How Old is the Earth?

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Sneekee

She just told me to tell you noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

[DaveC519]

Originally Posted by Sneekee

But seriously,

We know by observation of solid facts that the universe as we know it, and the planet on which we reside, are both much older than 6,000 years. These facts are more than iffy hypotheses, or error-prone calculations on carbon decay. Cramming the age of the universe into 6,000 years requires adherence to pseudoscience and violations of standards of plain and decent horse sense that young earth creationists vehemently appeal to in their own attempts to strike down the beliefs of others.

But frankly, this has very little to do with the Bible. Usages of the word "earth" in the KJV and other English translations of Scripture are not only completely different from today's global definition of the word, but are not even consistent with Hebrew terminology. In the Bible, we've used the word "earth" to translate more than one word, and a number of concepts...and that's on the side of concrete literalism.

Furthermore, Genesis 1 does not place the Earth at the beginning of all existence (that's not even in the scope or realm of thought for the work), neither does Genesis 3 place Adam at the beginning of all people. These are assumptions that we have made from our English words, and then we've tried to squeeze them into the Scripture with gap theories and more assumptions.

A dogmatic slogan of young earth creationism is the question of whether or not we are going to believe the Bible, or our own observations. My question for young earth creationists is whether they are going to believe the Bible, or their own sacred cows born and nurtured from anachronistic derivations of tiny fragments of Scripture.

Hello Sneekee,

Question: Given that it appears you are an old earth advocate, how do you interpret passages such as Gen 1:26-27 and 2:7, 21-23? Literally or figuratively?

Thanks for your response.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by DaveC519

Hello Sneekee,

Question: Given that it appears you are an old earth advocate, how do you interpret passages such as Gen 1:26-27 and 2:7, 21-23? Literally or figuratively?

Thanks for your response.

As we wait for his response...

What do those scriptures have to do with the age of the earth?

[DaveC519]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

As we wait for his response...

What do those scriptures have to do with the age of the earth?

Hi D4T,

I believe they do have something to say, but first... how 'bout you? Do you believe that God literally created Adam from the dust of the earth, and Eve from Adam's rib, or do you interpret theses verses figuratively?

Thanks!

[SteppingStone]

Originally Posted by Sneekee

Was Jeremiah schizophrenic?

Somewhere in the back of my mind I seem to recall somebody suggest he was..

[pastor febus]

If we continure to support the young age of the earth we will continue to appear as bafoons, very much like those who supported the "flat earth" theory. There is good science and these is bad science we need to distinguish between the two.

[Sneekee]

Originally Posted by DaveC519

Hello Sneekee,

Question: Given that it appears you are an old earth advocate, how do you interpret passages such as Gen 1:26-27 and 2:7, 21-23? Literally or figuratively?

Thanks for your response.

Before one can even begin to discuss what is literal, figurative, symbolic, and/or prophetic about the Bible, he has to repair his vocabulary with respect to literal terminology.

Gen 1

26 And Elohim said, “Let Us make Adam in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over behemah, and over all the earth and over all the creeping creatures that creep on the earth.”

27 And Elohim created the Adam in His image, in the image of Elohim He created him – male and female He created them.

"Earth" is not a planet. Why would the Bible have to explain fish of the sea, birds of the heavens, the livestock, if "all the earth" sufficed to cover them all? It doesn't. Eretz, in the strictest literal sense, is simply land. Just as with English the meaning of "land" can depend on context.

Still, if by "all the earth" we mean "every critter that exists on any inch of dry land anywhere on the planet," why do we have to designate his rulership any further to behemah ("lifted" animals--cows, donkeys, horses, etc), and then to "creeping creatures?" That would be like saying "Let him rule over the entire state of Tennessee, and Nashville, and Chattanooga, and Knoxville, and all the peoples in Hamilton County, TN, and everyone in East Tennessee, and all the inhabitants of Middle Tennessee, and UTK, and the Vols, and every hillbilly which dwelleth in the appalachians west of the NC border..." Redundant, and not redundant in the way that ancient Hebrews liked to be redundant.

These terms do not exist in a vacuum. They are used in prophecy, in the same fashion, throughout the Scripture. The same thing goes for trees, the dust of the ground [adamah], the mountains, the fields, the grass--they all are used specifically from Genesis to Revelation (though we must chisel through the Greek a bit in the latter end), and for some reason everyone is appalled when I insist that the Scripture is consistent. Appalled, almost to the same extent as when I insist that when God says "soon," it doesn't mean 2,000 years from now. "Earth" doesn't mean "earth" to Jeremiah, and somehow Genesis 1-6 exists completely severed from the rest of the Bible in meaning.

[DaveC519]

Originally Posted by Sneekee

Before one can even begin to discuss what is literal, figurative, symbolic, and/or prophetic about the Bible, he has to repair his vocabulary with respect to literal terminology.

Gen 1

26 And Elohim said, “Let Us make Adam in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over behemah, and over all the earth and over all the creeping creatures that creep on the earth.”

27 And Elohim created the Adam in His image, in the image of Elohim He created him – male and female He created them.

"Earth" is not a planet. Why would the Bible have to explain fish of the sea, birds of the heavens, the livestock, if "all the earth" sufficed to cover them all? It doesn't. Eretz, in the strictest literal sense, is simply land. Just as with English the meaning of "land" can depend on context.

Still, if by "all the earth" we mean "every critter that exists on any inch of dry land anywhere on the planet," why do we have to designate his rulership any further to behemah ("lifted" animals--cows, donkeys, horses, etc), and then to "creeping creatures?" That would be like saying "Let him rule over the entire state of Tennessee, and Nashville, and Chattanooga, and Knoxville, and all the peoples in Hamilton County, TN, and everyone in East Tennessee, and all the inhabitants of Middle Tennessee, and UTK, and the Vols, and every hillbilly which dwelleth in the appalachians west of the NC border..." Redundant, and not redundant in the way that ancient Hebrews liked to be redundant.

These terms do not exist in a vacuum. They are used in prophecy, in the same fashion, throughout the Scripture. The same thing goes for trees, the dust of the ground [adamah], the mountains, the fields, the grass--they all are used specifically from Genesis to Revelation (though we must chisel through the Greek a bit in the latter end), and for some reason everyone is appalled when I insist that the Scripture is consistent. Appalled, almost to the same extent as when I insist that when God says "soon," it doesn't mean 2,000 years from now. "Earth" doesn't mean "earth" to Jeremiah, and somehow Genesis 1-6 exists completely severed from the rest of the Bible in meaning.

I'll be more specific, as I was with D4T:

Do you believe that God literally created Adam from the dust of the earth, and Eve from Adam's rib?

[Sneekee]

What I'm saying is that we don't even have the literal meanings of the terms right, and we want to use our warped convolution of the literal verbage of Genesis to dictate Physics to Physicists. But I don't think that Genesis is saying that God sat on a riverbank and sculpted a clay doll out of the dirt to make humanity, no.

Snakes don't eat dirt, either.

As I said earlier, "dust" is a term that is used in allegory throughout Scripture. Nobody challenges the fact that when the psalm speaks of God lifting the poor out of the dust, that without explanation we're not talking about men actually being levitated out of dirt. Yet, snakes eat dirt, Adam is a clay doll, his wife was crafted out of a bone, and Cain is afraid of people that don't exist.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

I'm not sure why a God who is not the author of confusion would do what you speak of... But could you please explain what you are speaking of please.

Sorry its taking so long to get back to you, What I am speaking of is that In the late 70's Mnt Saint Helens a volcano in Washington state blew her top. This gave us the opportunity to see first hand the effects of erosion and the change of the surface of the earth. What we see is the layers of the grand canyon that science says took millions of years to happen were developed at mnt saint Helens in much less time. I don't want to get the numbers wrong so I will find thier web site in the next few days. suffice it to say in one year the land had been completly changed, including new water courses which shewed the new layers of setiment that had been layed down when the vocano erupted.