The Earth is 6000 years old?

[Jannah]

Hi! There are many scriptures referencing that the earth is older than 6,000 years. Also it is understood theologically as well; for instance if there was a war in heaven and Satan and his angels were cast from heaven to the earth as the bible states, (Luke 10:18, 2 Peter 3:5-7, Isaiah 14:12, Rev 12:7-9 and more) there would have to be an earth already in place for them to fall to, a pre-adamite world. Has anyone else thought about that? Also as Genesis states " the spirit of The Lord hovered over the face of the waters", there would need to be an earth in order for waters to be there even if this earth was entirely submerged in water see 2 Peter 3:6. These imply that Genesis 1:1 is Gods original creation of earth pre Adam which is in accordance with scriptures pertaining to his time on earth before Adam and Genesis 1:2 is Gods restoration saying in verse 3 " let there be light" as in verse 2 " the earth was without form and void, (see Jeremiah 4:23-26) and darkness was upon the face of the waters". Thoughts please? Thanks!

[Jac3510]

What you are talking about is known as the Gap Theory. It was popularized a couple of decades ago. I don't know of any scholars who defend it today, though, and to be honest I don't think it's very easy to defend on grammatical grounds. When looking at the relationship between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2, 1:2 is widely recognized to be a circumstantial clause. In other words, 1:2 tells us the conditions under which 1:1 occurred. The idea would be, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, [and the conditions of this creation were such that] the earth was formless and void . . ." If that is the correct classification (as it almost certainly is), then you cannot translate hayetah (the verb in question) as "became." We have to affirm the traditional "was." You don't need to be a Hebrew grammarian to see this. I take you you would agree that OT scholars know their Hebrew pretty well, so if "became" was really as good a translation as gap theorists suggest, you would expect SOME scholars to translate it that way. And yet . . .

And the earth was waste and void (ASV)
the earth was without shape or form (CEB)
The earth was unformed and void (CJB)
The earth was barren, with no form of life (CEV)
And the earth was waste and empty (Darby)
And the earth was void and empty (DR)
The earth was without form and void (ESV)
And the earth was without form and void (Geneva)
the earth was formless and desolate (GNT)
Now the earth was formless and empty (HCSB)
And the earth was without form (KJV)
The earth was formless and empty (NLT)
Now the earth was formless and empty (NIV)
the earth was a formless void (NRSV)
And the earth was tohu vavohu (without form, and void); (OJB)
The earth was without form and void (RSV)

So yeah, I think you get the point. There are no translations that say "became." In fact, I didn't even see any footnotes offering it as a possible rendering. I would actually suggest that this is so well understood among Hebrew scholars (that the word is "was" and not "became") that the real argument is over whether or not 1:1 should be translated "In the beginning God created . . . and the earth was formless and void" or "Now when God began creating . . . the earth was formless and void"!

I certainly admit that there have been some good expositors over the years who have tried to defend the Gap Theory. J. Vernon McGee comes to mind. I empathize with them. I seriously considered it (about a decade ago). But in the end I just don't think it is terribly defensible. If you want to allow for an old earth, in my opinion you'd do much better considering one of these two possibilities;

1. That the creation account was intended to be an allegorical/highly symbolic account of creation meant to emphasize God's sovereignty and the general idea of the beauty of order as opposed to chaos; the best possibility here is the Framework Interpretation (though some have thought that Walton's Temple Dedication motif works better); or
2. Old Earth Creationism, specifically Day Age Creationism, which teaches that the word yom ought to be literally understood to refer to long undefined periods of time rather than actual days; of course, the same critique applies here as to the Gap Theory. For all the arguments that yom can be appropriately understood as referring to long, undefined periods of time, it is telling that NO serious translation has made that suggestion.

Both alternatives, of course, are extremely problematic (in my view). I say it's best to just say what the text says. God created the world in six, twenty-four hour days. Either that is true or it is not. If it is not, then there's no need to ask how long ago creation happened, because for all we know it didn't. Perhaps the universe has been around forever. Perhaps it was 14.6 billion years ago. Either way, it doesn't matter, because the Bible doesn't speak to it. But if it did happen, then the next question is how long ago He did that. The Bible doesn't give us an exact time. If we take the genealogies in Genesis and other such passages to be complete, then you get back to about 6,000 years ago. I, for one, don't think they are complete, and I think Moses expected us to know that. But I don't think they were so incomplete as to incorporate hundreds of thousands, much less millions or billions, of years, either. So maybe it was 10,000 years ago. Maybe 30,000. Who knows? Not me. But I am pretty confident that it wasn't in the time frame that we are normally told.

Anyway, you asked for some thoughts. Those are some of mine. Please note that this board is connected to a site that strongly promotes OEC. You would probably really enjoy reading some of Rich Deem's articles. We also have some people here who fall into the TE camp (theistic evolution) and a few YECs (like myself). I don't think we have any Framework advocates, and I don't think we have any any gap theorists (other than perhaps yourself). That's all to say that there is a pretty wide range of views on the matter here. The good news is that while there are a range of views, and some of us take our views very seriously, none of us (that I know of) make this a test of fellowship, much less a test of salvation. So welcome aboard!

[Philip]

From conservative evangelical scholar Michael Heiser, I found this look at what the possible textual meanings of Genesis 1 to be very helpful: It breaks down the various views, their merits and their problems.

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/Genesis%2 ... eation.pdf

[Jac3510]

For what it is worth, it's probably not best to appeal to Heiser. As I've pointed out elsewhere (that was way back in '08!), he's a polytheist. Here's his own words on the matter:

• The thought might have occurred to you that when the Hebrew writers referred to the God of Israel as “THE God” (par excellence) or “Most High” (greater and more exalted than all others) that this implies more than one god. If that question crept into your mind, kudos to you! You'd be correct . . . according to Psalm 82:1, the singular God (elohim) of Israel presides over an assembly or council of other gods (elohim).

He doesn't like the term, of course. He prefers to say that he holds to "divine plurality." His basic contention is that God created other gods, and this "divine council" works with God to govern the word. There are lots of problems with this view. Just one is his insistence that Ps 82:1 refers to a pantheon of Gods. Jesus, though, uses that same passage and interprets it (as most conservative scholars do) as referring to human rulers. Perhaps Heiser thinks he knows Hebrew and the OT better than Jesus. I'm not so inclined to agree with him.

Just food for thought!

[Philip]

Thanks, Jac - I'm aware of his views on the Divine Council, etc. I do know that he's not saying that their are other UNCREATED beings equal to God. I find him to be very wary about not taking liberties with the text. But whatever, he certainly challenges one's understandings and presuppositions.

http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/divine-council/

[Starhunter]

Matthew 9: 1-7.
Jesus asked the local churchmen, when He was healing a paralytic, "Which is easier to say "thy sins be forgiven... or rise up and walk?"
The power involved in salvation is all of the power of God invested in Christ, exactly as it is in creation.

The Bible opens up with this power, which is able to do things in an instant, without borrowing eons of time from a nerd's calender.

To understand creation correctly, is to be given faith in the power of Christ to save without any indebtedness to time or material, or pre-existing righteousness, or gradual improvements in character.

Genuine creation does not borrow or use pre-existing matter, or even favorable conditions. And God does not need more time than He has declared to do the job.

Salvation does not depend on a pre-existing tendency to do right. And neither is it a gradual acceptance with God.

The paralytic represents the helpless condition of the sinner, like the void before creation. At the instant that the believer, accepts the word of salvation, they are given the power to walk in newness of life.

The age of the earth is fairly easily worked out by genealogies to be around 6000 years old.

Is it necessary to believe in a YEC to be saved? How could you properly appreciate what salvation is if you are relying on the opinions of unbelievers, and not the word of God?

[Mazzy]

Hi! There are many scriptures referencing that the earth is older than 6,000 years. Also it is understood theologically as well; for instance if there was a war in heaven and Satan and his angels were cast from heaven to the earth as the bible states, (Luke 10:18, 2 Peter 3:5-7, Isaiah 14:12, Rev 12:7-9 and more) there would have to be an earth already in place for them to fall to, a pre-adamite world. Has anyone else thought about that? Also as Genesis states " the spirit of The Lord hovered over the face of the waters", there would need to be an earth in order for waters to be there even if this earth was entirely submerged in water see 2 Peter 3:6. These imply that Genesis 1:1 is Gods original creation of earth pre Adam which is in accordance with scriptures pertaining to his time on earth before Adam and Genesis 1:2 is Gods restoration saying in verse 3 " let there be light" as in verse 2 " the earth was without form and void, (see Jeremiah 4:23-26) and darkness was upon the face of the waters". Thoughts please? Thanks!

I think YECS have some good stuff on flood geology and young earth literature. I also see huge problems with current dating methods. I think Satan was cast to earth after the women gave birth to the male child Jesus. Still I think the earth is older than 6000 years.

It seems non plausible to suggest God did so much in one 24 hour day on the 6th day. God made living creatures on the land, mankind, got Adam to name all the animals, created Eve, found no helper for Adam, put Adam is a deep sleep and then created Eve. This is why I do not believe the creative days are literally 24 hours.

I think if the earth was without form or void then it appears the earth was formed through a process of creation turning energy into a matter template. Living organisms were more likely to be created instantly according to their familial kinds ie not through common descent from bacteria.

[RickD]

Starhunter wrote:
Is it necessary to believe in a YEC to be saved? How could you properly appreciate what salvation is if you are relying on the opinions of unbelievers, and not the word of God?

Straw man.
You do realize there are OECs who do rely on scripture, don't you?

[Starhunter]

A continued reliance on the scriptures will lead to the truth.

[RickD]

A continued reliance on the scriptures will lead to the truth.

I know plenty of people who rely on scripture to back their false christs, and false beliefs.

But that's neither here not there. Please answer my question:

You do realize there are OECs who do rely on scripture, don't you?

[Danieltwotwenty]

Starhunter wrote:
Is it necessary to believe in a YEC to be saved? How could you properly appreciate what salvation is if you are relying on the opinions of unbelievers, and not the word of God?

Straw man.
You do realize there are OECs who do rely on scripture, don't you?

This is legalism in all it's glory Rick, Starhunter is on a slippery slope.

[Mazzy]

Starhunter wrote:
Is it necessary to believe in a YEC to be saved? How could you properly appreciate what salvation is if you are relying on the opinions of unbelievers, and not the word of God?

Straw man.
You do realize there are OECs who do rely on scripture, don't you?

Hi Rick

Does SH ever have anything coherent to add to the discussion?

[Mazzy]

Jannah

There are a couple of serious replies to your OP. Can you respond to the serious replies and let's just ignore the person trying to derail the thread?

[Starhunter]

A continued reliance on the scriptures will lead to the truth.

I know plenty of people who rely on scripture to back their false christs, and false beliefs.

But that's neither here not there. Please answer my question:

You do realize there are OECs who do rely on scripture, don't you?

If I did not realize that some OEC's rely on scripture, I would not have said in essence that knowledge in the scriptures is progressive, and that opinions which do not agree with the plain written word, will eventually have to either accept or explain away.

One reason I talked about the relationship between understanding Christ as both Creator and Savior, is to show that Salvation does not depend on raw material - I suppose that is legalism? Perhaps you need extra time for God to do His thing for you, Daniel?

In re to false Christs, some would like to blame the scriptures for that, or people's interpretation, but are you saying, if someone relies on the scripture, if their view is not in harmony with the plain language of the Bible, then anyone who dares to oppose their views is legalistic, arrogant, self righteous, opinionated,? etc.

When I read that God made the world in six days, I believe it, because that is what it says. It does not say otherwise.

It seems like many do not know or understand the power of God in creation or salvation, which means that they are willingly ignorant.

Becoming ignorant from neglecting thorough Bible study is a sin God that will not excuse, especially after how much His Son suffered to redeem us.

[Mazzy]

A continued reliance on the scriptures will lead to the truth.

I know plenty of people who rely on scripture to back their false christs, and false beliefs.

But that's neither here not there. Please answer my question:

You do realize there are OECs who do rely on scripture, don't you?

When I read that God made the world in six days, I believe it, because that is what it says. It does not say otherwise.

It seems like many do not know or understand the power of God in creation or salvation, which means that they are willingly ignorant.

Becoming ignorant from neglecting thorough Bible study is a sin God that will not excuse, especially after how much His Son suffered to redeem us.

Oh so now old earthers are willingly ignorant.

Psalm 90:4 " For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night."

2 Peter 3:8 "Now, dear friends, do not let this one thing escape your notice, that a single day is like a thousand years with the Lord and a thousand years are like a single day"

What I feel is willingly ignorant might be someone that can't explain how God created animal life, then Adam, got Adam to name all the animals, had Adam go in to a deep sleep, and then create Eve, all in one 24 hour day, but likes to call others ignorant.

God never said one is saved by getting on forums and arguing about words or how long it took God to create. To argue that such things God will not excuse sounds more like sectist delusional self righteousness.

If you were such a good bible student you'd realize you are committing a bigger sin than arguing about creative days.

Luke 6:37 ""Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn others, or it will
all come back against you."