How Old is the Earth?

[Guest Strservant]

Please allow me to make something clear and while stating this also say that I am not saying that any of your posts refer to me.

I have not nor would I ever post that SA is going to hell. As for me, I could care less if the Earth is 6,000 years or 6 million years old. My faith is founded in God and His Son Jesus Christ. The point that I am trying to make here is is that we as humans seem to PRIDE ourselves in the fact that we can question the validity of God's word by the evidence we possess currently. If we could have the mind of God for just 3 seconds we would realize that our knowledge of this world and especially the world of creation is minute at best and negligable at worst.

The Bible says that in the last days Knowlegde will increase and those who think they are wise will be made fools. I also know that SA has said that people have been claiming we were in the last days forever in which I would have to agree with him. However, one aspect was missing from all those other times that has in our time taken place. In order for the prophecies concerning the last days before the rapture to be fulfilled Israel had to become a nation again. All those other times could not have possibly been the last days since Israel had not yet been reborn. What I have tried to point out in my preceding posts is that knowledge in and of itself is not a bad thing. Science in and of itself is not a bad thing. We owe many things to science for many great things they have given to us in the medical field as well as other fields. Where we as humans need to be very careful is when we in our finite minds and understanding take science and try to say that God's word must be wrong because it seems to contradict what the laws of thermodynamics or some theory of science says. Must I remind those who do this that God is not subject to these laws. He created them and He can operate outside of them if He chooses to do so. As I said before it matters not to me the exact age of the Earth as it will not effect my faith, however, if you open the door to the fact that the Earth is indeed alot older than what it seems the Bible may imply, it does not take but a small step for someone who is an atheist or trying to disprove all or parts of the Bible to say the whole creation is a fallacy and God Himself is a fallacy. Again, this would not effect me but what about a new born christian whose faith is not nearly as strong. It could create doubts about their very salvation. I cannot agree with those who say that SA has been nothing but polite as I have seen him throw his own bullets also. It could be argued that the people deserved it but he has still thrown some.

In conclusion, this discussion is one of those that cannot possibly lead to anything positive as SA will always deny that he is on here for anything other than education as he dispalys his admitted intelligence in this area. I do not say this with sarcasm. SA is indeed a very knowledgable person, however, I still feel that his motives for being here run deeper. I realize he will say I don't know him and cannot possibly know this but I believe God's spirit leads us in cetain matters. SA posts while not effecting those whose faith is strong will weaken others faith and that is truly a very hurtful thing as it will bring about conflict within their very souls. I'm sorry to have written a book here but I had to share what I felt God was placing on my heart.

Respectfully,

Strservant

[Guest shiloh357]

As I said before it matters not to me the exact age of the Earth as it will not effect my faith, however, if you open the door to the fact that the Earth is indeed alot older than what it seems the Bible may imply, it does not take but a small step for someone who is an atheist or trying to disprove all or parts of the Bible to say the whole creation is a fallacy and God Himself is a fallacy.

The Bible nowhere implies the age of the earth either young or old. Bible takes no position on that issue. Therefore, if one holds to an old earth, it does not serve as an impetus to disproving any or all parts of the Bible. It does not give atheists any steam. Again, there is no essential doctrine of Scripture that would be violated if the Earth were billions of years old.

It is the English lanquage's impoverished ability to express Hebrew thought that leads people to a wooden interpretation of Genesis 1 as being 24-hour days. Holding to an old Earth does not make one antagonistic to Scripture, only antagonistic to tradition.

[Guest Strservant]

Shiloh,

Thank you for your observation. Let me try to better explain what I mean. SA has also stated that the order of creation does not follow the fossil record thus bringing into question the creation account itself. I was trying to point out that it is not but a small step to take to get you from questioning the validity of the creation account to claiming it is nothing but a falsehood. Then from there you take another step to if that is false then how much of the rest of God's word is false and finally to God himself does not exist. SA is an admitted atheist even by his very screen name. This means his belief is that there is no God. Part of faith is believing certain things that cannot be proven. Therefore this thread of discussion produces heat and not light because SA wants proof to rebutt his arguments. I simply pointed out that in our much limited knowledge and ability it is impossible to know that the circumstances that exist now existed when God created the Earth. God does not have to operate within the laws we are limited by. I hope this has cleared up what I was trying to say.

Respectfully,

Strservant

[salt and light]

Cerran,

I rely on my pastor,because he was a scientist,and I believe in my heart that God is using him in my life. I've learned so much about the bible,and scientific things. He is a very intelligent man who really loves the Lord. Evolution is NOT a science, it IS a man made false religion concocted of the devil.

His Son,

Thank you, I will hang in there.

[Bread_of_Life]

SA has also stated that the order of creation does not follow the fossil record thus bringing into question the creation account itself.

Firstly, you're right, I have said that - but this is a seperate argument to the age of the earth.

Secondly, I'm afraid that this isn't my opinion, or an interpretation of the evidence - it just *is* the way the evidence *is*. The fossil record doesn't reflect the order of creation as laid out in Genesis, as I have shown you, and as noone has refuted.

Thirdly, and lastly on this point, this doesn't show that there is no God, or that the bible is false. It only shows (and it only can show) that a *literal* reading and interpretation of the Genesis 1 account is false.

I was trying to point out that it is not but a small step to take to get you from questioning the validity of the creation account to claiming it is nothing but a falsehood.

If taken literally, the creation account in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are false. It didn't literally happen that way I'm afraid. That doesn't mean that the accounts are false, only their literal readings and interpretation.

Then from there you take another step to if that is false then how much of the rest of God's word is false and finally to God himself does not exist.

Sorry, this step is in your head, not mine.

SA is an admitted atheist even by his very screen name. This means his belief is that there is no God.

Correct.

Part of faith is believing certain things that cannot be proven.

Believing that the earth is 6,000 years old isn't just believing in something that cannot be proven, it is believing in something that *can be and has been* disproven!! There is a categorical difference between having faith instead of evidence and having faith in spite of evidence.

Evolution is NOT a science, it IS a man made false religion concocted of the devil.

This is what the Muslim's say about Christianity

Satan's been busy!!!

[nebula]

The point that I am trying to make here is is that we as humans seem to PRIDE ourselves in the fact that we can question the validity of God's word by the evidence we possess currently. If we could have the mind of God for just 3 seconds we would realize that our knowledge of this world and especially the world of creation is minute at best and negligable at worst.

Hey!

I really hope you don't think I am questioning God's word. What I do question is how we have interpreted the passage.

Can you imagine a person from China in 2000 years from now trying to take the expression, "It was raining cats and dogs," literally? Or how about "Drive through window"? How would he understand, "In a New York minute"?

How do you know for 100% sure that the phrases, "There was evening and there was morning, the ** day" meant to the people then what it means to us?

Consider: "The Earth was formless and void" and "the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters" before God said, "Let there be light." How do you explain that?

Likewise, what was marking off days before the sun and moon were created? What made "evening and morning?" And from who's perspective? From where? Evening and morning only exist if you are standing on the planet!

Now, for what it's worth, I can understand your concern about "where is this heading?" Can you understand my concern that we are completely alienating the scientific community from coming to Jesus by telling them their intelluctual pursuits are sinful? (Maybe you haven't specifically said this, but others have given this impression - "Tree of Knowledge" stuff.)

Personally, I don't believe having re-adjusted my view of what Gen 1 is saying has caused me to doubt God or the Bible nor wrecked my faith in Him. I've actually gained a better appreciation for the passage, for I read the passage looking for how it reveals God - not how it reveals the Earth.

[Guest shiloh357]

Personally, I don't believe having re-adjusted my view of what Gen 1 is saying has caused me to doubt God or the Bible nor wrecked my faith in Him. I've actually gained a better appreciation for the passage, for I read the passage looking for how it reveals God - not how it reveals the Earth.

Could'nt have said it better!!

[mobile21]

Mobile21

I can't really comment further, because I'm not a linguist, and I wouldn't know what the original word was if I fell over it. I'm not going to get into a Catholic vs Protestant translation argument either - because again, I have no idea which really is best. All I know is that every single translation I have at hand in the modern age translates the word as "circle" not "sphere" or "globe" - and that such a translation is ancient enough to have led to a religious dogma in earlier times that the earth was flat.

The OT was written in hebrew and the NT in greek. The Bible version known as the Vulgata is the latin translation of both scriptures (you don't need to be "a linguist" to understand that).

Why the NIV and other versions mistranslate "globe" for "circle"??? that I don't know, probably because of the same reason they mistranslated Acts 1:15 and others, who knows, the only thing that matters is that the word "circle" is not in the original version.

P.S. Like I said, there IS NO religious dogma about the Earth being flat whatsoever, never was.

[Guest Strservant]

SA you have said that the creation account not being the same as the fossil record is a separate issue from the age of the Earth, however, if one considers the flood recorded in Scripture it could explain why the two do not match. A flood over the face of the Earth would change rock formations and could quite easily displace land masses to a different place then where they were before the flood.

Secondly, when God created the Earth He would have created it with age out of necessity. This is not a "trick" as some have described it rather something that had to be done to sustain life. Adam and Eve were not created infants as is shown by God talking with them and them being able to feed themselves etc. The Earth would have to have age to sustain the life God had created. An apple tree would be of an age that it had apples on it, not a seedling. Rocks having a lifetime age that would be quite old may have been created with a great deal of age.

Thirdly, as I have stated before it truly does not matter to me if the Earth is 6,000 years old or 6 million years old. The problem is that SA is bringing into question the validity of a passage of God's word. It is more than age he is questioning when he says the creation account does not match the fossil record. I'm sure that Shiloh and Nebula and the others on here are strong in their faith and I praise God for that. My concern is for the new Christian who finds this wonderful site that I found only a few days ago even though I am mature in the faith and reading these posts and it causing doubts in their faith. I also know the Hebrew word used in the Genesis account could have more than just the 24 hour day meaning. Therefore, I do not have to hold to a literal translation.

I respect everyone's opinion but I also state that there are things that cannot possibly be accounted for in determining the true age of the Earth. Being that God created with age and a flood that covered the face of the Earth, I would think it would be next to impossible to use some of the so-called evidence as some of the parameters may be totally off base. I will also state again that I don't feel that SA's total reason for being here is simply education. When people discuss things they do so to influence other people. We do this as Christians when we witness to someone. SA as he has admitted in response to my last post is an atheist who does not believe in God. Therefore if he is trying to influence people to accepting his views then that would include this. I do not hate SA nor am I mad. However, I believe the sheep need to sound an alarm when a wolf comes into the fold.

Respectfully,

Strservant

[Bread_of_Life]

StrServant

A flood over the face of the Earth would change rock formations and could quite easily displace land masses to a different place then where they were before the flood.

A flood may change rock formations, but it would not sort fossils into the same order worldwide. Indeed, it would sort fossils into no fixed order at all. Therefore, a flood cannot explain the existence of order in the fossil record, far less the specifics of what goes where.

Secondly, when God created the Earth He would have created it with age out of necessity.

Agreed, he could have. However, firstly, it is difficult to see why it was necessary to put exactly right isotope populations in rocks to make them seem older than they were. It may have been necessary to create Adam old, and the trees in the garden mature - but what necessity could have prompted God to fiddle with the ratios of Rubidium and Strontium in rocks?

Secondly, God has not just made the earth look old - he has made it look as if it has actually been living and breathing throughout all that time. Let me give you an example of this. The rock strata not only contain old rocks, but rocks of all ages, from very old to very young. These are often order chronologically, as if they were laid down one after another. Within these rocks are fossils (also ordered chronologically) suggesting that animals having been living in these epochs that never happened. There are also surface marks in the fossil record, such as plant imprints, raindrop craters, footprints etc, suggesting that each layer in turn was exposed diverse animal and plant life, and to the elements, for a long time. These would not only suggest that the earth is mature, but that it has actually been living all this time.

You said that God created adam old, you're right, in the Genesis account he did. However, did he create him the a BCG scar from when he was 12? Did you give him bent toes from many childhood breakages? Did he give him a fractured and repairs fibula from the time he fell off his skateboard when he was 8? Did he give him a birth scar and a belly button? Did he bestow upon him a bent nose from when he broke it playing football? Of course not, after all, he created adam old out of necessity - not to trick anyone into making them think Adam was old.

You see, God has done more than create a mature earth. He has created an earth that bears all the hallmarks of having lived and breathed throughout the last 5 billion years. From the meteor craters of ancient impacts, to the fossils and surface features that litter the fossil record, to the chronological order of stratus rocks, to the occasional reversal of the earth's magnetic field recorded within those rocks - God has done an excellent job in tricking us into thinking that the earth really has been around and spinning for millions of years.

My concern is for the new Christian who finds this wonderful site that I found only a few days ago even though I am mature in the faith and reading these posts and it causing doubts in their faith.

Is doubting one's faith not healthy? Where is the Christian who does not doubt, after all, let him speak! It is important that the faithful do not rest on their laurels, especially where evidence is concerned. Your faith in special revelation (scripture) ought to correlate with general revelation (the world). If I point out that it does not - then it can only be a good thing that this troubles you - for the evidence will not go away, and the faith will have to accomodate it.

The fossil record simply does not match the Genesis account. This is a plain fact. There is no denying it, and this demands a theological explanation and accomodation. Again, the earth really is 5 billion years old, all the evidence points that way - and this also demands a theological explanation. I would suggest that Christians new and old should be ready to face this evidence with open minds, rather than suggesting that they dig their heads in the sand and ignore it.

If I left this forum today, never to return, then the fossil record would still not match the order of creation in Genesis, there would just be noone here to point it out. The evidence would still be out there, the challenge would still exist, it would just be ignored by the ignorant. Is this a healthy situation? Is this the sort of blind faith you ought to promote? I hope not.

When people discuss things they do so to influence other people.

Agreed, and this is what education is. I would like to influence the group of people here to look at the evidence more closely, and be aware of science and scientific findings - and also be aware that their theology will need to fit in with the findings of nature.

Therefore if he is trying to influence people to accepting his views then that would include this.

Not necessarily. As it happens, if you all convert to atheism, then so much the better for you - but just because I am an atheist doesn't mean that I spend every waking hour trying to get people to agree with me on this point.

Let me use another example. As well as religious and scientific views, I have political views. I actually have very strong political views, as it happens. However, I havn't shared them on this forum, nor do I particularly plan to. I may be a capitalist or a communist, a liberal or a right-winger - but that doesn't mean I'm always going to be trying to convince you of this point of view in everything I do. i am capable of having a religious argument without refering to politics. I am capable of have a political argument without refering to science. And in this case, I am capable of having a scientific argument without trying to convince you of my religious views (which time and time again I have stated are seperate).

I have also stated for the record (many times over now) that the age of the earth and order of the fossil record are not defining issues of theism. The earth could be 5 billion years old, and the fossil record in whatever order it may choose to be - this doesn't affect the possibility of the existence of God one iota.

I do not hate SA nor am I mad. However, I believe the sheep need to sound an alarm when a wolf comes into the fold.

These two statements sound rather contradictory. People don't usually refer to those they don't hate as "wolves", do they? The wolf among sheep is hardly the most loved and treasured of animals is it?

Of course, this is all fine. I have been insulted and accused many times in my travels and conversations - but it has never hindered or discouraged me from pursuing my goals. I have heard these sorts of comments many times, and they rather flow over me now. If you think that I am a wolf, then by all means keep an eye on me, and make sure I do not eat any of the sheep. But I can assure you now that all I will do is set out real, observable and publically available evidence to the inhabitants of this board. If as a by-product that makes them question their interpretation of the bible, so that it comes into line with this evidence, then so much the better for their faith, and their intellectual and scientific lives.