Old Earth or Young Earth

[Enoch2021]

1 hour ago, da_man1974 said:

So like in Revelation, is it really a fire breathing dragon?   

False Equivalence (Fallacy).  

Genesis is Historical Narrative

Revelation uses a Myriad of Rhetorical Devices.

 

Quote

And how far is the East from the West?

Good Question but how is this relevant to Genesis Chapter 1 or Exodus 20:9-11 ?? 

 

Quote

Or how are His thoughts higher than ours?

Well because HE's: Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent.  We... are not.

 

Quote

I think there is a lot of imagery and not exact translation used in the Bible.

Yes well, to understand Revelation you have to do your homework in the Old Testament since there are over 800 allusions to it.

The 'Translations' are fine, it's the Hermeneutics that may need to be 'Tightened Up'.

 

Quote

If it was a literal 24 hour day there wouldn't be so much discussion about it.

Say what?  This doesn't follow.

 

Quote

IT would be case closed and there wouldn't be knowledgeable scholars on each side of the fence.

You're forgetting kind of a Major Player here; SEE Genesis 3, Ez 28, Isa: 14.

 

Quote

Have you actually looked at these issues with an open mind?

Yes.  Have you?

 

Quote

Or do you go into them with an assumption and try to find ways to back that up?

We ALL have Presuppositions.  This is tantamount to asking:  "do you go into it breathing?"

 

regards

[da_man1974]

I have looked at it openly.  As I said in one of my posts, I originally began believing a young earth but have switched after researching it more and listening to scholars on both sides.

My point about a literal 24 hour day was, that if we knew that for sure people wouldn't still be arguing about it.  We don't argue that God created everything because it says in the Bible that he did.  No I know you will say that it translates to a literal 24 hour day.  Well if all of that is the case then why would anyone believe in an old earth idea?  

As far as the questions I was posting is to say that there is allegory in the bible.  Nobody can measure the East to the West.  I don't believe that the beast or whatever in revelation is a fire dragon.  It's imagery to help us understand.  So He inspired it to be written that way so that our feeble minds can understand.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, da_man1974 said:

So like in Revelation, is it really a fire breathing dragon?  And how far is the East from the West?  Or how are His thoughts higher than ours?  I think there is a lot of imagery and not exact translation used in the Bible.  

No, not like in Revelation because Revelation is prophecy and in Genesis 1 we are dealing with a historical narrative  and so you have two different types of literature that require their own hermeneutic rules.  You don't read a fictional novel the same way you read a historical biography.   You don't read a newspaper the same way you read Shakespeare. 

This is about interpretation, not translation.  Genesis 1 has no figurative devices anywhere in the text.  If you disagree, I challenge you to produce them any figurative devices you can find in Genesis 1 and then explain what they are figurative of.  Figurative devices include metaphors, similes, hyperbole, symbolism, etc.

Quote

If it was a literal 24 hour day there wouldn't be so much discussion about it.  IT would be case closed and there wouldn't be knowledgeable scholars on each side of the fence.

It is very clear that the 24 day is what is meant and that can be demonstrated through both context AND how the Bible refers to the days of creation as literal days elsewhere.  The Bible interprets itself, but there are scholars who study the Bible and don't believe it or simply don't think the Bible is inerrant or infallible.   They are scholars, but they are not really "knowledgeable."

Quote

Have you actually looked at these issues with an open mind? Or do you go into them with an assumption and try to find ways to back that up?

Yes and I think critically about these things and you can see from my previous posts on this thread that I have put a lot of thought into this and the truth is that you cannot defend OEC view without sloppy hermeneutics and an abandonment of the doctrines of inerrancy, inspiration and the authority of Scripture. 

 

[da_man1974]

Here is an article I came across about some of this.

 

http://www.reasons.org/articles/deep-core-tests-for-the-age-of-the-earth

[Guest shiloh357]

3 minutes ago, da_man1974 said:

Here is an article I came across about some of this.

 

http://www.reasons.org/articles/deep-core-tests-for-the-age-of-the-earth

Yeah we already talked about that.   All of the methods used to date the earth often return false readings, specially on things where we know the age of the item being tested.  You can tell by the article that the tests were done with the assumption of old earth already in place prior to the experiment.  So they went in to find what they wanted to find. Hardly a scientific way to approach something like that.

[Guest Teditis]

Core testing is highly unreliable and open to subjective projections placed on the data.

There's never been a place located on this planet where the stratification is all in order

from oldest to youngest. Plus there's no way to date rock and ice core samples have irregular

stratus because of warming and cooling.

The question of what you see in a core sample is left to chance and circumstance and really is

laughable to when considered a realistic tool for the purposes of dating the Earth.

 

[Enoch2021]

49 minutes ago, da_man1974 said:

Here is an article I came across about some of this.

 

http://www.reasons.org/articles/deep-core-tests-for-the-age-of-the-earth

1. Elephant Hurling Fallacy.  Please post...

a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?

b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?

c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?

d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

 

2.  Any 5th Grade General Science Graduate knows Prima Facia, that ALL "Dating Methods" are outside of the Scientific Method; "Sciences' " Purview, for goodness sakes.
You have NO....: "Independent Variable", so as to Form a Valid Scientific Hypothesis to TEST then VALIDATE your PREDICTION. Ahhh... "SCIENCE" !

a. So "Independent Variables" are the "Input" (The Cause) that is CHANGED "manipulated by the scientist" so as to measure/validate the "Output" (The Effect) "Dependent Variables"---Predictions.

b. "Independent Variables" are sine qua non (indispensable, as it were) to Scientific Hypothesis construction, then Ipso Facto Experiments!!  So can you please elaborate: 

How on Earth can you CHANGE the "INPUT" and TEST your Prediction on a Past Event (lol) without a Time Machine, Pray Tell....?

You're in a simple Category Error. The Scientific Method is used to Validate "Cause and Effect" Relationships...it's Non Sequitur (Fallacy) to use it to extrapolate "age".
It's tantamount to using a Framing Square to calculate the GNP of the Netherlands, for goodness sakes.  

Ergo...

A Better Question: Given the Immutable Fact that it is OUTSIDE the Scientific Method and can never be VALIDATED, why on Earth are these "Long Ages" PUSHED ad nauseam, mainly by Pseudo-Scientists..."Then Stage 5 Clung" to with a Kung Fu Death Grip then Blindly Parroted by the masses as Fact and all challengers ridiculed endlessly for even bringing the topic up, Pray Tell...??? 

Sounds like "Propaganda" to me...you? It's mind numbing.

 

Moreover...

According to Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, described by Erwin Schrodinger --- THEN Validated Repeatedly via Thousands of "EXPERIMENTS" without Exception for the past 100 years with the most successful branch of Physics in the History of "Actual" Science, Quantum Mechanics... : 

 

Independent of the KNOWLEDGE of the "Which-Path Information" -- or of it EXISTING... particles (Photons, All Elementary Particles, Atoms, Molecules) have no defined properties or location. They exist in a state of "A Wave Function" which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. 

That is, "Matter" doesn't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities.  Wave "Functions" aren't "WAVES"(Classical Peak/Troughs) they are "Potentialities" i.e., Probabilities, they have no Mass/Energy. 

To put it another way, the "Wave" of a Wave Function is not a "Wave" in "Physical Space", it's merely an abstract mathematical construct.

 

So... "Matter" (Our Reality) doesn't exist without, FIRST:

 

A "Knower"/Existence of the "Which-Path" Information.

 

 

Listen closely...

 

“It begins to look as we ourselves, by our last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. The PAST is not really the PAST until is has been REGISTERED. 

Or to put it another way, THE PAST has NO MEANING or EXISTENCE unless it exists as a RECORD in the present.”
Prof. John Wheeler "Referenced in"; The Ghost In The Atom; Page 66-68.

 

So... unless you can provide The Name of the Person who "Originally" Observed these Rocks/Ice Cores (Whatever), Date/Time Stamped --REGISTERED and Recorded THEM (Then a Chain of Continuous Observational CUSTODY till current times) ...

Then you MUST provide the "Decay Rate", "Speed", Ice Cores (Whatever)... for a Wave of Potentialities ??

 

Go ahead...?

 

regards

[Kevinb]

Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results (Dalrymple 2000; Lindsay 1999; Meert 2000). Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions. 
 

Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example: 
 

The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001). 
 

Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997). 
 

Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999). 
 

Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000).

[Enoch2021]

On 5/30/2017 at 10:48 PM, Kevinb said:

Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results (Dalrymple 2000; Lindsay 1999; Meert 2000). Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions. 
 

1.  "Decay Rate ASSUMPTIONS" ??  You just PUMMELED your entire argument. 

 

2.  Scientifically Validate any Dating Method...

a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?

b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?

c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?

d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

 

3. (Again) You heard of Quantum Mechanics?? ...

The 'Radioactive Decay Law', as is the case for ALL Physical Laws, is Consequent -- "Contingent" upon Quantum Mechanical Laws...

"The Laws of Physics are ALWAYS Quantum Mechanical Laws."

Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale. Quantum Mechanics II. (33:50 minute mark)

i.e., The following condition *MUST EXIST (NECESSARY ANTECEDENT)* before you can Appeal to the Radioactive Decay Law...it's kinda 'HARD to get Around':

According to Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, described by Erwin Schrodinger --- THEN... Validated Repeatedly via Thousands of "EXPERIMENTS" without Exception(!!) for the past 100 years with the most successful branch of Physics in the History of "Actual" Science, Quantum Mechanics... : Independent of the KNOWLEDGE of the "Which-Path Information" -- or of it EXISTING... particles (Photons, All Elementary Particles, Atoms, Molecules) have no defined properties or location. They exist in a state of "A Wave Function" which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, "Matter" doesn't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities. Wave "Functions" aren't "WAVES"(Classical Peak/Troughs) they are "Potentialities" i.e., Probabilities, they have no Mass/Energy. To put it another way, the "Wave" of a Wave Function is not a "Wave" in "Physical Space", it's merely an abstract mathematical construct.

So... "Matter" (Our Reality) doesn't exist without, FIRST: *A "Knower"/Existence of the "Which-Path" Information.*

Read carefully...

“It begins to look as WE ourselves, by OUR last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that WE ourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. *The PAST* is *NOT* really the PAST until is has been *REGISTERED*. Or to put it another way, *THE PAST has NO MEANING or EXISTENCE* unless it exists as a *RECORD* in the present.”

Prof. John Wheeler "Referenced in"; The Ghost In The Atom; Page 66-68.

So... unless you can provide The Name of the Person who "Originally" Observed these Rocks, Date/Time Stamped -- *REGISTERED* and *Recorded THEM* (Then a Chain of Continuous Observational CUSTODY till current times) ... Then you MUST provide:

 

The "Decay Rate" for a Wave of Potentialities....?

 

It'll be easier Sprouting Broccoli from your ARMPITS.

 

Quote

Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods.

It's a consistent Begging The Question Fallacy.

 

Quote

For example: 
The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001).

Well call Rubin and have him Scientifically Validate...

 a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?

b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?

c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?

d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

 

Quote

Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997). 

1.  astronomy isn't "Science", for goodness sakes.  Watch...

Post ONE Formal Scientific Hypothesis in the History of astronomy...?  OR

Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...?

a.  "If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT, it's WRONG. In that simple statement is the *KEY* to *SCIENCE*".

Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics); The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds.

Uh Ohh...

"Unlike the other sciences, astronomy is ENTIRELY OBSERVATIONAL. You *CANNOT* run *EXPERIMENTS* on things. You cannot manipulate the objects to see how they work." http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s2.htm

Crocheting is more "Scientific" than astronomy.

 

Quote

Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999).

 SEE: above everything after "Scientifically Validate any Dating Method...??"

 

Quote

Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000).

So Radiometric Dating is consistent with Denying The Antecedent Formal Logical Fallacies??  ...

If P, then Q.

Not P.

Therefore, not Q.

If they are buried together (P) then they both existed together. (Q)

They're not buried together. (Not P)

Therefore, they didn't exist together. (Therefore, not Q)

And you wonder why Scientific Literacy is "Circling the Drain" @ Light Speed in the US.

 

regards

[SavedOnebyGrace]

Source: Why I Reject a Young Earth View

Quote

The question of the meaning and proper interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis is one of the most heated subjects in Christendom today. Few other topics have evoked such polarised opinion and division. The diversity of views on Genesis, even among the most learned of exegetes and scholars, is staggering. While one extreme insists that the days of Genesis must strictly be interpreted as seven consecutive 24-hour periods (thus rendering the earth very young indeed — in the order of thousands, and not millions or billions, of years old), at the other extreme lies the notion that the early chapters of Genesis are devoid of any historical content at all. On the latter view, Genesis 1 comprises a mythological allegory; Adam and Eve are reduced to mere literary devices; and the historicity of Noah’s Flood is typically abandoned altogether. There is a plethora of competing views which reside in the middle of those polar extremes: Examples include the Day-Age Theory; the Gap Theory; and various forms of progressive creationism. In this article, I attempt to show that, while it is possible to interpret the book of Genesis in light of a young earth, there is no Biblical mandate for this conclusion: That is to say, Genesis could be interpreted in that manner, but it does not have to be.

I am trained as a scientist (I’m a postgraduate student in evolutionary biology). And, as a scientist, the arguments for an ancient earth seem to be very compelling (needless to say, when it comes to Darwinian evolution, it is a very different story). In this article, however, I simply want to read and understand the text on its own terms, not missing what the text is saying; but, at the same time, not adding to it what simply isn’t there. Having shown that Genesis does not require that one read it as conveying a young earth, I hope that readers will be convinced that we can thus read and understand the science on its own terms as well. It seems to me that there are three major subtopics which an article of this nature must address. These are:

1. The proper interpretation of Genesis One.
2. The question of the fall of man, human sin and its consequences.
3. The scale and scope of the Flood of Noah.

The proper interpretation of Genesis One

In approaching the text of Genesis 1, we notice that there are certain features which are suggestive that the text need not be read as necessitating that we take a young-earth view. Let’s take a look at each in turn.

First, there is the fact that the initial creation act described in verses 1 and 2 is separated from the six days of creation which proceed it. Consider the first three verses of Genesis 1:

 ¹ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ² 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.

³ And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

Notice that there is a definite pattern associated with the days described in Genesis 1. Each one begins with “And God said…” and ends with “And there was evening and there was morning, the nth day.” This being so, there is the implication that day 1 commences in verse 3, while the description in verses 1-2 of God creating the heavens and the earth precedes it. This conclusion receives still further support from the fact that the verb “created” in verse 1 is in the perfect tense, whereas the use of the narrative tense begins in verse 3. When the perfect tense is used at the start of a pericope, its purpose is ordinarily to denote an event which sets the background and context of the storyline: That is to say, it takes place before the rest of the story gets underway. This implies that verses 1 and 2 occurred an undisclosed period of time prior to the first day! This means that, quite aside from how one interprets the days of Genesis 1, the origin of the Universe (and, indeed, the earth) occurs, as far as the information provided in Scripture is concerned, at an indeterminate time in the past.

Second, there is the fact that, in the original Hebrew, there is no definite article pertinent to the first five days, whereas there is a definite article associated with the sixth and seventh day, which seems to suggest there is something special — or different — about those latter two days. One possibility, which has been entertained by some, is that the writer did not intend us to take the first six days as consecutive days of a single earth week, but, instead, as a sequence of six creation days: That is to say, days of 24-hour duration in which God supernaturally infuses novelty at punctuated intervals. On this view, it may well be the case that the individual days were separated from one another by unspecified periods of time.

Third, there is this whole business of the seventh (or, Sabbath) day of rest. Consider the first two verses of Genesis 2:

¹ Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

 ² By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. ³ Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Do you notice something peculiar about the seventh day? What ever happened to the “evening” and “morning”? For the first six days, the text, at the close of each day, states that “And there was evening and there was morning, the nth day.” This stands in stark contrast with the seventh day, for which it is curiously missing. This has led some exegetes to argue that the seventh day, on which God rests, may be continous, and that we may still be residing in it. This gains traction from Hebrews 4:3-7, which states,

  ³ Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,

   “So I declared on oath in my anger,
‘They shall never enter my rest.’”

   And yet his works have been finished since the creation of the world. ⁴ For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: “On the seventh day God rested from all his works.” ⁵ And again in the passage above he says, “They shall never enter my rest.”

 ⁶ Therefore since it still remains for some to enter that rest, and since those who formerly had the good news proclaimed to them did not go in because of their disobedience, ⁷ God again set a certain day, calling it “Today.” This he did when a long time later he spoke through David, as in the passage already quoted:

   “Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts.”

If, therefore, it may be considered legitimate to take the seventh day as representative of a much longer period of time, then whence the mandate for supposing a commitment to interpreting the other six days as representative of 24-hour periods?

Fourth, there is the multiple-usage of the word “day” in Genesis 1. Let’s take a look at the manner in which the word “day” is used in the Genesis 1 (up to 2:4) narrative alone:

1.  Genesis 1:5a: “God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.” Here, “day” is contrasted with “night”: Thus, a 24-hour day is not in view, but rather “day” in the sense of “daytime” (i.e. 12 hours).
2. Genesis 1:5b: “And there was evening and there was morning — the first day.” Here, the word does indeed mean a 24-hour day.
3. Genesis 2:3: “By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. ³ Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.” To this, I have already alluded — the key point here is the absence of “evening” and “morning”, which denotes all of the previous six days.
4. The correct rendering of the Hebrew with respect to Genesis 2:4 is  “This is the account of the heavens and the earth in the day they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.”

Fifth, it may be noticed that days 1-3 form a triad that corresponds to the triad formed by days 4-6. In day 1, God creates the light and distinguishes it from darkness; whereas on day 4, God creates the sun, moon and stars. On day 2, God separates the sky and sea; whereas, on day 5, God creates birds and sea creatures. On day 3, God causes dry land to appear; whereas on day 6, God creates the land animals and humans. This pattern may suggest that the exact chronological sequence of events is not in mind here.

Sixth, in verses 11-14 of Genesis 1, we read the following:

¹¹ Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. ¹² The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. ¹³ And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day. 

Notice that the text says “Let the land produce vegetation…”. This may suggest that God allowed the trees and vegetation to germinate and grow by virtue of natural processes. This on its own may suggest that the duration of this day was significantly longer than 24 hours! Further notice that Genesis 2:8 says, “Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east…” This also suggests that God planted a garden which he thus caused to grow. Though I reject Darwinian evolution for scientific reasons, Genesis 1:24 could be interpreted as compatible with certain forms of evolution: “And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind. [emphasis added]”

Seventh, many features of Genesis 1 bear a striking similarity to texts concerned with the temple, a phenomenon which has given rise to various understandings of Genesis 1 as a description of the “cosmic temple.”  For one thing, there is the curious fact that the number seven appears so pervasively in temple accounts in the ancient world and in the Bible. Thus, the seven days of the Genesis account of origins has a familiarity that can hardly be coincidental and tells us something about the seven-day structure in Genesis 1. Furthermore, in the outer courtyard of the temple were representations of various aspects of cosmic geography. For instance, there was the water basin which 1 Kings 7:23-26 designates “sea”, and the bronze pillars, described in 1 Kings 7:15-22, which perhaps represented the pillars of the earth. The horizontal axis in the temple was arranged in the same order as the vertical axis in the cosmos. From the courtyard, one would move into the organised cosmos as he entered the antechamber, which is where one would find the Menorah, teh Table of Bread and the incense alter. In the descriptions of the Tabernacle, the lamb and its olive oil are provided for “light” (which is the same word used to describe the celestial bodies in day four). Then there is, of course, the veil which separates the earthly sphere from the heavenly sphere which is the dwelling place of God (thus serving the same symbolic function as the firmament). One could continue on and on in the same vein. This parallelism is particularly striking when one considers that, as John Walton points out in The Lost World of Genesis One,  the temple’s inauguration ceremony was completed by God taking up his rest in the temple, as he, in fact, does on day seven.

In regard to the fourth day of Creation Week, which is often a point of tension (it is on day 4 that God apparently creates the sun, moon and stars, after the creation of both plants and light, as well as the progression of days 1-3, which presumably required the sun), the verb “made” in Genesis 1:16 does not specifically mean ‘create’, but can instead refer to ‘working on something that is already there’ or even ‘appointed’. Such an interpretation makes sense in the context of the very next verse, in which we are told that the function of the sun in moon is as visible lights in the sky. If this interpretation is correct, it would entail that God appoints the role of the sun and moon, and is not a reference to their creation de novo.

A discussion of the meaning of Genesis 1 would not be complete without some mention of Exodus 20:11, which occurs in the context of the ten commandments which God gives to Moses. We read, “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” As John Lennox observes in his recent book, Seven Days that Divide the World, however, “there [are] similarities between God’s creation week and our work week, but also obvious differences. God’s week happened once; ours is repeated. God’s creative activity is very different from ours; God does not need rest as we do, and so on. So it is not possible to draw straight lines from Genesis to our working week. God’s week is a pattern for ours, but it is not identical. Thus Exodus 20:8-11 does not demand that the days of Genesis 1 be the days of a single week, although it could of course be interpreted in that way.”

While one could continue in this vein, enough has been said. Let’s move on to consider our second question, which is concerned with the Fall of man, human sin, and its consequences.

Follow the link above to get the rest of the article discussing life after the fall, and why Noah's Flood was not a global flood.