No answers here, but some things to think about.

I hear this question frequently, but I always wonder what is in the mind of the person asking the question. Is the answer to this question important, and if so, why and in what ways?

An unbeliever might like to pit the conclusions of modern scientists, who almost universally hold to the idea that the Earth is very old against the apparent assertions of the Bible that the Earth is relatively young. In other words, if the Bible says the Earth is young, and scientists say the Earth is ancient, then clearly the Bible is wrong and not to be believed.

A believer, on the other hand, might look at this problem and conclude, that the unbeliever has a point. Out of concern for the skepticism of the unbeliever, the believer might want to make it easier for the unbeliever to accept the Bible. Similarly, the believer may have his/her own doubts about this and so adopt the position that the correct interpretation of the scriptures is that the Earth is old and in harmony with the consensus of scientists.

Personally, I believe the age of the Earth as it relates to an unbeliever is of little significance, and is usually either an excuse not to believe, or is a way of avoiding the important topic of the unbelievers salvation, or moral failures and their implications etc.

As a believer addressing this issue with an unbeliever, I will point out that there are believers that hold both positions and that the real topic of concern is whether Jesus came to Earth, died for our sins, and was resurrected on the third day. That is the belief upon which our salvation rests, and any other topic pales in importance.

Therefore, I shall be addressing this topic from the stand point of the believer – what it means to us. Is it important what we believe? What should we believe?

What concerns me the most, is not what we believe in regards to this question so much as why we believe what we believe. A standard rule of biblical interpretation, is that we interpret the Bible literally, unless we are compelled to do otherwise.

Some might make the case that the science is so compelling, that we have to interpret Genesis in some figurative way.

I have to ask, what is it, that makes the science so compelling? I am a scientifically minded person, I run much of my daily life depending on ideas which science has observed and proven. Obviously, science has proven to be a powerful and useful tool. However, I think that the most trustworthy part of science, is the part where we can observe current phenomena, develop theories about the phenomena, and test those theories. When we begin to attempt to apply science to metaphysics – the spiritual part of our universe, science has left it’s realm of expertise. When examining topics of an historical nature – the issues of the formation of the universe, the development of life etc, science has also strayed from it’s expertise because it is attempting to guess what has happened in the past, from clues in the present. Most of the time, this will be of questionable reliability, since there is no way to repeat history in a test tube. It is gone, and not subject to examination. For me, what it comes down to then is this:

“Which do you trust more, the pronouncements of a demonstrably infallible God, or the pronouncements of demonstrably fallible men?”

Now, to be certain, we can make mistakes in our interpretation of the Bible, so both methods have a risk of error. Never-the-less, I believe that the Christian who maintains that the Bible teaches or allows for and ancient earth, is knowingly electing to disbelieve the most natural literal interpretation of the Bible, in favor of the theories of men, derived from the natural sciences. Personally, if I am wrong in my assessment that the Earth might be quite young, I would rather have the clear conscience of taking God at His word and be in error than choosing to trust the dictates of men that God pronounces to be fools for their unbelief of Him.

It is true that there are reputable scientists who believe in an old Earth and who profess to be Christians. I do not doubt that most of these men and women are saved, trusting Jesus for their salvation. I do find it very odd, however, that they are willing to trust God about the scientifically unlikely event of the His resurrection, upon which their salvation rests, but cannot find it within themselves, to take Him at His word with regards to issues of origins. In fact, I find it saddening.

As you have probably concluded, I am of a younger Earth persuasion. This is not to say that I believe that the Earth was created in 4004 B.C. as some assert. I note that the Bible never makes such a claim, and that this number is merely the result of calculations of a man who added up life spans and genealogies in the Bible. I have never checked his math, but in as much as the Jews were known to practice genealogies with gaps in them, recording more notable ancestors, it seems to me that there is some room for some extra time.

In my estimation, all you can prove from the Bible about when the Earth was created, is that Adam, the first man, was created in 4004 B.C. or earlier. How much earlier, I have no idea. In other words, I do not believe the Bible makes any definitive statement on how old the Earth is. Having said that, can I prove there are gaps. Yes and no. The Bible as we know it, notes them itself, by comparing genealogies in some books versus others. In other words, different book describe ancestral lines with differing numbers of people in them. Therefore, some of these have to be incomplete, or else other have extra generations. If there are extras, then those passages are either untrue, or they are some sort of allegory. The do not appear to be allegory, so the most logical choice is that the others are not complete. If they are not complete, then we know that gaps were an allowable custom. Knowing that gaps are allowable, we can assume that all of the genealogies could contain gaps.

Now, a little known and underdiscussed fact is, that the Hebrew text from which the 4004 B.C. creation date comes, is the Masoretic text, the major text underlying the translations of many modern Old Testaments. However, copies of the manuscripts of the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew, written some 300 years B.C. with extant copies going back to 400 A.D.) predates the Masoretic text by at least 350 years (the the oldest extant copy of the Masoretic text is Masoretic text dating to the 9th and 10th centuries A.D.) .

Jesus and the apostles frequently quoted the Septuagint (or the authors of the gospels quoted the Septuagint when reporting what Jesus said) , so it is safe to assume it was thought reliable as the word of God. The genealogies of the Septuagint, if totaled in the same way that the 4004 B.C. Creation date was arrived at, push the creation date back to 5315 B.C. See how muddy and impossible it is to determine the date from the scripture?

To me then, the Bible allows for an undetermined age of the Earth, and mankind is at least 6000 years old (7300 if going by the Septuagint). Which brings us to the length of creation time passed before God created mankind.

The Old Earth Theorists, will have to hold to the idea that the 5 days prior to the creation of man, are not 5 literal days, but days which are of undetermined lengths of time, even millions of years each. This is done to force the scriptures to harmonize with scientific conclusions. That people may choose to interpret the Bible according to the dictates of predominantly atheistic scientists, is their own business.

I think that it sets a very dangerous precedent, which allows for changing the meaning of the word of God, to suit whatever belief is in fashion.

This is already being done in other portions of scripture. For example, science is looking to find a genetic causation for the behavior of homosexuality. If a link can be found to exist between heredity and sexual orientation, then what will follow is a discounting of the biblical notion that the practice homosexuality is a sin.

Now, that leap will not be a logical one, but the leap will be made, never-the-less. I could cite other examples, but this one will serve to illustrate the point. However, even if it can be proven that homosexuality is genetically caused, it still does not alter the fact that God calls it a sin to practice, just as He calls it a sin for heterosexuals to act out their carnal desires outside of the man/woman marriage that He ordained.

For myself, I shall not ever use the temporary and ever-changing opinions of science (or political correctness) to interpret the God inspired scriptures which never need adjustment, but that is just me. Many Old Earth Creationists are aware of the supremacy of God’s word, but just do not have enough faith in the most natural interpretation of scripture to overcome their faith in modern science. In such cases, I can understand that, but I wish more of them were honest about that fact that that is what the problem is. Sadly, too many choose instead, to find that the traditional beliefs of Christianity are suspect and inferior.

It should not take any effort on my part, to convince anyone that the most natural interpretation of the creation days of Genesis, is that they are 6 literal days. Nothing in the text suggests otherwise. Old earth creationists will sometimes go to great lengths to point out that the Hebrew word for day, does not always mean a literal, twenty-four hour day. They are absolutely correct on that point. This Hebrew word is “Yom”.

Gen 1:4-5

5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning — the first day. (NIV)

The first thing to notice about the word “day” as used in the creation account, is that it comes to us pre-defined. The light God called day. We do the same thing to this day. Also, one light and dark cycle, is also called a day. Just like we do.

The implications of this one verse are a monumental obstacle, to anyone who wishes to maintain the notion that a day in Genesis, represents a length of time of thousands or millions of years. For one thing, we see here that in context, the word day is used identically as it is normally used in modern English. The internal, literary evidence therefore points to the conclusion that God intended this portion of scripture to be understood as literal, that a day is simply one cycle of light, most likely, near 24 hours long.

To assume that something else is intended, is a gross violation of long established rules of interpretation, not only of the Bible, but for any document.

Let’s suspend those rules momentarily, and allow for the idea that this day is, for example, not 24 hours, but one million years. Does this help Genesis square with modern scientific opinion? An interesting thing to note in the Genesis account, is that during this first day, the Sun has not yet been caused to shine upon the earth. The lightness and darkness that is cycling, is not sunlight. This gives some wiggle room because this light and dark, may not be dependent upon the rotation of the earth. We could say perhaps, that days were longer at that time. It get’s more difficult to maintain this notion though at creation day 4:

Gen 1:16-19

16 God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning — the fourth day. (NIV)

If these days are not 24 hours long, and we go back to the idea that a day is one million years long, might it be that the light was on for 500,000 years during a light/dark cycle. Since the old Earth theory is done to accommodate scientific opinion, then we should be consistent and assess the implication of 500,000 years of light. Is this light of similar intensity to what we experience from the Sun? If so, what would the surface temperature of the Earth rise to? Would the plants (created on the third day) survive the temperatures? Could they survive 500,000 years of darkness and no photosynthesis? I think interpreting the scriptures to accommodate scientific consensus, causes more problems that it solves.

I think we have seen that interpreting Genesis passage literally, makes the most sense from a literary perspective. We have seen that interpreting it in the light of science, makes the text into nonsense.

What about this word "yom" we touched on briefly, is there a reason to expect that it might mean other than 24 hours in the original Hebrew?

My Bible software reports that this word "yom" occurs 2304 times in the Old Testament. That should be plenty of data to work with, to discover the likelihood that yom should be understood as some sort of age. How many times is yom not 24 hours in the Bible?

Here are examples of how it is used otherwise:

(1)The span of human life. – Gen 5:4: “And the days of Adam …. were eight hundred years.” “And if thou wilt walk …. then I will lengthen thy days” (1 Kings 3:14; compare Ps 90:12; Isa 38:5).

(2) An indefinite time. – Existence in general: Gen 3:14: “All the days of thy life” (compare Gen 21:34; Num 9:19; Josh 22:3; Luke 1:24; Acts 21:10).

(3) A set time. – Gen 25:24: “And when her days …. were fulfilled”; Dan 12:13: “Thou shalt stand in thy lot, at the end of the days” (compare Lev 12:6; Dan 2:44).

(4) A historic period. – Gen 6:4: “The Nephilim were in the earth in those days”; Judg 17:6: “In those days there was no king in Israel” (compare 1 Sam 3:1; 1 Chron 5:17; Hos 2:13).

(5) Past time. – Ps 18:18: “the day of my calamity”; Ps 77:5: “I have considered the days of old” (of Mic 7:20; Mal 3:7; Matt 23:30).

(6) Future time. – Deut 31:14: “Thy days approach that thou must die”; Ps 72:7: “In his days shall ….” (compare Ezek 22:14; Joel 2:29; Matt 24:19; 2 Peter 3:3; Rev 9:6).

(7) The eternal. – In Dan 7:9,13, where God is called “the ancient of days.”

(8) A season of opportunity. – John 9:4: “We must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work” (compare Rom 13:12-13; 1 Thess 5:5-8). See DAY (4), above.

That was from the International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Copyright ©1996

Did you see anything there that seemed to suggest eons of time? Most of those uses are less that a human lifespan. Some, are references to historical periods – in other words AFTER the creation of man. The one possible exception, is number 7 above, but it is a reference to God Himself, not his creation. In short, to say that the word Yom contains the potential to represent millions of years, is forcing a definition or use of it, that is so extreme compared to actual uses of the word, that it can be considered as nothing other than a desperate grasping at straws by those that lack the faith to take God at His word.

If any choose to believe the unstable opinions of the sciences over the revelation of God’s word, I am okay with that, I really am. I just wish they would have the honesty to state that they feel the need to abuse the science of hermeneutics to satisfy their own uneasiness about God’s word, instead of trying to convince others that it is somehow justified or legitimate to force personal beliefs upon the interpretation of scripture. To quote Prof. James Barr from the EXPOSITOR’S BIBLE:

“If the word ‘day’ in this chapter does not mean the period of 24 hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless.”.

Is the evidence too strong against the bible, or at least of a literal interpretation of it? Certainly if scientific consensus is going to be the determining factor concerning out faith and theology, we have to ask the question:

What about the resurrection? Scientific consensus would be that a man who dies, and remains dead for three days, stays dead. If God cannot defy the opinions of scientists, then no miracles happen, not now, not ever, and the resurrection never took place. If that is true, then Christianity is little more than a collection of interesting tales, sort of like Aesop's Fables.

If God is going to be limited to our understanding of the laws of nature, then why would we be wondering about the length of the creation period. A God without the power to do the miraculous, could not bring the creation into existence in the first place. If that creation did not happen, then why would we suspect that creation has an author at all, and without such and author, does sin really exist? Who gets to define what is sin and what is not, who decides how salvation is accomplished or if it is even necessary. Is there really even an afterlife? Apart from a revelation from a supernatural God, these things are all unknowable, and Christianity has no real value.

It may not be critically important, how long creation took, but knowing that it took place, believing God by faith that it did, is important, and I have to wonder how much we really believe God, if we cannot trust Him to accurately describe and make plain, the details of His own creation.

Consider some of the implications of a lengthy creation. How does it affect other beliefs or statements from the Bible? Do other passages make reference to the creation events – do we call them into question? Did Jesus or the apostles mention anything about the creation account that would leave you to believe that they took it literally – if so, how does that affect their credibility? If we can choose to ignore a literal interpretation in Genesis – do we then grant ourselves the same license in other parts of the Bible – if so, how will you know where and when?

These are questions each person must address and consider. While science has century by century, worked to discover how the universe works, each generation of scientists has seen major scientific opinions come and go. Each generation of scientists indeed, has at it’s disposal, new knowledge and new tools to investigate the natural world. Each generation has advanced the collective knowledge of mankind, and each has refuted theories held dearly by colleagues of previous generations, and yet, after thousands of years, is still seeking answers to fundamental questions, answers that are elusive.

Meanwhile, the Christian is able to hold the same views as Jesus and the apostles expressed 2000 years ago, with no need to apologize for any of them. The 20th Century saw the sciences advance at a tremendous rate, but as theories about origins and cosmology became more refined and old ones discarded as obsolete, we found that the theories of prevailing science, are looking more like the bible all the time. Of course, science cannot truly address origins and cosmology ultimately, because those things are outside of it’s scope of examination. Science works in the present, it examines present clues about past events.

The past is not like electricity or chemistry, it cannot be replicated or examined directly. Modern science is even more at a disadvantage, to look into matters of a spiritual nature. Science examines natural phenomena, the supernatural is outside it’s purview. Still, it is interesting to observe that scientists seem to be edging their way toward beliefs that the bible expressed all along. Considering that the bible is not intended to be a science text book, it is remarkable how many scientific facts it got right before scientists would discover them.

Addendum, added on 11/14/2014

Some years ago I developed a calculator which computes theoretical future population numbers from assumed starting calculation numbers and factors like length of generations, birth rates etc. It cannot adequately factor in unknown and unpredictable events like plagues, wars, etc. due to complexity and my own ignorance on those subjects. I also know that there is some error in the math, that skews the results by a generation or two, and I have not been able to figure out where the error lies, and have given up trying, I have more important things to do. However, if you would like to speculate and experiment with the calculator, using your own chosen assumptions, I have decided to publish the calculator as it is. While it is imperfect, I beleive it does demonstrate that the young earth model is more feasible that the ancient earth model, based on math and what we know about population growth and statistics, if the interests you at all, have fun by:

Edit: As I write this on July 5th, 2021, the above link is not functional, but there is an archive of that page at:

http://web.archive.org/web/20150227203333/http://omegazine.com/population/populationpredictions/populationpredictions.htm

Below were 10 Responses to the original posting of “On the significance of the age of the Earth”:

shawn Says:

March 9th, 2009 at 11:16 am

This is such an unfortunate topic for Christians. I am a believer in Yeshua. I also believe that Rome High jacked Christianity and changed it into what ever they wanted. Not only did they change the Shabbat to the day they worshiped the sun, as well as a great many other holy days, but they also changed the relationship between the Torah and science. In Judaism the Torah and modern science go hand in hand. Many of the great Jewish sages hundreds of years ago calculated the age of the universe to be 13 billion years old and they did this using the same bible that christians use to say the earth is only 6000 years old. Because Rome high jacked christianity and changed a great many of things we have not only lost great spiritual gifts but we have also lost a most basic understanding of our natural universe that the rabbi’s have until this very day. If you want to rectify the bible and science you dont need to try and debunk science, science is from Hashem. Science is good, it is our roman inheritance of the hatred of science that is bad. Rome hated science because they hated any opposition to their views on how to interepret the bible. But if we take back what rome stole from us, our Israelite heratige as christians, then we will finally be able to rectify not only science but also a great many spiritual gifts and understandings that were stolen from us. Blessing to you and your community in the name of Yeshua HaMashiach our Rabbi.

josiah Says:

April 6th, 2009 at 7:35 am

hi..My name is Jos , from new zealand and im 38 years of age, currently studying at otago unversity in new zealand. I disagree with some of your statements, and would like to offer a rebuttal.I dont think this is a unfortunate topic, nor do i agree with your quote that it is irrelevant..I quote from your text

“Personally, I believe the age of the Earth as it relates to an unbeliever is of little significance, and is usually either an excuse not to believe, or is a way of avoiding the important topic of the unbelievers salvation. As a believer addressing this issue with an unbeliever, I will point out that there are believers that hold both positions and that the real topic of concern is whether Jesus came to Earth, died for our sins, and was resurrected on the third day. That is the belief upon which our salvation rests, and any other topic pales in importance”

If you look into the historical context, to the unbeliver, the church has always suppresed the formation of scientific ideas formed from observation and interpretation of the results.This is why we had “dark ages” and why they are called “dark ages”. Christians are all too happy to accept the material benifits of technological and scientific endevour, such as internet, computers, carpets and the lightbulb but when it comes to facing up to the questions asked by the scientific community, most immediatly go into ostritch mode and pretend they dont exist until the thing goes away. but the thing doesnt go away, and now all the things that havent gone away are taught as scientific fact to your children.I dont have any children, so that why i say your children. I am a christian – that is i belive and try to adhere to the teachings of Jesus of nazereth and his disiples.I belive Jesus of nazereth is the son of God. I belive he died on our behalf for my sins and wrongdoings against God, and by accepting his sacrifice on my behalf i will have eternal life with him in The presence of God the Father and The holy spirit and all the Angels and others who have believed as i do. I also belive that the law and the prophets, the old testament was inspired by God and in some books directly transmitted by God Orally to Moses, such as the book of Genesis. I belive that the interpretation of the words of Genesis is literal, that is creation took 6 literal 24 hour periods.I am also a scientist. I am currently returned to university to undertake a B.A. in Lingustics, with a minor in Geology. I like volcanoes. i know that the current interpretation of the Geological record is in error. The majority of the Geologic community dissagree with me. some might even go so far as to say that i am misguided, or quite simply a religous nutter.you can imagine that someone with views like mine goes down in academic circles like a lead balloon at a party.lol. But there are flaws in the theory of geologic time, that can be found. The truth points to itself. Its time for us to admit we don’t know all the answers, nor should we pretend too.This is the crux of what scientific method or reasoning is about -to quote websters dictionary… “principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses..”

but i do belive we should tackle these problems with Faith in the Lord Jesus christ as our guide, pray for guidance, and look for credible scientific evidence to support the creation story and present this to everyone freely for discussion and debate because surely as eggs are eggs if we dont try to answer the hard questions, and tackle the problems presented by the current view of the community at large for a old earth and no God, why should people resonably listen to us when we try to share our beliefs? And as you can see currently in the textbooks of any mainstream high school, the Devil is not lax. What makes us different from the ten-thousand other wacko’s with thier own take on The metaphysical universe? I personally dont belive, although i may be wrong, that Paul the apostle, who was a learned man would agree with your arguement, but putting it in context, he said” i count it all as loss for the gospel,” yet he reasoned with men, trying to win them over to the gospel by showing them thier errors in logical thinking as well as christian works of good deeds, and living at peace with all men as far as possible.

I hope you take my argument to heart and consider it. afterwards, you may still belive that i am wrong.I would like to hear your thoughts. jos..11.35, 6th april 2009.

Omegaman 2.0 Responds:

April 10th, 2009 at 12:31 am

Hi Jos,

I don’t think I have anything to disagree with there, and yet my mind has not changed. How is this possible?

I am an apologist, I believe in being ready always to give and answer for the hope that I have. Does my hope lie in the age of the earth, or in questions like “how could all the animals fit on the ark”? My hope lies in a risen savior. That is what I am supposed to defend. I am a young earther personally, but I find that giving answers to defend that view to be a poor investment in time. I have those answers, and answers for the animals on the ark etc. How about the existence of God? Yes, I can defend those too. I have spent hours at a time doing so many times, and in my experience, all I end up doing is convincing people that I am more knowledgeable than they first believed, and that I actually have some good points. Good for my ego, but not worthwhile.

That is all well and good, if my task is to win debates, but I think it more important, to win souls. So, I may have not been clear on my comments, by not being thorough enough in my explanation. My point is, that Christians can go round and round debating the age of the earth themselves, the topic is not relevant to unbelievers from our point of view if it does not move them closer to a decision. I think that these kind of doubts, shared by believers and unbelievers alike, distract us from the real issues.

If a person is curious about how I can hold a young earth view, I will make my response in as brief and yet convincing way that I can, but I am going to change the topic to the gospel as quickly as I can – the heart of what I am called to defend. What I find is, that as soon as I defend the early age of the earth, the subject will then go: “what about the animals”, I answer and the subject then goes “what about all the contradictions in the Bible”, and so on and so on and so on. Games of "what about" and "what if", are the ploys of one who seeks to win a debate, not one who wants to ponder the issues.

Paul described a type of person that would exist in the last days: ” They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. – 2 Tim 3:6-7 NIV

I do not want to enable anyone to remain in that category – merely always learning. I want to attempt to get them to acknowledge the truth. In as much as Jesus instructed the disciples:

“If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.” -

Matt 10:14

I take it He meant that we need to be wise, not wasting time casting our pearls before swine, but instead, moving on to greener pastures, where the sheep know they need a shepherd.

Lest you still miss my point, I was not trying to say that the age of the earth is of no relevance, and certainly your point about Christians needing to have credibility is a valid one. However, most of the people that the normal Christian encounters, are not scientists, are not familiar with the research nor the scientific method. For the average Christian to try to convince the average unbeliever on the topics in early Genesis, is very difficult. After all, if that person is swayed by science, he will most likely automatically ignore the opinion of a Christian, who is not a scientist normally, and favor the opinion of an actual expert. If he is not swayed by science, then you are wasting your time anyway, as he will not listen to either one of you. Remember, even Christians disagree on the topic, so, I would rather move on to the topic all Christians agree on, the person of Jesus Christ, the center of our faith and hope.

To quote you:

“I like volcanoes. i know that the current interpretation of the Geological record is in error. The majority of the Geologic community disagree with me. some might even go so far as to say that i am misguided, or quite simply a religious nutter.you can imagine that someone with views like mine goes down in academic circles like a lead balloon at a party.”

I believe you, and I believe the the unbelieving world get that. If you cannot convince your colleagues, I am not sure how successful you will be with those who are more willing to believe them that you.

Now in the context of academic circles, I believe these topics are critically important. I am just referring to the day to day encounters of believers, who spend time in debates that cannot be won, because in those debates, it is not the truth that matters to some, the only thing that matters to them is to win, or, in some cases to not lose, and therefore remain comfortable in their unbelief.

In as much as there are Christians who believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, who came and died for our sins, that we might be forgiven and have eternal life, who also believe that the Bible is the inerrant and inspired word of God and who also believe in an ancient earth and a lengthy creation process, I have little desire, nor do I see much benefit, to devoting too much time to topics that do little to advance the case of Christ. The topic is not related to salvation, and that is why I give it little significance. That is all I meant by that paragraph that you so eloquently and respectfully rebutted.

Thank you for taking the time to read my ‘article’ and investing the time to correct me.

Omegaman

Omegaman 2.0 Responds:

April 11th, 2009 at 3:12 am

Quoteing Shawn:

“In Judaism the Torah and modern science go hand in hand. Many of the great Jewish sages hundreds of years ago calculated the age of the universe to be 13 billion years old and they did this using the same bible that christians use to say the earth is only 6000 years old. ”

Do you have any sources for this Shawn, that would be interesting to see. I also cannot fathom that anyone could “calculate” 13 billion years using anything in the Bible. If it was Rome that hijaaked the faith and came up with the 6000 year old calculation, why does the Jewish calendar indicate that it as been 5769 years since the creation?

FresnoJoe Says:

May 31st, 2009 at 4:05 am

The Reason I Must Discount The Speculations Of Various White Coats And Such

Is The Record Of Book Of Beginnings And All The References (OT/NT) To My LORD’s Part As Creator

And The Accounting Of The Short Lineage Of The Brothers/Sisters From Jesus All The Way Back To The Sixth Day Of Creation

“And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,”

“Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,”

“Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,”

“Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,”

“Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,”

“Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,”

“Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,”

“Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,”

“Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,”

“Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,”

“Which was th”e son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,”

“Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,”

“Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,”

“Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,”

“Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,”

“Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.” Luke 3:23-38

If One Believes In The Resurrection (After Three Days!) Of The Uncorrupted Physical Body Of Our LORD And Our Savior

And The Redemption Of Vile Hateful Sinner Man By The Holy And Pure Blood Of The Lamb Of God

Then The Creation Of Life, The Universe And Everything Is Just The Finger Play Of God

And Will Be Nothing Compared To The Knowledge Of The Heights Of The Love

And The Amazing Grace God Offers To The Sons Of Adam

To Folks Such As You And I

Love, Joe

andrew o'shea Says

June 19th, 2009 at 7:04 am:

oh the mysteries of God. all will be revealed at the gathering of the saints, children of God who believe in the Son Jesus Christ, Yeshua. people by nature like to argue, that has always been man’s problem and why we have to have wars. It is by faith we believe God, a gift He gave us. I had my experience and have never looked back, i believe God. The only thing that matters to me is that i can relate to people the love God has for them that may recieve remission of sins and eternal life, John 14 v 26 the Holy Spirit will teach us all things and bring to our rememberance all the things we have been taught.’ it really doesn’t matter to me how old the earth is rather how much time is left. a great deception of the enemy is to get us to focus on things any thing that distracts from the salvation message, eternal life. we can ask and be told how old the earth is,i did, God bless you all on your journeys, no i wont ‘measure the earth’ i wouldn’t know where to begin. searching scripture i came to approx. 6000 years, think about God’s time line, 7 is a sabbath,mmmm getting close to Jesus return. come Lord come hallelujah, repent and be save God loves us amen

Linda Says

July 3rd, 2009 at 10:40 pm:

Here’s a way to think about the “How old is the earth” question. When God created Adam he created a man. Not baby. Not a child. Simply put…. who is to say that God did not create the earth as an “adult earth”. Why do we think it had to be created in an infant stage? Lean not to our own understanding.

Omegaman 2.0 Responds:

July 15th, 2009 at 11:16 pm

Hi Linda. I believe you are relating an argument often put forth by those who hold to an old earth theory, in answer to those who hold to the idea of an more recent creation on the basis that the universe and the earth appears old, much older than 6000 ears. The young earthers sometimes respond to the that the earth has an appearance of age, because God created it that way, mature as you put it. There answer to that would be that the earth does not just appear mature, it appears worn out. By analogy with adam, it would be like God created Adam with teeth that were worn down, were stained yellow, had cavities and perhaps few missing as well. By this analogy, Eve would be looking in the mirror at her gray hair and wrinkles on her first day, if she had been created with the appearance of age, instead of mere maturity. Many scientists and those who follow their lead, believe the earth worn, not merely mature.

While my point was that the whole issue should not given more importance than it merits. That being said, I will give the response that the Old Earthers would give.

They would also point out, that if God created the world to look that old, when it was in fact only a few thousand years old, then that would make God a deceiver, as though He was trying to fool people into believing the young earth was ancient, when that is not the case.

Personally, I find that to be one of the most powerful arguments from the Old Earth camp.

Of course, like most things there are difficulties. While an old earther can state that creating an earth to look old, makes God a deceiver if it is in fact young, does not the old earther have the same dilemma, if the earth is actually old, yet God chose to say it is young in His word? I prefer to accept that the earth is young, doing my best to understand scripture, and maintain that God is not a deceiver, but that some scientists are in error in how they interpret data, and in some cases, maybe they are the deceivers. I could go into details of what I think might be solutions to why the young earth appears old, but that is not the purpose of the post. I am not putting forth an apologetic for a young earth, I am making the point that faith in what God has said, trumps evidence from modern science for believers who think like I do.

Sohei Says:

August 21st, 2009 at 3:48 am

Wasn’t Jesus a Jewish rabbi? Then he was taught same as others, which he didn’t dispute. They say Earth is 5769 years old.

I would guess you would have to argue with what Jesus was taught.

Sohei, do you have any source material demonstrating that the belief among Jewish rabbis 2000 years ago, was in a young earth of the age you suggest? I don't think Jesus was a rabbi in the way we usually think of the term, I certainly don't see in scripture any indication of formal teaching, but I do suspect, that He would have understood from the scripture, that the earth was fairly recent, and of course being the Creator, He actually knew for certain at some level.

winsomebulldog Says

March 26th, 2010 at 9:53 am:

I’m not positive about how old this post is, but I just wanted to leave a quick comment none-the-less. I have read through several of your posts and find it comforting to encounter another “scientifically minded” Christian. Sometimes, those two things instigate internal battles, and some might even argue that the very notion is an oxymoron. My husband and I cannot, however, change who and what we are. We are intelligent people who respect and appreciate the sciences. We are also Christians. Our faith does, and in truth must, outweigh our intelligence. Our God gave us both the ability to learn and a hunger for learning. Hubby is an engineer and at one time was in the aeronautical engineering program at Perdu University with an eye toward NASA. He has a grasp of physics and math that I cannot even fathom at times. But even he knows that science is nothing more than an effort by finite, fallible humans to define and quantify the unfathomable. Personally, I am willing to admit that there have been times in my life that I found myself struggling to reconcile what my mind wanted to believe and what my faith demanded that I accept. It is very easy, I think, for a scientifically minded Christian to be seduced by all the scientific “evidence.” It can sound so convincing. And Lord knows that scientists these days are very fond of spouting off their theories as if they are in fact scientific laws. (One look at the pervasive THEORY of evolution is evidence of that.) Hubby and I are fond of scientific programming on television and have watched more than a few that dealt with everything from dinosaurs to the big bang theory. How anyone with a critical mind could not see the evidence of the countless suppositions that are made here is beyond us both. We have both concluded that it would be vastly easier to be Christians without a bent toward scientific, critical thinking. But God did not create us that way and so we must both strive to never let our brains override our faith.

I have rambled on far longer than I intended. But I really wanted to let you know how much I have appreciated your posts. Thank you for speaking your mind without fear. And thank God for forums like this that allow Christians everywhere to connect and share. God Bless You.