Age of the earth...Young or old?

[Binyawmene]

That may be an explanation...a theory....but it's not what the bible says.

A theory that remains unchallenged in this thread.
In Genesis 1:2 only picks up at a certain point in space-time where the earth is still going through its formation "takes shape like clay under a seal" (Job 38:14). As God is the potter and the earth is clay while HE is fashioning "tohu" and "bohu" earth for HIS glory (Isaiah 45:18). The frame of reference is the earth's surface being formless (without structure) and void (without life), or in other words, desolate and undistinguishable ruin. The earth's surface was molten. As the earth cold, an atmosphere formed mainly from gases spewed from volcanoes. The gases included hydrogen sulfide, methane, etc., even water creating an oblique atmosphere (Job 38:9). The next clause of the sentence is "waters" (anoxic waters or oxygenic waters), don't know, but early earth's atmosphere would be similar in composition to what we find on venus.

The lights from space were already present and shinning but could not pass through the early earth's atmosphere. It would be like standing on the planet Venus and looking up. You would not be able to see any lights from space because of the oblique atmosphere. So when God said, "Let there be light;" he is not creating the sun's light itself since the sun is already there, rather the early earth's atmosphere changes from oblique to translucent atmosphere. And the earth's atmosphere would naturally take an unspecified long period of time to change.​

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

This result is fully particularized in the next three verses. This word, "made," corresponds to the word "be" in the command, and indicates the disposition and adjustment to a special purpose of things previously existing.​

What was previously existing?

a). Bible "the two great lights"
b). Young earthers "no sun and moon"​

As a matter of fact, the moon doesn’t produce its own light but only a light reflection. Moonlight is actually sunlight that shines on the moon and bounces off. In other words, the moon shines because it reflects sunlight. The surface of the moon is made up of a rocky material called regolith, which is a layer of loose rock and dust that covers the solid rock surface of the moon. When sunlight hits the moon, it is reflected off of the regolith and back into space, making the moon appear bright to us on Earth.

In Genesis 1:14-18, God isn't creating the sun and moon. The author is talking about the "lights" (the sun and moon were already existing) in the vault of the sky. Their lights were already there but you (if you were there) could not see it, because of the translucent atmosphere (Jeremiah 31:35, Psalm 136:9). God is transforming the translucent atmosphere to a transparent atmosphere. And that is why you are able to see the two great lights.

...but when looking up into space you still would not be able to see any moons, stars, and planets. You cannot see visible objects in space from a translucent atmosphere. Now in Genesis 1:14-18, the plant life was already created and need light to grow. The plants were giving off oxygen into the atmosphere. After an unspecified long period of time the atmosphere became transparent to the point that our sun and moon, and the planets and stars was made visible. Not made in the sense of created, but made to appear so that you can mark the seasons, days, and years.​

 

[CrowCross]

The lights from space were already present and shinning but could not pass through the early earth's atmosphere.

The bible doesn't say this...you added it.

 

[Binyawmene]

The bible doesn't say this...you added it.

Only because you are under the assumption there is no sun. Once you let go of your assumption your whole world is going to change and see the obvious. Anyways, since I believe there is a sun in Genesis 1:1, then basic exegesis is drawing out meaning from the text. I am not adding anything to the text. There was "light" in space (heaven). It only takes 8 minutes for light from the Sun to travel to earth and 2 minutes from the moon.

 

[David1701]

Well, David. You agreed to the rules. You can be just as effectual by refuting a doctrine or belief with scripture sans personal insult. More, in fact…because it personal insult that turns people away.
All forums have this rule. We very much want to project a friendliness for all.
I believe this is one reason forums have become, in large part, graveyards.
Consider the children.
Blessed are the Peacemakers….hammer the doctrine, but miss the person. They may be innocent and simply led wrongly.

If Jesus (or one of the apostles) came to one of these forums, incognito, and said some of the things he said, he would be banned. What does that tell you?

The reason why people are given over to error, is because they have not received the love of the truth. No-one who is dogmatically teaching falsehood is "innocent"!

There is a huge difference between asking questions (which is fine) and contradicting what the Bible says (which is not), especially when "interpretation" is used as a mask for unbelief.

One example of why a (sub)forum became a graveyard (not on this site), is because a false teacher overwhelmed that topic with his posts and he was not dealt with. Oh, posters hammered his doctrine alright, but that didn't stop him, because he, as a person, was not dealt with.

The peacemakers are not peacekeepers. They make peace by preaching the gospel, so that, when someone is born again, repents and believes, he is at peace with God and his brothers/sisters. In other words, they are channels through whom God brings those into peace, who were not in peace with God.

We don't stop being Christians, subject to the leading of the Holy Spirit and the Lord's commands, when we enter an Internet forum. It's not some little island with rules that supersede those in the Bible -

(e.g. 2 Tim. 4:2-4 (KJV)
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.) -

- and every Christian who joins such a site should agree to the rules, subject to the proviso that God and his commands always have precedence.

You know, I've had to say this kind of thing on three different Christian forums and it should never have to be said; it should go without saying.

P.S. There is a liar in this thread, who is persisting with his Bible-contradicting lies. Are the mods going to obey the Lord and his commands and deal with him?

 

[Carbon]

The bible doesn't say this...you added it.

But isn't it obvious? I think so

 

[Carbon]

It's part of my calling to deal with the person (if needed) as well as the topic. If the forum will not allow this, then I'll need to go elsewhere.

Perhaps some feel the same way you do?

That is part of the reason why I left WCF (along with their refusal to deal with false teachers). I'm sad to think that it's happening here as well.

Are you saying old earth Christians are false teachers? I hope not, I would think you would know better.

 

[Carbon]

Well, it's almost 500 post...things drift....I just mentioned that Evolutionism which subscribed to OE universalism is pretty much force fed to the students in school.

 

[Carbon]

Only because you are under the assumption there is no sun. Once you let go of your assumption your whole world is going to change and see the obvious. Anyways, since I believe there is a sun in Genesis 1:1, then basic exegesis is drawing out meaning from the text. I am not adding anything to the text. There was "light" in space (heaven). It only takes 8 minutes for light from the Sun to travel to earth and 2 minutes from the moon.

Yep, if he were to read the scriptures as they are and for what they say, he would see differently. But even if he didn't, that's okay as well.

 

[CrowCross]

Only because you are under the assumption there is no sun. Once you let go of your assumption your whole world is going to change and see the obvious. Anyways, since I believe there is a sun in Genesis 1:1, then basic exegesis is drawing out meaning from the text. I am not adding anything to the text. There was "light" in space (heaven). It only takes 8 minutes for light from the Sun to travel to earth and 2 minutes from the moon.

If that's what you need to make Old Earth work...have at it.

I've given you an example from Rev where the sun was not required. You thumbed your nose at it.

I pointed out you added to the bible when you claim it says some atmosphere or cloud was removed on day 3.....but, if that's what you wanna believe...have at it.

 

[Binyawmene]

If that's what you need to make Old Earth work...have at it.

I've given you an example from Rev where the sun was not required. You thumbed your nose at it.

I pointed out you added to the bible when you claim it says some atmosphere or cloud was removed on day 3.....but, if that's what you wanna believe...have at it.

Except we are not talking about the new earth and new laws of nature when "the old order of things has passed away.” (Revelations 21:4). We are talking about the early earth and how it's impossible for there to be no sun in Genesis 1:1 based on the laws of nature.

The point of view or the frame of reference for the six creation days is spelled out in Genesis 1:2, “The Spirit of God was hovering over the waters [of Earth].” Creation day one in Genesis 1 begins with “Let there be light.” Creation day four begins with “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky.” In both cases the Hebrew verb haya is used rather than the verbs asa (make) or bara (create). This usage implies that God did not create or make light on day one. Rather, that is when light appears for the first time on Earth’s surface.

When, then, was the Sun created? God made the Sun before the six creation days (the Hebrew verb asa means “made,’ and appears in the appropriate form for completed action). On day one, the Sun’s light penetrates through Earth’s atmosphere to bathe Earth’s surface in light. But, not until day four is it possible for creatures on Earth’s surface to see the position of the Sun in the sky.

However, the standard lexical distinction between bara and asa is that asa refers to creation from what already exists while bara refers to creation from what does not yet exist.​

You can read about Old Earth Creationism.

1. Earth’s Primordial Magma Ocean Affirms Genesis 1 Creation Events
2. Hazy Early Earth: More Affirmation of Creation Day 4
3. Let There Be Light!

 

[CrowCross]

Except we are not talking about the new earth and new laws of nature when "the old order of things has passed away.” (Revelations 21:4). We are talking about the early earth and how it's impossible for there to be no sun in Genesis 1:1 based on the laws of nature.

The point of view or the frame of reference for the six creation days is spelled out in Genesis 1:2, “The Spirit of God was hovering over the waters [of Earth].” Creation day one in Genesis 1 begins with “Let there be light.” Creation day four begins with “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky.” In both cases the Hebrew verb haya is used rather than the verbs asa (make) or bara (create). This usage implies that God did not create or make light on day one. Rather, that is when light appears for the first time on Earth’s surface.​

​

When, then, was the Sun created? God made the Sun before the six creation days (the Hebrew verb asa means “made,’ and appears in the appropriate form for completed action). On day one, the Sun’s light penetrates through Earth’s atmosphere to bathe Earth’s surface in light. But, not until day four is it possible for creatures on Earth’s surface to see the position of the Sun in the sky.​

​

However, the standard lexical distinction between bara and asa is that asa refers to creation from what already exists while bara refers to creation from what does not yet exist.​

You can read about Old Earth Creationism.

1. Earth’s Primordial Magma Ocean Affirms Genesis 1 Creation Events
2. Hazy Early Earth: More Affirmation of Creation Day 4
3. Let There Be Light!

What more can I say? You need an old earth out of order creation to support your theology...I don't.

 

[Binyawmene]

What more can I say? You need an old earth out of order creation to support your theology...I don't.

You can simply say nothing. Sad but true. It's been that way throughout this whole thread. Let me know when you have something of substance to offer. If you want the last word, you may do so. Enjoy your day CrowCross.

 

[ChristB4us]

Well if it is in fact billions of years, then of course it came before Adam. But I say, during Adam's time in paradise (Garden of Eden) we do not know how much time had passed on the rest of planet earth outside the garden. I also believe not many people consider this, which makes it difficult to figure out at first.

Not really since God commanded them to go forth and multiply.

And David1701 did mentioned this

The time period of roughly 6,000 years is taken from the genealogies in the Bible. Even if we allow for the occasional skipped generation, the absolute maximum age would be about 10,000 years.

Since everything that was created had the appearance of age as the chicken came first and not the egg scenario, and even tree and plant life was bursting with fruits and seeds on that 3rd day.

We cannot tell the age of the universe by that speed of light when God created those distant stars for her lights to shine on the earth that 4th day for signs, seasons, days and years.

And it is an assumption to believe there was no daughter particles present which is the decaying element from the parent particles for anyone to assess the age of the earth.

And since science rests their accuracy of their dating results on the faulty assumption that there was no global calamity within the last 55,000 years, then they are overlooking the Biblical global flood for why they are getting inaccurate dating results but gloss over them in favor of the evolution theory which believers need His help in finally seeing it for the false science that it is.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

 

[ChristB4us]

From what I've been told, they no longer use Carbon 14 dating, but do use other methods now. (I still don't trust them, but....)

It is a false science regardless, especially now when they are lying by saying the Law of Biogenesis was never a law of science.

 

[Sereni-tea]

And since science rests their accuracy of their dating results on the faulty assumption that there was no global calamity within the last 55,000 years, then they are overlooking the Biblical global flood for why they are getting inaccurate dating results but gloss over them in favor of the evolution theory which believers need His help in finally seeing it for the false science that it is.

Why is it that YECs think the flood can solve all the problems with their view?

Astrophysicists estimate the age of the universe using distant stars and measurements based on the rate of expansion of the universe. Any flood global or otherwise would not affect these estimate.

Also the age of the earth is calculated using a number of different techniques from the oldest known terrestrial and lunar samples. How exactly would a flood, global or otherwise, affect these measurements?

Also, you seem to be under the assumption that all scientists are under compulsion to not produce any resullts contrary to evolution. But why would astrophysicists and geologists care about the theory of evolution? It has no bearing on their resepctive fields in any way.

 

[Carbon]

Why is it that YECs think the flood can solve all the problems with their view?

Astrophysicists estimate the age of the universe using distant stars and measurements based on the rate of expansion of the universe. Any flood global or otherwise would not affect these estimate.

Also the age of the earth is calculated using a number of different techniques from the oldest known terrestrial and lunar samples. How exactly would a flood, global or otherwise, affect these measurements?

Also, you seem to be under the assumption that all scientists are under compulsion to not produce any resullts contrary to evolution. But why would astrophysicists and geologists care about the theory of evolution? It has no bearing on their resepctive fields in any way.

Amen

 

[CrowCross]

From what I've been told, they no longer use Carbon 14 dating, but do use other methods now. (I still don't trust them, but....)

One must remember the ratio of C14 to C12 was different prior to the flood than they are today. Anything dated prior to the flood would appear as older.

 

[JIM]

One must remember the ratio of C14 to C12 was different prior to the flood than they are today. Anything dated prior to the flood would appear as older.

I haven't seen in scientific data and information that would corroborate your statement about the ratio of C14 to C12 and there certainly is no biblical information that would do so. Where did that come from.

 

[CrowCross]

I haven't seen in scientific data and information that would corroborate your statement about the ratio of C14 to C12 and there certainly is no biblical information that would do so. Where did that come from.

There is no biblical description that tells how a fossils is formed....but they're there.

But, to answer your question...

Neanderthals have been carbon-dated to 30,000+ years before present; extinct dire wolves have been dated to 10,000+ years before present, and coal has been dated to 20,000+ years before present. However, the Bible proclaims a young earth, approximately 6,000 years old. How can these differences be rectified? We, at Genesis and Genetics, have concluded that the carbon levels are generally correct, but the calibration is wrong. Secular science assumes no significant catastrophes such as Noah’s flood; however, if we consider the flood, we find that:......continue to the article.

 

[JIM]

There is no biblical description that tells how a fossils is formed....but they're there.

But, to answer your question...

Neanderthals have been carbon-dated to 30,000+ years before present; extinct dire wolves have been dated to 10,000+ years before present, and coal has been dated to 20,000+ years before present. However, the Bible proclaims a young earth, approximately 6,000 years old. How can these differences be rectified? We, at Genesis and Genetics, have concluded that the carbon levels are generally correct, but the calibration is wrong. Secular science assumes no significant catastrophes such as Noah’s flood; however, if we consider the flood, we find that:......continue to the article.

You asked, "How can these differences be rectified?" Read it here:

The Age of the Universe: One Reality Viewed from Two Different Perspectives | Aish

Can the universe be young and old simultaneously?

aish.com

Schroeder shows not only how they can be rectified, but how both can be factually true.