It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


I Can Believe the Bible and that the World is Older than 6K

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:59 AM
Hey folks and fellow Christians, I thought I would put this down on paper to see if it sounds as silly as some theologians have suggested to me.

You see I have no problem in believing in a literal bible and that the world is far older than the 6 to 8 thousand years most scholars would have you believe the bible teaches.. In fact it is pretty clear to me.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Sorry about the long quote, but it is necessary for me to illustrate what “I see” written here..

In “25” It clearly states that God made man on the 6th day. Okay we are all good with that. Then God rested, figure he deserved it..
Now is where I differ from almost everyone else.

AFTER God rested, it tells of a mist coming from the ground that watered all things and then, ONLY THEN does it tell of God forming man from the dust and breathing lfe into his nostrils..

Now we all know the bible has been translated many times and there are some that would have you believe that the translations are faulty. Not gonna debate that here as I believe the translations are guided by the hand of God. I also have no problem seeing what I see and understanding what I read.

God created humans on the 6th day and then after resting some time could have elapsed, say many thousands of years, THEN and only THEN did God create a man from dust and breathed life, think SOUL, into him. Why else would the creation be mentioned and described twice?

Now this is what I believe and belief is a funny thing, or I should say what I have faith in. I will certainly talk about it or I would not have posted it on ATS, but I have no intention of arguing my faith. I hope you all understand. I also hope I made what I believe clear as I am NOT a theologian by trade or education. I did take a semester or two on the bible in college but that was an easy 4.0..


posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:25 AM
if you choose to interpret something how you see fit then of course you can believe anything. It says he rested on the 7th day, then blah blah and he created man.. I would think that if all the sudden he let thousands of years pass or in the case of your point billions of years pass before he decided to make man, there would be some note of that considering it outlines the first 7 days so clearly. I doubt that they went from describing day by day events to billions of years or hundreds of millions of years without a mention of changing date formats and all..

But since you clearly believe in the bible, and since you can clearly read into it and interpret it however you see fit so it helps you make sense as to why the bible does not make sense. I doubt logic will prevail with you on this matter.

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:30 AM
I think bible could be technically "older" due to the fact it borrowed many things from previous religions.

But anything now is just interpretation, as the time go by, it would look like what the bible said is true because, we would impose our current thinking into its interpretations.

A quote from the bible(interpretation vary) to prove the bible is 6k+.

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:39 AM
Faith in God is not logical, its revealed to those chosen by the Holy Spirit, read Ephesians.
Believing that Christ died to forgive personnel sin is enough.
Nobody can deny your theory but to deny another theory could be right is also completely wrong.

The bible was written by men and does have unique and different aspects to it. though Both creation storys admit God created.
I think thats enough.
Me I just dont see the evidence that the world is as old as the poor scientific tests teach.
Evolution is a pseudo science built from the top down. hell even Dawkins relies on aliens seeding the earth

100 million year old skull, either scientific dating is wrong or humanity is far older than scientists admit _campaign=Feed%3A+pakalert+%28Pak+Alert+Press%29

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:44 AM

So typical... The word "Interpret" being through around..

Sorry for the laughter but WOW could you be any more typical...

I don't "interpret" anything.. I read and I understand

Of course you know I fully expected replies like that

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:54 AM
reply to post by luciddream

If there are other bibles that are older, and you say the christian bible has "borrowed" things from other bibles then how could the bible be true. Because that would contradict what the bible says itself in why/who wrote the bible.

The bible does not say.. This is the christian version, we borrowed some things from other bibles and the world really is older but we decided to say its not and also we added some of our own things in...

The bible was written by MEN not god and not jesus which is clearly stated in the bible itself. Men cannot be trusted, the bible was written as the first forms of law to keep people in line and give them a moral code to live by that the people who wrote the bible felt was the right things to do in life.

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:55 AM
Speaking of "interpreting" - a "day" to God can't really be considered a "day" to us. It is likely that the word was translated into "day" but is really some other, much longer,
measure of time.

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:01 AM
reply to post by semperfortis

in·ter·pret [in-tur-prit] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
to give or provide the meaning of; explain; explicate; elucidate: to interpret the hidden meaning of a parable.
to construe or understand in a particular way: to interpret a reply as favorable.
to bring out the meaning of (a dramatic work, music, etc.) by performance or execution.
to perform or render (a song, role in a play, etc.) according to one's own understanding or sensitivity: The actor interpreted Lear as a weak, pitiful old man.
to translate orally.

you say what "I see" meaning that what you see and are understanding from what you read is what you interpret. What you see and what someone else sees are 2 different things, you said yourself you are not reading it and taking it for what it says you are reading into it and adding to it because of you interpretation so yes you are interpreting what you see in the bible and giving yourself a reason to believe that the bible can still make sense even though in reality it does not if not for MANY reasons just for the reason you said that the bible states our world is only 6k-8k years old when clearly with much evidence actually evidence that is proven by science, its must older.

They speak in days 1-7 days then all the sudden they speak in millions? no that doesn't make sense, there are also other instances in the bible where it backs up the 6-8k where everything was created. Along with that if there were no other people before "god" created them, how are there bibles that are so much older, buildings that are so much older, ect then the bible itself and what the bible says is possible.

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:10 AM
Ferrar Fenton, a very astute Bible translator (his version dates from around 1906) translated Genesis 1:1 thus:

By Periods God created that which produced the Solar Systems; then that which produced the Earth.

His footnote on the word "Periods" reads like so: "Literally "By Headships." It is curious that all translators from the Septuagint have rendered this word B're#ii, into the singular, although it is plural in the Hebrew. So I render it accurately."

He goes on to name the periods of creation, not "first day," "second day," and so on, but "the first age," "the second age," and so on.

It really doesn't bother me if the world is 6,000 years old or 6,000,000,000 years old.

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:10 AM
reply to post by semperfortis

..I read and I understand....

AKA, i read and i understand it through interpretation which is based on how i was taught?

You think if a Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist reads it, he would see the same thing as you?

What about a 10 yr old child?

How can you tell your "version" of that quotes and understanding is the one and true way?

Bible and Interpretation go hand in hand because MOST of the bible is so vague and open to interpretation.

If it weren't for that ambiguity, bible would have be 100% proved false and trashed long ago, yet it survives thru people's interpretation and escape immoral acts.

I can say the same for Koran or any other man made holy book.
edit on 2/25/2013 by luciddream because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:11 AM
While I am not a Christian, I believe the Bible to be taken from other ancient texts. Some truth lies within these ancient texts, for sure.

The Earth is obviously older than 6000 years.

On the sixth day (six thousand years) of the Earth's formation, man was created.

Man has been around a l-o-n-g time, according to the Bible.

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:13 AM
reply to post by AwakeinNM

By reading the texts within it clearly states one day is equal to a thousand years.

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:29 AM
reply to post by semperfortis

God was a land owner (Lord God) he migrated his farm to a new location, spent six days planning it all out where the veggies would grow and where the livestock would roam. Then on the sixth day he put his slaves to work in the fields and chilled on the seventh day.

Easy, no confusion there.

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:31 AM

Originally posted by semperfortis
God created humans on the 6th day and then after resting some time could have elapsed, say many thousands of years, THEN and only THEN did God create a man from dust and breathed life, think SOUL, into him. Why else would the creation be mentioned and described twice?

This is because it meant that the gods created humanity first then that Yahweh fella came around and created Adam and Eve. Different gods, different times, and different people.

The thousands of years in between the two creations would explain why there were entire cities for Cain see when he was exiled. When Adam and Eve come into the story, the god that's featured is the Yahweh one who created Yahweh's people. I would even go so far as to say that all of the laws and stories from that point on does not apply to anybody who is not direct descendants of Adam and Eve.

Mind you, I am not of your faith so I am giving you a straight and objective perspective with no agenda other than the spread of reading comprehension.

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:31 AM

edit on 25-2-2013 by Cuervo because: Dang double post...

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:32 AM
reply to post by luciddream

No one said it was "The One True Way"

Those are your words completely and not relevant to this discussion

The only "One True Way" is through Jesus and has nothing to do with this conversation

But thanks anyway

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:34 AM
reply to post by Cuervo

Very interesting take on that

I will attempt to "interpret" that..

Not really, just making fun of some previous posts. All in fun now..

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:19 AM
There was an earth age prior to Gen ch.1 v.2
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Notice the two, both heaven and earth, and then, “period”. Did it say when? Of course it did not. It simply states, that in the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.
angels were created "in the beginning" (Genesis 1:1), rather than during or after the creation week, satan and his angelic (demonic) followers fell prior to Genesis 1:2.
And the earth was without form, and void;
and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
The word for "was" - hayah - is the same word used in Genesis 19:26 where Lot's wife was (hayah) turned into a pillar of salt. The implication is that the word hayah is not simply descriptive, but is active. Furthermore, the word "vav" for "and" can also be read as "but" depending on the context. In the Septuagint it has actually been translated this way. Thus Genesis 1:2 should read;
"But the earth became (or "had become") without form, and void".
When you put away the traditions of men and and study Gods word for yourself and
if needed taking it back to it's original language and context you can see God does not leave us wondering.
If you are interested direct translation of the bible chapter by chapter verse by verse I suggest
the Companion Bible the Strong's Concordance and Shepherds Chapels Pastor Arnold Murray.
You will be amazed at how the pieces fall in to place when you are hearing and reading truth.

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:32 AM
The problem with many critics and some followers of Christianity is, they mistake the Bible for a scientific text.

It isn't.

A good, but lengthy video on the subject for those interested in the topic:

Is Faith in God Reasonable? FULL DEBATE with William Lane Craig and Alex Rosenberg February 1, 2013 at Purdue University in West Lafayette, IN.

A brief synopsis for the video content can be found here:

Dangerous Video Could Trigger Another Great Awakening If Too Many View

An excerpt from that summary, in the link above:

Positive arguments given by Dr. Craig include that God is the best explanation:

1. why anything at all exists,
2. for the origin of the universe,
3. the applicability of mathematics to the physical world,
4. for the fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life,
5. intentional states of consciousness in the world,
6. of objective moral values and duties in the world,
7. of the historical facts concerning Jesus’ resurrection,
8. of God’s ability to be personally known and experienced.


posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:45 AM
reply to post by semperfortis

Well then, all arguments revolving around interpretation do you defend the Bible and all Judaic religions from the fact that most of the traditions portrayed therein, and that have evolved since the time of its compilation, bear startling resemblance to traditions and cultures that are demonized and denied in the eyes of Judaic lore?

Cultures preceding Judaism by thousands of years carry the Judaic watermark in all of its forms and shapes. Varying shades of Christian nuance can be seen in faiths and traditions that were ancient before Jesus was ever born. How do you explain that? Were they psychic, or is Judaism in fact an amalgamation of the very cultures it has struggled so hard to deny?

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in