Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?


John81
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

"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:

So it might be similar to 'the chronicles of' like a volume of history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Hello John,

Can you explain something:

In my thread 'Days of Creation', Sword and others were wondering where my faith was at because I 'don't agree with their interpretations of various things from the Creation account' and You said to me ' >>>'Wow! Why not just accept what Scripture says? Sword and others have given excellent answers already yet you continue to carry on which makes a person wonder "why".<<<<   

Edited by Old-Pilgrim
thechnical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Hello John,

Can you explain something:

In my thread 'Days of Creation', Sword and others were wondering where my faith was at because I 'don't agree with their interpretations of various things from the Creation account' and You said to me ' >>>'Wow! Why not just accept what Scripture says? Sword and others have given excellent answers already yet you continue to carry on which makes a person wonder "why".<<<<   

In the other thread you are denying the clearly given meaning of the Word of God as presented. Pointing that out doesn't question your salvation or whether you can present the Gospel accurately.

That said, I really don't think this needs to be discussed in two threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Hello ye all,

If God has established at least some parts of this creation for ever and ever (The non material creation) and they are not going to pass away, what is the chances that the earth is only 6000 or 12000 years old? that would make this the first 6000 years of a creation which will last for ever and ever.

Ps 148:4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.
Ps 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.
Ps 148:6 He hath also stablished them for ever and ever: he hath made a decree which shall not pass.

Heb 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
Heb 1:11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
Heb 1:12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

They shall be changed into a new heaven and a new earth.

Ec 3:14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

I'd say the chances are pretty good based on the biblical reckoning of time/chronology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That said, I really don't think this needs to be discussed in two threads.

I agree with you on that I wasn't really aware of this thread, I don't have a lot of time to browse threads so sometimes just start one coz it is easier., so Ill just paste my point from that thread into this one.

>>>THIS HAS BEEN PASTED FROM THE THREAD ' Days of Creation'

Hello I guess this is about my last words on this topic, hope you find time to read them and consider them.

By the time Moses had been born, the word 'Day' must have been used to reference a day, this must have been in the language presumably from the beginning,

Then God gave Moses revelation including Gen 1&2 God would have used the language which he had Given Man before in Adam

So the Days of Genesis were named by words which the Hebrewians were familiar with, just in a very similar manner that we are familiar with the English, they would have been familiar with the Hebrew words for Days, Evenings and Mornings.

The question is, do we define the understanding of the First Day in Genesis, by the Context of Moses Culture, or do we define our understanding of the Day of Genesis by the Context within which it is given, I.E. within the revelation.

In a similar way to the visions of Daniel, we see the use of words with which the Hibrewians are familiar, ie week or days, do we define those weeks, and days, by conforming them to the Hebrew culture, which would be very similar to us demanding that a week is a literal seven day week, or do we define them with the context of the vision with which they are contained?

As I read Genesis,  Chapter one in particular cannot be historical in the proper sense of the word, for obvious reasons, I.e. in the early verses there was no earth and no man to take a record of anything. After the third day we read:

Ge 1:14-16 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

We can tell from the description that this is talking about what we now know as the sun and moon and stars. That is the creation of our days, and our inhabitable environment.

After the fifth day God made the Animals and finally Adam/Man, male and female made he them. So there is the start of Man's history, and a more detailed account from an historical perspective is given in Genesis two. But our 24 hour days or warm periods, only started in day four of of Genesis 1.

And I say again if you take a thoughtful look at Genesis 1:1-5 God made a Light, and he called that light DAY, this was the original first mentioned and first created Day, and the warmth wasn’t anything to do with our sun. So the other six days (and evenings) must be of the same type as this first one. That is why I say contextually it cannot be in reference to our 24 hour days, because our days had not been created as yet.

Job 38:4-12 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;

As far as going against the word of God or the fundamentals, I’ve been here before, it is religious tradition talking, I guess some fear, my faith is in God as revealed in Christ, not in any traditional interpretation of the Bible. I used to be Catholic, I recognise Zeal based in Tradition, The Gospel is an attack on the fundamental Catholic world-view which to them is almost like life itself, it is their historical and spiritual sense of self. You sound like you are doing the same thing, putting some of your faith in tradition/traditional understanding and equating it with faith in God or Gods revealed word, or putting your faith in Gods word as interpreted by tradition. I can assure you I will not knowingly go against Gods word on any point, this does however lead to clashing with Christian traditional interpretations quite often.

And I say again I don't think this (Moses days or Gods days) is a fundamental doctrine of Scripture, other than in it is an accurate account of God creating the universe given by revelation through Moses, as the text itself affirms, latter in Genesis, If I recall. But in that we find it in our Bible that is enough affirmation to it's accuracy for me. I believe the creation account is foundational to a mature understanding But Christ told Peter that it was the revelation of who Christ was which was the rock on which the Church was to be built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see any harm in believing it to be a seven '24 hour day' week, but now that I see that it cannot be that, then I think it is wrong for others to unnecessarily oppress me and try to intimidate me to conform to an interpretation which I have grown out of, I honestly don't worry about people believing in a 'man's week' time scale for creation, and if what I am seeing is right, then it can only put me in a more spacious and better place ready to be taught perhaps the next point, perhaps on for example, what happens after Harvest? well generally there is a change of season and then another spring, and then another harvest, and so on, it is never ending, so we have the Gospel harvest due in its season, then what Is it never ending too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Hello Wilchbla

This is one of the first verses of Scripture I noticed which got me seeking. I don't know how long the 'DAY' was, but I know it wasn't the same time span as the 'DAYS' in Chapter one. On closer inspection I noticed that God made Light and called it Day, the First Day, and it wasn't in reference to our sun at all., to Me it Just means God is bigger, and I'm sure I am not the only one who has noticed that  God has got his way of humbling us and making us reliant on Him. lol. 1Co 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. Not pleasant at the time!

Edited by Old-Pilgrim
to emphesize
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been pasted from another thread on the same topic. ' Days of Creation.'

The Sword. Matt said.

>>>I apologize if I have been coming on a little strong on this one, but it is not an issue of tradition. A tradition is a dogmatic practice or doctrinal assertion that has no biblical foundation. The Catholic church has many of these, and I'm sure you know them well. However, this is an issue of sound biblical interpretation. 300 years ago your position would have made absolutely no sense to anyone capable of reading the Bible in any language. 100-200 years ago you would have been looked at cross-eyed and called out for supporting Darwin. 50 years ago you would have been accused of being on Darwin's side of the Scopes Trial. Today, there are so many Christians have capitulated to evolutionary theory being taught as fact for long that they've felt compelled to reinterpret Genesis to accommodate the evolutionary timeline at the expense of upholding biblical inerrancy. Your position, whether you believe so or not, is a concession an atheistic worldview that has been steadily beating the drum that the earth is older than the Bible says it is. Non-literal interpretations of Genesis only ever made sense after people began trumpeting deep time.<<<

There is Traditional doctrine as well, in pentecostal churches and among Reformists, all round. I don't see why you are so concerned about Darwinians, & Co. Do they really shape what you believe, do you need to stand opposite them, no matter what they say? As I mentioned before back in the days of the reformation they used to believe that the earth was the centre of the solar system and the sun travelled round the earth, Calvin said while preaching on 1 Cor, that anyone who believed that the sun was in the centre and the earth rotated round it was insane and probably demon possessed. I know you won't think that much of Calvin, but it is a fairly typical sort of way which people bind their faith in Gods word to their faith in their interpretation of it, and it only gets worse when most believe the same interpretation.

Having said that lets go with what John was saying and move this into the other thread, 'how old is the earth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This has been pasted from another thread on the same topic. ' Days of Creation.'

The Sword. Matt said.

>>>I apologize if I have been coming on a little strong on this one, but it is not an issue of tradition. A tradition is a dogmatic practice or doctrinal assertion that has no biblical foundation. The Catholic church has many of these, and I'm sure you know them well. However, this is an issue of sound biblical interpretation. 300 years ago your position would have made absolutely no sense to anyone capable of reading the Bible in any language. 100-200 years ago you would have been looked at cross-eyed and called out for supporting Darwin. 50 years ago you would have been accused of being on Darwin's side of the Scopes Trial. Today, there are so many Christians have capitulated to evolutionary theory being taught as fact for long that they've felt compelled to reinterpret Genesis to accommodate the evolutionary timeline at the expense of upholding biblical inerrancy. Your position, whether you believe so or not, is a concession an atheistic worldview that has been steadily beating the drum that the earth is older than the Bible says it is. Non-literal interpretations of Genesis only ever made sense after people began trumpeting deep time.<<<

There is Traditional doctrine as well, in pentecostal churches and among Reformists, all round. I don't see why you are so concerned about Darwinians, & Co. Do they really shape what you believe, do you need to stand opposite them, no matter what they say? As I mentioned before back in the days of the reformation they used to believe that the earth was the centre of the solar system and the sun travelled round the earth, Calvin said while preaching on 1 Cor, that anyone who believed that the sun was in the centre and the earth rotated round it was insane and probably demon possessed. I know you won't think that much of Calvin, but it is a fairly typical sort of way which people bind their faith in Gods word to their faith in their interpretation of it, and it only gets worse when most believe the same interpretation.

Having said that lets go with what John was saying and move this into the other thread, 'how old is the earth

Yes, there is traditional doctrine that completely lacks biblical support. This, however, is not one them. Your example is not a valid comparison because the Bible says nothing of structure of the solar system to indicate geocentrism (earth at the center of the solar system). If there is a similarity in your example, it is that there is nothing to be found in the Bible about billions of years for the age of the earth.

Darwinism doesn't shape my beliefs, but it does shape the beliefs of our youth, new believers, and people struggling to come to faith. Therefore, it should be a concern to anyone and everyone who is concerned with evangelism and spreading the Gospel (which should be every Christian on earth).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Hi Old-Pilgrim, you know that some of the posts you are replying to are over six years old, right? And some of the people you are asking questions of, like Wichbla and Seth Doty, haven't visited the forum for at least a couple of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"[these] are the generations of..."

 

I learned from Hovind that these statements also meant a change in authors.  Only Adam could have recorded the first couple of chapters for example but it was Moses who put the whole book together.

That make sense, God Spoke to Moses face to face, but we are not told for example that Adam didn't keep a history, or one of his 'other sons or daughters', or grandsons. Who knows if one of his grandsons might have went to Adam and said can you tell me those stories again, The Lord God has put it in my heart to write them down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, there is traditional doctrine that completely lacks biblical support. This, however, is not one them. Your example is not a valid comparison because the Bible says nothing of structure of the solar system to indicate geocentrism (earth at the center of the solar system). If there is a similarity in your example, it is that there is nothing to be found in the Bible about billions of years for the age of the earth.

Darwinism doesn't shape my beliefs, but it does shape the beliefs of our youth, new believers, and people struggling to come to faith. Therefore, it should be a concern to anyone and everyone who is concerned with evangelism and spreading the Gospel (which should be every Christian on earth).

I agree basicly, but my point is bad theology result in the lost remaining lost, if they look at the Bible and a bad theological interpretation of it (and it might actually be that the theology is carnal and unenlightened rather than the lost soul being unspiritual) The cult or the Aew Ager (Mystery Religion)  can then use that verse of scripture to mislead the lost. Calvin & co were so dogmatic because they believed the new scientific view was against Scripture, Not sure what scripture, perhaps ones which talk about the rising of the sun. I think the literal six days theology leaves room for improvement, I'm sure I'm not the only one who has heard worse. Have you thought about Ezekiels wheel? Eze 1:15 Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with his four faces.' do we need to take this as a literal wheel from the culture of Ezeliels day, such as a chariot wheel or a wheel for grinding wheat, or could we not just take it as a generic term meaning 'some sort of round thing which turns round an axis', as such must we take 'the first DAY' from Moses Revelation of genesis as a man day? even though the context of the vision indicates that it wasn't a man day, i.e. determined by the heat from the sun.

Ex 20:10 But the seventh day (This is obviously a 24 hour day) is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:


Ex 20:11 For in six days (this however looks more like the days of Gen 1) the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

De 31:9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant (this ark is a copy)of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel.

 we have a heavenly Tabernacle and a earthly one
Heb 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

Heb 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
Heb 8:2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

We have a real SUN and an earth one
Mal 4:1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
Mal 4:2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.

The whole of creation is a pattern or picture of Gods Gory, it is to shew forth the Glory of The Lord

1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

1Co 15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

1Co 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

Ex 20:10 But the seventh day (This is obviously a 24 hour day) is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:


Ex 20:11 For in six days (this however looks more like the days of Gen 1) the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

 

 

So your just going to change the meaning of day from one verse to the next when it fits your interpretation?

 

this is not dividing the word of God properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

So your just going to change the meaning of day from one verse to the next when it fits your interpretation?

 

this is not dividing the word of God properly.

It is dividing the word when it shouldn't be divided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your just going to change the meaning of day from one verse to the next when it fits your interpretation?

 

this is not dividing the word of God properly.

I don't particularly have much of an interpretation, but Genesis 1:1-5 God made a Light, and he called that light DAY, this was the original first mentioned and first created Day, and the warmth wasn’t anything to do with our sun.

I'm just taking the word as I find it without superimposing my prepositions over the top of it. IE I see the word Day being used in a revelation which God gave to Moses and I just assume that MUST be a day the same as our days. No, if Genesis meant that you would not have a day till Wednesday after the sun was made, that is assuming the earth had started turning at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 5 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • Recent Achievements

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Eagle One

      Havent been on for years, but have been studying with Jews for Jesus weekly Bible Study which has been wonderful.  Not sure any of your views on that group, but if you are from a Jewish background a great place to be grounded in the word and to learn.
      · 0 replies
    • Barbara Ann

      I am a researcher and writer at Watch Unto Prayer which I started 25 years ago. On this website there are many well-documented articles and audio programs by myself and other researchers whose ministry is to expose the endtime apostasy of the Church. Now more than ever Christians need information in order to identify and avoid the various deceptions that are in nearly all the churches.
      My husband and I attended the IFB Bible Baptist Church of James Knox a couple of years ago. We left the church after we were informed by the assistant pastor that we were not allowed to express views to other members that do not agree with the views of the pastor and leaders of the church. We were not introducing heresy but expressing our views concerning the State of Israel. We had never been in a church which forbade private conversations on issues where there are diverse opinions. This we recognized as cultlike control of church members. To inform Christians, my husband, who is also a researcher and writer, started a website on the subject: Zionism Exposed: A Watchman Ministry.
      · 0 replies
    • Free Spirit

      Jesus said:"I am the truth, the way, and the life. No man can come to The Father, but by Me."
      · 0 replies
    • Richg  »  BrotherTony

      Brother Tony, I read your reply on Anderson, I know you all think I'm argumentative but, when you don't agree.....the first thought I had is, I wish you would introduce me to the guy that hasn't sinned, maybe David, that had a man killed so he could commit adultery, yet, he was & is a man after Gods own heart, or maybe Paul the guy that persecuted and had Christians killed, or maybe Richg or Kent H, or even you ! I used to listen to personalities also when I was younger but today and for some time, my only concern is, does it line up with scripture & to me its hilarious that you think "I'm in a fix" LOL, I interpreted what we've discussed perfectly, not because I'm smart, but because with an open mind to things of God, its an easy read.
      · 1 reply
    • Richg  »  Jerry

      I thought you wanted me to stop talking to you !
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...