Old Earth or Young Earth

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Allroses48 said:

 

The Bible talks about how God speaks through nature. 

One of the definitions is an undefined period of time: H3117 םוי yôm yome From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([ birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (- lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger. H3118 םוי yôm yome (Chaldee); corresponding to H3117; a day: - day (by day), time.

 

Yes, but simply using Strong's isn't a substitute for actually being able to read the text in Hebrew.   Strong's is an exhaustive dictionary/lexicon that gives every possible meaning in Scripture, but it doesn't tell you which meaning applies to which context or which passage in Scripture.   It doesn't mean all of those things at the same time.   Each definition applies to specific context.  It can only mean one thing at a time.

A competent exegete will figure which meaning applies to which verse in a given context.   Usage speaks to context and that trumps word meaning every time.

Quote

Here is a thorough word study of Yom: http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm

I have already responded to that in a different post in this thread.  Here is my response to that word study:

So let's look at this "study" on the Hebrew word, "yom."  Quotes from the article will be in italics.   My response will be in regular text.

The Hebrew word for “day” is the word “Yom.”  Young earth creationists have always argued that the word used for the days of creation can only mean a 24-hour day.  In this article, we will examine the uses of Yom in the Old Testament, and show that it can mean a wide variety of time periods.

Right here we have a big hermeneutic problem that sets the stage for the reset of the article.  It doesn't matter how yom is used in other parts of the Bible.   No one denies that yom is used in other parts of the Bible in  a way that describes periods of time longer than 24 hour days.    If the author wants to show that Moses meant to be understood as referring to the 6 days as long epochs of time, then it has to be shown in the text of Genesis 1.  The author of this article needs to show that there are internal textual indicators in Genesis 1 that would make long epochs of time apparent to the reader.

The author spends a long time in his study trying to refute an argument that YE creationists are not making.  There are no  YE creationists, that I am aware of in the mainstream, who  limit the use of yom in the Bible to 24 hour days.   

Even within the creation account, Yom is used to represent four different time periods. 

1. Genesis 1:5  "And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night."  Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate a 12-hour period
2. Genesis 1:14  "And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years."  Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate 24-hour days
3. Genesis 2:4  "...in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."  Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate the entire creative week.

     The fourth usage of Yom in the creation account is in the summary for each of the six creation days, "and there was morning and evening the first day". Yom is used to represent a finite, long period of time, usually either millions or billions of years.  To show support for this, consider the uses of Yom by Moses.

This is again, something that is not dispute.  We are able to clearly differentiate other uses of "yom"  from the 24 hour days mentioned in Genesis 1 relative to the creative chronology presented.  Again, how Moses used "yom" outside of Genesis 1 isn't really all that important.  Furthermore, the author provides no evidence for his claim that yom is used in Genesis 1 to mean long epochs of time spanning millions or billions of years.    It should be pointed out that if the author wanted that to be our understanding, there are words in Hebrew, far more precise than the word "yom,"  to communicate that idea.  Ancient man was not so dumb as to not be able to conceive of long epochs of time.

  Young earth creationists say that whenever Yom is used with an ordinal or cardinal number (1st, 2nd, 1,2, etc) that it always represents a 24 hour day. 

Actually this is a misrepresentation of what we say.   We always make room for context.  Nowhere does any creationist make it a hard and fast, absolute statement that EVERY TIME a number is used in connection to yom, that it refers to a literal 24-hour day without exception.    Context is ruling and controlling factor on that, so this is a case of someone building an argument against YEC through improperly framing our arguments for a young earth.

  In Genesis 1 Moses says "and there was evening and morning the xx day".  Does the use of evening and morning indicate a sunrise and sunset for each creative day?  First, let's look at what evening and morning are not.  They are not actual evening and mornings, as this requires a sunrise and sunset.  According to young earth theory, the Sun was not created until Day Four, thus there could be no sunrise or sunset for the first three days of creation.  However, God uses the terms evening and morning for those first three days.  Therefore, they cannot be actual evenings and mornings. 

Evening to morning does not require the sun and moon.  In the first day of creation, God created light and separated the light from the darkness.  He called the light day, and the darkness he called night.   What this tells us is that the earth was already spinning on its axis and there was day and night already in operation before the sun and moon and stars were created. So, there was evening and morning and God doesn't qualify his use of those words.   He uses them in the ordinary sense that we understand them, just as he uses "yom" for the days of creation; He uses it is the ordinary sense of the word.

 

This argument says that you cannot use a word figuratively until after you have used it literally (see this Answers in Genesis article).  The author gives two examples, which appear to be correct and follow this rule.  However, is this rule valid?  I see no reason to suppose that it is.  You have to be careful with young earth claims about biblical interpretation methods.  Again, they will invent rules that support their cause, when there is no basis for their rule in Hebrew.

     In this case, it makes no difference which order the word Yom appears in, i.e. literal before figurative or vice versa.  Yes, these are the first words of the Bible, but they are not the first words of mankind.  All the time from Adam to Moses, men were speaking in their own languages, thus the literal interpretation via spoken language would already have been established.  There was no need to suppose a literal/figurative structure.

 

Actually, the hermeneutics rule that AiG appeals to, is sound.  They did not say that you cannot use a word figuratively until you use it literally.   What they said was that you cannot use a word figuratively unless it already has a literal meaning.  That is a basic rule of hermeneutics and it is perfectly sound.  No one is making up rules, but the author of this article is misrepresenting what AiG said.   The purpose of interpretation is to get at the literal meaning of the word and how it is used by the author.  

 

And it should be noted that there is no such thing as a "figurative" interpretation.   Interpretation is always literal and it doesn't matter what kind of text you are reading, whether it is the Bible, or some other secular text. There are figurative devices, but those are employed to help the reader ascertain the literal interpretation. And those figurative devices (metaphor, simile, hyperbole, etc.) are supplied by the author, not the reader.  It is up to the reader to apply sound literary analysis in regard to those devices to arrive at the meaning the author intends to convey to us.

 

When God refers to a large number, He uses picture stories, such as Abraham's descendants being as numerous as the sand.  Why does He do this?  If God had said, "You will have millions of descendants," Abraham would have asked, "What is a million?"

 

No, that is not true.  Abraham was raised in a very well educated and sophisticated culture and the idea that they  could not conceive of long periods of time like millions of years is simply not true.  

 

One must also consider that time with God has no meaning.  To Him, 10 billion years is like a day.  Thus, it is no problem for God to put billions of years into one of His days.  Dr. Hugh Ross puts it best in his determination that the frame of reference for creation is the surface of the earth.  Genesis 1:2 puts the witness of creation on the surface.  But who is witnessing these events?  It is God himself.  During the first 5.99 days of creation, God is the only one present.  Thus, human time does not matter...no humans were there to witness the passage of time.   What matters is how God sees time!  Thus, a billion year day is only a passing moment in God's eyes.

 

Yes, God is outside of time, but that doesn't really matter.  We all know that.   But God is speaking to people who are within time and we have no point of reference for living outside of time.  There is nothing within the scope of our experience that allows us to fully conceive of timelessness as it applies to God.   So for God to speak to us outside of our context, and our frame of reference would be pointless.

 

God is speaking to us and communicating to us and God doesn't make mistakes when doing so.   He is able to communicate to us correctly in terms we can understand.   When God said in Exodus 20 that he created the heavens and earth in 6 days, there is no indication that the usage of yom in that context means anything else other than literal 24 hour days.   If God created the earth, in long epochs of time spanning billions of years, then God isn't telling the whole truth and that is an obvious theological problem for us.

 

The creation account is written in such a manner for all people to understand it.  The issue is not how long creation took...the issue is that God did it, and that's all that matters in the end.

 

It absolutely does matter.   Nothing God says is unimportant.   It matters because it goes to the authority of His Word.  Either we can trust what we read, or we can' trust it at all.  God says in more than one place that He created the earth in 6 days.  He doesn't qualify that claim, He doesn't clarify what days mean.   He uses the word "day" in the ordinary sense in relation to the days of creation and expects us to understand what He meant.  If we cannot trust what we read in Genesis 1,  how can we trust Him in other parts of the Bible?

 

 

[Guest]

I guess we will just have to disagree. The science and the Bible both disagree with young earth creationists. It even says in Psalms 19:1-4 that God speaks through nature. 

Psalms 19:1-4 1 The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. 2Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge. 3There is no speech, nor are there words; Their voice is not heard. 4Their aline has gone out through all the earth, And their utterances to the end of the world.

There's no way at all the Earth is 6-10k years old. 

Edited May 20, 2017 by Allroses48

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, Allroses48 said:

I guess we will just have to disagree. The science and the Bible both disagree with young earth creationists. It even says in Psalms 19:1-4 that God speaks through nature. 

Yet, you cannot provide any evidence that nature speaks to an old earth. That God speaks through nature isn't in dispute.  But there is nothing in nature that says the earth is old.
 

Quote

There's no way at all the Earth is 6-10k years old. 

 

The Bible presents us with a young earth and there is no biblical evidence of an old earth.  

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Yet, you cannot provide any evidence that nature speaks to an old earth. That God speaks through nature isn't in dispute.  But there is nothing in nature that says the earth is old.
 

The Bible presents us with a young earth and there is no biblical evidence of an old earth.  

Yes I can provide evidence of an old earth and have done so multiple times. Science and the Bible disagrees with YEC. We will just have to agree to disagree because you're a YEC and I'm not. This is just one article: http://www.reasons.org/articles/deep-core-tests-for-the-age-of-the-earth

Edited May 20, 2017 by Allroses48

[Guest shiloh357]

8 minutes ago, Allroses48 said:

Yes I can provide evidence of an old earth and have done so multiple times. Science and the Bible disagrees with YEC. We will just have to agree to disagree because you're a YEC and I'm not. This is just one article: http://www.reasons.org/articles/deep-core-tests-for-the-age-of-the-earth

But so far, we know that attempts to date the age of the earth are hardly reliable.  The same tests that are used to say the earth is billions of years old also date modern trees that are only 20 or 30 years old as being in the millions of years in age.  

As for the deep core ice tests, those tests are done going in with the assumption that the earth is millions of years old and the evidence is interpreted through that predetermined assumption.   So basically, they go  in expecting what they want to find, not simply going in  with no pre-made assumptions.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

But so far, we know that attempts to date the age of the earth are hardly reliable.  The same tests that are used to say the earth is billions of years old also date modern trees that are only 20 or 30 years old as being in the millions of years in age.  

As for the deep core ice tests, those tests are done going in with the assumption that the earth is millions of years old and the evidence is interpreted through that predetermined assumption.   So basically, they go  in expecting what they want to find, not simply going in  with no pre-made assumptions.

Did you read the article? They don't go in with any assumptions. The data revealed an old earth.

[simplejeff]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

But so far, we know that attempts to date the age of the earth are hardly reliable.  The same tests that are used to say the earth is billions of years old also date modern trees that are only 20 or 30 years old as being in the millions of years in age.  

Amein,   mankind is notoriously liars,   "though all men are liars...."....

Like the (in)famous radar speed guns -  clocked trees planted in florida going 60mph !

hi-octane coconuts I guess.........    

Science is no more trustworthy than politicians today.....

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, Allroses48 said:

Did you read the article? They don't go in with any assumptions. The data revealed an old earth.

I read the article and I have read other articles about these dating attempts and they are rife with error and pre-made assumptions.   Sure they go in with those assumptions.   Its' no different than how Evolutionists and creationists can look at the same data and walk away with different conclusions because of how they interpret the data.  People claim the Bible testifies that the earth is old, but can't produce ONE Scripture that supports it.   They have filters through which they read the Bible.  And in this case, science and not Scripture, is their final authority and the Bible is read through the filter of science  instead of interpreting science through filter of Scripture.

If you don't believe the Bible is the inerrant, inspired and immutable Word of God, then it will always take a backseat to science in one's mind.

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

I read the article and I have read other articles about these dating attempts and they are rife with error and pre-made assumptions.   Sure they go in with those assumptions.   Its' no different than how Evolutionists and creationists can look at the same data and walk away with different conclusions because of how they interpret the data.  People claim the Bible testifies that the earth is old, but can't produce ONE Scripture that supports it.   They have filters through which they read the Bible.  And in this case, science and not Scripture, is their final authority and the Bible is read through the filter of science  instead of interpreting science through filter of Scripture.

If you don't believe the Bible is the inerrant, inspired and immutable Word of God, then it will always take a backseat to science in one's mind.

The Bible was never meant to be taken completely literally. You have to use exegesis and take it into the context it was written in. You're basically saying all of the scientific data is wrong on the Earth age. That's ludicrous. They test and retest data. As scientific researchers you're not supposed to go in with any assumptions. 

[Guest shiloh357]

28 minutes ago, Allroses48 said:

The Bible was never meant to be taken completely literally.

The Bible was never meant to be taken at face-value.   It is always meant to be taken literally, though.  The whole point of interpretation/literary analysis is to arrive the literal meaning the author means to convey.   

Quote

You have to use exegesis and take it into the context it was written in.

Yes and there is nothing in the context of Genesis 1 that indicates that days of creation are long epochs of time.  And you have, so far, been unable to provide any evidence in the form of textual devices to prove otherwise. 

Quote

You're basically saying all of the scientific data is wrong on the Earth age.

What I am saying is that you can't rely on science.   There have been many experiments on things like volcanic lava rock and modern trees and vegetation and even modern inventions like asphalt, things we know are not millions of year old, and yet modern scientific dating methods give off readings of millions or in some cases, billions of years.   So you really cannot hang your hat on science.   Science is the product of fallible men and thus there are no infallible scientific disciplines.  Fallible man cannot create anything infallibly.

Scientists tell us that the planets and stars and suns and moons were all made at the same time in time, via the "Big Bang."   God says in the Bible  that the stars and suns and moons were created on the 4th day after the earth was created.  Is God or science wrong?  They cannot both the right.  Either the Bible, or science has to be your final authority.  Either God is a liar and can't get His facts straight, or science is wrong about some of the time and should not be held as being above question or scrutiny.   Who is our final authority?  God or scientists?