Where does the Bible teach that the earth is billions of years old?

[iouae]

Genesis 1:1 is not speaking of the beginning beginning or absolute first beginning. Thus debating whether this beginning occurred 6000 years ago or 13.75 billion years ago is not addressed by Genesis 1. In fact a careful scrutiny of the Hebrew words used in Gen 1:1 is useful. "Bereshit" or "To begin:" "Elohim" or "Gods" plural "bara" or "created", "shamaim" or "heavens" again plural "v ha eretz" or "and the earth". Thus there is no definite article "In THE beginning". The Hebrew might even just mean "To begin [the account]: Gods created the heavens and the earth".

According to science the earth only came into being 5 billion years ago whereas the heavens came into being 13.75 billion years ago. So a scientist who is also a believer would know that this opening verse is NOT referring to a particular original beginning because heaven and earth creation are separated by 8 billion years. So a scientist-theologian (like I consider myself to be) reads Gen 1:1 to be making only one point and that point is that at some time in the past, Gods created everything.

Thus it would be pointless of me to debate what time Genesis was referring to since I do not believe it is referring to either "a" beginning or "the" beginning, but rather making the point that God is the creator of all.

Genesis 1:2 again I read in the same light. God did not create the world originally "without form and void" or in a messed up state. Again I read the Hebrew of Genesis 1:2 to say "And the earth [at some point in the past] BECAME [not WAS created] without form and void. That again fits in with my belief about God. God could as easily have created it originally perfect in one go, or in a nano-second. Why would God purposely create it a mess and then spend 7 days fixing up this mess?

Again, that ties back to Gen 1:1 NOT talking about an absolute beginning. Genesis 1:2 is now picking up the story of earth after at some point, long after creation, earth had BECOME without form and void. The Hebrew "haita" can equally be translated "was" or "became" and became makes more sense.

 

[Stripe]

Genesis 1:1 is not speaking of the beginning beginning or absolute first beginning.

Because you say so?

According to science...

That you use this phrase shows that you have no respect for what science is.

Thus we can safely ignore everything that follows from you.

 

[ok doser]

According to science the earth only came into being 5 billion years ago whereas the heavens came into being 13.75 billion years ago.

That's a delightful fairy tale.

 

[Idolater]

That's a delightful fairy tale.

Especially when including evolution as the story of our origin, I disagree that "fairy tale" is the genre. To include that story in that genre doesn't work because it's unrealistic even for a fairy tale. That story belongs in a genre like "musing of the institutionally insane".

 

[Stripe]

And it's racist.

 

[marke]

This is exactly the point. If we are talking about scientific evidence, then the Bible isn't relevant. If you insist that the Bible is literally true and accurate, then you must somehow, at any cost, interpret the physical evidence to match it.

So if you want to have an honest discussion of the physical evidence- you have to ignore the Bible.

The physical evidence supports the Biblical record of God's involvement with His creation, while secular speculation backed by bad interpretations of scientific data can never prove evolution is true.

 

[marke]

You cannot rationally reconcile 6000 years with 4 billion + years. You cannot rationalize special creation in 6 days with the real world.

Billions of years speculations are not supported by scientific data. The universe is not eternal, it had a beginning. And, given the fact of its expansion, that beginning was not infinitely long ago. The fact that the moon is receding from earth at a constant rate proves the earth is not billions of years old else the moon would have started its recession from the center of the earth.

There are thousands of evidences that secular speculations are wrong.

 

[marke]

Um, no, they don't adopt the scientific method at all, this is why it is regarded as bunk. There is nothing remotely scientific about having an immutable conclusion based on a religious belief and discarding anything that doesn't fit in with it. Like the plethora of evidence that is accepted by the actual scientific community.

If you can't understand that, then hey ho. Take your latter and apply it yourself. The amount of times you've been schooled by Alate and Barb is beyond count. Still, you can always deflect with some more smileys and the like.

Unbelievers came up with a method to measure billions of years which is neither accurate nor scientific. Millions of dupes are on their way to hell because they have rejected Biblical truth in favor of unscientific speculations which are not supported by real science and reliable scientific investigations.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Unbelievers came up with a method to measure billions of years which is neither accurate nor scientific. Millions of dupes are on their way to hell because they have rejected Biblical truth in favor of unscientific speculations which are not supported by real science and reliable scientific investigations.

Horsefeathers.

 

[Hilltrot]

Unbelievers came up with a method to measure billions of years which is neither accurate nor scientific. Millions of dupes are on their way to hell because they have rejected Biblical truth in favor of unscientific speculations which are not supported by real science and reliable scientific investigations.

You're basically right. Evolutionists chose the billion year argument because they knew it would make their religion untestable. They have also failed in predictions.

 

[ok doser]

You're basically right. Evolutionists chose the billion year argument because they knew it would make their religion untestable. They have also failed in preductions.

To give credit where credit is due, they DID come up with a dandy fairy tale for those of lesser intelligence - the dimwitted amongst us if you will.

 

[Right Divider]

Horsefeathers.

Do you want to actually discuss the "science" behind the billions of years radiometric dating?
Of course not, you're a "true believer".

 

[Idolater]

To give credit where credit is due, they DID come up with a dandy fairy tale for those of lesser intelligence - the dimwitted amongst us if you will.

Truly. The unlikelihood that their fairy tale is true, makes actual fairy tales seem downright realistic.

 

[marke]

Horsefeathers.

Really? I take it you have never read about dinosaur bones dated at less than 40,000 years by experts who tried to take back their dating results once they discovered the bones they were dating came from dinosaurs?

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

newgeology.us

Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and DNA fragments in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.
Members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS).
Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million years old, the news is stunning - and more than some could tolerate. After the AOGS-AGU conference in Singapore, the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings. Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors. When the authors inquired, they received this letter: ...
Others should attempt to replicate these results, as two researchers did in 2015:
Data from page 301 of: Thomas, Brian, Vance Nelson. Spring 2015. Radiocarbon in Dinosaur and Other Fossils. Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 299-311

 

[Arthur Brain]

Do you want to actually discuss the "science" behind the billions of years radiometric dating?
Of course not, you're a "true believer".

There's no such thing as a "discussion" with people like you where it comes to science. You have an unshakable conviction that the universe and earth are young and that evolution is false because of a rigid belief system that has to preclude them. I'm not shackled with such and could care less whether the earth is thousands or billions years old, but I do care about the legitimacy of the scientific process and creationism simply doesn't fit the bill. So it'll just go in circles as it has done for years. Even when you've had things explained to you by experts in the field on here, you don't listen to what's been relayed and were never going to anyway. And now we have Marke showing the height of ignorance by exclaiming that evolution is 'atheistic' and millions of people are on their way to hell if they're 'duped' by it. That kind of stupidity doesn't deserve the time of day.

So, in short, no. I'll leave you to it.

 

[Stripe]

Millions of dupes are on their way to hell because they have rejected Biblical truth in favor of unscientific speculations which are not supported by real science and reliable scientific investigations.

Actually, this is horsefeathers. There's only one reason that people go to hell. That reason is because they reject Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour.

It's not because they reject other things from the Bible.

 

[Stripe]

I'll leave you to it.

Bye. Loser.

 

[Right Divider]

There's no such thing as a "discussion" with people like you where it comes to science.

That's hilarious. I TRIED to discuss FACTS with you, but you always retreated to fallacious appeals. I wonder why that is? (not really, I do know why you cannot handle facts).

You have an unshakable conviction that the universe and earth are young and that evolution is false because of a rigid belief system that has to preclude them.

That must be why FACTS are "off the table" for you and fallacious argument are the only thing that you use.

I'm not shackled with such and could care less whether the earth is thousands or billions years old, but I do care about the legitimacy of the scientific process and creationism simply doesn't fit the bill.

You say this and YET you cling to fallacious arguments and will not touch FACTS with a ten foot pole.

So it'll just go in circles as it has done for years.

The only "circle" is YOU circling back to FALLACIOUS arguments and not discussing the FACTS.

Even when you've had things explained to you by experts in the field on here, you don't listen to what's been relayed and were never going to anyway.

Nonsense, ad nauseum.

And now we have Marke showing the height of ignorance by exclaiming that evolution is 'atheistic' and millions of people are on their way to hell if they're 'duped' by it. That kind of stupidity doesn't deserve the time of day.

The idea that life "evolved" from non-life is the only play that atheists have.
And the idea that "God" did the same is complete foolishness.

So, in short, no. I'll leave you to it.

Run and hide as you always do.

 

[Arthur Brain]

That's hilarious. I TRIED to discuss FACTS with you, but you always retreated to fallacious appeals. I wonder why that is? (not really, I do know why you cannot handle facts).

That must be why FACTS are "off the table" for you and fallacious argument are the only thing that you use.

You say this and YET you cling to fallacious arguments and will not touch FACTS with a ten foot pole.

The only "circle" is YOU circling back to FALLACIOUS arguments and not discussing the FACTS.

Nonsense, ad nauseum.

The idea that life "evolved" from non-life is the only play that atheists have.
And the idea that "God" did the same is complete foolishness.

Run and hide as you always do.

The only reason I returned to this thread is because I had a notification that a newbie here - Marke - had quoted me in it, otherwise I'd forgotten all about it. This very type of post is the reason why it's pointless even attempting a rational conversation with you. It's just you declaring 'facts' in all caps with no actual substance and childishness. So, no, I'm not 'running and hiding', I just have better things to do than pursue pointless endeavours. You have fun and believe as you will.

 

[Stripe]

The only reason I returned to this thread is because I had a notification that a newbie here - Marke - had quoted me in it, otherwise I'd forgotten all about it. This very type of post is the reason why it's pointless even attempting a rational conversation with you. It's just you declaring 'facts' in all caps with no actual substance and childishness. So, no, I'm not 'running and hiding', I just have better things to do than pursue pointless endeavours. You have fun and believe as you will.

Run and hide, little man. Leave the FACTS to people who can handle them.