How old is the Earth?

[Bob]

I am still intrigued by :

Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

It does not read as if it was only for a few seconds. And... the universe is a violent place, we are lucky Earth is located in a relative safe place in the milky way, safe from super novas but not from comets and asteroids slamming into Earth. Current science teaches that 4.5 billion years ago the moon slammed into Earth (not sure how they can proof that) but it reminded me as a (emphasis added) reason why the Earth was without form and gravity had to redo its work.

Point being from a spiritual point of view, why did God use so much violence to create and why do we live in such a hostile place as the universe is. There must be a spiritual reason.

Thank you for your thoughts.

Agreed that there is a spiritual reason why our planet and solar system are situated where they are.
Reference: a book, “The Privileged Planet.”

Related: I read somewhere that the health of Earth depends on plate tectonics and violent weather. Thus, We also live on a bountiful planet that has many inherent dangers.

Blessings.

 

[ProDeo]

Truth is truth. And if science disagrees with Scripture, relook at the "science".

Much love!

My idea exactly, in the end science is the study how God created. With all the factual (emphasis added) evidence currently available it becomes more and hard to deny a Creator. Unless of course those who -- by definition -- don't want a Creator

 

[Wick Stick]

I am still intrigued by :

Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

It does not read as if it was only for a few seconds. And... the universe is a violent place, we are lucky Earth is located in a relative safe place in the milky way, safe from super novas but not from comets and asteroids slamming into Earth. Current science teaches that 4.5 billion years ago the moon slammed into Earth (not sure how they can proof that) but it reminded me as a (emphasis added) reason why the Earth was without form and gravity had to redo its work.

Point being from a spiritual point of view, why did God use so much violence to create and why do we live in such a hostile place as the universe is. There must be a spiritual reason.

I have the answer to that question, but nobody likes it, because it doesn't harmonize well with the ex nihilo doctrine that is commonly accepted among Christians. Here goes...

There's a whole titanomachy tucked into Genesis 1:2. In the Amorite story of creation, God (Elohim) creates the earth by defeating two titans - one of saltwater and the other of freshwater. Those titans are called Tehowm and Behemoth. The former name occurs in the Bible several times (including this verse), where it is translated "the Deep." Behemoth appears mainly in one chapter of Job. By subduing them, God brings order to chaos, which also effects the creation of the earth and sky - places which are NOT chaotic like Biblical waters.

Here in Gen 1:2, the verse says the earth was formless (tohu) and void (bohu). That translation isn't wrong, but it could also be translated to say that the earth belonged to Teh and Beh, which are shortened versions of the names of those two titans.

So, why does God use so much violence in the act of creation? Because the forces of chaos and disorder require that kind of energy to bring them into a state of order. They have to be subdued.

Job 41: 1 Canst thou draw out Leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord [which] thou lettest down? 2 Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn? 3 Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft [words] unto thee? 4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?

 

[Hiddenthings]

The question for this line of thinking is - was Exodus written first, with Genesis 1 being written later to support it?

Also... not my question exactly, but one I find worthwhile. Came from a different discussion on the same topic elsewhere.

I believe Genesis 1-11 was written during the Babylonian exile.

 

[Wick Stick]

I believe Genesis 1-11 was written during the Babylonian exile.

I think the various stories are quite a bit older, and that they got edited together during or after the exile.

A few thoughts...

Ezekiel was written during the exile, and he's familiar with Genesis. He makes multiple references to Eden, the trees there, the angel that guards the way to the garden.

In chapter 14, Ezekiel makes reference to "Job, Noah, and Danel." Job is thought to be one of the earliest books. Danel (not Daniel) is a non-Biblical character, but we have a copy of that story dating to the 14th century BC (from archaeology). If these things are alike, then it seems Ezekiel held the story of Noah to be very old.

The Rigveda (Hindu holy text) also contains the story of Noah. It's dated somewhere 1500-1200BC.

 

[Hiddenthings]

The Rigveda (Hindu holy text) also contains the story of Noah. It's dated somewhere 1500-1200BC.

Can you post something to show these hymns refer to the actual story of Noah?

 

[Wick Stick]

Can you post something to show these hymns refer to the actual story of Noah?

To summarize, in the story, Manu is warned of a flood by a fish that is actually God. He builds a boat, escapes the flood and re-populates the earth. The identification with Biblical Noah is mostly based on the names of the sons. Manu's sons are Sharma, Charma, and Yapeti. Noah's are Shem, Ham, and Japeth, and those names are quite similar.

I had a hard time finding the actual text, though I've read it before.

Articles:

Startling Similarity between Hindu Flood Legend of Manu and the Biblical Account of Noah | Ancient Origins

In 1872, the amateur Assyriologist, George Smith, made a discovery that would shock the world.

www.ancient-origins.net

Striking a chord: Noah and Manu

Archaic beliefs prevalent in both the Old Testament and Hinduism expound that a Phenomenal Deluge was the precursor for the genesis of the…

medium.com

Text (but the translation is awkward and only the 1st half of the story is here):

Satapatha Brahmana, Kanda I, adhyaya 8, brahmana 1

THE IḌĀ. 1. In the morning they brought to Manu water for washing, just as now also they (are wont to) bring (water) for washing the hands. When he wa...

www.wisdomlib.org

Scholarly comparison:

https://www.rarebooksocietyofindia.org/book_archive/ID-1605805374.pdf

 

[Wick Stick]

Can you post something to show these hymns refer to the actual story of Noah?

Also of note... the people of India migrated there from the Caucasus between 2000-1600BC. Which is to say, they came from precisely the region around Mt Ararat. For the story to appear there, it must have been written prior to the last of those migrations.

 

[HealthyShape]

Truth is truth. And if science disagrees with Scripture, relook at the "science".

Much love!

There are various kinds of truth, I am sure you heard that. Spiritual truth, historical truth, objective truth, subjective truth, technical truth, symbolic truth etc.

Science is science, Bible is Bible. We should not mix them or even put them against each other. If science does not support some literal reading from an iron age book, you do not need to put science into quotes because of that.

 

[marks]

There are various kinds of truth, I am sure you heard that. Spiritual truth, historical truth, objective truth, subjective truth, technical truth, symbolic truth etc.

Science is science, Bible is Bible. We should not mix them or even put them against each other. If science does not support some literal reading from an iron age book, you do not need to put science into quotes because of that.

Truth is truth. Truth is found in the Bible. If you want to try to parse "truths" good luck with that. So-called "science" shows itself false when it disagrees with the Bible.

Much love!

 

[HealthyShape]

Truth is truth. Truth is found in the Bible. If you want to try to parse "truths" good luck with that. So-called "science" shows itself false when it disagrees with the Bible.

Much love!

There are various kinds of truth. Spiritual truth, symbolic truth, subjective, objective, technical, historical etc. So, "truth is truth" is not a useful claim.

Science does not show itself false when it disagrees with the "Bible" (with somebody's individual interpretation or wrong literal reading). Science is falsified scientifically - through experiments, new data etc.

 

[Seeding Loving]

with all of the radiation metric dating methods, the billions of years is not the thing that is so hard to grasp

what is hard to grasp is = ---- how many trillions of stages of developments, changes and environmental systems there must have presumably been through the billions of presumed years

how do scientists know the rate of radiation emitted and lost through all of the changes they presume the earth has been through. It just seems like circular reasoning



date the rocks by the fossils

when that does not seem like a fit to = evolution theory

date the fossils by the rocks

 

[HealthyShape]

with all of the radiation metric dating methods, the billions of years is not the thing that is so hard to grasp

what is hard to grasp is = ---- how many trillions of stages of developments, changes and environmental systems there must have presumably been through the billions of presumed years

how do scientists know the rate of radiation emitted and lost through all of the changes they presume the earth has been through. It just seems like circular reasoning



date the rocks by the fossils

when that does not seem like a fit to = evolution theory

date the fossils by the rocks

Nuclear decay (half-lives) depends on the nucleus and fundamental forces of physics.

Laboratory measurements, astronomical observations, and physics theory show decay constants do not change appreciably under temperatures, pressures, chemical environments, or magnetic fields found on Earth.

 

[Lambano]

How old is the Earth?​

Old enough to know better.

 

[Seeding Loving]

it just seems natural to me for the earth to be about 6,000 to 7,000 years old.

any other theories or speculations are just evolving ideas and these evolution theories are themselves changing and evolving every few years,

even when i was in school as a child the theory of evolution that i was taught then seemed so unrealistic and filled with speculation.

 

[HealthyShape]

it just seems natural to me for the earth to be about 6,000 to 7,000 years old.

any other theories or speculations are just evolving ideas and these evolution theories are themselves changing and evolving every few years,

even when i was in school as a child the theory of evolution that i was taught then seemed so unrealistic and filled with speculation.

The consensus about the age of the Earth to be about 4.54 billions years has not changed since 1960's.

The age is based upon measuring isotope ratios in primitive meteorites and the oldest terrestrial minerals using radiometric decay clocks (especially U–Pb and Pb–Pb methods) and many other things.

Cross‑checks with lunar and meteoritic samples, stratigraphic evidence, and astrophysical models of solar nebula formation together provide consistent, independent lines of evidence.

 

[Bob]

it just seems natural to me for the earth to be about 6,000 to 7,000 years old.

any other theories or speculations are just evolving ideas and these evolution theories are themselves changing and evolving every few years,

even when i was in school as a child the theory of evolution that i was taught then seemed so unrealistic and filled with speculation.

The young-earth idea typically says that the dinosaurs were killed off in the Flood. Since sea creatures like whales, seals, and walruses survived, why didn’t the sea-dwelling dinosaurs?

Blessings.