# Christian's views on the age of the Earth



## Kane (Jul 19, 2004)

There is a lot of people on this board that say that according to christians, the Earth was created in 4004 BC meaning the Earth is only 6,000 years old. I've never really heard that anywhere and the Earth's age is written on stone even to a christian. It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible the age of the Earth. Infact, many christians I know think the Earth is 10,000-15,000 years old. And the Earth might be even older than that even in christian terms. So it is not good to claim christians said the Earth is only 6,004 years old when trying to prove the theory of creation is wrong.

By the way, can anyone show me a link on where some of you got the idea the Earth is only 6,004 years old. Thanks.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 19, 2004)

17th-century Irish Archbishop James Ussher of Armagh estimated the creation of the earth as having taken place at 4004 BC in his 1658 book "The Annals of the World".  He derived this figure using Biblical durations listed throughout, as well as those few Middle Eastern histories he had access to.

 See:

http://www.mids.org/pay/mn/709/ussher.html

http://www.ptm.org/BibleAnswer4.htm

http://pages.zdnet.com/rwfortune/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/only6000yearsold.htm


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 19, 2004)

I'm a Christian, and I think the Earth is several billion years old.  


Wow, PeachMonkey, you keep amazing me with the things you know. Did you Google that or was it part of your vast knowledge pool?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 19, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I'm a Christian, and I think the Earth is several billion years old.


 Yep... as many of the sites I listed show, being a Christian is in no way incompatible with, you know, *science* 



			
				Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Wow, PeachMonkey, you keep amazing me with the things you know. Did you Google that or was it part of your vast knowledge pool?


 I remembered that it was an Irish priest and/or scholar from "a few hundred years ago"; that was enough to make a Google search nice and quick.  Thanks for the compliments all the same, Feisty Mouse. *smile*


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 20, 2004)

Kane,

Some Christians do, in fact, claim the world is only six thousand or so years old.  It matters little whether they claim six thousand or fifteen thousand years of age when debating the issue.  

Those that don't believe in the notion of Creation place the world's age at several billion years.  They take no handicap by a simple tripling of Ussher's estimates.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## pete (Jul 20, 2004)

i'm be more concerned with rock of ages than the age of rocks... inherit the wind.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Jul 20, 2004)

The earth through the rock ageing and fossils have been proved to be more than 6000 years old. I'm afraid that that part of the bible happens to be incorrect, however I highly respect those who have their own faith. There is no right and wrong, if there was prove it?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 20, 2004)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> The earth through the rock ageing and fossils have been proved to be more than 6000 years old. I'm afraid that that part of the bible happens to be incorrect, however I highly respect those who have their own faith. There is no right and wrong, if there was prove it?




This form of relativism..."there is no right and wrong"...causes both Christians and atheists to cringe.  We all, at some point, believe that there are things that are right or wrong.

I would encourage you to investigate a form of "committed relativism", wherein you respectfully recognize each side's arguments but base your own stance on a study of the issues.  You're partway there in stating that the Earth is older than 6,000 years.  Clearly you've based that on your readings in science and of Genesis.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 20, 2004)

> i'm be more concerned with rock of ages than the age of rocks


   I'm interested in both, actually.


----------



## Enson (Jul 20, 2004)

i'm a christian and i don't see why some would not believe the earth is older than dirt! hee hee!


----------



## JPR (Jul 20, 2004)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> The earth through the rock ageing and fossils have been proved to be more than 6000 years old. I'm afraid that that part of the bible happens to be incorrect, however I highly respect those who have their own faith. There is no right and wrong, if there was prove it?


The Bible doesn't state the age of the earth.  People try to extrapolate the age using a general timeline of events and several of the geneaology lists.  This will hardly give you a conclusive age of the earth.

Some are trying to use science to "prove" the existence of God or prove creation.  A point of a young earth is to disprove a pillar of the Darwin theory of evolution because a young earth wouldn't allow the time necessary for evolution to happen.  A problem with this approach comes in theological realm.  

A major component of theology is that one has to have faith in God.  The Bible defines faith in Hebrews.  "1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2This is what the ancients were commended for." [Hebrews 11:1-2]  So if we could prove everything by science there would be no need to have faith because all would be seen.  

A common confusion comes from a statement in Romans: "18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." [Romans 1:18-20]  People often take this to mean that nature can prove that God exists.  It seems to me to be more that nature is evidence of some of God's qualities.  If you walk into my home, you would witness the things I collect, how organized or unorganized I am, etc.  These evidences would reveal things about me and my personality, but they wouldn't necessarily prove that I existed nor would they tell you all there is to know about me.

So, to me, all things related to God follow along a path.  There is evidence that leads me to believe that God exists, however it doesn't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.  I come to the end of the evidence and then I must make my "leap of faith".  Not a blind faith, but in the end a faith beyond what I can see, sense, or fully understand.  I take this stand because, "...without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. "[Hebrews 11:6]

So for our world and its origin, "3By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." [Hebrews 11:3]  As to the world's age, I don't know.  It is as old as it needs to be.

JPR


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 20, 2004)

JPR - that was a nice post - I think you addressed the issue of faith (that I was trying to talk about ineloquently in another thread) well.

I think we can have faith and pursue our religious beliefs, AND use the reason (such as it is) that we have been given to understand our world.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 20, 2004)

I agree, JPR...that post was articulate, persuasive and inoffensive.  

I'm often articulate, abrasive and offensive...so I found what you wrote refreshing.  

Yours was the most "evangelical" Christian posts I've seen on the internet--ever.  I know some ministers who could take lessons from you, and probably ought.

Good job.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 20, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I'm a Christian, and I think the Earth is several billion years old.


Well having been underground many a time and the deepest being 1165 feet down.. I can testify that the earth is several billions years old. Those experiences and the monologues of "arm-waving geologists" who go caving with me explaining in minute detail  (please feel sorry for me here) about what we're looking at when we're down 300 to 500 feet down and seeing layers of rock... (sigh). 
I believe that the Lord God created the earth and I do believe he was able to do it in seven days (complete works) ... but a day to God isn't the same as a day to us. 
Likewise... one of my geologist friends (also a Christian) says in _his_ opinion God took parts from other planets and created earth.. thus the explaination of the age of the rocks. That was one way of seeing it and knowing "grade-skool geology" as I do and knowing the gospel as well (or even better than geology) I can buy into that one man's theory, and incorporate it into my own personal beliefs. 
 :asian:


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 21, 2004)

MACaver said:
			
		

> I believe that the Lord God created the earth and I do believe he was able to do it in seven days (complete works) ... but a day to God isn't the same as a day to us.




One would think then that the term "days" wouln't have been used in that case, and that a suitable word would have been inserted to reflect these epochs.

Since the Enlightment it has become popular in some circles to suggest the word "days" is a metaphor for millions or billions of years.  Yet for thousands of years the notion of literal "days" was accepted in the Judeo-Christian world.  It was only with the pressure of scientific findings that anyone attached a different meaning to the word "days", stretching it beyond the capacity of the word itself.  

This raised comfort levels, but it was (and is) a rationalization intended to harmonizes any cognitive dissonance that Genesis and science bring to the fore.


Regards,

Steve


----------



## Ping898 (Jul 21, 2004)

I'm with MACaver.  I think the biggest problem with Chrtistian (and I am a practicing one) interpretations, is we use our concepts of space and time.  But since in my opinion God is omnipotent and omnipresent, doesn't mean that we can even for one second understand how the world was created, so we put it into words the best we knew how and have translated it the best we know how, but in the process some of the meaning gets lost along the way, with things like, a day is 24 hr for us, how long was a day 6 million years ago, may have been 1,000,000,000 hrs per day.  Just my thoughts....


----------



## Scout_379 (Jul 21, 2004)

Me, i don't beleive in a god, and I beleive the world is most definitely billions of years old

but....if there was a God, so powerful as to create an entire world, regardless of when, why could it not take those 7 days? according to most...God is an all-powerful/omnipotent and omnipresent being able to warp time and space to his whim. so why not even in a just single day? a single hour? or was there even time itself?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 21, 2004)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> But since in my opinion God is omnipotent and omnipresent, doesn't mean that we can even for one second understand how the world was created, so we put it into words the best we knew how and have translated it the best we know how, but in the process some of the meaning gets lost along the way, with things like, a day is 24 hr for us, how long was a day 6 million years ago, may have been 1,000,000,000 hrs per day.  Just my thoughts....



If he were omnipotent, why rest on the seventh day/epoch?  Why rest at all?

The Old Testament has reference to numbers in the millions.  The concept of a year was known to the authors of the Pentateuch, and we see the patriarchs living a very, very long time.  Length of time in the age of a human seemed an impressive piece of data for them.  

It makes no sense to use a "day" as a metaphor when a year/years/centuries/millenia would have been just as easy to conceive. It also moves towards what we all perceive to be more accurate, i.e., an earth that was created in a span of time far greater than 144 hours.

If you were to tell me that priests and scribes recorded an ancient creation myth in an effort to explain the beginnings of the world, and the myth was intended to impress the adherents of proto-Judaism ("All this...in just six days.  Amazing!"), then I would believe it.  This wouldn't invalidate your faith in any way, and indeed seems almost  the direction you're heading...but not quite.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## pete (Jul 21, 2004)

since someone who thought my brief tag line from inherit the wind was "irrelevant" enough to blast me with bad karma points (?), i'll educate a bit by posting the scene from the play... made into a film in 1960 starring frederich march and spencer tracy... irrelevant huh?


*DRUMMOND: How old do you think this rock is?

BRADY: (intoning): I am more interested in the Rock of Ages than I am in the Age of Rocks. (A couple of die-hard "Amens." DRUMMOND ignores this glib gag.)

DRUMMOND: Dr. Page of Oberlin College tells me that this rock is at least ten million years old.

BRADY: (sarcastically): Well, well, Colonel Drummond! You managed to sneak in some of that scientific testimony after all. (DRUMMOND opens up the rock, which splits into two halves. He shows it to BRADY.)

DRUMMOND: Look, Mr. Brady. These are the fossil remains of a prehistoric marine creature, which was found in this very country-and which lived here millions of years ago, when these very mountain ranges were submerged in water.

BRADY: I know. The Bible gives a fine account of the flood. But your professor is a little mixed up on his dates. That rock is not more than six thousand years old.

DRUMMAND: How do you know?

BRADY: A fine Biblical scholar, Bishop Ussher, has determined for us the exact date and hour of the Creation. It occurred in the year 4004 B. C.

DRUMMOND: Thats Bishop Usshers opinion.

BRADY: It is not an opinion. It is literal fact, which the good Bishop arrived at through careful computation of the ages of the prophets as set down in the Old Testament. In fact, he determined that the Lord began the Creation on the 23rd of October in the year 4004 B. C. at-uh, at 9 A. M.!

DRUMMOND: That Eastern Standard Time? (Laughter) Or Rocky Mountain Time? (More laughter) It wasnt daylight-saving time, was it? Because the Lord didnt make the sun until the fourth day!

BRADY: (fidgeting): That is correct.

DRUMMOND: (sharply): The first day. Was it a twenty-four-hour day?

BRADY: The Bible says it was a day.

DRUMMOND: There wasnt any sun. How do you know how long it was?

BRADY: (determined): The Bible says it was a day.

DRUMMOND: A normal day, a literal day, a twenty-four-hour day? (Pause. BRADY is unsure.)

BRADY: I do not know.

DRUMMOND: What do you think?

BRADY: (floundering): I do not think about things that . . . I do not think about!

DRUMMOND: Do you ever think about things that you do think about? (There is some laughter. But it is dampened by the knowledge and awareness throughout the courtroom that the trap is about t0 be sprung.) Isnt it possible that first day was twenty-five hours long? There was no way to measure it, no way to tell! Could it have been twenty-five hours. (Pause. The entire courtroom seems to lean forward.)

BRADY: (hesitates-then): It is . . . possible . . . (DRUMMONDSS got him. And he knows it! This is the turning point. From here on, the tempo mounts. DRUMMOND is now fully in the drivers seat. He pounds his questions faster and faster.)

DRUMMOND: Oh. You interpret that the first day recorded in the Book of Genesis could be of indeterminate length.



BRADY: (wriggling): I mean to state that the day referred to is not necessarily a twenty-four-hour day.

DRUMMOND: It could have been thirty hours! Or a month! Or a year! Or a hundred years! (He brandishes the rock underneath BRADYS nose.) Or ten million years!*


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 21, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> If he were omnipotent, why rest on the seventh day/epoch?  Why rest at all?


As I understand it the "day of rest" was an example to us that we should take time and reflect. God asks us to worship Him and keep the day holy by resting and refraining from labor. This doesn't mean not to cook your family dinner or anything like that but from laboring to earn your "daily bread" as it were. 
He rested because creation is WORK. All powerful, all knowing and all everything else you wanna attach to God... The work He can perform WE cannot. His understanding of the laws of physics, gravity, motion and so forth far surpasses ours and thus who are we to question such knowledge? 
I accept it because I've felt the truth "like a fire burning" within when I questioned the existence of such a being. I hike up into deep canyons and high mountains and venture deep underground and I ask myself.. can I do this? It reminds me of where I come from.



> The Old Testament has reference to numbers in the millions.  The concept of a year was known to the authors of the Pentateuch, and we see the patriarchs living a very, very long time.  Length of time in the age of a human seemed an impressive piece of data for them.
> 
> It makes no sense to use a "day" as a metaphor when a year/years/centuries/millenia would have been just as easy to conceive. It also moves towards what we all perceive to be more accurate, i.e., an earth that was created in a span of time far greater than 144 hours.
> If you were to tell me that priests and scribes recorded an ancient creation myth in an effort to explain the beginnings of the world, and the myth was intended to impress the adherents of proto-Judaism ("All this...in just six days.  Amazing!"), then I would believe it.  This wouldn't invalidate your faith in any way, and indeed seems almost  the direction you're heading...but not quite.
> ...



Well discussions like this can go on forever because there is no middle ground that everyone can agree and end the discussion on. There are always questions to the answers. 
You can believe in what MAN says about it all or you can believe what God says. Moses when writing Genesis was doing a prophet's job and translating what the Lord was telling him about it all and then spreading the Word. 
Your heart will give you the best answer, believing with faith like that of a child makes it simpler. 
In my humble opinion it is far easier to accept the things learned about spiritual/theological things with a beginning base of faith than it is to try and achieve faith by learning. Faith can and does grow with further knowledge. 

One thing more... the more you learn...the more you become accountable for.


----------



## Kane (Jul 22, 2004)

But one thing I have noticed about the 6 days of creation is that it fits together almost perfectly. For instance, on the first day the Earth was without form and with no land. Just like what scientists predict the earth was like in it's beginning. No form-like and with no land or tools to sustain life. 

And then from their God created simple life on the second and third day I think it was. After that fish came. In fact the only thing that doesn't make sense is the birds coming at the same time with fishes did. Other than that it plays perfectly.

The human species was one of the last species to evolve. In terms of evolution, human beings are actually more of a newer species. Humans were not there in the beginning of 4.6 billion years ago. Let's relate this to the Bible; human beings were the last creation of God. Another similarity between evolution and the theory of creation is seen.

The only thing that f*cks everything up is the Bible saying it was only made in 6 days. I know we have no right to question God, but if God made the description say 6 million or 6 billion years there would be a much less amount of atheists and science would play well with the Bible. That is about the ONLY thing that doesn't fit between the two that I can see. Along with maybe a couple of minor things in Genesis that don't make too much difference.

Who knows, those six days might of been much longer that. Maybe the English translation is wrong on how they translated it. Perhaps the original text said 6 ages. That would explain a lot.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jul 22, 2004)

No. The original text uses the Hebrew word 'yom', wich means day.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 22, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> But one thing I have noticed about the 6 days of creation is that it fits together almost perfectly. For instance, on the first day the Earth was without form and with no land. Just like what scientists predict the earth was like in it's beginning. No form-like and with no land or tools to sustain life.
> 
> And then from their God created simple life on the second and third day I think it was. After that fish came. In fact the only thing that doesn't make sense is the birds coming at the same time with fishes did. Other than that it plays perfectly.
> 
> Who knows, those six days might of been much longer that. Maybe the English translation is wrong on how they translated it. Perhaps the original text said 6 ages. That would explain a lot.




Almost perfectly?  Let's look at Genesis, scientific theory, and your claim.

Scientists don't predict that the Earth lacked land in the beginning.  It lacked water.  The infant Earth lacked oceans. Genesis doesn't harmonize with scientific theory here.

Note too that according to Genesis the Earth existed from the beginning, as did the heavens.  Scientific theory doesn't agree with this, either.  Estimates of the earth's age are around 4-5 billion years, where the estimates of the universe (the "heavens" here) are around 12 billion + years.  Our sun alone is a second or third generation star.

God states "Let there be light!" on the first day.  Science allows for the creation of light at the beginning of time, but this light predates the creation of the Earth. Genesis reverses the order from that of scientific theory by having the Earth and heavens existing prior to God's creation of light.

Genesis has God creating the stars and sun *after* the creation of grass, herbs, and trees.  This was on the fourth day.  So our "third day" created fauna, by your reckoning, existed for epochs without sunlight.  

Whales and birds, created on the fifth day, pre-date the creation of animals that creep upon the Earth (sixth day).  Science states whales and birds evolved from those creepy little land animals.  Genesis reverses the order.

http://www.christnotes.org/bible.asp?ViewBible=Genesis+1&Version=KJV

http://calspace.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/ita/05_1.shtml

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#howold

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/oceans.htm


Regards,


Steve


----------



## MisterMike (Jul 22, 2004)

> In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.



Reads to me that no order is specified, but you could read it that since the heavens are listed first, they came before the earth.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 22, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Reads to me that no order is specified, but you could read it that since the heavens are listed first, they came before the earth.




I suppose "the beginning" could be a span of time reflective of the billions of years from the "Big Bang" to the creation of the Earth.  This could be derived by the "epochal" day/metaphor explanation.

However I'd ask folks here to note that in saying it is an "epoch" versus a literal day (Hebrew: Yom) one is ignoring the fact that God separated the light and darkness, creating a morning and an evening...the first day (verse 5).  Genesis uses the standard day and night description of a twenty four period.  This doesn't suggest an epoch.

This first "day" also preceded the creation of the sun. That's a little difficult to harmonize.    The sun was created on the fourth day, as was the moon.  Again...I refer you to the reference to the first day division of day and night.  Clearly, whoever wrote Genesis thought the light of day didn't issue from the sun.


I provide the following KJV for reference:

 1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 
2: 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. 
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 
5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 
6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 
7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 
8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 
9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 
10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 
11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 
12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 
13: And the evening and the morning were the third day. 
14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 
15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 
16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 
17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 
18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 
19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. 
20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 
21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 
22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 
23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 
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. 
26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 
27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 
28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 
29: And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 
30: And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 
31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. 


Regards,

Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 22, 2004)

> The work He can perform WE cannot. His understanding of the laws of physics, gravity, motion and so forth far surpasses ours and thus who are we to question such knowledge?



An interesting claim, considering the text that is regarded as the literal "Word of God" had our gentle planet listed as a "circle" (and not a "sphere") for millenia. Very interesting, indeed.

Which, of course, isn't very scientific --- but would be in keeping with the knowledge of the world at the time it was written. Similar to how a great flood in part of the Mediterranean could be construed as a "world flood", seeing as how at the time, 100 square miles was these people's conception of the "world".

And, let's not even get into the silliness of the virgin birth account (which was based on the archaic notion that women did not provide any genetic material to the offspring and were merely "incubators" of a sort)..., which wasn't even a "virgin birth" in the Old Testament prophecy anyway.


----------



## MisterMike (Jul 22, 2004)

> Clearly, whoever wrote Genesis thought the light of day didn't issue from the sun.



I agree here. It seems there was another source of light which the plants may have used.

If the sun and moon came a day later, I think the plants would survive that length of time. (from a 24 hour day perspective)


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 22, 2004)

I'm afraid that that part of the bible happens to be incorrect
----------

The Bible never says what the age of the earth is as other people have stated. This has come from "reverse dating" the text. Basically they went from the known dates in the bible and then worked backwards from how long people lived etc.

Yes, they had the concept of a long time but they also used time as a metaphor in their writings of the Pentatauch and NT writings. For example, the term "40 days" is used many times and it wasn't a literal 40 but used to signify a long time.  Also, in the NT it states that a day is as a 1,000 yrs to God.  This was not something that scholars and Christians changed because of scientific pressure recently.

But, this is where many biblical scholars and fundementalists disagree. The bible uses stories to illustrate things that may not be literal things. Such as the creation story. Most scholars agree that it was a story used to explain creation as a function of God's plan and design NOT a literal blueprint of how it came about.  Also, there is a 2nd creation story in Genesis shortly after the first one if memory serves me right.


----------



## Lcash (Jul 22, 2004)

The word Yom in Hebrew has actually three meanings.  One is a 24hr day one is a 12hr day and one is eons or large periods of time.  Since the scripture uses the word for day before the separation of light and darkness it can literaly be the eons time frame that was used.  If you notice the 7th day never ended!  We are still in the seventh day and that is one reason why there has been no speciation (macroevolution) in modern history (60,000 years) other than environmental changes (microevolution) to species due to available food, water, and other living conditions but no radical changes have ocured.  

I believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the account of Genesis is correct.  One thing I am certain of is that the Bible was not written to be a scientific accounting of creation or any other facts other than mans relationship with God.  It is the story of mans creation, fall, and redemption through grace and not a scientific text for us to argue over.

Lcash


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 22, 2004)

> We are still in the seventh day and that is one reason why there has been no speciation (macroevolution) in modern history (60,000 years)



Uhhhh.... no.

Hate to break this to you, but _we_ popped up within those 60,000 years (about 8,000 to 10,000 years ago, if I recall correctly). Homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapien are not the same species.

I also sincerely doubt we are the only new species to have "evolved" within that time period.


----------



## Kane (Jul 22, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Almost perfectly? Let's look at Genesis, scientific theory, and your claim.
> 
> Scientists don't predict that the Earth lacked land in the beginning. It lacked water. The infant Earth lacked oceans. Genesis doesn't harmonize with scientific theory here.
> 
> ...


Remember, if we speculate the first days were much longer than what is said in the Bible, then it can well play through. For example, water and might be created on the first day, but it was created AFTER he created the heavens and the Earths. We don't have how long the wait was between the time God created the Earth and the time water appeared. They might have been made on the same day, but Earth could of been made in the beginning of the day, and water toward the end of the day. That period of time in between is unknown.



And I did say birds were the only thing that doesn't make sense. And by creatures of the sea God probably meant fish. He never specifies what animals are in the sea, does he? When did God say the animals in the sea were whales?


----------



## Kane (Jul 22, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Uhhhh.... no.
> 
> Hate to break this to you, but _we_ popped up within those 60,000 years (about 8,000 to 10,000 years ago, if I recall correctly). Homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapien are not the same species.
> 
> I also sincerely doubt we are the only new species to have "evolved" within that time period.


The skulls we found of similar human can well be other species of humans. Does God ever say that he created only one species? Does the Bible ever say that there are such things as Native Americans? No, the Bible doesn't decribe every single thing in the world. I can go on and on.


----------



## Lcash (Jul 22, 2004)

Heretic,

You are wrong on the dates.  They are between 95,000 and 115,000 years ago1

1 Larson, C.S., Matter, R.M., Gebo, D.L., _Human Origins: The Fossil Record_, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc., 1998, 158

Lcash


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 22, 2004)

Excuse me. Earth is only 32 years old.

Since the world revolves around me, and I am only 32...

I would think it important to remember... The "understanding" of the people who were interperating the word of god (God didnt write the bible, man did) would be limited by their knowlage.

If you were, say, from the Middle Ages, and I "showed you" the image of me illuminating a darkend room with a long metal rod (mag light) you very well might write:

"And the magician in black drew forth his staff of heavenly light and woe the room was lit in a glorious wonder" 

Then flash forward to today, you could argue that there were no magicians, and that we did not have "staves of light"... but to an untrained peasant, it would have appeared that way, because that was the limit of his understanding.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 22, 2004)

> Excuse me. Earth is only 32 years old.
> 
> Since the world revolves around me, and I am only 32...


  Ah, well, I think those first few years were just prep time for my glorious coming and the ACTUAL creation.  :wink1: 

I think the best reconciliation of Genesis and modern scientific understandings of the creation of the Earth was given to me by a man I know, who simply said that Genesis was Moses' vision of and interpretation of creation.  Treating it as an allegory does not discredit the remainder of the Bible (and we can still talk about Revelations as allegory or a vision).  Some denominations and/or sects have this "all or nothing" view of the Bible - you can't question (or not take literally) a single line, or you somehow have to discard the entire thing.  That's ridiculous. 

And, personally, I think it is part of our "nature" and not a sin to apply our reasoning and scientific understanding to our world, knowing 1) our understanding is imperfect and 2) science will only tell us about our world and how it was made, not necessarily what kinds of people we should be.

It's a sore point with me that a number of people I've met think that science and religion are somehow, inexplicably (to me), mutally exclusive.  It's even more strange when I get to hear people on both sides of this fence speak about their chosen discipline (a field of science or a particular sect) with such fervor and a fire burning in their eyes. 

Another reason why I don't study people.  We're fascinating and impressive as a species, but MAN, are we weird sometimes.


----------



## Josh (Jul 23, 2004)

hehe, what a good question. Not really important though, just that Salvation through Jesus Christ is offered to all who would just freakin believe.Late~Josh






 :asian:


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 23, 2004)

Well, Josh, that depends on your denomination/sect.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 23, 2004)

> You are wrong on the dates. They are between 95,000 and 115,000 years ago1



Pardon me if I'm wrong (and I may be), but I believe the dates in question are in reference to Cro-Magnon Man, not Modern Man.



> Remember, if we speculate the first days were much longer than what is said in the Bible, then it can well play through. For example, water and might be created on the first day, but it was created AFTER he created the heavens and the Earths. We don't have how long the wait was between the time God created the Earth and the time water appeared. They might have been made on the same day, but Earth could of been made in the beginning of the day, and water toward the end of the day. That period of time in between is unknown.



Considering its all speculation anyway, I'd say its all pretty much "unknown".



> The skulls we found of similar human can well be other species of humans. Does God ever say that he created only one species? Does the Bible ever say that there are such things as Native Americans?



*rubs head*

"Native Americans" are not a different species.

And the point I was trying to make is that the Bible shouldn't be looked for in regards to a scientific or physical explanation of our planet's history. Ethical guidelines, yes. Scientific explanation, no.

Laterz.


----------



## Lcash (Jul 23, 2004)

Did you read the reference? or are you just speculating about where I got the dates from?

Lcash


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 23, 2004)

I do not believe the origin date of homo sapiens sapiens tells us anything at all about the age of the planet Earth.


----------



## Lcash (Jul 23, 2004)

You are correct!  The age of man has no bearing on the age of the earth!  So if you want to get into specifics about the age of the earth here goes.

If you are familiar with radio-isotopes you will know that there are several such as neptunium that have very short lived half lives.  Neptunium is an isotope of Uranium with a half life of 2 million years.  It takes 10 half lives for an element to completly disapear.  so if the earth were less than 20 million years there should be abundant amounts of neptunium in the earths crust as there is Uranium.  However, there is only trace amounts found only in places that produce uranium meaning that the earth is at least 20 million years old.  When you combine that with other short lived isotopes you can extrapolate the age of the earth to about 4.5 billion years old.  

My field of expertise is in Petroleum geology and engineering.  I have studied this for a long time.  I have found mulosk fossils called foramformas at 17,000' deep in the earth in a water depth of 2,000' in the Gulf of Mexico.  This amount of sedimentation takes millions and millions of years to happen not 6,000 years as some want us to think.

This however does not negate the scripture but only our interpretation.  If science discovers something that contradicts what we believe scripture says, it is our interpretation that needs adjusting not scripture being wrong nor science being wrong.

Lcash


----------



## Josh (Jul 23, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Well, Josh, that depends on your denomination/sect.



Hi feisty mouse, but that's not God's intention. for those who do believe and Trust Jesus is the Son of God, Died for our Sins, Rose From the Dead, we are to be ONE. Hehe, and it's so funny, sometimes, people will be like "oh, well that's just a cult", what?!?!? Just believe, it's so simple, so easy. God will PROVE HIMSELF TO YOU. Step out in what we call FAITH. 



 :asian:


----------



## hippy (Jul 23, 2004)

i am a devote catholic, but science should never be used to prove faith/god/or religion. and religion / the bible (of which there are many versions) should never be used to disprove science.

the earth (as a lump of rock) has been around for 4.5 billion years, as a ball of hot gas, it has been around for 6 billion years, when our sun formed and spewed out lumps into orbit.

 a bi-pedal humanoid species (descending from the ape) have been proven to exist 100,000 yrs ago.

various dinosaur bones and fossils have been found all over the world dating millions of yrs back.

i have come across various christian sects that believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago (approx), despite stone temples still in existance which date back 10,000 yrs, built by humans, for humans to worship various deities.

the old testament was a collection of stories, collectively used to announce the coming of the son of god (son of man), they were not written as historical fact. the gospel then deals with the life and times of jesus. finally, the rest of the new testament deals with after jesus' assention to heaven, the start of the christian faith, and the coming of the kingdom of heaven (or appocolypse, depending on which version u read. because in the 1970's, the vatican 2 paper from the pope, dismisses the use of the fear of god in church, to bring in the congregation. such as priest shouting about everyone going to hellfire and damnation because of impure thoughts.)

all parts of the bible were written by people who could read and write, but none were scientists or mathematicians. there ability to deal with large numers was strictly limited.
hence the difference in the gospels, jesus feed the 5,000, or jesus feeds the 3,000. the appostles, who were there at the time, both saw the same number of people, they were simply crap at counting.
the book of genosis even records people living beyond 200 years, one even longer than 400 yrs (i forget who - look it up, its near the beginning), we have proven in the last 800 years that our length of the year has altered. 
the roman emporers simply added another month in, just to remember their name (july = julius, august = augustus). deci (from december) refers to the number 10, as in 10 months in a year.
the authers of the bible couldn't count !!

again, to prove that science and religion should never mixed.
3 yrs ago a christian priest made it into the darwinian awards (for stupid deaths). he tried to use science to prove how people lived longer during biblical times. as there was no industry, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air would be a lot less (its currently 0.9% of what u breathe). so he deduced that if people were exposed to more oxygen, they would live longer. now for all the scientists among u, u will know that oxygen (on its own) is considered unstable, but 'stable' oxygen is made up of loads of pairs of oxygen molecules.
(*o*2).
so he built himself a large sealed iron room, and filled it with oxygen. he'd completely forgotten about nitrogen (which makes up about 78% of air).
however, he'd heard of something called *o*3. which he assumed correctly to be richer oxygen, so filled the chamber with this instead. another name for this is o-zone (deadly to humans).
within 1 minute of him sealing himself in this iron chamber, he died, suffocating himself.

this, again shows why science should not be used by religion to prove anything from the bible.

faith comes in because u dont need to prove what the bible says, u simply believe. just dont try to argue a point, when science has proved something to be otherwise. the bible is just a large set of metaphores used so the human mind can comprehend GOD in a simple way. if we understood all the complexities of GOD, we would already be GOD.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 23, 2004)

Hey Josh

I honestly don't mean to get into a religious debate (we're already dealing with enough of those issues in this thread pretty well), but it does matter depending on which denomination and/or sect of Christianity you believe in.  Some sects treat salvation as an all-or-nothing thing - you're in, you believe, and you've got your ticket, or your passport stamped.  For others, your belief, your faith, is important, but it's not the final point - your actions and your journey through life is also important, how you treat others and act out your faith.

Hey hippy

Yikes - that "darwin award" priest sounds...well, it's a sad way to go, proving yourself wrong!


----------



## Kane (Jul 24, 2004)

hippy said:
			
		

> i am a devote catholic, but science should never be used to prove faith/god/or religion. and religion / the bible (of which there are many versions) should never be used to disprove science.
> 
> the earth (as a lump of rock) has been around for 4.5 billion years, as a ball of hot gas, it has been around for 6 billion years, when our sun formed and spewed out lumps into orbit.
> 
> ...


That is true faith plays an important role in believing in God. Probably the most important thing in believing in God is faith. However, saying that there is scientific or historical proof is just all wrong all together. The reason why is because THERE IS PROOF. It might no be enough proof, but it doesnt mean there is no proof. 

It is however true that it all comes down to faith. I know that from experience. I can never convince EVER that there is no God. But at the same time Im not sure whether there is one either. Also I hope God will see that there those who need the extra proof to know whether He does exist and not throw them into to hell because of lack of faith.

Oh and Hippy, it does sound like you are proving yourself wrong as Feisty Mouse said. It sounds like you are saying that you are a devote catholic and yet you are trying to prove how much your religion doesn't make sense :wink1:.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 24, 2004)

I was just referring to the priest in his Darwin Award story, not to hippy.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 24, 2004)

> Hi feisty mouse, but that's not God's intention. for those who do believe and Trust Jesus is the Son of God, Died for our Sins, Rose From the Dead, we are to be ONE. Hehe, and it's so funny, sometimes, people will be like "oh, well that's just a cult", what?!?!? Just believe, it's so simple, so easy. God will PROVE HIMSELF TO YOU. Step out in what we call FAITH.



Been there. Done that. Never got the t-shirt.

I do find it interesting, however, that people who at one moment proclaim God is completely ineffable and beyond human understanding or comprehension whatsoever. But, then, the next moment you hear them telling the rest of us what his "intentions" supposedly are --- which assumes that "He" has "intentions" like human beings do.

Very interesting, indeed.


----------



## hippy (Jul 25, 2004)

i'm not trying to prove my faith to be wrong, i'm saying that no matter how much of the scientific world i understand, it would be foolish to use it to prove GOD's existance, and even worse to try to use religion to back up science.

once GOD's existance has been proved, no-one will have any need for faith. hundreds of years ago, people had faith that monsters roamed the earth before mankind. now that we have undeniable proof with the dinosaur bones, no-one needs faith to believe it, they can just go down to any history museum, to have their knowledge confirmed.

i can happily be content that the earth was created billions of years ago, but i can also picture gods intervention in the creation. maybe how it took 6 stages of development, with GOD leaving (resting) us to our own devices on the seventh stage (now).


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 27, 2004)

Lcash said:
			
		

> The word Yom in Hebrew has actually three meanings.  One is a 24hr day one is a 12hr day and one is eons or large periods of time.  Since the scripture uses the word for day before the separation of light and darkness it can literaly be the eons time frame that was used.
> 
> I believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the account of Genesis is correct.  One thing I am certain of is that the Bible was not written to be a scientific accounting of creation or any other facts other than mans relationship with God.  It is the story of mans creation, fall, and redemption through grace and not a scientific text for us to argue over.



Just got back from a mini-vacation, so I apologize for not jumping in sooner.


Lcash...is the word usage of "Yom" in referring to "eons" a contemporary usage?  Or is it an ancient one?  If it is an ancient one could you provide me with a valid reference I can use?  If I'm convinced that it is, indeed, a legitimate  definition and one used in the ancient world, I'll never refer to it again.  If it was a definition created to still the tongues of skeptics, however...


Regards,


Steve


----------



## CanuckMA (Jul 27, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Just got back from a mini-vacation, so I apologize for not jumping in sooner.
> 
> 
> Lcash...is the word usage of "Yom" in referring to "eons" a contemporary usage?  Or is it an ancient one?  If it is an ancient one could you provide me with a valid reference I can use?  If I'm convinced that it is, indeed, a legitimate  definition and one used in the ancient world, I'll never refer to it again.  If it was a definition created to still the tongues of skeptics, however...
> ...



In all my years of studying Torah, I have never seen 'yom' refered to as eons. Commentators will often explain the story of Creation with days not being 24 hours, but that is more to reconcile our secular knowledge with the text. Simple plain reading of Creation does indeed imply a period of 7 24 hours periods.


----------



## Nightingale (Jul 27, 2004)

Roman Catholicism accepts evolution and believes that much of the old testament is metaphorical in nature.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 27, 2004)

Ditto for Eastern Orthodoxy, in general.


----------



## Lcash (Jul 27, 2004)

Heretic, CanuckMA, 

Here is Strongs definition taken from the Stongs Exhaustive dictionary of Hebrew words.

Strong's Number: 3117 
Transliterated: yowm 
Phonetic: yome 
Text:  from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), *or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term),* [often used adverb]: -age, + always, + chronicals, continually(-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever(-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (... live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year(-ly), + younger. 

Lcash


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 27, 2004)

Lcash said:
			
		

> Heretic, CanuckMA,
> 
> Here is Strongs definition taken from the Stongs Exhaustive dictionary of Hebrew words.
> 
> ...




Again...is this contemporary usage or ancient?  That does indeed make a difference.  One can think of several forms of English words that have taken on different connotations in just the last several hundred years.

Strong's also relies on 19th century scholarship.






Regards,


Steve


----------



## Lcash (Jul 27, 2004)

It would be an ancient usage based on the fact that the early church fathers all the way into the reformation debated the term day as either literal or figurative.  Westminster Seminary put out an entire treatise on this in 1999'.  

http://www.wts.edu/news/creation.html

Lcash


----------



## CanuckMA (Jul 27, 2004)

Well, first, Strongs' transliteration is wrong. It's yom. Second both current and Biblical usage of the word is taken as from sunset to sunset. Arguments on Creation in Classical Jewish studies of Genesis never revolves around the meaning of yom, but as to whether G-d perceives time like we do.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 27, 2004)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> Arguments on Creation in Classical Jewish studies of Genesis never revolves around the meaning of yom, but as to whether G-d perceives time like we do.


Interestingly, perception of time by the observer is always the same. Perception of time differs between observers depending on their relative velocities through space-time. So for God, he/she/it will always percieve time as progressing at the same rate, regardless of his/her/it's reference frame, whereas our perception of the same time will vary if we are not in the same reference. This thereby moots the point, as we didn't exist to observe during creation.

However, in this line of argument there exists no evidence or fact as to the age of the Earth. The only credible ways of postulating on the topic exist within the scientific realm. In fact, it could be said that if you choose to consider the age of the Earth from a christian perspective exclusive to the findings of science, you must first verify the validity of every single biblical reference to the timelines from creation until Jesus. This is an arduous task, for which I think that there is no possible solution. Verification of Biblical references and claims is a science unto itself, and I don't believe that scholars have been able to unanimously agree on any large portion of the publication, let alone reveal any significantly credible timeline.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 27, 2004)

Lcash said:
			
		

> It would be an ancient usage based on the fact that the early church fathers all the way into the reformation debated the term day as either literal or figurative.  Westminster Seminary put out an entire treatise on this in 1999'.
> 
> http://www.wts.edu/news/creation.html
> 
> Lcash




You're using a different Strong's reference number than I get for the Yom used in Genesis.  When I look it up, the number is 03117, and there is no figurative meaning for the word.  It literally means "day" as in day and night...as described in Genesis.

For some reason, I can't cut and paste the page.  Its in the Blue Letter Bible.  Check it with the number I provided.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Lcash (Jul 27, 2004)

Same definition!  The difference is in mine they leave off the 0 in front of the number!

Strong's Number: 3117 
Transliterated: yowm 
Phonetic: yome 
Text: from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), [often used adverb]: -age, + always, + chronicals, continually(-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever(-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (... live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year(-ly), + younger.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 27, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Interestingly, perception of time by the observer is always the same.


 Speak for yourself, my good man... I've experienced many different perceptions of time, particularly during a younger experimentation with personal chemistry.


----------



## pete (Jul 27, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Perception of time differs between observers depending on their relative velocities through space-time. So for God, he/she/it will always perceive time as progressing at the same rate, regardless of his/her/it's reference frame, whereas our perception of the same time will vary if we are not in the same reference.



oh, but we must be the same perception of time since "*God created Man in his own image... and Man being a gentleman, returned the compliment", * - Inherit the Wind.

pete


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 27, 2004)

Lcash said:
			
		

> Same definition!  The difference is in mine they leave off the 0 in front of the number!
> 
> Strong's Number: 3117
> Transliterated: yowm
> ...




I didn't get that at all.  When I get home, I'll try cutting and pasting it on THAT computer.  Something is wrong with this one.  

Probably have to reboot...geez, I miss my Mac.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 28, 2004)

> Interestingly, perception of time by the observer is always the same.



Not to get off-topic here, but this claim is untrue.

An individual's experience of space-time changes as he/she develops and grows. An infant does not see "space" and "time" the same way a 10-year old does, and likewise the 10-year old does not perceive space-time the same way most adults do.

In fact, perceptions of space-time are one of the many developmental lines currently being studied by developmental psychology. Interesting stuff.

There's also the altered states of awareness that PeachMonkey alluded to, as well.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 28, 2004)

yep, ask my students. A fifty-minute English class can last an eon.


----------



## GAB (Aug 5, 2004)

This conversation (posts) has been very enlightening. I find this board and the people who post to be commended. 
If it has to do with the way of handling the reputation points, or the occasional warning, or total lock down, it has done the job.
The persons who post are participants of other boards, but by the very confines placed on them here, it is apparent that it works pretty good. 

I have been expunged from a board, for various reasons..I have been bloodied but not bowed (respecting the other board). I learned another lesson in life, will continue to have my opinions, will do a better job of picking a place to do battle, or not. But I will try to hold down my (at times hostile) nature.

Since leaving the other board, I have not been posting much. I have been observing more then taking part. I did not come upon this thread until today. 
Tough topic to handle (so well). Being an Agnostic, again I have to say a topic well done. Regards, G


----------



## Satt (Dec 20, 2004)

I don't know when the earth was created. I am curious though when the earth's birthday is? I was thinking about sending a card. Come to think of it, I don't even have the address. Crap, maybe I will just plant a tree or something. He he.:idunno:


----------

