Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

How Old Is The Earth According To The Bible?

70 posts in this topic

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

You seem to be working from the assumption that God created a world completely covered with water prior to verse 2.   Am I reading that correctly?

 

 

Yes, its what the bible is saying in verse 1 and in verse 2. The land only appears in day 3, so right up to day 3 the entire surface is an ocean.

 

Before day 1: "the earth was formless and empty,darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters

 

Also before Day 1: And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 

 

Day 1:   God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

 

Am I missing something?  Maybe I am.  A Jewish day starts from the evening, so there's a dark earth, and waters, then there's light, and only then does the first day start as evening falls. 

Edited by ARGOSY
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

You seem to be working from the assumption that God created a world completely covered with water prior to verse 2.   Am I reading that correctly?

 

 

Yes, its what the bible is saying in verse 1 and in verse 2. The land only appears in day 3, so right up to day 3 the entire surface is an ocean.

 

Before day 1: "the earth was formless and empty,darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters

 

Also before Day 1: And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 

 

Day 1:   God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

 

Am I missing something?  Maybe I am.  A Jewish day starts from the evening, so there's a dark earth, and waters, then there's light, and only then does the first day start as evening falls. 

 

That is not before day 1.   Those things are ON day one.    The creation and separation light from darkness all occur and complete the first day.  Day one starts in verse 2 with nothing but emptiness and chaos.

 

As for "evening," I need to clarify something.  The Jewish day starts at sundown.   "Evening" from an ancient Jewish reckoning, began at noon.  They didn't differentiate the way we do between afternoon and evening.   So the evening began at high noon and the morning starts at midnight and goes through until noon. Evening to morning isn't "sundown to morning."

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

You seem to be working from the assumption that God created a world completely covered with water prior to verse 2.   Am I reading that correctly?

 

 

Yes, its what the bible is saying in verse 1 and in verse 2. The land only appears in day 3, so right up to day 3 the entire surface is an ocean.

 

Before day 1: "the earth was formless and empty,darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters

 

Also before Day 1: And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 

 

Day 1:   God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

 

Am I missing something?  Maybe I am.  A Jewish day starts from the evening, so there's a dark earth, and waters, then there's light, and only then does the first day start as evening falls. 

 

That is not before day 1.   Those things are ON day one.    The creation and separation light from darkness all occur and complete the first day.  Day one starts in verse 2 with nothing but emptiness and chaos.

 

As for "evening," I need to clarify something.  The Jewish day starts at sundown.   "Evening" from an ancient Jewish reckoning, began at noon.  They didn't differentiate the way we do between afternoon and evening.   So the evening began at high noon and the morning starts at midnight and goes through until noon. Evening to morning isn't "sundown to morning."

 

:)  Even as you describe it, it changes nothing.  The earth, the waters , the darkness all existed.  THEN the light exists, its only when the light appears that a day can start (at noon as you say).  Its impossible for the dark earth to be created during day one, when day one only starts when the light appears. Its an absolute contradiction. The text, whether analysed in depth, or whether we read it quickly to get an impression, is clearly stating the the formless dark watery earth existed before the first day and night. You can try and squirm out of it, but every one who is honest with the text can see as clear as daylight (excuse the pun) that the bible does not hold a YEC position. Planet earth existed for an unknown period before creation week began, it was dark and so there were no days to count then. We only start counting days when the light appears.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

You seem to be working from the assumption that God created a world completely covered with water prior to verse 2.   Am I reading that correctly?

 

 

Yes, its what the bible is saying in verse 1 and in verse 2. The land only appears in day 3, so right up to day 3 the entire surface is an ocean.

 

Before day 1: "the earth was formless and empty,darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters

 

Also before Day 1: And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 

 

Day 1:   God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

 

Am I missing something?  Maybe I am.  A Jewish day starts from the evening, so there's a dark earth, and waters, then there's light, and only then does the first day start as evening falls. 

 

That is not before day 1.   Those things are ON day one.    The creation and separation light from darkness all occur and complete the first day.  Day one starts in verse 2 with nothing but emptiness and chaos.

 

As for "evening," I need to clarify something.  The Jewish day starts at sundown.   "Evening" from an ancient Jewish reckoning, began at noon.  They didn't differentiate the way we do between afternoon and evening.   So the evening began at high noon and the morning starts at midnight and goes through until noon. Evening to morning isn't "sundown to morning."

 

:)  Even as you describe it, it changes nothing.  The earth, the waters , the darkness all existed.  THEN the light exists, its only when the light appears that a day can start (at noon as you say).  Its impossible for the dark earth to be created during day one, when day one only starts when the light appears. Its an absolute contradiction. The text, whether analysed in depth, or whether we read it quickly to get an impression, is clearly stating the the formless dark watery earth existed before the first day and night. You can try and squirm out of it, but every one who is honest with the text can see as clear as daylight (excuse the pun) that the bible does not hold a YEC position. Planet earth existed for an unknown period before creation week began, it was dark and so there were no days to count then. We only start counting days when the light appears.

 

First of all, you don't know when the water appeared, so you cannot argue against YEC position.   If you are working from the assumption that an water covered planet existed for millions of years, you are simply operating in the realm of assumption or speculation.  Your argument does not discount the YEC position, as you cannot prove that anything was around for millions of years, much less a solid created planet.

 

The first problem with your position  is that you are treating Genesis 1:1 as depicting a creative event somewhere in the indeterminate past. 

 

The next problem is how we handle verse 2.    The phrase "without form and void (Heb. tohu v'bohu) is a figure of speech known as hendiadys that emphaises a deep, empty chaotic waste.  It wasn't a planet covered in water.  Tohu v'bohu defies the notion of a created planet that is covered with a solid body of water.  The waters at the end of verse two do not refer to something akin to an ocean.   It isn't until the third day that the waters were gathered together to create oceans and seas and the dry land appeared.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

The next problem is how we handle verse 2.    The phrase "without form and void (Heb. tohu v'bohu) is a figure of speech known as hendiadys that emphaises a deep, empty chaotic waste.  It wasn't a planet covered in water.  Tohu v'bohu defies the notion of a created planet that is covered with a solid body of water.  The waters at the end of verse two do not refer to something akin to an ocean.   It isn't until the third day that the waters were gathered together to create oceans and seas and the dry land appeared.

 

 

wait, if dry land didn't appear till the 3rd day, then prior to that the earth was covered with a solid body of water, since there was no dry land to break up that body of water

Edited by LookingForAnswers
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

 

 

 

 

You seem to be working from the assumption that God created a world completely covered with water prior to verse 2.   Am I reading that correctly?

 

 

Yes, its what the bible is saying in verse 1 and in verse 2. The land only appears in day 3, so right up to day 3 the entire surface is an ocean.

 

Before day 1: "the earth was formless and empty,darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters

 

Also before Day 1: And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 

 

Day 1:   God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

 

Am I missing something?  Maybe I am.  A Jewish day starts from the evening, so there's a dark earth, and waters, then there's light, and only then does the first day start as evening falls. 

 

That is not before day 1.   Those things are ON day one.    The creation and separation light from darkness all occur and complete the first day.  Day one starts in verse 2 with nothing but emptiness and chaos.

 

As for "evening," I need to clarify something.  The Jewish day starts at sundown.   "Evening" from an ancient Jewish reckoning, began at noon.  They didn't differentiate the way we do between afternoon and evening.   So the evening began at high noon and the morning starts at midnight and goes through until noon. Evening to morning isn't "sundown to morning."

 

:)  Even as you describe it, it changes nothing.  The earth, the waters , the darkness all existed.  THEN the light exists, its only when the light appears that a day can start (at noon as you say).  Its impossible for the dark earth to be created during day one, when day one only starts when the light appears. Its an absolute contradiction. The text, whether analysed in depth, or whether we read it quickly to get an impression, is clearly stating the the formless dark watery earth existed before the first day and night. You can try and squirm out of it, but every one who is honest with the text can see as clear as daylight (excuse the pun) that the bible does not hold a YEC position. Planet earth existed for an unknown period before creation week began, it was dark and so there were no days to count then. We only start counting days when the light appears.

 

First of all, you don't know when the water appeared, so you cannot argue against YEC position.   If you are working from the assumption that an water covered planet existed for millions of years, you are simply operating in the realm of assumption or speculation.  Your argument does not discount the YEC position, as you cannot prove that anything was around for millions of years, much less a solid created planet.

 

The first problem with your position  is that you are treating Genesis 1:1 as depicting a creative event somewhere in the indeterminate past. 

 

The next problem is how we handle verse 2.    The phrase "without form and void (Heb. tohu v'bohu) is a figure of speech known as hendiadys that emphaises a deep, empty chaotic waste.  It wasn't a planet covered in water.  Tohu v'bohu defies the notion of a created planet that is covered with a solid body of water.  The waters at the end of verse two do not refer to something akin to an ocean.   It isn't until the third day that the waters were gathered together to create oceans and seas and the dry land appeared.

 

1)Im not working on assumptions here, the earth could be a lot older than 6000 years ago, the bible doesn't give any clues as to how long the earth was dark before the first light. I'm not claiming millions of years, but if you are claiming 6000 years it is you who would be making unbiblical assumptions.

 

2) It was a planet covered in waters:

Now the earth was formless and empty,darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

 

Read that? It says the earth. Obviously then the earth was without form and void, a deep empty chaotic waste. 

Edited by ARGOSY
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

We should all be scripturally honest enough to say that we don't know either way.  We should also recognise that thinking the Universe is old doesn't mean you have to believe in evolution or things like that.  That seems to be the Young Earth theorists biggest issue thinking old earth is pushing an evolutionary agenda.

 

Young earthers argue 'yom' ONLY means ONE day.  But it's been shown that all the rules and regulations put on the word were put there by young earth theorists.

 

We don't know much at all pre-Eden, or how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden.  We don't know if the Garden was a protected zone and outside the Garden may already be suffering the effects of Satan and the fallen angels sins.  It does seem Biblically accurate to say Satan had already been cast down prior to the Earth being formed into what Adam knew.

 

I will be honest enough to say I do not know.  The Bible does not say straight out and to put God in a box with man's knowledge is foolish either way.  What is a day to God?   What is 24 hours to an eternal being?  The Bible tells me a day is as a thousand years to God and time means nothing.  Time has always been for our benefit not God's.

 

In my younger life I was very interested in archeology, paleontology, history, geology, etc...  Let me tell you it is hard to say the Earth is 6,000 years old when you're standing in the shadow of a mountain cut in half.  When you can look up and count 10,000+ years of layers it makes you wonder.  But as a Christian it should NOT make us doubt God.  We also put words in God's mouth saying 'he says' the Earth is 6,000 years old.

 

Maybe God created Earth and the Universe with apparent age, maybe the speed of light was instant back then, maybe this or maybe that.  We won't know until we are in the arms of our loving savior.

 

The worst thing of all is people start to turn this into a salvational issue or condescend that you don't know your Bible.  You can believe in an old Earth and be saved and to say otherwise is absurd.

 

Like I said -I do not know- but I can also say -you do not know-.  None of us know and don't let it rip apart the unity of the Body of Christ.  We are all part of Christ's body and we should be doing 'His' work not laying division between ourselves.  We should be preaching to the lost but if that lost person can't believe in a young earth- they can still believe in Salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

One thing I can say for sure.  Being dogmatic on either side and it driving somebody away from the Lord it is to your shame.

 

Love you all!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

1)Im not working on assumptions here, the earth could be a lot older than 6000 years ago, the bible doesn't give any clues as to how long the earth was dark before the first light. I'm not claiming millions of years, but if you are claiming 6000 years it is you who would be making unbiblical assumptions.

 

Actually, if you followed my other posts in other threads, I have consistently argued that the earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old.  But my point is that your assertions are based on assumptions and so far, you really don't know anything.  You don't accept YEC, but you have provided NOTHING in this thread that actually refutes the YEC position.   

 

The OEC position essentially agrees with the assumption that the earth is 4.5 billion years old as scientists claim, yet have not proven.   Nothing you have presented up to this point proves that the YEC postion is wrong.

) It was a planet covered in waters:

No, tohu v'bohu defies the notion that verse two is talking about a solid planet covered in ocean-like water.   There is no form and the elements are in complete chaos. There is no order nothing uniform.  It is a chaotic and formless waste.     A planet covered with water indicates form and order and that simply doesn't jive with the Hebrew concepts of formless and empty.  The English is far less precise than Hebrew.

 

Read that? It says the earth. Obviously then the earth was without form and void, a deep empty chaotic waste. 

 

The condition of the defies the implication you seem to be making that the earth was simply land lurking beneath an ocean like body of water.  Water was present, but not in oceanic form in verse 2.

 

The Hebrew in verse two appears to present us with a chaotic orderless mass of elements and not a cohesive structure like a planet.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

To be accurate, we are all working from assumptions, be you a YEC or OEC or something else.  If there was proof one way or the other we would not be having this discussion.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

@WillfromTexas

 

"We should all be scripturally honest enough to say that we don't know either way."

 

I don't think anyone is trying to be dishonest..... and between what:  "Day-Age Theory"  or  "Gap Theory" ??

 

"Day-Age":  (Exodus 20:11) "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

 

Pretty clear cut to me.

 

"Gap Theory": Found this interesting....A Graduate Student writing his Master's Thesis concerning 'Christianity and Evolution' decided to ask the 20 leading Hebrew Scholars in the USA if there were any exegetical evidence to allow a Gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2....they all unanimously replied--------NO!

Henkel, M. (1950), “Fundamental Christianity and Evolution,” Modern Science and the Christian Faith, ed. F. Alton Everest  Wheaton, IL: Van Kampen Press, p.49

 

 

"We should also recognise that thinking the Universe is old doesn't mean you have to believe in evolution or things like that."

 

Very True 

 

 

"That seems to be the Young Earth theorists biggest issue thinking old earth is pushing an evolutionary agenda."

 

Well evolutionists do push it because they must...but it's dead either way.

 

 

"Young earthers argue 'yom' ONLY means ONE day."

 

That's because when it is modified by a numeral or ordinal in a historical narrative (As In the Genesis Account) it always means a literal 24 hour day...... 359 times in the OT outside of Genesis 1.  When it's modified by "evening and/or morning" it also means a literal 24 hour day....38 times outside Genesis 1.  So the basis for our thinking is supported by comparing Scripture with Scripture.

 

 

"But it's been shown that all the rules and regulations put on the word were put there by young earth theorists."

 

Say again??

 

"We don't know much at all pre-Eden, or how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden"

 

Pre-Eden??....formless and void?  How long?..... Genesis 5:3 states that Adam lived for 130 years.

 

 

"Let me tell you it is hard to say the Earth is 6,000 years old when you're standing in the shadow of a mountain cut in half.  When you can look up and count 10,000+ years of layers it makes you wonder." 

 

That's Your FEELING.  And how about that feeling when your looking up through those "layers" @ Polystrate Fossils (Trees) penetrating each layer?

 

 

"We also put words in God's mouth saying 'he says' the Earth is 6,000 years old."

 

It's an inference made using simple math derived the  Genealogy Lists provided.

 

"Maybe God created Earth and the Universe with apparent age, maybe the speed of light was instant back then, maybe this or maybe that.  We won't know until we are in the arms of our loving savior."

 

That's when you have to rightly divide the WORD of GOD.  For some issues the Bible is not clear for others it's CRYSTAL... then treat each accordingly

 

"The worst thing of all is people start to turn this into a salvational issue or condescend that you don't know your Bible.  You can believe in an old Earth and be saved and to say otherwise is absurd".

 

I Concur

 

"Like I said -I do not know- but I can also say -you do not know-."

 

Are you saying because you don't know something then it's unknowable by someone else?

 

 

"None of us know and don't let it rip apart the unity of the Body of Christ." 

 

Well I surely won't attempt to do that.  However, it is as Plain as "Day" to me and.......(2 Timothy 3:16) "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

 

I put my thoughts out there and support them.  Sometimes I get corrected (which I Love by the way :) ) because that helps me learn more about the LORD.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

To be accurate, we are all working from assumptions, be you a YEC or OEC or something else.  If there was proof one way or the other we would not be having this discussion.

I am working from the direct statements made by Scripture.  I have demonstrated from the genealogical records the Bible provides that going back to Adam the earth is no less than 6,000 years old.  

 

The "assumption" if you want to call it that, which I am working from is that the assumption that the Bible is true, inerrant and accurate and is the best authority on the issue of the age of the earth.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

To be accurate, we are all working from assumptions, be you a YEC or OEC or something else.  If there was proof one way or the other we would not be having this discussion.

I am working from the direct statements made by Scripture.  I have demonstrated from the genealogical records the Bible provides that going back to Adam the earth is no less than 6,000 years old.  

 

The "assumption" if you want to call it that, which I am working from is that the assumption that the Bible is true, inerrant and accurate and is the best authority on the issue of the age of the earth.

 

 

You are working on the assumption the days of creation were 24 hour days. 

I too am working from is that the assumption that the Bible is true, inerrant and accurate and is the best authority on the issue of the age of the earth, we just have a different assumption on the length of the creation "days".

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

So, Shiloh,

 

you said this...It wasn't a planet covered in water.  Tohu v'bohu defies the notion of a created planet that is covered with a solid body of water.  The waters at the end of verse two do not refer to something akin to an ocean.   It isn't until the third day that the waters were gathered together to create oceans and seas and the dry land appeared.

 

This statement is internally inconsistent.  In one sentence you say the whole earth was not covered by water and in the next you say that dry land didn't appear till day 3.  IF there was no dry land prior to day 3, which you claim and I agree with, then the whole earth was indeed covered with water.  There is no other option

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

So, Shiloh,

 

you said this...It wasn't a planet covered in water.  Tohu v'bohu defies the notion of a created planet that is covered with a solid body of water.  The waters at the end of verse two do not refer to something akin to an ocean.   It isn't until the third day that the waters were gathered together to create oceans and seas and the dry land appeared.

 

This statement is internally inconsistent.  In one sentence you say the whole earth was not covered by water and in the next you say that dry land didn't appear till day 3.  IF there was no dry land prior to day 3, which you claim and I agree with, then the whole earth was indeed covered with water.  There is no other option

You are reading a little more into what I said than what I was trying to say.

 

My point was that everything was in chaos which is what formless means from the word tohu.  The elements for dry land are there, but in chaos.   Notice the three-fold condtion of things listed in Gen. 1:2   tohu (chaotic, orderless)   bohu (empty, void, nothingness)   khoshek (darkness)    In creation, He deals with these things in reverse.

 

The first thing God does is deal with the darkness by creating light.

 

The second thing He does is bring order by creating the firmament, and causing the waters together into one place.  If they were already gathered into a solid oceanic spherical form, that would make no sense.   So the waters which were also in chaos are gathered into one place from their midst God orders and brings forth dry land. 

 

The third thing God does is fill the earth with vegitation birds, animals and people.  

 

So I don't really see the internal inconsistency problem that you seem bent on manufacturing.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

To be accurate, we are all working from assumptions, be you a YEC or OEC or something else.  If there was proof one way or the other we would not be having this discussion.

I am working from the direct statements made by Scripture.  I have demonstrated from the genealogical records the Bible provides that going back to Adam the earth is no less than 6,000 years old.  

 

The "assumption" if you want to call it that, which I am working from is that the assumption that the Bible is true, inerrant and accurate and is the best authority on the issue of the age of the earth.

 

 

You are working on the assumption the days of creation were 24 hour days. 

I too am working from is that the assumption that the Bible is true, inerrant and accurate and is the best authority on the issue of the age of the earth, we just have a different assumption on the length of the creation "days".

 

No, you have an assumption on the lengths of days.   I am going by what the Bible actually says.  I don't have to  draw an assumption on the length days.  The Bible already tells me the length of them. 

 

You are working from the assumption of an old earth and are having to modify the text of Scripture to fit that assumption.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

To be accurate, we are all working from assumptions, be you a YEC or OEC or something else.  If there was proof one way or the other we would not be having this discussion.

I am working from the direct statements made by Scripture.  I have demonstrated from the genealogical records the Bible provides that going back to Adam the earth is no less than 6,000 years old.  

 

The "assumption" if you want to call it that, which I am working from is that the assumption that the Bible is true, inerrant and accurate and is the best authority on the issue of the age of the earth.

 

 

You are working on the assumption the days of creation were 24 hour days. 

I too am working from is that the assumption that the Bible is true, inerrant and accurate and is the best authority on the issue of the age of the earth, we just have a different assumption on the length of the creation "days".

 

No, you have an assumption on the lengths of days.   I am going by what the Bible actually says.  I don't have to  draw an assumption on the length days.  The Bible already tells me the length of them. 

 

You are working from the assumption of an old earth and are having to modify the text of Scripture to fit that assumption.

 

 

Ok, I will make a deal with you.  Give me the passage that states unequivocally that the days of Genesis one are 24 hour days and I will agree you are not working from an assumption.  Should be easy enough for you since you claim the bible does this.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

To be accurate, we are all working from assumptions, be you a YEC or OEC or something else.  If there was proof one way or the other we would not be having this discussion.

I am working from the direct statements made by Scripture.  I have demonstrated from the genealogical records the Bible provides that going back to Adam the earth is no less than 6,000 years old.  

 

The "assumption" if you want to call it that, which I am working from is that the assumption that the Bible is true, inerrant and accurate and is the best authority on the issue of the age of the earth.

 

 

You are working on the assumption the days of creation were 24 hour days. 

I too am working from is that the assumption that the Bible is true, inerrant and accurate and is the best authority on the issue of the age of the earth, we just have a different assumption on the length of the creation "days".

 

No, you have an assumption on the lengths of days.   I am going by what the Bible actually says.  I don't have to  draw an assumption on the length days.  The Bible already tells me the length of them. 

 

You are working from the assumption of an old earth and are having to modify the text of Scripture to fit that assumption.

 

 

Ok, I will make a deal with you.  Give me the passage that states unequivocally that the days of Genesis one are 24 hour days and I will agree you are not working from an assumption.  Should be easy enough for you since you claim the bible does this.

 

As has been pointed out already, the Bible never uses yom except as literal 24 hours days in historical narratives.  Futhermore the ordinal numbers used in the chapter modify the noun, which means that both the number and noun agree in gender and number.  All of that speaks to the use of yom in the ordinary sense of a literal 24 hour day.

 

Furthermore, Exodus 20:11 refers to the days of creation in the same ordinary sense.   

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

 

 

 

 

To be accurate, we are all working from assumptions, be you a YEC or OEC or something else.  If there was proof one way or the other we would not be having this discussion.

I am working from the direct statements made by Scripture.  I have demonstrated from the genealogical records the Bible provides that going back to Adam the earth is no less than 6,000 years old.  

 

The "assumption" if you want to call it that, which I am working from is that the assumption that the Bible is true, inerrant and accurate and is the best authority on the issue of the age of the earth.

 

 

You are working on the assumption the days of creation were 24 hour days. 

I too am working from is that the assumption that the Bible is true, inerrant and accurate and is the best authority on the issue of the age of the earth, we just have a different assumption on the length of the creation "days".

 

No, you have an assumption on the lengths of days.   I am going by what the Bible actually says.  I don't have to  draw an assumption on the length days.  The Bible already tells me the length of them. 

 

You are working from the assumption of an old earth and are having to modify the text of Scripture to fit that assumption.

 

 

Ok, I will make a deal with you.  Give me the passage that states unequivocally that the days of Genesis one are 24 hour days and I will agree you are not working from an assumption.  Should be easy enough for you since you claim the bible does this.

 

As has been pointed out already, the Bible never uses yom except as literal 24 hours days in historical narratives.  Futhermore the ordinal numbers used in the chapter modify the noun, which means that both the number and noun agree in gender and number.  All of that speaks to the use of yom in the ordinary sense of a literal 24 hour day.

 

Furthermore, Exodus 20:11 refers to the days of creation in the same ordinary sense.   

 

 

thanks, I am glad we got that cleared up, we are both going from assumptions.  By the way, is Genesis 2 a historical narrative?  I assume (there is that word again) that Genesis 2 is a historical narrative and Genesis 2:4 uses the word yom in a manner that does not mean a 24 hour day.  But I also assume (that word again) that you will find an excuse for why Genesis 2:4 does this.

 

Here is the verse in English for you...These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,  

Edited by LookingForAnswers
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

thanks, I am glad we got that cleared up, we are both going from assumptions. 

No, we are not.  YOU are operating from assumptions and trying modify the Bible to accomodate those assumptions.

By the way, is Genesis 2 a historical narrative?  I assume (there is that word again) that Genesis 2 is a historical narrative and Genesis 2:4 uses the word yom in a manner that does not mean a 24 hour day.

 

Ah, I stand corrected.   When I made that point, I was actually thinking of using the word in terms of it meaning millions of years.  I think you know that.   But I would point out that the usage of yom used that way really doesn't  give any credence to the view that "yom" is used to refer to long epochs of time.   The usage of yom in Gen. 2:4 doesn't hurt my overall argument that usage of yom in Genesis 1 cannot be modified to fit millions of years into the creation account.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

1)Im not working on assumptions here, the earth could be a lot older than 6000 years ago, the bible doesn't give any clues as to how long the earth was dark before the first light. I'm not claiming millions of years, but if you are claiming 6000 years it is you who would be making unbiblical assumptions.

 

Actually, if you followed my other posts in other threads, I have consistently argued that the earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old.  But my point is that your assertions are based on assumptions and so far, you really don't know anything.  You don't accept YEC, but you have provided NOTHING in this thread that actually refutes the YEC position.   

 

The OEC position essentially agrees with the assumption that the earth is 4.5 billion years old as scientists claim, yet have not proven.   Nothing you have presented up to this point proves that the YEC postion is wrong.

) It was a planet covered in waters:

No, tohu v'bohu defies the notion that verse two is talking about a solid planet covered in ocean-like water.   There is no form and the elements are in complete chaos. There is no order nothing uniform.  It is a chaotic and formless waste.     A planet covered with water indicates form and order and that simply doesn't jive with the Hebrew concepts of formless and empty.  The English is far less precise than Hebrew.

 

Read that? It says the earth. Obviously then the earth was without form and void, a deep empty chaotic waste. 

 

The condition of the defies the implication you seem to be making that the earth was simply land lurking beneath an ocean like body of water.  Water was present, but not in oceanic form in verse 2.

 

The Hebrew in verse two appears to present us with a chaotic orderless mass of elements and not a cohesive structure like a planet.

 

You seem to be repeating yourself, but I don't find your logic appealing at all, a chaotic formless watery world before creation week is a definite possibility and you say the Hebrew precludes that possibility when the actual wording of Genesis 2 actually does refer to the earth. Whether the water was in oceanic form or not is irrelevant to my main point that the earth existed in darkness before the light appeared. The plain reading of the text is pretty clear. Oh well, let's just agree to disagree on this, no use continuously repeating ourselves. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

thanks, I am glad we got that cleared up, we are both going from assumptions. 

No, we are not.  YOU are operating from assumptions and trying modify the Bible to accomodate those assumptions.

By the way, is Genesis 2 a historical narrative?  I assume (there is that word again) that Genesis 2 is a historical narrative and Genesis 2:4 uses the word yom in a manner that does not mean a 24 hour day.

 

Ah, I stand corrected.   When I made that point, I was actually thinking of using the word in terms of it meaning millions of years.  I think you know that.   But I would point out that the usage of yom used that way really doesn't  give any credence to the view that "yom" is used to refer to long epochs of time.   The usage of yom in Gen. 2:4 doesn't hurt my overall argument that usage of yom in Genesis 1 cannot be modified to fit millions of years into the creation account.

 

 

It has been shown that we are both working from assumptions since there is no passage telling us that the "days" of creation are 24 hour periods of time, you cannot deny this. And now you have gone back to the realm of making this discussion personal instead of sticking to the topic. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

thanks, I am glad we got that cleared up, we are both going from assumptions. 

No, we are not.  YOU are operating from assumptions and trying modify the Bible to accomodate those assumptions.

By the way, is Genesis 2 a historical narrative?  I assume (there is that word again) that Genesis 2 is a historical narrative and Genesis 2:4 uses the word yom in a manner that does not mean a 24 hour day.

 

Ah, I stand corrected.   When I made that point, I was actually thinking of using the word in terms of it meaning millions of years.  I think you know that.   But I would point out that the usage of yom used that way really doesn't  give any credence to the view that "yom" is used to refer to long epochs of time.   The usage of yom in Gen. 2:4 doesn't hurt my overall argument that usage of yom in Genesis 1 cannot be modified to fit millions of years into the creation account.

 

 

It has been shown that we are both working from assumptions since there is no passage telling us that the "days" of creation are 24 hour periods of time, you cannot deny this. And now you have gone back to the realm of making this discussion personal instead of sticking to the topic. 

 

I don't need a passage that says,  "The days of Genesis 1 are 24 hours long."   The use of "day" in that chapter is in the ordinary sense.  Unless you can provide evidence that Moses did not intend for us to view those as ordinary days, then the default understanding of the passage as written is the days mentioned are intended to be understood as 24 hour days.

 

I haven't made it personal  How have i made it personal??   You are the one coming after me and trying pick hairs over  everything I say.  You are the one trying to discredit me  I am simply responding to you.  I think this is very personal for you for some reason, but it isn't personal for me. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

 

thanks, I am glad we got that cleared up, we are both going from assumptions. 

No, we are not.  YOU are operating from assumptions and trying modify the Bible to accomodate those assumptions.

By the way, is Genesis 2 a historical narrative?  I assume (there is that word again) that Genesis 2 is a historical narrative and Genesis 2:4 uses the word yom in a manner that does not mean a 24 hour day.

 

Ah, I stand corrected.   When I made that point, I was actually thinking of using the word in terms of it meaning millions of years.  I think you know that.   But I would point out that the usage of yom used that way really doesn't  give any credence to the view that "yom" is used to refer to long epochs of time.   The usage of yom in Gen. 2:4 doesn't hurt my overall argument that usage of yom in Genesis 1 cannot be modified to fit millions of years into the creation account.

 

 

It has been shown that we are both working from assumptions since there is no passage telling us that the "days" of creation are 24 hour periods of time, you cannot deny this. And now you have gone back to the realm of making this discussion personal instead of sticking to the topic. 

 

I don't need a passage that says,  "The days of Genesis 1 are 24 hours long."   The use of "day" in that chapter is in the ordinary sense.  Unless you can provide evidence that Moses did not intend for us to view those as ordinary days, then the default understanding of the passage as written is the days mentioned are intended to be understood as 24 hour days.

 

I haven't made it personal  How have i made it personal??   You are the one coming after me and trying pick hairs over  everything I say.  You are the one trying to discredit me  I am simply responding to you.  I think this is very personal for you for some reason, but it isn't personal for me. 

 

 

See, yet again you go after the personal attack...In the previous post this statement is where you made it personal...

 

YOU are operating from assumptions and trying modify the Bible to accomodate those assumptions.

 

I am not coming after you, I am responding to post in a thread, in this thread I responded to a different person and you choose to respond to me.  You have to assign motives and such to people that have the gall to disagree with you, this is where you make things personal.  I have no reason to discredit you, all I would like is for you to quit making things personal.  Statements that start with the word "you" are always personal and have nothing to do with the topic.

 

As for the topic at hand, it is your assumption that the default understanding of the passage as written is the days are 24 hour days.  I disagree with this assumption.  I understand that you could be correct, but I do not view it that way. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

See, yet again you go after the personal attack...In the previous post this statement is where you made it personal...

 

YOU are operating from assumptions and trying modify the Bible to accomodate those assumptions.

 

That is not a personal attack.  That is my assessment of your line of argumentation.   A personal attack would be if I denigrated your intelligence.    I am not attacking you as a person.  I am addressing the line of argumentation you are presenting and showing that it is based on an unproven assumption.

 

You are operating from a assumption that the earth is millions of years old.   And you are trying to make that fit into Genesis 1.  That is ultimate goal of your line of argumentation as far as I can tell based on your position that the days of Genesis 1 are really millions of years.   You cannot get millions of years from the text, so you have to go outside the Bible for that information.   You are trying to modify the Scriptures to make that assumption fit.  

 

As for the topic at hand, it is your assumption that the default understanding of the passage as written is the days are 24 hour days.  I disagree with this assumption.  I understand that you could be correct, but I do not view it that way. 

 

No, it is not an assumption.  It is what the text clearly indicates.   That I am going from the default meaning of the word "yom" means I am not making an assumption.   An assumption is a belief based on nothing, no evidence, no data just a subjective opinion.

 

That the earth is millions of years old was an assumption that began back in the 1700s long before modern science.   That assumption is held to even when there is no proof that the assumption is true.   Our modern dating methods have proven to be unreliable even in providing incorrect dates of millions of years for things we know are of recent origin.   So yes, you are operating from the unproven assumption that the earth is millions of years old.    And is not a personal attack to point that out.

 

The difference between your line of argumentation and mine is that I am basing my argument on what the Bible says and I have data to prove that I am not assuming anythng.  I can made the textual and grammatical arguments needed to support the view that the Bible means  24-hour days in Genesis 1.    Therefore, I am not operating from assumption  .  

 

If, on the other hand, the text had simply stated that God created everything and it simply listed in order what God created without specifying any time period at all, and I were to assert that it was six days, THEN I would be making an assumption.  However, since my argument is tethered to the direct data offered by the Bible, my argument by definition is not based on an "assumption."    You may disagree with the data, but my line of argumentation is not rooted in a baseless assumption.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

See, yet again you go after the personal attack...In the previous post this statement is where you made it personal...

 

YOU are operating from assumptions and trying modify the Bible to accomodate those assumptions.

 

That is not a personal attack.  That is my assessment of your line of argumentation.   A personal attack would be if I denigrated your intelligence.    I am not attacking you as a person.  I am addressing the line of argumentation you are presenting and showing that it is based on an unproven assumption.

 

You are operating from a assumption that the earth is millions of years old.   And you are trying to make that fit into Genesis 1.  That is ultimate goal of your line of argumentation as far as I can tell based on your position that the days of Genesis 1 are really millions of years.   You cannot get millions of years from the text, so you have to go outside the Bible for that information.   You are trying to modify the Scriptures to make that assumption fit.  

 

As for the topic at hand, it is your assumption that the default understanding of the passage as written is the days are 24 hour days.  I disagree with this assumption.  I understand that you could be correct, but I do not view it that way. 

 

No, it is not an assumption.  It is what the text clearly indicates.   That I am going from the default meaning of the word "yom" means I am not making an assumption.   An assumption is a belief based on nothing, no evidence, no data just a subjective opinion.

 

That the earth is millions of years old was an assumption that began back in the 1700s long before modern science.   That assumption is held to even when there is no proof that the assumption is true.   Our modern dating methods have proven to be unreliable even in providing incorrect dates of millions of years for things we know are of recent origin.   So yes, you are operating from the unproven assumption that the earth is millions of years old.    And is not a personal attack to point that out.

 

The difference between your line of argumentation and mine is that I am basing my argument on what the Bible says and I have data to prove that I am not assuming anythng.  I can made the textual and grammatical arguments needed to support the view that the Bible means  24-hour days in Genesis 1.    Therefore, I am not operating from assumption  .  

 

If, on the other hand, the text had simply stated that God created everything and it simply listed in order what God created without specifying any time period at all, and I were to assert that it was six days, THEN I would be making an assumption.  However, since my argument is tethered to the direct data offered by the Bible, my argument by definition is not based on an "assumption."    You may disagree with the data, but my line of argumentation is not rooted in a baseless assumption.

 

 

 

When you assign motives you are making things personal, that is what you are doing when you assume (that word again) that I decided the earth was old before reading the bible and then tried to make it fit.  Taken in a vacuum without taking into account the rest of the bible I would agree that Genesis 1 seems to be talking about 24 hour days.  But that is not the way the bible should be interpreted, it should be viewed as a whole, not individual parts that are not interconnected.   There is more than one mention of the events of creation in the bible and taken as a whole they point to an old earth. 

 

Also, an assumption does not need to be based on nothing; you are twisting the meaning of the word.  An assumption is a decision made lacking proof, not lacking reason.   Some of the synonyms for assumption are hypothesis, theory and postulate.   None of those suggest no data or evidence, just proof, which is what you do when you assign the 24 hour period to Genesis 1.

Edited by LookingForAnswers
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0