How old is the earth?

[Rella]

IMHO you're overthinking this.If a 5 year old heard this passage, he would not be bringing up the awkward reasonings you do

You are right, but as I said Genesis has been a study of mine for a very long time.

I am merely expressing my opinion....

 

[CrowCross]

With the 'speed of light', I ask, why couldn't God make the stars mature just as he made Adam and Eve?

From what I understand time moves faster or slower depending upon gravity.

 

[EarlyActs]

If a day is evening and morning then explain, please, anyone

Gen 2: 4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.

Can we count this to mean it could have been one day?

The above is NASB95

KJV Well.... i simply find confusing....

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Obviously there are differing meaning for day ....

And I find Jimmy's men's use of Generations intriguing. If I was not so opposed to all the flaws in this one... that one statement could make me embrace it for my bible of choice

In many of the sections of Genesis, the first line is a title. Notice that the verb has been supplied. A title is a step removed from describing specific action, and it has a repeat (I don't have my transliteration open at the moment), but it can mean epoch, or season, like the day of the Lord in later materials.

 

[EarlyActs]

I'd love to get into the philosophy of this, There is no other truth (especially when it comes to creation) other than God's Word. You can call it 'Christian truth'or 'Jewish truth', it all boils down to God's Word, the Bible.
Men have tried circumventing God's Word through tradition, reason and intellectual sleight of hand, trying to make sense of this world. It all fails. Why? It attempts to approach the eternal through his fallen and finite understanding.

John 1:5 KJV
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

"The Bible is not revolutionary when we make it the only source of truth. It is revolutionary when people see that it is as true as all other sources. Paul said 'these things are true and rational...' and 'this has not been done in a corner.'" --Schaeffer , LAbri Fellowship, in HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT. Paraphrase

"The Bible is part of a set of coordinates that form the circle of reality--established narrative, the best insights about human nature, historic fact, etc. All of which rise in strength with each other, or all disintegrate apart from each other. Heller wrote that modern man's sense of reality is insidiously deficient, with its weight of proof being reduced year after year, until any individual's notion has as much weight as known history." --Middelmann, LAbri Fellowship, in PRO-EXISTENCE. Paraphrase

Yes, this question is one of the most consequential. And along with Lewis' GOD IN THE DOCK, I can't think of two better books to know regarding it.

 

[prism]

"The Bible is not revolutionary when we make it the only source of truth. It is revolutionary when people see that it is as true as all other sources.

I believe it's revolutionary when God opens our eyes to see that it is truly God's Word and not the word of man.

 

[Arial]

From what I understand time moves faster or slower depending upon gravity.

It moves faster or slower depending on how old one is.

 

[CrowCross]

It moves faster or slower depending on how old one is.

Ain't that the truth.

 

[EarlyActs]

I believe it's revolutionary when God opens our eyes to see that it is truly God's Word and not the word of man.

That is not the modern problem though. The modern problem is to believe that it is a fantasy, a hallucinogenic expression, a 'trip.' That it is private religious truth divorced from facts and history, even though it may be called 'spiritually true.' Instead it is absolutely solid history.

Acts, for ex., is among the finest of ancient historical record. It is loaded with outside (objective) reference, yet God is at work in many events that have no other explanation, all in one fabric. By outside reference, I mean Claudius evicted Jews from Rome in 54 or so, like Acts 18 says. That fact is true whether mentioned in the Bible or not. That fact is not "true" because of being in Acts. The other way around, really. It is in Acts because it was hard reality, like everything else Acts records.

In Acts 5, Gamaliel, Paul's mentor, reminds the Sanhedrin that during the Augustine census, there was an uprising by Judas the Galilean. This is historic fact, whether Gamaliel referenced it or not. Neither Gamaliel nor Luke were hallucinating, imagining, contriving.

 

[John Bauer]

I believe a day is defined for us in Genesis: "evening and morning," as understood by those in the generation of Moses and ours. (I guess that makes me a young-Earther. lol

Even if one believes that the days of Genesis 1 were consecutive 24-hours, that would not necessarily make them a young-earth creationist—for I believe they were 24-hours and I'm definitely not a young-earther.

 

[Rella]

Even if one believes that the days of Genesis 1 were consecutive 24-hours, that would not necessarily make them a young-earth creationist—for I believe they were 24-hours and I'm definitely not a young-earther.

Well, not to argue this but if from When the Spirit was hovering over the waters in Gen 1:2 and in Gen 1:3 Was the first day..... to Gen 1:31 where
31And God looked upon all that He had made, and indeed, it was very good. And this was day 6.

Most people who believe this was in 144 straight hours... and therefore they argue the young earth thoughts.

Is your belief that the waters from Gen 1:2 "And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters." were created earlier then the beginning of creation in Genesis?

If so, I do too.

 

[EarlyActs]

Well, not to argue this but if from When the Spirit was hovering over the waters in Gen 1:2 and in Gen 1:3 Was the first day..... to Gen 1:31 where
31And God looked upon all that He had made, and indeed, it was very good. And this was day 6.

Most people who believe this was in 144 straight hours... and therefore they argue the young earth thoughts.

Is your belief that the waters from Gen 1:2 "And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters." were created earlier then the beginning of creation in Genesis?

If so, I do too.

My research on this is that the creation week is not the beginning of the existence of earth at all, but rather the re-forming of the surface for habitability, for humans. There is also some support for a theme of fixing what was there. This can be found in Ps 104 where it is quite difficult to discern between creation week and the cataclysm.

By using the term 'placing' for the local neighbor objects (sun, planets), the text is opening the possibility of them having been brought from elsewhere.

An event called the 'spreading out' (an agricultural term having to do with scattering seed) is prior to creation week.

This is confirmed by 2 Peter 3.

 

[Rella]

My research on this is that the creation week is not the beginning of the existence of earth at all, but rather the re-forming of the surface for habitability, for humans. There is also some support for a theme of fixing what was there. This can be found in Ps 104 where it is quite difficult to discern between creation week and the cataclysm.

By using the term 'placing' for the local neighbor objects (sun, planets), the text is opening the possibility of them having been brought from elsewhere.

An event called the 'spreading out' (an agricultural term having to do with scattering seed) is prior to creation week.

This is confirmed by 2 Peter 3.

Thank you for pointing this out.

I have had many a battle over this idea ... so nice to read some agreement.

"By using the term 'placing' for the local neighbor objects (sun, planets), the text is opening the possibility of them having been brought from elsewhere." I had not considered that before.... excellent

 

[John Bauer]

Well, not to argue this but if from When the Spirit was hovering over the waters in Gen 1:2 and in Gen 1:3 Was the first day..... to Gen 1:31 where
31And God looked upon all that He had made, and indeed, it was very good. And this was day 6.

Most people who believe this was in 144 straight hours... and therefore they argue the young earth thoughts.

Yes, most people who think that days 1 through 6 were 144 consecutive hours are young-earth creationists. But, back to my point, that belief is not what makes them young-earthers. Again, I believe exactly the same thing and yet I'm not a young-earther. This ought to show that believing the days were 24-hours doesn't commit someone to the young-earth view. Something else does that—namely, the belief that creating is about bringing something into existence in material terms.

Is your belief that the waters from Gen 1:2 ... were created earlier than the beginning of creation in Genesis?

I don't interpret Genesis 1 through the English language with modern categories of thought, such as our material ontology—which means your question grinds to a halt on that term "created." I can't answer your question without addressing that term, because everything hangs on it. My view is informed by the original Hebrew language and their categories of thought—this is historical-grammatical exegesis—and we simply have no reason to think they shared our ontology. We do have reasons, though, for thinking they had a radically different ontology, the first hints of which is found in the fact that they lived more than 3,000 years ago, five hundred years prior to the development of material ontology. However they defined what it meant to exist, it wasn't in material terms (i.e., to have material substance). For them, a thing could occupy space, be composed of matter, but not exist—which sounds completely bonkers to us, precisely because our thinking is so deeply shaped by material ontology.

 

[CrowCross]

Even if one believes that the days of Genesis 1 were consecutive 24-hours, that would not necessarily make them a young-earth creationist—for I believe they were 24-hours and I'm definitely not a young-earther.

Why are you old earth? Do you go with the pre-Adamic world concept?

 

[Rella]

Yes, most people who think that days 1 through 6 were 144 consecutive hours are young-earth creationists. But, back to my point, that belief is not what makes them young-earthers. Again, I believe exactly the same thing and yet I'm not a young-earther. This ought to show that believing the days were 24-hours doesn't commit someone to the young-earth view. Something else does that—namely, the belief that creating is about bringing something into existence in material terms.




I don't interpret Genesis 1 through the English language with modern categories of thought, such as our material ontology—which means your question grinds to a halt on that term "created." I can't answer your question without addressing that term, because everything hangs on it. My view is informed by the original Hebrew language and their categories of thought—this is historical-grammatical exegesis—and we simply have no reason to think they shared our ontology. We do have reasons, though, for thinking they had a radically different ontology, the first hints of which is found in the fact that they lived more than 3,000 years ago, five hundred years prior to the development of material ontology. However they defined what it meant to exist, it wasn't in material terms (i.e., to have material substance). For them, a thing could occupy space, be composed of matter, but not exist—which sounds completely bonkers to us, precisely because our thinking is so deeply shaped by material ontology.

This is fascinating to me....

See, just when I thought I had Genesis down pat.... I learn something new.

I suppose you are going to tell me that the Man and woman from Genesis 1 are not different then Adam and Eve? Where I maintain Adam was not the first man... He was the first man with a soul that God breathed into him.

I just see Gen 1 and 2 through different lenses then the average person.

 

[EarlyActs]

Yes, most people who think that days 1 through 6 were 144 consecutive hours are young-earth creationists. But, back to my point, that belief is not what makes them young-earthers. Again, I believe exactly the same thing and yet I'm not a young-earther. This ought to show that believing the days were 24-hours doesn't commit someone to the young-earth view. Something else does that—namely, the belief that creating is about bringing something into existence in material terms.




I don't interpret Genesis 1 through the English language with modern categories of thought, such as our material ontology—which means your question grinds to a halt on that term "created." I can't answer your question without addressing that term, because everything hangs on it. My view is informed by the original Hebrew language and their categories of thought—this is historical-grammatical exegesis—and we simply have no reason to think they shared our ontology. We do have reasons, though, for thinking they had a radically different ontology, the first hints of which is found in the fact that they lived more than 3,000 years ago, five hundred years prior to the development of material ontology. However they defined what it meant to exist, it wasn't in material terms (i.e., to have material substance). For them, a thing could occupy space, be composed of matter, but not exist—which sounds completely bonkers to us, precisely because our thinking is so deeply shaped by material ontology.

and yet the narrative has a progression with a material logic. Fish are not created before there are oceans for them to live in, etc. There is a light ('owr') and it can mark a day start, but it can't grow plants or mark seasons. This is consistent with the arrival of starlight. So is the fact that the water surface had no reflective light; utter darkness. Try drawing (sketching) that. No starlight had arrived.

 

[EarlyActs]

This is fascinating to me....

See, just when I thought I had Genesis down pat.... I learn something new.

I suppose you are going to tell me that the Man and woman from Genesis 1 are not different then Adam and Eve? Where I maintain Adam was not the first man... He was the first man with a soul that God breathed into him.

I just see Gen 1 and 2 through different lenses then the average person.

Do you mean there was an evolving situation, or that God created all at the same time but not always with souls? This will have complications about the origin of evil downstream.

The Hebrew for the reproductivity of life is 'to swarm with swarms.' This massive initial 'filling' of the planet makes me think that He made other humans, but the narrative is only about this couple. (By the way, Darwin originally believed in this massive initial start, and was rather upset about the 'wastefulness' of it.) This scale of filling would explain the sudden mention of cities. The narrative does this a lot all through Genesis: lots of detail about it's topic of interest, and scant mention if not. But it never totally neglects the lesser interests. The 'kavov' (distant stars) are only mentioned in a dangling phrase in v16 (these are not the local/moving 'shema') and not mentioned again until ch 15. Not quite neglected!

 

[EarlyActs]

Yes, most people who think that days 1 through 6 were 144 consecutive hours are young-earth creationists. But, back to my point, that belief is not what makes them young-earthers. Again, I believe exactly the same thing and yet I'm not a young-earther. This ought to show that believing the days were 24-hours doesn't commit someone to the young-earth view. Something else does that—namely, the belief that creating is about bringing something into existence in material terms.




I don't interpret Genesis 1 through the English language with modern categories of thought, such as our material ontology—which means your question grinds to a halt on that term "created." I can't answer your question without addressing that term, because everything hangs on it. My view is informed by the original Hebrew language and their categories of thought—this is historical-grammatical exegesis—and we simply have no reason to think they shared our ontology. We do have reasons, though, for thinking they had a radically different ontology, the first hints of which is found in the fact that they lived more than 3,000 years ago, five hundred years prior to the development of material ontology. However they defined what it meant to exist, it wasn't in material terms (i.e., to have material substance). For them, a thing could occupy space, be composed of matter, but not exist—which sounds completely bonkers to us, precisely because our thinking is so deeply shaped by material ontology.

When you say they are not using modern categories of thought , how do you know they are not since you are using them to say this?

 

[EarlyActs]

This is fascinating to me....

See, just when I thought I had Genesis down pat.... I learn something new.

I suppose you are going to tell me that the Man and woman from Genesis 1 are not different then Adam and Eve? Where I maintain Adam was not the first man... He was the first man with a soul that God breathed into him.

I just see Gen 1 and 2 through different lenses then the average person.

When I refer to prior time, I find the bounds to be set by starlight and by C24 traceability.

If Day 1 meant starlight , Sirius is only 9 LY away. Rigel in Orion, 1340.

C14 samples usually have a 28K duration, but tracing is double that. But such tracing would not be about fully living creatures but only microbes in sediments, says Dr Psarris.

 

[Rella]

Do you mean there was an evolving situation, or that God created all at the same time but not always with souls? This will have complications about the origin of evil downstream.

Not really if you separate Gen 1 and Gen 2 as two differing accounts.

The Hebrew for the reproductivity of life is 'to swarm with swarms.' This massive initial 'filling' of the planet makes me think that He made other humans, but the narrative is only about this couple. (By the way, Darwin originally believed in this massive initial start, and was rather upset about the 'wastefulness' of it.) This scale of filling would explain the sudden mention of cities. The narrative does this a lot all through Genesis: lots of detail about it's topic of interest, and scant mention if not. But it never totally neglects the lesser interests. The 'kavov' (distant stars) are only mentioned in a dangling phrase in v16 (these are not the local/moving 'shema') and not mentioned again until ch 15. Not quite neglected!

No... this is what I mean. And I am condensing and simplifying as much as I can.... Y'all can look it up for verification

In Gen 1

The First Day
3And God said, “Let there be light,

The Second Day
6And God said, “Let there be an expanse ~ 8God called the expanse “sky.”

The Third Day
9“Let the waters under the sky be gathered into one place, 10God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of waters He called “seas.” 11Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation:

The Fourth Day
14And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky
16God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. And He made the stars as well.

The Fifth Day
20And God said, “Let the waters teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth

The Sixth Day
24And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds:

TO THIS POINT IT WAS ALL NICE AND ORDERLY.

light
sky
waters and dry land
vegetation
more light
waters with life and birds in the air
and living creatures for the earth

ORDERLY

AND THEN

26Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness,
27male and female He created them.
28God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth
29Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every seed-bearing plant on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit contains seed. They will be yours for food

In Gen 2

Once we pass the 7th day rest intro

4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created,

5Now no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, nor had any plant, no man to cultivate the ground.

NOTE: IN GEN 1 EVERYTHING WAS MADE AND GROWING BEFORE GOD MADE MAN AND WOMAN. THE SEAS WERE STOCKED, THE BIRDS IN THE AIR WERE FLYING, THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD WERE MADE AND THEN CAME THE MAN AND THE WOMAN.

6 But springsc welled up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.

STILL AT THIS POINT NOTHING IS GROWING, THERE ARE NO FISH BIRDS OR ANIMALS.

NOW
7Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.

AFTER THE MAN IS FORMED AND GOD BREATHED LIFE INTO HIM HE GOES AND PLANTS A GARDEN FOR THE MAN TO LIVE IN... NOT THE ENTIRE EARTH....

8And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, where He placed the man He had formed.

9 Out of the ground the LORD God gave growth to every tree that is pleasing to the eye and good for food. And in the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

AND THROUGH VERSE 10 THROUGH 14 WE HEAR OF THE RIVERS AND WHY THEY ARE SPECIAL

15Then the LORD God took the man and placed him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate and keep it.

BY HIMSELF

16And the LORD God commanded him, “You may eat freely from every tree of the garden,

17but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil;

18The LORD God also said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make for him a suitable helper.”

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and He brought them to the man to see what he would name each one. And whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

20 But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

21So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he slept, He took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the area with flesh.

22And from the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man, He made a woman and brought her to him

23And the man said:

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’

IN GEN 1 WE HAD AN ORDERLY START TO THINGS WITH GOD MAKING MAN AND WOMAN AT THE END OF
ALL PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE. THEY WERE TOLD TO GO CARE FOR IT AND THE EARTH AND TO MULTIPLY.

IN GEN 2 WE HAVE

no shrub yet but a mention of springs
nothing is growing yet. no fish, birds or animals
then God made man and breathed life into him
finally he made the garden in Eden
and THEN put the man there.
And God caused the trees to grow, including the ones forbidden
And God told the man to cultivate the garden
And he told the man he could eat of every tree except
the tree of knowledge of good and evil

then God knew he needed a helper
So he brought all the animals, and birds for the man to name
BUT no helper was found for him

So God caused him to fall asleep and took a rib.
And formed a woman from the man's rib
And Adam called her woman, for she was taken from man

NOT EXACTLY THE NICE ORDER OF GEN 1

Gen 1 and the first couple were told to tend the earth, to multiply, and that they were allowed to eat of the plants and trees with NO exception.

Gen 2 and the man was placed in a specially made garden just for him , and God was going to allow him to name and pick an animal or bird to be his helper, and when none was found created a woman from the mans rib. He was told to eat of all the trees, just not the one of Good and Evil.

The difference is, aside from telling the man to cultivate the garden, they could eat of any tree but the one of good and evil.

Adam and Eve were treated entirely differently from the first couple.

Adam had life breathed into him. There was no mention of this when God simply said Let us make man in our image and he made them... at the same time.

And the fact there was not a 7th day to be rest and kept holy in Gen 1 leads me further to believe that Gen 2 is an entirely different story being tied together or trying to with Gen 1 and we have no real way of knowing the timing of either.