How old is the earth?

[EarlyActs]

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

Did Augustine's census, the zealot revolt during that, and Claudius eviction of Jews happen in real history or are they only true because a Biblical reference was made to them? Did the European kings who stopped Islam at Vienna in 1683 actually happen or is it not true because it is not in "God's word"?

The split of modern knowledge into "science" vs myth began in theology with Strauss and G Eliot, the renegade daughter of an evangelical pastor, who translated his German volume to English in the mid 1850s. The "Jesus" of Strauss did not exist until a few decades after the named events because the apostles needed an explanation for why the 2nd coming did not happen right after the destruction of Jerusalem. Strauss thinks they invented the myth of the misunderstood and crucified preacher rabbi who came back to life, and that there was now a 'spiritual' Israel going forward from about 75 onward.

You have to know at least this much to speak usefully here because 'the Bible is God's word' to them (the Strauss school, which is most of modern theology) is "true" myth--this "true" myth. The Jesus of the Gospels historically false, but religiously true. It is called neo-orthodoxy around the 1900 mark.

 

[EarlyActs]

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




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




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




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.

About the last, we have too little information to say what you are saying. What we do have is like Lamoureux said, that Egyptian theology regarded the sky above as a type of water through which Ra sailed daily. Gen 1 punched this in the face by saying that the sun was placed later and was not a deity. It did retain the idea that there was a fixed sphere--but was that so that it would communicate to Egypt?

But the custody of the narrative dates to before Egypt anyway. That would mean Egyptian theology, which had probably heard Genesis 1 (through Abraham's stay there), degenerated it, and Pha-Ra-oh seized on it to deify himself. A flop.

I'm completely unpersuaded by the claim that the Gen 1 narrative is full of some kind of metaphor or code or 'secret knowledge.' It does not present that way. I know of no 'stretch' from ordinary communication until ch 3.

 

[EarlyActs]

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




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




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




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.

The claim of the logic of the material development of our world is self-evident. There have been studies on this for some 30 years at least. Rella repeated the basics in her treatment of Gen 1 today. It generally says that the spheres were formed and then they were filled, to resolve the problem which starts the narrative, as unformed and unfilled. Fish are not created before there is an ocean but after. Plants do not grow in the air, but on ground, and not until then, etc, etc, etc.

 

[EarlyActs]

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




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




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




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.

what does creating mean?
There is of course the 'speaking into existence.' That would apply to things that need forming and filling, because the earth is already there.

When the verb 'placed' is used, it is of things already existing. If we follow the proximal rule (a unique term's definition must be weighted toward the nearest comparable usage by that author, not the furthest and not other authors), then the placing of our celestial neighbors means those things existed elsewhere. This is because Eve took a fruit and placed it in Adam's hand. From one place to another, an already existing object.

Creating would not be the more random meaning found in 'spreading out' from the agricultural act of scattering seed. When Peter speaks of creation of earth, he uses a term for pottery, and the earth was potted out of the water it started in.

 

[EarlyActs]

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




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




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




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.

re photons
'owr' is any general light; it is not used of the sun's specific light. The narrative says (this is my 5th mention of this in recent posts) that before Day 1, the water was not even reflecting any light. In the clarity of the ANE air, that's really, really dark. So even the general starlight of anything near earth had not arrived. Modern photos from the dark side of the moon and Mars help us see how striking this expression is (about no light bouncing off water). Take away our sun, and there is a substantial amount of general light coming in from all directions.

I believe our first exegetical task is to know what the thing actually says, that no general light had arrived, and that condition confirms the narrative is earth's POV at that time. It is utterly, insensibly dark (there is no sense of depth or distance without general light). I strongly suggest that a person sketch out all these moments in a storyboard, because a drawing forces you to be honest and account for everything moment by moment.

We then have to locate such conditions in connection with arriving starlight, because it does arrive.

Day 1 light cannot be 'shekinah' or fantasy or glory or some imaginary thing, because it marks the evening start. All around the world, the oldest astronomical accounts of marking the evening start is Sirius; --Boorstin, THE DISCOVERERS; also in interviews of the curators of the Juneau, AK, planetarium.

 

[John Bauer]

You can calculate the lifespans through genealogies and events recorded in the Tanakh back to the creation account given in B'resheet (Genesis).

That gets you to Adam. It doesn't tell you how old the earth is.

 

[Carbon]

That gets you to Adam. It doesn't tell you how old the earth is.

Right.

I can not say, nor will I say I know, how old the earth is. I don't think from the Genesis account alone we can know for sure of either a young earth or an old earth. But when we take into account some of the Psalms and Job, it leans (much) more towards an old earth.

 

[CrowCross]

That gets you to Adam. It doesn't tell you how old the earth is.

5 days older than Adam.

 

[CrowCross]

Right.

I can not say, nor will I say I know, how old the earth is. I don't think from the Genesis account alone we can know for sure of either a young earth or an old earth. But when we take into account some of the Psalms and Job, it leans (much) more towards an old earth.

The problem is the science developed by man that "suggest" the earth is old is flawed.

 

[prism]

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).

Assuming/suspecting suspecting/assuming.

 

[CrowCross]

When the verb 'placed' is used, it is of things already existing. If we follow the proximal rule (a unique term's definition must be weighted toward the nearest comparable usage by that author, not the furthest and not other authors), then the placing of our celestial neighbors means those things existed elsewhere. This is because Eve took a fruit and placed it in Adam's hand. From one place to another, an already existing object.

One could say God created from nothing...ex-nihlo...then placed that which He created.

One theory is that when the earth was created...the deep...water....sphere was much, much, larger than the current earth. When the waters were separated they were spread out and made into the celestrial objects with God creating them and putting them in position.

Psalms 148:4 Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!

Is the universe encapsulated in water?

 

[prism]

SO, HOW OLD IS THE EARTH, ANYWAYS

 

[John Bauer]

5 days older than Adam.

Only if Genesis 1 operates on a material ontology. So, does it?

 

[John Bauer]

About the last, we have too little information to say what you are saying. What we do have is, like Lamoureux said, that Egyptian theology regarded the sky above as a type of water through which Ra sailed daily. Genesis 1 punched this in the face by saying that the sun was placed later and was not a deity. It did retain the idea that there was a fixed sphere--but was that so that it would communicate to Egypt?

I understand the polemic function of the creation narrative. However, pointing that out does nothing to address the question at hand (i.e., whether the ancient Israelites shared our materialist ontology).

(Lamoureux? Really? You're citing a guy who denies that Adam was a historical person.)

But the custody of the narrative dates to before Egypt anyway. That would mean Egyptian theology, which had probably heard Genesis 1 (through Abraham's stay there), degenerated it, and Pha-Ra-oh seized on it to deify himself. A flop.

And since that is roughly 850 years prior to the development of material ontology, it gives us more reason to doubt they had one.

 

[John Bauer]

I'm completely unpersuaded by the claim that the Genesis 1 narrative is full of some kind of metaphor or code or 'secret knowledge.'

Same.

It is worth noting that I never claimed it was.

The claim of the logic of the material development of our world is self-evident.

What may be obvious to us is completely irrelevant to the task of interpreting the biblical text, which is what this is about.

There have been studies on this for some 30 years at least.

Cool. Provide a link to just one.

 

[CrowCross]

SO, HOW OLD IS THE EARTH, ANYWAYS

6 to 10 thousand years old. I say closer to 6. Certainly not billions of years old.

 

[John Bauer]

It generally says that the spheres were formed and then they were filled, ...

What does creating mean? There is, of course, the 'speaking into existence.' That would apply to things that need forming and filling, because the earth is already there.

Yes, creating means bringing something into existence. Ontology is precisely the key issue. Your response simply assumes the very thing to be proved (that the original author and audience understood existence in material terms). You can't just impose an assumption on the text and call that an interpretation.

Interpretation is drawn from within the text (exegesis), not imposed on it from without (eisegesis).

Re: photons
'owr' is any general light; it is not used of the sun's specific light. ... Take away our sun, and there is a substantial amount of general light coming in from all directions.

You are still speaking of light in material terms—photons and electromagnetic activity—whether from the sun, moon, or stars. Did the ancient Israelites analyze "light" in terms of material particles? Clearly not, for that idea belongs to modern physics. They didn't even know that Earth was a planet or that it orbited the Sun.

This is why we need to understand their ontology; it will help us understand what "create" means, what "light" means, etc. Seriously, what if they had a radically different ontology? What if darkness meant obscurity, disorder, and threat, while light meant disclosure, order, and safety? It would really change what God meant when he commanded, "Let there be light!"

You're right, it was "utterly, insensibly dark (no sense of depth or distance)." But what did that mean? Did it mean the absence of photons? Or did it mean something deeper, more theological and profound, clues of which can be found simply in the original language and historical setting (and a redemptive-historical hermeneutic)?

I believe our first exegetical task is to know what the thing actually says, ...

I agree—but in its original language and historical setting (historical-grammatical exegesis). Our English language and categories of thought are irrelevant and out of place, especially our material ontology and how we understand light.

I strongly suggest that a person sketch out all these moments in a storyboard, because a drawing forces you to be honest and account for everything moment by moment.

And I strongly suggest that a person explore the text in its original language and historical setting. As the Westminster Confession of Faith states, "The Old Testament in Hebrew (the native language of the ancient people of God) and the New Testament in Greek (the language most widely known internationally at the time the New Testament was written) were directly inspired by God and have been kept uncontaminated throughout time by his special care and providence. They are therefore authentic and are to be the church's ultimate source of appeal in every religious controversy" (WCF 1.8). The Reformers were adamant: Only the Hebrew and Greek autographs (as preserved in the apographa) carry divine authority.

But if you prefer to draw storyboards ... well, have fun.

 

[CrowCross]

Only if Genesis 1 operates on a material ontology. So, does it?

If I understand your concept of material ontology correct...I say, why not?

 

[John Bauer]

SO, HOW OLD IS THE EARTH, ANYWAYS

4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (a weighted average of meteorite and terrestrial evidence).

 

[John Bauer]

If I understand your concept of material ontology correct...I say, why not?

You were asked a strict "yes" or "no" question. You were not asked a why-question.