Is the earth only 6000 years old? Proof from your own bible, it is Not.

How many time has this argument been waged? How many times has science proven this 6000 year myth, in fact a myth? The problem is really based on a misunderstanding of the original words of the bible itself. Here is the quick answer...The time lag between Gen verse 1.1 and Gen verse 1.2 is in fact millions of years.

To begin lets us "frame" the argument..

Framing the Argument
While certain details about the subject of creation differ, the general concept is that an intelligent force brought about physical matter, including the trillions of stars, billions of galaxies, our solar system, Earth and everything in it. Most believe it started with a single creation event.

“Young Earth” creationists believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account, and conclude that the universe was created 6,000 years ago. This age is determined by counting the generations of biblical figures recorded throughout the Bible, starting with Adam in the Garden of Eden. These creationists believe that any evidence not supporting their theory is incorrectly applied, or that the data is misinterpreted. Their view is that the Bible is the only source that should be examined to prove creation, and the events recorded in it should be taken as they interpret them.

How many times do so many "so called" christians read over the text instead of taking time to understand the words...

Now let’s examine Genesis 1:2. The phrase “without form” comes from the Hebrew word tohu—the same word translated as “vain” in Isaiah 45:18. The word “void” comes from bohu, meaning “a vacuity (a total emptiness of matter, a vacuum), an undistinguishable ruin.”

This is exactly what God said He did NOT create! He “is not the author of confusion” (I Cor. 14:33)—rather, everything God does is “done decently and in order” (vs. 40).

The Hebrew word hayah makes this crystal clear. It was incorrectly translated “was” in Genesis 1:2. A more proper rendering is “became” or “came to be.” With all of this information a more accurate translation of the beginning of this verse could be: “And the earth became desolate, a worthless thing and an undistinguishable ruin…”

These verses describe two completely different events! This is not an interpretation by any man; it is the clear, direct interpretation of the Bible by the Bible.

www.realtruth.org...

These two snipets from the complete article make short the entire scope of the issue. I would encourage reading the whole text.

Many "weekend" christians never take the time to really understand Gods truth and too often take the word of someone who real intent is to reach into their wallets. These same false teachers tell you to ignore the 'law" that it was done away with..........also a lie..........and that "faith" alone is the way to heaven....another lie......

Research, study, and find out God is perfect, mankind is not..............


Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 8 May 09 by Gools]

Hey man, that's really quite interesting, good find.
It's truly amazing how a misreading of a verb tense in another language can spark off a whole culture of misunderstanding - such as the 'Young Earth' people.

Although I would never find myself saying for definite that a God created the Earth, I like this because it flies in the face of religious ignorance.

To me, 'God' is not some all knowing all powerful entity, more like something internal, that lives within all of us, and is the goodness and love that we all can be.

oh yep! i was reading this same thing in a book called GOD'S PLAN FOR MAN. he went through the old testament and proved that the word almost exclusively is translated from the word for chaos and that God says He didn't create the world chaotic. then we see the waters drying up and the land appearing (it was already there). in the book, the author (dake) claims this is because the planet use to be the domain of the angels (they were created beings afterall). and they went through their time of testing here, which he called the dispensation of the angels. they grew technologically, colonized the local planets and moons, got involved in a big space war, and the earth took a beating as did some other planetoid or planet, that is now the asteroid belt. it was an interesting read.



[edit on 18-4-2009 by undo]

Sounds like an interesting read that!

Almost like a cross between the bible and the terra papers maybe?

reply to post by heliosprime


The biggest mistake in the Bible is the many hands that wrote the Bible, that is the mistake of the Bible, human mistakes, but hey what can you expect when men wants to play Gods.

"These verses describe two completely different events! This is not an interpretation by any man; it is the clear, direct interpretation of the Bible by the Bible."

One small problem with that, MEN wrote the BuyBull, so you're just interpreting the words of men.

I've never heard of this theory of "young earth" creationism. I am a creationist by natural means. I think it's ridiculous to think that the earth is only 6000 years old with all of the natural evidence.

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
I've never heard of this theory of "young earth" creationism. I am a creationist by natural means. I think it's ridiculous to think that the earth is only 6000 years old with all of the natural evidence.

The YEC's don't really care about the age of the Earth, they just want to diss science, and they're willing to lie to do that. c.f. Kent Hovind's Creation "Science" Museum.

very nice thread anyone out to make some money can write a book and i suspect the same goes with the bible.

The issue of the 6000 year old earth is a misreading of the story of adam. In fact mankind was created on the 6th day, then on the 8th day God created the garden of eden and "adam". The entire story of adam is an account of a specific "race" of mankind. Searching the actual meaning of the word "adam" often mistranslated as "first" is actually translated as "ruddy" complection.....errr blood in the face.......Then the bible traces the direct family connection from adam, to noah, to moses, then david, and finally to Jesus.......

here is a link....

www.blueletterbible.org...

reply to post by heliosprime


So, you're not a literalist? You don't take every word of the BuyBull as "gospel"? How does one chose which parts to take literally, then, and which to ignore as ancient history?

Originally posted by heliosprime
The issue of the 6000 year old earth is a misreading

Then the bible traces the direct family connection from adam, to noah, to moses, then david, and finally to Jesus.......

You have brought forth some interesting and valid points, which I completely agree with 100%.

The Genesis 1:1 verse is an acturate translation of the Original text.

The problem in 1611, when the Translators took King "The Mason" James task to hand and set forth to translate the text, it was only a period of time when heresy was punishable by torture and death. 1300 Years of religions doctrines and theologies, (all imagined by MAN), would be hard to correct. They just recently established the Earth revolved around the Sun, which was likely enough revelation for the period.

Genesis 1:2 as noted was mis-translated from the Original text.

It should, of course, kept the Original thought, and expressed the Truth.

Genesis 1:2 And the Earth Became a Waste and a Desolation.

When would this have occured???? During the Fall of Satan. He was a "Seprent" in the Garden, so his fall preceeded this. This was the War, that nearly destroyed the planet.

You have also directed some attention pf keeping things in Context.

Genesis 1 is the Story of "RECREATION".

On the six day, the "Races", both male and female, where given dominion over the Fishes, and Fowls and Beasts and fruits of the earth. They where to be sustained by these "Fruits" by hunting and gathering them, much like the Aboriginal Peoples we see all over this planet. They provided great stewardship of what they had been given, and at the end of the day, (the 6th Day) God saw it all, and it was good. (Gen 1:31)

Genesis 2 is about Adam, the First Farmer.

This is not the "adam" (aw-dawm) a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.) noted in Genesis 1.

This is "Adam" (aw-dam) to show blood in the face, which is able to blush.

Genesis 2 continues along indicating things specific to Adam and the creation of a mate, specific to Adam, since there was not one like him at that time.

This is like having Blue Jays, Chickadees, and Cardinals, both male and female, but having one Robin, (a Male Robin), with no others like him.

Of course, there was Lilith (a 6th day recreation), but she was no "Like" Adam.

Genesis 3, deals specific to Satan's beguilement, (wholely seducing) of Eve, and the Banishment from the Garden,


Genesis 4 is specific to Cain, Satan's son, and his folly following in his father's footsteps allowing VAINITY to lead him to Kill Adam's first son, Abel, and leads into a Forum Topic I have worked on a bit in the past and will be visisting again, in time. Satan and his decendants. The Bloodline here is specific to Cain
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Genesis 5 deal specific with Adam's decendants.

And the Balance of the Bible, deals with this family line.

With this said, the 6000 Year figure, is a VALID estimate on of thing. THE ESTIMATED PERIOD OF TIME FROM TODAY TO THE INTRODUCTION OF Adam, dealt with specificaly in Genesis 2.

According to the Aboriginies of Austrailia, they (being 6th day man) date their history to 14000 Years ago.

And you have Job, with discussions Dinosaurs, and Peter telling us not to be ignorant, of the three earth ages. The one that was, the one that is and the one yet to come.

So 6000 Year Old Earth. You got to be NUT'S, or maybe never studied the Letter GOD wrote to You.

Excellent topic. Love the Direction. Keep up the good work

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by heliosprime

 

So, you're not a literalist? You don't take every word of the BuyBull as "gospel"? How does one chose which parts to take literally, then, and which to ignore as ancient history?

Typical ignorance of truth when faced with facts that don't fit YOUR template. Going back to the original scripts is going back to the "literal" translations......the actual words.

God is perfect, man is corrupt and satan is confusion........seek the truth, pray, ask God, it will be shown to you.

Originally posted by heliosprime
Typical ignorance of truth when faced with facts that don't fit YOUR template. Going back to the original scripts is going back to the "literal" translations......the actual words.

God is perfect, man is corrupt and satan is confusion........seek the truth, pray, ask God, it will be shown to you.

So, God's word is sent down to us exactly as he meant it to be understood? Really? Despite the countless contradictions in the BuyBull?

God is a fiction, man is a reality and satan is an excuse . . . seek the facts, learn, ask "why?", and it will be shown to you.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
So, God's word is sent down to us exactly as he meant it to be understood? Really? Despite the countless contradictions in the BuyBull?

That's not what he said. Way to create a false position, dude.

Oh, and congratulations on the 6 millionth usage of your oh-so-clever pun on the pronunciation of "Bible". *groan*

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
God is a fiction, man is a reality and satan is an excuse . . . seek the facts, learn, ask "why?", and it will be shown to you.

Thanks (and to heliosprime also), but this forum isn't actually here for the purpose of proselytising your beliefs, whether you are atheist, agnostic or Christian.

Originally posted by heliosprime
The issue of the 6000 year old earth is a misreading of the story of adam. In fact mankind was created on the 6th day, then on the 8th day God created the garden of eden and "adam". The entire story of adam is an account of a specific "race" of mankind. Searching the actual meaning of the word "adam" often mistranslated as "first" is actually translated as "ruddy" complection.....errr blood in the face.......Then the bible traces the direct family connection from adam, to noah, to moses, then david, and finally to Jesus.......

here is a link....

www.blueletterbible.org...

I agree with you more than you know because I've been touting this argument for about 2 years now. The gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. I have a slight disagreement with you, however. You claim Adam was created on the 8th day but mankind as a whole was created on the 6th day. The problem with that is that scripture throughout the old and new testament explain Adam as the "first of all mankind" I seem to believe that the author of Genesis explains the 6 day creation and 7th day of rest and in chapter two, goes back to the story of mankind concentrating specifically on Adam, who was the first human and sent to the garden of eden. This matter isn't what's important, but I just wanted to point out my opinion on that. Good thread minus athiests.

reply to post by Roark


"That's not what he said. Way to create a false position, dude."

It's called a follow-up question. Sorry if it was too complex.

"Oh, and congratulations on the 6 millionth usage of your oh-so-clever pun on the pronunciation of "Bible". *groan* "

It's the correct spelling. Glad you liked it.

reply to post by Shane


One of the problems with believing that Satan fell before the end of the seventh day of creation is that after the seventh day, God said that everything in creation was good--abundantly excellent, to be exact. This wouldn't be possible if Satan and the demons had fallen.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
How does one chose which parts to take literally, then, and which to ignore as ancient history?

Read it about 1000 times, and if rational thought not suppressed enough, read again and again and again till you brain gets absolutely numb and finally accepts the contradictions as facts and reality and reality as a temporary state of confusion...

In afterlife, however, apparently, it all will be finally clear

It's a religion thing, you would not understand

Interesting thing though, article quoted in the OP comes from the place called RealTruth, lol, I guess scientific truth is just your regular every day truth and then there is the REAL one

It is the clear, direct interpretation of the Bible by the Bible.

Wow, Bible interprets itself, that's a new, fresh look right there. All those involved in the process cannot be blamed now, no human mistake happened this time

The earth is way over 6000 years old

Genesis 1
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

This statement spans over billions of years for the heavens and millions of years for the earth.

THEN the creative days start, which are also an unspecified period of time, God is not bound to mans definition of our solar systems day.

Why would he be? Somebody has taken the "day" in the bible literally when geological historical science doesn't support it.

Science cuts both ways, it doesn't support young earth creationism nor does it support evolution from a strand of DNA all the way to a human either.