Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[DeighAnn]

3 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Nowhere is it written that the book of Genesis is sealed.

If I said or implied it was, my apologies, it was not my intent as it is not my belief.

I believe I said the book of Daniel was.  It wasn't that EVERYONE couldn't READ it, the SAME WORDS have always been right there same as today, 
but the Holy Spirit either wasn't yet available or wasn't yet leading us in the Spirit of truth concerning them as He is now.  



 

3 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

I've written before about Stephen C. Meyer's books on DNA. DNA is not just God's signature, it is His programming language by which we know we are His creation exquisitely made.

I believe it also is the 'bare grain' that is 'produced' when this natural body is sown.

 

3 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

I'm not supporting changing God's word to agree with man's perception? What I am saying is that there is more than one way to properly translate from the Hebrew grammer. I believe Dr. Heiser shows that in the YouTube videos.

I don't watch utube videos but if they work for you and your understanding, then all I can say is 'good for you'.  God works in all of us in different ways for His purposes so however we get there is not my place to judge.

 

3 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

?

Heb 12
11But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

 

[DeighAnn]

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

Just so I understand - you think that, if we are uncomfortable with any text of scripture, we are permitted to “add” or “insert” “information” from outside of scripture, to change the meaning of the written text?

No, you do not understand as that isn't even close to what I think or believe.   I believe there is ONE single truth to be found in Gods word.  The PATH is narrow.  We are not 'permitted' to add insert anything from outside of Scripture, we are NEVER to change the 'meaning' of the written text, though the meaning does 'change' from one level to the next as we mature while never becoming lesss true.  The miracle of Gods Written word, I am sure you have found that to be truth. 

I believe we are especially NOT to try and change it with the use of 'grammar' and dissection of words, though I am not against using them when after precept on precept....could use a bit more clarification, (never the other way around which seems to be the way of the day both now as it was back then) no matter how they make it seem so HOLY and right to do so because in fact,  it is the easiest way to change what is actually written to help one follow a tradition already established and held.  

Can you find anywhere it is written we are to get MORE INTO THE LETTER of what is written?  I can't.  So WHY all the dissection?  Why all the grammar?  Common sense reading as a child would not good enough anymore?  Doesn't seem to be.  And look at where it has lead, for some, DEATH doesn't even mean death anymore, it means 'eternal torment'. 
I am sure you know we are to bring in THE NEW along with the old and we are to BUILD upon the foundation already laid.  And how are we told that is accomplished?  PRECEPT on precept, verse by verse.... and


Here a little, there a little.  Maybe I am not understanding what that means.  What does it mean to you?

I am saying there are verses in the Bible that seem to come out of left field.  THOSE draw my attention, as I am sure they are supposed to, no different than the figures of speech employed for the same purpose.  Those verses I believe can be read 100 times and their true meaning never seen until we have 'matured' to some point that all of a sudden OUR EYES are opened and the puzzle pieces make a perfect fit.  Perfect in that they cause no conflict anywhere else in the words of God.  THAT is the TRUE test of its truth.  'Here a little' voiding out Gods word is never ok. 

I hope this clears it up.  Thoughts?

 

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

What? Sorry, I’m not following how this fits into our discussion.

Who missed the Messiah?  Who took the words of God and made them say a whole bunch of things they didn't say?  The Scribes ect.  It was WRITTEN in their NATIVE TONGUE.  You KNOW they knew all the word definitions and the grammar better than any Christian today does (I am sure that is an exaggeration) yet THEY GOT IT WRONG. 

PROVING, at least as far as I am concerned, it isn't in the WORDS themselves but in the concepts the words put forth, the Spirit of Truth.   

Does this FIT into the discussion as you see it?  I don't know, all I can say is I go where I am led, and if that is 'off topic 'and going 'off topic' is an issue for you, I may not be the one to post back and forth with.  I will say, for the MOST part I do try.

But PLEASE, if you find this to be an issue, let's peacefully end the conversation, as I hate to feel I am being policed and/or graded about HOW it is done RATHER than the information actually put forth, because it robs me of my peace, and I love my peace. 

If I read that completely wrong because I AM too sensitive and just jumping the gun, apologies to you and just take it like water off a ducks back.   Thank you.

 

[DeighAnn]

1 hour ago, Vine Abider said:

Responding again to your post to clarify . . . The idea is that after verse 1:1 there is a full stop before 1:2.

I am even more severe.  I believe the FIRST FULL STOP 

Gen 1 In the beginning God created the heaven.

comes there, and this follows

and the earth

because

1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

2Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

3Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?


Which seems to go hand in hand with

1And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

or

The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

23I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

24When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

25Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

26While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

27When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:



8Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?

9When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,

10And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,

11And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

12Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;

13That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

14It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.

15And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.


You know what is missing in all the descriptions of God creating the earth?  Chaos, with it sitting in the dark all  tohu va bohu.  

[Guest]

9 hours ago, BeyondET said:

It was a good read from Dr. Heiser but he was off on a few things like how a solar system is created and a few other things. Though it was a good effort.

We have to realize he is not a scientist and is not trying to reconcile Genesis with accepted astrophysics. He is trying to put Biblical authors in time to explain to their contemporaries in scriptural words they'd understand. I don't expect many (or any) Biblical contemporaries of the shepherds or farmers, scribes or Pharisees, to understand science. 

[Guest]

18 hours ago, Tristen said:

Howdy,

Obviously, we don’t know, but several plausible speculations come to mind.

I’d firstly point out that those plants only had to survive without “sunlight” for a day (or less) – so this really is just a “thought experiment”, since most plants are just fine if deprived of “sunlight” for a short period.

I’d also suggest that the plants were created mature (like the mature humans), as they were needed to feed most of the rest of created nature (including humans). So the plants didn’t really have to “grow” much over that time.

I’d further suggest that the photosynthesis required by most plants only requires photons from light. That light typically comes from the sun. But there was already another source of light present since day 1. And that light was already divided between day and night periods; regardless of the presence of the luminaries.

Therefore, the lack of “sunlight” for a short period doesn’t negatively impact the plausibility or consistency of the Genesis narrative.

I like this thought experiment you started here. There may be a grammatically correct Hebrew translation that allows the reordering of day details. This is Hebrew poetry, not English poetry. 

I'm finding there's a lot more we have in common, you a YEC, me being an OEC, than I thought.

[BeyondET]

3 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

We have to realize he is not a scientist and is not trying to reconcile Genesis with accepted astrophysics. He is trying to put Biblical authors in time to explain to their contemporaries in scriptural words they'd understand. I don't expect many (or any) Biblical contemporaries of the shepherds or farmers, scribes or Pharisees, to understand science. 

That's is true I don't know who his audience is, as you mentioned his speaking in a general way some may understand who knows.

I would think they'd understand day and night separated as like a supernova of a star and the black hole that is left. Interesting enough there's a new black hole that forms every second in the universe, so is the massive star that supernovae

Edited December 16, 2022 by BeyondET

[BeyondET]

2 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

I like this thought experiment you started here. There may be a grammatically correct Hebrew translation that allows the reordering of day details. This is Hebrew poetry, not English poetry. 

I'm finding there's a lot more we have in common, you a YEC, me being an OEC, than I thought.

Interesting the reordering was that a muse or something to it. I for one since reading days in a different order. the current excepted order of days is significantly less fluid than other orders.

Edited December 16, 2022 by BeyondET

[Tristen]

On 12/16/2022 at 2:19 AM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

I believe Hebrew grammer can be translated two ways, at least that's my understanding from Dr. Heiser's lecture. He is a Hebrew language scholar so he has no ax to grind. He is not adding text between Genesis 1:1-3. He is suggesting Genesis 1:1-1:2 is dependent on Genesis 1:3 grammatically. If this is so, the text would support both a young Earth Creationists' position and an old Earth Creationists' position if it occurred before Genesis 1:1. No text is inserted in either case and the KJV and the ESV Bibles would both be somewhat improperly translated. In other words, the beginning mentioned is the beginning of man and his environment. Hebrew poetry does not translate from English properly without an understanding of Hebrew grammer.

 

 

The question remains – Are you comfortable making wholesale changes to the plain meaning of the text based on;

1) It being technically possible to change the meaning of any written communication by inserting unstated information between sentences, and/or

2) Some vague appeal to the rules of “Hebrew poetry” and “Hebrew grammar”, and/or

3) Some person, whose credentials you respect, said it was ok?

Consider my perspective - I could use the same methodology to change the meaning of literally any scripture - if I decided I was uncomfortable with the plain meaning of the text. I’m sure you can understand why I find this approach to interpreting scripture to be particularly concerning.

Furthermore, the more we delve into the issue, the more it seems that nothing in Genesis 1 means what it actually says; E.g. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” is apparently not referring to the creation of the natural universe, but rather “the beginning of man and his environment”, And “the earth was without form” actually means “the form (or structure) of the earth became destroyed after the sinful corruption of some pre-Adamic race of humans”. There’s even a suggestion in this thread that we get to presume the right to reorder what God has written till it suits our sensibilities.

 

You say, “No text is inserted”

But external ideas are unquestionably being “inserted” between the “text”. The following is how I am seeing the issue.

- The scripture has been translated (presumably by “Hebrew scholars”) to read;

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void” (Genesis 1:1-2, NKJV)

- My YEC interpretation would paraphrase this as;

“God created the natural universe (including space and time) out of His eternity. At that early stage, God had not yet finished forming or filling the earth.”

- The long-ages interpretation seems to be;

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth [around 13.6 and 3.9 billion years ago respectively. Then, God created life on the earth and evolved it over the next 3-or-so billion years, including into humans, who sinned and corrupted the earth – leading somehow to its ultimate destruction – and leaving the earth in a state of being] disheveled and empty. And therefore, everything else we read in Genesis 1 is a description of God starting over.”

And this is me trying to be concise.

It is therefore self-evident that this paradigm requires inserting a mass of speculated information between Biblical sentences for the explicit purpose of disavowing the most obvious, most straight-forward, meaning of the text. To suggest otherwise seems dishonest.

 

SUBSEQUENT POST

“I like this thought experiment you started here. There may be a grammatically correct Hebrew translation that allows the reordering of day details. This is Hebrew poetry, not English poetry.”

If there is an argument that possibly permits the “reordering of day details”, then I will gladly consider and scrutinize it. But simply claiming it to be “Hebrew poetry” is nowhere near good enough.

My original “thought experiment” asked if we would permit ourselves the right to insert information between sentences to change the meaning of scripture in any other Biblical context (i.e. beyond Genesis). So far, no one has shown any willingness to even consider the implications of that question.

 

[Tristen]

On 12/16/2022 at 3:50 AM, BeyondET said:

I find it as simple as knowing the order of days is not in order for a reason. Days are 1,2,4,3,5,6 I know it takes quite alot of faith to believe such things, that is probably why I am the only one who will take the leap or at least among a very few possibly.

when the days are read in that order there is no questioning on how plants grow without sunlight, or a need to explain how it can happen. 

 

“I find it as simple as knowing the order of days is not in order for a reason”

What is the “reason”? Why did God tell us the events happened in one order, if they really happened in a different order? Is the Bible wrong? Is God lying to us? Did God not preserve the correct order of events? What gives you the right, or authority, to make this determination?

 

“Days are 1,2,4,3,5,6 I know it takes quite alot of faith to believe such things, that is probably why I am the only one who will take the leap or at least among a very few possibly”

True “faith” is trusting that God has preserved His Word as He intended. Pseudo “faith” is presuming the right to reorder God’s Word. Especially given that the presented narrative is perfectly plausible and logically consistent with established knowledge (as I demonstrated in my previous post to you).

 

“when the days are read in that order there is no questioning on how plants grow without sunlight, or a need to explain how it can happen”

So you get to just change God’s Word because you don’t like how God wrote it?

In my previous post to you, I gave you three reasons why there is no “need to explain how it can happen”, given the existing, written order. Therefore, you are presuming the right to change God’s Word for no reason. Why would you resort to such a drastic, and dangerous, hermeneutical approach when it is completely unnecessary?

 

[Tristen]

On 12/16/2022 at 4:31 AM, Vine Abider said:

Responding again to your post to clarify . . . The idea is that after verse 1:1 there is a full stop before 1:2.  God created the heavens and the earth: Stop. Then something happened in an unspecified length of time (between verse one and two) which needed to be addressed, to recover things back to a good situation (for man to be created).  Then comes the last 6,000 years of biblical history.  

I know at first it's perhaps a foreign concept, but that's the idea with the gap theory.  And it's an idea that's been around for some time and was once a pretty popular thing with many Christians (and I understand perhaps ancient Jews).  It's not just an attempt to "squeeze 14 billion years" willy-nilly into scripture to appease evolutionists, at least not in my estimation.  

 

The problem is not my lack of familiarity with “Gap Theory”. The problem is that “Gap Theory” requires an interpretation approach that permits the reader to disregard what is actually written, in deference to an idea that does not exist in the actual text – often an idea that is contrary to the penned text. One looks at the text, decides they don’t like, or agree with, what is plainly stated, then goes about changing the meaning of the text till it agrees with them.

In any other part of scripture, most Christians would rightly recoil at the notion that we are permitted to change the meaning of God’s Word in such a manner.

 

Regarding it being “an idea that's been around for some time and was once a pretty popular thing with many Christians (and I understand perhaps ancient Jews)”

I’d be interested to know where to find this claim supported by evidence. I’ve had a difficult time finding any legitimate references to such ideas existing before a few hundred years ago.

 

“It's not just an attempt to "squeeze 14 billion years" willy-nilly into scripture to appease evolutionists, at least not in my estimation.”

It certainly is “an attempt to "squeeze 14 billion years" … into scripture”. Whether or not it is done “willy-nilly”, or “to appease” an external narrative of history, is the thing we are debating.

At present, I certainly see “Gap Theory” as an attempt to make scripture fit (or be “reconciled to”) the secular narrative of history.

My Christian instinct is to trust God’s Word over any external narrative. That means – God’s Word is the highest authority – and everything else must conform to scripture, not the other way around. I am not prepared to submit the authority of God’s Word under any idea of man. And having formally studied science for over a decade, and having subsequently worked in research, I have found no logical obligation on me to question the Biblical narrative as it is plainly written.