How old is the earth?

[CrowCross]

Please explain

The old earth's claim the dinosaurs were around 65+ MY's ago...they find them buried in the strata.
Flood geology says they were buried during the flood of Noah which was only about 4,000 years ago.

 

[CrowCross]

You suggested that my view translates Genesis 3:20 as "only ... the mother of all saved" (source). That is a gross distortion of my view, and made all the more egregious because you said it immediately after I explicitly stated how I translate and interpret it (source).

Then perhaps you should have explained it better. That is what i took away from what you said.

In your view, perhaps. But you asked a question about mine, so yours is not even relevant.

The biblical view is there was no one around before Adam and Eve.

Your best answer is Cain got a wife from somewhere....And I presented a biblical answer. You do know Adam and Eve had other children?

Incorrect. I expressed a view that is "already consistent with the text as written," as I said. No speculation was required. The text explicitly says (and I take it at face value) that Cain found a wife in the land of Nod, so clearly there were people there—starting with her, obviously, and presumably she had parents.

Ok, there were people there....those people were part of Adam and Eves progeny....Eve was the mother of all.

Those who think Cain spent decades unmarried and childless are the ones speculating, since there is literally nothing in the text to suggest this—and the Hebrew verb tense which rules against that reading.

We don't know how long Cain spent "childless". We do know Cain had offspring.

Scripture describes Adam as the first man archetypally, not prototypically, for the sense in which Adam was the first man needs to correspond with the sense in which Christ was the second man (1 Cor 15:47; cf. Rom 5:12-19, esp. 15). If Adam being the first man means there were no men previously, then Christ being the second man means there was no men between him and Adam—which is patently absurd, for countless people existed between the two.

Sorry. I don't see that.
Jesus was called the second Adam. the bible says the first Adam was made from the dust....but, I suppose you would disagree.

I firmly believe that biblical and confessional orthodoxy requires a doctrine of original sin in order to explain sinful human nature. That is something I insist on maintaining, which of course this view does. It maintains that sin entered the world through Adam, from whom it was passed along to all mankind. Since that is not being denied, a question of curiosity, not concern, is raised: How is it passed along, if not through biological continuity?

That belief falls apart as those prior to Adam would not have original sin.

I do not believe that sin is something we can identify and isolate biologically, as if there is something in the human genome to which we could point and say, "Here is the sin gene and the nucleotide sequence that codes for it." We can agree on that, right? And if sin is not a gene, then it's not a component of the reproductive cells (gametes) involved in procreation, something passed along through biological continuity.

I don't believe in a sin gene. Sin nature, yes.

Now, if Adam fell and received a sin nature passed onto his progeny....when, how and why did the others in Adams population fall?
For that answer you'll need speculation. X-tra biblical speculation.

As I understand it, sin is passed along theologically (via covenantal solidarity), not biologically (via the gene pool), because sin pertains to the covenantal relationship between God and man. Your idea that those who aren't Adam's progeny would thereby not inherit original sin only makes sense if sin is genetic, something contained in the gametes, something passed along biologically, and I am not aware of any reason for thinking that it is. Both Adam's sin and Christ's righteousness are covenant realities of federal headship, and imputation refers to covenantal solidarity, not biological inheritance. We can find this point being expressed by Derek Kidner in his commentary on Genesis (emphasis mine):

What you are saying is that Adams friend down the road in the next town...who was around prior to Adams fall received Adams sin nature?

 

[QVQ]

The old earth's claim the dinosaurs were around 65+ MY's ago...they find them buried in the strata.
Flood geology says they were buried during the flood of Noah which was only about 4,000 years ago.

Not a Geologist and I was herding sheep, not doing scholarly research but there are marks seemingly left by an inland sea high in the Rockies east of Salt Lake. That is where they find the dinosaurs there at shallow depths. Supposedly there was a lake and the ground rose up into the Rockies, 6000+ ft. It is more easily beleived that the flood was the sea rather than a inland sea drained when the ground convulsed.
Just a thought

 

[John Bauer]

@CrowCross is simply repeating himself. Since I have already addressed those points, there is nothing further to be said.

 

[John Bauer]

Yes, I seem to mixing the two. And no, I am not well-versed in any field of genetics. Just hands-on experience with genetic manipulation in crops.

Fair enough.

Here is a sentence that I found that is puzzling:

"Mitochondrial Eve's mtDNA had a specific mutation that is now present in all humans. However, she was not the first to have this mutation."

How would they know she was not the first person to have that mutation if the only evidence of the mutation is her?

First, I suspect that sentence is just a description of the particular mitochondrial DNA haplogroup we all share, and that's because she's the only woman whose maternal line still exists.

Second, when it says "she was not the first to have this mutation," I suspect it means she was not necessarily the first. She may have been. They don't know. But she wasn't necessarily the first (i.e., there is no indication that it started with her). If you traced a particular family surname back to one man (because the lineage of anyone else with that name had died out), you wouldn't conclude that the name started with him or that nobody else at the time shared it. Perhaps others did share that surname, but since their lines died out there was nothing to trace. He is the last common source of every surviving instance of that name, but "he wasn't [necessarily] the first to have that name."

The information you posted about Adam is interesting and informative.

Cheers, brother. Thank you.

 

[Hazelelponi]

In order for you to read scripture that way you need to insert a lot of doctrine between the lines.

Why would that be the case? I’m not inserting doctrine between the lines—I’m interpreting the Old Testament through the lens our Teacher, Jesus Christ, gave us: a covenantal one.

Jesus consistently interpreted life and death not merely biologically, but covenantally. So when I return to the Old Testament, I read it in light of His teaching. That’s not distortion—that’s obedience to the One who said all the Scriptures speak of Him (cf. Luke 24:27; John 5:39).

For example, I don’t think the New Testament describes literal zombies, but rather Jews who were so far outside the covenant that they could be described as dead while living (cf. Matthew 8:22).

And when Genesis speaks of God breathing the “breath of life” into man (Genesis 2:7), I don’t assume that refers to something entirely separate from the Holy Spirit. After all, Jesus Himself later breathes on His disciples and says, "Receive the Holy Spirit" (John 20:22).

This connection isn’t novel—it’s echoed powerfully in Ezekiel 37, where the valley of dry bones comes to life not just through reanimation, but by the Spirit (Hebrew ruach—the same word for “breath” and “spirit”). The bones live when God causes His breath to enter them (cf. Ezekiel 37:5–14). That’s not biological animation alone—it’s covenantal restoration.

Paul says the same in the New Testament. In Romans 8:11, "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. And in verse 9, he makes clear: “ who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to Him.” So again, life and death are defined by covenantal union with God, not just physical breath.

So no, I’m not reading doctrine “into” the Old Testament—I’m letting Christ, the apostles, and the prophets interpret it for me. And they point to a covenantal, Spirit-given understanding of life from beginning to end.

 

[Rella]

I fail to see how the diet plays into Even being the mother of all.
Secondly Eve was Adams helpmate.

Not his wife? Huh... I always knew that Gen 2:24 was out of place.

Let's see if I can clarify the food mention.
The diet mention is that those in Genesis 1 were told

29. Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;
Genesis 1 tells us there was not a single tree they were told not to eat, they were told to eat everything ... so long as it was vegetarian
eating.
Genesis 2
16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;
17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

Genesis 2 tells us that Adam was restricted on food when the man in Genesis one was not.

 

[CrowCross]

Why would that be the case? I’m not inserting doctrine between the lines—I’m interpreting the Old Testament through the lens our Teacher, Jesus Christ, gave us: a covenantal one.

Jesus consistently interpreted life and death not merely biologically, but covenantally. So when I return to the Old Testament, I read it in light of His teaching. That’s not distortion—that’s obedience to the One who said all the Scriptures speak of Him (cf. Luke 24:27; John 5:39).

For example, I don’t think the New Testament describes literal zombies, but rather Jews who were so far outside the covenant that they could be described as dead while living (cf. Matthew 8:22).

And when Genesis speaks of God breathing the “breath of life” into man (Genesis 2:7), I don’t assume that refers to something entirely separate from the Holy Spirit. After all, Jesus Himself later breathes on His disciples and says, "Receive the Holy Spirit" (John 20:22).

This connection isn’t novel—it’s echoed powerfully in Ezekiel 37, where the valley of dry bones comes to life not just through reanimation, but by the Spirit (Hebrew ruach—the same word for “breath” and “spirit”). The bones live when God causes His breath to enter them (cf. Ezekiel 37:5–14). That’s not biological animation alone—it’s covenantal restoration.

Paul says the same in the New Testament. In Romans 8:11, "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. And in verse 9, he makes clear: “ who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to Him.” So again, life and death are defined by covenantal union with God, not just physical breath.

So no, I’m not reading doctrine “into” the Old Testament—I’m letting Christ, the apostles, and the prophets interpret it for me. And they point to a covenantal, Spirit-given understanding of life from beginning to end.

That's all good stuff...but that isn't the context of Eve was the mother of all.

 

[CrowCross]

Genesis 2 tells us that Adam was restricted on food when the man in Genesis one was not.

Are you now saying God created many men and only Adam was placed into the garden?

 

[Carbon]

The old earth's claim the dinosaurs were around 65+ MY's ago...they find them buried in the strata.
Flood geology says they were buried during the flood of Noah which was only about 4,000 years ago.

I know young Earth claims all the dinosaurs died at one time during the flood. According to the old Earth view, dinosaurs died at different times, asteroid, volcanoes, flood, etc...

 

[Carbon]

@CrowCross
You know, there are some really good debates on old Earth vs young Earth. Have you watched any? Particularly with Hugh Ross?

Plus, it may interest you that some of the Reformers believed in an Old Earth. Even Augustine claimed he did not see how anyone can come to a conclusion (actual proof) on Genesis of the age of the earth or the length of the days.

 

[Carbon]

@CrowCross

Augustine interpreted the "days" of creation in Genesis allegorically, not literally as 24-hour periods. He believed that God created everything simultaneously, and the six days described in Genesis 1 represent how creation unfolded in a temporal, rather than a literal, sense. He saw the six days as a way to present the process of creation in a way that humans could understand, not as a literal timeline of events.

 

[QVQ]

deleted by QvQ as off topic

 

[EarlyActs]

@CrowCross

Augustine interpreted the "days" of creation in Genesis allegorically, not literally as 24-hour periods. He believed that God created everything simultaneously, and the six days described in Genesis 1 represent how creation unfolded in a temporal, rather than a literal, sense. He saw the six days as a way to present the process of creation in a way that humans could understand, not as a literal timeline of events.

Which humans?

The LXX rabbis had no problem with the ordinary days, all linked by their start at sunset. Christian apologists since Peter's comments to the 'stoicheians' have had to clarify that God does interrupt natural processes, and the earth's creation, cataclysm and final destruction are alike in that regard. (The OT refers to the universe being spread out as a separate event, but if this was the spreading out of a mass (a big bang), that was also an interruption).

Recent findings about the Walam Olam tablets show that disrupted natural process was the understanding of most humans until Lyell's declaration in 1800s (uniformitarianism). And they show that that belief was spread across the world. One defect is that the tablets believed the god who caused the cataclysm was an evil god.

 

[Carbon]

Which humans?

What do you mean, which humans?

 

[EarlyActs]

What do you mean, which humans?

did you read the post? The findings about ancient creation/cataclysm stories worldwide show that most humans have regarded the Creator god as highly interruptive. The Walam Olam tablets catapult this far forward. Uniformitarianism may have a classical root, but it is mental, not observing nature very well as we find it today, and discounting all myth entirely.

So I was saying it took the Lyell doctrine, and publications of it spread out to the British empire, to result in modern science saying "humans" as you did. Most cultures down through time have had no problem with divine or supra-human interruption. Are you saying most cultures are not human? I doubt it.

 

[John Bauer]

Here is how I understood EarlyActs comment:

@Carbon: Augustine saw the six days as a way to present the process of creation in a way that humans could understand, not as a literal timeline of events.

@EarlyActs: Which humans? [I ask because certain LXX rabbis and Christian apologists had no problem understanding the creation account as the literal process. People understood that God could and did interrupt natural processes. It seems to me that Augustine invented a problem in order to sell his solution.]

 

[CrowCross]

I know young Earth claims all the dinosaurs died at one time during the flood. According to the old Earth view, dinosaurs died at different times, asteroid, volcanoes, flood, etc...

All of which may have been present and probably were present at the time of the flood.

 

[CrowCross]

@CrowCross
You know, there are some really good debates on old Earth vs young Earth. Have you watched any? Particularly with Hugh Ross?

Yup. I personally find Hugh Ross wanting. No doubt he's a christian, but wrong. the bible doesn't teach an old earth...mans science does and people then filter their bible through mans science.

Plus, it may interest you that some of the Reformers believed in an Old Earth. Even Augustine claimed he did not see how anyone can come to a conclusion (actual proof) on Genesis of the age of the earth or the length of the days.

Bishop Ussher did a good job. Perhaps he was off by a little bit...certainly not millions or billions of years like the old earth's claim.

As to the lengths of the days....as I have presented the narrative clearly indicates a day is 24 hours and not a long age. And yes, I know yom can mean a long period of time. Just not in this case. People insist the earth is old and have never really looked at the YEC's arguments that show the earth is young. I would imagine that is because of what they were force fed in school and now they find it hard to give up.

You were provided with one already....dinosaurs. The old earth's claim they roamed the earth long before Adam and were buried in the sediment. Some even claim they were from a pre-Adamic world ran by Satan that was destroyed and remade in Gen 1.

We do know dinosaurs and man were on the planet at the same time....but we can't talk about the science that reflects that in schools because it's considered as "religion".

 

[CrowCross]

@CrowCross

Augustine interpreted the "days" of creation in Genesis allegorically, not literally as 24-hour periods. He believed that God created everything simultaneously, and the six days described in Genesis 1 represent how creation unfolded in a temporal, rather than a literal, sense. He saw the six days as a way to present the process of creation in a way that humans could understand, not as a literal timeline of events.

In the epistle of Barnabas...one of the guys who hung out with Paul presents each day of creation being just that....a day. Because his letter isn't in the bible doesn't mean it wasn't correct. At any rate it shows what Barnabas and others believed.

Here is what Barnabas wrote...

Barnabas 15:3
Of the Sabbath He speaketh in the beginning of the creation; And
God made the works of His hands in six days, and He ended on the
seventh day, and rested on it, and He hallowed it.

Barnabas 15:4
Give heed, children, what this meaneth; He ended in six days. He
meaneth this, that in six thousand years the Lord shall bring all
things to an end; for the day with Him signifyeth a thousand years;
and this He himself beareth me witness, saying; Behold, the day of
the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, children, in six
days, that is in six thousand years, everything shall come to an end.

Barnabas 15:5
And He rested on the seventh day. this He meaneth; when His Son
shall come, and shall abolish the time of the Lawless One, and shall
judge the ungodly, and shall change the sun and the moon and the
stars, then shall he truly rest on the seventh day.

Here Barnabas was saying one 24 hour long day will be equated to 1,000 years of mans history.
That is the sixth day will end after 6,000 years....which is pretty close to what the biblical genealogy of Bishop Ussher presented. That is according to the YEC's the earth is about 6,000 years old. This leaves 1,000 years left...which is more support, although x-tra biblical of a literal millennial reign being the being the 7th day of rest.