Young Earth - 6,000 or 10,000 Years?

Creation Scientists wouldn’t call themselves that if they didn’t at least try to observe and put together the various physical evidences that have been observed on God's created earth.

Evidences for an old earth are overwhelming.

Scientifically, we have established an unbroken succession of rings extending back in time over 8,000 years.

Historically, there are dynastic records of Egyptian kings going back to 3000 BC.

Archeologically, evidence of early civilization overwhelmingly leads one to dates older than 6000 years.

Eventually the facts begin to line up that perhaps the biblical data can not be simply added up.

Rob

 

The Creation Network had a fossilized worm that went through 5 layers of sediment. Evolutionist's say it took 20,000 years to form each layer. This meant the worm would have been 100,000 years old while dying slowly through each layer. Utterly ridiculous.

 

Artimaeus,

If God didn't mean that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born then He must have meant something else and there is just no way of determining (for sure) what that was.

No one here would say that the Bible is in error in things in records. But I believe (and I think Craig and Deacon would agree) that we sometimes impose demands on the Bible that God did not intend.

Consider Adam. Was he really 130 years old? Maybe - I don't know. But I do know that if he was not 130 calendar years that doesn't make the Bible wrong. We know that many ancient near eastern civilizations were a little "loose" with years of age - the modern Bedouins are like this. A man may go from 65 years old to 80 years old in 5 years - the ages having symbolic value. This is why we insist that the Bible be taken in appropriate context! In America today we see things in very concrete terms - we assume that if the Bible is right then it must be LITERALLY right. Is the Bible wrong if it said Adam was 130 when really by today's count he was 60? No! It means that we are using the wrong yardstick!

The Bible is 100% right in the points that it was designed to make - but that doesn't mean it was INTENDED to be a history book. We must realize that God chose ancient near easterners to pen His word and not 20th century Americans.

 

Why then would God tell us something in His Word that is not true? Does'nt this go against the very nature of God?

 

Bill,

The OT was written (under inspiration) by ancient near easterners. We MUST take that into consideration. We know they were less concrete than we are in terms of history. If we insist it must be interpreted in 20th century terms then it would have not made sense to the ancient Hebrews!

 

The point of the bible, not this forum. To echo what Charles is saying, I think counting all the numbers up and coming up with a date that the world began is missing the point of why God inspired the bible in the first place.

 

All good questions Artimsaeus.The feeling I get from this is that the Bible was not written for common men but only for a certain select priesthood and they can tell us what to believe.This being said what I want to know is which parts of the Bible can I rely on and which parts should I think of as fable or fairy tales told to an ancient people?

 

Artimaeus,

So, the Bible is 100% right in this verse, except for there being an Adam, except for Adam being 130, and except for there being a Seth?

You want this verse to be literal so that there can be no question of interpretation - that's a normal desire to have something concrete. But that doesn't make it so. You're forcing your desire on this verse.

The important feature of this verse is that Adam had a son. The point is not that Adam was 130 and not 129 or 131.

Look at examples of ancient near eastern writings. Do we have preserved ancient textbooks or history books? No. We have mostly stories. That's the way they conceived of things.

If a child today asks his dad why the grass is green his dada might say it's because of chlorophyll in the plants. If a child in Ur asked his dad this 4000 years ago would he have answered "chlorophyll"? I doubt it. He would have perhaps related a story to him about God maiking all plants green. Today we wouyld not expect that kind of answer but 4000 years ago readers WOULD have expected that kind of answer. But yet if you read that story today would you insist that the father was being concretely descriptive?

Like it or not these are the people to whom God gave His word. The gospel is simple enough for a child. But no one said that all of theology is such.

And yes if you do not want to mishandle it I suggest you learn about ANE writings!

 

That is subjective. I tend to think that what God said is overwhelming evidence.

Assuming a uniformitarian model for these rings of course.

No position in this debate uniformly accepts a uniformitarian assumption- not creationists, OE's, or evolutionists.

The difference is one's reasons for suspending that assumption. We do it when the assumption conflicts with divine revelation in the scripture. Evolutionists do it when a gap in a humanly created theory needs to be filled.

Amazingly people are completely willing to assume that the Word of God is allegory or corrupted but yield absolute literal authority to uninspired dynastic records.

Predicated on the FAITH that the assumptions made by those estimating the dates are correct.

Or else, the fact is that the Bible is the only record that God promised to preserve. It is the only record He endorsed as "True".

One should ask themselves: Is the Bible false or perhaps has Satan had enough influence with men down through history that he has shaded their records and interpretations in a way that undermines the authority of what God said was true?

Surely Satan's methods for deceiving people have not changed since Genesis 3. He said then that God was lying and let Eve see evidence from which she made "her own interpretation".

 

Has anyone thought that a length of unspecified time passed between the end of creation and the fall? I am not talking hundreds of thousands of years, like the gap theory, but it certainly could have been two or three thousand years. After all, Adam and Eve were meant to live forever.

 

Ive thought of that, too, but the problem is that they did not have any children until after the Fall. Adam and Eve are the only ones recorded as having sinned in the Garden and been kicked out. I would think that they would have started having children right away, and there would have been a group of children born without having sinned if it were that long between creation and the Fall.

 

My beliefs exactly! Knowing the nature of man/woman, I conclude that they were in the garden LESS than 4 weeks; probably a lot less.

 

Did Adam age before the fall?

But to the point, I think a long period complicates things. If there was no death... then it couldn't have been thousands of years.

Personal opinion without any scriptural proof at all: I think Adam and Eve were about 33-34 years old.

 

One of the strengths of Christianity is its connection with historical events. The empty tomb confronted the Jews and Romans of Jerusalem with the fact of the resurrection. The splendor and wonder of the world confront the world with the might of the Creator.
I’m disappointed your response Artimaeus.
Simple dismissal of physical evidences leaves one with a weakened Christianity divorced from the physical world. You must defend your beliefs using the “appearance of age” concept, much of the evidence of an old(er) earth becomes an illusion of age (based upon the idea that at creation Adam would have had a belly-button and tree’s would have had rings, therefore the universe would be created all grow’d up too).
It reminds me of Mary Baker Eddies Christian Science cult; they live in their own “spiritual cocoon” denying the world around them. IMO, the appearance of age argument is unsatisfying.
I personally enjoy critically examining my beliefs and searching out truth.

Interpretations are based upon data. Those that choose to date creation as older than 4004 BC have biblical data that makes this a possibility. I've shown you where the Bible has gaps within it's geneologies. It doesn't weaken the Bible to know that this was an acceptable practice for the Hebrew authors.

Good starting principles regarding the integration of physical evidence into the study of theology might include:
</font>

• God is the author of all truth. All truth is God’s truth.</font>

</font>

• There is a harmony of special with general revelation.</font>

</font>

• The Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or anything else.</font>

</font>

• In some cases extrabiblical data has value in clarifying what Scripture teaches and prompting correction of faulty interpretations.</font>

</font>

• Extrabiblical views will never disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it.</font>

</font>

• There are no genuine scientific facts that are inconsistent with the true meaning of any passage of Scripture.</font>

Those that believe in an earth older than 6000 years hold the Scriptures in as high esteem as those that believe that the earth was created in 4004 BC. The issue is not who holds the Bible in higher esteem but who interprets the biblical data correctly.

Rob

 

The issue is not who holds the Bible in higher esteem but who interprets the biblical data correctly.

Well said Rob!

 

Charles.
Then I suppose according to you that the Holy Spirit was just a dumb hick back then too Who didn't know history or understand science or history.

How then would you define your "under inspiration"? I hope like this:

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Pet. 1:20-21

That applies to Gen. 1 too Charles.

 

Some old Earth conundrums:

If man had been on the Earth 3 million years starting with a single male and female, and breeding at our present rate, there would now be 150,000 people per square inch of ground on the entire Earth.

Speaking of Egyptians; they described Sirius as a red star. And Seneca described it as a red star. Ptolemy listed it as a red star. Yet Sirius is a white dwarf star today.

Jupiter's moon Ganymede has a magnetic field caused by a hot liquid metal core. If the Galaxy was billions of years old the moon would have cooled by now being so far from the Sun.

Our moon is leaving the Earths pull at a rate of a few inches a year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close to the Earth that the tide would have eroded away all land mass.

Comets keep losing material and last no more than 10,000 years.

The Earth's spin is slowing down at a rate of about a second every 1 1/2 years (called a leap second). Millions of years ago it would be spinning too fast for any life to exist.