How Old is the Earth?

[Sneekee]

But seriously,

We know by observation of solid facts that the universe as we know it, and the planet on which we reside, are both much older than 6,000 years. These facts are more than iffy hypotheses, or error-prone calculations on carbon decay. Cramming the age of the universe into 6,000 years requires adherence to pseudoscience and violations of standards of plain and decent horse sense that young earth creationists vehemently appeal to in their own attempts to strike down the beliefs of others.

But frankly, this has very little to do with the Bible. Usages of the word "earth" in the KJV and other English translations of Scripture are not only completely different from today's global definition of the word, but are not even consistent with Hebrew terminology. In the Bible, we've used the word "earth" to translate more than one word, and a number of concepts...and that's on the side of concrete literalism.

Furthermore, Genesis 1 does not place the Earth at the beginning of all existence (that's not even in the scope or realm of thought for the work), neither does Genesis 3 place Adam at the beginning of all people. These are assumptions that we have made from our English words, and then we've tried to squeeze them into the Scripture with gap theories and more assumptions.

A dogmatic slogan of young earth creationism is the question of whether or not we are going to believe the Bible, or our own observations. My question for young earth creationists is whether they are going to believe the Bible, or their own sacred cows born and nurtured from anachronistic derivations of tiny fragments of Scripture.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Was Jesus confusing folks when he made water into wine and gave it a flavor that would normally take time to age?

I had a pastor who said that the wine in John chapter 2 was non-alcoholic because it is called "water wine" in John 4:46 where it says in the KJV "So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee,
where he made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Sneekee

...
neither does Genesis 3 place Adam at the beginning of all people.
...

not sure what you mean by that?
could you explain it a little?

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Sam

I had a pastor who said that the wine in John chapter 2 was non-alcoholic because it is called "water wine" in John 4:46 where it says in the KJV "So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee,
where he made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum.

Oh groan.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Sam

not sure what you mean by that?
could you explain it a little?

That is where he does a huge amount of damage to the scriptures to make them fit what he thinks nature is saying. The Word of God cannot be trusted.


Ge 3:20 - And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living

[mizpeh]

Matt 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

What does "at the beginning" mean to you Sneek?

[Sneekee]

Originally Posted by Sam

not sure what you mean by that?
could you explain it a little?

Clearly, Adam was the first of those considered "Adam" in Hebrew, which we often equate as "humanity." This coincides with the English "man," which is also named after the Germanic ancestor.

What we refuse to examine is why Cain, the first child of Adam and thus by our estimation the 2nd man in existence, was afraid for his life.

Gen 4:14 “See, You have driven me from the face of the ground [adamah] today, and I am hidden from Your face. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and it shall be that anyone who finds me kills me.”

The Scripture clearly indicates that Seth was the 3rd son of Adam, ultimately his firstborn, and that he was not born until Abel was dead, thus his name (he was called "Seth," meaning "sat down," as God had "sat down" another son in the place of Abel). At the time of Cain's punishment, if there were only 2 men on the face of the planet, why was Cain afraid of many men? Why was he not only afraid of Adam, and not "anyone?" Cain and Adam were simply not alone.

We interpret the Bible in the fashion that we wish, and that with English terminologies that convey the original meanings only in part. We read the English word "create" and assume that it is describing the act of making something out of nothing, when the Scripture makes no claim of the sort. We read the word "man" and assume that it applies to all of what we call "humanity." We read "earth" and assume that it is referencing a planet, when the Scripture makes no reference to a planet at all, and cares very little for physics, since physics has nothing to do with its scope.

Instead of making excuses for the Bible, we should read it for what it says in its original context. The Bible isn't about how the universe by the hand of God came to be, or how or if it will end. That is irrelevant to its message. The Bible is about how we can reach Him. It's about why we should reach Him. It's about the consequences of reaching Him, and walking away. It's about the covenant. Period.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Sneekee

Clearly, Adam was the first of those considered "Adam" in Hebrew, which we often equate as "humanity." This coincides with the English "man," which is also named after the Germanic ancestor.

What we refuse to examine is why Cain, the first child of Adam and thus by our estimation the 2nd man in existence, was afraid for his life.

Gen 4:14 “See, You have driven me from the face of the ground [adamah] today, and I am hidden from Your face. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and it shall be that anyone who finds me kills me.”

The Scripture clearly indicates that Seth was the 3rd son of Adam, ultimately his firstborn, and that he was not born until Abel was dead, thus his name (he was called "Seth," meaning "sat down," as God had "sat down" another son in the place of Abel). At the time of Cain's punishment, if there were only 2 men on the face of the planet, why was Cain afraid of many men? Why was he not only afraid of Adam, and not "anyone?" Cain and Adam were simply not alone.

We interpret the Bible in the fashion that we wish, and that with English terminologies that convey the original meanings only in part. We read the English word "create" and assume that it is describing the act of making something out of nothing, when the Scripture makes no claim of the sort. We read the word "man" and assume that it applies to all of what we call "humanity." We read "earth" and assume that it is referencing a planet, when the Scripture makes no reference to a planet at all, and cares very little for physics, since physics has nothing to do with its scope.

Instead of making excuses for the Bible, we should read it for what it says in its original context. The Bible isn't about how the universe by the hand of God came to be, or how or if it will end. That is irrelevant to its message. The Bible is about how we can reach Him. It's about why we should reach Him. It's about the consequences of reaching Him, and walking away. It's about the covenant. Period.

Excellent thoughts.

[Sneekee]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

That is where he does a huge amount of damage to the scriptures to make them fit what he thinks nature is saying. The Word of God cannot be trusted.


Ge 3:20 - And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living

The Bible says that the beasts of the field are alive. In fact, the word translated "beast" in that context literally means "a life."

Did Eve also give birth to the beasts of the field, or are you damaging the scripture to make them fit what you think nature is saying?

[Sneekee]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Matt 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

What does "at the beginning" mean to you Sneek?

Bereshith, which is the first word written in the Bible and the word Jesus would have used here as Jesus was a Galilean--a speaker of Hebrew. Josephus, also a Galilean, testifies to this fact.

Bereshith in this application indeed might best be translated "at first." In the strictest sense, "At the head," or "At the summit." A variation of "resh," literally "the head," Bereshith is used throughout the OT denoting the first born, the first fruits, captains, mountain summits, the beginning. "At the beginning" is not a poor translation. What we have done with this translation, however, is not true to Scripture.

The assumption that "the beginning" means "the beginning of all matter" is not just the injection of a western abstract into a culture which doesn't care to examine it, but it is a direct defiance of how Genesis explains the first statement of the Bible. The beginning is not the beginning of all time. The beginning is the beginning of the heavens and the earth. What are the heavens and the earth?

Tell me, why does Jeremiah suddenly change subjects here?

Jer 4
14 O Yerushalayim, wash your heart from evil, and be saved. Till when would your wicked thoughts remain within you?

15 For a voice is declaring from Dan, and is proclaiming trouble from Mount Ephrayim:

16 “Announce to the nations, look, proclaim against Yerushalayim, that besiegers are coming from a distant land and raise their voice against the cities of Yehuḏah.

17 “Like keepers of a field they are against her all around, because she has rebelled against Me,” declares YHWH.

18 “Your ways and your deeds have brought this upon you. This is your evil, because it is bitter, because it has reached into your heart.”

19 O my inward parts, my inward parts! I am in pain! O the walls of my heart! My heart pounds in me, I am not silent. For you have heard, O my being, the sound of the ram’s horn, a shout of battle!

20 Destruction upon destruction is cried, for all the land is ravaged.
Suddenly my tents are ravaged – my curtains in a moment.

21 How long shall I see a banner, and hear the sound of the ram’s horn?

22 “For My people are foolish, they have not known Me. They are stupid children, and they have no understanding. They are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.”

23 I looked at the earth, and saw it was formless and empty. And the heavens, they had no light.

24 I looked at the mountains, and saw they shook, and all the hills were swaying.

25 I looked, and saw there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens had fled.

26 I looked, and saw the garden land was a wilderness, and all its cities were broken down at the presence of YHWH, by His burning displeasure.

27 For thus said YHWH, “All the earth shall be a ruin, but I shall not make a complete end.


Why would Jeremiah lament the wickedness of Israel, then suddenly jump in midstream to a rehashing of how the planet was formed, only to suddenly jump back to the destruction pending Jerusalem's departure from the covenant? Was Jeremiah schizophrenic?