How old is the earth?

[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.

 

[prism]

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.

I'd say it's true (presuppositionally) because the Bible is God's Word.
2 Timothy 3:16a BSB
All Scripture is God-breathed

 

[CrowCross]

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.

Who was this first man? Did God form a lot of people from the dirt of the earth....or did they arrive some other way?

 

[CrowCross]

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.

We'll start here. It depends on the details one is trying to convey. Gen 1 is what is called an overview of the six day creation.
Gen 2 transitions into an account of what happened on day 6.
On day six we see the word "man" referring to the completion of Adam and Eve....

Gen 1:27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Male and female equaled man. One could say mankind. In chapter 2 we see more details...a description of day 6 is provided.
Here we see the creation of man....the first half was Adam while the second part was Eve. Together they were know as "man". A male and female.

Gen 1 is silent on how long the creation of man (Adam and Eve) took. Without Gen 2 and the focused look at day 6 one might think both Adam and Eve were made at the exact sime time...but....Gen 2 and it's details acheived it's purpose by providing more details.
Gen 2 compliments Gen 1....fills in some of the details.

 

[prism]

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 caught my attention. Help me out here, if what is meant to exist 'wasn't in material terms' yet for them, 'a thing could occupy space, be composed of matter, yet not exist'.

My question is how is this not in material terms if it is composed of matter?

 

[John Bauer]

This is fascinating to me. See, just when I thought I had Genesis down pat, I learn something new.

I love it when I unexpectedly learn something new.

I suppose you are going to tell me that the man and woman from Genesis 1 are not different than Adam and Eve?

Well, on the one hand, I don't see one man and woman in Genesis 1:26-30. It talks about God creating "mankind"—a collective noun—and uses plural imperatives, verbs, and pronouns throughout the relevant text. Reading it as one man and one woman is an inference that I don't think would survive scrutiny.

On the other hand, I see Genesis 1 and 2 as sequential accounts. In other words, chapter 2 is what happens subsequent to chapter 1, not an expanded recapitulation of the sixth day. There is a shift introduced by the toledot formula at Genesis 2:4, moving from one account to a new account—a contextual shift made notable by the change in the divine designation, from the sovereign ʾelohim (God) to the covenantal YHWH ʾelohim (LORD God). So, there is a move from the cosmic/archetypal in Genesis 1 to the terrestrial/covenantal in Genesis 2, from the cosmos to the garden, from the sovereign God to the covenantal God, from mankind generally to Adam and Eve particularly.

Here is something else you might not know: In Genesis 3:1-5, the serpent and the woman use only the generic ʾelohim, never the covenantal YHWH ʾelohim. Why is that? Personally, I think it was a rhetorical strategy by the serpent. Dropping the covenant name effectively reframes the discussion away from relationship with the personal LORD God to an impersonal "deity" who makes rules. And Eve answers within the serpent's frame (v. 3, "God said"), which is a concession already—because once God is generic, his word becomes something to evaluate for utility rather than something to trust relationally. That dovetails with the core temptation—claiming wisdom/authority to define good and evil apart from God's covenantal order.

... whereas I maintain that Adam was not the first man.

We agree on that score.

 

[John Bauer]

And yet the narrative has a progression with a material logic.

Okay, so we have your claim. Now, provide the historical-grammatical exegesis from which it was drawn (if it even was).

Fish are not created before there are ... [snip remaining text].

[Emphasis mine. --Bauer].

In Genesis 1, what does it mean to create something?

... There is a light ('owr') ...

You're assuming that means photons. What is the historical-grammatical exegesis which leads to that idea?

When you say they are not using modern categories of thought , how do you know ... ?

The answer is contained in the question: because they are "modern," having arose from Greek thought in the Hellenistic period—several centuries after Genesis was written, and millennia after Adam and Eve.

 

[Rella]

Who was this first man? Did God form a lot of people from the dirt of the earth....or did they arrive some other way?

We are not told. Gen 1:26-

What we are told is " Let us make" What we are not told is how.
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

What we are told
27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

What we are told
28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Up until less then 20 years ago I had always assumed God "spoke" all things into being. Except Adam.

And the reason for that was the power to create comes from God’s inner being. His dynamic, living, self-energizing, creative force of faith is released with His words. In Genesis 1 alone, ten times the Scriptures tell us “God said,” as He released His faith to create day and night, the firmament, dry land, plants, and trees, the stars and planets, etc.

Hebrews 11:3 says, “By faith we understand that the universe was framed by the word of God, so that things that are seen were not made out of things which are visible.”

This man in Gen 1 has no indication of being formed from dirt. And the man in Gen 1 we are not told God breathed into his nose/The female has no indication of coming from a rib.

Not until Gen 2. Which I maintain is part of God's plan. We had to have a dedicated Adam to start the bloodline that would eventually trace to Jesus. I believe that is part of the reason why Adam was put into the Garden in Eden. To be able to live a more "royal" kind of existence.

Just stop to consider this.

Adam and Eve Had Cain and Abel, but we do not know the age they were. But we are told that they had Seth when Adam was about 130 years old. There is no recording that I have seen that talks of them having daughters before Seth, though it is said they had many children...

It has been said Abel had children but no mention of a wife. But Cain and Seth both did . Where did their wives come from. Were they sisters?
How long did it take just two people who start a lineage to actually have branches that are not close relatives?

 

[Rella]

We'll start here. It depends on the details one is trying to convey. Gen 1 is what is called an overview of the six day creation.
Gen 2 transitions into an account of what happened on day 6.
On day six we see the word "man" referring to the completion of Adam and Eve....

Gen 1:27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Male and female equaled man. One could say mankind. In chapter 2 we see more details...a description of day 6 is provided.
Here we see the creation of man....the first half was Adam while the second part was Eve. Together they were know as "man". A male and female.

Gen 1 is silent on how long the creation of man (Adam and Eve) took. Without Gen 2 and the focused look at day 6 one might think both Adam and Eve were made at the exact sime time...but....Gen 2 and it's details acheived it's purpose by providing more details.
Gen 2 compliments Gen 1....fills in some of the details.

Alright,

But in Gen 1 everything ws done from plants and animals to light then sun, moon and stars before we get to day 6. The Day 6 comes man.

Nothing left to do except instruct man who is allowed to eat anything that grows and also all fruit.

Enter Gen 2. and everything we are told in order is

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.

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

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


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.

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

9Out 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.

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

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;

At this point I cannot believe that on day 6 in Gen 1 where male and female are told they can eat anything growing from the herbs to the fruit...and that Gen two is a carry over from day 6 and one and the man is told he cannot eat the forbidden fruit.

Leaving the woman out of things... if we are talking about the same day, which admittedly sounds reasonable just this alone
makes me see a problem. And I have not even suggested that if Adam is the man in Gen 1 6th day... all would be ready for him in Eden
and it was not as God was still planting it.

 

[CrowCross]

We are not told. Gen 1:26-

What we are told is " Let us make" What we are not told is how.

I agree. Gen 2 tells us how.

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

What we are told
27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

What we are told
28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Up until less then 20 years ago I had always assumed God "spoke" all things into being. Except Adam.

God spoke all of the "material" so to speak into being but used some of that material to create other things..such as Adam from the dust then Eve from Adams rib.

And the reason for that was the power to create comes from God’s inner being. His dynamic, living, self-energizing, creative force of faith is released with His words. In Genesis 1 alone, ten times the Scriptures tell us “God said,” as He released His faith to create day and night, the firmament, dry land, plants, and trees, the stars and planets, etc.

Hebrews 11:3 says, “By faith we understand that the universe was framed by the word of God, so that things that are seen were not made out of things which are visible.”

This man in Gen 1 has no indication of being formed from dirt. And the man in Gen 1 we are not told God breathed into his nose/The female has no indication of coming from a rib.

As I said...there was no need for that. We learn what God did in Gen 2. Gen 2 was a zoom in on day 6.
It would be like a baseball game being reported on. The sportscaster says...2 runs were scored in the 3, 1 run in the 6th inning and 2 more in the 9th.....now, here's how they scored in the sixth inning. Then the details are given.

Not until Gen 2. Which I maintain is part of God's plan. We had to have a dedicated Adam to start the bloodline that would eventually trace to Jesus. I believe that is part of the reason why Adam was put into the Garden in Eden. To be able to live a more "royal" kind of existence.

What is that belief based upon? I jsut ask where did that speculation biblically come from?

Just stop to consider this.

Adam and Eve Had Cain and Abel, but we do not know the age they were. But we are told that they had Seth when Adam was about 130 years old. There is no recording that I have seen that talks of them having daughters before Seth, though it is said they had many children...

Gen 5:4 tells us Adam had other sons and daughters....The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters. Now, were some of those daughters born prior to Seth? Could be.

It has been said Abel had children but no mention of a wife. But Cain and Seth both did . Where did their wives come from. Were they sisters?
How long did it take just two people who start a lineage to actually have branches that are not close relatives?

They could have been sisters, cousins, neices...whoever they were they were offspring of Eve the mother of all iving.

As far as branches that are not close relatives...genetically (as I believe that's what your getting at) their genetics would still have been near "perfect" so to speak as no degenerative or very little degeneration would have happened that would have been of any concern for birth defects. By the time the law was written it is suggested there was then possible problems.

 

[John Bauer]

This caught my attention. Help me out here: If what is meant to exist "wasn't in material terms," yet for them "a thing could occupy space, be composed of matter, yet not exist," then how is this not in material terms if it is composed of matter?

To say that it is "composed of matter" is to use material terms, yes, by definition. However, the point was ontological status (existence), not material composition. Existence wasn't defined material terms.

Of course, in modern categories we collapse these questions into one: If something has material composition, it is said to exist. But that is precisely the question to be addressed: Did they share our modern categories? We can't simply assume they did—that would be question-begging. Such an assumption would be crippled from the start anyway, as those categories did not arise until hundreds of years after the text was written (5th–4th centuries BCE).

How did they define existence, then?

Bingo. As it turns out, that's not a question that has ever occurred to any creationists (myself included). We have always just assumed they shared our ontology and imposed that assumption on the text—and THEN delved into arguments about whether "yom" refers to 24-hour days or indefinite ages and so forth. But running with an assumption imposed on the text is not a literal interpretation; it's not an interpretation at all, period. It doesn't even ask the question, much less attempt an answer; it's a failure to even recognize that a question should be asked here.

 

[Rella]

I love it when I unexpectedly learn something new.




Well, on the one hand, I don't see one man and woman in Genesis 1:26-30. It talks about God creating "mankind"—a collective noun—and uses plural imperatives, verbs, and pronouns throughout the relevant text. Reading it as one man and one woman is an inference that I don't think would survive scrutiny.

On the other hand, I see Genesis 1 and 2 as sequential accounts. In other words, chapter 2 is what happens subsequent to chapter 1, not an expanded recapitulation of the sixth day. There is a shift introduced by the toledot formula at Genesis 2:4, moving from one account to a new account—a contextual shift made notable by the change in the divine designation, from the sovereign ʾelohim (God) to the covenantal YHWH ʾelohim (LORD God). So, there is a move from the cosmic/archetypal in Genesis 1 to the terrestrial/covenantal in Genesis 2, from the cosmos to the garden, from the sovereign God to the covenantal God, from mankind generally to Adam and Eve particularly.

Here is something else you might not know: In Genesis 3:1-5, the serpent and the woman use only the generic ʾelohim, never the covenantal YHWH ʾelohim.

You are so right... I have been stuck on late English translations starting with KJ 1611 and never thought to check a tranliteration that I have online. SMH, I must be getting daffy in my old age.

Thank you for this because Ill get it copied for easier reading and I notice something thanks to you.

What I just puilled up has for Gen 3:1

3:1 ¶ Now the serpent 5175 was 1961 z8804 more subtil 6175 than any x4480 x3605 beast 2416 of the field 7704 which x834 Yähwè יָהוֶה 3068 ´Élöhîm אֱלֹהִים 430 had made. 6213 z8804 And he said 559 z8799 unto x413 the woman, 802 Yea, 637 x3588 hath ´Élöhîm אֱלֹהִים 430 said, 559 z8804 Ye shall not x3808 eat 398 z8799 of every x4480 x3605 tree 6086 of the garden? 1588

Just out of curiosity do you feel ´Élöhîm here is suggesting plurality or singularity?

Thanks you again... I am a very grateful and apt pupil for whatever you want to share. Like you I love to learn... especially unexpectedly

Why is that? Personally, I think it was a rhetorical strategy by the serpent. Dropping the covenant name effectively reframes the discussion away from relationship with the personal LORD God to an impersonal "deity" who makes rules. And Eve answers within the serpent's frame (v. 3, "God said"), which is a concession already—because once God is generic, his word becomes something to evaluate for utility rather than something to trust relationally. That dovetails with the core temptation—claiming wisdom/authority to define good and evil apart from God's covenantal order.




We agree on that score.

 

[CrowCross]

Alright,

But in Gen 1 everything ws done from plants and animals to light then sun, moon and stars before we get to day 6.

On day six we see the creation of animals then Adam, then the garden...Adam placed in it...more plants made...the don't eat this law...the naming of previously created animals...then the creation of Eve.

The Day 6 comes man.

Nothing left to do except instruct man who is allowed to eat anything that grows and also all fruit.

Enter Gen 2. and everything we are told in order is

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.

Referring back to day 3..there was no man

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

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


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.

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

Plants were created on day 3.....then plants were also put into the garden on day 6.

That is...plants...vegetation...were created on day 3. On Day 6 there was a separate creation of more plants in the garden of Eden.

9Out 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.

This was not day 3

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

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;

At this point I cannot believe that on day 6 in Gen 1 where male and female are told they can eat anything growing from the herbs to the fruit...and that Gen two is a carry over from day 6 and one and the man is told he cannot eat the forbidden fruit.

Yes, Adam was told not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eve was later told this by God or Adam.

Leaving the woman out of things... if we are talking about the same day, which admittedly sounds reasonable just this alone
makes me see a problem. And I have not even suggested that if Adam is the man in Gen 1 6th day... all would be ready for him in Eden
and it was not as God was still planting it.

I haven't got the full concept of your point...but I hope I addressed some of it.

 

[John Bauer]

You are so right. I have been stuck on late English translations starting with KJV 1611 and never thought to check a tranliteration that I have online. SMH, I must be getting daffy in my old age.

Thank you for this because Ill get it copied for easier reading and I notice something thanks to you.

Cheers, mate. Yeah, I highly recommend concentrating on the original Hebrew language of the text.

Just out of curiosity: Do you feel ´ĕlöhîm here is suggesting plurality or singularity?

Both. In linguistic and exegetical terms, it is morphologically plural and yet semantically singular—which is consistent with trinitarian monotheism, wherein God is three-in-one.

Note: The text doesn't directly or indirectly teach a Trinitarian theology, but it's consistent with it. The doctrine of the Trinity arises from the revelation of Christ in the NT, not from a hidden grammar in the plural ʾelohim.

Thank you, again. I am a very grateful and apt pupil for whatever you want to share. Like you, I love to learn—especially unexpectedly.

A kindred spirit, thou art.

 

[prism]

But that is precisely the question to be addressed: Did they share our modern categories? We can't simply assume they did—

Perhaps it would be equally wrong to assume they did not share our modern categories?
After all, the works of the flesh are similar in all fallen mankind.

 

[Carbon]

Not bad for 'a guess'. At least it beats 4.5 billion years. LOL

@David Koberstein
If man didn't come on the scene until about 4 billion years after creation, why would he create a calendar from 4 billion years in his past? Wouldn't it be natural to have a calendar dating back to 5-6 thousand years?

 

[David Koberstein]

@David Koberstein
If man didn't come on the scene until about 4 billion years after creation, why would he create a calendar from 4 billion years in his past? Wouldn't it be natural to have a calendar dating back to 5-6 thousand years?

The current year on the Hebrew calendar is 5785, which means it has been 5785 years since creation using the ages
and genealogies in the Tanakh (Old Testament). The Jewish New Year is called Rosh Hashanah. Rosh Hashanah is celebrated
on the first day of the Hebrew month of Tishrei. The biblical name for this holiday is Yom Teruah. It is the first of the High
Holy Days;. Yamim Noraim 'Days of Awe' as specified by Leviticus 23:23-25. This year of 2025 Rosh Hashanah is celebrated
on Monday September 22nd, thru Wednesday September 24th.
Shalom

 

[Carbon]

The current year on the Hebrew calendar is 5785, which means it has been 5785 years since creation using the ages
and genealogies in the Tanakh (Old Testament). The Jewish New Year is called Rosh Hashanah. Rosh Hashanah is celebrated
on the first day of the Hebrew month of Tishrei. The biblical name for this holiday is Yom Teruah. It is the first of the High
Holy Days;. Yamim Noraim 'Days of Awe' as specified by Leviticus 23:23-25. This year of 2025 Rosh Hashanah is celebrated
on Monday September 22nd, thru Wednesday September 24th.
Shalom

Thanks. But that does not prove anything.

 

[John Bauer]

Perhaps it would be equally wrong to assume they did not share our modern categories?
After all, the works of the flesh are similar in all fallen mankind.

We are not assuming that they didn't share our modern categories, we are suspecting that they didn't—for several good reasons—and therefore raising it as a legitimate and exegetically necessary question (if we want to interpret the text properly, never mind literally).

 

[David Koberstein]

Thanks. But that does not prove anything.

On the contrary, it proves a lot. First, the Tanakh (Old Testament) and the Brit Hadashah (New Testament)
are God breathed and inspired.
Secondly, You can calculate the life spans through genealogies and events recorded in the Tanakh back
to the creation account given in B'resheet (Genesis). Of course Christians do not hardly read the Tanakh
let alone can make sense of the information given in it.
I am not a Christian, but I am a Messianic Jew and believer in Yeshua Hamashiach. I look and study both
Old and New Covenants.
Shalom Aleichem