How Old Is The Earth?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
Give it up Bowman. You and I have been down this road before. There is no way you can prostitute the language of this text to make it say what you want it to say.

I take the Bible literally as indicated by the context of the text.

My position is fully verifiable by lexicography and exegesis.
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
I take the Bible literally as indicated by the context of the text.

My position is fully verifiable by lexicography and exegesis.
It's secular garbage being imported into scripture. Let God speak for himself. :) You'll be amazed at how foolish man's ideas are.
 
Aug 25, 2013
2,260
10
0
The idea of a universe a mere 6000 years old, and that of a flood that covered the highest mountains on the entire planet is the Achilles heel of the creation movement. It's the best friend of atheistic/anti-Christian university professors and others, out to disprove the Bible. Millions of young people, told, and believing that scripture teaches this, are rejecting the Bible entirely.
Exactly. I have thought for years that had I not been taught a literal understanding of Genesis and tied its accuracy to my belief in God I might not be an atheist today. I became an atheist, I believe, largely because of Genesis, and the first doubts began when I was about ten years old. The demise of my faith didn't have to wait till I encountered liberally minded professors at university. By age sixteen I had become a dyed-in-the-wool atheist.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
I take the Bible literally as indicated by the context of the text.

My position is fully verifiable by lexicography and exegesis.
Exegete this for me "And the evening and the morning were the first day."
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
It's secular garbage being imported into scripture. Let God speak for himself. :) You'll be amazed at how foolish man's ideas are.

God gave humanity two Revelations...Special and General....and these two must agree...

Simply put, the YEC interpretation of both of these two, are on the road to extinction...
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
Exegete this for me "And the evening and the morning were the first day."



הוַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָאוֹר יוֹם, וְלַחֹשֶׁךְקָרָא לָיְלָה; וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם אֶחָד. {פ}
1.5 Vayikra Elohim la-or yom velachoshevh kara lailah vayehi-erev vayehi-boker yom echad.
And called God the light Day. And the darkness He called night; and was the mixing and was the breaking forth time one.


It is very clear from the text that the sun had already been created and the earth was rotating on its axis, since there was light (day) and darkness (night).


The sun was created BEFORE the first “day”.

The root meaning of Erev, the Hebrew word for “Evening”, is:

Mixture
Disorder
Chaos


The root meaning of Boker, the Hebrew word for “Morning”, is:

Breaking Forth
Orderly
Able to be discerned


The flow of order out of chaos is described sequentially, six times over, in the Genesis creation account.

The Bible tells of the flow to ever more complex arrangements of existing matter by the seemingly simple statement of “and there was evening and there was morning”. In a deeper sense, “and there was disorder and there was order” or “and was the mixing and was the breaking forth”.

There was nothing to which one could relate this “day”. It stands alone as “time one”.
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
God gave humanity two Revelations...Special and General....and these two must agree...

Simply put, the YEC interpretation of both of these two, are on the road to extinction...
The evolutionary worldview of the General Revelation is fault and based on anti-God assumptions, and is part of their attempts to deny reality.

I beg of you, don't join them in their foolishness. Though they knew God...
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
The evolutionary worldview of the General Revelation is fault and based on anti-God assumptions, and is part of their attempts to deny reality.

I beg of you, don't join them in their foolishness. Though they knew God...

I'm OEC and I don't believe in evolution.

You can't blindly lump what you don't understand into the same bucket...
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
I'm OEC and I don't believe in evolution.

You can't blindly lump what you don't understand into the same bucket...
You do the same as they do. You're ashamed, and don't want to be condemned as stupid by the worldly wise as Bunyan put it. Talking snakes, talking donkeys, and dead men rising... it's all the same.
 
Aug 25, 2013
2,260
10
0
Where are the words '24 hr' in the Hebrew?
Pardon my ignorance on this subject, but in the absence of mechanical timepieces is it premature to suggest the Hebrew's had a concept of a 24 hour day? Did they even have hours as we understand them? Did they divide hours into 60 minute segments and days into 24 hour periods? I am thinking they probably did not. However, that would not affect the length of their days which would still be as long as ours even though they may have measured the passage of time somewhat differently. A day, which is one rotation of the Earth, is still a day no matter how you measure it.
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
You do the same as they do. You're ashamed, and don't want to be condemned as stupid by the worldly wise as Bunyan put it. Talking snakes, talking donkeys, and dead men rising... it's all the same.

There's no need to resort to name calling, brother.
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
There's no need to resort to name calling, brother.
There is no name calling. Grasping at straws.

The world condemns those who believe the supernatural occurances of scripture such as talking donkeys and dead men rising as stupid and supersticious. You give every indication that you're afraid to have bad opinions from the worldly wise. Don't be afraid of them. :)
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama

הוַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָאוֹר יוֹם, וְלַחֹשֶׁךְקָרָא לָיְלָה; וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם אֶחָד. {פ}
1.5 Vayikra Elohim la-or yom velachoshevh kara lailah vayehi-erev vayehi-boker yom echad.
And called God the light Day. And the darkness He called night; and was the mixing and was the breaking forth time one.


It is very clear from the text that the sun had already been created and the earth was rotating on its axis, since there was light (day) and darkness (night).


The sun was created BEFORE the first “day”.
You know good and well that is not what the text says. All of the celestial bodies with the exception of the earth were created on the fourth day. "God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day."

The root meaning of Erev, the Hebrew word for “Evening”, is:

Mixture
Disorder
Chaos


The root meaning of Boker, the Hebrew word for “Morning”, is:

Breaking Forth
Orderly
Able to be discerned


The flow of order out of chaos is described sequentially, six times over, in the Genesis creation account.

The Bible tells of the flow to ever more complex arrangements of existing matter by the seemingly simple statement of “and there was evening and there was morning”. In a deeper sense, “and there was disorder and there was order” or “and was the mixing and was the breaking forth”.

There was nothing to which one could relate this “day”. It stands alone as “time one”.
So you would rewrite the Genesis account of creation to fit your definition of terms. If these definition of terms are correct why do even the Hebrew scholars of the Orthodox Jewish Bible translate this as "And Elohim called the light Yom (Day), and the darkness He called Lailah (Night). And the erev (evening) and the boker (morning) were Yom Echad (Day One, the First Day)."
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
Pardon my ignorance on this subject, but in the absence of mechanical timepieces is it premature to suggest the Hebrew's had a concept of a 24 hour day? Did they even have hours as we understand them? Did they divide hours into 60 minute segments and days into 24 hour periods? I am thinking they probably did not. However, that would not affect the length of their days which would still be as long as ours even though they may have measured the passage of time somewhat differently. A day, which is one rotation of the Earth, is still a day no matter how you measure it.

A Hebrew day began and ended in the evening, and was 24hrs in length....and this is NOT used in ANY of the Biblical Creation accounts.

Thus...to force this into the text by YEC's is simply unwarranted...
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
There is no name calling. Grasping at straws.

The world condemns those who believe the supernatural occurances of scripture such as talking donkeys and dead men rising as stupid and supersticious. You give every indication that you're afraid to have bad opinions from the worldly wise. Don't be afraid of them. :)

The OEC interpretation has no need to fear anything.
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
The OEC interpretation has no need to fear anything.
I know. You hold it so you don't have to be afraid of man's condemnation for believing what is considered foolishness to the worldly wise. You have tried to find a way to have your cake and eat it too.
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
You know good and well that is not what the text says. All of the celestial bodies with the exception of the earth were created on the fourth day. "God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day."



ידוַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי מְאֹרֹתבִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם, לְהַבְדִּיל, בֵּין הַיּוֹם וּבֵין הַלָּיְלָה; וְהָיוּלְאֹתֹת וּלְמוֹעֲדִים, וּלְיָמִים וְשָׁנִים.

1.14 Vayomer Elohim yehi meorot birekia hashamayim lehavdil bein hayom uvein halailah vehayu leotot ulemoadim uleyamim veshanim.
And said God, Let be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to divide between the day and the night and let them be for signs, and for seasons and for days and years;


The Fourth Day has caused tremendous confusion among many Biblical readers.


This was the “day” that the sun, the moon, and the stars were believed to have been created. Yet simple reasoning provides us with an argument against such an interpretation.


The very first verse of the Bible tells us that the universe was created, and that light from the sun appeared on our world during the First Day.




Let be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to divide…”: In the Hebrew, the verb hayah is introduced, and it is appropriate therefore to consider why.

Its introduction here seems to require that we understand this passage to mean something more than merely the placing of the sun and the moon and the stars in the sky. The use of the term "heavens" in Genesis 1:1 seems to indicate that the sun and moon and stars were created in the beginning and therefore were already in existence. Verse 14 clearly assumes their existence but now declares what the purpose of that existence is to be. Their purpose is to divide day from night, and to be for signs and for the regulation of the seasons.


Since the creation of the universe would certainly include the creation of the stars and galaxies, and the sun was shining light upon the Earth on the First Day, we have our first clues that these celestial bodies were not created on the Fourth Day.


Note that the text does not say that these luminaries were “created” on the fourth day. In Genesis 1:14, the Hebrew verb is Haya (be or exist) not Bara (create). In other words, “Let the lights in the sky be seen.” From the perspective from an observer on the earth’s surface, the existence of the luminaries could not be known until God transformed earth’s atmosphere from translucent to transparent. Verse 16, a parenthetical note, does use the verb ASA, but the form of the verb employed indicates only that God completed manufacturing the luminaries on or before the fourth “Day”.


The Hebrew verb ASA, translated “made” or “brought forth”, appears in the appropriate form for COMPLETED ACTION. (There are no verb tenses in the Hebrew language to parallel verb tenses in English, but THREE Hebrew verb forms are used to denote action already completed, action not yet completed, and commands.) Verse 16 does not specify when in the past the sun, moon, and stars were made. However, the wording of verses 17 & 18 provide a hint.


Notice the echo of wording from “day” One (Gen 3-5). These verses tell us WHY God created the Sun, Moon, and Stars and suggests that the sun was in place to fulfill its role on the first creation day:


Then said God, Let be light and was light. And saw God the light that good (it was) and separated God between the light and the darkness. And called God the light Day. And the darkness He called Night; and was the mixing and was the breaking forth time one. (Gen 1:3-5)


The compound Hebrew noun, shamayim wa’eres (heavens and Earth) in Genesis 1:1, places the making of the Sun and the stars BEFORE the first creation “day”:


In the beginning created God the heavens and the earth; and the earth was without form and empty, and darkness on the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was brooding on the face of the waters. (Gen 1:1-2)




Hebrew does not have a specific way of communicating a pluperfect tense. The definition of a pluperfect is that which denotes that an action or event was completed before a given time. This is where context is critical.

“Let be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to divide”: In the original Hebrew, the verb hayah is introduced, and it is appropriate, therefore, to consider why.

Its introduction and usage here seems to require that we understand this passage to mean something more than merely the placing of the sun, the moon, and the stars in the sky.

The use of the term "heavens" in Genesis 1:1 seems to indicate that the sun and moon and stars were created in the beginning and therefore were already in existence.

Verse 14 clearly assumes their existence, but now declares what the purpose of that existence is to be.
Their purpose is to divide day from night, and to be for signs and for the regulation of the seasons.

All living things require or respond to regulations of this kind; plant forms are obviously governed by the seasons, and there is considerable evidence that many living organisms like insects, birds, and even higher animal forms live by cycles regulated by the heavens.

This regulation encompasses migratory movements as well.

Verse 16 tells us that God brought forth “asah” the two great luminaries (i.e., the sun and the moon) to regulate the hours of daylight and darkness.

There is no mention of them being created at this time, for light as opposed to darkness was already distinguishable, as verses 3 and 5 indicate.

The appointment of these lights as signs comes only after they can be observed.



 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0




The text does not say that light was created for the first time on “Day” Four. The text Literally reads “Let be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens.” In other words, “Let the Lights in the sky be seen.”


Support scripture:

He made the moon for seasons; the sun knows its going down. You put darkness, and it is night; in it all the forest animals creep. The young lions roar for prey, and to seek their food from God. The sun rises; they are gathered, and go to their dens to lie down. Man goes out to his work, and to his labor until the evening. (Psalm 104:19-23)


Praise Him, sun and moon; praise Him, all you stars of light. Praise Him, O heavens of heavens; and O waters that are above the heavens. Let them praise the name of Jehovah; for He commanded, and they were created. And He established them forever and ever; He gave a decree that they not pass away. (Psalm 148:3-6)


To Him who made great lights; for His mercy endures forever; the sun to rule by day; for His mercy endures forever; the moon and the stars to rule by night; for His mercy endures forever; (Psalm 136:7-9)

 
Aug 25, 2013
2,260
10
0

It is very clear from the text that the sun had already been created and the earth was rotating on its axis, since there was light (day) and darkness (night).

The sun was created BEFORE the first “day”.
You might think so except the act of creation put the formation of the Sun on day four. I am sure I don't need to tell you this; and yet this ordering is a clear violation of reality. One cannot have, "evening came, and morning came, the first day", without the Sun and the rotation of Earth on its axis. Nonetheless, we cannot deny that Genesis places the creation of the Sun, Moon, and stars on day four. How can we account for this paradox. Apparently the Babylonian creation account also has this same order of events, and it's much older than the Genesis account. What do the Babylonians say about the creation of light. Why it was created first and the Sun days later. You see, it turns out that the Babylonians believed light existed apart from the Sun. Notice on a heavy overcast day, when the orb of the Sun is not visible through the clouds, there is still daylight. The Babylonians took this to mean that the Sun was not the primary source of light on the Earth. The Genesis account is copying the Babylonian version of things, and why not. In the Fertile Crescent their priests had mastered the celestial dance of the orbs and could even predict eclipses. Genesis tells us that Abraham came from the city of Ur, within the Babylonian empire, and no doubt he brought his version of their creation account with him. There, now we've settled the paradox of days and nights preceding the creation of the Sun. Wasn't that easy?