The age of the earth

[IshChayil]

Scripture records the birth of very few individuals generally. Of Adam and Eve's children, only Cain (the first murderer), Abel (the first murdered man) and Seth (the descendent of Noah and therefore essential for all genealogies) are recorded. The first two because of a significant event, the last for genealogical purposes.

I try to avoid speculation, when there are old sources that don't disagree with scripture and are plausible I assume they are more likely to be correct than anything I come up with.According to Josephus, they already had daughters by the time of Abel's murder, Cain was already married at this time and took his wife when he left, they had more sons and daughters afterwards, and he cites an old Jewish tradition that in total they had 33 sons and 23 daughters (see footnote 8 in the link above) - ie far more than seven allowing us to interpret God's statement to Cain as meaning vengence on seven individuals. That all makes perfect sense with scripture, so I just assume it's probably about right.

Regarding the speed of reproduction, although they were perfectly fertile that doesn't necessarily mean a baby every single year. Firstly, Eve may have been created prior to puberty and only reached puberty later (and puberty may have been at an older age given the total lifespan was longer), which could explain a delay prior to Cain if such a delay did exist (which we don't know anyway). A fertile woman today will produce one child every 3-4 years if she exhibits lactational anoestrus (ie does not ovulate while producing milk) and breastfeeds for >2 years, or every 12-18 months if she does not exhibit lactational anoestrus. Lactational anoestrus is the "normal" condition for most mammals, for instance wild cattle exhibit lactational anoestrus and reproduce slowly, while farmers have bred this trait out of domestic cattle to allow them to get pregnant during lactation to have a calf every year. If we assume that a strong lactational anoestrus is the intended "perfect" condition, because it makes sense for a woman's body, and that this trait has been diluted in the current population as women who do not exhibit it produce more offspring and are therefore selected for, and that Eve would have breastfed for long periods due to the unavailability of processed food to wean children on to, Eve would have produced offspring at a much slower rate to that experienced in our own lives when we do not use birth control. This makes the number of 56 offspring sound about right (one every 8 years or so over a pre-menopausal window of 500 years or so). Now obviously I'm speculating a bit with these numbers, but not in order to invent my own ideas, simply to show that the numbers presented by Josephus are plausible biologically and we have no reason to think they are erroneous.

I sound like a cattle breeder, sorry ladies, when it comes to reproduction I start thinking in terms of cows and sheep...

I like your idea about Chavah, Eve being perhaps prepubescent when created.
It sure ties in nicely to the concept that they did not feel shame for being naked.

The only thing I'd mention and you probably know this is that in Genesis 2:23 we're told she's to be called "woman"
וַיֹּאמֶר֘ הָֽאָדָם֒ זֹ֣את הַפַּ֗עַם עֶ֚צֶם מֵֽעֲצָמַ֔י וּבָשָׂ֖ר מִבְּשָׂרִ֑י לְזֹאת֙ יִקָּרֵ֣א אִשָּׁ֔ה כִּ֥י מֵאִ֖ישׁ לֻֽקֳחָה־זֹּֽאת׃
"And the man said this time, substance from my (own) substance, and flesh from my flesh, for this (reason) she is called woman, because she was taken from man". The Hebrew word play; she's called "Ishah" because she's taken from "Ish". I messed with the English tense a bit because an imperfect verb can also be our present tense (just to make a point) so don't get up in arms with me people if it's different than most translations.
So the point is Ishah means woman, not female right?
Now this is not a strong point because the statement can be very general right like women are called women because they came from man so it doesn't really knock out your prepubescent idea; just thought it's worth mentioning.

 

[FollowingHim]

I also think she was probably fully mature. Someone else had suggested that she didn't have Cain until 8 years after creation or something like that, and I just threw the idea of her being prepubescent as one idea that could explain that. But I personally think she was probably created fully mature and they probably got kicked out of the garden within 9 months of creation. It's the simplest explanation after all. Your points on the word Ishah support this.

 

[frederick]

What? So the sins of the father are only passed on to the children if they're born before the sin? More sins are passed on the more children you have? Vaginas absorb sin and pass it on to the children as they pass through? Come on man. Spiritual mechanisms are not bound by physical existence. How did sin affect the plants and animals? Did they pass through Eve's vagina after Adam tainted it? Did we all pass back through Eve's vagina after Christ purified it? Is it possible that there might be anothe way to pass sin than the birth canal?

Sorry for the confusion in the way I worded my post. Adam reproduced according to his image and nature; a sin nature, so that all Adam and Eve's descendants are born sinners who wilfully sin. We are told in the Psalm that the wicked go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies (Ps. 58:3), and it is written in Ephesians that we are all dead in trespasses and sins before God saves us (Eph. 2:1-5). It's not the physical birth that makes us sinners by nature but being the descendants of the first sinners - Adam and Eve. In Adam all humanity sinned (Romans 5:12; 1 Cor. 5:21-22). If Eve had conceived children before she and Adam sinned, those children would not have been conceived with a sin nature.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Sorry for the confusion in the way I worded my post. Adam reproduced according to his image and nature; a sin nature, so that all Adam and Eve's descendants are born sinners who wilfully sin. We are told in the Psalm that the wicked go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies (Ps. 58:3), and it is written in Ephesians that we are all dead in trespasses and sins before God saves us (Eph. 2:1-5). It's not the physical birth that makes us sinners by nature but being the descendants of the first sinners - Adam and Eve. In Adam all humanity sinned (Romans 5:12; 1 Cor. 5:21-22). If Eve had conceived children before she and Adam sinned, those children would not have been conceived with a sin nature.

You just said the same thing. Sin entered through Adam. Where do you get this idea that any child born before the sin wouldn't have gotten caught up in it? That sounds like a pretty wild assumption to be speaking so confidently about.

 

[aineo]

I actually agree with both of you @ZecAustin and @frederick. I think sin was passed down through the father, Adam. In other words, Jesus could only be the sinless by not having an earthly Father. Yes, I realize that this isn't all He is, He is also God, which required He be born of God too. Anyhow, all that said, I agree with Zec too. Had anyone been born before sin was committed, they would have fallen too. Man would haven't lasted long without sinning.

 

[Gregory66]

So we're all born into this sin-corrupted world, under the curse of condemnation and certain judgment - unless we recognize and accept the eternal atonement provided by our Savior, Jesus of Nazareth.

But at what point in our lives will we be condemned to eternal judgment? It's not so difficult - at the time we make a reasoned rejection of Yeshua's sacrificial provision for us ALL.

And when can we make a "reasoned rejection"? While we are still in our Mother's womb? Or age two? How about age five, or maybe eight years old );

I submit for your consideration that it varies (a bit) from one individual to the next. What I do know is that David, the son of Jesse and progenitor of Jesus our Savior, said that he would see his newly-born son (from Bathsheba) when he died and went to Glory. To me, that indicates that anyone too young to understand, will be swept into the Father's bosom.

Concerning the age of the Earth, we as Christians need to firstly consider the record of Scripture. But there is also room for science. The first few verses of Genesis 1, when looking at the original meaning of the Hebrew words, show that the earth came into existence LONG before the Genesis account, which was a "re-creation" (Gen 1:28).

"Sin" did not ORIGINALLY enter the world through Adam - it first entered in Ezekiel 28, inside the heart of Lucifer. I'm guessing that happened 65 million years ago, or so, when God struck the earth in the Yucatan Peninsula. Good science cannot be refuted that the earth is probably about 4 billion years old.

Although I'm called into the Mission field these days, if anyone wants me to send a missive that I wrote on the subject, I will do my best to reply as soon as possible.

Keep looking up - He IS coming soon!

- Gregory

 

[FollowingHim]

I think sin comes from the father, but comes through adoption as well as by blood inheritance. This is why we first inherit our father Adam's sin nature, but then on adoption as sons by God we inherit His sinless nature instead. So a son born prior to the fall would initially have been sinless - but may still have inherited the sinful nature of Adam by virtue of being his son, just as an adopted son of God can inherit His sinless nature despite the lack of a physical birth. I say "may" because it is all speculative, I highly doubt any sons were born prior to the Fall as there is no account of any in scripture, so I really think it doesn't much matter which position is correct anyway!

 

[FollowingHim]

Good science cannot be refuted that the earth is probably about 4 billion years old.

This is an oft-repeated myth. I have never found such irrefutable science. If you would like to share what science you are talking about, please do so, and I will do my best to explain why it is not as solid as you may have been led to believe.

The first few verses of Genesis 1, when looking at the original meaning of the Hebrew words, show that the earth came into existence LONG before the Genesis account, which was a "re-creation" (Gen 1:28).

Again this is a simplistic conclusion based on concordance definitions. The word being referred to, hayetah, can mean either "became" or "was" (formless and void), and the actual meaning is controlled by the context. Some people claim that it should be translated "became", meaning that the earth could have existed previously and have been "re-created", but this is an opinion only, it shouldn't be stated as undeniable fact. Most translations, including the LXX, translate the word "was" for good reason.

To study the "gap theory" in detail I would highly recommend the book "Unformed and Unfilled" by Weston W. Fields, it is the most detailed examination of the scripture that I know of, covers all the various Hebrew arguments around the gap theory, and concludes very firmly that there is no room for a gap in the Hebrew.
Or just check out this set of articles.

 

[IshChayil]

I think sin comes from the father, but comes through adoption as well as by blood inheritance. This is why we first inherit our father Adam's sin nature, but then on adoption as sons by God we inherit His sinless nature instead. So a son born prior to the fall would initially have been sinless - but may still have inherited the sinful nature of Adam by virtue of being his son, just as an adopted son of God can inherit His sinless nature despite the lack of a physical birth. I say "may" because it is all speculative, I highly doubt any sons were born prior to the Fall as there is no account of any in scripture, so I really think it doesn't much matter which position is correct anyway!

It seems this verse hints at what you are saying:
מַה־לָּכֶ֗ם אַתֶּם֙ מֹֽשְׁלִים֙ אֶת־הַמָּשָׁ֣ל הַזֶּ֔ה עַל־אַדְמַ֥ת יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר אָבוֹת֙ יֹ֣אכְלוּ בֹ֔סֶר וְשִׁנֵּ֥י הַבָּנִ֖ים תִּקְהֶֽינָה׃
(Eze 18:2).
"What is it to you those who speak this proverb concerning the earth of Israel saying, 'fathers have eaten sour (not ripe yet) grapes so the childrens' teeth will be dull"

The parents' sins has effect on children like you said. Years ago I heard of a study that children of alcoholics where predesposed to alcoholism; even if they did not grow up with that parent. I'm not sure if the study was true or nonsense as I never investigated. WE do know, however, that DNA actually does change throughout the course of our lives. Our behaviour actually affects some part of DNA. (google on behavioral genetics).

 

[FollowingHim]

The parents' sins has effect on children like you said. Years ago I heard of a study that children of alcoholics where predesposed to alcoholism; even if they did not grow up with that parent. I'm not sure if the study was true or nonsense as I never investigated. WE do know, however, that DNA actually does change throughout the course of our lives. Our behaviour actually affects some part of DNA. (google on behavioral genetics).

As I understand it, behavioural genetics is the study of how genetics influences behaviour. It doesn't suggest that behaviour changes your DNA. For instance, a person with a genetic tendency towards addictive behaviour is more likely to become an alcoholic, their children are likely to inherit their genetic tendency and thus also be more likely to become alcoholics, purely through inheriting the pre-existing genes that predisposed them to addiction. The father's behaviour did not change their DNA, quite the opposite, their father's behaviour was in part caused by the DNA they both inherited. This is not an example of a sin affecting a child, but rather an example of both father and child having a predisposition to the same sin.

I'm not arguing against my original point, just keeping the physical and the spiritual separate. An adopted child may inherit the spiritual nature of their father.

 

[IshChayil]

So we're all born into this sin-corrupted world, under the curse of condemnation and certain judgment - unless we recognize and accept the eternal atonement provided by our Savior, Jesus of Nazareth.

But at what point in our lives will we be condemned to eternal judgment? It's not so difficult - at the time we make a reasoned rejection of Yeshua's sacrificial provision for us ALL.

And when can we make a "reasoned rejection"? While we are still in our Mother's womb? Or age two? How about age five, or maybe eight years old );

I submit for your consideration that it varies (a bit) from one individual to the next. What I do know is that David, the son of Jesse and progenitor of Jesus our Savior, said that he would see his newly-born son (from Bathsheba) when he died and went to Glory. To me, that indicates that anyone too young to understand, will be swept into the Father's bosom.

Concerning the age of the Earth, we as Christians need to firstly consider the record of Scripture. But there is also room for science. The first few verses of Genesis 1, when looking at the original meaning of the Hebrew words, show that the earth came into existence LONG before the Genesis account, which was a "re-creation" (Gen 1:28).

"Sin" did not ORIGINALLY enter the world through Adam - it first entered in Ezekiel 28, inside the heart of Lucifer. I'm guessing that happened 65 million years ago, or so, when God struck the earth in the Yucatan Peninsula. Good science cannot be refuted that the earth is probably about 4 billion years old.

Although I'm called into the Mission field these days, if anyone wants me to send a missive that I wrote on the subject, I will do my best to reply as soon as possible.

Keep looking up - He IS coming soon!

- Gregory

Just to sideline the conversation with something you may find interesting. Did you know that in one Jewish interpretation of scripture, David did not commit adulter

As I understand it, behavioural genetics is the study of how genetics influences behaviour. It doesn't suggest that behaviour changes your DNA. For instance, a person with a genetic tendency towards addictive behaviour is more likely to become an alcoholic, their children are likely to inherit their genetic tendency and thus also be more likely to become alcoholics, purely through inheriting the pre-existing genes that predisposed them to addiction. The father's behaviour did not change their DNA, quite the opposite, their father's behaviour was in part caused by the DNA they both inherited. This is not an example of a sin affecting a child, but rather an example of both father and child having a predisposition to the same sin.

I'm not arguing against my original point, just keeping the physical and the spiritual separate. An adopted child may inherit the spiritual nature of their father.

As I understand it, behavioural genetics is the study of how genetics influences behaviour. It doesn't suggest that behaviour changes your DNA. For instance, a person with a genetic tendency towards addictive behaviour is more likely to become an alcoholic, their children are likely to inherit their genetic tendency and thus also be more likely to become alcoholics, purely through inheriting the pre-existing genes that predisposed them to addiction. The father's behaviour did not change their DNA, quite the opposite, their father's behaviour was in part caused by the DNA they both inherited. This is not an example of a sin affecting a child, but rather an example of both father and child having a predisposition to the same sin.

I'm not arguing against my original point, just keeping the physical and the spiritual separate. An adopted child may inherit the spiritual nature of their father.

Here's a 2010 Newsweek article about behavior influencing DNA in rats:
http://www.newsweek.com/how-behavior-can-change-your-dna-71175

 

[MrB]

I like this guy
He is easy to listen to and has challenged my thinking
He also has some good information on genetics and dna that's very informative

http://comeandreason.com/index.php/...icine-seminar/2-the-developing-brain-jennings

 

[The Revolting Man]

The spiritual and the physical do interact. We know that what we loose on earth is loosed in heaven and vice versa. You wouldn't have to talk to fast to get me to think that our behavior can have a measurable impact on our DNA.

 

[FollowingHim]

Here's a 2010 Newsweek article about behavior influencing DNA in rats:
http://www.newsweek.com/how-behavior-can-change-your-dna-71175

That clarifies the point greatly. To summarise, as per my previous post, behaviour does not change the genes encoded on your DNA. But it can can cause those genes to be switched on or off - I.e. be used or not. We're not disagreeing, just talking about two different things using the same words.

 

[cubanito]

Evolution (God replacement theory)and trillions of years (allie of deceit) have a place to replace God. If we came from slime or leemers, we are worthless carbon based animals, walking meat subjects that must be rulled and controlled, culled.
Then they change things like BC and AD to before comon era etc.. When you get rid of God, uncle beastie (man made gov) becomes the default god and father. That is kind of important right? Who's your daddy?

 

[IshChayil]

That clarifies the point greatly. To summarise, as per my previous post, behaviour does not change the genes encoded on your DNA. But it can can cause those genes to be switched on or off - I.e. be used or not. We're not disagreeing, just talking about two different things using the same words.

Yes, exactly.

I'm not talking mutations and evolution, only gene activation. So behavior can activate certain genes and these traits then can be passed down.

 

[j_wickey]

I haven't thoroughly read through the entire discussion but just because I find this forum much better than just about any other forum out there, I will join in for a second.

To answer the original question, it is actually a moot point. Whether the universe (and man, etc...) was created 15 minutes ago with all of our memories, events, light traveling, etc... already having happened versus the universe (and again everything else) being created 15 billion years ago, makes no actual difference to us. Explain to me how we could test one way or the other? Both would be identical to us. I say this because I know people on both sides, and some make this (amongst other things) serious issues. And I will not argue that these things cannot be serious issues, I will just argue that most make them into more serious issues than they are. Again, this largely stems from people applying seemingly random import to different topics that may or may not be important concerning the individual and/or the given topic at the time.

As for my personal opinion, I view what I just described as valid but kind of as a dodging of the question. I won't go into that unless asked in this thread because I view that I have satisfied the original poster's kind of question.

One last quick note though in regards to the discussion I saw about sin passing through men and women. I personally have the position that "sin" (new thread on sin required) passes through men and women but I will say that there is a very good argument against that (again looking at our relationship with God right now). Consider inheritance laws being exclusively male (very few exceptions), the iniquity of the fathers passing down, and of course Jesus being born without sin to God and a human woman.

 

[FollowingHim]

To answer the original question, it is actually a moot point. Whether the universe (and man, etc...) was created 15 minutes ago with all of our memories, events, light traveling, etc... already having happened versus the universe (and again everything else) being created 15 billion years ago, makes no actual difference to us. ... Again, this largely stems from people applying seemingly random import to different topics that may or may not be important concerning the individual and/or the given topic at the time.

This issue is largely important simply because many people take it as a key reason to reject God (atheism), or at least reject His teachings even if they believe He might still exist somewhere (agnosticism). Because people make it important, it becomes important for evangelism to those people, and to prevent our own children from falling into the same heresy given that particular heresy is entrenched in our culture. So you're correct, it's important simply because people make it important, which is in some ways circular reasoning - yet we are stuck in a culture that is trapped in that circle, and must respond to it accordingly.

If we lived in a culture where people believed in God's existence regardless and the age of the earth was never a topic of discussion, then I agree it would be just an interesting detail to discuss hypothetically, but of itself somewhat unimportant. But in our culture it has become an important one.

 

[rustywest4]

The father of lies has come up with many anti God theories to plant in the heart of man... Evolution is at the top of the list of successful deceits straight from the spirit of anti-Christ! The gap theory is only mental gymnastics to try and accommodate that secular humanist worldview!

I believe it's our responsibility to expose such lies that run contrary to Scripture.

"For in six days the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that in them is..."

 

[Mojo]

Scripture records the birth of very few individuals generally. Of Adam and Eve's children, only Cain (the first murderer), Abel (the first murdered man) and Seth (the descendent of Noah and therefore essential for all genealogies) are recorded. The first two because of a significant event, the last for genealogical purposes.

I try to avoid speculation, when there are old sources that don't disagree with scripture and are plausible I assume they are more likely to be correct than anything I come up with.According to Josephus, they already had daughters by the time of Abel's murder, Cain was already married at this time and took his wife when he left, they had more sons and daughters afterwards, and he cites an old Jewish tradition that in total they had 33 sons and 23 daughters (see footnote 8 in the link above) - ie far more than seven allowing us to interpret God's statement to Cain as meaning vengence on seven individuals. That all makes perfect sense with scripture, so I just assume it's probably about right.

Regarding the speed of reproduction, although they were perfectly fertile that doesn't necessarily mean a baby every single year. Firstly, Eve may have been created prior to puberty and only reached puberty later (and puberty may have been at an older age given the total lifespan was longer), which could explain a delay prior to Cain if such a delay did exist (which we don't know anyway). A fertile woman today will produce one child every 3-4 years if she exhibits lactational anoestrus (ie does not ovulate while producing milk) and breastfeeds for >2 years, or every 12-18 months if she does not exhibit lactational anoestrus. Lactational anoestrus is the "normal" condition for most mammals, for instance wild cattle exhibit lactational anoestrus and reproduce slowly, while farmers have bred this trait out of domestic cattle to allow them to get pregnant during lactation to have a calf every year. If we assume that a strong lactational anoestrus is the intended "perfect" condition, because it makes sense for a woman's body, and that this trait has been diluted in the current population as women who do not exhibit it produce more offspring and are therefore selected for, and that Eve would have breastfed for long periods due to the unavailability of processed food to wean children on to, Eve would have produced offspring at a much slower rate to that experienced in our own lives when we do not use birth control. This makes the number of 56 offspring sound about right (one every 8 years or so over a pre-menopausal window of 500 years or so). Now obviously I'm speculating a bit with these numbers, but not in order to invent my own ideas, simply to show that the numbers presented by Josephus are plausible biologically and we have no reason to think they are erroneous.

I sound like a cattle breeder, sorry ladies, when it comes to reproduction I start thinking in terms of cows and sheep...

Unless she had a nurse maid feeding her children for her after a while, thereby reinvigorating ovulation sooner. What about twins, triplets, quads? Just things to think about.