Creation occurred about 6000 years ago (or 12,000 years ago, if you are using 2 Peter 3:8), then what we know about these galaxies, eg Andromeda, Triangulum and other more distant galaxies, shouldn't exist if Genesis is true.

The Milky Way isn't the only galaxy, and it isn't even the largest, because Andromeda is larger and have more stars than the MW.

Seriously, how can we see Andromeda that 2 million light years away from us, if Genesis creation is only 6000 years old?

Young Earth Creationism don't make sense, given what we do know about the stars and galaxies.

You are not thinking rationally.

That alone should kill the validity of the creation story.

Given those facts it's impossible for the creation story to be true.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Lo and many a person quotes this same
passage, making the same statement
about their unerring ability to read scripture
correctly.

I would probably believe it except that there
are, so far, as many inerrant interpretations
as there are people who think they have the gift.

Why are you right and all the others are wrong?

Many people may haved quoted that passage, but do they understand what it means, thatst the question to ask.

Yes there maybe many interpretations, but as for me, I only go by the 1611 KJV.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Many people may haved quoted that passage, but do they understand what it means, thatst the question to ask.

Yes there maybe many interpretations, but as for me, I only go by the 1611 KJV.

Why use an out of date and inaccurate translation?