I don't believe it says God gave him all of the old testament only really the commandments and jewish law. Moses speaks to God on several occasions through exodus.

Here is the first.

...

Then again



I guess those are poor examples. It says God's angel and then just the voice...

Here's a larger excerpt of exod 33 11



The Tent outside the Camp
7 Now Moses used to take the tent and pitch it outside the camp, far off from the camp; he called it the tent of meeting. And everyone who sought the Lord would go out to the tent of meeting, which was outside the camp. 8 Whenever Moses went out to the tent, all the people would rise and stand, each of them, at the entrance of their tents and watch Moses until he had gone into the tent. 9 When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the entrance of the tent, and the Lord would speak with Moses. 10 When all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent, all the people would rise and bow down, all of them, at the entrance of their tent. 11 Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then he would return to the camp; but his young assistant, Joshua son of Nun, would not leave the tent.

Moses’ Intercession
12 Moses said to the Lord, “See, you have said to me, ‘Bring up this people’; but you have not let me know whom you will send with me. Yet you have said, ‘I know you by name, and you have also found favor in my sight.’ 13 Now if I have found favor in your sight, show me your ways, so that I may know you and find favor in your sight. Consider too that this nation is your people.”

What's the text say, what did God reveal. And no, God doesn't need to rest, that was a pattern for us.

That's a faith proposition for the religion of Scientism.

I don't think it's canonical. Might have some history worth reading.

Sounds like faith propositions of the religion of Scientism. We don't know really how it all started, we just believe omnipotent matter and energy did it.

How this thread hasn’t gotten a Troll rating yet is beyond me.

I'm a Protestant that knows what he is protesting, like pretty much every reformer from the 16th-18th century I have an extremely low view of the papacy and the priesthood, and thoroughly believe without a doubt that the RCC anathematized the gospel at Trent, so yes, I am extremely suspicious of RC'S actually being Christians.

Yeah, I figured. How does that square with your "the vast majority of the church believed for more than a thousand years" line of reasoning?

You are whipping that up. Their stance is they don't currently have enough information to make claims about where matter came from or how life started. That's all. What you said is a common tactic for people to feel more comfortable about faith when they feel attacked. "They are in the same boat as me"... you are trying to say that the scientific method also uses faith so your use of faith is equally valid.

I am actually trying to see your point of view.

I really do appreciate that you speak of a time of "pre-existance.

And, that stars aren't just moving away, but space is expanding. That touches on God's placing them in the firmament. (Imagine that being spoken of so many thousands of years ago, almost like He knew it was more than a vacuum [sarcasm] ).

Your correcting me with the idea that the big bang (from a small point but maybe "not like on tv") is an absolute. I'll just have to let that one go.

My observation is little more than common sense. I may miss some things, but the egg heads that can make artwork of numbers, letters, and symbols AND understand what they all mean as they work together, my hat's off to them. Having said that, do you remember (or regard) Stephen Hawking? My youngest son wanted his book "A Brief Moment in Time". This was about 2004 or so. Not long after that, 6 months or a year later, Stephen H. went on a stage in front of an audience of about 200 of his peers to address his finding that many of his theories that he based that book on were unprovable.
 This was an article in the Shreveport Times. (I didn't cut it out to put in a scrap book for future proof). I bring this up today for 2 reasons.
  1: science is only relevant for however long the scientific community accepts it.
  2: you've gotta understand that scientists can be as competitive as any NFL linebacker on the field. I haven't done a lot of looking, but I don't see many publicly acknowledging futile results.
  In this case, Stephen H. was quite the gentleman in acknowledging his finding when noone was prompting him.

Medical science. Hmmmm. If you could quantify the advances made over the last 150 years, I'd have to admit that it has helped a little. But that's about it. A little.

I don't accept man's stance apart from The Word of God.

My philosophy does not end at all with the bible in the sense you are saying. Anymore than it ended with Issac Newton. We may endeavor to find how the mysteries of creation and glorify God in the process. The problem is that when atheistic scientist pass off evidence for billions of years because they needed those billions of year to validate evolution, they cooked the books. I don't believe in billions of years, I don't believe that because 1. God says it's not true and 2. I don't think they proved it, and there better explanations that don't contradict the sculptures.  The idea that because I believe the bible means I just stop there is non-sequitur. I never said such a thing nor implied it. Scientists can make all they cool things they want, I'll enjoy them if I can. And talking about stopping...you think macro evolution will ever be given up by atheists? You think billions of years will ever be given up by atheists...never. Those are non-falsifiable tents of the faith of Scientism.

And why must guys like you ALWAYS get personal with your accusations of "Enjoy your scientific ignorance and false sense of superiority". Seems hypocritical, when you display the very thing you accuse me of.

Moses wrote the 1st 5 books of the bible...you can ask the Jews. Jesus signed off on this.

If you needed heart surgery now vs 150 years ago I don't think you would feel the same way. How about an x-ray or MRI? Need some blood, hope they give the right blood type.


Also, the advances in the medical field do not attack your faith or religion. SOME scientists may be against a god and religion, but don't throw out the scientific method.

While you're thinking about that, the thread presses on. But never fear, almost all threads come to an end.

I was always a fan of this one.

Before creation there was nothing, an empty dark space. However, in this emptiness, there existed a spirit of their creator, Kishelamàkânk. Eventually in that emptiness, he fell asleep. While he slept, he dreamt of the world as we know it today, the Earth with mountains, forests, and animals. He also dreamt up man, and he saw the ceremonies man would perform. Then he woke up from his dream to the same nothingness he was living in before. Kishelamàkânk then started to create the Earth as he had dreamt it.

First, he created helper spirits, the Grandfathers of the North, East, and West, and the Grandmother of the South. Together, they created the Earth just as Kishelamàkânk had dreamt it. One of their final acts was creating a special tree. From the roots of this tree came the first man, and when the tree bent down and kissed the ground, woman sprang from it.

All the animals and humans did their jobs on the Earth, until eventually a problem arose. There was a tooth of a giant bear that could give the owner magical powers, and the humans started to fight over it. Eventually, the wars got so bad that people moved away, and made new tribes and new languages. Kishelamàkânk saw this fighting and decided to send down a spirit, Nanapush, to bring everyone back together. He went on top of a mountain and started the first Sacred Fire, which gave off a smoke that caused all the people of the world to come investigate what it was. When they all came, Nanapush created a pipe with a sumac branch and a soapstone bowl, and the creator gave him Tobacco to smoke with. Nanapush then told the people that whenever they fought with each other, to sit down and smoke tobacco in the pipe, and they would make decisions that were good for everyone.

The same bear tooth later caused a fight between two evil spirits, a giant toad and an evil snake. The toad was in charge of all the waters, and amidst the fighting he ate the tooth and the snake. The snake then proceeded to bite his side, releasing a great flood upon the Earth. Nanapush saw this destruction and began climbing a mountain to avoid the flood, all the while grabbing animals that he saw and sticking them in his sash. At the top of the mountain there was a cedar tree that he started to climb, and as he climbed he broke off limbs of the tree. When he got to the top of the tree, he pulled out his bow, played it and sang a song that made the waters stop. Nanapush then asked which animal he could put the rest of the animals on top of in the water. The turtle volunteered saying he'd float and they could all stay on him, and that's why they call the land turtle island.

Nanapush then decided the turtle needed to be bigger for everyone to live on, so he asked the animals if one of them would dive down into the water to get some of the old Earth. The beaver tried first, but came up dead and Nanapush had to revive him. The loon tried second, but its attempt ended with the same fate. Lastly, the muskrat tried. He stayed down the longest, and came up dead as well, but he had some Earth on his nose that Nanapush put on the Turtles back. Because of his accomplishment, Nanapush told the muskrat he was blessed and his kind would always thrive in the land.

Nanapush then took out his bow and again sang, and the turtle started to grow. It kept growing, and Nanapush sent out animals to try to get to the edge to see how long it had grown. First, he sent the bear, and the bear returned in two days saying he had reached the end. Next, he sent out the deer, who came back in two weeks saying he had reached the end. Finally, he sent the wolf, and the wolf never returned because the land had gotten so big. The Lenape claim that this is why the wolf howls, that it is really a call for their ancestor to come back home.

God doesn't say how old the earth is.

Got me, do tell. faithful Jews never viewed it as canonical. If you're speaking of the RCC, yeah I don't agree with them on that. History of the church isn't some take it all or leave it all. Man made history isn't perfect, nor are all the things various churches and denoms have believed and practiced the same as scriptural history, but it does give some valuable insight into what people in the church believed in the past.

I am not arguing that they are not written by Moses. (Though there is debate on that) my argument was that the bible does not explicitly state that God gave moses those books in the telling of Moses.

If you'd be so kind to quote Jesus confirmation of this that would be nice.

It does say God dictated the laws to him.

I'm not going to ask the jews they don't even believe Jesus was the Messiah.

I also wouldn't ask a modern greek to translate the new testament cause they don't speak ancient greek

They come up with various scenarios of how things might of happen, but to think that they would entertain the idea that God did it is laughable. Atheists will never give up abiogenesis, or billions of years, it's a tenet of the faithful.

Not directly, but we have biblical genealogies from Adam to Jesus. We have the ages of the patriarchs.  From those we can calculate the age of the earth and the universe.

This is a valid observation. I don't think they entertain the idea because it isn't testable beyond the initial assertion. The argument for god has been made for the past few hundred or thousand years depending on what religion you believe in. Outside of faith and scripture, there isn't a way to prove or falsify god or the events described in the bible. So I don't think the bible has been outright rejected, it's argument has reached maturity, it cannot be explored any further unless you have the means to demonstrate it beyond rereading scripture.

If there was evidence today of a god that was observable, measurable, and repeatable I think scientists would thoroughly investigate. Maybe a few would outright reject it, but the majority if they were true scientists would have to accept.

John 5:46-47
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

It was common knowledge amongst the Jews of that period that Moses wrote the 1st 5 books. Jesus never chastises anyone one for that understand, but here validates it.

Abiogenesis is totally untestable, yet they believe it and then pass it off to the public as fact. Again, the bible is a history book, not a science book. You either believe it or you don't. The whole issue of the original article was the compromise the OE creationists engage in by smuggling atheistic faith propositions and bogus views into the church, thus undermining the faith.

Faithful jews in Jesus's era used the Septaugint, which included books you consider apocryphal.

All it would take is a miracle...

But it isn't really true that atheists (or scientists) don't ever entertain the idea of a God. The existence of a God isn't even a question of theism really, but of deism.

The real issue is the vesting of divine authority in claims made by human beings, which is the only way to characterize what it means to believe in God or not.

Ok but not direct dictations from God up to the point of God telling him to take the people out of Isreal... And even then it's quoting things God said to him and not God being like to write this. Until the commandements

It would seem Jesus was referring to this.

14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,

“Cursed are you above all livestock
   and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
   and you will eat dust
   all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
   between you and the woman,
   and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush[b] your head,
   and you will strike his heel.”

Or maybe deut 18

Abiogenesis is not stated as fact it is a theory.

The canon was influx when the Septuagint was being translated. Jesus, nor the Apostles ever quoted or referred to those sections. Moses, the prophets, and the Psalms are referenced and quoted from. Don't think it's canonical except in the RCC, maybe the EO. I'm neither.

That's one place, a preincarnate Christ would have been among the 3 persons who visited Abraham about Sodom.

What are your thoughts on the water canopy?

They believe it as fact, they present it as fact to the public.

Theory...a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

It's the prevailing view, with nothing really on the horizon to replace it. Since they don't believe God did it, it's all they have and have faith that it is true.

I haven't read through this whole thread, but feel the need to comment on this part. I am a scientist and work with many others who are not atheists. I teach evolution at a university (not Darwinism, the modern synthesis). I start out each semester by laying out the false dichotomy that understanding science is in conflict with believing in god and I make it extremely clear that there is no way science can reject god on a philosophical basis because acts of god are not understandable or testable or observable. People get confused by the fact that you can not do science if you need to use god as an explanation for anything, because you can't understand Him. I say clearly out loud to 100+ students that there is no evidence that god was not involved in how species changed over time and that there never will be. However, I also assert that one would be foolish to not believe what they can test and see with their own eyes simply due to an overly dogmatic belief in the bible. Evolution has happened, and the earth is old. It is up to you to accept that that could have been part of God's design. Otherwise you end up in this ridiculous philosophical quagmire. The philosophy of science and the philosophy of religion are both critical to your endeavor to understand your existence. Just because you don't grasp this, you assert that everyone who understands science and evolution must be an atheist, which is frankly offensive. My belief is that God would not intend for people to live in the dark ages forever and would want us to use science to the best of our abilities.

Also, abiogenesis is treated as a possibility and is known to be undemonstrated. Again, we realize that it could have been caused by god even if we can understand some very basic concepts regarding what it would involve. It is nowhere nearly as well understood as evolution and no one says it is.

Nothing but bananas for this dumpster fire of a thread.

The text says day. Before a day was even defined. Follow me here; We are definitely more learned today vs then. Concepts that are common knowledge to the entire world today could not be understood or processed by people of that time. Some of the Bible makes more sense today. There's sometimes science in the Bible hidden in child-like wording: Gen 1:4; God created mass and it's force, gravity. The concept of mass and gravity had not yet been discovered, so the scriptures state he created a "vault" or "sphere" (depending on the translation) to separate the waters. It's seem perfectly reasonable to me that "day" was simply used for our understanding, and as you stated, to establish a pattern.

Why does a longer period than 6 days seem reasonable to me? Because of Gen 1 and Gen 2.

In Gen 1: On the Sixth day God created Man, Woman, and every living land creature.
In Gen 2: This goes into a lot more detail. Gen 1 states man and woman were created on the same day. Gen 2 shows that would have been a very, very busy day for Adam. God placed him in Eden to work and care for it. Enough time passed that God decided Adam shouldn't be alone so brought all livestock, wild animals, and birds to him to see if one of them would be a suitable helper. Unless you believe in evolution, which I know you don't, that's all animals alive today and extinct. Not only did Adam not find a suitable helper, he also named them all. God then put Adam to sleep and made Eve.

So to recap, God made everything land and air based, placed Adam in the garden, after a few minutes(?) realized Adam should have companion, brought creation to the garden for an interview, Adam gave them all names, Adam took a really long nap, God made Eve from a rib. That sounds like a very, very long day..... However, pre fall of man, cognitive abilities would have been much greater and if God chose to - for lack of better words - teleport or project the animals to him (actually this is what I'm talking about not having understanding of something beyond our comprehension, lol), I suppose Adam could have named them all in one day.

#1 I have no idea what god you are talking about. 2# I never said that all scientists are atheists nor implied it #3 I don't agree whatsoever that that the modern synthesis-macro evolution has taken place. #4 did you bother to read the article? #5 I have no problem with operational science whatsoever, the problem is with historical science, and churchmen smuggling in things like billions of years or something like theistic evolution. You sound like one of those, compromised, IDK, since I really don't know which god you speak of. The one in the bible? Let me ask you point blank...is God's word your ultimate authority or science? And if you're offended, I'm offend that you teach what you teach.

I read part of the first page of this thread when it started and said I haven't read it all. I was commenting on your statement that I quoted, which very clearly implies that you do not believe any scientist involved in evolution would allow the possibility of god. I pasted it below again in case you don't think you wrote that. You were talking about the "religion of Scientism" specifically when you used "they" below, which you are ostensibly lumping all evolutionary biologists into as atheists. I'm sure you can also see how it would give the impression you feel that way about all scientists.



Also, I'm out. What I said I believe to be true and accurate and this style of arguing isn't for me.

I didn't imply anything like that. I was speaking of all atheistic scientists, not all scientists. If you had read me more and the article you would see that I and Creation.com believe there are professing Christians scientists that believe in billions of years, and some believe things like theistic evolution. I don't know of any that would believe the foolishness of abiogenesis. And if you don't like what I'm saying, then enjoy the rest of your night.

See there in what you quoted..."Atheists". My statement stands.

Eh. No.  That's not at all correct.


The Muslims believe that the Quran was literally dictated to Mohammed, by Allah, via the Angel Jibreel (Gabriel).  Thus it is the literal Word of God, not Mohammed (he's literally just the Secretary), and is inherently infallible.


Jews and Christians believe that Scripture was Revealed to Mankind, through the experiences of Prophets and Patriarchs, who then recounted (Abraham/Isaac/Jacob, for instance, didn't write down the Book of Genesis, but passed it along as an oral tradition until it was first written down, centuries later) those experiences IN THEIR OWN WORDS, within their own frames of reference.  Divine Inspiration is not Divine Dictation, and is not Infallible*.  

That's in addition to the canonicity issue.  Is the Book of Enoch divinely inspired, and thus part of the canon? The Ethiopian Orthodox think so, but everyone else dropped it out of the canon early on.  The OT and NT themselves make reference to Scriptures that we've lost (Book of Jasher, etc).  If Scripture was Infallible, it would not be subject to Committee selections (canonization) and Infallible books of the Scripture could literally NOT be lost (God would not allow any part of His messages to be withheld from future generations through no fault of theirs, so lost books would immediately resurface in an unmistakable way, no matter what).

Scripture is Inspired by God, but written by Man, in his own words, and is subject to all the frailties inherent therein.




*-literally, we are still arguing over the meaning of individual words, we've lost knowledge of the meaning of some references (nobody knows WTH "gopherwood" is, anymore, and we just use "cedar" or "cypress" as placeholders), and the uncertainty of which definition of "cubit" is used means that the Jews cannot rebuild the Temple (absent Divine Intervention, which for the Second Temple, took the form of three Prophets literally guiding the building process).  If Scripture was itself inherently Infallible, we'd have none of those problems.

What about the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, who broke with the Roman Church centuries before Trent, and did not recognize Papal authority, and were not guilty of the abuses delineated by Luther?

Okay, you found a flawed point. But the overall average age hasn't multiplied in such a way as medical advances would seem to provide.
  When Mrs BrownShoes was on the unnamed floor of the unnamed hospital, I was politely advised to stop turning her O2 supply up every time the nurse walked out of the room. I was assured that keeping her O2 supply turned down, this would allow for her lungs to strengthen and then she could go home. After the hospitalist left, I turned it up again. The next day, her pulmonologist drained 2 liters off one side and one liter off the other. They moved her to another floor. I think it was 6 days later the pulmonologist came in with the word "cancer". She lived 1 week more.
  This was after, for about 3 years, she asked her doctor for a xrays to check for any lung cancer development. This is what her mother died from.

Don't worry about me. I'm not some anti-medical wacko. I have high praise for the pulmonologist. He placed tubes in her chest and trained me so I could drain them at home. This was 4 days before July 28, 2022. I never had to drain them.

When did the canon stop being in flux for the OT and NT?
Who had the authority to determine it wasn't in flux?

You were presented with a reasonable person's perspective, who if we assume isn't lying is a member of the "scientist" group we are painting with a large brush. They even said they don't refute God or religious traditions. But you reject them and call them compromised. My only further comment is you wonder why there are more and more agnostics, atheists, and areligious Americans look no further than your viewpoints. I'm sure you won't see it that way but I've been on both sides of the fence and have had lots of friends in both arenas.

He's compromised because he teaches a form of evolution and billions of years, he's not reasonable because he said I lump all scientists into the atheistic camp...not true. And people make all kinds of lame excuses for not believing in Jesus, oh, look that naughty Tom said whatever, so I'll confuse him with Jesus and reject them both. I was pretty polite to the guy considering he came in here all offended, just didn't agree with him and said so, lots of people have don't worse to me in this thread, but I expected the heat. Have a splendid night.

Well, I'll have to look that up, but I think it was a couple of hundred years. God has the authority, not some pope. God working faith in His people to believe what is scripture and what isn't. If you think the pope has the authority I'm against you.

This is getting pretty far afield, but I don't think the Orthodox have a proper view of justification, I don't agree with their priesthood, and I don't agree with their form of worship, especially icons.

Again, which books of the bible are erroneous? If you say this book has errors or that book, have you not now made yourself the authority over scripture? I look at what did Jesus and the Apostle view as scripture (OT), they never quote, refer to anything other than Moses, the prophets, history and the Psalms. There is no dispute among the major divisions of Christiandom about the canon of thee NT that I'm aware of.

I didn't say any of them were erroneous (as they aren't scientific texts, Genesis is under no obligation to be scientifically accurate......although, all but a directly-no-exceptions Literalist reading of Genesis still allows it to line up neatly with our understanding of the Universe, the prehistory of Mankind (hell, there's more evidence for a Deluge-like event now, and a seperate-but-Biblically-congruent population bottleneck in homo sapiens, than there was 50 years ago).  In terms of guidance towards Salvation (which is the purpose of the Scriptures, with literally every other bit of info in there just context for that Instruction), the accepted books of the Bible appear perfectly error-free (especially after exegetical study, where apparent contradictions resolve themselves), in that the moral lessons of Genesis are perfectly aligned (in a historical, gradual fashion) with all the following Books.

The fact that Genesis doesn't come out and inform us of the laws of Quantum Mechanics, by which our constituent atoms are structured and brought into existence and then transformed.....isn't relevant to the instructional purpose of the Book of Genesis (God created the Universe, made Earth, made Man, gave him preeminent status in Creation, Man Fell, God begins the moral instruction of Humanity, Wickedness, Deluge, Patriarchs, etc).



We know that we are missing, from the NT, at least two Epistles (Paul directly refers to "earlier" letters to the Corinthians and Ephesians, in 1st Corinthians and Ephesians).  The Book of Enoch (not lost, but only canonized by the Ethiopians....and nobody in the Orthodox or Catholic churches wants to revisit which books are canonical) is mentioned by name in Jude, 2 Peter, and John.  The Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres is mentioned in 2 Timothy.

The OT refers to things like the Book of Jasher (in Joshua, Samuel, and Timothy in the NT), by name.  Missing. Numbers refers to The Book of the Wars of the Lord, by name. Missing.  At least (IIRC) a dozen other missing books are mentioned by name (mostly in Chronicles).


These weren't rejected non-canonical books (because, hey, if the Prophets and Apostles are mentioning them.....that's a pretty strong recommendation), tossed out by the Church Fathers.  They were books that, by the time we first sat down to assemble the Scriptures ('member, the Early Church likely didn't have 100% of the Canon at any one time in any one place, so different groups of Christians would have had different sets of Scriptures, some Books of which were later deemed apocryphal, for the first 300+ years of the Church), nobody had access to anymore.  They were lost.  So seemingly valid/canonical Books of Scripture are lost to us.....so Infallibility (which is a supernatural quality, which would perforce include a divine protection against being "lost") of Scripture is kind of out, as a concept.

as far as the science goes, nobody knows.

first of all time is not stationary. what passes for an hour on earth is nowhere near an hour on jupiter. indeed the example often given is that standing on an event horizon, you would watch the entirety of earth from its formation to its cold thermodynamic conclusion in a few seconds. if people on earth could see you, you would be frozen in. . . time. this really makes it confusing as hell - because god could have easily made everything in a few minutes. it would have passed as billions or trillions of years here in this universe. so would you write 'from gods reference frame it was a few minutes' or would you write 'from a 3rd party observer' or what you write 'in the current universe billions of years'? would a deity speak from its own reference frame to establish its unique position or would it speak in the terms of its audience?

let's assume all time is perfectly synchronized. that is, let's assume gravity doesn't affect time like the above examples and just assume we all have the same time. we still don't know what time it is for several reasons. first - isotope dating is not a peer reviewed methodology. that is, you can't take uranium's halflife and divide until it makes sense. this is because all isotopes are grounded on assumptions that are provably untrue. this is what most old earth evidence is based on. and of course the most damning of all: james webb telescope. apparently, all planets used to have a date because we thought we understood time and planet formation. we at least had 'minimum requirements' for planet formation. but apparently, the JWT found a bunch of planets that can't exist in our current timeline. this is why we know we don't know - all of our theories on time were proven inconsistent. it's very much like someone proving 1+1 = 3. our entire foundation of adding and multiplying needs complete renovation.

this also goes into some really interesting interpretations of god creating stuff. for example, god created plants. and THEN he created shores and the moon. and science now corroborates that - the official curriculum of any university - usa or europe or asia now teaches that plants on earth were created first before the earth. necessarily, evolution took much longer than the age of the earth. so the DNA and the environment for evolution must have preceeded earth by an extreme margin. which means we are all aliens - just like the bible says. the bible doesn't say earth plants were on earth. just that earth plants were created long before earth. and that weirdly checks out.

the people who claim there is a 'young earth' or an 'old earth' are people who failed out of college.