Young Earth or Old?

[Right Divider]

Hebrew Word Definition: Day | AHRC

Defining Hebrew words within their original cultural context.

ancient-hebrew.org

Use your Strong's concordance and how it defines the word yom which is the Hebrew word for day

https://www.godrules.net/library/strongs2a/heb3117.htm

In the Bible does not say it was a literal 24-hour day. Man determined that a few thousand years ago and pasted down that teaching generation to generation.

God gave man the knowledge of science _ and if a thousand years to God is as one day then a million years to God will be as one day _ as well as a billion, a trillion, a zillion years as one day, because God is not subjected to time, only man is..... Quite sure you will disagree with this too.
It is your right to disagree; so disagree on; and believe whatever teachings you have been taught. Different denominations different teachings.

Morning and evening make it clear that it's an ordinary day.

Gen 1:5 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

 

[7djengo7]

Morning and evening make it clear that it's an ordinary day.

Gen 1:5 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The meal between breakfast and supper on one of those billions-of-years "days" required by Darwinists: LUNCHEON.

 

[way 2 go]

Strong's concordance must be wrong when they say that the word y o m can actually be a figuratively used as a space of time or so you are indicating.

no , that would be you ignoring context of the days description

(Genesis 1:4-5) [4] And God saw the light, that it was good. And God divided the light from the darkness. [5] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

evening and morning is achieved by the rotation of the earth

1 rotation of the earth = 1 day

 

[Yorzhik]

Strong's concordance must be wrong when they say that the word y o m can actually be a figuratively used as a space of time or so you are indicating.


No I don't understand I'm wrong - I personally believe I'm right and you are wrong.

You consider me wrong on your terms.

That is why there is so much division within the church because some Christians want to tell those that believe differently, that interpret scripture differently, as wrong. And quite frankly they can't prove as an absolute that they are right.

That is why I try never to tell a Christian they're wrong, and I don't believe another Christian should call any Christian wrong!!!! I understand why there are different interpretations of scripture and what I write I believe - I say what I believe this and there's nothing you or anyone else can say to change my beliefs. I've been studying scripture for over 60 years and seen and heard just about every different interpretation there can be of scripture and I believe what I believe.
That is what is called having respect for another one's understanding of scripture

It is written do not argue over scripture that means that even then people saw felt believed differently concerning scripture.

-Don’t Argue About Scripture!

Don’t Argue About Scripture! “The Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach … those who oppose him … in the hope that God will grant them repe…

tafj.org

Romans 14 - NLT - Bible Study Tools

Romans 14 Accept other believers who are weak in faith, and don’t argue with them about what they think is right or wrong. For instance, one person believes it’s all right to eat anything. But another believer with a sensitive conscience will eat only vegetabl... Read verse in New Living Translation

www.biblestudytools.com

And I believe that God's spirit has guided me to believe as I do.

Ssssooooo... It's wrong to argue over Scripture?

 

[7djengo7]

Ssssooooo... It's wrong to argue over Scripture?

Yes....if you're arguing over Scripture against @Rebel for truth!

 

[Rodger]

Is the earth relatively young (6,000-10,000 years old) or is it old (millions or billions of years old)? This thread will discuss this subject. First, let us look at the following two verses which refer to the creation:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen.1:1).​

​

"For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited" (Isa.45:18).​

In the beginning the LORD created the earth and formed it to be inhabited. However, sometime after He formed it to be inhabited it became "without form" and dark so that it was no longer fitted to be inhabited:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" (Gen.1:5).​

What is said in "bold" in the following statement refers to the earth being inhabited before it was in a state described as being without form:

"Of the origin of our world the first chapter of Genesis tells us nothing save that 'in the beginning,' whenever that was, God 'created' it. It may be, as Tyndall said in his Belfast address, that 'for eons embracing untold millions of years, this earth has been the theatre of life and death.' But as to this the 'Mosaic narrative' is silent. It deals merely with the renewing and refurnishing of our planet as a home for man" (Sir Robert Anderson, A DOUBTER'S DOUBTS About Science and Religion).​

Sometime after the world was no longer habitable the LORD began to re-form both the earth and the heavens to make it habitable and that took six days. So in the debate between Christian about whether the earth is young or old I say that it is old.

I was taught that Creation was 6000 years ago.

I have over the years come to the belief that the earth is actually very, very old.

What is the apparent conflict? If the book of Genesis is interpreted strictly literally, it seems to indicate that the earth and the universe are around 6,000 years old. In contrast, various scientific dating methods place the age of the earth around 4.5 billion years and the age of the universe around 14.6 billion years.

The options to solve the apparent conflict are as follows: the Bible is wrong, the Bible is being interpreted incorrectly, or the scientific data is being interpreted incorrectly.

Old earth creationists believe a strictly literal approach is not the correct way to interpret the early chapters of Genesis. They view Gen. 1-2 as being primarily symbolic and/or poetic. Young earth creationists interpret the same Scriptures as a literal, historical account of how God created the universe. Young earth creationists question why, if the rest of Genesis is historical, should the first two chapters be interpreted differently? Old earth creationists question why, if the Bible uses symbolism in many other books, can’t metaphor be used in Genesis?

I can not give anyone the correct answer. I can only give what I think it correct for me. That being said, I have to account for the fact that man has in fact dug up the bones of fossilized animals that are very, very old. That has to be considered and the fact that no-where in the Scriptures is there a record of Dinosaurs!

Leviathan and Behemoth is not a Hebrew word for dinosaur!

 

[JudgeRightly]

I was taught that Creation was 6000 years ago.

A more accurate estimate of the earth's age is about 7500 years old, give or take 100.

I have over the years come to the belief that the earth is actually very, very old.

In other words, you've been tricked into thinking that the earth is older than it is.

What is the apparent conflict? If the book of Genesis is interpreted strictly literally, it seems to indicate that the earth and the universe are around 6,000 years old.

*7500 plus/minus 100 years old.

In contrast, various scientific dating methods

Carbon-14 dating cannot date things older than 100,000 years old, at a maximum. There are objects in which carbon-14 exists that according to "various scientific dating methods" used by evolutionists/old-earthers that say those objets are older than it is possible for the carbon-14 to exist in them, despite there being no way for C-14 to have been embedded within them naturally.

In other words, there is carbon-14 everywhere it shouldn't be, if the universe is older than 100,000 years old.

Carbon-14 Everywhere It Shouldn't Be = Young Earth | KGOV.com

kgov.com

The answer is that those "various scientific dating methods" are inherently biased towards old-earth beliefs.

place the age of the earth around 4.5 billion years and the age of the universe around 14.6 billion years.

@Right Divider I believe you can handle this better than I can, re: radio-carbon dating.

The options to solve the apparent conflict are as follows: the Bible is wrong, the Bible is being interpreted incorrectly, or the scientific data is being interpreted incorrectly.

Let God be true, and every man a liar.

Old earth creationists believe a strictly literal approach is not the correct way to interpret the early chapters of Genesis.

Because their a priori beliefs do not work with a literal approach. And no, I don't mean "woodenly literal."

They view Gen. 1-2 as being primarily symbolic and/or poetic.

Of course they do.

The primary meaning of it, however, is not symbolic nor poetic.

It is an account of the beginning of the universe and the earth.

You don't open up a history book and read it like it's poetry or symbolic of something. Why would you do that for the Bible?

Young earth creationists interpret the same Scriptures as a literal, historical account of how God created the universe. Young earth creationists question why, if the rest of Genesis is historical, should the first two chapters be interpreted differently? Old earth creationists question why, if the Bible uses symbolism in many other books, can’t metaphor be used in Genesis?

Because the context doesn't allow it.

I can not give anyone the correct answer. I can only give what I think it correct for me. That being said, I have to account for the fact that man has in fact dug up the bones of fossilized animals that are very, very old.

This is called "confirmation bias."

Fossils are young, and all were made at roughly the same time.

That has to be considered and the fact that no-where in the Scriptures is there a record of Dinosaurs!

Sure there is.

Leviathan and Behemoth is not a Hebrew word for dinosaur!

So what?

They're clearly not any creatures we have today.

The answer to most of this is in the Flood of Noah.

 

[Right Divider]

@Right Divider I believe you can handle this better than I can, re: radio-carbon dating.

This thread is a good place to go for that: https://theologyonline.com/threads/...hat-the-earth-is-billions-of-years-old.58155/

Basically, the "dating methods" for the "billions of years" is a complete fraud.

 

[7djengo7]

The options to solve the apparent conflict are as follows: the Bible is wrong, the Bible is being interpreted incorrectly, or the scientific data is being interpreted incorrectly.

The conflict is between the Bible (which teaches YEC) and men who despise the Bible. Not sure that anything is in need of being solved; the only option for ending the conflict is for the men who despise the Bible to stop rejecting YEC and to start believing YEC, instead.

 

[Rodger]

A more accurate estimate of the earth's age is about 7500 years old, give or take 100.



In other words, you've been tricked into thinking that the earth is older than it is.



*7500 plus/minus 100 years old.



Carbon-14 dating cannot date things older than 100,000 years old, at a maximum. There are objects in which carbon-14 exists that according to "various scientific dating methods" used by evolutionists/old-earthers that say those objets are older than it is possible for the carbon-14 to exist in them, despite there being no way for C-14 to have been embedded within them naturally.

In other words, there is carbon-14 everywhere it shouldn't be, if the universe is older than 100,000 years old.

Carbon-14 Everywhere It Shouldn't Be = Young Earth | KGOV.com

kgov.com

The answer is that those "various scientific dating methods" are inherently biased towards old-earth beliefs.



@Right Divider I believe you can handle this better than I can, re: radio-carbon dating.



Let God be true, and every man a liar.



Because their a priori beliefs do not work with a literal approach. And no, I don't mean "woodenly literal."



Of course they do.

The primary meaning of it, however, is not symbolic nor poetic.

It is an account of the beginning of the universe and the earth.

You don't open up a history book and read it like it's poetry or symbolic of something. Why would you do that for the Bible?



Because the context doesn't allow it.



This is called "confirmation bias."

Fossils are young, and all were made at roughly the same time.



Sure there is.



So what?

They're clearly not any creatures we have today.

The answer to most of this is in the Flood of Noah.

It seems to me that there has to be another answer.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It seems to me that there has to be another answer.

It's called the Hydroplate Theory.

The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory

It resolves MOST of the issues that are brought up by people who think the Bible is in error, while staying true to scripture.

And it does it without appealing to extra miracles.

 

[Right Divider]

It seems to me that there has to be another answer.

Rather than simply giving your vague opinion, why don't you actually explain WHY "it seems to you"?

We get people throwing out opinions all day long here on TOL. Instead, you should make an argument with actual reasons.

 

[Rodger]

Rather than simply giving your vague opinion, why don't you actually explain WHY "it seems to you"?

We get people throwing out opinions all day long here on TOL. Instead, you should make an argument with actual reasons.

Well........the main reason is that when I did on another topic Clete went after me what I said with insults and even called me the "Bible answer man" in a very sarcastic post.

However, I will try to respond. The options to solve the apparent conflict of Old earth and New earth are as follows:
the Bible is wrong, the Bible is being interpreted incorrectly, or the scientific data is being interpreted incorrectly.


Personally, I am not saying that old earth creationism nor young earth creationism teaches that the Bible is wrong.
It seems to me that both old earth and young earth creationists believe in the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of God’s Word. What differs between these approaches is one’s view on what the Bible is, in fact, saying. It’s a matter of interpretation.

Personally, I do not believe that God intended in Scripture to tell us the age of the earth.

The word day as used in Genesis 1 translates the Hebrew word yôm, which often refers to 24-hour days, but in other contexts clearly refers to an unspecified period of time.

Other examples of the word day to mean a period of time include Psalm 20:1 ...“May the Lord answer you in the day of trouble!” Proverbs 24:10 ....“If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small”,
Proverbs 25:13 “Like the cold of snow in the time [yôm] of harvest . . .”,
Ecclesiastes 7:14 ....In the day of prosperity be joyful, and in the day of adversity consider”.

The context of Genesis 1 does not clearly require one meaning of day over another, and if scientific data, drawn from many different disciplines and giving similar answers, convinces us that the earth is billions of years old, then this possible interpretation of day as a long period of time may be the best interpretation to adopt.

 

[Right Divider]

Well........the main reason is that when I did on another topic Clete went after me what I said with insults and even called me the "Bible answer man" in a very sarcastic post.

That's a lame excuse. I know for a fact that Clete is fine with people making arguments VS simply giving opinions.

However, I will try to respond. The options to solve the apparent conflict of Old earth and New earth are as follows:
the Bible is wrong, the Bible is being interpreted incorrectly, or the scientific data is being interpreted incorrectly.

Well... we know that the Bible is correct, so that only leaves disagreeing with it as the remaining option.

Personally, I am not saying that old earth creationism nor young earth creationism teaches that the Bible is wrong.
It seems to me that both old earth and young earth creationists believe in the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of God’s Word. What differs between these approaches is one’s view on what the Bible is, in fact, saying. It’s a matter of interpretation.

Old earth creationists are trying to "compromise" with "science so called". It's a huge mistake.

Personally, I do not believe that God intended in Scripture to tell us the age of the earth.

What you personally believe is irrelevant. The Bible is very clear about its timeline.
Referring to each day of creation with an "evening and morning" cannot be more clear.

The word day as used in Genesis 1 translates the Hebrew word yôm, which often refers to 24-hour days, but in other contexts clearly refers to an unspecified period of time.

Indeed IN OTHER CONTEXTS, but not that one. There is NO warrant for taking it as "an unspecified period of time" during the six days of creation.

Other examples of the word day to mean a period of time include Psalm 20:1 ...“May the Lord answer you in the day of trouble!” Proverbs 24:10 ....“If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small”,
Proverbs 25:13 “Like the cold of snow in the time [yôm] of harvest . . .”,
Ecclesiastes 7:14 ....In the day of prosperity be joyful, and in the day of adversity consider”.

Again, There is NO warrant for taking it as "an unspecified period of time" during the six days of creation.

The context of Genesis 1 does not clearly require one meaning of day over another,

Nonsense. "Evening and morning" is crystal clear that we are talking about an ordinary day.

and if scientific data, drawn from many different disciplines and giving similar answers, convinces us that the earth is billions of years old, then this possible interpretation of day as a long period of time may be the best interpretation to adopt.

There is no such thing as "scientific data, drawn from many different disciplines and giving similar answers".

You simply prefer to believe fiction over fact.

 

[Yorzhik]

The word day as used in Genesis 1 translates the Hebrew word yôm, which often refers to 24-hour days, but in other contexts clearly refers to an unspecified period of time.

Other examples of the word day to mean a period of time include Psalm 20:1 ...“May the Lord answer you in the day of trouble!” Proverbs 24:10 ....“If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small”,
Proverbs 25:13 “Like the cold of snow in the time [yôm] of harvest . . .”,
Ecclesiastes 7:14 ....In the day of prosperity be joyful, and in the day of adversity consider”.

The context of Genesis 1 does not clearly require one meaning of day over another, and if scientific data, drawn from many different disciplines and giving similar answers, convinces us that the earth is billions of years old, then this possible interpretation of day as a long period of time may be the best interpretation to adopt.

That's the problem with this idea. Not only does the language dictate a 24-hour day by the context, but science says the solar system, even more so the earth, and especially biology, are younger than the long ages required by common descent.

 

[Rodger]

That's the problem with this idea. Not only does the language dictate a 24-hour day by the context, but science says the solar system, even more so the earth, and especially biology, are younger than the long ages required by common descent.

No argument from me.

Astronomers using Mathematics have been able to measure the distance from earth to various stars and galaxies. They can also measure the speed at which they are moving away from us. With those two values, they can “back up” the process to find how long the universe has been expanding. After summarizing three different methods of measuring such expansion, these mathematicians can say that they show an average age of the universe of 13.79 ± 0.06 billion years.

I am not a mathematician but that does seem to me to be rather conclusive.

 

[Rodger]

That's a lame excuse. I know for a fact that Clete is fine with people making arguments VS simply giving opinions.

Well... we know that the Bible is correct, so that only leaves disagreeing with it as the remaining option.

Old earth creationists are trying to "compromise" with "science so called". It's a huge mistake.

What you personally believe is irrelevant. The Bible is very clear about its timeline.
Referring to each day of creation with an "evening and morning" cannot be more clear.

Indeed IN OTHER CONTEXTS, but not that one. There is NO warrant for taking it as "an unspecified period of time" during the six days of creation.

Again, There is NO warrant for taking it as "an unspecified period of time" during the six days of creation.

Nonsense. "Evening and morning" is crystal clear that we are talking about an ordinary day.

There is no such thing as "scientific data, drawn from many different disciplines and giving similar answers".

You simply prefer to believe fiction over fact.

However "lame" you think it may be, All one has to do is read his posts. But that is another topic. I complained and was told to "toughen up".

Old Earth does not question the validity of the Bible!!!

You said.........
"What you personally believe is irrelevant."

Then you said...........
"You simply prefer to believe fiction over fact."

I am doing nothing that you suggest. I am trying to make sense of reality and at the same time reconcile the Scriptures.

I an sure that you know that the speed of light is approximately 186,000 miles per second, and the sun is about 92,960,000 miles from the earth. That means it takes just over eight minutes for light from the sun to reach us. Therefore, when we see a sunrise or sunset, we are not seeing the sun as it is at that very moment, but we are seeing the sun as it was eight minutes ago.

This principle also applies to light from other stars. When we look through a telescope at Alpha Centauri (the star that is closest to us, after the sun), we are looking at a star that is 4.4 light-years away, which means the light from that star took 4.4 years to reach us. Therefore, what we see is Alpha Centauri as it existed 4.4 years ago. In the same way, some of the stars we can observe are so distant that their light would take 13,800,000,000 years to reach us. This indicates a very old universe.

 

[Yorzhik]

No argument from me.

Astronomers using Mathematics have been able to measure the distance from earth to various stars and galaxies. They can also measure the speed at which they are moving away from us. With those two values, they can “back up” the process to find how long the universe has been expanding. After summarizing three different methods of measuring such expansion, these mathematicians can say that they show an average age of the universe of 13.79 ± 0.06 billion years.

I am not a mathematician but that does seem to me to be rather conclusive.

So you are saying the universe is old and at least the solar system is young. Do I have that right?

If so, the bible in context has God creating light in the first 24-hour day, which does not fit that conclusion.

And beyond that, to say it is rather conclusive ignores all the anomalies that argue against that idea. Setterfield Plasma Cosmology has less problems, although I'm not sold on the idea 100%. Still, because there are better models than the Big Bang you should at least avoid saying it is conclusive and take a wait and see approach instead of saying scripture supports it.

 

[Right Divider]

Old Earth does not question the validity of the Bible!!!

It absolutely does! Starting with Genesis 1!

You said.........
"What you personally believe is irrelevant."

Then you said...........
"You simply prefer to believe fiction over fact."

Yes, I did.

I am doing nothing that you suggest. I am trying to make sense of reality and at the same time reconcile the Scriptures.

Then start with what the scripture clearly says and stop trying to make it say what it does not say.

Gen 1:5 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Gen 1:8 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:8) And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Gen 1:13 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:13) And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Etc. etc. etc.

I an sure that you know that the speed of light is approximately 186,000 miles per second, and the sun is about 92,960,000 miles from the earth. That means it takes just over eight minutes for light from the sun to reach us. Therefore, when we see a sunrise or sunset, we are not seeing the sun as it is at that very moment, but we are seeing the sun as it was eight minutes ago.

I'm sure that you know that there is nothing here that is relevant to the scripture in Genesis 1.

This principle also applies to light from other stars. When we look through a telescope at Alpha Centauri (the star that is closest to us, after the sun), we are looking at a star that is 4.4 light-years away, which means the light from that star took 4.4 years to reach us. Therefore, what we see is Alpha Centauri as it existed 4.4 years ago. In the same way, some of the stars we can observe are so distant that their light would take 13,800,000,000 years to reach us. This indicates a very old universe.

I'm afraid that you place too much faith in the "big bang" and secular "science". You are also discounting the fact that God stretched out the heavens. There are a great many things that we simply do not know. But that does not stop arrogant secular scientists from making bold claims about the nature of God's creation.

 

[Right Divider]

Astronomers using Mathematics have been able to measure the distance from earth to various stars and galaxies.

And the farther out they go the less certain the "measurements" become.

They can also measure the speed at which they are moving away from us.

There is much debate over this idea. Secularist "science" has some problems with this since it makes it appear that the earth is at the center of the "big bang".

With those two values, they can “back up” the process to find how long the universe has been expanding.

If it's expanding at all. Don't forget that God stretched out the heavens.

Isa 42:5 (AKJV/PCE)
(42:5) ¶ Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

After summarizing three different methods of measuring such expansion, these mathematicians can say that they show an average age of the universe of 13.79 ± 0.06 billion years.

These same people claim that they can measure the age of the earth by looking at rocks.

I am not a mathematician but that does seem to me to be rather conclusive.

That's because you have not considered alternative ideas.