HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?

[1Timothy115]

I don't need the age of the earth, I have a Savior.

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

[heartstrings]

I don't need the age of the earth, I have a Savior.

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

:thumb:

[MatthewDiscipleOfGod]

The Bible is pretty clear the Earth is around 6,000 years old. You have to do a lot of scripture twisting in my opinion to get millions or billions of years.

[John81]

I would say going strictly by Scripture the best guess would be the earth is about 6,000 years old. However, since the Bible doesn't specifically tell us the age of the earth, such would simply be an educated (based upon Scripture alone) guess.

There are some who try and make far too big a deal of this. They go to the point of proclaiming that those who don't agree with their interpretations of various things from the Creation account and other aspects from Genesis just might not be right with God. Some declare that without a proper (meaning their) interpretation of Genesis one can't be a solid Christian, can't witness properly and can't really believe the Bible.

Unfortunately there are more and more in this area who are actually willing to twist words and actual scientific data while at the same time inventing "truths" in order to make their Creation claims seem to have more solid backing than it does.

Was Leviathan a dinosaur, a rhino, an elephant, a mythical creature or perhaps something else? For most it's a detail that's not important enough to get hung up on, especially since God didn't see it as important enough to make it very clear; yet for many in the young earth Creationist movement, they will declare with absolute ceretainty Leviathan was a dinosaur and provide a plethora of reasons for their stance but without any true, concrete proof. However, they declare their reasonings and assumptions themselves constitute proof and often will viciously attack anyone who quetions them or especially if they dare to offer an possible alternative.

[Brother Rick]

So this is about the gap theory, basically?

I don't believe in the gap, but I'm not really dogmatic about it and I am open to the possibility.

When the Bible says He "layed the foundations of the Earth" I think that was Gen. 1:1. I don't think Gen. 1:1 was a whole different Earth that was destroyed by the actions of a rebellious pre-Adamic race. However, I don't go so far as some guys that say if you believe in the gap you're basically denying Calvary, or something ridiculous like that.

It's an interesting theory, but it's just a theory.

[heartstrings]

I would say going strictly by Scripture the best guess would be the earth is about 6,000 years old. However, since the Bible doesn't specifically tell us the age of the earth, such would simply be an educated (based upon Scripture alone) guess.

There are some who try and make far too big a deal of this. They go to the point of proclaiming that those who don't agree with their interpretations of various things from the Creation account and other aspects from Genesis just might not be right with God. Some declare that without a proper (meaning their) interpretation of Genesis one can't be a solid Christian, can't witness properly and can't really believe the Bible.

Unfortunately there are more and more in this area who are actually willing to twist words and actual scientific data while at the same time inventing "truths" in order to make their Creation claims seem to have more solid backing than it does.

Was Leviathan a dinosaur, a rhino, an elephant, a mythical creature or perhaps something else? For most it's a detail that's not important enough to get hung up on, especially since God didn't see it as important enough to make it very clear; yet for many in the young earth Creationist movement, they will declare with absolute ceretainty Leviathan was a dinosaur and provide a plethora of reasons for their stance but without any true, concrete proof. However, they declare their reasonings and assumptions themselves constitute proof and often will viciously attack anyone who quetions them or especially if they dare to offer an possible alternative.

Thank you sir,
I've been trying to say that myself for a long time.

.....don't forget...'Behemoth' was a dino too.

[Invicta]

I have recently read The Romance of Biblical Chronology by Martin Anstey. Mr Anstey wrote that there is a complete chronology in the scripture from Adam to Christ and plots the scripture references. He does not attempt to find the age of the earth, just the years of man which he names as An Hom starting with Adam as an hom 1. Mostly I agree with him, but in several places I doub't that he is correct, mainly from the crossing the Jordan till the start of the Judges (he gives 20 years) and the length of the Judges period.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Invicta

[John81]

Ussher wrote a chronological history of the world based upon Scripture. His work was so well respected, many KJBs used to contain references to his work.

[MatthewDiscipleOfGod]

Ussher wrote a chronological history of the world based upon Scripture. His work was so well respected, many KJBs used to contain references to his work.

Here is a chart for everyone that is based on Ussher.

[John81]

Here is a chart for everyone that is based on Ussher.

:thumb:

[jarhed]

Could someone please explain the use of the word "day" in these verses.

Genesis 2:4,5

4: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5: And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

It says in the "day" the heavens and earth were made and also it includes the plants but the plants did not show up until the third day.

Could you please tell me what the word "generations" means (especially since this is the first mention).  Also...do you suppose that there may be a DIFFERENCE between the word "MADE" and "CREATED"...seeing as how they are different words (hint:  things that are different are not the same)?

Edited May 28, 2013 by jarhed

[jarhed]

Ussher wrote a chronological history of the world based upon Scripture. His work was so well respected, many KJBs used to contain references to his work.

Right....well, for starters the WORLD is 6,000 years old...but Jesus made the "WORLDS" (see Hebrews 1).  The EARTH is the planet that the WORLD is on.  The Earth can exist without a world, but the world (current economy) cannot exist without the earth.  Things that make you go..."hmmmm."

[TheSword]

Could you please tell me what the word "generations" means (especially since this is the first mention).  Also...do you suppose that there may be a DIFFERENCE between the word "MADE" and "CREATED"...seeing as how they are different words (hint:  things that are different are not the same)?

 

"generations" (Hebrew toledot) can essentially be equated to "history" and/or "descendents".  In Genesis it is essentially used as a delimeter between subjects.  You'll notice that anytime you find a "[these] are the generations of..." the focus of the narrative shifts.  Examples:

 

- In Genesis 2:4 exhibits a shift from the general outline of the Creation week to a narrower focus on Day 6 and the creation of man.

- In Genesis 5:1, the narrative shifts from the story/stories of Adam and his immediate family to a broad overview history of Adam's descendents to Noah and gives broad descriptions of the condition of the world

- In Genesis 6:9, the narrative shifts again from the broad and quick generational list to a narrower focus on Noah and the Flood

- In Genesis 10:1, it zooms back out and gives a generational list of Noah

- In Genesis 11:10, moves from a generalized Noah descendency to focusing on Shem's offspring and then subsequently narrows further in 11:27 to Terah and begins the Abraham narrative

 

This pattern can be followed throughout the book of Genesis.

 

Regarding the difference between made and create, there certainly is one.  Create (Hebrew bara) is only ever done by God in the OT and implies that there was no substance from which to fashion the creation; from whence we get the term creation ex nihilio or creation out of nothing.  In contrast, make (Hebrew asah) is used as a universal description of fashioning something such as a potter making a jar out of clay.  However, regarding God's acts during Creation week in Genesis 1:1-2:3, they are often used in conjuction and many things were both created AND made, implying a degree of interchangeability (see Gen 2:4 and compare Gen 2:7 with Gen 5:1-2).  I recommend the following article that charts out the different usages:  http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/did-god-create-or-make

[heartstrings]

 

"generations" (Hebrew toledot) can essentially be equated to "history" and/or "descendents".  In Genesis it is essentially used as a delimeter between subjects.  You'll notice that anytime you find a "[these] are the generations of..." the focus of the narrative shifts.  Examples:

 

- In Genesis 2:4 exhibits a shift from the general outline of the Creation week to a narrower focus on Day 6 and the creation of man.

- In Genesis 5:1, the narrative shifts from the story/stories of Adam and his immediate family to a broad overview history of Adam's descendents to Noah and gives broad descriptions of the condition of the world

- In Genesis 6:9, the narrative shifts again from the broad and quick generational list to a narrower focus on Noah and the Flood

- In Genesis 10:1, it zooms back out and gives a generational list of Noah

- In Genesis 11:10, moves from a generalized Noah descendency to focusing on Shem's offspring and then subsequently narrows further in 11:27 to Terah and begins the Abraham narrative

 

This pattern can be followed throughout the book of Genesis.

 

Regarding the difference between made and create, there certainly is one.  Create (Hebrew bara) is only ever done by God in the OT and implies that there was no substance from which to fashion the creation; from whence we get the term creation ex nihilio or creation out of nothing.  In contrast, make (Hebrew asah) is used as a universal description of fashioning something such as a potter making a jar out of clay.  However, regarding God's acts during Creation week in Genesis 1:1-2:3, they are often used in conjuction and many things were both created AND made, implying a degree of interchangeability (see Gen 2:4 and compare Gen 2:7 with Gen 5:1-2).  I recommend the following article that charts out the different usages:  http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/did-god-create-or-make

Yes, I believe so. Sometimes the Book of Genesis is called the book of "beginnings" and that is sort of  what "generations" means.

 

Word Origin & History

generation 

c.1300, "offspring of the same parent," also "body of individuals born about the same period" (usually 30 years), from L. generationem(nom. generatio), from generare "bring forth" (see genus). Generatorin the sense "machine that generates power" first recorded 1794; insense

of "machine that generates electric energy," 1879. Generation gapfirst recorded 1967; generation x is 1991, from Douglas Couplandbook of that name. The verb generate is attested from 1509;originally "to beget;" in ref. to natural forces, conditions, substances.etc., attested from 1563.

 

A "Generation" is the act or process of 'begetting' or "bringing forth" something. A "generator", for example, brings forth electricity. But the way it is used most of the time, is in the "body of individuals..." sense such as the "60's generation" or "this perverse generation". That is not the basic meaning. For instance; the Bible says that Noah was "perfect in his generations", that's plural. If it were speaking of the "body of individuals born about the same time period", it would only need to say that Noah was "perfect in his generation"; singular. But it's plural and I believe that it is saying is that Noah was "perfect in his bringing forth" or "perfect in his begetting". Go back to Genesis 5 and you find "These are the generations of Adam" meaning" "these are what Adam begat" or "produced".

Edited July 30, 2013 by heartstrings

[wretched]

Thank you sir,
I've been trying to say that myself for a long time.

.....don't forget...'Behemoth' was a dino too.

 

I beg to differ sir, Behemoth was my first mother in law. Maybe my second mother in law also, or was she mastadon? I can't remember.