NurseRobert, your question was irrelevant, not because I say so but because it does not answer my question, because no past event can be verified by the scientific method. This example does not compromise Biblical Truth as the sun did stop in the sky from the watcher's perspective. Read Mark 1:32 "That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed..." We know the sun does not set, it just appears that way from man's perspective, and we still speak of 'sunset' today. The Bible's Truth is in no way compromised by either of these events.
Only a dogged sceptic would consider such things a problem. It is obvious you cannot answer the question, as asked.
---Warwick on 6/23/14|
Schientists need to know where the planets, the sun and other space objects will be in the future to help calculated the life of a man-made satellite. The computer models are based upon past movememts of these space objects. The computer always hangs up when it comes across the day the sun (or the earth) stood still.
And don't forget about God moving the sun (or the earth) ten degrees as stated somewhere in the book of Kings.
---Steveng on 6/23/14|
Since the sun does not revolve around the earth, it would be impossible for the Sun to "stand still", unless of course, you believe in geocentrism. Oh, wait, from the perspective of Joshua, the sun did stand still and it was the earth that stopped rotating. If this is the case a literal interpretation of the Bible is false.
I realize you will not accept this as a "testable scientific fact" however, since you have already decided that what I ask is "irrelevant" nothing I give you will suffice.
---NurseRobert on 6/23/14|
NurseRobert, you have asked me questions and I have quickly given you detailed relevant answers.
I asked you one question "can you provide a testable scientific fact which proves an aspect of the Bible to be wrong?" And you ask "did the sun stand still for Joshua?" What has that to do with my question?
I will ask again: can you provide one testable scientific fact which proves an aspect of the Bible to be wrong?
If you answer this question, or admit you cannot answer it, I will happily answer your irrelevant question.
---Warwick on 6/23/14|
Jerry, yes it is and no it doesnt. Your arguement comes down to this: Jesus was an historical figure, Jesus said it happened ergo, it happened. That is not archeological proof of the creation story. It is a personal belief based on what is in the Bible. There is no scientific proof of the creation according to Genesis.
Warwick, did the sun stand still for Joshua?
Luke, you are proving my point.
---NurseRobert on 6/22/14|
NurseRobert, can you provide a testable scientific fact which proves an aspect of the Bible to be wrong?
---Warwick on 6/22/14|
Robert: "your post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument doesn't hold."
1. It is not and yes it does. It holds that if a theory (e.g., the Bible is true) is tested by many observable facts, and they all confirm its validity, it is not proved false by the non-existent facts as your non-sequitur argument posits.
2. "The evidence of the flood can also be explained by other, long term natural occurrences, such as plate tectonics and erosion over millions of years." It can and it frequently is, but the scientific evidence (e.g., accelerator mass spectroscopy of C14) does not fit this model. It is an atheistic lie.
---jerry6593 on 6/22/14|
//2. The evidence of the flood can also be explained by other, long term natural occurrences, such as plate tectonics and erosion over millions of years.//
Those explanations come from the world not from Scripture. Of course the world has many explanations not found in the word of God. But the Bible only has one explanation, and if you believe in the word of God, you should have faith in His word. In whom do you place your faith in? That is the question, Agape
---Luke on 6/22/14|
-jerry6593 on 6/21/14: 'The validity of the Bible as historical record is well established by numerous archaeological discoveries.'
You overstate it. What you mean is no archaeological discovery disagrees with the Bible - though we need someone to explain with there is too little C14 in them.
In any case, those discoveries can only be used for the times after the time of Noah.
I take the first chapters of Genesis literally, but I do not ask people to take that as proven from outside the Bible.
You have to be careful in the things you ask people to accept.
---Peter on 6/21/14|
I'm not missing your point, Jerry.
1. You're argument that the validity of the Bible as historical is flawed. Yes, there may be historical proof of some individuals and episodes of the Bible existed, however, your post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument doesn't hold.
2. The evidence of the flood can also be explained by other, long term natural occurrences, such as plate tectonics and erosion over millions of years.
You keep falling back on the argument that because the Bible says so means it's right. This is a personal belief that cannot be proven.
---NurseRobert on 6/21/14|
Robert: I see that you missed my points entirely. The validity of the Bible as historical record is well established by numerous archaeological discoveries. The evidence of Noah's flood is written in the earth for all to see. Jesus is an historical figure, as attested by the historian Josephus. Jesus testified that the creation account of Genesis is true, and His Apostle John says that Christ Himself was the Creator (so He would know).
Therefore, the biblical account of earth's beginnings and destruction in Noah's flood has a reliable train of evidence. What does the BB theory have beside unscientific speculation and atheistic drivel?
---jerry6593 on 6/21/14|
NurseRobert, as you know I am referring to Christians who reinterpret Scripture to conform to human philosophies. By definition Christians accept the Biblical God of Truth exists, whose word is Truth. Therefore why would any Christian prefer the ever-changing opinions of fallible sinful men over the word of the one and only God who was there?
As to non-Christians that is a different matter. In my career I have seen numerous atheists come to accept Christ as their Creator God and Saviour after being shown that evolution/long ages is wrong, that the available evidence corresponds closely with the Scriptural account. Are we talking scientific proof? No, but if it was proof, then it is not faith, and it is faith which God commends.
---Warwick on 6/20/14|
Jerry, where are Christ's words other than in the Bible. Please show me where "archaeological evidence" exists.
You're saying the Bible is correct because the Bible says so.
---NurseRobert on 6/20/14|
Jerry, there is NO archaeological proof of the Biblical version of creation, there is only the Biblical account itself.
Warwick, you have chosen to "believe untestable therefore unproven ideas" yourself. There are those who say YOU are wrong.
---NurseRobert on 6/20/14|
Robert: The validity of the Bible and hence the Creation account is established by archaeological evidence and Christ's own words in the New Testament. The validity of Christ is historical fact.
The BB theory is based on the speculation of a science fiction writer, George Gamow. It is propped up by specious concepts such as dark matter and dark energy, predicts a center for the explosion which can't be determined, predicts equal amounts of antimatter which can't be found, and shows recession of galaxies in all directions implying geocentrism. Why do you believe such unproven nonsense? Blind faith?
---jerry6593 on 6/19/14|
NurseRobert, yes I believe any Christian who chooses to believe untestable therefore unproven ideas (such as the Big bang) rather than what God's word says, is wrong.
Those who reject that God exists are by definition forced to accept naturalistic ideas of our beginnings because they cannot accept the Biblical supernatural beginnings.
You are right I accept Scripture by faith, but not blind faith (Romans 1:19,20) because the available evidence supports Scripture.
---Warwick on 6/17/14|
Just pretty cool scriptures!
---love.jesus on 6/17/14|
love.jesus, what are you trying to say through your two quotes?
---Warwick on 6/17/14|
Luke, we refer to one day as being 24hrs when in fact it is about 23hrs, 56 minutes and 4 seconds. As the earth's rotation is slowing the day is getting very very slowly longer. My point is that a day does not have to be exactly 24hrs to be called a 24hr day.
If the rate at which the earth revolves around its axis has been slowing at a fixed rate we could then calculate exactly how long a day was when the earth was created c6,000 years ago. Maybe some online mathematic guru could do the calculations.
---Warwick on 6/17/14|
Warwick, you accept the Biblical story of creation on faith, without any actual proof, but then argue that someone who believes the Big Bang version of creation is wrong?
---NurseRobert on 6/17/14|
//We can get to the 24hr part later, but I have yet to mention it.
So, how do we determine which definition to use?
That was my point. It depends on the context. We cannot be so legalistic to say, a day is this period. The writers of scripture used many words we now use that were not use when the original copies were there. As students we have to look for the facts. At no time in the whole Bible is 24 hours mentioned. If is was there, we would find fault in the Bible, since the day does not have 24 hours exact. There was no reason to put 24 hours in Genesis. We should just assume it was 24 hours because it is the norm to say a day has 24 hours, when it doesn't. Do you get my meaning? Agape
---Luke on 6/17/14|
The world was set in place, it cannot be moved. (Psalm 93:1b)
---love.jesus on 6/16/14|
NurseRobert, your question is philosophically the same as: how do you know the Bible is not historically accurate?
I accept the Bible's accuracy by faith, as God commands.
Romans 1:19,20 "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.
Therefore it is by faith, but not blind faith. The same faith I exercise to accept Jesus died and rose again to wash away the sins of many.
---Warwick on 6/16/14|
For the pillars of the earth are the LORDs, and on them he has set the world. (1 Samuel 2:8b)
---love.jesus on 6/16/14|
Luke, true, 1 and 3 are difinitions. 2 is more of a comparison, and yet is figurative.
Another definition for "day" is a determined amount of time.
We can get to the 24hr part later, but I have yet to mention it.
So, how do we determine which definition to use?
By context. The context for the numbered days in Gen 1 fits all other days in the Bible which is used the same way, a normal day-a period of darkness, and a period of light, what we now know as 1 rotation on its axis.
This is what God was conveying. He was defining one normal day to us.
He also defined a day, the time between dusk and dawn, in Gen 1:5. It has its context as well so that we can see it is describing the daylight time.
---micha9344 on 6/16/14|
//The Bible does confirm how long one day is, for God set the definition on creation week//
The Bible has three definitions for what a day is.
1. So the evening and the morning were the day.
2. A day to the Lord is like a thousand years.
3. The day, also means daylight.
The day is never mentioned as 24 hours. It does not try to be exact, for the simple reason it is not exactly 24 hours, so if it mentioned 24 hours we would know it is wrong because there is not exactly 24 hours in a day. The writers never included the exact hours. Agape
---Luke on 6/16/14|
I do defend Scripture against sceptics, especially regarding creation, and its historical truth.
---Warwick on 6/3/14
How do you know its historically true?
---NurseRobert on 6/16/14|
I believe the Sun to be older then the earth, because the heavens came first in the order of creation, then the earth. How much older only in hours or minutes. I believe as I said, then when God spoke they came to be at the age God wanted things to be. That is my opinion. Agape
---Luke on 6/14/14|
I wasn't looking for an exact age and was viewing everyone's opinions, hence from the question "do you think."
Lining scripture up with opinions is important.
The Bible does confirm how long one day is, for God set the definition on creation week.
God created Adam as an adult so that he could understand and obey God. Adam was still only 1 day old on the seventh day.
A newly created car is not hundreds or thousands of years old just because it is finished and has materials that are old.
Do you believe the Sun to be older than the Earth as secular "science" believes?
---micha9344 on 6/13/14|
No one can give the exact age of the Sun. Anything anyone gives is only an opinion. And let me say many have so many different opinions. But no one has the exact age of the Sun, earth, or the heavens. I do not think anyone should hold anyone as hostile because they answer a certain way, after all, they are all opinions. In Genesis the Bible never mentions the hours in a day, or how long it took God to create, or how old were the planets and stars when He created them. He spoke and they were there, at whatever age they had to be by the will of God. Agape
---Luke on 6/11/14|
Michael: "How is it?" Simple. They simply believe their leftist, atheist college professors more than the Bible. They believe that mankind has evolved to a higher state of intelligence than those of Bible times. All this while they systematically ignore the hard scientific facts that refute their beliefs. I used to be one of them, but no more.
---jerry6593 on 6/7/14|
How is it that some say the Sun is older than the Earth?
If the Sun was created on day 4, wouldn't that make the Sun that much younger instead of older?
How is it some say the Earth was pulled in by the Sun's gravity if the Earth is older?
Did not God make the Sun, not only for light, but for the telling of time for us?
If the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, as even some Christians adhere to, wouldn't that make the Sun only millions or even less depending on which view you hold?
Gap theory: Earth billions, Sun thousands.
Progressive: Earth billions, Sun millions.
Truth: Earth thousands, Sun thousands-3days.
---micha9344 on 6/6/14|
|Read These Insightful Articles About Software
Speaking of truth,
Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
John confirms that the Old Testament - ALL of it - is TRUTH. That includes the Genesis, Exodus and Psalms creation accounts. Why would anyone argue with John, the Apostle, Prophet and friend of Christ?
---jerry6593 on 6/5/14|
love.jesus, your repeated refusal to answer a relevant question speaks volumes. I do defend Scripture against sceptics, especially regarding creation, and its historical truth. Why? Because that is where the Sceptics are most active. There is a quote often attributed to Martin Luther "If I profess, with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christianity. Where the battle rages the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battle-field besides is mere flight and disgrace to him if he flinches at that one point."
---Warwick on 6/3/14|
the sun is as old as the world. God created it in 6 days. God just spoke and it happened. the sun is as old as the earth. Ive said before, if it don't line up with God's Word, it ain't true.
---shira4368 on 6/3/14|
Warwick, I have read through all your posts that are currently listed. Your only real interest seems to be creation accounts early Genesis. I know how you will answer whatever I write. Have no quarrel with any part of Scripture. I just view it differently from you. So I will just leave you with your views. God bless.
---love.jesus on 6/3/14|
love.jesus, the Bibles I have all say-all Scripture is God breathed. That is good enough for me to consider there are no untrue or pointless verses in the whole Bible. I do not take Scripture literally but take it as written, unless there is some sound reason not to do so. For example it says-the trees of the field will clap their hands. Do we take this literally or as a figure of speech which conveys truth? The latter.
But the question I asked you was: How can you believe the truth of one verse of Scripture if you don't believe the truth of all?
---Warwick on 6/2/14|
OK, Warwick. I will say then that I do not believe that every verse of the Bible is of equal importance or is literally true, nor have most Christians over the centuries. I hope that answers your question. God bless you richly.
---love.jesus on 6/1/14|
Lovejesus, this is another subject that is not relevant, bible says The world was void and dark, and God said let there be light and there was light. What gives light. Spiritually God does but literally the sun gives light. That tells me how old the sun is.
---shira4368 on 6/2/14|
love.jesus, please answer my question then I will happily answer yours. That's the proper format.
"Again I ask-If we cannot trust God's word on this matter (the sun's age) how can we trust it on any other matter, such as Jesus' love and sacrifice? I would like an answer please."
---Warwick on 6/1/14|
Warwick, before I respond, would you kindly answer one question for me? Do you believe that every verse of scripture is literally true and of equal value? That will help me to understand your position a little better. Blessings to you.
---love.jesus on 6/1/14|
love.jesus, you wrote "What the age of the Sun is, is a scientific question. It has no bearing God's love for me and you." As I have pointed out it has every bearing upon God's love for us because the age of the sun is in the same Bible where God says He loves us. It is therefore more importantly a Biblical than scientific question.
Again I ask-If we cannot trust God's word on this matter (the sun's age) how can we trust it on any other matter, such as Jesus' love and sacrifice? I would like an answer please.
I trust you will answer so as to remove yourself from those deceivers who accept/promote nonBiblical ideas then refuse to answer relevant questions.
---Warwick on 6/1/14|
Jerry and Warwick--
If it is important to you, that's fine. God bless you both.
---love.jesus on 5/31/14|
love: "What the age of the Sun is, is a scientific question. It has no bearing God's love for me and you."
The Bible says that God created the heaven and the earth in six days and rested the seventh day (Exo 20:11). I take " heaven" here to include the sun. God created this planet and it's life-sustaining sun for only one reason - His LOVE for us.
And BTW, He also created science.
---jerry6593 on 5/31/14|
Love.Jesus, God's word (that same word which says Jesus loves us and died for us) says the sun was made on the fourth day of creation. The Biblical genealogies from Adam to Jesus add up to about 4,000 years. Therefore we do know when the sun was created.
If we cannot trust God's word on this matter how can we trust it on any other matter, such as Jesus' love and sacrifice. I would like an answer please.
---Warwick on 5/31/14|
What the age of the Sun is, is a scientific question. It has no bearing God's love for me and you.
---love.jesus on 5/29/14|
Blogger: "The age of stars can be deterred [sic] by slight variations in the frequencies of light they radiate."
I think you meant "inferred" rather than "deterred". You are attempting to describe the results of cosmic age = distance "inferred" from Doppler wavelength shift based on the Hubble Constant and assuming an original Big Bang. This theory is full of holes and predicts such nonsense as geocentrism and quasar speeds up to 6 times the speed of light. Gravitational red shift (rather than Doppler) has been demonstrated and doesn't require the presupposition of an impossible first cause (magic).
---jerry6593 on 5/30/14|
A day to us is our earth rotating one time around. A year to us is the earth going around the sun one time. What does the sun rotate around? A giant back hole? And what does it rotate around? So what is a day who knows our day one time around what is one time around the center of the galaxy which our sun travels around. Could that be a day to God or at lease a couple of minutes.
---Bryan on 5/30/14|
-Blogger9211 on 5/29/14: 'The age of stars can be deterred by slight variations in the frequencies of light they radiate.'
If you assume everything is as presented in the evolutionary system (meaning the big bank and so on), and that the universe began with the big bank, and the universe is in the billions of years old, yes
If you take the universe to be in the thousands of years old, and Genesis to be literal, then the age of the stars cannot be determined in any way at all
Just to point that out
---Peter on 5/29/14|
Sorry Jerry6953 you are wrong again as usual, the original source was an article from Wikipedia confirmed by articles by NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory and NASA/Spitzer Space Telescope. The age of stars can be deterred by slight variations in the frequencies of light they radiate.
---Blogger9211 on 5/29/14|
Great work, Michael! The theory of solar system formation that Blogger is espousing is essentially the "Nebular Hypothesis Theory" advanced by Emanuel Swedenborg in 1734. He claimed to have gotten the idea during a spiritualist sance.
Such a theory cannot explain the preponderance of angular momentum in the planets (99.5%), while the preponderance of the system mass is in the sun (99.8%). Neither can it explain the diverse elemental makeup of the planets and their moons or the rogue moons that rotate/revolve in the opposite direction from the majority.
I would also like to know just exactly how Blogger measured the age of the sun (And with such precision, yet!).
---jerry6593 on 5/29/14|
/Most of the matter gathered in the center, while the rest flattened into an orbiting disk that would become the Solar System.\-Blogger9211 on 5/26/14
How did this happen without some "force", such a gravity, directing the matter?
How can the center have a gravitational effect with first having mass?
Why did the rest spin off with this supposed effect in place?
This theory is contrary to known laws of Physics.
---micha9344 on 5/28/14|
Warwick, I agree with you - partly. Many do quote other people rather than quoting scripture but others misquote (or only partially quote) verses of scripture. This might be because they are repeating only the part verse that someone else has told them but some of it is done to 'prove' a point I am sure. It's a fruitless exercise because all of us have the opportunity of checking out (with the bible) what is ACTUALLY said.
---Rita_H on 5/28/14|
It is good to remember that Martin Luther threw the book Revelation out of the Protestant Canon as there was nothing Godly in it...
---Blogger9211 on 5/28/14
Glad to see you agree with one persons opinion. Getting too many people involved in a decision is like being governed by a committee, or perhaps a council?
If you prefer one persons opinion you might agree with Joseph Smith on his third testament or perhaps Mohammed on his whole book. They are fascinating reading.
---Mark_Eaton on 5/28/14|
It is good to remember that Martin Luther threw the book Revelation out of the Protestant Canon as there was nothing Godly in it and he was correct in so doing so, why all the concern over this damnable trash anyway?
---Blogger9211 on 5/28/14|
Rita, I cannot speak about all people but from long experience many people who propose nonBiblical ideas do not get them from Scripture but from teachers of error. They become ensnared in this error and then just uncritically regurgitate what they have been told. I see the same ideas and phrases bobbing up all over the place. Not original thoughts from Scriptural study.
---Warwick on 5/27/14|
Then he wrote a book called Revelations on the Lords Day.
---Bryan on 5/26/14
I cannot find the book of "Revelations" in my Bible.
There is a book in my Bible named "The Revelation of Jesus Christ". In other Bibles it can be named "The Revelation of St. John the Divine" or "The Apocalypse of John".
Is this the book that you are referring to? Have you ever studied this book?
---Mark_Eaton on 5/27/14|
Warwick, you say exactly what I thought when I read Bryan's post. It is amazing just how many people quote only half of that verse. It is very easy to 'prove' our own point of view 'from scripture' when we only half-quote it.
---Rita_H on 5/27/14|
Bryan when you refer to a Biblical quote it is best to give the whole quote, which in this instance gives a totally different meaning than your half quote gives. 2Peter 3:8 "But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Peter shows he knows God is eternal, outside of time, therefore does not live in days of any length.
Time was created for man (Genesis 1:8) and "one day" and "a thousand years" are human terms, measuring time for humans, only on earth.
Again I ask-If you don't believe Genesis is historical truth why do you believe Jesus' resurrection was?
---Warwick on 5/26/14|
As long as I keep my eyes on the Son of GOD I do not care.
---Samuelbb7 on 5/26/14|
Are we talking our 6 days of man or God's 6 days? There is a diffrence. Peter said one day with God is as a thousand years to man. His point is, it is more than you can understand. This is were believers miss it God is not limited or suject to us. We can know him and understand his creation it is not hidden. Jesus gave that truth to whosoever. That is how the wise man found the baby Jesus.
---Bryan on 5/26/14|
Bryan, God spoke of the earth, and its day i.e. the time for the earth to complete one rotation on its axis, in relation to a fixed light-source. God does not live in time as 2 Peter 3:8 shows. Time was created for man-Genesis 1:8.
As Exodus 20:8-11 shows God wastalking in our terms, not in His-sunset, sunrise, evening, morning, east and west are all from our perspective.
The 6-days of work and 7th of rest are for man. Do you expect me to believe 6-days in verse 8 does not mean the same thing as 6-days in verse 11?
If you think they are different please give Scriptural or grammatical evidence to support your view.
If you don't believe Genesis is historical truth why do you believe Jesus' resurrection was?
---Warwick on 5/26/14|
Bryan: "May [sic] life in Christ Jesus is not based on how old the sun or the earth or time itself. It is based on the love God gave."
Good! Jesus said:
Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
One of His Commandments requires that you count the number of your work days and rest on the seventh one, as He has made it (only) holy. As Warwick has pointed out, this Commandment is meaningless unless He meant ordinary ~24 hour days. Do you think that God gives meaningless Commandments?
---jerry6593 on 5/26/14|
Why did you not answer the question Warwick asked you? You had suggested that a day was different with God, and so the six day creation is not really six days.
So what is your answer?
You went around the question and did not answer it. Why? Agape
---Luke on 5/26/14|
There are so many precepts concepts understandings and misunderstandings and translations. But a child can understand. How did John see the beginning and the end in a moment of time? Then he wrote a book called Revelations on the Lords Day. His days are not like our days his time is not like our time.
---Bryan on 5/26/14|
The Sun formed about 4.567 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a region within a large molecular cloud. Most of the matter gathered in the center, while the rest flattened into an orbiting disk that would become the Solar System.
---Blogger9211 on 5/26/14|
Brian, on what rational basis can anyone reject what God's word says in one place, then accept what it says in another place?
---Warwick on 5/25/14|
Warwick do you honestly think a day to God is the same to us? I think not.
---Bryan on 5/25/14|
May life in Christ Jesus is not based on how old the sun or the earth or time itself. It is based on the love God gave. No man has given anything close to what was given to me in the word "Jesus". If you need those answers you can search them out and find those answers,Jesus said "all secrets would be revealed" was he lying I think not he would not have said it if it was not true.
---Bryan on 5/25/14|
Bryan, "Six days you shall labour, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God..." Exodus 20:9,10.
Why did God tell Israel to work 6-days and rest the seventh?
He says "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day."
God uses the exact same words to describe His 6-days of creation and their 6-days of work, so both are the same c24hr length. Otherwise this Commandment is meaningless.
Please tell me how the exact same wording does not mean the exact same thing?
---Warwick on 5/25/14|
God is outside of time. He is from everlasting to everlasting. No one can time Him.
As to the question,
The Sun and everything in the heavens has the same time. They were called and they appeared when the heavens were created, and they appeared at the exact age God wanted them to be. Of course scientist will say it is millions of years old, but that is because they do not believe in God. Agape
---Luke on 5/25/14|
How long is a day with God? Don't say 24 hour peroid cause you were not there to time it.
---Bryan on 5/24/14|
It was here before me, so it is at least 50 years old or so.
---aka on 5/24/14|
The same age as the earth - about six thousand years.
The Bible seems to indicate that both the earth and sun were created within the first week.
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth
---jerry6593 on 5/24/14|
Over 7 thousand years.
---Bryan on 5/23/14|