The age of the earth in bible?

Hi there,

I have heard that it says in the bible that the earth is around 6000 years old?

Is this true- does it say this?, if so, where within the bible does it say it?

Many thanks

Hi Matty,

The Bible doesn't actually say the Earth is 6K years old. But if you take the 6 days to create the Earth and add the generations up of all the people recorded, that's what it comes out as.

There are lots of theories how all this adds up from the fundamentalist view of ~6K years, to the liberals squeezing in the whole of evolution.

How you interpret it is really a matter of faith.

Myarka.

Hi Matty,

The Old Testament in the Bible (most of the Bible that is), is not all meant to be taken literally. At the time of Christ, and ever since, sensible Christians have realised that a lot of the Bible is allegory. Or a mixture of fact and symbolism. Just to take a simple example: God "creating the world in six days" is understood by many not to mean six days literally, but the word 'day' here actually means 'stages' or 'periods of time' that no-one can count. Each period might have lasted untold millions of years. Genesis is really trying to express profound ideas in a simple 'story-book' kind of way.

There's also the fossil record which shows scientifically that the world - and life upon it - has been here for millions of years. Archeology shows that even human civilisation has existed, as cities and cultures, for more than six thousand years.

What you have come across is 'fundamentalism' and the taking of the Bible literally. The Bible actually has many contradictions with itself (it is not one book but a collection of books within one cover). Fundamentalists seek simple child-like solutions to life, and are unable to grasp the realities of allegory, deeper truths, the wonderful mystery of actually not knowing everything - which humanity doesn't, and so forth. They want the emotional security of thinking that they know all the answers, so have tried to fit the Bibe into a form of book which 'explains everything' right down to the very date the earth was formed. The Bible does not actually do that: it's simply their way, among many ways, of understanding the Bible.

All the best,

Venetian

Hi Matty,

The Old Testament in the Bible (most of the Bible that is), is not all meant to be taken literally. At the time of Christ, and ever since, sensible Christians have realised that a lot of the Bible is allegory. Or a mixture of fact and symbolism. Just to take a simple example: God "creating the world in six days" is understood by many not to mean six days literally, but the word 'day' here actually means 'stages' or 'periods of time' that no-one can count. Each period might have lasted untold millions of years. Genesis is really trying to express profound ideas in a simple 'story-book' kind of way.

There's also the fossil record which shows scientifically that the world - and life upon it - has been here for millions of years. Archeology shows that even human civilisation has existed, as cities and cultures, for more than six thousand years.

What you have come across is 'fundamentalism' and the taking of the Bible literally. The Bible actually has many contradictions with itself (it is not one book but a collection of books within one cover). Fundamentalists seek simple child-like solutions to life, and are unable to grasp the realities of allegory, deeper truths, the wonderful mystery of actually not knowing everything - which humanity doesn't, and so forth. They want the emotional security of thinking that they know all the answers, so have tried to fit the Bibe into a form of book which 'explains everything' right down to the very date the earth was formed. The Bible does not actually do that: it's simply their way, among many ways, of understanding the Bible.

All the best,

Venetian

If you've ever watched Ben Stein's movie "Expelled", you'll see how clueless top Darwinists really are about how life began. The truth is, these scientists are not allowed to doubt evolutionary theory publicly because it will mean a loss of their stature, income, job, tenure, and more. Many teachers have been fired not just for mentioning creationism or intelligent design, but merely for questioning evolution. If you get these scientists one on one over a cold beer, they will express doubts and tell you about massive holes in evolutionary theory. I think the Bible is meant to be taken literally, but that the Old Testament dealing with the Israelites was replaced by the New Covenant, after Christ's death. So please anyone, don't bring up dietary Old Testament laws or other sacrificial laws that don't apply today. When Mt. St. Helens erupted, what we found is that the earth and it surroundings could change much faster than sciene had ever imagined, making massive change by a worldwide flood much more believable. In fact, Mt. St. Helens has been called God's gift to creationists. The fossil record is also not nearly as complete as you say it is, and we know for a fact that scientists have doctored fossils before to create so called missing links. DNA is too complex for science to explain how it could happen by chance.

I know, you'll come on here and say "go get some education." But there is an inherent bias within scientific academia....a wall, similar to the Berlin wall, that cannot be broken, at least not yet. Scientists are not free to speak up about what they truly believe. Ben Stein's movie exposed this.

The Bible doesn't have many contradictions. Just because there are verses we don't understand, doesn't make them contradictions. There have been some contradictions scientists claimed for years from the Bible that later - the Bible turned out to be right. One of them was I think about James and had to do with dates, but the scientists didn't realize there were two James, not one, but discovered this later through archeology. Many of these so-called contradictions are taken out of context, without reading the entire passage, and many others can be explained.

I've been told a completely new angle on all this, by a friend who had it
through spirit.
The universe was here first, in a dust form but somehow with intelligence.
It .... created the Heavenly Father, to bring order into its structure. His
work was the creation of a new sustainable order, Solar systems etc.
The Heavenly Father then created The Maker (GOD). He finalized the
creation , gravity, definable orbital paths etc to prevent collisions
occurring.
The Maker then created us to provide an energy (love). This, I presume is
some how used to sustain the weakening gravitational force that
binds the Universe. (Contained in the dark matter)

As I said, this was given many years ago and to me it makes just as much
sense as the traditional Biblical version.
If you think of the Bible as a version of events after the Makers
involvement. This sequence of events does not really conflict with
traditional beliefs, and does offer an explanation for our existence.

Hope it doesn't cause too many sparks to fly.

But there is an inherent bias within scientific academia....a wall, similar to the Berlin wall, that cannot be broken, at least not yet. Scientists are not free to speak up about what they truly believe.

I find this interesting, everyone has a bias, including Evengelical Christians. Their bias is that anything the conficts with the bible is wrong. It is a psychological fact that it's human nature to favour data agrees with your POV than disagrees with it.

One of the biggest changes that happened in the USA was the new freedoms science enjoys under Obama where Bush blocked funding on "moral" grounds. Or the persecution of Scientists who carry out stem cell research, and there are many more.

In my experience Scientists have more freedom to speak out about their own beliefs than many evengelical christians. Obviously there are some arrogant scientists, as there are some arrogent evengelical christians, but it's wrong to generalise because of a few.

Myarka.

Hi there,

I have heard that it says in the bible that the earth is around 6000 years old?
Is this true- does it say this?,

The Bible says nothing of the sort, but some people who have read it do....

...every creation myth can be read in and interpreted in many ways, I do not think that any sacred text is best used as a factual encyclopedia but rather as a guide to self discovery...
...the Truth is not out there it's in here

:nature-smiley-008:

Many teachers have been fired not just for mentioning creationism or intelligent design, but merely for questioning evolution. .

I would be interested to see any evidence of this, have you got any links or documentation I could read ??

If you get these scientists one on one over a cold beer, they will express doubts and tell you about massive holes in evolutionary theory.

I've spoken to lots of colleagues over many cold beers 🙂 and yes, scientists express doubts about all kinds of things and then think up experiments to test those doubts, that is what science is all about - free thinking, expressing ideas, and coming up with ways to test them

:nature-smiley-008:

I do not think that any scared text is best used

I thought for a few moments that you were posting critically of religious scripture, that they are all 'fire and brimstone', until I realised the typo. :p

V

If you've ever watched Ben Stein's movie "Expelled", you'll see how clueless top Darwinists really are about how life began. The truth is, these scientists are not allowed to doubt evolutionary theory publicly because it will mean a loss of their stature, income, job, tenure, and more.

I've not seen "Expelled", but I have read and talked with a co-author of the huge tome, "Forbidden Archeology", which demonstrates scientific bias against human civilisation actually being tens and even hundreds of thousands of years old according to hundreds of documented archeological findings (which then become "forbidden archeology" and no longer spoken about - 'banned' from the record). So bias works, if anything, against the apparent truth that peoples have been on earth, manufacturing and living together for untold thousands of years, contrary to your viewpoint.

On the other hand, yes, there is an inherent bias within science. There's peer-pressure, there's a 'received doctrine' of 'how things are' within each field, and there's the pressure of funding, acceptance, and being salaried or keeping one's position. (I know scientists who took a different line to their peers within universities and were ousted for it.) Yes, science by definition advances by discovering or theorising the 'new', but this can only be 'new' within certain generally-accepted boundaries.

However, where scientific bias is one extreme, and the truth IMHO lies within a middle ground, religious bias is also an irrational extreme:

I think the Bible is meant to be taken literally

That's not only sad, but scary to non-Americans looking on from outside, and no doubt to many Americans as well, when rationality goes out the window.

Right at the beginning, in Genesis, we have two different creation stories which are clearly from different sources, haphazardly glued together one after the other at some distant time. The Bible is literal? Right, :rolleyes: so a woman called Eve had a chat with a serpent (a snake)? Have you never heard of the meaning of myth, allegory, and metaphor?

The four gospels contradict each other in scores of ways, but frankly I haven't time to go back and look all that up to list here.

When Mt. St. Helens erupted, what we found is that the earth and it surroundings could change much faster than sciene had ever imagined

That, frankly, is nonesense. You are actually suggesting that science does not know that volcanoes erupt? :p Mt. St. Helens was, comparatively, a very small such event. Where do you think igneous rock comes from, the rock upon which many of us live? It's lava from eruptions which solidified into rock at times which in several ways can be dated back millions of years.

If the earth is only 6,000 years old, and we can dig up the skeletons of hundreds of species of dinosoars, often along with their fossilised (a process taking hundreds of thousands of years) eggs and footprints, then when within those 6,000 years did dinosoars live? :rolleyes: Did Moses have to navigate around herds of brontosaurus? Did the Roman Empire recede while Tyrannosaurus Rex still walked the earth? Maybe some pyramids were unfinished because packs of hungry dinosoars roamed where the stones were being excavated? :rolleyes:

The fossil record is also not nearly as complete as you say it is

Well, I don't say it is complete. It's full of holes and evolution is more of a theory with some facts to support it only in some cases. It's basically a working theory, open to considerable review IMHO. But there's no doubt that waves of different species have roamed the earth, leaving a fossil record, over millions of years - not 6,000! Don't be an armchair theorist - get out there and study the strata of rock, and see how layer upon layer has been laid down from ancient eruptions, from the sediment (mud and aquatic creatures) settling to the bottom of what was once ocean or sea, layer after layer, and then see with your own eyes if you think all that happened within just 6,000 years. It's evident to one's own personal eyes that it could never have happened. The rock is far too old. Get out and have a good look somewhere where the strata is exposed.

There's a lot of truth and a lot of spiritual inspiration within the Bible. Much of that wonder and truth is lost to us if we don't truly comprehend the book itself. And it's rarely understood truthfully, and in its fullness, when read only within the stiflingly constrained limits of utterly-literal comprehension. That's like believing that Santa Claus lives with Rudolph somewhere north of the Arctic Circle. Surely adult human beings can acquire a more sophisticated understanding of things than that? 😮

V

I thought for a few moments that you were posting critically of religious scripture, that they are all 'fire and brimstone', until I realised the typo. :p

V

Gosh, what a typo (now corrected) :dft001:

Freudian slip perhaps ??????

Good points V and well made!

I think that any reasonable person would agree that it is not possible for the things written in the Bible to be literally true.

The world was NOT made in 6 days (ie 144 hours) - the world is countless billions of years old. This is a scientific fact.

The earth is NOT 6000 years old.

Adam was NOT the first man to walk the earth, he was NOT made from clay by the "Potters" own hands.

Eve was NOT made from Adams ribs

This, however, does not mean that the Bible (or scripture) is useless - it needs to be read correctly, that is by understanding the use of things like metaphor, allegory, symbolism, numerology and the like. If these things are applied to the understanding of the Bible (or other scripture), then the above statements ARE true.

The world probably was "made" in 6 stages, Adam (ie man) was made from clay (ie the basic substance of earth) by God's own hands, and so on.

Its well to remember that the giant thinkers and true scientists of the past like Socrates, De Vinci, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, etc, who are considered "Fathers" of modern science and modern world were all men of faith. Without them we would all still be living in the dark ages - a global version of the Taliban.

The world was NOT made in 6 days (ie 144 hours) - the world is countless billions of years old.

About 4.5 billion.

Eve was NOT made from Adams ribs

This, however, does not mean that the Bible (or scripture) is useless - it needs to be read correctly, that is by understanding the use of things like metaphor, allegory, symbolism,

From 'The Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramahansa Yogananda...

"The Adam and Eve story is incomprehensible to me!" I observed with considerable heat one day in my early struggles with the allegory. "Why did God punish not only the guilty pair, but also the innocent unborn generations?"

Master was more amused by my vehemence than my ignorance. "Genesis is deeply symbolic, and cannot be grasped by a literal interpretation," he explained. "Its 'tree of life' is the human body. The spinal cord is like an upturned tree, with man's hair as its roots, and afferent and efferent nerves as branches. The tree of the nervous system bears many enjoyable fruits, or sensations of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch. In these, man may rightfully indulge; but he was forbidden the experience of sex, the 'apple' at the center of the bodily garden.

"The 'serpent' represents the coiled-up spinal energy which stimulates the sex nerves. 'Adam' is reason, and 'Eve' is feeling.

When I read first read this years ago Genesis made absolute sense to me, which it never had before.

About 4.5 billion.

Yes, the age of the rocks, and hence the solar system is estimated to be 4.5 billion years. However, according to the Vedas (probably the oldest and most "pure" scriptures on earth), the world (ie universe) is much older.

One day of Brahma is 4.3 billion years, as is one night. Based on the life of Brahma, the universe is over 155 TRILLION years old and will last another 155 trillions years, and there are millions of universes, some that are millions of times bigger then our universe.

The tree of the nervous system bears many enjoyable fruits, or sensations of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch. In these, man may rightfully indulge; but he was forbidden the experience of sex, the 'apple' at the center of the bodily garden.

"The 'serpent' represents the coiled-up spinal energy which stimulates the sex nerves. 'Adam' is reason, and 'Eve' is feeling.

Yes, the Adam and Eve story alludes to the kundalini - but this is not the the whole story. The experience of sex was not forbidden to man - look at nature and you will see that nature, which is at one with God, is experiencing sex all the time. Flowers, for example, are the sex organs of the plants, which nature displays with joy, delight, without any trace of guilt associated with sex!

I believe that the story of Adam and Eve describes the birth or emergence of Man. I've eplained this elsewhere, and if you're interested you can google for something like "ayahuasca kabir" you'll come to a lengthy page, part2 is an explanation.

On Genesis, it was customary to write at not one or even two, but several levels at once. There's the numerological level, the Kabbalistic level, the allegorical level (which most people back then will I think have understood to be allegory). So it doesn't have one meaning. The seven stages of creation are, for example, seven stages into which we might break up the whole process by which we as people manifest anything or do anything. There are seven stages by which anything is done. Then there is in the OT a numerological level built into the Hebrew alphabet (of which I know almost nothing). There's a Kabbalistic level - in which the meaning of the 'Tree of Life' is clearly the Kabbalah. Etc., etc

Try explaining this not only to an evangelical Christian, but even to any run-of-the-mill British Christian....

Yes, the age of the rocks, and hence the solar system is estimated to be 4.5 billion years. However, according to the Vedas (probably the oldest and most "pure" scriptures on earth), the world (ie universe) is much older.

One day of Brahma is 4.3 billion years, as is one night. Based on the life of Brahma, the universe is over 155 TRILLION years old and will last another 155 trillions years, and there are millions of universes, some that are millions of times bigger then our universe.

Our solar system took shape fairly early-on during the span of this physical universe. From memory, I think the Big Bang goes back 'only' about two billion years more than our solar system? I have the figure of about 6.5 billion years in mind from somewhere.

Obviously, James, what you are alluding to in the trillions of years etc. is the Hindu world-view, which isn't about our present physical universe, but a series of universes which have in four stages been "breathed out" or created, and then "breathed in" or uncreated again through what science knows as 'Big Bangs' and possibly black holes at the end-game. Each universe is "a Day in the life of Brahman [Brahman, not 'Brahma' (without an n , Brahma being 'just' one of the Hindu Trinity]: the static period of no-thing and no Creation, then the outbreath and creation, then thirdly sustaining the Creation, and fourthly the inbreath once again. Each pralaya or cycle is a universe, but one follows another as, in our comparative microcosm, one day on earth follows another.

This does relate somewhat to science today, which postulates something along the same lines. Repeating universes, starting with a Big Bang and then closing with some other process.

-----------------------------------

The experience of sex was not forbidden to man

Warning! The following aside has nothing to do with Christianity as now known 😮 :

Hmm. "Forbidden" is an old-fashioned word. Methinks that once, as has been believed by mystics for centuries, and as some of the New Age say today, we were not actually physical beings. The descent into total physicality was in itself the unnecessary 'Fall'. And before that, reproduction was a spiritual process whereby parents merged their Light-Rays to create a focal point for the reincarnating individual. There was once no seeking after personal physical pleasure - for there was less overriding sense of personal ego as such, and we were not, in any case, physical.

Physical sex was not 'forbidden'; rather, we were originally never intended to be physical, and to have to reproduce by, frankly, humping (in the physical sense, no matter that love is hopefully involved) as do hippos, bulls, ants, and etc. Rather, we were intended to retain our etheric and angelic nature.

Another subject not fitting into this sub-forum would be that of kundalini, its proper use, and its preservation as opposed to its expenditure. That's where a lot of the Biblical sayings about the life-force originate from: it's actually an alluding to kundalini, and its very careful use and/or preservation.

V

A bit more on the 'forbidden' ...

I realise that I fell into replying to:

The experience of sex was not forbidden to man

...without knowing even what part of the Bible you are alluding to, James?

It occurred to me that you might just mean the early part of Genesis: where Adam and Eve are forbade the partaking of "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". That might not be what you had in mind, but otherwise I'm not sure what? After all, the OT is full of x "begetting" y, and I'm sure there was some physical process involved!

So if you did have that 'eating of the fruit' in Genesis in mind, here's my take on that, which is also the 'take' of many others.

The very concept that this part of Christian scripture has anything to do with sexuality is an entirely Christian guilt-trip. IMHO humanity was once Edenic in consciousness, having no mental or emotional processes apart from oneness with the One. We were all, as a race and/or given the fact of reincarnation, individually entirely one with God - though we were still individual beings and personalities. The part in Genesis where humanity is forbidden to "eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" pertains to the fact that evil is not real, and is illusion. It's illusion or maya which results from egocentric existence, living apart from a 24/7 awareness that we are all One and a part of the One.

So the race of humanity were supposed to retain that oneness, that lack of egocentric existence which leads to all woes, all mistakes, all negative karma. The allegorical "Eve" (the feminine energy or force within both men and women) is forbidden to partake of a separate and egocentric existence outside of that total oneness with God. IMHO that's what the episode in the Garden and eating the "apple" means.

Well, the rest is history. 😮 We fell for it. Now it's the story of getting back to Eden i.e. the Edenic or utterly pure and God-centred consciousness.

P.S. I just also wanted to mention to Ace: I'm sorry if I get seemingly 'heated' over Born-Again or evangelical Christianity. The fact is, I truly abhor superstition, and IMHO today's Christian doctrine and dogma is superstition, which is never spiritually healthy for men and women. But I was posting above to this philosophy, not to you personally. I really respect you: we've dialogued more than once in the past, and been pretty honest with each other. I also respect people who stick to their guns! So it's never personal, but I'm replying to ideas and world-movements. 🙂

Venetian

Thanks for those last two posts V, they've brought together some jumbled-up lines of thought I've been having of late into something more coherent 🙂

I've always thought the Genesis myth relates to 'our' losing of spiritual one-ness rather than an actual account of creation but never really 'got' the idea that it may also relate to the splitting of male/female yin/yang energies :doh:

As for the original topic - perhaps the various ages attributed by the different scared texts are really trying to tell us that age of earth/universe questions aren't really relevant are they ? time being such an illusory concept and all that..........

:nature-smiley-008:

I've always thought the Genesis myth relates to 'our' losing of spiritual one-ness rather than an actual account of creation but never really 'got' the idea that it may also relate to the splitting of male/female yin/yang energies :doh:

Just to clarify. I didn't mean that there's anything wrong with any 'splitting' of male/female or yin/yang energies. It's hard to know even what male/female means in the spiritual sense as different people would have different things in mind - such as gender, or Spirit/matter, and so on. By "the feminine energy or force within both men and women" what I actually had in mind was kundalini, which is often called the 'Mother' or 'Mother aspect of God' (the Father aspect being completely non-physical and Spirit).

But in any case, I was being clumsy with my wording. Because to me (and others) the 'forbidding' to eat of the 'tree' of good and of evil simply means for the consciousness and personality of each of us, of the race, not to take on egocentricity - not to think that we dwell and have existence outside of God. That we are in fact a part of God, and our very existence is sustained at every moment by God. So in becoming, as it were, gods unto ourselves, we've lost sight of the whole spiritual nature of reality: we no longer see or converse with angels, many even doubt the existence of God or of what is now to us the unseen, one person fights or is angry against another when in fact both are in essence one being. Becoming ego-centred rather than knowing ourselves primarily to be a God-Being was and is the beginning of living in illusion, unreality, or maya.

This 'Fall' from the Edenic consciousness is profound. We don't get back to the 'Garden' just by mouthing sayings such as "I do believe in God" or by going to church once a week. It's a profound Fall which takes a lot of reversing, because we've 'fallen' in vibration, in the very nature of our atoms, our chakras are relatively closed, kundalini isn't flowing upward naturally to the crown, and we are enwrapped within karmic circumstances and, IMHO, a vast number of lifetimes we were never ideally meant to be living. 'Returning' to the consciousness from which we once departed takes the whole process of the spiritual path. And it takes a burning, not luke-warm, desire to tread that path.

'Good and evil' as it's called in Genesis means (IMHO) to think in terms of duality, whereas in essence there is no duality. But so long as we think there is, we make it so within the maya we live within, if that makes sense?

P.S. The 'Fall' in consciousness our race went through is best described in The Book of Enoch, which Jesus and also St. Paul quote from often in the New Testament, though it's often overlooked what they are citing from.