Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate

[Faithofchristian]

The sun is a star.

Nope not at all, is the sun a star. The sun is the greater light and the moon is the lesser light.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope not at all, is the sun a star. The sun is the greater light and the moon is the lesser light.

Like it or not it is still a star.

Why do you have problems with that concept?

 

[Audie]

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.

I was referring to the obvious fact that there are about as
many interpretations of the KJV as there are readers.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I was referring to the obvious fact that there are about as
many interpretations of the KJV as there are readers.

If you wish to try and keep up with all those different interpretations, that's up to you, But for me, I will stay with the 1611 KJV.

Been there and tried to keep up with all those different interpretations, but I found it's alot easier to just go by one.
Which I do with the 1611 KJV.

Which I also have the Strong's Concordance and the Companion Bible, I found that's all I need.

 

[Audie]

If you wish to try and keep up with all those different interpretations, that's up to you, But for me, I will stay with the 1611 KJV.

Been there and tried to keep up with all those different interpretations, but I found it's alot easier to just go by one.
Which I do with the 1611 KJV.

Which I also have the Strong's Concordance and the Companion Bible, I found that's all I need.

You are not reading what I wrote.

Lets try again.

You read the KJV, and find what you find.

Others, equally believing they are endowed with
the spirit, able to correctly read it, find things
quite different.

There may be near as many different inerrant readings
as there are people with the gift.

Just for fun here, would you say all the numbers
given in the KJV are accurate, or are some, you know,
just approximate.

 

[Deeje]

Do you understand what I am saying?

Of course I understand.....but I don't think you do. Reading the rest of your post indicates that you haven't read or understood a thing I have said.

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 Bible does NOT indicate that creation occurred 6,000 years ago. Do you understand this?

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

Creation is NOT 6,000 years old. Human history can be traced back 6,000 years, but they were the last living creatures to be given life. There are millions of years of God's activity before they ever arrived.

Genesis basically says in verse 1 that God created the universe (matter) at some time in the dim, dark past. It could have been billions of years ago. There is no timeframe between the creation of the universe (the Big Bang) and the time when the earth was being prepared for habitation. The creative process was perhaps millions of years long because the Creator took all the time he needed to prepare the earth, and then to bring forth creatures to enjoy the habitats he had made specifically for them. The fact that the creative process occurred in increments ("days") shows that the Creator is methodical. Those "days" were not 24 hour periods with some invisible magician proofing things into existence with a word. The Bible indicates that God is a worker and he created us in his image so that we would be workers too. If you recall, he gave them a very important assignment. (Genesis 1:27-28) That too was going to take a considerable amount of time.

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

You are right...YEC doesn't hold water......but I am NOT, nor have I ever been a Young Earth Creationist.....so much for all the exchanges we have had all this time and you never knew this?
What selective comprehension methods do you subscribe to, I wonder?

The Bible and science agree. Since God is the first scientist....they have to.

Science doesn't agree with some people's interpretation of the Bible. I don't agree with them either.

You are not thinking rationally.

It appears that the one thinking irrationally is the person who responds to posts without actually reading them.

 

[gnostic]

Creation is NOT 6,000 years old. Human history can be traced back 6,000 years, but they were the last living creatures to be given life. There are millions of years of God's activity before they ever arrived.

But the creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis is set about 6000 years ago, based on -

• Genesis the genealogy in 5 & 11, and some time references to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,
• on Exodus 12:40-41,
• on 1 Kings 6:1 (the foundation of the Solomon’s temple),
• and the rest of the reigns of kingdom of Judah, to the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, in 1 & 2 Kings.

Of these, dates, the only historical dates that can be gleaned from the Old Testament, only fall of Jerusalem and some kings of Judah and of Israel (not Solomon), have some independent sources that match with historical records outside of these two kingdoms.

Other than that, the rest of bible appeared to be mythological, particularly the events in Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, and to Judges and all of both books of Samuel.

BUT, even if you believe in the Old Earth creationism, the events in timeline of Genesis 1 are still wrong.

The indication that Earth was created at the same time as the universe, eg with the Big Bang, the verses Genesis 1:1-2 are wrong.

Given that the Earth was created BEFORE the stars, according to Genesis 1:14-19, are also wrong.

The fact is, the Sun and other planets in the Solar System is roughly about the same age, as the Earth. But astronomers know that there are other stars as the Sun’s close neighbours, are older than the Sun.

For instance, Sirius B, in the binary system of Sirius is about 8.7 light years away from our Sun. This Sirius B is currently classified a white dwarf. Meaning it is star’s core that have stripped away its outer layers when it used to be a red giant. But before becoming a red giant, it was formerly a main sequence star, like our Sun, but it was twice as massive than the Sun.

The process of being formerly a main sequence star and red giant, before finally becoming it current stage of white dwarf, Sirius B’s total life cycle would have taken billions of year. Sirius B, only became a white dwarf, some 120 million years ago.

Sirius B is older than its companion star, Sirius A, which is still in main sequence stage of its life.

Sirius system only appeared to be brightest star in our night sky, because of the relative closeness to the Earth. Other stars, like Rigel and Canopus have greater luminosity than Sirius A.

My point is that Sirius B would be far older than the Sun and Earth, so Genesis 1:1, with creation of Earth, existing before creation of stars in 1:16, are wrong.

Given that we know the Solar System being about 4.7 billion years old, and that the universe being 13.8 billion years old, then the Earth couldn’t have been created at the same time as the Universe, in the way Genesis 1:1 indicated.

 

[gnostic]

Other things wrong about Genesis 1, is when animals appeared on Earth.

According to 1:20-23 (5th day), it say that God created both fishes and birds, BEFORE creating all land animals in 1:24-25 (6th day). Wrong.

I am not talking about days as in 24-hour, but what is wrong is the order of appearance of animals.

I would agree that marine life started earlier than land animals, but birds didn’t exist before land animals. According to all biologists today, birds didn’t exist until the dinosaurs period of the Cretaceous period.

Primitive amphibians, reptiles and mammals, all predated the birds by over tens of millions of years, before the first appearance of true birds.

Mammals appeared in the earlier Jurassic period, with the earlier species of dinosaurs.

So Genesis order in regarding to animals are wrong.

 

[Deeje]

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?

Indeed. My faith allows me to evaluate things on both levels. I am not anti-science, but I do not accept everything science 'believes' or 'suggests' is true.

There is true and provable science.....and there is theoretical science where conclusions are based on theory or assumption. Suggestion is then presented as if it were fact. It's an illusion IMO. But people will believe whatever they want.

I see that there are things that require interpretation on both sides.....but it doesn't have to be either/or IMV.

Science has its role for a believer, but for us, scientific 'suggestion' does not override what the Bible says. We try to find middle ground because science is not often absolute in its findings. Today's truth is tomorrow's falsehood. We can see the difference. Others can't.

The suggestions that science makes about how it interprets its evidence, does not become more important to us than what the Bible says. It's scientific 'guessing' most of the time.
It helps to see science as a rival 'belief' system....which is what I believe it is if you really examine the facts. (or lack of them)

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

People are free to evaluate what I say for themselves. You appear to be challenged by that.

I hope I am providing the voice that shows science up to have nothing more than what Bible believers have......a belief system based on faith in their own teachers. You all admit that there are no 'proofs' in science. If you have no proof, then that places what you 'believe' clearly in the realm of 'faith'.....doesn't it?

Here is your own admission....

Science does not 'prove" things

How does the fact that your science can prove nothing, place you on some self-imagined high ground? Factually, you have nothing more concrete than what we do. To me, it appears to be nothing more than intellectual snobbery.

so you merely look ignorant when you keep using the word. Sarcastic ignorance, on display!

LOL......but those who can prove nothing, pointing fingers at others who can prove nothing (as if they are some kind of uneducated morons) makes them look a little silly, don't you think?
Sarcastic ignorance is not all on one side IMO.

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

Now all I can take from this is that "thou protesteth too much"....

If your science can prove that there is no Creator, then let's see it....but we all know that here is no "proof" either way...right? So each must deduce from the evidence, what is true. The difference seems to be what is accepted as evidence......how it is interpreted.......and who said it.

If you are confident that everything on this planet is the result of a series of fortunate accidents, then that is your prerogative.....but I cannot look at all the diversity on this earth and see the obvious purpose and planning behind all of it and not see the work of an incredible intelligence in possession of great power.

You can think he's not there, but that does not make him go away....but let's see, shall we? Time will tell.

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

Now that just made me laugh out loud.....it comes across a very thinly disguised bit of desperation.
We, as ID proponents, are not in the business of convincing people who don't want to be told anything.....but it appears that you are concerned that others might be swayed to see science for what it really is......just another belief system that cannot prove anything it claims about how lifeforms adapted to environmental changes, and where life originated.....oh hang on.....science has no idea where life originated.

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

You appear to be unduly affected by the opinions of others especially when they disagree with your own views. You appear to have problems if your views are challenged. Do those challenges make you feel personally slighted? If science is made to look stupid or inadequate, do you take it personally?

Tell me what sort of person arrogantly suggest what forums would be better off without? Perhaps it is they who need to re-evaluate the presumed superiority of their own standing in these discussions.....?

Since this is the "Science and Religion" debate forum, I am here supporting the Bible's view. It is my opinion that you are supporting a religion too.

 

[Deeje]

But the creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis is set about 6000 years ago, based on.....

Correct.....but the creation of man was at the very end of the last creative period (day). Historically man's existence cannot be proven beyond that date. It is an assumption that man's existence goes back further than this. It is also an assumption that man's history is tied in with the great apes.

Other than that, the rest of bible appeared to be mythological, particularly the events in Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, and to Judges and all of both books of Samuel.

Appearances can be deceptive as we all know. But the Bible has always tied events in with historically established civilisations and locations as well as known world rulers. Why would it do that if its narrative wasn't true.
Jesus lived at the time when the Roman Empire dominated the Jews and was brought before Pontius Pilate, an historical figure as was Herod.

I have no reason to question anything the Bible says. Perhaps you do.

BUT, even if you believe in the Old Earth creationism, the events in timeline of Genesis 1 are still wrong.

No they are not. It's all in the way you read them.

Given that the Earth was created BEFORE the stars, according to Genesis 1:14-19, are also wrong.

Nonsense. Read my original response to explain this....

Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate

The fact is, the Sun and other planets in the Solar System is roughly about the same age, as the Earth.

I agree......and so does the Bible.

But astronomers know that there are other stars as the Sun’s close neighbours, are older than the Sun.

How can they possibly know that for sure?
According to Genesis 1 "God created the heavens and the earth" in one monumental act. We don't assume that this was only our galaxy, but the entire universe. But seriously, no one knows for sure.

I am sure that once God has accomplished what he needs to do here on this earth, there is nothing stopping him from eventually inhabiting the whole universe if that is his intention. He says he does not create things for nothing.

At Isaiah 45:18 it says: “For this is what Jehovah has said, the Creator of the heavens, He the true God, the Former of the earth and the Maker of it, He the One who firmly established it, who did not create it simply for nothing, who formed it even to be inhabited.”

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I hope I am providing the voice that shows science up to have nothing more than what Bible believers have......a belief system based on faith in their own teachers.

No. Science is method and the foundation of that method is the development of testable theorems providing intersubjectively verifiable results.

You all admit that there are no 'proofs' in science. If you have no proof, then that places what you 'believe' clearly in the realm of 'faith'.....doesn't it?

No. It places what is 'believed' clearly in the realm of justifiable yet provisional inference.

 

[Deeje]

Other things wrong about Genesis 1, is when animals appeared on Earth.

According to 1:20-23 (5th day), it say that God created both fishes and birds, BEFORE creating all land animals in 1:24-25 (6th day). Wrong.

I am not talking about days as in 24-hour, but what is wrong is the order of appearance of animals.

I would agree that marine life started earlier than land animals, but birds didn’t exist before land animals. According to all biologists today, birds didn’t exist until the dinosaurs period of the Cretaceous period.

I think it helps to understand that "flying creatures" aren't just birds. Think of other creatures that fly. Insects for example. It's a pretty general description, not intended as anything but an outline of what order living things came in.

Primitive amphibians, reptiles and mammals, all predated the birds by over tens of millions of years, before the first appearance of true birds.

Mammals appeared in the earlier Jurassic period, with the earlier species of dinosaurs.

So Genesis order in regarding to animals are wrong.

I'm sorry but misinterpreting Genesis does not make it wrong.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think it helps to understand that "flying creatures" aren't just birds. Think of other creatures that fly. Insects for example. It's a pretty general description, not intended as anything but an outline of what order living things came in.

From Wikipedia: Evolution of insects

The most recent understanding of the evolution of insects is based on studies of the following branches of science: molecular biology, insect morphology, paleontology, insect taxonomy, evolution, embryology, bioinformatics and scientific computing. It is estimated that the class of insects originated on Earth about 480 million years ago, in the Ordovician, at about the same time terrestrial plantsappeared.[1] Insects evolved from a group of crustaceans.[2] The first insects were land bound, but about 400 million years ago in the Devonian period one lineage of insects evolved flight, the first animals to do so.[1] The oldest definitive insect fossil, Rhyniognatha hirsti, is estimated to be 407 to 396 million years old. Global climate conditions changed several times during the history of Earth, and along with it the diversity of insects. The Pterygotes (winged insects) underwent a major radiation in the Carboniferous (356 to 299 million years ago) while the Endopterygota (insects that go through different life stages with metamorphosis) underwent another major radiation in the Permian (299 to 252 million years ago).​

Is it your claim that this is consistent with Genesis?

I'm sorry but misinterpreting Genesis does not make it wrong.

And eisegesis does not make it 'right.'

 

[Deeje]

No. Science is method and the foundation of that method is the development of testable theorems providing intersubjectively verifiable results.

Ooooh, sounds impressive.....but the 'scientific method' is an invention of flawed humans. Nowhere is man seen to be more flawed than in the various branches of science. Tell me how much of this earth's pollution is not created by science....? Tell me how many of the world's most heinous weaponry is not the invention of science.....? Tell me how many chemicals that are poisoning our atmosphere and waterways are not produced by science......?

Sorry, but they are not as smart as they assume they are. It seems money drives science as much as it does anything else.
What else could motivate them to misuse in this way?

No. It places what is 'believed' clearly in the realm of justifiable yet provisional inference.

"Justifiable and provisional inference"...let's break that down.....

"Justifiable" meaning that you have reasons good enough for yourself to believe something......"provisional" meaning that it could change at some time in the future.....and "inference" meaning that you believe something based on what you accept as circumstantial evidence.

You might be convinced by something as flimsy as that, but forgive me if I need more than science's assumptions that could all change tomorrow...

Did we have an answer to my previous question yet Jay? How do I misinterpret Genesis?

 

[Deeje]

From Wikipedia: Evolution of insects

The most recent understanding of the evolution of insects is based on studies of the following branches of science: molecular biology, insect morphology, paleontology, insect taxonomy, evolution, embryology, bioinformatics and scientific computing. It is estimated that the class of insects originated on Earth about 480 million years ago, in the Ordovician, at about the same time terrestrial plantsappeared.[1] Insects evolved from a group of crustaceans.[2] The first insects were land bound, but about 400 million years ago in the Devonian period one lineage of insects evolved flight, the first animals to do so.[1] The oldest definitive insect fossil, Rhyniognatha hirsti, is estimated to be 407 to 396 million years old. Global climate conditions changed several times during the history of Earth, and along with it the diversity of insects. The Pterygotes (winged insects) underwent a major radiation in the Carboniferous (356 to 299 million years ago) while the Endopterygota (insects that go through different life stages with metamorphosis) underwent another major radiation in the Permian (299 to 252 million years ago).​

Is it your claim that this is consistent with Genesis?

It is my claim that God created creatures as he saw fit at the time.

He says that life began in the oceans, and science agrees. Since there is no specific time frame attached to the creative "days", then we have an enormous amount of time for God to have created insects millions of years ago.
You see, all science has is "estimates" based on assumptions that are based on other assumptions. You do understand what it means that "science cannot prove anything".....?

And eisegesis does not make it 'right.'

Believers are gonna believe.......unbelievers won't, no matter how much evidence you produce......it is a well known truth that 'for believers no proof is necessary....for unbelievers, no amount of evidence is ever enough'.

 

[Deeje]

@Jayhawker Soule I thought I might just highlight some things in your quote from Wiki that you may have overlooked.

"The most recent understanding of the evolution of insects is based on studies of the following branches of science: molecular biology, insect morphology, paleontology, insect taxonomy, evolution, embryology, bioinformatics and scientific computing. It is estimated that the class of insects originated on Earth about 480 million years ago, in the Ordovician, at about the same time terrestrial plants appeared.[1] Insects evolved from a group of crustaceans.[2]The first insects were land bound, but about 400 million years ago in the Devonian period one lineage of insects evolved flight, the first animals to do so.[1] The oldest definitive insect fossil, Rhyniognatha hirsti, is estimated to be 407 to 396 million years old. Global climate conditions changed several times during the history of Earth, and along with it the diversity of insects. The Pterygotes(winged insects) underwent a major radiation in the Carboniferous (356 to 299 million years ago) while the Endopterygota (insects that go through different life stages with metamorphosis) underwent another major radiation in the Permian(299 to 252 million years ago)."

Do you see the opening words? "The most recent understanding" What does that tell you....?

Then it tells us that it is "estimated" that some insects "originated"? What does that mean? That insects began to live? At what point did lower lifeforms become insects?

Because it also says that at the same time, "plants appeared". "Appeared? How do plants "appear" unless they are created?

Clearly there are some explanations written that fly in the face of what they actually believe.

 

[gnostic]

There is true and provable science.....and there is theoretical science where conclusions are based on theory or assumption. Suggestion is then presented as if it were fact.

You still don’t understand after all the years you have been here.

Theoretical science are not actually science; they are not “scientific theory” because these theoretical fields haven’t undergone rigorous testings that are demanded by the scientific method.

What these theoretical fields are, are basically “hypothesis” are untested, because the solutions provided are maths-based, not evidence-based solution.

Math-based solution are in the forms of equations, formulas and constants. These forms (eg equations) are what scientists and mathematicians called proofs.

Although experimental science also used proofs too (eg equations and formulas), experimental science used and rely on morereal-world solutions, like evidences and tests or experiments.

What you need to know, the differences between experimental science and theoretical science, is that

1. experimental science follow the protocol of scientific method; theoretical science don’t;
2. experimental science relied on testable and empirical evidences; theoretical science don’t;
3. theoretical science relied on mathematical construct solutions (eg equations), called proofs; experimental science don’t;
4. proof and evidence are not the same things.

The main objective of theoretical science is to prove or disprove their equations.

The main objective of experimental science is to repeatedly test a falsifiable hypothesis. The test will either verify hypothesis if it is true, or refute it if the hypothesis is false.

As I said earlier, theoretical science, be it String Theory or Multiverse model, or something else, are like untested hypotheses, so they are not accepted as “scientific theory”. It is like a drafted explanation, a proposal, not yet accepted because it hasn’t been tested or there are no evidences.

Scientific theory is a former hypothesis that have been thoroughly tested, have substantial evidences that show the theory is probable or highly probable.

Can you at learn these science basics?

 

[jhwatts]

What is proof? A Christian will tell the Bible is proof and science is flawed. Of course there is the other side of the fence. Science is proof and Bible is flawed.
I believe the earth is old. To me, creation was done on a grand scale. We see billions of stars in the sky, billions of grains of sand on the beach, and billions of species just on this earth. Man tries to cram God in his box and say the scale of the length of time to make his creation is 12,000. God doesn't create on a scale of thousands.

If you want to understand how the often handled the detail for certain events Genesis a person can see it by first reading Genesis 10:31 and then read Genesis 11:1 and ask yourself what is wrong with this picture? In short, the end of Genesis 10 has people on earth with different languages while the beginning of Genesis 11 shows them all having the same language. Is this a contraction or a lack of understanding of how to read the Bible. Its from not understanding how the author presented details for important events. Look at Genesis 10: (8-10), you will find the details for this event over in Genesis 11: (1-9).

We see the same thing with Genesis 1:1, the detail for this event begins in Genesis 2:4 and Goes through Genesis 4:26. This is the Eden creation. This creation occurred many many years in earths past. The earth is then flooded due to mans and Lucifer's fall and then we see the deep of Genesis 1:2 and the earth is now remade. This is why light Genesis 1:3 existed before the moon and son was revealed and man is told to replenish the planet (Genesis 1:27) from the old creation. The Genesis 2:4 – Genesis 4:26 creation had access to the tree of life and therefore had no ages nor time recorded while the next creation Genesis 1:2 – Genesis 2:3 and Genesis 5 had ages and time recorded. They had no access to the tree of life and their lifetime finite.

This can be carried on over to the flood and further over to the tower of Babel and through the entire Bible.

Genesis 7: (13-16) 13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; 14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. 15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. 16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the Lord shut him in.

Now there are two important things to notice in Genesis 7 (13-14). Notice in 14 that the ones entering the ark are those from the second creation,

Genesis 1: (24-25) 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

and notice that they (The second creation, those “after His kind”) enter in the same day Noah and his family entered.

Now Notice Genesis 7:15 ,These are the creatures from the first creation (Those with the breath of life.).

Genesis 2:7 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Also notice that the ones from the first creation enter after Noah, his family, and the ones from the second creation (“after His kind”).

Anyhow, the earth is old.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is proof? A Christian will tell the Bible is proof and science is flawed. Of course there is the other side of the fence. Science is proof and Bible is flawed.
I believe the earth is old. To me, creation was done on a grand scale. We see billions of stars in the sky, billions of grains of sand on the beach, and billions of species just on this earth. Man tries to cram God in his box and say the scale of the length of time to make his creation is 12,000. God doesn't create on a scale of thousands.

If you want to understand how the often handled the detail for certain events Genesis a person can see it by first reading Genesis 10:31 and then read Genesis 11:1 and ask yourself what is wrong with this picture? In short, the end of Genesis 10 has people on earth with different languages while the beginning of Genesis 11 shows them all having the same language. Is this a contraction or a lack of understanding of how to read the Bible. Its from not understanding how the author presented details for important events. Look at Genesis 10: (8-10), you will find the details for this event over in Genesis 11: (1-9).

We see the same thing with Genesis 1:1, the detail for this event begins in Genesis 2:4 and Goes through Genesis 4:26. This is the Eden creation. This creation occurred many many years in earths past. The earth is then flooded due to mans and Lucifer's fall and then we see the deep of Genesis 1:2 and the earth is now remade. This is why light Genesis 1:3 existed before the moon and son was revealed and man is told to replenish the planet (Genesis 1:27) from the old creation. The Genesis 2:4 – Genesis 4:26 creation had access to the tree of life and therefore had no ages nor time recorded while the next creation Genesis 1:2 – Genesis 2:3 and Genesis 5 had ages and time recorded. They had no access to the tree of life and their lifetime finite.

This can be carried on over to the flood and further over to the tower of Babel and through the entire Bible.

Genesis 7: (13-16) 13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; 14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. 15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. 16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the Lord shut him in.

Now there are two important things to notice in Genesis 7 (13-14). Notice in 14 that the ones entering the ark are those from the second creation,

Genesis 1: (24-25) 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

and notice that they (The second creation, those “after His kind”) enter in the same day Noah and his family entered.

Now Notice Genesis 7:15 ,These are the creatures from the first creation (Those with the breath of life.).

Genesis 2:7 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Also notice that the ones from the first creation enter after Noah, his family, and the ones from the second creation (“after His kind”).

Anyhow, the earth is old.

A Christian need not believe the myths of Genesis to be a Christian. Many, perhaps most, do not.

 

[jhwatts]

A Christian need not believe the myths of Genesis to be a Christian. Many, perhaps most, do not.

Exactly. Most do not believe Genesis is a myth.