How Old Is The Earth According To The Bible?

[Guest]

I think it is clear that the first day of creation was Sunday October 23, 4004 BC (Ussher). Which makes the universe 6017 years and ~2.5 months old give or take a few days. 

 

Wouldn't it have to be Sat Oct 22, since that would bring the seventh back to a Jewish Sabbath?  Or is my math off?

 

~

 

Math

 

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3:23

 

Checks

 

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Romans 5:8-12

 

Out

 

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23

[a-seeker]

 

When you assign motives you are making things personal, that is what you are doing when you assume (that word again) that I decided the earth was old before reading the bible and then tried to make it fit

 

I didn't assign a motive.   I didn't accuse you of deception, or malicious intent.  That would be assigning motive.   I am simply pointing to the fact that entire old argument is derived from trying to modify the Bible to accomodate the claim that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

 

Taken in a vacuum without taking into account the rest of the bible I would agree that Genesis 1 seems to be talking about 24 hour days.  But that is not the way the bible should be interpreted, it should be viewed as a whole, not individual parts that are not interconnected.   There is more than one mention of the events of creation in the bible and taken as a whole they point to an old earth. 

 

Now, we are getting somewhere...   That is an interesting claim.  Can you provide me with the additional texts of Scripture that indicate that the earth is old?  

 

Also, an assumption does not need to be based on nothing; you are twisting the meaning of the word.  An assumption is a decision made lacking proof, not lacking reason. 

 

Fair enough.  But that still precludes my argument being made from assumption.  

 

 

None of those suggest no data or evidence, just proof, which is what you do when you assign the 24 hour period to Genesis 1.

 

But I am not assigning a meaning to the Genesis 1.   I am using exegesis which draws out the author's intent.   To assign something to a text, I would have to read it into the text.    You are assigning millions of years to Genesis 1 when there is no justification in the text for it.   I don't have that kind of handicap in my line of argumentation.

 

I have made this point elsewhere and so some may be tired of hearing it.

 

The ancient Semitic mind would not have been concerned with the question of how old the earth was.  That is a scientific question, made by a type of thinking that would not appear until Greek speculation.  The Semitic mind would have been concerned the Purpose of creation, it's function.  "Why is it?"

 

I do agree that Day would've meant what it means for us.  But I do not believe the original readers (or hearers rather) of this account would have thought the primary purpose of Genesis was to give us a precise chronological account of creation.

 

When we dig deep into the culture of that time we find some interesting (fascinating even) parallels between the creation story in Genesis and temple ritual among the pagans of the land.  Temples were were inaugurated by the 7 day festival, at the end of which the "gods" idol was brought into the temple.  It was then thought to be resting, or taking up sovereignty of the immediate land.

 

The Genesis text, borrowing from this cultural phenomena, is making a counter-claim.  God is claiming that the whole earth is in fact His temple, made for him to dwell in.  When he "rests" on the 7th, He is not doing so because of exhaustion, but rather because he has completed his temple and is now taking up sovereignty.

 

It is no coincidence that the term "image" used of Man and woman is elsewhere used in connection with idols.  God has conferred upon Adam and Eve the role of being his representatives on earth.  Again, the language of "guard" and "keep" normally rendered in agricultural terms, is used elsewhere of the role of the Leviticus priests in the temple.

 

Compare Solomon's temple, which took 7 years to build, and then took 7 days to commemorate, at the end of which the ark was brought in and the Lord descended in smoke.

 

The debate of how old the earth would have either baffled the author of Genesis, or bored him.  He would have thought that we had missed the entire point of the narrative.

 

Of course, if no one allows cultural data to inform our reading of Scripture (i.e. the principle that we sometimes must go outside of the Bible to come back to it with new light), then this will be of little avail.

[OneLight]

When you assign motives you are making things personal, that is what you are doing when you assume (that word again) that I decided the earth was old before reading the bible and then tried to make it fit

I didn't assign a motive.   I didn't accuse you of deception, or malicious intent.  That would be assigning motive.   I am simply pointing to the fact that entire old argument is derived from trying to modify the Bible to accomodate the claim that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

 

Taken in a vacuum without taking into account the rest of the bible I would agree that Genesis 1 seems to be talking about 24 hour days.  But that is not the way the bible should be interpreted, it should be viewed as a whole, not individual parts that are not interconnected.   There is more than one mention of the events of creation in the bible and taken as a whole they point to an old earth.

Now, we are getting somewhere...   That is an interesting claim.  Can you provide me with the additional texts of Scripture that indicate that the earth is old?  

 

Also, an assumption does not need to be based on nothing; you are twisting the meaning of the word.  An assumption is a decision made lacking proof, not lacking reason. 

Fair enough.  But that still precludes my argument being made from assumption.  

 

 

None of those suggest no data or evidence, just proof, which is what you do when you assign the 24 hour period to Genesis 1.

But I am not assigning a meaning to the Genesis 1.   I am using exegesis which draws out the author's intent.   To assign something to a text, I would have to read it into the text.    You are assigning millions of years to Genesis 1 when there is no justification in the text for it.   I don't have that kind of handicap in my line of argumentation.

I have made this point elsewhere and so some may be tired of hearing it.

 

The ancient Semitic mind would not have been concerned with the question of how old the earth was.  That is a scientific question, made by a type of thinking that would not appear until Greek speculation.  The Semitic mind would have been concerned the Purpose of creation, it's function.  "Why is it?"

 

I do agree that Day would've meant what it means for us.  But I do not believe the original readers (or hearers rather) of this account would have thought the primary purpose of Genesis was to give us a precise chronological account of creation.

 

When we dig deep into the culture of that time we find some interesting (fascinating even) parallels between the creation story in Genesis and temple ritual among the pagans of the land.  Temples were were inaugurated by the 7 day festival, at the end of which the "gods" idol was brought into the temple.  It was then thought to be resting, or taking up sovereignty of the immediate land.

 

The Genesis text, borrowing from this cultural phenomena, is making a counter-claim.  God is claiming that the whole earth is in fact His temple, made for him to dwell in.  When he "rests" on the 7th, He is not doing so because of exhaustion, but rather because he has completed his temple and is now taking up sovereignty.

 

It is no coincidence that the term "image" used of Man and woman is elsewhere used in connection with idols.  God has conferred upon Adam and Eve the role of being his representatives on earth.  Again, the language of "guard" and "keep" normally rendered in agricultural terms, is used elsewhere of the role of the Leviticus priests in the temple.

 

Compare Solomon's temple, which took 7 years to build, and then took 7 days to commemorate, at the end of which the ark was brought in and the Lord descended in smoke.

 

The debate of how old the earth would have either baffled the author of Genesis, or bored him.  He would have thought that we had missed the entire point of the narrative.

 

Of course, if no one allows cultural data to inform our reading of Scripture (i.e. the principle that we sometimes must go outside of the Bible to come back to it with new light), then this will be of little avail.

Interesting how you keep implying that God had to "borrowing from this cultural phenomena", or from the pagans, to write Genesis through Moses. God does not have to borrow anything to state how He created all that is created.

[a-seeker]

 

 

 

When you assign motives you are making things personal, that is what you are doing when you assume (that word again) that I decided the earth was old before reading the bible and then tried to make it fit

I didn't assign a motive.   I didn't accuse you of deception, or malicious intent.  That would be assigning motive.   I am simply pointing to the fact that entire old argument is derived from trying to modify the Bible to accomodate the claim that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

 

Taken in a vacuum without taking into account the rest of the bible I would agree that Genesis 1 seems to be talking about 24 hour days.  But that is not the way the bible should be interpreted, it should be viewed as a whole, not individual parts that are not interconnected.   There is more than one mention of the events of creation in the bible and taken as a whole they point to an old earth.

Now, we are getting somewhere...   That is an interesting claim.  Can you provide me with the additional texts of Scripture that indicate that the earth is old?  

 

Also, an assumption does not need to be based on nothing; you are twisting the meaning of the word.  An assumption is a decision made lacking proof, not lacking reason. 

Fair enough.  But that still precludes my argument being made from assumption.  

 

 

None of those suggest no data or evidence, just proof, which is what you do when you assign the 24 hour period to Genesis 1.

But I am not assigning a meaning to the Genesis 1.   I am using exegesis which draws out the author's intent.   To assign something to a text, I would have to read it into the text.    You are assigning millions of years to Genesis 1 when there is no justification in the text for it.   I don't have that kind of handicap in my line of argumentation.

 

I have made this point elsewhere and so some may be tired of hearing it.

 

The ancient Semitic mind would not have been concerned with the question of how old the earth was.  That is a scientific question, made by a type of thinking that would not appear until Greek speculation.  The Semitic mind would have been concerned the Purpose of creation, it's function.  "Why is it?"

 

I do agree that Day would've meant what it means for us.  But I do not believe the original readers (or hearers rather) of this account would have thought the primary purpose of Genesis was to give us a precise chronological account of creation.

 

When we dig deep into the culture of that time we find some interesting (fascinating even) parallels between the creation story in Genesis and temple ritual among the pagans of the land.  Temples were were inaugurated by the 7 day festival, at the end of which the "gods" idol was brought into the temple.  It was then thought to be resting, or taking up sovereignty of the immediate land.

 

The Genesis text, borrowing from this cultural phenomena, is making a counter-claim.  God is claiming that the whole earth is in fact His temple, made for him to dwell in.  When he "rests" on the 7th, He is not doing so because of exhaustion, but rather because he has completed his temple and is now taking up sovereignty.

 

It is no coincidence that the term "image" used of Man and woman is elsewhere used in connection with idols.  God has conferred upon Adam and Eve the role of being his representatives on earth.  Again, the language of "guard" and "keep" normally rendered in agricultural terms, is used elsewhere of the role of the Leviticus priests in the temple.

 

Compare Solomon's temple, which took 7 years to build, and then took 7 days to commemorate, at the end of which the ark was brought in and the Lord descended in smoke.

 

The debate of how old the earth would have either baffled the author of Genesis, or bored him.  He would have thought that we had missed the entire point of the narrative.

 

Of course, if no one allows cultural data to inform our reading of Scripture (i.e. the principle that we sometimes must go outside of the Bible to come back to it with new light), then this will be of little avail.

 

Interesting how you keep implying that God had to "borrowing from this cultural phenomena", or from the pagans, to write Genesis through Moses. God does not have to borrow anything to state how He created all that is created.

 

"Had to?"

 

I never said He had to; I simply said (based on the interpretation) that "He did", and He did it precisely in the interest of His people, spoke in terms and symbols that they would understand.  I suppose Jesus didnt have to speak Aramaic.  He could have spoken modern English, which hadn't yet existed....but then, no one would understand him.

 

When missionaries go into a foreign field they often look for parallels in the cultural from which they can go off on to make Christianity clearer.  Of course the parallels are never perfect, and so the missionaries say "Christianity is like this in this way, but not like it in that way."

 

In dictating the story to Moses, God did something similar.  

 

I wonder, is your discomfort with my interpretation (not mine, of course, but that of numerous scholars, many of whom are conservative Christians) because it is too "back then"?  That it fails to speak to your situation "now"?

 

clb

[Guest shiloh357]

 

"Had to?"

 

I never said He had to; I simply said (based on the interpretation) that "He did", and He did it precisely in the interest of His people, spoke in terms and symbols that they would understand.  I suppose Jesus didnt have to speak Aramaic.  He could have spoken modern English, which hadn't yet existed....but then, no one would understand him.

 

When missionaries go into a foreign field they often look for parallels in the cultural from which they can go off on to make Christianity clearer.  Of course the parallels are never perfect, and so the missionaries say "Christianity is like this in this way, but not like it in that way."

 

In dictating the story to Moses, God did something similar.  

 

I wonder, is your discomfort with my interpretation (not mine, of course, but that of numerous scholars, many of whom are conservative Christians) because it is too "back then"?  That it fails to speak to your situation "now"?

 

clb

 

But Genesis is written in plain language even in Hebrew.   There was nothing symbolic about the words the author uses.  There is nothing "cultural" about Genesis 1.

[OakWood]

So the Earth was without form for how long? Before the first day, it could have been without form for billions of years (or not).

[missmuffet]

 

The Bible says the earth is about 6,000 years old give or take a few years.

 

Would you be so kind as to post the passage in the bible that says that?

 

The genealogies listed in Genesis chapters 5 and 11 provide the age at which Adam and his descendants each fathered the next generation a successive ancestral line from Adam to Abraham.By determining where Abraham fits into history chronologically and adding up the ages provided in Genesis 5 and 11,it becomes clear that the Bible teaches the earth to be about 6,000 years old,give or take a few hundred years.

[a-seeker]

 

 

"Had to?"

 

I never said He had to; I simply said (based on the interpretation) that "He did", and He did it precisely in the interest of His people, spoke in terms and symbols that they would understand.  I suppose Jesus didnt have to speak Aramaic.  He could have spoken modern English, which hadn't yet existed....but then, no one would understand him.

 

When missionaries go into a foreign field they often look for parallels in the cultural from which they can go off on to make Christianity clearer.  Of course the parallels are never perfect, and so the missionaries say "Christianity is like this in this way, but not like it in that way."

 

In dictating the story to Moses, God did something similar.  

 

I wonder, is your discomfort with my interpretation (not mine, of course, but that of numerous scholars, many of whom are conservative Christians) because it is too "back then"?  That it fails to speak to your situation "now"?

 

clb

 

But Genesis is written in plain language even in Hebrew.   There was nothing symbolic about the words the author uses.  There is nothing "cultural" about Genesis 1.

 

You mean there is nothing "symbolic" or cultural to YOU, because all the words carry a quite literal meaning for you.  And I agree.  But what seems to be simply literal to a person from one time and place may carry quite a different meaning for someone else (i.e. the "okay" sign of America is not "okay" but quite offensive in other cultures).

 

Here is a parallel.  You ahve read or at least heard of Pilgrim's Progress?  Give that book to someone who knows nothing about Bunyan or even Christianity and he will think it nothing more than a clever fairy-tale about some guy named Christian.  Try to explain to him that it has a much deeper significance; that all the trials and tribulations which Christian undergoes points to a spiritual crisis which all Christians undergo--well, tell him that and he might retort as you did, "Look, every single word in this book has a completely obvious and literal meaning where I come from, and it makes perfectly good sense to me as it is: don't foist on it this deeper spiritual reality!!."  

 

And of course he would be right in a sense: there is nothing symbolic to HIM.  All the Christian overtones are completely lost on him.  The only way he could ever hear them is if did his research--looked at the culture of Bunyan and the Christian religion of his day.  And, I suppose (regretfully) so long as the story makes sense to him at that initial level, he never will have any motivation to do his research.  But then he will have completely missed the author's intent.

 

Again, to a non-believer the Narnia books by Lewis will be nothing more than children's stories about a Lion and some kids; they will not get out of it 1/2 of what Christians do and never will until they look at Lewis' culture;

 

or Animal Farm by George Orwell: a cute story about animals to one, a severe critique of Russia before and during the Stalin era. Only research will reveal the latter.

 

Reading Genesis I understand that it seems like everything has its very clear meaning: but, as the parallels above illustrate, what is clear to one person may not be clear to another.  When we read it simply as a chronological account of creation (seeing nothing in the word "Day" then a 24 hour period) we are not getting 1/2 of its significance and even missing the author's point.

 

Just curious, do you believe there are any hard passages in the Bible that require commentaries?  In other words, do you poo-poo Biblical scholarship as a vain enterprise?  If so, then all of my arguments are going to fall on deaf ears, so we need not discuss further and just agree to disagree.

[Guest shiloh357]

You mean there is nothing "symbolic" or cultural to YOU, because all the words carry a quite literal meaning for you.

 

No, I mean there is nothihg cultural about it, period.   I am familiar with ancient Hebraic culture and the text possesses no cultural idiomatic lanuage, metaphors, similies, or symbols.

 

It cannot be compared to Pilgrim's Progress or any other allegorical literature.  It defies sucha comparison.

[a-seeker]

 

You mean there is nothing "symbolic" or cultural to YOU, because all the words carry a quite literal meaning for you.

 

No, I mean there is nothihg cultural about it, period.   I am familiar with ancient Hebraic culture and the text possesses no cultural idiomatic lanuage, metaphors, similies, or symbols.

 

It cannot be compared to Pilgrim's Progress or any other allegorical literature.  It defies sucha comparison.

 

In other words:

 

1) So there is no point to the fact that God took 6 days to create and rested on the 7th?  He could've have done it in 1, or 3, or 3,000,000.  But he chose to do it in 6. That is all to be taken from the 6...pure fact, without significance.

 

2) the parallels found by scholars and archaeologists concerning the construction of pagan temples and their ceremonial dedications (prominent during the time at which Genesis is thought to have been written) are completely accidental, having no correlation?

 

3) and finally, in other words, we will have to agree to disagree.

 

I am curious though, does the interpretation I have advocated offend you?  Or do you merely disagree with it?  i.e. do you think it merely wrong, or do you think it blasphemous?  The short dogmatic nature of your replies suggests the latter.

 

Also, in order for my interpretation to hold water, what would the author need to have done?

Edited January 12, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown