How old is the Earth?

[Ronald Nolette]

I think you are missing some literary context. The sequence of 7 days with repetitive phrases is a poetic form. We know this is true because archaeologists dug up a bunch of other poems from the same period and area that use the same exact poetic structure.

If you'd like to read some, the book Stories from Ancient Canaan (Coogan) contains at least two. It's also just generally an interesting read.

And you are missing historic context. These stories were bein gtold before writing became fairly common. sothere were two ways they memorized the stories. On stiles with figures they could recite from, or by use of poetic rhythym to tell teh tale (it is easier to remember poems than mere prose like a book)

Poetry can be just as much truth as prose- look at the psalms!

Paul literally tells us to ignore the genealogies... twice. The New Testament spends multiple chapters developing the idea that heredity is NOT determined by genealogy, but by behavior.

If your idea of Biblical inspiration requires you to ignore what the text of the Bible says, is it really serving you well?

No Pual did not tell us to "literally" ignore genealogies! If he meant to not pay attention, He would have been saying that we had to ignore quite a few chapters that God inspired! He would have rebukes the gospels of Matthew and Mark for including the lineage of Jesus! He would have even rebuked himself for Romans 11 when he trace3d part of his genealogy.

What he was telling people to avoid (which is still common today in many circles) was to avoide the genealogy mean a pedigree and advantage over others. Examples were people who traced their lineage to the Rockefellers, Astors, and people on the mayflower, Rothschilds etc.

God would not have inspired massive genealogies if He later revoked them.

 

[Wick Stick]

Poetry can be just as much truth as prose- look at the psalms!

True, but not relevant here. When there's poetry, you have to take into account figurative language. In this case, the poetic form used (a sequence of 7 days, punctuated by repetitive statements) is meant to express ardor in an undertaking - that someone has persisted in their undertaking until it is finished.

I know that you, Ronald, cannot accept that because it would require you to re-think your whole view of Scripture and inspiration. It is nonetheless demonstrably true and provable by looking at comparable literature from the same time period. The book I referenced earlier contains examples.

No Paul did not tell us to "literally" ignore genealogies!

Yes he did. Here are the verses:

1Timothy 1:4 Do not give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Titus 3:9 Avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

If he meant to not pay attention, He would have been saying that we had to ignore quite a few chapters that God inspired! He would have rebukes the gospels of Matthew and Mark for including the lineage of Jesus! He would have even rebuked himself for Romans 11 when he traced part of his genealogy.

What he was telling people to avoid (which is still common today in many circles) was to avoide the genealogy mean a pedigree and advantage over others. Examples were people who traced their lineage to the Rockefellers, Astors, and people on the mayflower, Rothschilds etc.

The New Testament spells out this doctrine pretty fully over the course of multiple chapters, and it isn't what you're saying here.

One of Jesus' doctrines is that we should look at behavior to tell heredity (John 6-8), and the gospels are explicit that genealogies are not useful for this purpose (Matt 3, Luke 3). Paul endorses Jesus' teaching on the matter in Romans 9, as well.

Will you ignore Jesus' teachings in order to prop up your church's doctrine on the infallibility of Scripture? Probably.

 

[Deborah_]

Genealogies are critical. If we believe that God inspired the Scriptures and that the genealogy of Jesus is fraught with error, then we believe god inspired error. Remember one genealogy of Jesus goes back to Adam! The Israelites were also very punctilious in writing family trees and ages etc.

The absence of a number of generations from an ancient genealogy is NOT an error!

Problems arise when we try to shoehorn ancient literature into modern ways of thinking.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

True, but not relevant here. When there's poetry, you have to take into account figurative language. In this case, the poetic form used (a sequence of 7 days, punctuated by repetitive statements) is meant to express ardor in an undertaking - that someone has persisted in their undertaking until it is finished.

I know that you, Ronald, cannot accept that because it would require you to re-think your whole view of Scripture and inspiration. It is nonetheless demonstrably true and provable by looking at comparable literature from the same time period. The book I referenced earlier contains examples.

But the book you cited is not inspired Scripture like Genesis is. And modern poetry may use figurative language but the early writers (pre Moses) did not use figurative language!

As Peter wrote:

2 Peter 1:19-21

King James Version

​

19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

See I cam kicking and screaming into a young 6 day creation from a hard core evolutionary stance.

1Timothy 1:4 Do not give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Titus 3:9 Avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

And I gave you the historic reason Paul wrote that! Paul cited his own genealogy. Why would God inspire so many genealogies in the OT if He did not want them to be discussed?

Paul also wrote this:

2 Timothy 3:15-17

King James Version

​

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

That includes all them genealogies. So if you accept Paul discussing genealogies do you reject this passage that says those genealogies are profitable? See you are lacking understanding by only thinking with a 21st century mindset.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The absence of a number of generations from an ancient genealogy is NOT an error!

Problems arise when we try to shoehorn ancient literature into modern ways of thinking.

And your hard proof that a number of generations are missing is?????

Your second line is very correct! We must learn to understand how the writers thought and how they used words, not as we understand words over 6000 years later

 

[Deborah_]

And your hard proof that a number of generations are missing is?????

I gave it in my opening post. Read Matthew 1 and compare with the books of Kings and Chronicles. There are three generations (that we know about) missing, and there may well be others in those parts of the genealogy where we don't have any independent information.

 

[Wick Stick]

>> I know that you, Ronald, cannot accept that because it would require you to re-think your whole view of Scripture and inspiration. <<

But the book you cited is not inspired Scripture like Genesis is!

Called it.

And modern poetry may use figurative language but the early writers (pre Moses) did not use figurative language!

False.

Ancient Hebrew uses more poetic forms and figurative language than virtually any modern language. The reason is simple - there's only about 8,000 words in ancient Hebrew. As a result, most words have multiple meanings, and that leads to double meanings, puns, intentional ambiguities, and metaphors.

For instance, the Hebrew word for 'world' can also mean 'a nation of people,' which results in the Israelite nation sometimes being metaphorically referred to as 'the world.'

Paul also wrote this:

2 Timothy 3:15-17​

King James Version​

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.​

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

I've come to think of 2Tim 3:16 as the crutch of Biblical literalism. It is always quoted, because there isn't another verse in the Bible from which inspiration can be claimed for all Scripture. And the word translated 'given by inspiration' is only used in this verse; nowhere else. The translation of the word is often disputed for this reason.

Doctrine shouldn't be established from a single isolated verse - that's eisegesis. Neither based on the translation of a single, hotly debated word. Doctrines should be based on a preponderance of Scriptures - things that are taught over multiple chapters, in multiple books.

That includes all them genealogies. So if you accept Paul discussing genealogies do you reject this passage that says those genealogies are profitable? See you are lacking understanding by only thinking with a 21st century mindset.

Your view is based on a misunderstanding of a single verse. My verse is based on multiple chapters of multiple books of the Bible (cited in previous posts), and multiple clear statements.

Get serious.

 

[Bob]

Thank you for the discussion.

Curious: if the Earth is only ~6,000 years old, how will you date the layers found in Middle East archeological digs?

Top: earliest iron tools ~3,200 years ago
Next down: earliest bronze tools ~5,500 years ago
Next: earliest pottery ?years ago
Next: earliest agriculture (crops, domesticated herds), stone tools (Neolithic) ?years ago
Next: gathering & storing wild grains, following wild herds (Mesolithic stone tools) ?years ago
Next: hunter-gatherers (Paleolithic tools) ?years ago.

Although it took over 2,000 years to go from bronze to iron tools, you have a mere ~500 for all of the others.

Peace.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I gave it in my opening post. Read Matthew 1 and compare with the books of Kings and Chronicles. There are three generations (that we know about) missing, and there may well be others in those parts of the genealogy where we don't have any independent information.

Well your opening post made several errors. In th egaps between kings you go from kings of Judah to kings of Israel so of course gaps would occur!

But even if there may be gaps in genealogies (and you did not provide proof, just conjecture) it doesn't cover going from 7-19K years to billions of years!

REbuttal from Answers in Genesis:

1. Although in the Hebrew way of thinking, the construction “X is the son of Y” does not always mean a literal father/son relationship,5 additional biographical information in Genesis 5 and 11 strongly supports the view that there are no gaps in these chapters. So we know for certain that the following are literal father/son relationships: Adam/Seth, Seth/Enosh, Lamech/Noah, Noah/Shem, Eber/Peleg, and Terah/Abram. Nothing in these chapters indicates that the “X begat Y” means something other than a literal father/son relationship.
2. Nowhere in the Old Testament is the Hebrew word for begat (yalad) used in any other way than to mean a single-generation (e.g., father/son or mother/daughter) relationship. The Hebrew word ben can mean son or grandson, but the word yalad never skips generations.

Are There Gaps in the Genesis Genealogies?

Most people believe the genealogies contain only dull details, but since “every word is given by inspiration of God” even these so-called dull passages contain vital truth that can be trusted.

answersingenesis.org

also answers some of your other criticisms.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

False.

Ancient Hebrew uses more poetic forms and figurative language than virtually any modern language. The reason is simple - there's only about 8,000 words in ancient Hebrew. As a result, most words have multiple meanings, and that leads to double meanings, puns, intentional ambiguities, and metaphors.

For instance, the Hebrew word for 'world' can also mean 'a nation of people,' which results in the Israelite nation sometimes being metaphorically referred to as 'the world.'

Wrong. In ancient times there were no common forms of easy writing! paper wasn't available and clay tablets were not around. Until things were written down, people recited things to pass the information on. And the easiest way to pass things down is in a song-song manner or a poetic form. they also wrote figures on sticks (stiels) and would recite based on those figures! And ancient Hebrew did not need an extensive language like we need to day.

I've come to think of 2Tim 3:16 as the crutch of Biblical literalism. It is always quoted, because there isn't another verse in the Bible from which inspiration can be claimed for all Scripture. And the word translated 'given by inspiration' is only used in this verse; nowhere else. The translation of the word is often disputed for this reason.

Doctrine shouldn't be established from a single isolated verse - that's eisegesis. Neither based on the translation of a single, hotly debated word. Doctrines should be based on a preponderance of Scriptures - things that are taught over multiple chapters, in multiple books.

Well inspiration is theopheustos. which means god breathed. And while that word only appears once, the fact that God inspired the Scriptures is found in many many places.

BTW if a subject only appears once in Scripture and it makes a declarative statement- it is doctrine.

 

[Deborah_]

Well your opening post made several errors. In th egaps between kings you go from kings of Judah to kings of Israel so of course gaps would occur!

No, they were all kings of Judah. The kings of Israel are irrelevant because they weren't descended from David

 

[Kayla McCanny]

Remember Plato was a planet and the world was flat. I lean towards hugh Ross's theory that it I old, but then a part of me thinks young earth. How do scientists know how many grains of sand are on earth? Seems ridiculous to me that they think they know. Who knows really. Only God knows and he lives outside of time. The age of the earth has nothing to do with salvation.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

No, they were all kings of Judah. The kings of Israel are irrelevant because they weren't descended from David

Well teh missing three generations is still correct!

From TGC:

Ahab’s four-generations​

Christians have consistently recognized this three name gap in Matthew’s genealogy. Yet the gap has not caused great problems for Christian interpreters. Hilary of Poitiers (310–368 AD), in particular, discovers rich insight into why Matthew omits the names. Hilary explains:

“It was done in this way because Joram begot Ahaziah from a pagan woman, that is, from the household of Ahab, and it was declared by the prophet that not until the fourth generation would anyone from the household of Ahab sit on the throne of the kingdom of Israel” (Comm. Matt., 1.2)

He is right. Joram married a daughter of Ahab (“the daughter of Ahab was his wife,” 2 Kgs 8:18). We learn later that her name was “Athaliah” (2 Kgs 8:26). Now, Scripture tells us that Ahab’s line was cut off from reigning for four generations, and Jehu’s sons would instead rule over Israel (2 Kgs 10:30; cf. 2 Kgs 10:35; 13:1, 10; 14:23; 15:8).

It turns out that the offspring of Ahab would also not reign in Judah! If Athaliah represents the first generation of Ahab, then the next three offspring from her would be: Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. Amaziah would be the fourth generation. These are the exact three people that Matthew omits from his genealogy.

Hilary explains, “By removing the disgrace of a pagan family and bypassing its ancestry, the royal origin of those to follow in the fourth generation is then counted” (Comm. Matt., 1.2). Interestingly, Hilary does not seem to count Ahab’s daughter as the first of four generations. He should, however, to make a more coherent case for his own position! In any case, by skipping the three names, Matthew ingeniously signals the royal birth of Jesus. The four generations of evil Ahab find no mention.

And as others have noticed, this pattern follows from God’s self-revelation. As he says, he will visit the “iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me” (Exod 20:5).

IN establishing Jesus right to reign as King of Kings Matthew follows a biblical rule.

but once again, even if we are missing several dozen generations in actual count and not a list of qualification, it is still a stretch to go from 6-10K years to about a 4,000,000,000 year earth.

Well I am gone till Tueday and will respond then.

 

[Deborah_]

Christians have consistently recognized this three name gap in Matthew’s genealogy. Yet the gap has not caused great problems for Christian interpreters. Hilary of Poitiers (310–368 AD), in particular, discovers rich insight into why Matthew omits the names. Hilary explains:

“It was done in this way because Joram begot Ahaziah from a pagan woman, that is, from the household of Ahab, and it was declared by the prophet that not until the fourth generation would anyone from the household of Ahab sit on the throne of the kingdom of Israel” (Comm. Matt., 1.2)

This is very ingenious of Hilary of Poitiers - but there are two glaring problems with it.

"It was declared by the prophet that not until the fourth generation would anyone from the household of Ahab sit on the throne of the kingdom of Israel”

1) What the prophet actually said to Jehu was, "Your descendants will sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation." (II Kings 10:30) Nothing about the household of Ahab returning after four generations (or at all). After the fourth generation, when Jehu's great-grandson was assassinated, Israel was ruled by individuals with no connection to Ahab.
2) The prophecy relates to the kingdom of Israel, not to Judah!

With all due respect to TGC, the prophecy doesn't say what Hilary claims it said - which rather blows his theory out of the water.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I have a better question: Who cares?

It's really a moot point.

the fact someone asked shows that someone cares. We should not downgrade what they ask.

While yes. it does not matter concerning salvation.

Many are interested in this thinking

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Some people care a great deal, it would seem. And when atheists are using this issue to pour scorn on Christianity, we'd better get our facts right, and not make claims that don't stand up to scrutiny even from a Biblical point of view.

amen

But we also must remember, No one was there. so reality is, no one knows.

an Old Earth believer should not attack a young earth

and a young earth should not attack an old earth.

we both see the same events. just translate them differently

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Where do you get your "science" from?

Genetic evidence points to the human race being at least 100,000 years old.

where do you get this from?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You're not going to convince atheists with facts because all they'll do is claim you have your facts wrong.

Christians are to declare the Truth of God's Word and if they reject God's Word then brush off the dust against them and go fish someplace else. These people have already made up their minds and they are reprobate so it's rare that any of these folks get saved.

There's plenty of good 'ol regular folks out there to minister to that know there is a God but haven't had anyone show them they way yet.

I know a few who came to God when we sat down and discussed creation and the geological record.

According to God's Word it's only been a few thousand years.

Who do you put your faith in, the Lord or the "scientific" wisdom of men which can shaped to say whatever they want to say as it's mostly a scam

this can be debated.. but can not be proved. again, no one was there

 

[Eternally Grateful]

That explains a lot

it does?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Thanks for posting this comment.

Help me understand why you reject cosmology and geology, which are based on physics, but accept materials science, engineering, and chemistry, which are also based on physics. Modern medicine applies knowledge of radiology, as do geology and archeology.

Peace.

how is this so?

why do people make these assumptions?