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) ?

[MagusYanam]

That would be modern Jews. When it was written, when it was referred to by the writers of the New Testament, did they believe that it was real or a myth? Should Christians bend their interpretation of God's Holy Word because of relatively recent discoveries of science?

Perhaps you might consider looking up Moses Maimonides, a 12th-century scholar who built up a negative theology around a figurative and symbolic interpretation of Genesis. Or the mediaeval tradition of Kabbalah (a minor school, to be sure, but an influential one all the same). This was long before Darwin and long before the advent of scientific methodology.

Even before Maimonides, whether the creation story was literal truth was, more than anything else, an irrelevancy. You say I mention modern Jews - which I did only in passing, while referring to the Jewish tradition - including the Tanakh and the Midrashic commentaries. It is you who insists on grafting an anachronistic hermeneutical framework onto works far older than the Enlightenment. During the time of the New Testament, whether the creation story was literal truth or not simply did not matter the same way it does to us.

As to whether Christians should bend their interpretations of Scripture because of relatively recent discoveries of science, I would say that the Enlightenment may have bent our interpretations somewhat, but the fundamentalists of the 1920's took Enlightenment presuppositions about the nature of 'truth' and used them to skew theological debates far off balance. Both classical and postmodern narrative theology doesn't require either that you deny the power of the Word of God or that you deny empirical data. The two are not mutually exclusive and you have been attempting to draw a false dichotomy all this time; I don't understand how you can continue to do so.

The more useful question is not: is there a Biblical basis for a young earth or for an old earth? but rather: why does it matter?

[Fisherking]

That would be modern Jews. When it was written, when it was referred to by the writers of the New Testament, did they believe that it was real or a myth? Should Christians bend their interpretation of God's Holy Word because of relatively recent discoveries of science?

Perhaps you might consider looking up Moses Maimonides, a 12th-century scholar who built up a negative theology around a figurative and symbolic interpretation of Genesis. Or the mediaeval tradition of Kabbalah (a minor school, to be sure, but an influential one all the same). This was long before Darwin and long before the advent of scientific methodology.

Moses seemed to think the earth was created in 6 days, or is Moses a mythical being saying mythical things about a mythical creation

Even before Maimonides, whether the creation story was literal truth was, more than anything else, an irrelevancy. You say I mention modern Jews - which I did only in passing, while referring to the Jewish tradition - including the Tanakh and the Midrashic commentaries. It is you who insists on grafting an anachronistic hermeneutical framework onto works far older than the Enlightenment. During the time of the New Testament, whether the creation story was literal truth or not simply did not matter the same way it does to us.

Why not?

The more useful question is not: is there a Biblical basis for a young earth or for an old earth? but rather: why does it matter?

The earth is either young or it is old. Science is the final authority or scripture is. Which is it?

[McCulloch]

Perhaps you might consider looking up Moses Maimonides, a 12th-century scholar who built up a negative theology around a figurative and symbolic interpretation of Genesis. Or the mediaeval tradition of Kabbalah (a minor school, to be sure, but an influential one all the same). This was long before Darwin and long before the advent of scientific methodology.

So now the opinions of Jewish scholars from the 12th century are the basis for sound hermeneutics? Aren't those the ones who did not recognize their own Messiah when he came to live among them? And you trust them to interpret God's own holy words?

During the time of the New Testament, whether the creation story was literal truth or not simply did not matter the same way it does to us.

You got any first century evidence to back up that assertion?

As to whether Christians should bend their interpretations of Scripture because of relatively recent discoveries of science, I would say that the Enlightenment may have bent our interpretations somewhat, but the fundamentalists of the 1920's took Enlightenment presuppositions about the nature of 'truth' and used them to skew theological debates far off balance. Both classical and postmodern narrative theology doesn't require either that you deny the power of the Word of God or that you deny empirical data. The two are not mutually exclusive and you have been attempting to draw a false dichotomy all this time; I don't understand how you can continue to do so.

Science shows that a universal flood did not happen. So postmodern theologists toss Noah's flood into the myth bag. Modern astronomy has shown that there is no heaven up there so Jesus' ascension becomes mythic. People three days dead cannot be revived. Demons do not cause disease. Stars do not lock themselves in geosynchronous orbit above small middle eastern towns. The miracles of Jesus can be tossed into the dust bin too.

The more useful question is not: is there a Biblical basis for a young earth or for an old earth? but rather: why does it matter?

It matters because there is a vocal group of believers in a young earth who are trying to subvert science based on the ancient myths of Christianity.

[MagusYanam]

So now the opinions of Jewish scholars from the 12th century are the basis for sound hermeneutics? Aren't those the ones who did not recognize their own Messiah when he came to live among them? And you trust them to interpret God's own holy words?

While we are discussing the Tanakh I defer to scholars who know far more about the scripture and understand more of the oral tradition accompanying it than I do - the words are indeed theirs to interpret. Whether or not they recognise the Messiah when they see him is, quite frankly, a red herring, and an anti-Semitic one at that. Jesus is not the subject of the question here, rather the Tanakh is.

You got any first century evidence to back up that assertion?

Damn it, man, do some critical thinking! Read Gregory of Nyssa or John Chrysostom or Origen and see what they emphasise when they talk about the creation - do they take care to mention at every turn when discussing Genesis that the earth must be 6000 years old or so, or not? Why is it that Bishop Ussher, seventeen hundred years later, was one of the first ones to claim a specific date for the creation of the universe based on Scripture? Perhaps it could be because people earlier than Ussher were not as concerned with Scriptural literalism but more concerned with what the creation story meant. I think it is quite interesting that it is only after the Baconian scientific revolution that you find people trying to find the answers to scientific questions by analysing Scripture.

Science shows that a universal flood did not happen. So postmodern theologists toss Noah's flood into the myth bag. Modern astronomy has shown that there is no heaven up there so Jesus' ascension becomes mythic. People three days dead cannot be revived. Demons do not cause disease. Stars do not lock themselves in geosynchronous orbit above small middle eastern towns. The miracles of Jesus can be tossed into the dust bin too.

The thing you consistently fail to comprehend is that the 'myth bag' and the 'dust bin' are two very different places. What goes into the 'myth bag' can still be discussed for its poetic and philosophical value even as its factual value is irrelevant.

It matters because there is a vocal group of believers in a young earth who are trying to subvert science based on the ancient myths of Christianity.

Indeed there are. And it's a rearguard battle - the main discussions of Scripture now shouldn't be over whether or not the passages in questions are mythical, but what value they have as true myth (which is where modernists and post-modernists tend to disagree).

As far as science goes, evolution biology is the status quo. If the believers want to challenge it by forwarding a theory of creation or intelligent design or whatever, they should go through peer-reviewed science publications, not through popular literature and political manoeuvring. I believe that their methods are underhanded and intellectually dishonest, and that their conclusions are wrong. But topics like that should be posted in the 'Science and Religion' forum.

[MagusYanam]

Perhaps you might consider looking up Moses Maimonides, a 12th-century scholar who built up a negative theology around a figurative and symbolic interpretation of Genesis. Or the mediaeval tradition of Kabbalah (a minor school, to be sure, but an influential one all the same). This was long before Darwin and long before the advent of scientific methodology.

Moses seemed to think the earth was created in 6 days, or is Moses a mythical being saying mythical things about a mythical creation

Even before Maimonides, whether the creation story was literal truth was, more than anything else, an irrelevancy. You say I mention modern Jews - which I did only in passing, while referring to the Jewish tradition - including the Tanakh and the Midrashic commentaries. It is you who insists on grafting an anachronistic hermeneutical framework onto works far older than the Enlightenment. During the time of the New Testament, whether the creation story was literal truth or not simply did not matter the same way it does to us.

Why not?

The more useful question is not: is there a Biblical basis for a young earth or for an old earth? but rather: why does it matter?

The earth is either young or it is old. Science is the final authority or scripture is. Which is it?

The books of Moses are a cultural narrative that is a hodgepodge of myth, legal documents, poetry and history. Your comments indicate a simplistic, almost profane view of an extremely complicated holy text - it's not a matter of whether the earth is young or old, it's a matter of what the creation story tells us about Hebrew culture, what it tells us about our spiritual heritage, what it tells us about the covenantal relationship our people have had with God. When it comes to these things, Scripture is absolutely central. When it comes to scientific inquiry about the nature of the universe, science is (and obviously should be) the final authority.

As for your question, as to why didn't the literal truth of Genesis matter as much back then, I would give you the same advice as McCulloch. Do some critical thinking. Read the Scriptures again, as well as some commentary on it, while keeping in mind that you are not a first-century Greek, and you are not a Hebrew priest from 600 BCE. It should go without saying that these people came to Scripture with a different worldview, and got different things out of Scripture than we do because of it.

[Fisherking]

The books of Moses are a cultural narrative that is a hodgepodge of myth, legal documents, poetry and history. Your comments indicate a simplistic, almost profane view of an extremely complicated holy text - it's not a matter of whether the earth is young or old, it's a matter of what the creation story tells us about Hebrew culture, what it tells us about our spiritual heritage, what it tells us about the covenantal relationship our people have had with God. When it comes to these things, Scripture is absolutely central. When it comes to scientific inquiry about the nature of the universe, science is (and obviously should be) the final authority.

I understand you believe the book of Moses to be a cultural narrative, a hodgepodge of myths, along with being a legal document, poetry, and history. I'm sure many would welcome the debate on many of these issues, maybe in a separate thread.
Is there a Biblical Basis for a Young Earth (between 6,000 - 10,000 years old)? The scriptural evidence supplied so far would be emphatically "yes". You have not provided any biblical evindence as of yet to be considered.

As for your question, as to why didn't the literal truth of Genesis matter as much back then, I would give you the same advice as McCulloch. Do some critical thinking. Read the Scriptures again, as well as some commentary on it, while keeping in mind that you are not a first-century Greek, and you are not a Hebrew priest from 600 BCE.

The question for debate did not ask if there is commentary evidence for a young earth, nor did it ask if you or anyone else if they thought it mattered.

It should go without saying that these people came to Scripture with a different worldview, and got different things out of Scripture than we do because of it.

Evidentally not -- what scriptural evidence suggests the earth is 4.5 billion years old?

[MagusYanam]

Is there a Biblical Basis for a Young Earth (between 6,000 - 10,000 years old)? The scriptural evidence supplied so far would be emphatically "yes". You have not provided any biblical evindence as of yet to be considered.

The question for debate did not ask if there is commentary evidence for a young earth, nor did it ask if you or anyone else if they thought it mattered.

Pardon me for being flippant, but to this response I would ask, 'so what'? To apply a rich cultural narrative full of legend and myth to a question of scientific import is at best an exercise in pointless triviality, and I would consider insistence that it should be applied to matters of scientific import a sacrilege.

And to be clear, I did say that you could have a Scriptural basis for a young earth (if you come at it from an historically anachronistic viewpoint), but to imply that to be the main point of the creation story is a profanity, because to do so would be to interpret Scripture in ways that its authors would not have meant, and to ignore the other layers of meaning that can be gotten if Adam and Eve are considered metaphorical for humanity (which even their names indicate that they are). That is where the Midrash comes in handy. So I think commentary absolutely matters in this debate. Because clearly if the authors had wanted us to read a young earth into their text, a date for the creation would have appeared in the commentaries centuries before Bishop Ussher.

Evidentally not -- what scriptural evidence suggests the earth is 4.5 billion years old?

I don't see how I can be any more clear on this.

There is none, because the question is irrelevant! Using myth to answer a scientific question is preposterous.

[seventil]

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

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.

I'm Christian, and I'll claim right now that the genealogies have little to no significance in the date of the Earth. They are important for other reasons. What they can tell us is roughly the amount of time that has passed since Adam and Jesus. Yay.

For dating the earth via the Bible, we have to look to the Genesis Creation account. However, there are a few fundamental problems with it to use it as a reliable source. I'll explain:

1) In a literal day view, the time that passed between Creation and the writing of Genesis is 2000+ years, in which the story had to have been passed down orally. This presents a serious problem, as oral storytelling is notorious for distorting, embellishing or otherwise mangling the facts.

2) Eyewitness account: as there was no one, but God, He must have told the story to Adam. While this isn't written, it can be assumed. Adam sinned, and was cast out, and though he was the "First Man", he was still imperfect (or human) in the same way we are.

3) Non-specifics: we have no idea how long Creation took, how long Adam lived in the Garden before he fell, or any other specific time reference. This assumes that the night/day referred to in Genesis was either metaphorical or allegory, or took form in ways like the Day/Gap theory, etc.

Does that mean we should reject the Bible outright? Not at all. We need to take it context of when and how it was written. People have spent their lives trying to disprove/prove a few paragraphs of 3000+ old writing, translated from original form at least 5 times, all of a story passed down over 2000+ years by oral tradition. It would have been better just to leave all of that out if he knew what a bunch of bickering, arrogant snobs we turned into, proclaiming what was and wasn't from our intellectual high-chair.

Perhaps there is a parable or lesson in all of this, though. Probably something about focusing on whats important and not, or something like that.

[McCulloch]

I'm Christian, and I'll claim right now that the genealogies have little to no significance in the date of the Earth. They are important for other reasons. What they can tell us is roughly the amount of time that has passed since Adam and Jesus. Yay.

And Adam started to live on the sixth day of creation.

For dating the earth via the Bible, we have to look to the Genesis Creation account. However, there are a few fundamental problems with it to use it as a reliable source. I'll explain:

1) In a literal day view, the time that passed between Creation and the writing of Genesis is 2000+ years, in which the story had to have been passed down orally. This presents a serious problem, as oral storytelling is notorious for distorting, embellishing or otherwise mangling the facts.

Right. God has no part in inspiring the Bible.

2) Eyewitness account: as there was no one, but God, He must have told the story to Adam. While this isn't written, it can be assumed. Adam sinned, and was cast out, and though he was the "First Man", he was still imperfect (or human) in the same way we are.

Couldn't God have told Moses? God even wrote some stuff down for Moses.

3) Non-specifics: we have no idea how long Creation took, how long Adam lived in the Garden before he fell, or any other specific time reference. This assumes that the night/day referred to in Genesis was either metaphorical or allegory, or took form in ways like the Day/Gap theory, etc.

It really does not matter how long Adam lived in the Garden before he fell. In Genesis 5, the wording of the genealogy is, "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created. When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. " It makes no reference to the Fall. From the beginning of Adam's life to the birth of Seth, was 130 years.

Please present your reasons for believing that the days in Genesis 1 were not days, that the evenings in Genesis 1 were not evenings and that the mornings in Genesis 1 were not mornings.

[ilovepikachuandjesus]

I apologise. I don't seem to be getting the e-mails that alert me when someone posts in the topics I'm debating in.

1) In a literal day view, the time that passed between Creation and the writing of Genesis is 2000+ years, in which the story had to have been passed down orally. This presents a serious problem, as oral storytelling is notorious for distorting, embellishing or otherwise mangling the facts.

2) Eyewitness account: as there was no one, but God, He must have told the story to Adam. While this isn't written, it can be assumed. Adam sinned, and was cast out, and though he was the "First Man", he was still imperfect (or human) in the same way we are.

I'll accept that Chinese whispers is a part of human life. However, this falls short of two facts. Firstly the long age of those who lived in Genesis means that by the time Moses was born, there would have only been about five people before him that told the account. Secondly all scripture is God inspired so even if man can be wrong God cannot.

3) Non-specifics: we have no idea how long Creation took, how long Adam lived in the Garden before he fell, or any other specific time reference. This assumes that the night/day referred to in Genesis was either metaphorical or allegory, or took form in ways like the Day/Gap theory, etc.

Assuming that he was living at this point, the genelogy would have covered this period. Although I agree that does not allow us to know the period before the sixth day was created unless you take a literal reading.

As stated before I believe the six days are not literal. My reading comes from scripture not science. Although I believe scripture and science are friends not enemies.

God rests from creation on the seventh day and God will continue resting till the New Heaven is created. Therefore since that day is not literal it is likely the others are not.

The creation is an exalted prose narrative. It uses poetic patterns and devices that Hebrew metaphorical writtings are famous for. It also uses a fill and fulfil pattern that links days one and four, days two and five and days three and six together. The narrative should not be taken literally, as much as most of the Psalm or Revelation writings shouldn't.

Moses who spoke according to what God had instructed used the creation story to use the week days to represent Creation so that a Sabbath could be used to honour the LORD our God.