Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[kwikphilly]

20 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

I miss Shiloh and our conversations as well. I don't post as much as I use to. I watched a YouTube video of Dr. Darrell Bock and Dr. Michael Heiser the other day centered on Heiser's book The Unseen Rhelm. Fantastic interview between two men I highly respect

I miss our conversations all together as well..

I'll have to watch the video ,I'm sure it's very Great seeing you,keep in touch Brother

In His Love,Kwik

 

 

[kwikphilly]

3 hours ago, JohnR7 said:

Maybe you better take this up with Kurt Patrick Wise. He would be the first to admit the scientific evidence. Even if it contradicts his YEC creation beliefs. He does not deny one to try to support the other. Also from God's perspective - time is relative because God is light and there is no time at the speed of light. The first word is "Beginning", so that is the perspective of Genesis chapter one. The "Beginning" was when God created the earth.  This was 4.5 billion years ago. The sun is 4.6 billion years ago. The universe is 13.7 years but that goes back a long distance from the beginning of the earth. 

I am a YEC also, but that just means Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden 6,000 years ago. There is abundant scientific evidence to show that they were real people living n ancient Mesopotamia at the time. Bishop Usshers book is a very accurate history of the last 6,000 years. That is why his book is still a leading authority 500 years after it was written, because it is so accurate. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise

Well dear I don't have to take it up with anyone,perhaps MrWise will have to take up his " evidences" with God Almighty one day,I don't know.

I don't really care to be frank,it's doesn't matter to me how old the earth is though it once mattered very much to me when I was studying ,all through post graduate and then some - now,eh .  Our priorities change ,our perspectives change ,as a matter of fact science changes but God's Word Doesn't.

Perhaps SObG remembers a very interesting article he posted years ago,I think it was called "the spark of life"- we were discussing " life",with pro choice people in mind that argue when " life" begins in the womb...of course we Christians Believe life begins at conception and science discovered this evidence of an actual spark" light" at conception- something no one was ever able to see until some new technology...

Anyway,that's just one example of why I say " science" has to catch up to God- if you see what I mean now.We have seen carbon dating,the evidence of age and yet it was eventually proven to be completely unreliable as are many other proofs & evidences as technology continues to improve in advancement

I'm rambling on- just thinking out loud I guess,lol

 

[JohnR7]

5 hours ago, kwikphilly said:

science changes but God's Word Doesn't.

Our translation and interpretation of the Word of God changes. For example if you look you will find drawings of Adam and Eve wearing fig leaves. Because the translators know nothing about how to make clothing. You take the fiber from the fig tree, spin it into thread and weave the tread into cloth and sow clothing back then the same way we make clothing today. Fig tree clothing looks very nice but it is not very warm for the colder climates north of Africa. When I was a kid we had wool clothing, or down clothing made from feathers. Otherwise we were cold because they did not have the thin insulation we have to keep warm today. I had a down sleeping bag that both of my sons loved because it was so comfortable. Also it was warm even you could use it down to 30 degrees to stay warm. Although I do not much sleep in the cold if it gets below 30. In alaska they have ways to keep warm when it is colder. 

The real problem was at the tower of Babylon when God confused the languages. It is as if He does not want people to understand unless they are United together with Him according to His plan and His purpose. Otherwise Genesis 11:6 "nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them."

The Bible remains consistant and the same. The problem is when we try to translate the Bible into our language, rather than to put a little effort into study and learn the language the Bible was written in. I am no expert on Hebrew, but I know a little bit. 

[Guest]

Inerrancy

Anytime we talk about Genesis or the Bible in general we must consider inerrancy. Putting aside any discussion about translations, at least for now, we must talk about Biblical inerrancy. We also need to consider the original audience the Bible was written for, and how they would have understood what was preached to them. They did not have the science background we have or the written word that the ordinary lay person could refer to for deeper study. With that in mind, the following link is to a short look at inerrancy published online by Dr. Michael S. Heiser.

Source: Biblical Inerrancy

My point in all of this is to read and understand the Bible, as written, with the mindset of the people it was originally written to, but also using the God-given intellect we've been blessed with. Science is always changing. From my point of view, you'd have to add a lot extra material to make Darwin, or any of its variants, to make sense. I don't see a legitimate reason to do that and I don't adhere to any Darwinian nonsense. It's fine for those that do, just don't count me among them. A lot has happened in the 13.7 billion years since God said --

(Genesis 1:3)  And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. [ESV]

(John 1:1)  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(John 1:2)  He was in the beginning with God.
(John 1:3)  All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
(John 1:4)  In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
(John 1:5)  The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. [ESV]

(1 John 4:15) Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. [ESV]

Source: Pillars of Creation

 

Edited December 11, 2022 by Saved.One.by.Grace

[Vine Abider]

At an early age I was given Pember's, "Earth's Earliest Ages" to read, which delves into the gap between Genesis 1:1 & 1:2. I've read a few things since that also line-up with his seminal work.  I never understood it to be a compromise with evolution, as some accuse (a straw man argument).   Small, incremental evolution makes sense, but not macro evolution resulting in diferent species - my old earth view doesn't hold such macro evolution ideas . . . only God creates totally different species.

I've also read a few young earth books that make some sense too.  But then I've hiked into the Grand Canyon wondering how that makes sense with YE ideas . . .    However ultimately, this is something I think Christians are to hold loosely, as it certainly doesn't impact our core faith principles (although some may argue that too!).  There are so many of these things He will clear up with us in an instant!

Let me add a little something new maybe to this conversation - much of the Bible is written in a kind of poetic form.  And many prophesies are symbolic.  It's oftentimes difficult to ascertain what is poetic, symbolic or literal.  I like to lean in the direction of the Bible being literal whenever I can, and I do believe it is all God-breathed, therefore true.  But He speaks to us in terms we can understand (He knows His audience), except in places where He purposely veils it - as is said in Daniel 12, that those visions are sealed until a latter time.

The creation of the universe is so far beyond our comprehension.  So why is it a stretch to think that we might not fully grasp what is being spoken in the first chapter of Genesis?  To me, it's not a big leap in thinking that there may be a space between Genesis 1:1 & 1:2.  (and besides, time is like nothing to the Eternal God)  Pre-Adamic races in my view, would explain a lot.

Quote

Genesis 1:2 NMV

and the earth became without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God-Elōhīm [Messiah Pre-Incarnate] moved upon the face of the waters.

 

[kwikphilly]

Blessings @Vine Abider

Now this is great Brother -I could really enjoy talking with you even though we may have a little different perspective - just like I've always enjoyed talking with SObG,my longtime Friend & Brother Eternal!

The non-Salvational Topics like a gap theory & the age of the earth can be sooooo very interesting and FUN- science is fun,well for an old science buff like myself anyway!

Sadly,most times I just avoid the discussions because a rampant spirit of pride sneaks in" No,I,ME,I'm right & you are ignorant"... Uggh,ruins everything!

Ive never considered a pre-Adamic race,I just don't see it but yeah,not such a leap for that gap in Genesis. 

It's really nice to meet you,I look forward to your input- I want to watch that video SObG shared and maybe jump back in here- been a hectic weekend so I haven't had the time,now that's fine so " yippee"

With love in Christ,Kwik

 

 

[kwikphilly]

On 12/10/2022 at 6:19 AM, JohnR7 said:

Our translation and interpretation of the Word of God changes. For example if you look you will find drawings of Adam and Eve wearing fig leaves. Because the translators know nothing about how to make clothing. You take the fiber from the fig tree, spin it into thread and weave the tread into cloth and sow clothing back then the same way we make clothing today. Fig tree clothing looks very nice but it is not very warm for the colder climates north of Africa. When I was a kid we had wool clothing, or down clothing made from feathers. Otherwise we were cold because they did not have the thin insulation we have to keep warm today. I had a down sleeping bag that both of my sons loved because it was so comfortable. Also it was warm even you could use it down to 30 degrees to stay warm. Although I do not much sleep in the cold if it gets below 30. In alaska they have ways to keep warm when it is colder. 

The real problem was at the tower of Babylon when God confused the languages. It is as if He does not want people to understand unless they are United together with Him according to His plan and His purpose. Otherwise Genesis 11:6 "nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them."

The Bible remains consistant and the same. The problem is when we try to translate the Bible into our language, rather than to put a little effort into study and learn the language the Bible was written in. I am no expert on Hebrew, but I know a little bit. 

Blessings John

That's right- we make changes and artist make drawings but God's Written Word should not have illustrations as much as it is His Living Word and the WORD does not change

He is the Same God,yesterday,today & forevermore!;! Praise Jesus!

The posts by SObG about " Inerrancy',after your- is the best reply.    I've nothing to add to it,well written

[HAZARD]

How did God create and make the material universe? Undoubtedly, God created and made the different parts of the material universe and each thing therein, using the same care and time as in the six days when He restored the planet Earth to a habitable state and made a new order of Earth creatures. In the work of the six days, it is stated that God, with His hands FORMED each of the living creatures and man out of the dust of the ground (Gen. 1:20-27; 2: 7-25; Job 26:13; Rom. 9:20; 1 Tim. 2:13).

It is not only clear that God created the heavens, and the Earth and all things "In the beginning," or each in its own period , but it is also clear that God FORMED all things with His hands. God FORMED both light and darkness (Isa. 45:7). He did not do this in the first day of Gen. 1"3-5, for at that time He merely divided them. 

Therefore they must have been created and formed before the first day. It is also stated that God FORMED the Earth (Ps. 8:3, 6; 90:2; 95:5); the heavens (Ps. 8:3; 19:1; 102:25; Isa. 40:12) the planets (Ps. 8:3isa. 40:26; 44:12;  48:13; Heb. 1:10) and all things (Prov. 26:10).

From a study of all these Scriptures given above and those on the creation of all things, it is clear that by the Word of God the materials were brought into existence, and then by His hands He formed the materials into the various parts of the universe. That is, God spoke, the materials came into existence and as fast as they materialised He used them to form all things with His hands (Ps. 8:3; 2 Pet. 3:3-9. Prov. 26:10).

***********************************************************************************************************

Next question would be, When did God create and make the material universe and all therein?

The Bible says, "In the beginning [literally, by periods or ages] God created the heaven [Hebrew, heavens] and the Earth," it does not say "Six thousand years ago God created the heavens and the Earth," as generally taught. Can we say just when was the beginning? If we can, then we know more than God has revealed. If we cannot, then it stands to reason that we do not know, and therefore, should not teach that in the beginning was 6,000 years ago. As far as we know it could have been six billion years or more ago as well as about 6,000 years.

When we speak of the six days and the creation of the present life on Earth, we can speak with definite Bible authority that it was about 6,000 years ago. This we can see by the lengths of the various dispensations since Adam in the outline of God's plan for mankind. In no Scripture are we told to believe that the heavens and the Earth were created during the six days at the time of Adam about 6,000 years ago.

Some use Exodus 20:8-11; 31:17 to prove that the heavens and the Earth were created in the six days of Gen. 1:3-2:25, and therefore that they were created about 6,000 years ago. However, nothing is said of the original creation of the heavens and the Earth in these passages. In these passages the Hebrew asah, meaning to make out of already existing material, is used instead of bara, to create. These verses picture the re-creation work of the six days, and not the original creation "In the beginning." Asah never means to create. It is translated 659 times; make 449 times; maketh 59 times; makest sixteen times; maker thirteen times; amking eleven times; and madest three times. When God said, "In six days the Lord mad heaven and earth, He had in mind the restoration of the heaven (firmament, or clouds) and the Earth to a habitable state as it was before the destruction of Lucifers kingdom by the flood of Gen. 1:2.

***********************************************************************************************

2 Peter 3:5, For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

    v. 6, Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 

The world, that now is, never perished during Noah's flood. The sun, moon and stars continued to shine, Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives survived, and so did all the animals in the ark.

Genesis 1:1, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, FULL STOP.

Genesis 1:2, And the earth was without form, form, and void; void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Since when does God create and form anything that is not perfect first time? 

Psalm 90:2, Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

Did God have trouble forming the Earth the first time round in Gen. 1;1, and He had to have another go at it in Gen. 1:2.?

Proverbs 26:10, The great God that formed all things both rewardeth the fool, and rewardeth transgressors.

God had no problems forming everything else Including man, so why did he have trouble forming the earth, making it without form and void and in darkness and covered in water, Gen. 1:2?

[Vine Abider]

That was a really good rundown of the gap position @HAZARD!!

And good bringing up the common and erroneous objection using Exodus 20 verses!

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

At an early age I was given Pember's, "Earth's Earliest Ages" to read, which delves into the gap between Genesis 1:1 & 1:2. I've read a few things since that also line-up with his seminal work.  I never understood it to be a compromise with evolution, as some accuse (a straw man argument).   Small, incremental evolution makes sense, but not macro evolution resulting in diferent species - my old earth view doesn't hold such macro evolution ideas . . . only God creates totally different species.

I've also read a few young earth books that make some sense too.  But then I've hiked into the Grand Canyon wondering how that makes sense with YE ideas . . .    However ultimately, this is something I think Christians are to hold loosely, as it certainly doesn't impact our core faith principles (although some may argue that too!).  There are so many of these things He will clear up with us in an instant!

Let me add a little something new maybe to this conversation - much of the Bible is written in a kind of poetic form.  And many prophesies are symbolic.  It's oftentimes difficult to ascertain what is poetic, symbolic or literal.  I like to lean in the direction of the Bible being literal whenever I can, and I do believe it is all God-breathed, therefore true.  But He speaks to us in terms we can understand (He knows His audience), except in places where He purposely veils it - as is said in Daniel 12, that those visions are sealed until a latter time.

The creation of the universe is so far beyond our comprehension.  So why is it a stretch to think that we might not fully grasp what is being spoken in the first chapter of Genesis?  To me, it's not a big leap in thinking that there may be a space between Genesis 1:1 & 1:2.  (and besides, time is like nothing to the Eternal God)  Pre-Adamic races in my view, would explain a lot.

I have Pember's book you mention but haven't read it yet. Pre-Adamic races could fill in some gaps, but I see no reason to go there. Finis Jennings Dake also suggested the same. That was the beginning of my study. I have moved away from that train of thought.