Does the Bible teach the young Earth?

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Does the Bible teach the young Earth?

Post #1

Post by McCulloch »

cnorman18 wrote:Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Universe is 6,000 years old. That calculation comes from one James Ussher, an Irish archbishop of the 17th century, who was neither a saint, a prophet, nor a scientist.. It has been, shall we say, disputed.

My point is only this; even if one takes the Bible as the literal Word of God that does not require one to believe in a young Earth. That is an extraBiblical doctrine and not required by any reading of the Bible but Archbishop Ussher's.
Question for debate: If you take the Bible as the literal Word of God, would it require a belief in a young Earth? What about a young Universe?

Notes: For the purposes of this debate, let's define young as less than 10,000 years, so we need not quibble over rounding errors and such.
Remember, for this debate we are discussing whether the young earth is a necessary consequence of taking the Bible as the literal Word of God, not whether the Bible is the literal Word of God. That question is for other debate threads.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8969
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 67 times
Contact:

Post #2

Post by OnceConvinced »

Well if you look at the geneology from Adam to now, then it would seem the world was under 10,000 years old. According to the bible anyway.

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #3

Post by McCulloch »

In the Biblical narrative, we can divide the time into 5 periods:
  1. the six days of creation
  2. the creation of Adam to the Flood (less than 2000 years)
  3. the Flood to the birth of Abraham (less than 500 years)
  4. the birth of Abraham to the Exodus (less than 700 years)
  5. the Exodus to Christ (less than 2000 years)
Excluding the first six days, we have less than 6000 years from Adam to Christ, according to the Bible. Christ is said to have lived roughly 2000 years ago, so the six days must have ended somewhere less than 8000 years ago, according to the Bible.

Looking at each period in reverse.

The Exodus to Christ
In 1 Kings 11:42 : Thus the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years. Biblical scholars date the beginning of his reign as between 961 and 992 BCE.

In 1 Kings 6:1 : Now it came about in the four hundred and eightieth year after the sons of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD. There seems to be some discussion as to whether this means 480 solar years or 480 lunar years (equivalent to 466 solar years). So Biblically, we can date the Exodus at 1427 to 1472 BCE.

There is nothing in the text that would lead one to believe that either the 40 or the 480 are anything but literal years. So we can safely say that according to the Bible, the Exodus occurred less than 2000 years before Christ.

the birth of Abraham to the Exodus
[row]Exodus 12:40[row][i]Now the time that the sons of Israel lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years. [/i][col] 430[row]Genesis 47:9 : [i]So Jacob said to Pharaoh, "The years of my sojourning are one hundred and thirty; few and unpleasant have been the years of my life, nor have they attained the years that my fathers lived during the days of their sojourning."[/i][col] 130[row]Genesis 21:5 : [i]Now Abraham was one hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.[/i][col] 100 [row]Total [col] [b]660[/b]
There is nothing in the text that would lead on to believe that the 430, 130 or 100 are anything but literal years. So this period can be Biblically determined to be less than 700 years.

the Flood to the birth of Abraham
[row]Genesis 11:10-26 [row]These are the records of the generations of Shem. Shem was one hundred years old, and became the father of Arpachshad two years after the flood; [col] 102[row]and Shem lived five hundred years after he became the father of Arpachshad, and he had other sons and daughters. Arpachshad lived thirty-five years, and became the father of Shelah; [col] 35[row]and Arpachshad lived four hundred and three years after he became the father of Shelah, and he had other sons and daughters. Shelah lived thirty years, and became the father of Eber; [col] 30[row]and Shelah lived four hundred and three years after he became the father of Eber, and he had other sons and daughters. Eber lived thirty-four years, [col]34[row]and became the father of Peleg; and Eber lived four hundred and thirty years after he became the father of Peleg, and he had other sons and daughters. Peleg lived thirty years, and became the father of Reu;[col] 30[row] and Peleg lived two hundred and nine years after he became the father of Reu, and he had other sons and daughters. Reu lived thirty-two years, and became the father of Serug; [col] 32[row]and Reu lived two hundred and seven years after he became the father of Serug, and he had other sons and daughters. Serug lived thirty years, and became the father of Nahor;[col]30[row] and Serug lived two hundred years after he became the father of Nahor, and he had other sons and daughters. Nahor lived twenty-nine years, and became the father of Terah; [col] 29[row]and Nahor lived one hundred and nineteen years after he became the father of Terah, and he had other sons and daughters. Terah lived seventy years, and became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran. [col] 70[row] [col] [b]292[/b]
Simple addition yields 292 years. So allowing for rounding errors, lunar years, a few missed generations etc, it is safe to say that the Bible teaches that the time from the Flood to the birth of Abraham was less than 500 years.

the creation of Adam to the Flood
[row]Genesis 5[row]This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created. When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.[col] 130[col] 130[row]Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters. So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died. Seth lived one hundred and five years, and became the father of Enosh. [col] 105[col] 235[row]Then Seth lived eight hundred and seven years after he became the father of Enosh, and he had other sons and daughters. So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years, and he died. Enosh lived ninety years, and became the father of Kenan. [col] 90[col] 325[row]Then Enosh lived eight hundred and fifteen years after he became the father of Kenan, and he had other sons and daughters. So all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years, and he died. Kenan lived seventy years, and became the father of Mahalalel. [col] 70[col] 395[row]Then Kenan lived eight hundred and forty years after he became the father of Mahalalel, and he had other sons and daughters. So all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten years, and he died. Mahalalel lived sixty-five years, and became the father of Jared. [col] 65[col] 460[row]Then Mahalalel lived eight hundred and thirty years after he became the father of Jared, and he had other sons and daughters. So all the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred and ninety-five years, and he died. Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two years, and became the father of Enoch. [col] 162[col] 622[row]Then Jared lived eight hundred years after he became the father of Enoch, and he had other sons and daughters. So all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years, and he died. Enoch lived sixty-five years, and became the father of Methuselah.[col] 65[col] 687[row]Then Enoch walked with God three hundred years after he became the father of Methuselah, and he had other sons and daughters. So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him. Methuselah lived one hundred and eighty-seven years, and became the father of Lamech. [col] 187[col] 874[row]Then Methuselah lived seven hundred and eighty-two years after he became the father of Lamech, and he had other sons and daughters. So all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years, and he died. Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and became the father of a son.[col] 82[col] 956[row]Now he called his name Noah, saying, "This one will give us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands arising from the ground which the LORD has cursed." Then Lamech lived five hundred and ninety-five years after he became the father of Noah, and he had other sons and daughters. So all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and seventy-seven years, and he died. Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Genesis 7:6 Now Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of water came upon the earth.[col] 600[col] 1556
So allowing for errors, missed generations, rounding and other anomalies, the Bible teaches that the period from Adam to the Flood was less than 2000 years.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

israeltour
Apprentice
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Post #4

Post by israeltour »

No.

The literal meaning of Genesis 1 is theological, not historical. I believe this because Genesis 1 describes in detail the ancient cosmogony of an earth beneath a solid canopy, with water above, and a sun, moon, and stars beneath. Several cultures older than the Bible documented that story of origins first, and so God's word is not an original accounting of the history of origins. The main difference in Genesis 1 is that God is given full credit for the creation. It would seem then that God knew that the Children of Israel had no basis for understanding an accurate explanation of how the world was made, and He did not require such understanding of them. He did however want them to know that the world was created by Him and no one else.

Now, the question you ask is whether believing this to be God's literal word obliges me to believe in a young earth. Given the fact that this is not the literal history of earth's origins, I do not believe God means me take it as such. And because it is not history, no conclusion about the earth's age can be had from this.

Therefore, any other scripture referring to back Genesis 1 is also not speaking of the earth's age.

Therefore, God is not saying the earth is young.

Therefore, the earth can be old.

Therefore, the universe can be old.

Now, I think I glossed over the meaning of the word "literal" here. First, please note a subtlety: God is recalling the story of origins that the Hebrews would already have believed. Therefore, for them, Genesis 1 would have been taken literally, yet it is not literally true. Well simultaneously, Genesis 1 mirrors the literal scientific record when you dig into the words Moses happened to use, allow physical perspective to bias your reading, and view Genesis Days 5 and 6 as a recording of the Evolution that occurred after the KT Impact (I can detail my research into this if you want, but I don't think this is the right forum room for this). Of course I go so far as to say that the science is literally recorded in Genesis 1, but it is nicely reflected in my opinion (my reasons for saying so are based on my studies over the last few years), making the account 'literal' is some sense... and conveniently this approach only works if the scientific record is true, and the earth is old.

Therefore, **because** I take the bible to be God's literal word, I believe the earth and the universe are old.
Mike

israeltour
Apprentice
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Post #5

Post by israeltour »

Typo above: "Of course I go" was supposed to be "Of course I don't go"

Also, I don't want to be misunderstood about something. I actually believe the Bible to be God's inspired word, versus literal word. I glossed over this above. I believe God inspired Moses to write a story of origins, but do not believe God ictated it to Him. But, I still consider it "His Word". When you put the word literal in there, I don't mind; it just dawned on me that you might have intended a meaning that I would not.
Mike

Thought Criminal
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1081
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:05 pm

Post #6

Post by Thought Criminal »

israeltour wrote:No.

The literal meaning of Genesis 1 is theological, not historical. I believe this because Genesis 1 describes in detail the ancient cosmogony of an earth beneath a solid canopy, with water above, and a sun, moon, and stars beneath. Several cultures older than the Bible documented that story of origins first, and so God's word is not an original accounting of the history of origins. The main difference in Genesis 1 is that God is given full credit for the creation. It would seem then that God knew that the Children of Israel had no basis for understanding an accurate explanation of how the world was made, and He did not require such understanding of them. He did however want them to know that the world was created by Him and no one else.
Then again, God could have just said that the universe is over a dozen billion years, knowing that people will eventually figure that out for themselves, confirming that the author of the Bible knew things that no person at that time could have known. Then the Bible would be evidence of, well, something.

A similar example, drawn from Lev, would be some mention that bats aren't birds. Again, this would show knowledge that was not available through mundane means at the time.

In any case, you're right that the creation myth in Gen 1 is unoriginal and that the biggest change is that the Hebrew God is given credit. Now think about how this would be interpreted anthropologically.

TC

israeltour
Apprentice
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Post #7

Post by israeltour »

Thought Criminal wrote:
israeltour wrote:No.

The literal meaning of Genesis 1 is theological, not historical. I believe this because Genesis 1 describes in detail the ancient cosmogony of an earth beneath a solid canopy, with water above, and a sun, moon, and stars beneath. Several cultures older than the Bible documented that story of origins first, and so God's word is not an original accounting of the history of origins. The main difference in Genesis 1 is that God is given full credit for the creation. It would seem then that God knew that the Children of Israel had no basis for understanding an accurate explanation of how the world was made, and He did not require such understanding of them. He did however want them to know that the world was created by Him and no one else.
Then again, God could have just said that the universe is over a dozen billion years, knowing that people will eventually figure that out for themselves, confirming that the author of the Bible knew things that no person at that time could have known. Then the Bible would be evidence of, well, something.
Pretty inconvenient for us. I guess God was just too focused on the Children of Israel who had just been delivered from slavery, walked through the Red Sea, and needed a real foundational lesson in the God who had delivered them, than to add some token details just for us. But wait a minute... I have found that Genesis 1 matches up so well with the scientific record, that I think it actually is evidence of, well, at least something.

At the risk of being repetitive, you can view the evidence here: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 640#186640
Mike

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #8

Post by McCulloch »

israeltour wrote:But wait a minute... I have found that Genesis 1 matches up so well with the scientific record, that I think it actually is evidence of, well, at least something.

At the risk of being repetitive, you can view the evidence here: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 640#186640
irraeltour wrote:1) There must have been a time after the evolution of birds, sea life, and land mammals, when most of them were wiped out, and then they recovered in the order recorded in Days 5 and 6. I then learned of the KT impact, which justified my interpretation of the scripture.
There is no indication in Genesis 1 that the life forms created on day five and six were re-creations.
irraeltour wrote:2) Contrary to the scientific literature I had found, there must have been oceans covering the world 3.9 billion years ago. I then found scientific literature describing a secular theory less than 10 years old, that the zircon crystals found in Australia in the 80s were formed 4.4 billion years ago, and the most likely explanation of their origins moved the conventional wisdom of when the oceans first started from 3.9 billion years ago to 4.4.
And this change is reflected in the Bible how?
irraeltour wrote:3) I concluded that the scriptural meaning of the word Day must have a meaning other than 24-hours. When I looked at Moses' use of Yom everyplace else in the Torah, he specifically meant from sunset to sunset... allowing the Spirit of God (who was hovering over the deep according to Genesis 1:2) to stay hovering over the earth for as long as He wanted... even billions of years before experiencing another sunset.
It appears as if the writer of Genesis was not aware that the Earth rotates.
irraeltour wrote:4) I noticed in scripture that only seeded plants were mentioned. I concluded that they must have evolved last... and the fossil records prove they did!
Or that the author was unaware that there were no plants without seeds.

Your explanations look to me to be science shoehorned into Genesis.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
faith
Scholar
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:45 am
Location: United Kingdom.

Re: Does the Bible teach the young Earth?

Post #9

Post by faith »

McCulloch wrote:
cnorman18 wrote:Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Universe is 6,000 years old. That calculation comes from one James Ussher, an Irish archbishop of the 17th century, who was neither a saint, a prophet, nor a scientist.. It has been, shall we say, disputed.

My point is only this; even if one takes the Bible as the literal Word of God that does not require one to believe in a young Earth. That is an extraBiblical doctrine and not required by any reading of the Bible but Archbishop Ussher's.
Question for debate: If you take the Bible as the literal Word of God, would it require a belief in a young Earth? What about a young Universe?

Notes: For the purposes of this debate, let's define young as less than 10,000 years, so we need not quibble over rounding errors and such.
Remember, for this debate we are discussing whether the young earth is a necessary consequence of taking the Bible as the literal Word of God, not whether the Bible is the literal Word of God. That question is for other debate threads.

The bible does not give an age to the earth in the day it was created.
Because mans time on earth may seem to cover 10,000 years, what is clear is the first man when created was adult as were all the animals.
The earth would also have been a mature earth. It had to be sustain life for the animals. I would deem that the bible shows us that God made everything older than a day it was created to be an old earth.

Love Faith.xx :)

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2573 times

Post #10

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Given the uproar over the whole evo/ID debate, I would say the Bible does teach a young Earth. Comparing the loudness of theists who don't believe a young Earth to those practically demanding a young Earth, I again say the Bible teaches a young Earth. Just to make it clear, I say its an old Earth, based on science and not the Bible.

Post Reply