Does the Bible support any particular age of Earth?

[McCulloch]

The world is not flat, the world was not "made in 7 days", the world is not 6000 years old etcetera, all this is fiction, WE KNOW THIS.

Where does it say the world is 6,000 years old?

Question for debate: Is there a Biblical Basis for a Young Earth (between 6,000 - 10,000 years old) ?

[McCulloch]

Taken from Biblical Basis for a Young Earth:

[row][col]Adam to Jesus Generation[col]Adam to Jesus Descendancy[col]Adam to Jesus Descendancy Reference[col]Non-Descendancy Event[col]Non-Descendancy Reference[col]Descendancy / Non-Descendancy Chronology[col]Cumulative time in years[row][col]1[col]Adam created[col]Ge 1:23-27[col][col][col]5th. Day[col]0[row][col]2[col]Seth born[col]Ge 5:3[col][col][col]Adam aged <= 130[col]<= 130[row][col]3[col]Enos born[col]Ge 5:6[col][col][col]Seth aged <= 105[col]<= 235[row][col]4[col]Cainan born[col]Ge 5:9[col][col][col]Enos aged <= 90[col]<= 325[row][col]5[col]Mahalalheel born[col]Ge 5:12[col][col][col]Cainan aged <= 70[col]<= 395[row][col]6[col]Jared born[col]Ge 5:15[col][col][col]Mahalalheel aged <= 65[col]<= 460[row][col]7[col]Enoch born[col]Ge 5:18[col][col][col]Jared aged <= 162[col]<= 622[row][col]8[col]Methuselah born[col]Ge 5:21[col][col][col]Enoch aged <= 65[col]<= 687[row][col]9[col]Lamech born[col]Ge 5:25[col][col][col]Methuselah aged <= 187[col]<= 874[row][col]10[col]Noah born[col]Ge 5:28-29[col][col][col]Lamech aged <= 182[col]<= 1056[row][col]11[col]Shem born[col]Ge 5:32[col][col][col]Noah aged <= 500[col]<= 1556[row][col]12[col]Arphaxad born[col]Ge 11:10[col][col][col]Shem aged 100[col]<= 1656[row][col]13[col]Salah born[col]Ge 11:12[col][col][col]Arphaxad aged 35[col]<= 1691[row][col]14[col]Eber born[col]Ge 11:14[col][col][col]Salah aged 30[col]<= 1721[row][col]15[col]Peleg born[col]Ge 11:16[col][col][col]Eber aged 34[col]<= 1755[row][col]16[col]Reu born[col]Ge 11:18[col][col][col]Peleg aged 30[col]<= 1785[row][col]17[col]Serug born[col]Ge 11:20[col][col][col]Reu aged 32[col]<= 1817[row][col]18[col]Nahor born[col]Ge 11:22[col][col][col]Serug aged 30[col]<= 1847[row][col]19[col]Terah born[col]Ge 11:24[col][col][col]Nahor aged 29[col]<= 1876[row][col]20[col]Abraham born[col]Ge 11:32 & Ge 12:1-4[col][col][col]Terah aged 130 because: Terah died at age 205 in Haran. Abraham left Haran at age 75. Therefore Abraham was born when Terah was aged 130[col]<= 2006[row][col]21[col]Isaac born[col]Ge 21:5[col][col][col]Abraham aged 100[col]<= 2106[row][col]22[col]Jacob born[col]Ge 25:26[col][col][col]Isaac aged 60[col]<= 2166[row][col]23[col]Judah born[col]Mt 1:2 & Ge 29:35 & Ge 47:28 & Ge 35:10[col]Levi (Judah’s elder brother)[col]Ge 47:28[col]Jacob <= 147[col]<= 2313[row][col]24[col]Pharez born[col]Mt 1:3 & Ge 46:12[col]Kohath[col]Ex 6:16 & Ex 6:18[col]Levi <= 137[col]<= 2450[row][col]25[col]Esrom born[col]Mt 1:3[col]Amram[col]Ex 6:18[col]Kohath <= 133[col]<= 2583[row][col]26[col]Aram born[col]Mt 1:3[col]Moses[col]Ex 6:20 & De 34:7[col]Amram <= 137[col]<= 2720[row][col]27[col]Aminadab born[col]Mt 1:4[col]Moses speaks to Pharoah about the Exodus[col]Ex 7:7[col]At age 80[col]<= 2800[row][col]28[col]Naasson born[col]Mt 1:4[col]Exodus from Egypt led by Moses[col]Ex 12:43-51 & De 34:7[col]Moses <= 120[col]<= 2920[row][col]29[col]Salmon born[col]Mt 1:4[row][col]30[col]Booz born[col]Mt 1:5[row][col]31[col]Obed born[col]Mt 1:5[row][col]32[col]Jesse born[col]Mt 1:5[row][col]33[col]David born[col]Mt 1:6[row][col]34[col]Solomon born[col]Mt 1:6[col]Solomon builds house 480 years after the Exodus and in his 4th. Year of reign[col]1Ki 6:1[col]Exodus + 480[col]<= 3400[row][col]35[col]Roboam born[col]Mt 1:7[col]Solomon’s reign = 40 years[col]1Ki 11:42[col]40 – 4 = 36[col]<= 3436[row][col]36[col]Abia born[col]Mt 1:7[col]Rehoboam’s reign = 17 years[col]1Ki 14:21[col]17[col]<= 3453[row][col]37[col]Asa born[col]Mt 1:7[col]Abijam’s reign = 3 years[col]1Ki 14:31 & 1Ki 15:2[col]3[col]<= 3456[row][col]38[col]Josaphat born[col]Mt 1:8[col]Asa’s reign = 41 years[col]1Ki 15:8-10 & 2Ch 16:13[col]41[col]<= 3497[row][col]39[col]Joram born[col]Mt 1:8[col]Jeoshaphat reign = 25 years[col]2Ch 17:1 & 2Ch 20:31[col]25[col]<= 3522[row][col]40[col]Ozias born[col]Mt 1:8[col]Jehoram’s reign = 8 years[col]1Ki 22:50 & 2Ch 21:5 & 1Ki 9:24[col]8[col]<= 3530[row][col]41[col]Joatham born[col]Mt 1:9[col]Jehu’s reign = 28 years[col]2Ki 10:36[col]28[col]<= 3558[row][col]42[col]Achaz born[col]Mt 1:9[col]Jehoahaz’s reign = 17 years[col]2Ki 10:35 & 2Ki 13:1[col]17[col]<= 3575[row][col]43[col]Ezekias born[col]Mt 1:9[col]Jehoash’s reign = 16 years[col]2Ki 13:9-10[col]16[col]<= 3591[row][col]44[col]Manasses[col]Mt 1:10[col]Jeroboam II’s reign = 41 years[col]2Ki 14:16 & 2Ki 14:23[col]41[col]<= 3632[row][col]45[col]Amon born[col]Mt 1:10[col]Zachariah’s reign = 6 months[col]2Ki 14:29 & 2Ki 15:8[col]6 months[col]<= 3633[row][col]46[col]Josias born[col]Mt 1:10[col]Shallum’s reign = 1 month[col]2Ki 15:8-10 & 2Ki 15:13[col]1 month[col]<= 3633[row][col]47[col]Jechonias born[col]Mt 1:11[col]Menahem’s = 10 years[col]2Ki 15:14 & 2Ki 15:17[col]10[col]<= 3643[row][col]48[col]Salathiel born[col]Mt 1:12[col]Pekahiah’ reign = 2 years [col]2Ki 15:22-23[col]2[col]<= 3645[row][col]49[col]Zorobabel[col]Mt 1:12[col]Hoshea’s reign = 9 years[col]2Ki 15:30 & 2Ki 17:1[col]9[col]<= 3654[row][col]50[col]Abiud born[col]Mt 1:13[col]Hezekiah’s reign = 29 years[col]2Ki 18:1-2[col]29[col]<= 3683[row][col]51[col]Eliakim born[col]Mt 1:13[col]Manasseh’s reign = 55 years[col]2Ki 20-1 & 2Ki 21:1[col]55[col]<= 3738[row][col]52[col]Azor born[col]Mt 1:13[col]Amon’s reign = 2 years[col]2Ki 21:18-19[col]2[col]<= 3740[row][col]53[col]Sadoc born[col]Mt 1:14[col]Josiah’s reign = 31 years[col]2Ki 22:1[col]31[col]<= 3771[row][col]54[col]Achim born[col]Mt 1:14[col]Jehoahaz’s reign = 3 months[col]2Ki 23:29-30 & 2Ki 23:31[col]3 months[col]<= 3771[row][col]55[col]Eliud born[col]Mt 1:14[col]Jehoiakim’s reign = 11 years[col]2Ki 23:34 & 2Ki 23:36[col]11[col]<= 3782[row][col]56[col]Eleazar born[col]Mt 1:15[col]Jehoiachin’s reign = 3 months[col]2Ki 24:6 & 2Ki 24:8[col]3 months[col]<= 3783[row][col]57[col]Matthan born[col]Mt 1:15[col]Zedekiah’s reign = 11 years [col]2Ki 24:15 & 2Ki 24:17-18 & Jer 52:11[col]11[col]<= 3794[row][col]58[col]Jacob born[col]Mt 1:15[col]Nebuchadrezzar’s 18th. year of reign = 10th. Year of Zedekiah’s. Nebuchadrezzar lived 44 years.[col]Jer 32:1[col]See below[col]See below[row][col]59[col]Joseph born[col]Mt 1:16[col]Cyrus completes Jeremiah’s prophecy of 70 year servitude to Babylon starting from 1st. year of Nebuchadrezzar’s reign.[col]Jer 25:1-11 & Ezra 1:1 & 2Ch 36:21[col]70 – 19 (Nebuchadrezzar’s reign already accounted for in Zedekiah’s above) = 51[col]<= 3845[row][col]60[col]Jesus born[col]Mt 1:16[col]Nebuchadrezzar died in 565 BC[col]Non-Biblical records, monuments, tablets.[col]< 565 (as Cyrus accounted for above after Nebuchadrezzar had died)[col]<= 4410

Clearly, using the Bible sources, the world was something less than 4500 years old when Jesus was born and therefore something less than 6500 years old now.

Testimony from Moses

Moses described the creation of the earth and man as occurring within the same six-day span (Genesis 1). That these were ordinary days, of approximately twenty-four hours each (not figurative “days” representing millions of years), is demonstrated by the fact that the prophet viewed them as the same type of “day” as the Hebrew sabbath (Exodus 20:8-11).

Christ stated that “male and female” humans have existed “from the beginning of the creation” (Mark 10:6). This affirmation can never be harmonized with the notion that man is “a very recent new-comer to this planet”

Even if one grants a few possible omissions in the genealogical narrative (as with some Old Testament records—cf. Ezra 7:3,4; 1 Chronicles 6:6-10), there is no reason to assume that the earlier portion of the Lord’s family record is of a radically different structure than that which characterizes the later generations.

And so, Christ’s genealogy spans only a few thousand years—not millions. If the genealogical accounts of the Savior’s lineage do not demonstrate historical proximity, what is their purpose? The Bible is not silent concerning the relative ages of the earth and the human family.

See also The Bible and the Age of the Earth [Part I] by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

[twobitsmedia]

The world is not flat, the world was not "made in 7 days", the world is not 6000 years old etcetera, all this is fiction, WE KNOW THIS.

Where does it say the world is 6,000 years old?

Question for debate: Is there a Biblical Basis for a Young Earth (between 6,000 - 10,000 years old) ?

Most theologians are still debating what a "day" means in creation. The Bible, by itself, doesn't seem to concerned about years, unless geneolgies have any significance, but they appear to be subject to some contradictions.

[McCulloch]

Most theologians are still debating what a "day" means in creation.

Let's have a bit of that debate here. How many different ways can you read, "and there was evening and there was morning the nth day"? Unless you have a prior theological reason to believe that the first six days were not days, you will read that as days. That's how I see it. I would be interested in seeing evidence to the contrary.

However, even leaving that out, we can show that there has been less than 6500 years that have passed since the sixth day of creation.

The Bible, by itself, doesn't seem to concerned about years, unless genealogies have any significance, but they appear to be subject to some contradictions.

I'll let brother Biker correct you on the point of there being contradictions in the genealogies. However, if you look back from the age of King David (who can be approximately dated by other means) to Adam, there appear to be no contradictions in the genealogies, just a few omissions. Given the rate of omission, I don't think that we would have to adjust our numbers by more than 5%.

To those who would claim that the genealogies have no significance, I can only quote Paul:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Given the space given in the various scriptures to the genealogies, I don't see how any Christian could claim that they have no significance.

[twobitsmedia]

Most theologians are still debating what a "day" means in creation.

Let's have a bit of that debate here. How many different ways can you read, "and there was evening and there was morning the nth day"? Unless you have a prior theological reason to believe that the first six days were not days, you will read that as days. That's how I see it. I would be interested in seeing evidence to the contrary.

It makes more sense to me as a literal day. However, throw it in with 2 Peter 3:8 which says "one day with the Lord is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day." Combine them, and you can create new theories.

The Bible, by itself, doesn't seem to concerned about years, unless genealogies have any significance, but they appear to be subject to some contradictions.I'll let brother Biker correct you on the point of there being contradictions in the genealogies. However, if you look back from the age of King David (who can be approximately dated by other means) to Adam, there appear to be no contradictions in the genealogies, just a few omissions. Given the rate of omission, I don't think that we would have to adjust our numbers by more than 5%.

To those who would claim that the genealogies have no significance, I can only quote Paul:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Given the space given in the various scriptures to the genealogies, I don't see how any Christian could claim that they have no significance.

I am not saying the geneologies have no significance. I am saying it might be hard to get hard numbers for years out of them, which was your orioginal OP question.

[McCulloch]

However, throw it in with 2 Peter 3:8 which says "one day with the Lord is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day." Combine them, and you can create new theories.

And is there any sound hermeneutic principle to justify combining 2 Peter 3:8 with Genesis 1? Combine random passages from various books with some of the same words, some of them literal and some of them metaphorical and you can create lots of new theories. None of them valid.

I am not saying the genealogies have no significance. I am saying it might be hard to get hard numbers for years out of them, which was your original OP question.

You should try it some time. It is not as hard as you think. With each generation, there will be a margin of error. For instance, if it says that A was 88 years old when B was born, it could mean that he had just turned 88 or that he was still 88 and one day away from being 89. So of course, the end result will be something like Jesus was born 4410±60 years from creation. I think that we all would be willing to live with that kind of a range.

[twobitsmedia]

However, throw it in with 2 Peter 3:8 which says "one day with the Lord is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day." Combine them, and you can create new theories.

And is there any sound hermeneutic principle to justify combining 2 Peter 3:8 with Genesis 1? Combine random passages from various books with some of the same words, some of them literal and some of them metaphorical and you can create lots of new theories. None of them valid.

My answer to your question is yes and no. Genesis refers to a "day". Peter redefines a day on the Lords time, which is apparently different. The debate then becomes whether or not Genesis is referring to our time or Gods time. Early creationist theories defined the days as thousands of years in order to allow for dinosaurs. I tend to view the days as literal days because the plants were created before the sun, and I have a hard time believing the plants could last thousands of years without sunlight. I guess my personal opinion is it doesn't make any difference to me. And yes, you can create a lot of theories and religions out of the Bible just by reinterpeting a few words.

I am not saying the genealogies have no significance. I am saying it might be hard to get hard numbers for years out of them, which was your original OP question.You should try it some time. It is not as hard as you think. With each generation, there will be a margin of error. For instance, if it says that A was 88 years old when B was born, it could mean that he had just turned 88 or that he was still 88 and one day away from being 89. So of course, the end result will be something like Jesus was born 4410±60 years from creation. I think that we all would be willing to live with that kind of a range.

Yes, I have looked at them, but providing the numbers are correct, some translations have different numbers, the answers can vary.. Then one has to decide what the "day" meant in creation.

[Fisherking]

Most theologians are still debating what a "day" means in creation.

Let's have a bit of that debate here. How many different ways can you read, "and there was evening and there was morning the nth day"? Unless you have a prior theological reason to believe that the first six days were not days, you will read that as days. That's how I see it. I would be interested in seeing evidence to the contrary.

It makes more sense to me as a literal day. However, throw it in with 2 Peter 3:8 which says "one day with the Lord is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day." Combine them, and you can create new theories.

I agree that scripture teaches a literal 6 day creation. The only reason I see that one would attempt to make old earth theology in Genesis would be to harmonize current scientific theory with scripture.

[Confused]

Most theologians are still debating what a "day" means in creation.

Let's have a bit of that debate here. How many different ways can you read, "and there was evening and there was morning the nth day"? Unless you have a prior theological reason to believe that the first six days were not days, you will read that as days. That's how I see it. I would be interested in seeing evidence to the contrary.

It makes more sense to me as a literal day. However, throw it in with 2 Peter 3:8 which says "one day with the Lord is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day." Combine them, and you can create new theories.

I agree that scripture teaches a literal 6 day creation. The only reason I see that one would attempt to make old earth theology in Genesis would be to harmonize current scientific theory with scripture.

A literal 6 day creation as in 6, 24 hour days, or 6 as in 6 1,000 year days?

[McCulloch]

However, throw it in with 2 Peter 3:8 which says "one day with the Lord is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day." Combine them, and you can create new theories.

And is there any sound hermeneutic principle to justify combining 2 Peter 3:8 with Genesis 1? Combine random passages from various books with some of the same words, some of them literal and some of them metaphorical and you can create lots of new theories. None of them valid.

My answer to your question is yes and no. Genesis refers to a "day". Peter redefines a day on the Lords time, which is apparently different. The debate then becomes whether or not Genesis is referring to our time or Gods time. Early creationist theories defined the days as thousands of years in order to allow for dinosaurs. I tend to view the days as literal days because the plants were created before the sun, and I have a hard time believing the plants could last thousands of years without sunlight. I guess my personal opinion is it doesn't make any difference to me. And yes, you can create a lot of theories and religions out of the Bible just by reinterpreting a few words.

I agree that scripture teaches a literal 6 day creation. The only reason I see that one would attempt to make old earth theology in Genesis would be to harmonize current scientific theory with scripture.

Fisherking and twobitsmedia both seem to be implying that it is a valid hermeneutic principle to adjust your understanding of the holy scriptures according to the current theories of modern science. Is this so?