Christian's views on the age of the Earth

[Kane]

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]

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

 

[hardheadjarhead]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[heretic888]

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]

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

Lcash

 

[Flatlander]

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