How old is the earth?

[CrowCross]

To my knowledge this entire exchange has been centered upon a single verse, that of Genesis 3:20, and the interpretation thereof.

I haven't spoken to you about anything else. Just a single verse.

How I might view and interpret several additional verses together in light of the whole of Scripture has not even been on the radar and honestly won't be anytime soon from the looks of it.

I have only discussed how to interpret life and what it means to be living, A single word, in a single sentence. It's important, because this is covenantal.

As i have said...you present it as a means of allowing Eve not to be the only "original" mother of all humans.

 

[Hazelelponi]

As i have said...you present it as a means of allowing Eve not to be the only "original" mother of all humans.

I present it as a discussion of the text of Scripture and discuss it in light of how Scripture defines terms and words

I'm not sitting here doing eisegesis as it appears you're now accusing me of or playing mind reading games with people. I'm discussing Scripture and discussing how terms are used in Scripture in order to understand the verse we were actually discussing.

There appears no discussion has been had in these last dozen or so posts

 

[CrowCross]

I present it as a discussion of the text of Scripture and discuss it in light of how Scripture defines terms and words

I'm not sitting here doing eisegesis as it appears you're now accusing me of or playing mind reading games with people. I'm discussing Scripture and discussing how terms are used in Scripture in order to understand the verse we were actually discussing.

There appears no discussion has been had in these last dozen or so posts

I thought we had a discussion about Eve being the mother of all.

There seemed to be two views.

All means all of Eves progeny....or.....all means only those who would be saved by Jesus.

The initial presentation of this verse was to show there were no other humans on earth when those words were said by Adam.

Do you agree or disagree that there were no other humans on earth when Adam spoke this words?

 

[Rella]

I thought we had a discussion about Eve being the mother of all.

There seemed to be two views.

All means all of Eves progeny....or.....all means only those who would be saved by Jesus.

The initial presentation of this verse was to show there were no other humans on earth when those words were said by Adam.

Do you agree or disagree that there were no other humans on earth when Adam spoke this words?

Just my 2 cents.

I agree that when Adam spoke those words he was accurate because I still believe that from Adam down to us today were set aside.
All meaning to me is those humans who came from their blood lines and even inclusive of Hagar and Ishmael who went in a different route then toward Jesus and therefore would not likely be saved.

What other humans could there have been?

Well, being an opposite mine from the evolutionists, the Man and Woman in Genesis one could have been... no saying were.... just offering an idea.... could have been linked to Neanderthals, other extinct human species include Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo floresiensis, Homo naledi, and Denisovans.

They were given life. They looked like us. They could have been to populate the earth and take care of it.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I thought we had a discussion about Eve being the mother of all.

There seemed to be two views.

All means all of Eves progeny....or.....all means only those who would be saved by Jesus.

The initial presentation of this verse was to show there were no other humans on earth when those words were said by Adam.

Do you agree or disagree that there were no other humans on earth when Adam spoke this words?

The first time I have ever even mentioned this was when I spoke to @John Bauer in post #324

I didn't discuss these views with anyone else but someone like @John Bauer who at least has the Scriptural knowledge and insight to understand why I might think or see what I do.

However, that belief has no bearing on my interpretation of Genesis 3:20, and it is isn't something I was discussing with you at all, ever. Only John, who knows the Bible enough to have the discussion.

 

[CrowCross]

Just my 2 cents.

I agree that when Adam spoke those words he was accurate because I still believe that from Adam down to us today were set aside.
All meaning to me is those humans who came from their blood lines and even inclusive of Hagar and Ishmael who went in a different route then toward Jesus and therefore would not likely be saved.

What other humans could there have been?

Well, being an opposite mine from the evolutionists, the Man and Woman in Genesis one could have been... no saying were.... just offering an idea.... could have been linked to Neanderthals, other extinct human species include Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo floresiensis, Homo naledi, and Denisovans.

If they are extinct human species....then they are in the progeny of Adam and Eve.

They were given life. They looked like us. They could have been to populate the earth and take care of it.

 

[CrowCross]

The first time I have ever even mentioned this was when I spoke to @John Bauer in post #324

I didn't discuss these views with anyone else but someone like @John Bauer who at least has the Scriptural knowledge and insight to understand why I might think or see what I do.

However, that belief has no bearing on my interpretation of Genesis 3:20, and it is isn't something I was discussing with you at all, ever. Only John, who knows the Bible enough to have the discussion.

So, where do you stand? Are all humans who were ever on the earth the progeny of Adam and Eve?

 

[Hazelelponi]

So, where do you stand? Are all humans who were ever on the earth the progeny of Adam and Eve?

I'm sorry I was snippy earlier.

My stance is that I do think that it is Scriptural to see Adam and Eve as the first Covenantal representatives between God and mankind but not the first human beings on planet earth.

But it's not something I have ever publicly discussed, nor do I consider myself the best person to discuss it, when there's others far more familiar with the topic especially as a matter of debate.

I would hold the same views on Genesis 3:20 as what I discussed with you already regardless, I have not changed my mind on what Genesis teaches in this regard, I get it from the rest of Scripture, first and foremost from the teachings of Christ Himself.

I'm not interpreting Genesis to suit a worldview, I'm trying to faithfully interpret Scripture.

 

[CrowCross]

I'm sorry I was snippy earlier.

No problem. These forums tend to do that from time to time.

My stance is that I do think that it is Scriptural to see Adam and Eve as the first Covenantal representatives between God and mankind but not the first human beings on planet earth.

Then biblically...who were the first human beings on earth?

But it's not something I have ever publicly discussed, nor do I consider myself the best person to discuss it, when there's others far more familiar with the topic especially as a matter of debate.

I would hold the same views on Genesis 3:20 as what I discussed with you already regardless, I have not changed my mind on what Genesis teaches in this regard, I get it from the rest of Scripture, first and foremost from the teachings of Christ Himself.

I'm not interpreting Genesis to suit a worldview, I'm trying to faithfully interpret Scripture.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Then biblically...who were the first human beings on earth?

Doesn't seem to matter enough to God to note it. There's no prequel.

The focus of the story is on our redemption in and through Christ and our re-creation, not the initial creation of any but Adam and Eve and their kind.

All we appear to know is that there seems to have been people.

 

[CrowCross]

All we appear to know is that there seems to have been people.

You keep saying this...but haven't shown it.

I quess we'll have to shelve the topic for now.

 

[Hazelelponi]

You keep saying this...but haven't shown it.

I quess we'll have to shelve the topic for now.

I haven't been trying to "show it", and I don't "keep saying" it, I only even mentioned it to one individual and then you when you asked directly. When you asked me directly you didn't ask me to prove anything, so I was polite and answered you.

I'm not trying to prove anything to you. I was only speaking to you about Genesis 3:20.

I don't understand why this conversation about 1 verse is so impossible to engage with you on.

You want to drag my every single odd thought into my understanding of the verse which is ridiculous when I base my understanding of the verse in the words in and around the verse itself. Not anything to do with how I see other verses of Scripture.

It's exhausting when we can't discuss a single verse of Scripture together without whatever this is.

We can either discuss the Scripture of Genesis 3:20 or not, but how I see other unrelated verses has no bearing on the interpretation of THIS verse.

You keep trying to shoehorn the price of tea in China into the conversation when it's not a conversation about tea.

 

[Hazelelponi]

You keep saying this...but haven't shown it.

I quess we'll have to shelve the topic for now.

I didn't jump in and try and share a more accurate understanding of Genesis 3:20 in order to support an old earth, or even a populated one at the time of Adam and Eve's creation.

I did it because these verses should be read covenantally, in my honest opinion.

If you want to know why I read the Bible covenantally I can't explain. People have been telling me since I was saved I read the Bible wrong, but I don't think that's correct because the Reformed people read it like I do, or at least a little bit similarly to me anyway

I think we are supposed to see it like this, as covenantal beginning to end.

But that's not anything to do with the YEC/OEC debate, that just how to read the Bible.

For example; If anyone wants to read the Bible so literally they see the protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15 as just about us needing to wear snake boots in the timber because if we go to stomp on a snakes head we will get bit (because that's the snakes nature), then more power to them, but I would discuss a more accurate way to read the Scripture in question, and that discussion would likewise have nothing to do with being an OEC proponent either, it's just about understanding the Scriptures in the manner God intended for His people to understand.

The above isn't intended as a caricature as I do know someone, so... It was the first thing that came to mind to use as an example.

 

[miss managed]

@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.

I know - Noah put the dinosaurs on the Ark!

 

[CrowCross]

I know - Noah put the dinosaurs on the Ark!

yes....and they also got off the ark.

here's a great sight that shows dinosaurs were around after the flood.

Here is the homepage. Enjoy.

 

[Carbon]

I know - Noah put the dinosaurs on the Ark!

It's possible

 

[miss managed]

It's possible

It's either possible or impossible. The issues are a few. Chances are you've listening to...

Answers in Genesis should be avoided.

I would avoid any teaching that says Noah put Dino on the Ark. First off, it's impossible for the flood to be global. A literal 6-day creationist has no option but to put Dino on the ark instead of into a pre-Adamite world because that would heavily play into the hands of the evolutionist.

In order to house the number of animals 'worldwide' - two of every kind and seven pairs of clean animals as well as flying creatures - Noah would have needed 12-15 arks. Put Dino on there, and the estimate is 19-21 arks.

It's absurd to me that anyone would believe that God created the Universe in 6 literal days - 6,000 years ago! AND...they also believe that at the end of the Millennium God destroys the entire universe! Sounds counter-productive to me.

Going on a 7,000-year lifespan of humans on earth, we are approaching the 6,000-year mark. Depending on which calendar we go by, Jewish, Mesopotamian, Gregorian, or the many others that go by solar, lunar, lunisolar, etc., I think there's a 4, or even a 9-to-10-year discrepancy in time in these calendars. So, it's only an educated guess, and I'm not picking a day or hour....

Some of us think the earliest Jesus could return is 2042. Minus a 4 year discrepancy on the Jewish calendar, that gives us a time frame of 2038 - 2042. However, going by other calendars, it could be as early as 2033 to 2037. My honest opinion is...I don't know!

 

[CrowCross]

It's possible

The bible says 2 of every kind....why would God exclude dinosaurs? just asking.

 

[Carbon]

It's either possible or impossible.

I wouldn't say impossible.

It's absurd to me that anyone would believe that God created the Universe in 6 literal days - 6,000 years ago! AND...they also believe that at the end of the Millennium God destroys the entire universe! Sounds counter-productive to me.

Well, God and His ways are beyond me; I cannot see into His secret council. I am not 100% convinced of a young earth, nor am I 100% convinced of an old earth. Though I do lean towards an old earth.

I find it interesting how young earthers can say the first six days were a literal 24-hour period, and I heard it said by some, we are not through the seventh day yet, so the only day that isn't a 24-hour period is the 7th day? There is a problem with the 7th day, I suppose. If God made everything in six days (periods of time), then the seventh day, if it we are still in it, fits right in as a period of time. Old Earth would make sense.
Is there an 8th day?

Personally, I do not believe we can read Genesis and come to a positive conclusion that the six days were literally 24-hour periods. An old earth does no damage to Genesis whatsoever.

Does it make a difference? Some reformers like John Owen, whom I admire greatly, say it does matter, and he believes in a young earth.
I just do not see how.

 

[CrowCross]

It's either possible or impossible. The issues are a few. Chances are you've listening to...

Answers in Genesis should be avoided.

I would avoid any teaching that says Noah put Dino on the Ark. First off, it's impossible for the flood to be global.

Why would it be impossible? Serious question. (especially when the bible said it was)

A literal 6-day creationist has no option but to put Dino on the ark instead of into a pre-Adamite world because that would heavily play into the hands of the evolutionist.

Where does the bible speak of a pre-Adamic world with dinosaurs?

In order to house the number of animals 'worldwide' - two of every kind and seven pairs of clean animals as well as flying creatures - Noah would have needed 12-15 arks. Put Dino on there, and the estimate is 19-21 arks.

Why would Noah have need 12-15 arks? Your number of arks tell us each ark would have had only about 1,000 animals per ark.

It's absurd to me that anyone would believe that God created the Universe in 6 literal days - 6,000 years ago! AND...they also believe that at the end of the Millennium God destroys the entire universe! Sounds counter-productive to me.

I suppose you're entitled to your belief. I have no problem believing an all powerful God could do that. Is your God not all powerful?

Going on a 7,000-year lifespan of humans on earth, we are approaching the 6,000-year mark. Depending on which calendar we go by, Jewish, Mesopotamian, Gregorian, or the many others that go by solar, lunar, lunisolar, etc., I think there's a 4, or even a 9-to-10-year discrepancy in time in these calendars. So, it's only an educated guess, and I'm not picking a day or hour....

That discrepancy is unknown. The LXX versions add an extra 100 years to those guys around Peleg. Gen 11:12-24 The Masoretic text says "When Peleg had lived 30 years, he fathered Reu"....while the LXX slips in an extra 100 and makes it 130 years.

Some of us think the earliest Jesus could return is 2042. Minus a 4 year discrepancy on the Jewish calendar, that gives us a time frame of 2038 - 2042. However, going by other calendars, it could be as early as 2033 to 2037. My honest opinion is...I don't know!

It could even be this October.