Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[Guest]

Science cannot be ignored. This supports the proper understanding of the text. Hermeneutics, Hebrew-Greek Interlinears, reliable Commentaries, manners and customs, etc. are important to remove denominational bias. So if the science of logic is allowed, all of science should be allowed including various dating methods. 

In my experience, YEC will do and say anything to support their beliefs. 

[Neighbor]

On 12/7/2022 at 6:31 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

The beginning of the universe: Apologist Robert Clifton Robinson Looks at the Beginning of Our Universe

This is a fine article for those who take the time to read it.

Coming to this conversation late I haven't read 7 pages of posts; however if the name Gerald Schroedar ("WHAT IS THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE")  hasn't yet come up I suggest  that it should.  I have placed a 7 minute video over at videos regarding his reconciliation of a literal 5 and 1/2 days with an actual 14 billion years If you search his name you will find a series of books and presentation video on this and related subjects.

[Vine Abider]

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

In my experience, YEC will do and say anything to support their beliefs. 

And probably that could be said of old earthers too . . .

If someone has been brought up with the view that the bible says the earth is young, they will probably tend to go in that direction.  And then it becomes a matter of faith to them that they must uphold that view.

If, like me, they weren't brought up with the idea that the earth is young and weren't really taught anything from the bible regarding the earth's age, then they would likely go with the notion the earth is old - because that's what science says.

In my case, I was introduced to Pember's book when I was around 20, and it just made sense that the bible supported an old earth with much going on between the first two verses of Genesis.  I've read various things supporting old and young earth theories, but ultimately old earth just fits well.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

And probably that could be said of old earthers too . . .

If someone has been brought up with the view that the bible says the earth is young, they will probably tend to go in that direction.  And then it becomes a matter of faith to them that they must uphold that view.

If, like me, they weren't brought up with the idea that the earth is young and weren't really taught anything from the bible regarding the earth's age, then they would likely go with the notion the earth is old - because that's what science says.

In my case, I was introduced to Pember's book when I was around 20, and it just made sense that the bible supported an old earth with much going on between the first two verses of Genesis.  I've read various things supporting old and young earth theories, but ultimately old earth just fits well.

I was brought up as a Roman Catholic. At that time, Roman Catholic teaching did not have a consistent position on creation. I was taught that Genesis was to be taken as literal, and that it was not to be taken as literal, but just a story. Mostly the Old Testament was not given much thought. After High School, I became an agnostic. During my time as agnostic, I had a near death experience which led me to a study of all religions. But unsatisfied, I returned to agnosticism.

Twenty plus years later, I had another spiritual experience which led me to join my wife's church. It was Dake's Bible detailed explanation that started me studying Old Earth Science. But it was also Unger's Commentary on the Old Testament, the Bible Knowledge Commentary, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, and many more. I've added to my paper copies of my commentaries over the years as finances permitted and now have many more electronic commentaries.

As a degreed mechanical engineer and amateur astronomer, the 6000 year old earth never made sense to me and was a stumbling block for sure. Evolution never made any sense to me either although I've read several books on the subject. I have Pember's book but haven't read it yet. Without Form and Void: A Study of the Meaning of Genesis 1:2 by Arthur C. Custance is another book I haven't read yet. I did read Darwin's Black Box and read numerous books by Hugh Ross but just don't buy into the Day-Age Theory of Creation. I continue to read books and listen to preachers of God's word that look at Genesis from all points of view.

Edited December 27, 2022 by Saved.One.by.Grace
Reworded.

[Vine Abider]

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

I was brought up as a Roman Catholic. At that time, Roman Catholic teaching did not have a consistent position on creation. I was taught that Genesis was not to be taken as literal, and that it was to be taken as not literal, just a story. Mostly the Old Testament was not given much thought. After High School, I became an agnostic. During my time as agnostic, I had a near death experience which led me to a study of all religions. But unsatisfied, I returned to agnosticism.

Twenty plus years later, I had another spiritual experience which led me to join my wife's church. It was Dake's Bible detailed explanation that started me studying Old Earth Science. But it was Unger's Commentary on the Old Testament, the Bible Knowledge Commentary, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, and many more. I've added to my paper copies of my commentaries over the years as finances permitted and now have many more electronic commentaries.

As a de-greed mechanical engineer and amateur astronomer, the 6000 year old earth never made sense to me and was a stumbling block for sure. Evolution never made any sense to me either although I've read several books on the subject. I have Pember's book but haven't read it yet. Without Form and Void: A Study of the Meaning of Genesis 1:2 by Arthur C. Custance is another book I haven't read yet. I did read Darwin's Black Box and read numerous books by Hugh Ross but just don't buy into the Day-Age Theory of Creation. I continue to read books and listen to preachers of God's word that look at Genesis from all points of view.

To me, and most Christians, belief in evolution is a huge stretch of faith. And for me belief in a young earth is another big leap of faith . . . though not as big as for evolution.

[Tristen]

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

Science cannot be ignored. This supports the proper understanding of the text. Hermeneutics, Hebrew-Greek Interlinears, reliable Commentaries, manners and customs, etc. are important to remove denominational bias. So if the science of logic is allowed, all of science should be allowed including various dating methods. 

In my experience, YEC will do and say anything to support their beliefs. 

 

“Science cannot be ignored”

Irony: ‘I don’t want this conversation characterized by personal attacks. Also, anyone who disagrees with me must be willfully ignorant, or intentionally dismissive, of “science”’

You don’t seem to understand that you are the one who is constantly defaulting to the personal – to deflect from a rational consideration of opposing arguments.

And who is ignoring “science”. I am more than happy to scrutinize any “science” you think exclusively supports your position. Let’s examine the research together and go through the logic of how the scientists reached their conclusions.

 

“This supports the proper understanding of the text”

So then, you are starting the process of interpretation from the conclusion. You have presupposed the “proper understanding of the text” before any examination of arguments. This demonstrates confirmation bias on your part.

 

“Hermeneutics, Hebrew-Greek Interlinears, reliable Commentaries, manners and customs, etc. are important to remove denominational bias”

I’m not sure what denominations have to do with anything – But yes, all aspects of context are important when it comes to interpreting scripture.

My problem so far is that the only aspect of context I’ve heard from you is the insinuation that the original audience was too stupid to understand that the world could be unimaginably old, and that humans could have animal ancestors. Therefore, God told them a fairy tale – a story that has some ambiguous symbolic significance, rather than telling them the truth of history.

Interestingly, it was no problem for other ancient pagan cultures to believe that the world could be unimaginably old, and that humans could have animal ancestors.

 

“So if the science of logic is allowed”

Science is actually a subset of logic.

Logic refers the rules governing truth and reality. Science refers to the processes involved in using these rules to ascertain knowledge.

One such process is called the Scientific Method – which uses observations from experimentation to generate mathematically precise levels of confidence in claims about the current, natural universe. The Scientific Method is very logically robust.

Another such process is Historical Modelling – in which a story about what may have happened in the past is formulated around existing data points (current facts); generating only anecdotal confidence in claims about unobserved history.

It is somewhat legitimate to call them both “science”. However, it is problematic to conflate the two as though they are the same – pretending they generate the same levels and types of confidence. That is an Equivocation designed to confuse.

 

“all of science should be allowed including various dating methods”

Who has disallowed anything?

No process of science claims to produce certainty. Therefore, every claim of science remains subject to scrutiny. Shall we go through the “various dating methods” and examine the underlying logic used to generate their conclusions?

Or perhaps you’d just prefer to accuse me of ignoring science, and leave it at that.

 

“In my experience, YEC will do and say anything to support their beliefs”

Irony: ‘I don’t want this conversation characterized by personal attacks. Also, if you are a YEC, you are probably dishonest’.

Once again, you are trying to dismiss an examination of arguments based on something personal about the person presenting them.

 

SUBSEQUENT POST

“I continue to read books and listen to preachers of God's word that look at Genesis from all points of view.”

You mean except for those nasty, insincere, disingenuous, low-down, dishonest YEC “points of view”. Since you’ve already decided that they can’t be trusted.

 

[Tristen]

10 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

And probably that could be said of old earthers too . . .

If someone has been brought up with the view that the bible says the earth is young, they will probably tend to go in that direction.  And then it becomes a matter of faith to them that they must uphold that view.

If, like me, they weren't brought up with the idea that the earth is young and weren't really taught anything from the bible regarding the earth's age, then they would likely go with the notion the earth is old - because that's what science says.

In my case, I was introduced to Pember's book when I was around 20, and it just made sense that the bible supported an old earth with much going on between the first two verses of Genesis.  I've read various things supporting old and young earth theories, but ultimately old earth just fits well.

 

I was raised in a secular household with an exclusively secular education. I converted to Christianity as a young adult. I had no idea that such a thing as young earth creationism existed – even for the first couple of years of my Christianity. Nevertheless, over that time I became increasingly uncomfortable with the obvious discrepancy between what I ‘knew’ about history, and what the Bible teaches about history. I then encountered a YEC organization. It was somewhat mind-boggling to me at the time that any sensible adult could seriously believe such nonsense. Nevertheless, I carefully examined their arguments and, to my surprise, discovered that the levels of confidence claimed for the secular historical narrative were utterly unwarranted by logic – and I was therefore intellectually free to trust everything I read in the Bible, as written.

Subsequently (and somewhat motivated by a desire to test my creationist views), I attained a science degree, and went on to attain a research PhD. I have yet to discover any fact of science that obligates me to the secular narrative of history (after the logic of the claim is dissected and examined). I therefore consider myself free to believe the plainest reading of Genesis without any intellectual compromise.

What you claim about upbringing influencing the conclusion may be true in some cases, but that in-itself does not speak to the truth of history or science.

 

“they would likely go with the notion the earth is old - because that's what science says”

I would respectfully caution against any aggrandized claims about “what science says” or what “the science” claims. There is no great entity called “science” making absolutist, authoritative claims about reality. There is rather, a vast collection of research containing both the facts (data and observations) along with how scientists have interpreted those facts. All of it remains rationally subject to scrutiny.

 

“I've read various things supporting old and young earth theories, but ultimately old earth just fits well”

As you yourself suggested, how “well” the facts fit with one’s preferred model is more a matter of presupposition and confirmation bias, rather than an objective analysis of the evidence.

 

[Vine Abider]

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

I therefore consider myself free to believe the plainest reading of Genesis without any intellectual compromise.  And I think the same way about how I see it - how can this be!?  

As you yourself suggested, how “well” the facts fit with one’s preferred model is more a matter of presupposition and confirmation bias, rather than an objective analysis of the evidence.   True in so, so many things we humans come to believe, based on our environment and our "unique" perspective!

Thanks for sharing your background!  I could have guessed a little of that, from how intellectually you've responded on a few things.  (I have the pleasure of knowing a couple PhDs and can sorta sense it . . .)

[Guest]

Genesis 1:1 (Read right to left)

Genesis 2:4 (Read right to left)

God is named two different ways in Genesis. The English translates as just God in Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:3, then switches over to Yahweh God (or Lord God) depending on the translation you're using at Genesis 2:4. Why do you think that is? This is from Bible Hub Interlinear translation.

Edited December 30, 2022 by Saved.One.by.Grace
added text

[NotMyRealName]

Where does a circle begin?  Cycles are everywhere in nature.  Seasons, day/night, years, trees die to add to soil to grow more trees.  Rocks erode, compress to sedimentary rock, get pushed down deep and change to metamorphic rock and later emerge again.  How old was Adam when he was created?  We don't know, but he was a man, not a boy or baby.  When he was a day old he was also X years old.  And if we could travel back in time and cut down a tree outside the Garden of Eden we could count the rings and hence the years of age for that tree that was less than a week old. I'm sure the forests had good soil.  Soil that would show decomposed plant matter.  And we would find plants of various points in their life cycle.  Perhaps we would also pick up a rock and have it tested for age finding it was 4 billion years old even though it was created in the week.  God made the cycles and picked some point within each one to start things off.