Do you believe the Earth is 10000 years old

Conor108

Do you believe the literal meaning in the bible that the Earth was make 10000 years ago in 7 days?

Tim Robbins

Conor108 wrote:

Do you believe the literal meaning in the bible that the Earth was make 10000 years ago in 7 days?

You should probably suggest that only Christians answer this poll and note that some Christians think it 6,000 years ago and made it 6 days.

UU

Tim Robbins wrote:

You should probably suggest that only Christians answer this poll and note that some Christians think it 6,000 years ago and made it 6 days.

True. That is quite funny really! 6000 years ago!!! Haha! According the the Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins - 6000 years ago was the Agricultural Age!

mukki

UU wrote:

True. That is quite funny really! 6000 years ago!!! Haha! According the the Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins - 6000 years ago was the Agricultural Age!

maybe god invented combine harversters on the seventh day

Owen

I'd be interested in the answers to this. Despite the real world evidence, fossils, evolution, archaeology ... there are fundamentalists Christians, primarily in the States who are adamant that the world is 6000 years old, and that the so called evidence is merely a test of our faith.

jhegarty

Well I don't think for a second that the earth is anything other that what geological evidence tell us it is...


The shorter life span of the earth was explained to a people who could never grasp concepts of millions and billions of years like we do today....

i would imagine 10,000 years back then would sit somewhere in the mind of the people back then where several billion years does with us today....


as for fundamentalists, any religion doesn't have to look too far to find it's own crack pots.....

Maccattack

jhegarty wrote:

The shorter life span of the earth was explained to a people who could never grasp concepts of millions and billions of years like we do today....

I dont think thats quite true. It was/is a purposeful distortion of the truth to add weight to the lie that is the christian church.

McSandwich

Ho long is God's day?

Tar.Aldarion

Which is a wise thing to say in the Christian forum Mac?
Anyway, no I don't believe that the Earth is that age, but much older.
There is no eveidence to convince me otherwise, as of yet.

jhegarty

McSandwich wrote:

Ho long is God's day?

Now there is a question :eek:


don't forget a day/week/year is relative to where you are.... a day for me is different to a man or mars or Pluto.... why assume god lived on earth...

JimiTime

Personally I think the subject is given too much relevence. i don't believe the earth is any age. What I believe is that Adam and Eve existed. Whatever you can say about the age of the earth, saying Adam and Eve did not exist, would certainly be relevant for my faith as it stands. The bible does not indicate how long the earth stood, but it does indicate how long Man has.

Tar.Aldarion

Why are there no fossils for humans over a couple of hundred thousand years ago?
For the people that believe that the Earth is 6k years old, do you all believe fossils are put there as a 'test' of your faith?

Alos, the gene pool, JimiTime, how do you explain a human race being spawned by two people with the same DNA? Even apart from the fact that you need a lot more than two people for the race to continue.

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote:

Personally I think the subject is given too much relevence. i don't believe the earth is any age. What I believe is that Adam and Eve existed. Whatever you can say about the age of the earth, saying Adam and Eve did not exist, would certainly be relevant for my faith as it stands. The bible does not indicate how long the earth stood, but it does indicate how long Man has.

Do you believe that snakes talk? (happened also in Genesis)

Run_to_da_hills

Nowhere in the Bible does it teach that the earth is young. The Bible does not say "the earth is 10,000 years old." Nor does it say "the earth is 4.5 billion years old." The fact is, the Bible makes no claims at all as to the age of the earth. We must interpret the age of the earth from science and the Bible. If the Bible does not tell us, it must not be important

The Bible says in II Peter 3:8, "that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” God does not see time the same way we do. To him, one second could be a million years, It dosent bother me how old the world is or how old the Bible is, I accept it as the word of God.

Owen

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Alos, the gene pool, JimiTime, how do you explain a human race being spawned by two people with the same DNA? Even apart from the fact that you need a lot more than two people for the race to continue.

Well, I'm sure believers would just explain it away that God made sure there would be no genetic defects, but if there were just Adam and Eve, who had Cain and Abel, either Cain, or Abel would need to conceive a child with their Mother, thus ensuring most of us should at least have webbed toes at this stage.

Likewise the story with Noah, if Noah did do the ark thing, then we should all be inbred, and have lifespan's close to Noah's 600 years.

mickoneill30

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

Nowhere in the Bible does it teach that the earth is young. The Bible does not say "the earth is 10,000 years old." Nor does it say "the earth is 4.5 billion years old." The fact is, the Bible makes no claims at all as to the age of the earth.

Dunno how accurate this timeline is from the bible (I know it's not accurate at all in the real world) but it's interesting reading.
http://home1.gte.net/bridavis/timeline.htm
From Adam -> Jesus = 4400 years.

robindch

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

If the Bible does not tell us, it must not be important

What a truly sad thing to say. Does all the progress of human civilization in the last two thousand years really mean nothing to you?

Red Hand

JimiTime wrote:

Personally I think the subject is given too much relevence. i don't believe the earth is any age. What I believe is that Adam and Eve existed. Whatever you can say about the age of the earth, saying Adam and Eve did not exist, would certainly be relevant for my faith as it stands. The bible does not indicate how long the earth stood, but it does indicate how long Man has.

I've always wondered about that. Incest is a crime, and a sin, so how did Adam and Eve populate the earth? Their children would have had to have had relations with each other...

Zombrex

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

I've always wondered about that. Incest is a crime, and a sin, so how did Adam and Eve populate the earth? Their children would have had to have had relations with each other...

I think the "official" answer is that incest wasn't made a crime till well after Noah (since they had to do the same thing as well)

Still a bit "ewww" though

Tar.Aldarion

Yeah well, damn sexy cousins.

BrianCalgary

ned78 wrote:

Well, I'm sure believers would just explain it away that God made sure there would be no genetic defects, but if there were just Adam and Eve, who had Cain and Abel, either Cain, or Abel would need to conceive a child with their Mother, thus ensuring most of us should at least have webbed toes at this stage.

Likewise the story with Noah, if Noah did do the ark thing, then we should all be inbred, and have lifespan's close to Noah's 600 years.

Adam and Eve had far more children than just Cain and Abel. It is just the story of Cain and Abel is the important one.

I liken it to a match report. It may just mention 10 players. But we know that there were at least 22 involved. Plus more if subs were used. Just because the report doesn't mention them doesn't mean that they weren't there.

Tar.Aldarion

I'm interested to know what the subs would be in your analogy.

Sangre

The fact there are only 2 original parents(i.e. Adam and Eve) still requires incest. Who did the children sleep with? Their brothers/sisters? Their father/mother? There are no outsiders. There was no other team playing. Doesn't matter if the match report didn't mention the full 22, they were still..eh...'fouling their own players'.

Something I always thought was odd in the Bible from a very young age. That and the crazy ages quoted for the likes of Noah. How did he stay so old after 'the fall'?

BrianCalgary

Sangre wrote:

The fact there are only 2 original parents(i.e. Adam and Eve) still requires incest. Who did the children sleep with? Their brothers/sisters? Their father/mother? There are no outsiders. There was no other team playing. Doesn't matter if the match report didn't mention the full 22, they were still..eh...'fouling their own players'.

Something I always thought was odd in the Bible from a very young age. That and the crazy ages quoted for the likes of Noah. How did he stay so old after 'the fall'?

Incest was OK until the Law was given. The DNA was so strong being the original, that the defects that would happen with incest today, didn't happen back then.

Tar.Aldarion

Did DNA become weaker after the fall? Why did incest become not OK?
And since everybody was related after the fall anyway, wasn't it still incest?

Red Hand

BrianCalgary wrote:

Adam and Eve had far more children than just Cain and Abel. It is just the story of Cain and Abel is the important one.

I liken it to a match report. It may just mention 10 players. But we know that there were at least 22 involved. Plus more if subs were used. Just because the report doesn't mention them doesn't mean that they weren't there.

Doesn't matter how many children Adam and Eve would have had-their siblings would still have to have relations with each other in order for the human race to develop. Brother sleeping with sister.

Edit: just saw Sangre's post

Owen

BrianCalgary wrote:

The DNA was so strong being the original, that the defects that would happen with incest today, didn't happen back then.

Ah Brian, where is the scientific basis for that? DNA was so strong? What exactly made the DNA so strong then? DNA degrades when a Sperm and Egg are genetically similar, and combine. It only takes 1 generation of inbreeding to begin a cascade of DNA pollution.

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote:

The DNA was so strong being the original, that the defects that would happen with incest today, didn't happen back then.

Where does the bible say this? And if not, could you provide some research evidence for your claim that "DNA was so strong" 6,000 years ago?

And could you explain what you mean by saying "DNA was so strong"? Do you mean that 6,000 years ago, recessive genetic defects which are typically exacerbated by incest, did not exist within the human population?

Or would you like to take this over to the creationism thread?

Run_to_da_hills

robindch wrote:

What a truly sad thing to say. Does all the progress of human civilization in the last two thousand years really mean nothing to you?

The age of the earth dose not mean much to me ie date of creation, I couldnt care less if the earth was 6000 years old or not. However we are given clues in the Bible as to whats happening. Technology has certainly progressed more in the last 100 years that the previous 1900 years or 6000 put together. The same time wickedness and unbelief has also increased dramatically. I believe we are very close to the end of the Church age as spoken about in the book of Revelation.

PDN

The poll just allowed for 'yes' and 'no'.

There should have been a third option of 'don't know and don't really care'.

robindch

Run_to_da_hills - that's not answering my question. You said that if something isn't in the bible, then it's not important. Is that really your view?

Run_to_da_hills

robindch wrote:

Run_to_da_hills - that's not answering my question. You said that if something isn't in the bible, then it's not important. Is that really your view?

I am saying that the time at when god created the earth is not important to myself as a Christian, whether it was 6,000 or 60,000 years ago.

Sangre

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

The age of the earth dose not mean much to me ie date of creation, I couldnt care less if the earth was 6000 years old or not. However we are given clues in the Bible as to whats happening. Technology has certainly progressed more in the last 100 years that the previous 1900 years or 6000 put together. The same time wickedness and unbelief has also increased dramatically. I believe we are very close to the end of the Church age as spoken about in the book of Revelation.

In what ways is it more wicked?
How do you know unbelief has increased? Is adhering to religion out of fear of life a belief anyway?

looksee

If these arguments are the product of belief then its probably just as well that unbelief has increased.

Tim Robbins

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

I am saying that the time at when god created the earth is not important to myself as a Christian, whether it was 6,000 or 60,000 years ago.

I have noticed Christians say "it's not important to me", "it's not relevant to me" a lot in this forum.
It seems (ok an atheist bias here) but anything that appears antithetical to your Christianity theisis is "not important".

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

And could you explain what you mean by saying "DNA was so strong"? Do you mean that 6,000 years ago, recessive genetic defects which are typically exacerbated by incest, did not exist within the human population?

Or would you like to take this over to the creationism thread?

Now that is something I would love to see JC explain. I am also puzzled at how incest can be ok before the law, but not after it. Why did it suddenly become a bad thing?

interestinguser

PDN wrote:

The poll just allowed for 'yes' and 'no'.

There should have been a third option of 'don't know and don't really care'.

If you don't know if something happened then you don't believe that it did, which is what the poll is asking. You should choosing 'no'.

Maccattack

BrianCalgary wrote:

Incest was OK until the Law was given. The DNA was so strong being the original, that the defects that would happen with incest today, didn't happen back then.

Did you just make that up?

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote:

Incest was OK until the Law was given. The DNA was so strong being the original, that the defects that would happen with incest today, didn't happen back then.

What else was ok until the law given?
Also, as a thought experiment can you tell if Jesus came back and told people incest was ok again, is it just ok then?

Run_to_da_hills

Sangre wrote:

In what ways is it more wicked?

You only have to look at your TV screen.

Sangre wrote:

How do you know unbelief has increased? Is adhering to religion out of fear of life a belief anyway?

Just as when Jesus Christ walked this earth 2,000 years ago, there is NO room in this sinful world for Him today. Jesus Christ is mocked, ridiculed, blasphemed, and cursed by Hollywood and every conceivable godless TV channel and all the other hordes of hell spawned media and entertainment outlets. Jesus is rejected by the abortion industry. Jesus is rejected by the booze industry. Jesus is rejected by the gambling industry. Jesus is rejected by the Rock music industry. Jesus is rejected by the homosexual movement. Jesus is rejected by the feminist movement. There is no room for Jesus in this sinful world.

"For they eat the bread of wickedness, and drink the wine of violence. "Proverb 4:17 -

robindch

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

Jesus is rejected by the booze industry.

Hey, what about all those Belgian monastic beers -- they're great! Though I take the point with Blue Nun.

Zombrex

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

You only have to look at your TV screen.

What, as opposed to when you could wander down to the local town square to watch public executions?

"Wickedness" as you put it, has been decreasing dramatically since the Enlightenment, due to social liberalism, which has largely be secular, operating independently of any specific religious teachings.

Funny that :rolleyes:

DerKaiser

Everything is up for humour, period, humour is sacred, I think Jesus himself would have enjoyed Life of Brian, he seems like a cool guy, probably had a great sense of humour, if you're too sensitive, that's just your problem,

And as for the earth being 10,000 (or evan 6,000) years old? No, I don't think so, very hard to have a logical answer to prove this one either way though, but I like David Attenboroughs line - "If you imagine the entire existence of this planet as a 24 hour day, humans appeared after tea-time sometime"

Sangre

More like in the last second of the day.

Zombrex

DerKaiser wrote:

No, I don't think so, very hard to have a logical answer to prove this one either way though, but I like David Attenboroughs line - "If you imagine the entire existence of this planet as a 24 hour day, humans appeared after tea-time sometime"

I think that is if you imagine the planet's existence as a full year

The Earth is approx 4,600,000,000 years old (4.6 billion).

Humans in their modern form (homo sepians) arose approx 200,000 years ago.

That is a ratio of 1:23,000

So if the Earth was one year old, humans appeared on Earth at about 11pm December 31st

Giblet

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

You only have to look at your TV screen.



Just as when Jesus Christ walked this earth 2,000 years ago, there is NO room in this sinful world for Him today. Jesus Christ is mocked, ridiculed, blasphemed, and cursed by Hollywood and every conceivable godless TV channel and all the other hordes of hell spawned media and entertainment outlets. Jesus is rejected by the abortion industry. Jesus is rejected by the booze industry. Jesus is rejected by the gambling industry. Jesus is rejected by the Rock music industry. Jesus is rejected by the homosexual movement. Jesus is rejected by the feminist movement. There is no room for Jesus in this sinful world.

"For they eat the bread of wickedness, and drink the wine of violence. "Proverb 4:17 -

So Jesus is rejected to anything you find amoral. I didn't read about Rock music in the Bible.

DerKaiser

Rock music? - The sermon on the mount, if I could have that kind of stage presence, Like a 20 foot tall Freddie Mercury in a moment of sheer inspiration

Zombrex

Giblet wrote:

So Jesus is rejected to anything you find amoral. I didn't read about Rock music in the Bible.

Does "Faith +1" count?

Acid_Violet

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

Jesus is rejected by the Rock music industry.

Jesus is rejected by the feminist movement.

Care to explain what you mean by those two examples? Is it the argument that syncopation is made by the devil because it flows through your body and the only thing meant to flow through your body is the spirit of god? And are women evil temptresses that should be repressed by men and neither offered equal rights nor respected by men?

After saying all those things (I only mentioned the above two because I can't see where you're coming from with them unless you've some illogical argument like the above) I really would be interested to hear how you justify thos ebeliefs.

Acid_Violet

DerKaiser wrote:

Everything is up for humour, period, humour is sacred, I think Jesus himself would have enjoyed Life of Brian, he seems like a cool guy, probably had a great sense of humour, if you're too sensitive, that's just your problem,

Hmmm, me too. I think if there is a real Christian God, Jesus would've been just a nice guy. Pretty laid-back, good to listen to your problems, pretty good at solving problems, would've given it to the hypocrites, actually he probably would've even been fun on the tear.....I love Jesus.....

jonny72

Acid_Violet wrote:

Hmmm, me too. I think if there is a real Christian God, Jesus would've been just a nice guy. Pretty laid-back, good to listen to your problems, pretty good at solving problems, would've given it to the hypocrites, actually he probably would've even been fun on the tear.....I love Jesus.....

Hmmm, me too. I think if there is a real Christian God, Jesus would've been pretty damn patronizing, like hanging out with a really moral policeman. Hours in the pub listening to his lectures, his complete lack of a sense of humour.... I love Jesus....