How old is the earth according to the bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chrisalviola
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earth
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the age of the Earth as interpreted through biblical texts, exploring various calculations and interpretations based on genealogies and historical figures mentioned in the Bible. Participants examine the implications of these interpretations, the historical context of biblical chronology, and the contrast with scientific estimates of Earth's age.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Historical
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note the absence of specific dates in the Bible, questioning how to derive the Earth's age from biblical texts.
  • Others mention that genealogical calculations, such as those found in Matthew 1, suggest an age range for the Earth between 6,000 and 10,000 years.
  • There is a reference to Isaac Newton's involvement in biblical chronology, with some participants expressing skepticism about its significance compared to his other scientific work.
  • James Ussher's calculation of the creation date as October 23, 4004 BC is mentioned, with some participants discussing the implications of such a specific date.
  • Some argue that the interpretation of "days" in the creation story could imply longer periods rather than literal 24-hour days.
  • Several participants express the belief that the Earth is much older than the biblical estimates, citing scientific methods such as radioisotopic analysis and carbon dating.
  • There is mention of the Scofield Reference Bible, which some claim provides a specific age of 4004 BC based on Ussher's calculations.
  • Participants discuss the historical context of biblical chronology, including references to other figures like Johannes Kepler and the cultural implications of these calculations.
  • Some express the view that using the Bible for scientific or geological information is ultimately unproductive.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the age of the Earth according to the Bible, with multiple competing views presented regarding both the interpretations of biblical texts and the scientific estimates of Earth's age.

Contextual Notes

Discussions include varying interpretations of biblical genealogies, the implications of specific dates, and the cultural context of biblical chronology. The debate reflects differing perspectives on the validity of using religious texts for scientific understanding.

chrisalviola
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
As i don't see any dates in the bible or events that can be compared in known history.
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
It was calcualted by someone who ovbiously had nothing better to do with his life. From the ages of the people and linearity.
 
Generally, scholars approximate the age of the Earth using genealogy. In Mathew 1, for example, there is a complete genealogy of Jesus going back to Adam and Eve. Many of these characters age's are given or one can also just use approximation to give a range (generally between 6,000 and 10,000 years old). See here for more info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_creation
 
chrisalviola said:
As i don't see any dates in the bible or events that can be compared in known history.
You read it?

Discipline man, discipline, I tried, it was too boring.
 
xxChrisxx said:
It was calcualted by someone who ovbiously had nothing better to do with his life. From the ages of the people and linearity.

You mean Isaac Newton? Who considered Biblical chronology the most important work of his life?
 
madness said:
You mean Isaac Newton? Who considered Biblical chronology the most important work of his life?

Yes. Sitting down and reading that and calculating it is a total waste of time. He could have been off playing cricket, or learning to ballroom dance, or gone to the pub.
 
Newton is a bit overrated by history I guess.

But then again, which who's rated highly isn't?
 
madness said:
You mean Isaac Newton? Who considered Biblical chronology the most important work of his life?

Well, he was mistaken; that wasn't the most important work of his life. If he had spent more time on math, he could have made progress on the n-body problem, instead of throwing up his hands and saying "goddidit."
 
The Persian emperor Cyrus the Great, is a historical figure. He is mentioned often in the Bible and along with genealogical data in the Bible can be used to date events including the creation. As far as I know, the genelogical information is inconsistent and the date for creation will therefor depend on which information you use.
 
  • #10
Rameses too right?

Jack21222 said:
Well, he was mistaken; that wasn't the most important work of his life. If he had spent more time on math, he could have made progress on the n-body problem, instead of throwing up his hands and saying "goddidit."
Nonsense, you are mistaken too, the most impressive and important work of his life was his hairstyling.

494px-Sir_Isaac_Newton_by_Sir_Godfrey_Kneller%2C_Bt.jpg


I seriously have to get me some of that action.
 
  • #11
Newton did not, as far as I know, busy himself with dating issues according to the Bible.
He was a mysticist, seeking to find hidden messages there and so on, and wrote voluminously, and wastefully, to that effect.

When it comes to chronology issues, it was James Ussher who proposed the date 23. October 4004 BC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher
 
  • #12
xxChrisxx said:
Yes. Sitting down and reading that and calculating it is a total waste of time. He could have been off playing cricket, or learning to ballroom dance, or gone to the pub.

I agree. But I would say the same thing about most academics today shut away in a dark room for 14 hours a day. Anyway, the point was that he did have plenty to do with his time but felt that this was the most important.
 
  • #13
madness said:
I agree. But I would say the same thing about most academics today shut away in a dark room for 14 hours a day. Anyway, the point was that he did have plenty to do with his time but felt that this was the most important.

Yeah. It was a joke as I think it's all ********.
 
  • #14
Didn't Newton also demand to be excluded from Holy Orders because of his position as Lucasian?
 
  • #15
The year number on the Jewish calendar represents the number of years since creation, calculated by adding up the ages of people in the Bible back to the time of creation.
http://www.jewfaq.org/calendar.htm

Creation is considered to begin with Adam. And then there is the matter of 3 'days' before the sun was created.
 
  • #16
Kajahtava said:
You read it?

Discipline man, discipline, I tried, it was too boring.

I just listen and ask people who actually read the bible, and every time I asked them a question, based on creationism is it really 6K years old? they say its no where in the bible that say that. I believe that the Earth is a lot older than that.
 
  • #17
chrisalviola said:
I just listen and ask people who actually read the bible, and every time I asked them a question, based on creationism is it really 6K years old? they say its no where in the bible that say that. I believe that the Earth is a lot older than that.
Based on radioisotopic analysis, the age of the Earth is estimated to be about 4.5 billion years - give or take. The age of the sun and solar system is a bit older.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Age

Carbon dating certainly puts humans around before 6000 years ago. Evidence suggests that indigenous peoples of Australia were present about 40,000 years ago, and perhaps much earlier.
 
  • #18
chrisalviola said:
I just listen and ask people who actually read the bible, and every time I asked them a question, based on creationism is it really 6K years old? they say its no where in the bible that say that. I believe that the Earth is a lot older than that.

That's because you haven't seen the bible that True ChristiansTM use, the Scofield Reference Bible. It was originally published (incredibly) by the venerable Oxford University Press.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scofield_Reference_Bible

If you had seen it, you would know that it clearly says 4004 B.C. in large print at the top of page 1. The dates given at the tops of the pages are, as Arildno has already pointed out, based on the calculations of Bishop James Ussher.

Other neat things you learn from Scofield's reference notes include where the different races come from and why the descendants of Ham are subservient to the descendants of Japheth. It's a real treasure.
 
  • #19
madness said:
You mean Isaac Newton? Who considered Biblical chronology the most important work of his life?

He's probably referring to Johannes Kepler, who put in quite a bit of analysis and came up with a year of 3992 BC.

At one time, calculating the date of creation seemed to be almost as popular a hobby as genealogy.

The thing that always bugged me about Usher picking nighfall on Sunday, Oct 23, 4004 BC as the creation date, he never mentions which time zone they're talking about. Or was the world created one time zone at a time and took 24 hours? And did Arizona just hang there in mid-air for an hour because they refused to use Daylight Savings Time and were created an hour earlier?
 
  • #20
According to Orthodox Jewish thought the world is 5770 years old. That is of course if you assume the word "day" used is 24 hours and not its alternative (hebrew) meaning for "large unspecified unit of time" (i kid you not).

Whether your religious or not, going to the Bible for scientific or geological information is a waste of time.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K