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.

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
1. Earth is not spinning

2. Earth is not a Sphere

3. A combination of Both Possibilities

EDIT: actually a 4th possibility came to mind just now

4. Earth is a Sphere, but the Heliocentric Theory is incorrect
Son, all of this is complete nonsense.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
Yes, you are correct. However, if one looks at the world APART FROM SCRIPTURE (that is, not through that lens) and look at the world objectively and without scriptural influences, I can see how one would easily come to those conclusions. Seeing something before your very eyes (the fossil record) doesn't mean one will embrace what it clearly seems to indicate by most of thinking society, including many Christians. Like you said, certain approach to the ancient text prevents them from seeing it.



I believe that evolution is a likely theory, and that the evidence supports an old earth, and my faith is not weakened in the slightest. Because I separate faith issues from real world issues. I'm sure many of the millions of Christians who share my sentiments would agree.

Well, yes, you DO accept all the Bible OR pick and choose. However, Christians ALL pick and choose Scripture. They have done it since the beginning, even going back to the Saddeces (sp) who didn't believe in the Resurrection or the prophets. Every church ignores certain verses to embrace select doctrines. There is no perfect church that fully embraces Scripture.

Any study of early Christianity will yield a HUGE variety and contradiction of ideas concerning who Jesus is, what He did, and what it means. There is even a Gospel of Judas. It is certain Christians in a position of power who choose what became the sole books thought to be inspired. If one wants to have faith that God guides the church to select the correct texts for inspiration, that's fine and good. However, I look at Christianity as whole from a historical perspective, and there ain't NO Christian who didn't "pick and choose what to believe."
There is no such thing as being able to look at the evidence without bias, it's just not possible. While I'm very glad that your faith hasn't been weakened by theistic evolutionary beliefs, there are plenty of Christians who have, to the point where they no longer believe and are some of the most rabid and hateful atheists out there. Evolution/old-age creation beliefs etc. have proven to be major stumbling blocks. If we can't believe what God says at the beginning of His Word, why should we believe any of it?

Also, why separate faith and real world issues? That's the problem, yes? But God is Lord of all, yes? Lord of every part of your life? Faith is a real world issue, especially for that of a Christian. Millions of Christians believe it, so it must be true? You seriously can't tell me you take that stance.

Of course to a certain extent, we all pick and choose but we should choose to believe in light of the context of the books of the Bible, not to make God in our own image.
For example: poetic language in Psalms shouldn't be used to support an old-age creation etc.

The Gospel of Judas? Come on, get real! That's Gnostic rubbish. The Bible canon was brought together by godly men inspired by the Holy Spirit. To suggest man decided in the long-term, is wrong. Finally, as a Christian I believe you should look at your faith from all facets, not just a historical perspective. If you really do take the historical perspective, and believe evolution is a viable understanding of the world in which we live, why don't you read the Book of Genesis as plain history? That's the context in which it was written!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
Deductive reason must be rendered subordinate to revealed knowledge - the text of scripture.
Aye fair enough, we know God stopped the Sun, but like you say, if the Spherical Earth is spinning at 1000 mph around the Sun; why not everything fly off its face?

Seems to me if we pre-suppose Earth is a Sphere either it stopped spinning or the Sun revolves around the Earth and halted in its orbit.

If we pre-suppose Earth is a Disc either the Sun circuits around the Earth and paused in its circuit or the Disc stopped spinning.

So I guess we are back to good old Geocentrcism vs Heliocentricism, lol the Debate of all atheist and religious scholars for millenia lol.
 
Last edited:
T

Tintin

Guest
Gah. It should read:

Jamie: If you really do take the historical perspective as you say you do, how is it that you believe evolution is a viable understanding of the world in which we live? Why don't you choose to read the Book of Genesis as plain history? That's the context in which it was written!
 
R

Reee

Guest
The literal words say 6 days, The word for was added also.

6 days the lord made (caused to be)

Talk about adding to the word. Your adding that he restored. when nothing in the passage states this
The word "for" is kiy which IS in the original..... in this verse the word create (bara) is NOT used, the word used is asah translated as made... which means: A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application: - accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready) dress (-ed), (put in) execute (-ion), exercise, fashion, + feast, [fight-] ing man, + finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfil, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, + hinder, hold ([a feast]), X indeed, + be industrious, + journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, + officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, practise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, X sacrifice, serve, set, shew, X sin, spend, X surely, take, X thoroughly, trim, X very, + vex, be [warr-] ior, work (-man), yield, use.

In Genesis 1:1 the word bara (A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): - choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).


is used, thereafter the word asah is used....... I AM reading the original text, not a translation of it
 
T

Tintin

Guest
Reee,

1:2 Now[SUP] 5 [/SUP] the earth[SUP] 6 [/SUP] was without shape and empty,[SUP] 7 [/SUP] and darkness[SUP] 8 [/SUP] was over the surface of the watery deep,[SUP] 9 [/SUP] but the Spirit of God[SUP] 10 [/SUP] was moving[SUP] 11 [/SUP] over the surface[SUP] 12 [/SUP] of the water.

The NET Bible commentary:

Some translate 1:2a “and the earth became,” arguing that v. 1 describes the original creation of the earth, while v. 2 refers to a judgment that reduced it to a chaotic condition. Verses 3ff. then describe the re-creation of the earth. However, the disjunctive clause at the beginning of v. 2 cannot be translated as if it were relating the next event in a sequence. If v. 2 were sequential to v. 1, the author would have used the vav consecutive followed by a prefixed verbal form and the subject.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
Sigh, howbeit the 7 Day Creation gets questioned so much?

Whether you're an Old Earther or a Young Earther the 7 Day Creation is literal. Gotta start somewhere after all in either model.

Lol arguing over "Was", "for", and "is" is just semantics saying the same thing.

Maybe ya'll should question what Without Form and Void means.

Simple answer: Earth was without Form and was Void.
 
R

Reee

Guest
I suggest you spend a little time looking at the science of hydroplate tectonics.
Hydroplate tectonics presumes that God created a ticking time bomb (of water which would eventually erupt from under the earth) when He created the earth..... :Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. When God said: "It was good" did He mean this time bomb was good too? What about the seas? He separated land from sea.... hydroplate theory relies on the ocean floors being sunken land masses.... so what was under the seas in Gen 1:10........ I could go on forever, but hydroplate tectonics is a load of bunk
 
R

Reee

Guest
Reee,

1:2 Now[SUP] 5 [/SUP] the earth[SUP] 6 [/SUP] was without shape and empty,[SUP] 7 [/SUP] and darkness[SUP] 8 [/SUP] was over the surface of the watery deep,[SUP] 9 [/SUP] but the Spirit of God[SUP] 10 [/SUP] was moving[SUP] 11 [/SUP] over the surface[SUP] 12 [/SUP] of the water.

The NET Bible commentary:

Some translate 1:2a “and the earth became,” arguing that v. 1 describes the original creation of the earth, while v. 2 refers to a judgment that reduced it to a chaotic condition. Verses 3ff. then describe the re-creation of the earth. However, the disjunctive clause at the beginning of v. 2 cannot be translated as if it were relating the next event in a sequence. If v. 2 were sequential to v. 1, the author would have used the vav consecutive followed by a prefixed verbal form and the subject.
This is the classical view which says verse 2 is a dependant clause.... this view leaves the use of hayah problematic
 
J

Jda016

Guest
In what way does the scientific community make efforts to disprove God?
Perhaps there are not scientists out there trying to specifically prove that God doesn't exist (except perhaps athiest's champion Richard Dawkins), but they certainly don't seem too keen on the idea of intelligent design. "Expelled:No Intelligiance Allowed" narrated by Ben Stein is a documentary about just that, with cases of scientists being fired or stonewalled simply for allowing the possibility of intelligent design.

I can't tell you how much trouble I would get in if I told students that it is possible there is a God who created all things. But I can certainly tell them we grew into single celled organisms from non living elements on the backs of crystals and I would get no flak for that.
 
R

Reee

Guest
Reee,

1:2 Now[SUP] 5 [/SUP] the earth[SUP] 6 [/SUP] was without shape and empty,[SUP] 7 [/SUP] and darkness[SUP] 8 [/SUP] was over the surface of the watery deep,[SUP] 9 [/SUP] but the Spirit of God[SUP] 10 [/SUP] was moving[SUP] 11 [/SUP] over the surface[SUP] 12 [/SUP] of the water.

The NET Bible commentary:

Some translate 1:2a “and the earth became,” arguing that v. 1 describes the original creation of the earth, while v. 2 refers to a judgment that reduced it to a chaotic condition. Verses 3ff. then describe the re-creation of the earth. However, the disjunctive clause at the beginning of v. 2 cannot be translated as if it were relating the next event in a sequence. If v. 2 were sequential to v. 1, the author would have used the vav consecutive followed by a prefixed verbal form and the subject.
To qualify my previous answer: If we are using the classical view and translating hayah as was, then the exact sentence structure translated leaves us with the following: "deep upon the face darkness and empty desolate was now the earth " .... Do you see? Instead of "became" we have "was now" which is essentially the same as became.... "was now" indicates a state different from the initial state
 
R

Reee

Guest
I would also like to say the following:

1) I do not believe in the nonsense called evolution.... as we all know we are losing genetic material not gaining it.... Adam and Eve contained all of the genetic material that almost 7 billion humans now share in bits and pieces and most likely much genetic material has been lost or mutated... whatever the case, no new original genes are being made.
2)I believe that ALL of scripture in its original form is divinely inspired and should be read literally except where it is clearly not meant to be eg: parables
3) That said, I have huge issue with the english bible we have today.... scholars are still studying the original texts for example Gen1:1 ..... All scholars agree it is a single clause, BUT there is a lot of disagreement over what type of clause it is - is it dependant or is it independant? The answer to that question changes the meaning of the verse following, which changes the entire creation account from "The earth was without form and void" to "the earth became without form and void" ....... this leaves me with many questions. I would like to know what the original writer of the verse intended us to read, NOT what tradition would like us to believe. I would like to know what God "inspired" the writer to say.... hence my problem. I do not believe that all bible translations are inspired.
4) Why is it important? Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said to them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
 
B

brad21

Guest
I agree evolution is stupid how would a tree evole I am a creationist
 
R

Reee

Guest
No the gap theory and evolution are two different beliefs but the gap theory is only there to accommodate for the fossil records and geology that are believed to be millions and billions of years old. Dinosaurs were created just before humans. Easy. They're not an anomaly. There is no evidence for the gap theory. It's a load of nonsense inferred by reading a bunch of unrelated verses and coupling them together.
I am wondering now what happened to the dinosaurs.... If they were part of the 6 days of creation that "God saw was good" why did every single one of them disappear? When did they disappear? It's not like there were millions of humans on earth with RPG's shooting them and causing their extinction - or were there? If they were part of a "good" creation then if any were alive in Noah's day, they would have been taken on-board the ark - or not? Yes, we have had mass extinctions since then... but never of an entire class of animal...eg dodo extinct but plenty of other birds about........ with the dinosaurs it is a total wipeout of every single last one big and small, flying, crawling, walking, swimming.... all gone. What happened to them?
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
I am wondering now what happened to the dinosaurs.... If they were part of the 6 days of creation that "God saw was good" why did every single one of them disappear? When did they disappear? It's not like there were millions of humans on earth with RPG's shooting them and causing their extinction - or were there? If they were part of a "good" creation then if any were alive in Noah's day, they would have been taken on-board the ark - or not? Yes, we have had mass extinctions since then... but never of an entire class of animal...eg dodo extinct but plenty of other birds about........ with the dinosaurs it is a total wipeout of every single last one big and small, flying, crawling, walking, swimming.... all gone. What happened to them?
And we're back to Dinosaurs lol. It's like we've gone through all the topics we've covered earlier in just 1 day lol.

What does Dinosaur mean? Terrible Lizard

The term arise in the 1800s. What term was used for the Terrible Lizards before the word Dinosaurs? Term was dragons.

Why do the ancients well after the Flood and well into the mid-AD talk about dragons in just about every single culture worldwide?
 
R

Reee

Guest
And we're back to Dinosaurs lol. It's like we've gone through all the topics we've covered earlier in just 1 day lol.

What does Dinosaur mean? Terrible Lizard

The term arise in the 1800s. What term was used for the Terrible Lizards before the word Dinosaurs? Term was dragons.

Why do the ancients well after the Flood and well into the mid-AD talk about dragons in just about every single culture worldwide?
That still doesn't explain what happened to them.... and the legends and myths generally refer to specific creatures (like fafnihr) If they were running around as common as larry they would be mentioned alongside lions and gazelle and camels and donkeys in the bible, don't you think?
 
T

Tintin

Guest
That still doesn't explain what happened to them.... and the legends and myths generally refer to specific creatures (like fafnihr) If they were running around as common as larry they would be mentioned alongside lions and gazelle and camels and donkeys in the bible, don't you think?
Dragons (dinosaurs) are mentioned in the Bible though. The modern translations just 'translate' the word for dragon as "jackal". The context most often shows that this practice is ludicrous. I love modern translations, as opposed to the KJV (which translates the word correctly) but this is one instance were theistic evolution beliefs about dinosaurs have influenced translators to interpret the word incorrectly. Of course Behemoth and Leviathan are retained, but they're seen as mythological (they weren't) and the dragon in Revelation remains, purely because it's Satan.