How Old Is The Earth According To The Bible?

[Guest shiloh357]

To be accurate, we are all working from assumptions, be you a YEC or OEC or something else.  If there was proof one way or the other we would not be having this discussion.

I am working from the direct statements made by Scripture.  I have demonstrated from the genealogical records the Bible provides that going back to Adam the earth is no less than 6,000 years old.  

 

The "assumption" if you want to call it that, which I am working from is that the assumption that the Bible is true, inerrant and accurate and is the best authority on the issue of the age of the earth.

[LookingForAnswers]

 

To be accurate, we are all working from assumptions, be you a YEC or OEC or something else.  If there was proof one way or the other we would not be having this discussion.

I am working from the direct statements made by Scripture.  I have demonstrated from the genealogical records the Bible provides that going back to Adam the earth is no less than 6,000 years old.  

 

The "assumption" if you want to call it that, which I am working from is that the assumption that the Bible is true, inerrant and accurate and is the best authority on the issue of the age of the earth.

 

 

You are working on the assumption the days of creation were 24 hour days. 

I too am working from is that the assumption that the Bible is true, inerrant and accurate and is the best authority on the issue of the age of the earth, we just have a different assumption on the length of the creation "days".

[LookingForAnswers]

So, Shiloh,

 

you said this...It wasn't a planet covered in water.  Tohu v'bohu defies the notion of a created planet that is covered with a solid body of water.  The waters at the end of verse two do not refer to something akin to an ocean.   It isn't until the third day that the waters were gathered together to create oceans and seas and the dry land appeared.

 

This statement is internally inconsistent.  In one sentence you say the whole earth was not covered by water and in the next you say that dry land didn't appear till day 3.  IF there was no dry land prior to day 3, which you claim and I agree with, then the whole earth was indeed covered with water.  There is no other option

[Guest shiloh357]

So, Shiloh,

 

you said this...It wasn't a planet covered in water.  Tohu v'bohu defies the notion of a created planet that is covered with a solid body of water.  The waters at the end of verse two do not refer to something akin to an ocean.   It isn't until the third day that the waters were gathered together to create oceans and seas and the dry land appeared.

 

This statement is internally inconsistent.  In one sentence you say the whole earth was not covered by water and in the next you say that dry land didn't appear till day 3.  IF there was no dry land prior to day 3, which you claim and I agree with, then the whole earth was indeed covered with water.  There is no other option

You are reading a little more into what I said than what I was trying to say.

 

My point was that everything was in chaos which is what formless means from the word tohu.  The elements for dry land are there, but in chaos.   Notice the three-fold condtion of things listed in Gen. 1:2   tohu (chaotic, orderless)   bohu (empty, void, nothingness)   khoshek (darkness)    In creation, He deals with these things in reverse.

 

The first thing God does is deal with the darkness by creating light.

 

The second thing He does is bring order by creating the firmament, and causing the waters together into one place.  If they were already gathered into a solid oceanic spherical form, that would make no sense.   So the waters which were also in chaos are gathered into one place from their midst God orders and brings forth dry land. 

 

The third thing God does is fill the earth with vegitation birds, animals and people.  

 

So I don't really see the internal inconsistency problem that you seem bent on manufacturing.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

To be accurate, we are all working from assumptions, be you a YEC or OEC or something else.  If there was proof one way or the other we would not be having this discussion.

I am working from the direct statements made by Scripture.  I have demonstrated from the genealogical records the Bible provides that going back to Adam the earth is no less than 6,000 years old.  

 

The "assumption" if you want to call it that, which I am working from is that the assumption that the Bible is true, inerrant and accurate and is the best authority on the issue of the age of the earth.

 

 

You are working on the assumption the days of creation were 24 hour days. 

I too am working from is that the assumption that the Bible is true, inerrant and accurate and is the best authority on the issue of the age of the earth, we just have a different assumption on the length of the creation "days".

 

No, you have an assumption on the lengths of days.   I am going by what the Bible actually says.  I don't have to  draw an assumption on the length days.  The Bible already tells me the length of them. 

 

You are working from the assumption of an old earth and are having to modify the text of Scripture to fit that assumption.

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

 

To be accurate, we are all working from assumptions, be you a YEC or OEC or something else.  If there was proof one way or the other we would not be having this discussion.

I am working from the direct statements made by Scripture.  I have demonstrated from the genealogical records the Bible provides that going back to Adam the earth is no less than 6,000 years old.  

 

The "assumption" if you want to call it that, which I am working from is that the assumption that the Bible is true, inerrant and accurate and is the best authority on the issue of the age of the earth.

 

 

You are working on the assumption the days of creation were 24 hour days. 

I too am working from is that the assumption that the Bible is true, inerrant and accurate and is the best authority on the issue of the age of the earth, we just have a different assumption on the length of the creation "days".

 

No, you have an assumption on the lengths of days.   I am going by what the Bible actually says.  I don't have to  draw an assumption on the length days.  The Bible already tells me the length of them. 

 

You are working from the assumption of an old earth and are having to modify the text of Scripture to fit that assumption.

 

 

Ok, I will make a deal with you.  Give me the passage that states unequivocally that the days of Genesis one are 24 hour days and I will agree you are not working from an assumption.  Should be easy enough for you since you claim the bible does this.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 

To be accurate, we are all working from assumptions, be you a YEC or OEC or something else.  If there was proof one way or the other we would not be having this discussion.

I am working from the direct statements made by Scripture.  I have demonstrated from the genealogical records the Bible provides that going back to Adam the earth is no less than 6,000 years old.  

 

The "assumption" if you want to call it that, which I am working from is that the assumption that the Bible is true, inerrant and accurate and is the best authority on the issue of the age of the earth.

 

 

You are working on the assumption the days of creation were 24 hour days. 

I too am working from is that the assumption that the Bible is true, inerrant and accurate and is the best authority on the issue of the age of the earth, we just have a different assumption on the length of the creation "days".

 

No, you have an assumption on the lengths of days.   I am going by what the Bible actually says.  I don't have to  draw an assumption on the length days.  The Bible already tells me the length of them. 

 

You are working from the assumption of an old earth and are having to modify the text of Scripture to fit that assumption.

 

 

Ok, I will make a deal with you.  Give me the passage that states unequivocally that the days of Genesis one are 24 hour days and I will agree you are not working from an assumption.  Should be easy enough for you since you claim the bible does this.

 

As has been pointed out already, the Bible never uses yom except as literal 24 hours days in historical narratives.  Futhermore the ordinal numbers used in the chapter modify the noun, which means that both the number and noun agree in gender and number.  All of that speaks to the use of yom in the ordinary sense of a literal 24 hour day.

 

Furthermore, Exodus 20:11 refers to the days of creation in the same ordinary sense.   

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

 

 

 

To be accurate, we are all working from assumptions, be you a YEC or OEC or something else.  If there was proof one way or the other we would not be having this discussion.

I am working from the direct statements made by Scripture.  I have demonstrated from the genealogical records the Bible provides that going back to Adam the earth is no less than 6,000 years old.  

 

The "assumption" if you want to call it that, which I am working from is that the assumption that the Bible is true, inerrant and accurate and is the best authority on the issue of the age of the earth.

 

 

You are working on the assumption the days of creation were 24 hour days. 

I too am working from is that the assumption that the Bible is true, inerrant and accurate and is the best authority on the issue of the age of the earth, we just have a different assumption on the length of the creation "days".

 

No, you have an assumption on the lengths of days.   I am going by what the Bible actually says.  I don't have to  draw an assumption on the length days.  The Bible already tells me the length of them. 

 

You are working from the assumption of an old earth and are having to modify the text of Scripture to fit that assumption.

 

 

Ok, I will make a deal with you.  Give me the passage that states unequivocally that the days of Genesis one are 24 hour days and I will agree you are not working from an assumption.  Should be easy enough for you since you claim the bible does this.

 

As has been pointed out already, the Bible never uses yom except as literal 24 hours days in historical narratives.  Futhermore the ordinal numbers used in the chapter modify the noun, which means that both the number and noun agree in gender and number.  All of that speaks to the use of yom in the ordinary sense of a literal 24 hour day.

 

Furthermore, Exodus 20:11 refers to the days of creation in the same ordinary sense.   

 

 

thanks, I am glad we got that cleared up, we are both going from assumptions.  By the way, is Genesis 2 a historical narrative?  I assume (there is that word again) that Genesis 2 is a historical narrative and Genesis 2:4 uses the word yom in a manner that does not mean a 24 hour day.  But I also assume (that word again) that you will find an excuse for why Genesis 2:4 does this.

 

Here is the verse in English for you...These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,  

Edited January 10, 2014 by LookingForAnswers

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

thanks, I am glad we got that cleared up, we are both going from assumptions. 

No, we are not.  YOU are operating from assumptions and trying modify the Bible to accomodate those assumptions.

By the way, is Genesis 2 a historical narrative?  I assume (there is that word again) that Genesis 2 is a historical narrative and Genesis 2:4 uses the word yom in a manner that does not mean a 24 hour day.

 

Ah, I stand corrected.   When I made that point, I was actually thinking of using the word in terms of it meaning millions of years.  I think you know that.   But I would point out that the usage of yom used that way really doesn't  give any credence to the view that "yom" is used to refer to long epochs of time.   The usage of yom in Gen. 2:4 doesn't hurt my overall argument that usage of yom in Genesis 1 cannot be modified to fit millions of years into the creation account.

[ARGOSY]

 

1)Im not working on assumptions here, the earth could be a lot older than 6000 years ago, the bible doesn't give any clues as to how long the earth was dark before the first light. I'm not claiming millions of years, but if you are claiming 6000 years it is you who would be making unbiblical assumptions.

 

Actually, if you followed my other posts in other threads, I have consistently argued that the earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old.  But my point is that your assertions are based on assumptions and so far, you really don't know anything.  You don't accept YEC, but you have provided NOTHING in this thread that actually refutes the YEC position.   

 

The OEC position essentially agrees with the assumption that the earth is 4.5 billion years old as scientists claim, yet have not proven.   Nothing you have presented up to this point proves that the YEC postion is wrong.

) It was a planet covered in waters:

No, tohu v'bohu defies the notion that verse two is talking about a solid planet covered in ocean-like water.   There is no form and the elements are in complete chaos. There is no order nothing uniform.  It is a chaotic and formless waste.     A planet covered with water indicates form and order and that simply doesn't jive with the Hebrew concepts of formless and empty.  The English is far less precise than Hebrew.

 

Read that? It says the earth. Obviously then the earth was without form and void, a deep empty chaotic waste. 

 

The condition of the defies the implication you seem to be making that the earth was simply land lurking beneath an ocean like body of water.  Water was present, but not in oceanic form in verse 2.

 

The Hebrew in verse two appears to present us with a chaotic orderless mass of elements and not a cohesive structure like a planet.

 

You seem to be repeating yourself, but I don't find your logic appealing at all, a chaotic formless watery world before creation week is a definite possibility and you say the Hebrew precludes that possibility when the actual wording of Genesis 2 actually does refer to the earth. Whether the water was in oceanic form or not is irrelevant to my main point that the earth existed in darkness before the light appeared. The plain reading of the text is pretty clear. Oh well, let's just agree to disagree on this, no use continuously repeating ourselves.