How Old Is The Earth?

[Tintin]

The earth is indeed billions of years old. In Genesis, it says that the earth was void and without form. In the original Hebrew, that phrase is "Tohu vah bohu", which means "became that way", not created that way. That was the end of the first world age as Peter mentions. The three world ages.........we are in the second. The world that then was, belongs to the dinosaurs and all living creatures of that fossil age. The world being created in six "days" is an invention of the translators. In the greek, it is six eons or periods or ages, not 24hr days. God created the heavens and the earth, but it does not say when the beginning was.
The word of God is true, and every word that proceeds from the mouth of God is true, but not every word in the bible came from the mouth of God, it came from many translators, based upon misconceptions they may have had at the time. Christians need to stop being so lazy as to accept "traditions" and "doctrine" based upon the minds of men and get into the original languages by using a concordance or lexicon, and , if I dare say....common sense.

Sounds like you should take your own advice and actually take not of what the Bible says, not believe nonsense like the gap theory. It tries to accommodate for the uniformitarian geological beliefs in 'billions' of years but it doesn't square with the Bible. At best, it's speculative fiction, at worst, it's a terrible heresy.

 

[jamie26301]

Had to break into two posts.

Jamie, I'm not going to lie. I find you to be a difficult person

What do you mean by "difficult?" Is everyone who disagrees with you "difficult?"

but I most certainly don't hate you or think you're beneath me. You're right in saying that God doesn't need defending but we, as Christians do need to be able to defend our faith in Christ.

When Peter says "be ready to give an answer," I think it is communicating two things. In the words "BE READY" implies that you should be able to give a defense, IF SOMEONE ASKS YOU... not go looking for an atheist to argue with. Also, the "hope" he speaks of is as you have noted, Christ.

If you look at Peter's sermons, because you would have to look at HIS sermons in order to gleam what HE meant in 1 Peter.

He references Joel in Acts 2. He uses it as evidence that the believers who are "drunk" aren't really, but filled with the Spirit.

[SUP]16 [/SUP]But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:

[SUP]17 [/SUP]‘And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God,
That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
Your young men shall see visions,
Your old men shall dream dreams.
[SUP]18 [/SUP]And on My menservants and on My maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days;
And they shall prophesy.
[SUP]19 [/SUP]I will show wonders in heaven above
And signs in the earth beneath:
Blood and fire and vapor of smoke.
[SUP]20 [/SUP]The sun shall be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord.
[SUP]21 [/SUP]And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the Lord
Shall be saved.[SUP]'[/SUP]

[SUP]

Unless you want to say this prophecy covers a passage of time between verses 18 and 19, then where is the record of all this blood, dark sun, and bloody moon? Again, the apostles thought Jesus was coming back very soon. Thus, that would be an error in the text, but Christians don't think of it as an error, they just call it misguided judgement on their part. However, you can't have it both ways. You can't say the WHOLE, every word of the text is inspired and true, and then say "These words aren't, because..." Some Christians try to symbolize the word "soon," - the very same Christians who say "Read it literally, if that's what it says, that's what it says." It's something that I haven't found a satisfactory answer for.

[/SUP]

[SUP]25 [/SUP]For David says concerning Him:

‘I foresaw the Lord always before my face,
For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken.
[SUP]26 [/SUP]Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was glad;
Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope.
[SUP]27 [/SUP]For You will not leave my soul in Hades,
Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
[SUP]28 [/SUP]You have made known to me the ways of life;
You will make me full of joy in Your presence.’

This is one of the problems I have with the NT and NT writers. It is pretty obvious that David was talking about himself when he speaks of the "holy one." Yet Peter pulls it out of context and treats it as prophecy, when it is a psalm, and psalms aren't meant to be prophetic (to my knowledge). The apostles themselves does this, pulling scriptures out of context to support their doctrine.

This was arguably Peter's most famous sermon. He did refer to Scripture in his sermon, but why? TO SUPPORT THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST - not to support side doctrines.

If you're witnessing to someone and they say "But I believe in evolution or old age earth," does that mean you turn to Genesis and start defending it? You are then leaving Jesus out, no? How is it a Christian message without Jesus? And not just any Jesus, but the Resurrected One? And if you're going to "tact it on at the end" - well, your listener might've already got up and walked away before then, because they have figured that Christianity is about doctrine rather than love. Everyone who's familiar with Christianity know it's suppose to be about love - so when you concentrate solely on defending side doctrines unrelated to Jesus or the Gospel (and yes, I know the long-winded, without-a-literal-Genesis-Jesus-would've-had-no-reason-to-die argument - if that argument held water, then no Christian who doesn't believe in a literal Genesis would accept and believe the Resurrection, because the Holy Spirit wouldn't allow them to believe), then you defeat your purpose. Unbelievers couldn't set standards on Christians, and call them hypocrites, if they weren't at some level familiar with the morals taught in Christianity. If you don't clearly communicate the love of Jesus in your witnessing/defending (which all the apostles did), you are not even witnessing. You are being a dogma-pusher. The fact that God is love is the biggest point of the entire NT. If you're intent on defending a literal interpretation (i.e. not Jesus, but doctrine), then you will almost certainly leave that out.

There are too many people out there who have their own idea of God or gods/goddesses.

No, not too many people, but everyone. Everyone has their own ideas, based on their own reading and/or research, whether it be the Bible or some other text. Some may go about gathering their opinions in a more sensible way than others, but I firmly believe there is very little, if no objective speaking of the biblical texts. If that were the case, all Christians (because they all have the Holy Spirit, and would be guided by Him, no?) would be able to universally agree at what the texts say. The fact is that most of the Hebrew and Greek texts has shades of meaning, several shades, in which it's impossible to know what shade was used in the context of the time period, because with our knowledge of the languages, each shade is a valid interpretation. Most Christians agree on the death and Resurrection for the forgiveness of sins - but there ARE some who don't believe Jesus was resurrected, but that the story communicates His living on in the hearts of His believers (Bishop Shelby Spong, for example).

This results in many lies and false truths.

Yes, according to YOUR interpretation, which as I have demonstrated, it is impossible to know the exact one.

That's not what God's about. His Word isn't some ancient text that only secret societies etc. can interpret. The Gospel message is simple, but growing in one's faith - that's where the real work comes. Studying the scriptures is just part of this journey.

I agree with you - I think that everyone can get the message that really matters from Scripture, without even doing any farther research. If you're referring to the Gnostics, however, I believe their acceptance of others is much more open today. The actual sect itself doesn't exist, but there are churches that mirror some of their teachings. I have a friend on Facebook who has Gnostic sentiments, and every time I talk to her, I feel refreshed, and every time I ask her for advice, she always has great wisdom to bestow upon me.

I'm sorry for my contentious post earlier. I have no love for theistic evolution and its sister beliefs, you know that but my response wasn't loving. I apologise.

Thank you. I appreciate it. However, if I were you, I would at least develop a tolerance for the ideas, because we are talking about a great number of your brothers and sisters in Christ, as well as unbelievers. Having no tolerance for it will likely always put you on guard around them, and will likely color them as ignorant or rebellious in your mind, before even getting to know them. Severing the bond you have with them (not that you would do, but they just might) over something like this will be a bad testimony to Christ, and also make you look like an infant in the faith, no matter how many years of study you have put in.

God can use others to reveal His truth to you, but you have to come back to His Word to see what it really says eg. does what person XYZ said line up with what God says in His Word? I do believe it's very important to believe the Bible is error free

Wow, it would almost seem like you're insinuating that my Bible(s) are in a closet gathering dust! I carry one or two of them with me everywhere (most days)! You could find me in my husband's mom's boyfriend's restaurant, studying them. It's like you think I've never seriously read it before!

What person XYZ does in their day to day life (as far as I can see), and how they treat others, makes all the difference in whether I will lend them an ear or not - and most unbelievers feel the same. A preacher's doctrine can be dead on, but if he's not preaching in a loving voice and manner, I turn the radio station/TV channel.

"...line up with God's word" in my opinion, can be a bad mindset to be in. It lined up with God's word that a man could put away his wife - but Jesus said, no, this is not right. I'm not trying to be mean, but the idea that everything must line up with God's word to be valid indicates that you know exactly what it says, and what the authors meant to convey. It insinuates that you have learned EVERYTHING about the Bible, and that the doctrine/advice must line up with the way you think about it. If you made up your mind about what this means or that means, then there's no room to grow in that passage. There's nothing more that passage can teach you. There's no way to correct you if you're wrong.

I think the Bible can be a great way of learning about other things, outside of biblical doctrine. You look a passage, and you think about all the different ways to interpret it - and then you research each way. "Women should keep silent in the church" for example, would prompt you to research the feminist movement.

(I'm not talking spelling and grammar but content and message)

Oh, but spelling DOES matter in terms of content and message! In the Ebionites version of Matthew, they changed ONE letter - and thus transformed John into a vegetarian (locusts became pancakes).

 

[jamie26301]

because if we can't trust all of God's Word, how do we know we can trust any part of it? If it's just the work of fallible Jews and Christians, it's no better than any other text.

If a history book has the date of the American Revolution wrong, how can we trust anything else that is written in it?

Well, sure, if you think that a text has to be error free in order to be God's word. Does that mean that a biography, or a history text is God's word if there are no errors? God must have inspired it, because any text written by humans would contain errors.

What this means is that you have to research. For someone who takes this position, they accept the process of learning new things, and the work that goes with it. They accept the idea that they will be tweaking their beliefs all their lives. I actually like that. It means my journey will never be stale or boring. A lot of people can't handle that, though. They want definitive answers (I was one of them - and thus was depressed beyond belief). They want to figure it out so that they can say "There, I know all I need to know." Some people who believe it's infallible think it's all they'll ever need. Well, ok, that's fine. But any conclusions probably won't be scholarly and educated, be it conservative or liberal.

Yes, I'm familiar with the Lutheran precepts, thank you. How are Missouri-Synod hyper-conservative? Is it because they read the Bible as it's plainly written? If so, the truth doesn't change just because society does.

When a Missouri Synod pastor refuses to let you have Communion with them because you don't have the same sentiments or you're not a member, I'd say that's pretty extreme. That's viewing the Lord's Table as not the Lord's Table, but the Conservative Lutheran's table. (I don't want to get into a debate about open or closes Communion, you asked and I answered. I listened to a radio talk-show host who was a LCMS minister, and he was pretty abrasive).

You say "plainly written." My husband used to try to look for a church. And they would tell him the same thing for his interpretation. He would say "No, that's not what I 'plainly' see when I read it." He won't go to church for the very reason that Christians around here push dogma. He was actually quite surprised when going to my Presbyterian church back in WV, because he'd never met a pastor that was humble and open to discussing other ideas and a congregation that was inviting.

You're right in saying that Genesis as literal history etc. weren't used to share the good news in Bible times. But, let us remember, society has changed dramatically since then.

Thank you.

Yes, so how we use the Bible and communicate the Gospel changes. What we focus on changes. This is an example of how the application of Scripture changes through the centuries. If the application changes, I imagine the perceived message it conveys changes as well.

There was one scholar that proposed that the "law" Paul refers to is the Mosaic Law, not the moral law, or Ten Commandments. That completely changes everything, and calls into question Sola Fide (if I remember correctly). At any rate, that opinion was based on cultural research that was not available to Luther. So... could Luther have been wrong? Why wasn't Sola Fide taught by the Catholic Church, if the scriptures "plainly" teach that? Or the Eastern Orthodox Church? The truth is, the Reformation brought a new way of reading into Christianity, be it something newly discovered or rediscovered. The fact that history can testify to is that interpretation of Scripture changes through time.

These very beliefs are no longer assumed knowledge (Jews and Christians) or not believed (pagans). These beliefs are under attack by most and Science seems to be the saviour of the world. It is vital that these beliefs are addressed because our world is now more based in human reason than revelation.

Isn't that a good thing though? If our world remained based on revelation, then the "truth" would vary and change according to what revelation is used, be it the Koran, the Bible, or anything else. Iran is a country based on revelation, remember.

"seems to be" are the key words. Most Americans believe in a God, no matter how "small" that God is. I don't think most people would say science saves us, but God does. And what difference does it make? How does that change YOUR faith? How does that threaten YOU? How does evolution/old age earth hurt people? What I hear is that the church must have control over what is taught in schools, enforced in law, etc. Why else would the church be so frightened of competing ideas? Because she's losing her influence. And I don't think that's a bad thing. The church doesn't belong in politics, anyway - that's diametrically opposed to the ideals Christians are to strive for.

Science proves to be a huge stumbling block for many because evolution/day-age theories aren't compatible with the Bible. I would argue that the Gospel message needs to communicate these beliefs nowadays because they're under attack.

I think the Christian organization Reasons to Believe would disagree with you. There are Christians saying that they ARE compatible. The idea that they aren't is relative to how the reader feels.

Why would the Gospel need to communicate them? It's ok to discuss these things, but I'm sorry, I don't believe Jesus' power and love is dependent on a certain understanding of the Creation story. If that were the case, there would be no Christians who accept an old earth and the like. If it was tied to the Gospel, and imperative to the Gospel, don'tcha think the Holy Spirit would see to it to impose these beliefs onto the hearts of His believers?

I don't believe Answers in Genesis is a dogma-pushing organisation. I believe they are doing good works.

What good works? I don't know, I'm honestly asking. And people who agree with the ideas of an organization doesn't usually see them as dogma-pushing, because what they agree with is what's being endorsed. Also, I dare you to do a google search on Ken Ham. See what his opponents say about him. There is speculation that his pushing a literal Genesis is politically motivated.

Someone who believes in a literal Genesis is not going to see AiG as dogma-pushing, (most times, not always) for the same reason that the poor Christian doesn't see the greed and manipulation of the prosperity gospel preacher in telling her to send money. People believe what they want to believe, often times. If someone criticizes the individual, it is chalked up to slander and heathen talk. But I know that's not an absolute scenario.

And they don't just tag Jesus on at the end of their talks, articles - everything they discuss leads up to and informs the good news of Jesus.

Exactly. Listen, I used to listen to lectures, and read articles for hours on that site. My claim is not without basis. Maybe they've changed since 2004, but that's what I experienced.

Also, I think Ken Ham has some pride issues at times (don't we all?) but I'm unaware of any times he's lied about what the mainstream scientific community believe. Can you give me an example?

Well, here's a video of what he lied about during the debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdydPm6QPgE

Personally, I know that AiG teaches that evolution happens with random mutations, but actually, evolution happens TROUGH natural selection - it is called evolution by natural selection. However, AiG teach that these two are separate and different. But it is taught that natural selection (which is how evolution happens) is not random. Traits are selected and passed down according to environment.

Also, he doesn't put a sinister spin on it.

"Indoctrinating/brainwashing our children in the religion of naturalism. Will be the collapse of morality." (paraphrase)

I notice also during the debate, that Ham used only one sentence clips when he displayed opponents (likely pulled out of context) yet his clips were like two minutes long.

The fact of the matter is, if something doesn't glorify God and further His kingdom, it slanders Him.

And it doesn't further His Kingdom without emphasis on Jesus. If the emphasis is not on Him, then I don't believe it glorifies Him. I suppose I can understand that an article about creation would center on that, I can respect that. But if you're going to teach about Jesus, why not dedicate articles solely about Him to the site? Maybe they have, but I'm ignorant of it.

No, the reason many informed non-believers don't consider biblical creation, is because they believe it's silly for us to hold to beliefs found in an ancient book.

Well, yes they think it's silly, because they're educated and have seen the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And they just figure putting all religious texts in the same pile - since Christians put all religious texts THAT ARE NOT HERS in the same pile.

They've become so entrenched in evolutionary beliefs, that they don't consider any other option viable.

That's because the Creation Model according to AiG is NOT scientific. It STARTS with the conclusion, and looks for evidence for it. In real science, you propose a hypothesis and test it. There is no guessing in the Creation Model. It's all spelled out in Genesis.

I also think it has to do with accountability. If there really is a God, then they're responsible for their thoughts and actions

and they don't want that.

That's an assumption akin to what you said about me and conviction. You don't know that. Some, maybe. But I don't think Cycel would agree that it applies to him.

Also, there are plenty of people who believe there's a God, and thinks He doesn't see them or that He would excuse them because He understands. Believing there is a God is not akin to accepting responsibility. I've known people that spout belief in God, yet gossip, steal, lie, etc.

You're right in saying that we can't argue some into salvation. What you aren't considering is that what CMI and AiG do, is remove stumbling blocks, so there are less obstacles on the straight and narrow. The Holy Spirit uses these ministries for His purposes. We don't make people believe, but we can help make the journey to belief an easier one.

Well, I can appreciate that. However, did you know that after Ham's debate with Nye that the visitor ratings of their site when WAY down overnight? Even Christians who support that view were critical of him.

WATCH Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate VIDEO in FULL HERE: Who won Creation vs Evolution debate? [POLL] | Christian News on Christian Today

A poll on CHRISTIANITY TODAY - Bill Nye won: 92%! If Ken Ham's "science" was so convincing, don't you think more CHRISTIANS would've voted for him?

I encourage you to watch the debate, if you haven't. Ham clearly went into the debate with a certain mindset that was predetermined not to be changed. And that beats the whole reason for a debate. I know I say that Jesus should be emphasized, but the debate was about scientific evidence for the Creation Model - not how to be saved. There's a time and a place for eveything.

Some say that when Ham said "NOTHING could change my mind" that he lost the debate right then and there.

Finally, Jesus was very learned in the Scriptures.

I never said He wasn't. I simply said He didn't use them to support side doctrines, most times.

He only began His ministry after He was baptised, then experienced the dark night of the soul (or for him - 40 days). Before that He was in the synagogues, amazing the religious leaders of the day. He knew the Word of God, He was/is the Word of God.

Yup.

The Holy Spirit gives us the faith in God to have faith in Him.

Yes, and He works differently for different people, because everyone has different needs. That's why I'm opposed to the whole soul-winning, sinner's prayer approach. The way to accepting Jesus has no one size fits all solution.




Here's a good picture of what we and other liberal Christians feel:

As Martin Luther King Jr. argued, "Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary. Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism."

 

[jamie26301]

Here's an interesting link I found:

NOVA | Archeology of the Hebrew Bible

The author of the article seems to have an objective mindset, not really opposed to the Bible being true, but has a listening ear to skeptics. And as someone who has been digging for over 30 years, he stresses what I have been talking about - the ancients didn't write history as we do today.

The point of the Scriptures is to teach morals and values, not to communicate literal history. You have to keep in mind the mindset we have as modern people - we think if a text doesn't have the details lined up, then it is an unreliable source. We are approaching the Bible and expect the Bible to communicate certain events according to how we think they should be recorded. But the ancients didn't see things that way.

Hope this helps communicate my point - but to grasp it's message, the literalist would have to lend it an honest ear.

 

[jamie26301]

Also, let me just say that I still read conservative sources. I think the Life Application Study Bible is conservative in its notes and things, however, I still place value in what I could learn there. Just so you know I'm not opposed to conservative sources.

 

[wordhasit]

However, if I were you, I would at least develop a tolerance for the ideas, because we are talking about a great number of your brothers and sisters in Christ, as well as unbelievers. Having no tolerance for it will likely always put you on guard around them, and will likely color them as ignorant or rebellious in your mind, before even getting to know them. Severing the bond you have with them (not that you would do, but they just might) over something like this will be a bad testimony to Christ, and also make you look like an infant in the faith, no matter how many years of study you have put in.

If I'm not mistaken, you are really saying that you have no tolerance for those Christians who are so immature as to insist on seeing Genesis and other biblical text as literal. Can't help thinking of Hebrews 5:13 where the author addresses certain Christians as mere infants in the faith, still living on milk. Hard to imagine though that seeing Genesis as mythological would have been advocated by him as being part of the solid food for the mature. There are many reasons for considering Paul as the author of Hebrews and in his other writings he clearly saw for instance the Adam and Eve story as literal.


As reference:


Hebrews 5:11 "We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand. 12In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil."

 

[Tintin]

Jamie, I'll answer the rest of your posts later but first, I want to clear things up. The vast majority of Christians I know are theistic evolutionists. Many are this by default (schooled in it, don't know of other alternative views) or haven't thought much about it. Then there are some who are adamant and very serious about their theistic evolutionist views. Most of my friends are theistic evolutionists. I love them but I'm tolerant of their beliefs in this regard (as long as we use the original understanding of tolerance - respecting someone without having to agree with their beliefs). Now, tolerance means nothing. Tolerance means respecting someone and having to agree with their beliefs, even if you don't. Militant atheists are the worst in this regard but I find quite a few theistic evolutionists almost as bad. So, yes. I agree to disagree with my friends on these topics. Finally, I don't go looking for arguments to make, I discuss things that others bring up (both online and off).

 

[Angela53510]

The earth is indeed billions of years old. In Genesis, it says that the earth was void and without form. In the original Hebrew, that phrase is "Tohu vah bohu", which means "became that way", not created that way. That was the end of the first world age as Peter mentions. The three world ages.........we are in the second. The world that then was, belongs to the dinosaurs and all living creatures of that fossil age. The world being created in six "days" is an invention of the translators. In the greek, it is six eons or periods or ages, not 24hr days. God created the heavens and the earth, but it does not say when the beginning was.
The word of God is true, and every word that proceeds from the mouth of God is true, but not every word in the bible came from the mouth of God, it came from many translators, based upon misconceptions they may have had at the time. Christians need to stop being so lazy as to accept "traditions" and "doctrine" based upon the minds of men and get into the original languages by using a concordance or lexicon, and , if I dare say....common sense.

In the original Hebrew, God, created "bara" the heavens and the earth. This is a unique word in Hebrew, used only when referring to the creative energy manifested by God.

Each of the 6 days were "Yom" which means a 24 hour day, esp, when morning, night, day or a number is used with them. That is just what "Yom" means.

"God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." Gen. 1:5

"And God called the expanse Heaven.And there was evening and there was morning, the second day." Gen. 1:8

"And there was evening and there was morning, the third day." Gen. 1:13

And so on through the other three days of creation. No millions of years, just God creating in a 24 hour period.

I have been a short day creationist since before I was saved. In fact, it was in a secular college, taking biology and geography I realized that evolution and "millions of years" was a faith based religion, which put man's false ideas before a Creator, and I went looking for the Creator and found him in Jesus Christ.

Theologicially speaking, you cannot be a theistic evolutionist, because if there was no literal first Adam, then Jesus could not be the Second Adam.

"Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit." 1 Cor. 15:45

"For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ." Romans 5:17

So many of you have been brainwashed to think that evolution is science, when it is neither repeatable nor observable. Evolutionists have played fast and easy with ancient evidence, which shows micro evolution, NOT macro evolution, or variation within kinds.

Any exposure to geology shows a world in which the present does not reflect the past. Small scale catastrophes like Mt. St. Helens, and the rapid formation of layers of ash, and mud, the creation of canyons through not just the mud, but also through solid rock, to say nothing if the rapid formation of badlands, and other geological features, indicates that a short earth is the best observable confirmation of the age of the earth.

I saw Ken Ham last weekend at a conference with the AiG people, and it was an amazing treat to hear the scripturally correct interpretation of the age of the earth.

Without a 6 day creation, the Fall, and the consequences if sin, you have no theological basis for sin and death entering the world. A short earth best answers the question of the age of the earth using the original Hebrew, a model of catastrophic events like a Genesis flood fits the data on the creation of landforms, and theologically maintains the integrity of the whole
Bible.

Without Adam and Eve, sin and death, Jesus Christ was not needed to correct the wrong which started in the Garden of Eden when Jesus providing redemption for our sin by dying on the cross.

You can believe what you want about the age of the earth, but only a literal 6 day creation and a short earth satisfies the Bible and geology, in one easy step of faith.