How old is the earth?

[prism]

Perhaps what Prism is missing is the use of the term archeology. Last night I was fortunate to hear new research on Israel's period in Egypt. The speaker referenced the following items which are not detailed in Genesis/Exodus, but of course inexplicable without it. So 'the Bible is true to what is there.'

Like I said findings are fine so long as they do not contradict scripture

 

[EarlyActs]

Like I said findings are fine so long as they do not contradict scripture

Which is what I’ve been saying all along—I hope!

 

[CrowCross]

For both of you @prism and @EarlyActs if I may....

Scripture is the definitive proof. Period. It is inspired and not to be questioned yet there is enough seeming confusion and misunderstanding
in interpretations of assorted translations that those very heated debates do happen. (Yes, I have myself)

So Scripture in and of itself is not enough without verifying ones understanding with outside commentaries and sources. (I happen to like Bible Hub for clarity and ease of understanding... but that is me) but to rely on the interpretations of another "mortal" for me not so much.

Just this morning , elsewhere I was in the mix because of this

You should start listening to Jesus and those to whom he handed the true faith on.

The Bible does not stand alone , it has a true meaning handed down by tradition and authority of the succession.

listen to those who were SENT, don’t lean on your own understanding, and take disputes on meaning to those Jesus appointed, the PILLAR OF TRUTH the physical church , given the power to “bind and loose” the true faith.

The reformationists severed the Bible from its true meaning and substituted the authority and tradition handed down with a myriad of conflicting personal opinions , it’s why they all disagree.

This was referencing the traditions handed down to the church for teaching, allowing for no one to disagree with a human translation.

Often in the bible we see "problems" occur when a particular word is translated. As we know words can often have several meanings.
A recent example is with the word "apostasia" found in 2 Thes 2:3:
No one should deceive you in any way, because it is not until the apostasy shall have come first, and the man of lawlessness shall have been revealed--the son of destruction,

The word apostasia can mean a falling away from faith or a literal physical departure. For the mods, I'm not trying to "steal" the discussion but only bring this up as a point and case.
If someone wan't to discuss this they can go here.

In the bible "tradition" or translational bias often has a role to play on a particular word.

 

[David Koberstein]

That is incorrect. According to the theory (which explains the evidence), Neanderthals are cousins, not ancestors—we lived alongside them, we did not come from them.

One popular idea is that populations of Homo heidelbergensis diverged in the Middle Pleistocene epoch (~700,000 years ago), with some becoming Neanderthals (West Eurasia), others becoming Denisovans (East Eurasia), and still others becoming early modern Humans (Africa).

700,000 years ago? That's funny and laughable since the earth is only about
6,000 years old.
Shalom

 

[John Bauer]

700,000 years ago? That's funny and laughable since the earth is only about
6,000 years old.
Shalom

A syllogism:

1. If the earth is about 6,000 years old, then it is laughable.
2. The earth is not about 6,000 years old.
3. Therefore, it is not laughable.

It is premise 2 that needs to be defeated (proved false).

 

[David Koberstein]

There's no IF. You need to quit being indoctrinated by your liberal leftist friends
Shalom

 

[John Bauer]

There's no IF.

That means you have defeated premise 2—but where? I don't see it.

You need to quit being indoctrinated by your liberal leftist friends

I have exactly zero liberal leftist friends.

 

[David Koberstein]

A syllogism:

1. If the earth is about 6,000 years old, then it is laughable.
2. The earth is not about 6,000 years old.
3. Therefore, it is not laughable.

It is premise 2 that needs to be defeated (proved false).

You calculate the life spans with the genealogies in the Bible you will come relatively close to that 6000 number. Like I said earlier the current year on the Hebrew calendar is 5785. The Jewish New Year is not far away Rosh Hashanah. Genealogies are in the Bible for a reason and so are the life spans of these individuals.
Shalom Aleichem

 

[John Bauer]

You calculate the lifespans with the genealogies in the Bible you will come relatively close to that 6,000 number.

Calculating the genealogies gets you to Adam, who lived roughly 6,000 years ago. That doesn't tell you the age of the earth except by some additional premise, such as, "The material origin of the earth was around the same time as Adam." That premise would have to be proven, since it is invalid to assume as true the very thing to be proved.

1. The biblical genealogies show us Adam lived roughly 6,000 years ago.
2. The material origin of the earth was around the same time as Adam. <-- unstated but assumed.
3. Therefore, the earth is about 6,000 years old.

The unstated premise—that the earth and Adam came to materially exist at basically the same time—ends up assuming the very point in dispute. It's an invalid move to assume the truth of the conclusion before reaching it.

So, that unstated premise needs to be proved.

Genealogies are in the Bible for a reason ...

Indeed, and it's something other than the age of the earth (Luke 24:27; John 5:39).

 

[Oseas]

Calculating the genealogies gets you to Adam, who lived roughly 6,000 years ago. That doesn't tell you the age of the earth except by some additional premise, such as, "The material origin of the earth was around the same time as Adam." That premise would have to be proven, since it is invalid to assume as true the very thing to be proved.

1. The biblical genealogies show us Adam lived roughly 6,000 years ago.

Yes, "Calculating the genealogies gets you to Adam, who lived roughly 6,000 years ago", as you said. But it refers on GOD's plan to restoration all things-> ( through JESUS->John 1:3 and 10 combined with ->Acts 3:20-21, take a look), after the rebellion in Eden.

How to explain the difference of exactly 240 years in the Jewish calendar?​

Jewish Calendar - How to explain the difference of exactly 240 years in the Jewish calendar?

2. The material origin of the earth was around the same time as Adam. <-- unstated but assumed.
3. Therefore, the earth is about 6,000 years old.

No, the earth is NOT about 6000 years old, and has nothing to do with "the same time of as Adam".

The unstated premise—that the earth and Adam came to materially exist at basically the same time—ends up assuming the very point in dispute. It's an invalid move to assume the truth of the conclusion before reaching it.
So, that unstated premise needs to be proved.
Indeed, and it's something other than the age of the earth (Luke 24:27; John 5:39).

Oh you know that the speculations above discribed are good for nothing. Mere conjectures.
The age of the Universe and, in particular, the age of the Planet Earth is from an Eternity. By the way, the Omnipotent, and Omniscient , and Omnipresent GOD Almighty is from everlasting to everlasting, understand? In fact , He created the Universe and sat on the globe of the Earth, as is written in Isaiah 40:17-18 and 21-23, as follow:
17 All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.
18 To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?
21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?
22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth(GOD is nearest of us), and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
23 That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.

May our Lord GOD bless us and keep us, and give us His protection
Amen

 

[Carbon]

Does it matter what age of the earth you believe to be? Perhaps it would for an astronomer or scientists where a scientific understanding of the earth and universe is needed but otherwise it's not important at all. It's hard for me to imagine where it would come up outside of forum such as this one.

Would it really matter? No probably not in some ways. But our God is wonderful, majestic and mighty that it is an honor and is very joyful to look into these things. How wonderful are His ways.

Personally I agree with an old earth. Can I be wrong? Yes of course. But I find great joy and fascination studying these doctrines and I do believe in some ways we may not be aware, but, we discover more and more about Him by doing so.

In this way, yes, it really matters.

 

[Carbon]

All religious references. We are all entitled to believe what we wish.

You got that right. God allows it

 

[Carbon]

Earth was there on Day 1

Agreed. Along with every other planet in our galaxy.

 

[Carbon]

Formless and void is God saying earth was not there. Only water was there.

It took God 2 days to create the earth on the 2nd day and the 3rd day and then the universe on day 4.

According to scripture and my understanding earth was there on day 1. There was water of the surface and it was formless. God separated the water from the dry land and did His work.

 

[Carbon]

What was formless and void?

—————> Earth

 

[John Bauer]

Personally I agree with an old earth. Can I be wrong? Yes of course. But I find great joy and fascination studying these doctrines and I do believe in some ways we may not be aware, but, we discover more and more about Him by doing so.

For some reason, this is not something I ever hear a young-earth creationist say: "Personally, I agree with a young earth. Can I be wrong? Yes, of course."

 

[Carbon]

For some reason, this is not something I ever hear a young-earth creationist say: "Personally, I agree with a young earth. Can I be wrong? Yes, of course."

I guess the thought of being wrong difficult

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
(Whatever, I can't personally stomach the notion of a god who comes upon an already existing set of circumstances, and organizes it. That is not God, and such a being is only another resident in the universe, no matter how powerful 'he' is.)

What do you mean?

I see this was back early in the thread, but according to my alerts, someone is waiting for me to respond.

Finding myself asking, what do you mean by, "What do you mean?", but I'll try to explain, or, at least, to restate: If God only rearranges what already exists apart from himself causing it to exist, he is not God, but only a supernatural entity. Such an entity exists within a larger environment, in which we also exist.

 

[makesends]

For some reason, this is not something I ever hear a young-earth creationist say: "Personally, I agree with a young earth. Can I be wrong? Yes, of course."

Well, for what it is worth, I, too, believe in a young earth. And I happily admit I could be wrong. I also admit to ignorance in the matter, as I wish everyone would admit. And I don't say that as reprimand that they should stop studying the matter toward a conclusion. Just that we should all be skeptical of our conclusions. I see problems with all sides.


Later: Ha! I see I read both you and @Carbon wrong. You most likely meant "young earth" to demonstrate the difference between what @Carbon said about himself (believing in old-earth) and his ability to be right, and what young-earth creationists say.

 

[Carbon]

makesends said:
(Whatever, I can't personally stomach the notion of a god who comes upon an already existing set of circumstances, and organizes it. That is not God, and such a being is only another resident in the universe, no matter how powerful 'he' is.)

I see this was back early in the thread, but according to my alerts, someone is waiting for me to respond.

Finding myself asking, what do you mean by, "What do you mean?", but I'll try to explain, or, at least, to restate: If God only rearranges what already exists apart from himself causing it to exist, he is not God, but only a supernatural entity. Such an entity exists within a larger environment, in which we also exist.

Agreed