How old is the earth... Does the Bible address this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter StevenF
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The bible is not a scientific treatise on the age of the Universe. It is initially written from the perspective of an ancient cosmology. What we need to understand is that God created everything in the Universe. He created us, and HE is the One Who gave us a soul.
 
CONT:
**As Catholics we are free to believe that the Heavens and the Earth was created in six 24-hour days…

The Church is silent on this because it doesn’t know. So it’s ok for you to believe in any one of these. **
I think your statement about it being okay to believe in a literal creation in six days conflicts with what you said about the difference between a literal reading of the Bible and literalism.

St. Thomas Aquinas said “A direct creation in six days is favored by a superficial reading of Scripture.”

Also, Cardinal Christoph Schonborn speaks about the difference between believing in creation and “creationism.” He says,

"Yet believing in God the Creator is not identical with the way that, in some Christian circles, people try to understand the six days of creation spoken of in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis as if this had been literally reported, as six chronological days, and try by all possible arguments, even scientific ones, to prove that the earth is about six thousand years old. Attempts like that to take the Bible literally, as if it were making scientific statements at this point, are what is called “fundamentalism…”

“The Catholic position on “creationism” is clear. Saint Thomas Aquinas says that one should “not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that make it ridiculous, because they are in obvious contradiction with reason.” It is nonsense to maintain that the world is only six thousand years old. An attempt to prove such a notion scientifically means provoking what Saint Thomas calls irrisio infidelium, the mockery of unbelievers. Exposing the faith to mockery with false arguments of this kind is not right; indeed, it is explicitly to be rejected.”

(Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith, pp. 37-38)
 
The Catholic Answer is that the Church has not infallibly ruled regarding the age of the earth. It may be thousands or it may be billions of years old.

You should understand that there is contention over this issue today in an attempt to modify the true events in Genesis regarding Adam and Eve for example.

Well, scientifically it’s in billions. My guess is as old as God. Read Genesis chapter one.
Frank.

Peace,
Ed
 
Thank you so much for your replies everyone! 😃
It would have been of more help if someone had given a decent or reasonable reply viz a day is a day even in the eyes of God incarnate and how could it be otherwise “destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up”. A reasonable and reliable answer was provided by Archbishop Ussher - but this is unacceptable to most who have been duped into thinking in terms of millions and billions of years - give or take a few millions or billions makes no difference - twinc
 
40.png
frankvin79:
I am skeptical of the scientific explanation.

Peace,
Ed
 
The Bible does not say when the original creation of the earth took place, but it does indicate when man was created. The age of the earth is not connected with the date of the creation of man.

Another important point to understand is that a “day” in the creation story could not be anything but a 24-hour day. Genesis says its “day” is an evening and a morning – that is, nighttime and daytime – which is what a 24-hour day is. Also consider the plants which were created on the third day. The sun did not appear until the next day. If these “days” were say a thousand years long, the plants could not have survived, for they were without sunshine.

Now, why would the age of the earth not be connected with the creation of man when the “days” in the creation week were all 24-hour days? Shouldn’t the age of the earth be the same as the age of the first created man?

In Genesis 1:1 it says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Then verse 2 reads: “And the earth was without form and void….” The Hebrew words translated “without form and void” are tohu and bohu. They mean chaotic, in confusion, waste, empty. Why would God create the earth in disorder and then straighten it out? That wouldn’t make sense. The Hebrew word for “created” used in verse 1 implies that the creation was a perfected work. It implies order and system, not chaos or confusion. And we read in I Cor. 14:33 that “God is not the author of confusion.” God is the author of peace, of law and order.

God told Job that the angels shouted for joy when the earth was created (Job 38:7). This is further indication that God did not create the earth tohu and bohu. A more conclusive proof is found in Isaiah 45:18. Notice: “For thus saith the Eternal that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain…” The original Hebrew for the word translated “in vain” is tohu, the same identical word used in Genesis 1:2. Thus, this verse is a plain statement that when God created the earth it was not tohu. It became that way only afterwards.

The proper rendering, therefore, of verse 2 when the Bible is taken in its entire context is: “And the earth became without form and void.” It should also be noted that the Hebrew word translated “was” is hayah. This word is translated “became” in Genesis 2:7, 9:15 and 19:26. Its use denotes a condition that was different from a former condition. In other words, the earth had not always been that way. It became chaotic only later.

When we examine verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1 again with this in mind, we would have to conclude that verse 1 is not connected with verse 2. Verse 1 is simply a declaration of who created the heavens and the earth. Verse 2 speaks of some point in time after the earth’s creation [could be millions of years after] when the earth had become chaotic and a vast wasteland.

The six-day “creation” account in Genesis therefore is not speaking about the original creation of the earth but a re-creation of a devastated earth into its original beautiful and useful state. As David, in one of his psalms revealed, “Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created…” – notice Gen. 1:2 speaks about the same thing, “And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Clearly, David here is speaking about the creation week in Genesis. Then David continues, “thou RENEWEST the face of the earth” (Psalm 104:30).

Properly understood, the Bible does not say when the earth was created. But the date of the creation of man can be estimated, as some people have tried (for example, the famous Usher dated creation at 4004 B.C.) based on the “creation” account in Genesis and on the biblical ages of the patriarchs.
On the other hand, what if Genesis 1 is a parable about the Sabbath?
 
I think your statement about it being okay to believe in a literal creation in six days conflicts with what you said about the difference between a literal reading of the Bible and literalism.
By you taking it out of context like that yes. What I said does not go against Church teaching, if it did a very conservative Priest at my Parish would have corrected me a long time ago.

I have never been question about that in all the years I taught RCIA.
 
Genesis however, was written in a different mindset, showing our dependence and growing Covenant with the Lord. Our faith depends on Christ’s death and resurrection being true events, however this important truth is true regardless of the exact age of the universe!
The Bible is the INSPIRED Word of God
God is its author - using Moses and others to transcribe what He the Holy Spirit ] dictates. Genesis and the other four Books of the Pentateuch are written by Moses .

In John 5:45 - 47 Jesus says
"Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father: there is one who accuses you - Moses , in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses you would believe me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings , how will you believe my words ? "
Jesus is saying that we must believe what Moses wrote
In Exodus 20:11 Moses wrote " For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth , the sea and all that is in them and rested the seventh day "
That seems pretty straightforward to me. !
 
By you taking it out of context like that yes. What I said does not go against Church teaching, if it did a very conservative Priest at my Parish would have corrected me a long time ago.

I have never been question about that in all the years I taught RCIA.
That was not much of a response. I presumed you might have some thoughts on the quotes by Cardinal Schonborn.
 
As I said …

Our timeframe is not the Lord’s timeframe. Between the first day of creation and the second day could have been billions of years. Then hundreds of millions of years between the second day of creation and the third day and so forth and so on.
not at all,impossible,never - we must notconjecture about could have been and should have been according to joe soaps ad infinitum.We should concern outselves with what was according to God and not way out,weird and wacky alternatives - twinc
 
The Bible is the INSPIRED Word of God
God is its author - using Moses and others to transcribe what He the Holy Spirit ] dictates. Genesis and the other four Books of the Pentateuch are written by Moses .

In John 5:45 - 47 Jesus says
"Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father: there is one who accuses you - Moses , in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses you would believe me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings , how will you believe my words ? "
Jesus is saying that we must believe what Moses wrote
In Exodus 20:11 Moses wrote " For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth , the sea and all that is in them and rested the seventh day "
That seems pretty straightforward to me. !
Straightforward right enough but then that’s just not good enough its got to be twisted and complicated by some so that neither they nor others find it acceptable.Not just the literal but the literal and obvious sense must be accepted rather than all sorts of and many weird,way out and wacky alternatives proposed by many - more later - twinc
 
The Bible is the INSPIRED Word of God
God is its author - using Moses and others to transcribe what He the Holy Spirit ] dictates. Genesis and the other four Books of the Pentateuch are written by Moses .
“Transcription” and “dictation”, in the modern sense of the words, is not at all how Biblical inspiration works.
 
not at all,impossible,never - we must notconjecture about could have been and should have been according to joe soaps ad infinitum.We should concern outselves with what was according to God and not way out,weird and wacky alternatives - twinc
btw our time frame is exactly the same as that of the Lord/God incarnate “for in three days I will raise it up” - if thousands or millions of years then indeed Christ is not yet risen and our faith is in vain - twinc
 
I have a friend who is discussing with a skeptical co-worker, creation and the age of the earth. My friend has asked me for some help in answering this person. Here is the e-mail which he sent…

“I have been searching for a bible reference relating to a conversation we had awhile back. I remember you saying something about God having a different time segments than mans time (in relation to the question of how old the earth is). I can’t find anything about this in the bible, but I may be looking in the wrong place. I have two King James version bibles here at home but the bible is generally a poorly indexed book and when I look for something specific it’s hard to know where to begin. I have used a couple of online search engines to no avail. Do you know of any verse that relates to this?”

Does anyone have any suggestions on how best to answer this persons question?
Thanks so much! 🙂
Both you and your friend will probably be surprised to know that the earth is older and not younger than the sun or moon,but of course not by millions or billions of years but by 3x24hr days and these were created for signs and seasons and for days and months and years and the earth which was created on the first day and at the very beginning was void of any grass or foliage and empty of any life and it was very dark but was lit up almost immediately on the first day.So the earth is only 5x24hr days older than man.All this was at the beginning when God created man,male and female,as humankind complete and fully functioning adults - twinc
 
Both you and your friend will probably be surprised to know that the earth is older and not younger than the sun or moon,but of course not by millions or billions of years but by 3x24hr days and these were created for signs and seasons and for days and months and years and the earth which was created on the first day and at the very beginning was void of any grass or foliage and empty of any life and it was very dark but was lit up almost immediately on the first day.So the earth is only 5x24hr days older than man.All this was at the beginning when God created man,male and female,as humankind complete and fully functioning adults - twinc
Is this not exactly what we would expect and accept from an Almighty God and Creator, and as He has told us, for how could it be otherwise - twinc
 
What mailman referred to earlier is the gap theory. I like this theory as it explains the apparent contradiction between the age of earth that science believes and a literal reading of genesis. Basically it says that Genesis 1:1 refers to the actual creation - big bang perhaps, while the next verse takes place long after that implying the Earth was devastated by some cataclysm. Perhaps it had to do with the fall of the angels or even some previous now extinct human-like race (cave-men?). Then God RE-creates the Earth in the seven day period - creating a new race headed by Adam and Eve. This would explain the biblical account, along with a fossil record. The idea of re-creation is not unbiblical as God has promised a new heaven and a new Earth after the second coming.
 
What mailman referred to earlier is the gap theory. I like this theory as it explains the apparent contradiction between the age of earth that science believes and a literal reading of genesis. Basically it says that Genesis 1:1 refers to the actual creation - big bang perhaps, while the next verse takes place long after that implying the Earth was devastated by some cataclysm. Perhaps it had to do with the fall of the angels or even some previous now extinct human-like race (cave-men?). Then God RE-creates the Earth in the seven day period - creating a new race headed by Adam and Eve. This would explain the biblical account, along with a fossil record. The idea of re-creation is not unbiblical as God has promised a new heaven and a new Earth after the second coming.
not so,since there was no Big Bang or Big Gap in reality but only in the imagination and minds of men.Adam[man] was created in and at the beginning and created male and female at the beginning - btw there are still men living in caves even in this day and age - twinc
 
not so,since there was no Big Bang or Big Gap in reality but only in the imagination and minds of men.Adam[man] was created in and at the beginning and created male and female at the beginning - btw there are still men living in caves even in this day and age - twinc
I will agree that the Big Gap is fantasy, but what reasons will you give for your categorical denial of the Big Bang theory?

Even Pope Pius XII approved of the Big Bang, believing it to be a superlative scientific theory.
 
What mailman referred to earlier is the gap theory. I like this theory as it explains the apparent contradiction between the age of earth that science believes and a literal reading of genesis. Basically it says that Genesis 1:1 refers to the actual creation - big bang perhaps, while the next verse takes place long after that implying the Earth was devastated by some cataclysm. Perhaps it had to do with the fall of the angels or even some previous now extinct human-like race (cave-men?). Then God RE-creates the Earth in the seven day period - creating a new race headed by Adam and Eve. This would explain the biblical account, along with a fossil record. The idea of re-creation is not unbiblical as God has promised a new heaven and a new Earth after the second coming.
This is just a guess, not backed up by Church teaching at all. Science cannot explain miracles.

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top