There is a major theological error present in the article. Please read Romans 5-6. Paul makes it very clear that death entered the world through sin, and sin through Adam. Thus sin and death did not exist prior to Adam's creation. Biblically, there is no way there could be billions of years filled with death prior to Adam.
Now if death did reign prior to Adam's sin, then death is natural and is not a punishment for sin. Christ's death would thus be in vain, as it would not be necessary for our sin to be payed for. If sin existed in the world prior to Adam's sin, Christ's death would again be in vain.
There is a lot of discussion on this, with basically two camps among Christians: those who believe in a "young" earth, and those who believe in an "old" earth. The latter cannot be found in the clear text of the Bible. Since it is the intent of this wiki to treat the Scriptures with utmost respect, our source on all matters is the Bible itself.
Given that Bible indicates that Jesus Christ is a trustworthy witness, it is our position to take Him at his word. He speaks of Adam and Eve being "at the beginning of the creation" on or soon after the sixth day of creation. After that, Adam is said to be 130 years old when his son Seth was born, and the pattern continues to Abraham's father Terah via Noah. Some ambiguity enters with the exact date of Abraham's birth, but from his son Isaac through his great grandson Joseph it continues, though a bit harder to figure.
Through the lists of kings, and events mentioned from the exodus and the conquest, dates can be figured before and after the destruction of the temple. At that point, secular dates can be used to show a correlation between the Bible and the rest of history. All of these dates put the sack of Jerusalem at about 3500 years after the time of Adam. Counting forward, we see Jesus to have been born somewhere around 4000 years after Adam.
The difference of interpretation between Bible students comes down to the way the accounts in Genesis are treated. The six days of creation seem to be confirmed as days of normal length by God Himself in the giving of the Fourth Commandment (see Ten Commandments, so the Earth is Biblically dated along with Adam. That point in time was a little over 6000 years ago within a margin of error of 5% (about 300 years of ambiguity).
However, many see a problem based on what modern science seems to have shown concerning the speed of light and distant places in space. Through use of assumptions based on wavelengths of light and unprovable hypotheses concerning how the universe came to be the way it is, the "age of the universe" seems to be growing longer the more it is studied. This is where the billions of years comes in. Therefore, for the most part, those findings are not considered in interpreting the Biblical record.
<ref>tags exist, but no
<references/>tag was found
yes, 13.8 billion years old, the History of Cain and Abel Probably passes c 9,000 BC, considering that they are not really children of Adam and Eve since the history indicated that the Earth had other people who could kill Cain, Some things in Genesis must be Taken as Symbolic,(This does not mean it's a lie.) but Science and the faith do not contradict each other, because both times from the same source. God, if Science is contradicting faith, then either you are interpreting wrong science, or you are interpreting wrong the faith.
Genesis is a literal historical record. It's audience took it literally because it is literal. Genesis 4:1-2 makes it clear that Cain and Abel are direct, literal, children of Adam and Eve. It says that Adam knew his wife (that is, through sexual intercourse) and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain, and also later gave birth to Abel. Genesis also says that Adam and Eve had many children as well. So it was these other children who would have wanted to get revenge on Cain for him killing their brother Abel. Everything in Genesis can be taken literally and it will still make sense, in fact it must be taken literally for the rest of the Bible to make any sense. Were it poetic, then yes you could be justified in thinking Genesis is symbolic. But that is not the case, it is written as a historical record. The historical records should be taken literally, while the poetic writings ought to be taken symbolically. Genesis through Esther is all historical records, while Job through the Song of Songs is all poetry. Isaiah through Malachi are all the writings of the Prophets, which contain mixtures of poetry and history, so one must understand the context (both textually and culturally) when deciding if it is figurative or literal.
Now you are right that the Bible and science come from the same source. But remember that the Bible is always correct, even when the science doesn't seem to agree with it.
Christian Sirolli just because it is Figuratively does not mean that it is not true, as time goes by we are matured in the understandings of the sacred scriptures, thing like the Genealogy of the Antediluvians are Figuratively.
What do you think?