• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Age of the Earth

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Anyone out there believe that the Bible is inerrant, yet believe that the universe is billions of years old? How do you recconcile that with scripture?

Beginning with the archeological landmark event of the fall of Jerusalem (which has now been corrected to 588 B.C., instead of 586-587 B.C.) and counting backwards the prophesied number of years between this event and the division of Solomon's kingdom (390 yrs. + 40 yrs., according to Ezekiel 4:4-7), brings us to 1018 B.C.From the end of Solomon's 40-year reign to the start of the Temple in the 4th year of his reign takes us back another 37 years to 1055 B.C.From the start of Solomon's Temple "in the 480th year" (1 Kings 6:1) back to the Exodus from Egypt (hence 479 years previous) brings us to near 1534 B.C.From the Exodus out of Egypt to Abraham's entering Canaan from Haran was exactly 430 years to the day (Gen 12:10/ Exodus 12:40/ Gal 3:17), thus around 1964 B.C.Since Abraham entered Canaan at age 75 (Gen 12:4), he was born approximately 2039 B.C.From Abraham's birth to Noah's grandson (Shem's son), Arpachshad's birth, 2 years after the Flood started, was 290 years (Gen 11:11-26), this places the onset of the Flood at around 2331 B.C. [definitely 4,300-4,400 years ago].The genealogy of Genesis 5:3-32 precludes any gaps due to its tight chronological structure and gives us 1,656 years between Creation and the Flood, thus bringing Creation Week back to near 3987 B.C. or approximately 4000 B.C.
 
I don't worry about it. I figure God will explain the seeming dichotomy to me one day in due course. In the meantime I carry on.
 
Anyone out there believe that the Bible is inerrant, yet believe that the universe is billions of years old? How do you recconcile that with scripture?

Now - I most certainly don't believe in anything.

But I don't believe that the Bible dates the earth at all. . . in fact: it's quite ambiguous

Now - in Genesis it rattles off Enoch, Cain - and all their children and children's children . . . all that marital intermarriage - everyone living for 700yrs and 500 years and 900 years . . . and so forth.

And then it says:
1 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.


So it just stops 'keeping track ' -for all we know, if the Genesis was true (fro the sake of argument) it could have easily been 8bilion years ago. There is no time frame - none at all - given to the span of time in which "human beings increased in number on the earth"

None what so ever. . . so that whole rattled off list you posted = meaningless. The 'earth' didn't begin with Noah or Jerusalem and all that - there's no point in pegging out a few dates from stories in the *middle* of the Bible and thinking that trumps it all.

I think it's funny, though - that, according to the bible, we useto live in excess of countless years (500 - 900) but then God - just becaues he got tired of everyone living for so long - he said 'nough of that, gettin on my nerves!

LOL - that's funny
 
Last edited:
The bible is not clear on how old the earth is. The new earth camp will say that the six days of creation in Genesis is a literal six days and therefore the earth would be somewhere between 4,000-6,000 yrs. old. Old earth creationists support the thought that each "day" of creation was a representative of some length of time. They would say the earth is millions or billions of years old. IMHO, the creation account reads more naturally as six literal days, but I don't place too much weight on that because God didn't say for sure one way or the other. I think it is important to understand that we can't know for sure and to be open minded on both creation accounts.
 
Last edited:
Now - I most certainly don't believe in anything.

But I don't believe that the Bible dates the earth at all. . . in fact: it's quite ambiguous

Now - in Genesis it rattles off Enoch, Cain - and all their children and children's children . . . all that marital intermarriage - everyone living for 700yrs and 500 years and 900 years . . . and so forth.

And then it says:


So it just stops 'keeping track ' -for all we know, if the Genesis was true (fro the sake of argument) it could have easily been 8bilion years ago. There is no time frame - none at all - given to the span of time in which "human beings increased in number on the earth"

None what so ever. . . so that whole rattled off list you posted = meaningless. The 'earth' didn't begin with Noah or Jerusalem and all that - there's no point in pegging out a few dates from stories in the *middle* of the Bible and thinking that trumps it all.

I think it's funny, though - that, according to the bible, we useto live in excess of countless years (500 - 900) but then God - just becaues he got tired of everyone living for so long - he said 'nough of that, gettin on my nerves!

LOL - that's funny

It doesn't stop keeping track. The span of time that 'human beings increased in number on the Earth before the flood was 1656 years. That is clearly the period being spoken of as context will show.

.*1 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
*4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

*5 The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the LORD said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.


who do you imagine to be the last person mentioned in the geneology before it "stops keeping track?"
 
It doesn't say how old the world is in the bible. They guys who say the bible says that are wrong.

Which part are they wrong about? Are they wrong about the Bible saying that Seth was born when Adam was 130?
 
It doesn't stop keeping track. The span of time that 'human beings increased in number on the Earth before the flood was 1656 years. That is clearly the period being spoken of as context will show.



who do you imagine to be the last person mentioned in the geneology before it "stops keeping track?"

Oh yes - with that quote there I clearly see where it adds all the years up.

LOL - that's all the umph I have for a religious discussion over something I only view as mythology and nothing more. You want to believe the earth is only a few thousand years old: go right ahead.
 
Correct, and no talking snake or giant boat. Genesis is not a history or science book.

Fair enough. Any dissenters?
 
Fair enough. Any dissenters?

Genesis is a history and a science book. So far as we know there is no scientific evidence that refutes Genesis. In fact there is a lot of scientific findings that support the teachings of a grand creation account and timeline of the flood.
 
Genesis is a history and a science book. So far as we know there is no scientific evidence that refutes Genesis. In fact there is a lot of scientific findings that support the teachings of a grand creation account and timeline of the flood.

The tower if Babel isn't where we got different races and languages 3000 years ago. There were already multiple languages and races living around the world. That is scientific fact.

Also young earth creation geologists can't find oil or get real jobs.
 
Last edited:
Genesis is a history and a science book. So far as we know there is no scientific evidence that refutes Genesis. In fact there is a lot of scientific findings that support the teachings of a grand creation account and timeline of the flood.

So you think the evidence supports a 6000 year old Earth?
 
So you think the evidence supports a 6000 year old Earth?

Yes, but I am not closed minded to the idea that creation could have taken much longer than six literal days. We just don't have enough conclusive evidence to be sure one way or another.
 
Yes, but I am not closed minded to the idea that creation could have taken much longer than six literal days. We just don't have enough conclusive evidence to be sure one way or another.

And how far away do you think the furthest star is?
 
Yes, but I am not closed minded to the idea that creation could have taken much longer than six literal days. We just don't have enough conclusive evidence to be sure one way or another.

You mean the fact that young earth geologists can't find oil and can't get a job doesn't give you a clue that their theories are no good? The radical right hates science and just wants us all to ignorant. They are the Christian version of Taliban
 
You mean the fact that young earth geologists can't find oil and can't get a job doesn't give you a clue that their theories are no good? The radical right hates science and just wants us all to ignorant. They are the Christian version of Taliban

That's your end all argument to support old earth? The great flood could be a reason for some differences on dating fossils etc. I'm just saying there is not enough evidence to completely rule out either way. It is inconclusive at this point. I just gave my opinion that it seems genesis reads more literally, that's all.
 
That's your end all argument to support old earth? The great flood could be a reason for some differences on dating fossils etc. I'm just saying there is not enough evidence to completely rule out either way. It is inconclusive at this point. I just gave my opinion that it seems genesis reads more literally, that's all.

All science points to old earth. It is very conclusive.
 
Back
Top Bottom