How old is the earth?

[EarlyActs]

Our sinfulness (which is outside Scripture) is proof enough.

Exactly. There are many of those kinds of proofs! Outside but the same. That’s why I’m Rom 2 the Gentiles do not have the law but have Gods law written on their hearts.

 

[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).