Does the Bible teach the young Earth?

[McCulloch]

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.

[Goat]

Not only does a young Earth leave no time for evolution, it moves God closer in time to us, making him much less abstract than saying God acted a dozen billion years ago.

... and in my opinion the reason atheists fight tooth and nail against the young earth view. If the earth is young, macro-evolution is impossible... leaving atheism without a leg to stand on.

Except, of course, the evidence. It is the evidence that drives the 'old earth view'. No one who has actually had a scientific education and actually understood the concepts would deny that.

I've shown on several occasions how this assertion is incorrect--why keep making it? There are those with a scientific education who understand the concept and reject it.

No, you made false claims. You gave 'information' that is proven false, yet you keep repeating it. Let's face it, you jump on pseudoscience to try to disprove physics, geology, astronomy and archeology. Yes, there are those who have an alleged scientific education that reject it, but they are so far in the minority that they are considered the 'lunatic fringe', and many of those got the education to 'prove' the young earth, and actually reject the basics that they were taught. I thin k you will find that the people falsely claim scientific education who are YEC outnumber the YEC's who DO actually have a good scientific background in geology , or physics or astronomy.

It is amazing on how many folks claim a scientific background that have a pre-high school level of understanding of science. They don't even have a high school level of understanding.

[Fisherking]

Not only does a young Earth leave no time for evolution, it moves God closer in time to us, making him much less abstract than saying God acted a dozen billion years ago.

... and in my opinion the reason atheists fight tooth and nail against the young earth view. If the earth is young, macro-evolution is impossible... leaving atheism without a leg to stand on.

Except, of course, the evidence. It is the evidence that drives the 'old earth view'. No one who has actually had a scientific education and actually understood the concepts would deny that.

I've shown on several occasions how this assertion is incorrect--why keep making it? There are those with a scientific education who understand the concept and reject it.

Yes, there are those who have an alledged scientific education that reject it, but they are so far in the minority that they are considered the 'lunatic fringe', and many of those got the education to 'prove' the young earth, and actually reject the basics that they were taught.

Thank you. Does this mean you are retracting the " No one who has actually had a scientific education and actually understood the concepts would deny [the old earth]" statement?

[Goat]

Not only does a young Earth leave no time for evolution, it moves God closer in time to us, making him much less abstract than saying God acted a dozen billion years ago.

... and in my opinion the reason atheists fight tooth and nail against the young earth view. If the earth is young, macro-evolution is impossible... leaving atheism without a leg to stand on.

Except, of course, the evidence. It is the evidence that drives the 'old earth view'. No one who has actually had a scientific education and actually understood the concepts would deny that.

I've shown on several occasions how this assertion is incorrect--why keep making it? There are those with a scientific education who understand the concept and reject it.

Yes, there are those who have an alledged scientific education that reject it, but they are so far in the minority that they are considered the 'lunatic fringe', and many of those got the education to 'prove' the young earth, and actually reject the basics that they were taught.

Thank you. Does this mean you are retracting the " No one who has actually had a scientific education and actually understood the concepts would deny [the old earth]" statement?

Heck no. I would say that anybody who understands the evidence, and looks at it in an objective manner will accept an 'old' earth. All the people who push the 'young earth' do so for religious reasons, and deny facts. They twist science, show a great deal of ignorance, or try to find absurd alternate explanations that ignore how things work. It would be fun to have faith that the world was created in seven days, but, as Lewis Black says about it 'I have thoughts'.

[Thought Criminal]

Heck no. I would say that anybody who understands the evidence, and looks at it in an objective manner will accept an 'old' earth. All the people who push the 'young earth' do so for religious reasons, and deny facts. They twist science, show a great deal of ignorance, or try to find absurd alternate explanations that ignore how things work. It would be fun to have faith that the world was created in seven days, but, as Lewis Black says about it 'I have thoughts'.

There is such a thing a sleeper student. This is someone who starts with extreme religious beliefs and intentionally seeks a degree in a scientific subject that disagrees with those beliefs. The idea is to simply parrot back what you're taught without understanding it too deeply, much less allowing it to interfere with your dogma. Then, when you graduate, you can come out of the closet and admit to being young-Earth Creationist or whatever other craziness you like.

TC

[ken1burton]

If you take the Bible as the Literal Word of God? How can that be done?

Ezekiel 1:5 Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance; they had the likeness of a man.
6 And every one had four faces, and every one had four wings.
7 And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf's foot: and they sparkled like the colour of burnished brass.
8 And they had the hands of a man under their wings on their four sides; and they four had their faces and their wings.
9 Their wings were joined one to another; they turned not when they went; they went every one straight forward.
10 As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle.

Cute part is Ezekiel is looking at the very same thing called the “Creation Story�. He is seeing the Beginning. But the Beginning is not the start of life on earth. It is the day of the Cross.

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

The Creation story is from Ancient times, Yet it was not yet done as God spoke through Isaiah. So if you move the Creation story, and take the rest of Genesis with it, Take Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as not having been done yet when Isaiah wrote, And that eliminates the “Young Earth� as even a consideration.

Stars fall? You really want to take that as Literal? God using Similitudes eliminates the sense of Literal. Without the heavy use of your imagination, the Scriptures can not even begin to be seen.

Hosea 12:10 I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.

The day of the Cross seen as 4 6-hour periods seen as 4 beasts with 6-wings:

Revelation 4:7 And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle.

God doubles twice to establish His words as Truth, So Ezekiel saw the day as 4 6-hour periods doubled, or four creatures with 4 faces each. Ox and a Calf have the same face.

Genesis 2:4 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,

Notice, it is all in ONE DAY, and it is HEAVENS or Plural, His day seen as Heaven, So the day made as 7 days is stretching out the Heavens.

Sunset to Midnight, Let there be Light, I am the True Vine, I am the Good Shepherd, I am the way, the Truth and the Life, In My Father’s House are many mansions, Etc.

People as waters, Jesus as the Firmament, Disciples flee as Islands on the Second day from Midnight to sunrise, ones with Judas as waters above Firmament, Sinners as waters under Jesus.

Third day as Sunrise to noon, Waters gathered together (in Christ) “With His stripes we are healed.�

Fourth day, God makes two great lights. Sun seen as the Throne in Psalms 89:36. Turned to darkness as Jesus dies between noon and sunset and they think that is the end, Moon seen as the Establishment of the Throne in Psalms 89:37. Turned to blood as the Blood of Christ establishes the Throne.

Fourth angel sounds in Revelation and a third of the Sun, and a third of the Moon is smitten, or the first of three pictures of the Fourth day (noon to sunset) is fulfilled.

Fourth seal is the Pale Horse, Death followed by hell as Jesus dies and descends into hell. First picture as a River divided into four heads or the Garden of Eden, Fourth river is Euphrates, So Euphrates is Dried up, as second picture looks at Jesus in hell, as a Desert, or a pit where in is no water.

So without Genesis belonging at the start, What supports a Young Earth?

Isaiah 63:16 Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.

FROM EVERLASTING, or when “Everlasting past ended� the Day of the Cross, Began. Go back a million, a billion, a trillion, You will never find a Beginning. Big Bang is a Joke. The entire Universe in a space smaller then an Atom. A Universe with Stars older then the Big Bang starting them in existence.

Ken

[faith]

McCulloch"]

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.

But according to the Bible, he died 930 years after his creation. He was created on day six.

What has that to do with the age of the earth and the age of Adam in the day of their creation? How old was the earth in it's appearance. Has anyone created a world like ours from scratch or seen another appear?
To me it seems man is good at telling you how old things are by his own methods. But ultimately how do you really tell the age of something what if they earth has always existed? How and why does it exist?

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.

Yes, and God could have made the stars on day 3 or 4 (I forget) and made them seem to be billions of years old, complete with light already coming from them so that we could see them, even though that would be impossible. Why? Is your God that deceptive?

Just how many stars has man been to? None! What did God create it all from?
How do you explain you in this whole complexs sytem of life?

Love Faith.xx

[cnorman18]

Since this thread began with a quote from me, I suppose I should put in an additional comment or two of my own.

Genesis, as part of the Torah and the Hebrew Bible, is a Jewish book. One would think it advisable, when considering its meaning, to at least take note of the teachings on that subject from the religion and culture that produced it. Would you construct a scientific doctrine based on the Vedas without at least checking on your interpretation of that book by asking a Hindu or two about it?

When one does check with Jews on our understanding of our Book where these matters are concerned, one will find that Jews have not read Genesis as literal history or as a scientific treatise for at least two thousand years.

It is a fact that the current year on the Hebrew calendar is 5768, commonly said to be "from the Creation"; but as a matter of practical fact, that number has long been acknowledged by our rabbis and sages as being based on a symbolic "starting point" and not on the literal time of Creation, and in any case denotes only the time of the "creation" of the symbolic and metaphorical figure of Adam, the first man. Be it noted that "Adam," in Hebrew, is not only a proper name, but also means "mankind." In Hebrew, the symbolic and metaphorical nature of the first chapters of Genesis is rather harder to miss than in English.

As far as the actual time of Creation is concerned, it ought to be noted (especially since I have posted this a number of times) that a Kabbalist, or Jewish mystic, named Nechunya ben HaKanah once calculated the time of Creation as being 15.3 billion years before the creation of Adam, or coincidentally about the same as that calculated by modern astrophysicists.

It's tempting to assume that Nechunya took that timespan from modern research and worked backward from it to make his numbers match it; but it's hard to see how he could have done that. Nechunya ben HaKanah lived and worked in the first century of the common era, about two thousand years ago.

The point is not that the Jews got it right; Nechunya's calculations were not widely known at the time, and were only one such calculation among many. The point is that even two millenia back, Jews did not think the Creation took place only four millenia before.

Jews, by and large, take science seriously and regard this whole controversy as silly--except that we regard efforts to enforce the teaching of Creationism by legislation as being perilously close to the establishment or endorsement of a particular religious view by the State. We Jews have found that sort of thing to be, shall we say, infelicitous in our past, and we find it disturbing.

[Fisherking]

The point is that even two millenia back, Jews did not think the Creation took place only four millenia before.

Thanks for the overviews cnorman. Do you believe the the new testament writers were Jews? If so, why did they apparently teach a literal Genesis regarding creation?

[Goat]

The point is that even two millenia back, Jews did not think the Creation took place only four millenia before.

Thanks for the overviews cnorman. Do you believe the the new testament writers were Jews? If so, why did they apparently teach a literal Genesis regarding creation?

Did they? Or did they know their audience?

I personally do not believe Paul was Jewish, although he made that claim. His outlook was too divergent, and had more to do with the theology of the prominate religion of Taurus from that time period rather than Judaism.

Other than that, if you are addressing a story , to people who know the story is merely a story, you don't have to emphasize it is only a story.

[cnorman18]

The point is that even two millenia back, Jews did not think the Creation took place only four millenia before.

Thanks for the overviews cnorman. Do you believe the the new testament writers were Jews? If so, why did they apparently teach a literal Genesis regarding creation?

Did they? Or did they know their audience?

I personally do not believe Paul was Jewish, although he made that claim. His outlook was too divergent, and had more to do with the theology of the predominate religion of Tarsus from that time period rather than Judaism.

Other than that, if you are addressing a story , to people who know the story is merely a story, you don't have to emphasize it is only a story.

I don't think I can add much to what my friend Goat said above (which I have corrected slightly), but I would make this observation; I can't see, and never have been able to see, why the time and manner of Creation is anything more than a minor side issue in either of our religions.

To put it in Christian terms, belief in a seven-day Creation 6,000 years ago does not seem to me to be essential to either preaching the Gospel or believing in Jesus. Surely one can be a faithful, believing, and "saved" Christian without being required to sign off on that idea. I didn't believe that when I was a Christian, and relatively few members of my denomination did, either. It just wasn't that important to our faith or our mission, and I frankly don't understand why so many conservative Christians seem to think that it is.