Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[Starise]

I read through the last several pages of this thread and find it very interesting.

I have heard the Gensis 1-2 argument, or the argument that something very long term happened between verses 1 and 2.

Here is where I think this argument falls apart- If we look at translations we see the word yom used to indicate a day, and we had a sequence of equal events God inititated during this time. God was making an ecosystem here. Each successive creation depended on the earlier ones.

If there had been a 10 million year lapse between say, the plants and the birds, the whole house of cards collapses. Same with all of the others.

What I see is an attempt to shoe horn millions of years into this narrative, when it doesn't necessarily exist.

[teddyv]

On 9/2/2023 at 3:47 PM, Starise said:

I read through the last several pages of this thread and find it very interesting.

I have heard the Gensis 1-2 argument, or the argument that something very long term happened between verses 1 and 2.

Here is where I think this argument falls apart- If we look at translations we see the word yom used to indicate a day, and we had a sequence of equal events God inititated during this time. God was making an ecosystem here. Each successive creation depended on the earlier ones.

If there had been a 10 million year lapse between say, the plants and the birds, the whole house of cards collapses. Same with all of the others.

What I see is an attempt to shoe horn millions of years into this narrative, when it doesn't necessarily exist.

Why would the sun, moon and stars be dependent on the forming of the dry land from the waters?

Anyway,  I agree that shoehorning millions of years in there is nonsensical but probably not for the same reasons as you.

[Starise]

9 hours ago, teddyv said:

Why would the sun, moon and stars be dependent on the forming of the dry land from the waters?

Anyway,  I agree that shoehorning millions of years in there is nonsensical but probably not for the same reasons as you.

Well, admittedly I am coming to this party very late and haven't read all of the various pages in it..

I don't see any of that being dependent on the other though. There is a certain sequential lens that some seem to think is a necessity in order for things to have happened the way they see them happening, and this seems inaccurate from the standpoint that , " In the beginning God created the heavens and...."( and sequentially, the earth) right?>>>>> and the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

 

[SavedOnebyGrace]

On 9/2/2023 at 6:47 PM, Starise said:

I read through the last several pages of this thread and find it very interesting.

I have heard the Gensis 1-2 argument, or the argument that something very long term happened between verses 1 and 2.

Here is where I think this argument falls apart- If we look at translations we see the word yom used to indicate a day, and we had a sequence of equal events God inititated during this time. God was making an ecosystem here. Each successive creation depended on the earlier ones.

If there had been a 10 million year lapse between say, the plants and the birds, the whole house of cards collapses. Same with all of the others.

What I see is an attempt to shoe horn millions of years into this narrative, when it doesn't necessarily exist.

The word "yom" can mean various time periods. Here's the take from Wikipedia: Yom

Edited September 11, 2023 by SavedOnebyGrace

[FreeGrace]

On 8/31/2023 at 9:04 PM, Tristen said:

Yes - you re-repeated the same thing once "again" - and "again", lacking any engagement with my provided argument.

Total engagement with your "argument", which is only a claim made.  No facts to back it up at all.

btw, I was looking at old post activity and was scanning through this thread that I thought was dead and found your posty dated 8/31!!  I never got the memo.  Sorry.  I wasn't ignoring anything.

On 8/31/2023 at 9:04 PM, Tristen said:

When one refuses to engage with the opposing argument, and instead keeps repeating their own position over-and-over "again", One is utilizing Circular reasoning: i.e. 'If anyone disagrees with you, their argument cannot be correct, and is therefore dismissed as automatically wrong - and therefore does not require thoughtful consideration - because it disagrees with you and is therefore wrong - and is therefore not worthy of consideration - because, in disagreeing with you, it must be wrong - and you will therefore not even recognize the existence of such an argument - etc., etc..'

All you've done is repeat over and over your position.  And I've explained that your position isn't logical or reasonable.  What ELSE is there to say?  Identifying confusion IS an engagement in the discussion.  But you think otherwise.

On 8/31/2023 at 9:04 PM, Tristen said:

And now, to your Circular argument, you add a Tu Quoque logic fallacy - because you also, apparently, lack originality.

So, just what is this "logic fallacy" that you speak of?  I've never heard of it.  And while you're at it, please SHOW ME how my argument is "circular".  That means FACTS.  How what I said is circular.

On 8/31/2023 at 9:04 PM, Tristen said:

I have neither attempted, nor claimed, to have "proven otherwise". This is something you would know if you engaged with my provided argument.

I don't think your claims are valid.  Something that doesn't make sense can only be described as not making sense.  Like claiming "tohu wabohu" can describe "early creation conditions", which you've never defined in spite of my asking, and what a besieging army does to the land.  That doesn't make sense.

On 8/31/2023 at 9:04 PM, Tristen said:

Lol. That ole chestnut. Apparently, you are incapable of considering my provided arguments about this as well.

Rather, considered and thrown OUT.  What you have "provided" as an argument simply fails to defend any object that has no form.  There is no such thing as "formless", unless one has to RE-define the word to fit their own argument, as you've done.

If something can be SEEN, then it HAS form.  Case closed on that "ole chestnut".

On 8/31/2023 at 9:04 PM, Tristen said:

Your default, when you have no answer, is to simply ignore the question and continue repeating yourself, over-and-over "again".

What I repeat is the reality of the situation.  Feel free to spin it however you desire.

On 8/31/2023 at 9:04 PM, Tristen said:

To quote myself, "Your comment here is not an example of you telling me where I "went wrong". It's just you repeating your own claim - yet again - without any reference to my argument whatsoever.".

When something is illogical, and I repeat myself, what else is there to say?  I have to assume that you do understand the meaning of words, like "illogical", but you have not yet proven that any of your arguments are logical.

[FreeGrace]

On 9/2/2023 at 6:47 PM, Starise said:

I read through the last several pages of this thread and find it very interesting.

I have heard the Gensis 1-2 argument, or the argument that something very long term happened between verses 1 and 2.

Here is where I think this argument falls apart- If we look at translations we see the word yom used to indicate a day, and we had a sequence of equal events God inititated during this time. God was making an ecosystem here. Each successive creation depended on the earlier ones.

If there had been a 10 million year lapse between say, the plants and the birds, the whole house of cards collapses. Same with all of the others.

What I see is an attempt to shoe horn millions of years into this narrative, when it doesn't necessarily exist.

This sounds quite like the "day-age" theory to account for an earth much older than Adam.  But that theory has many holes in it.

Actually, taking the words of v.2 as used elsewhere in the Bible, like "tohu wabohu", like Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11, we see that the phrase is used to describe desolation, chaos, waste, etc.  Hardly any way to describe God's original creation.

And the silly universal translation of "formless" is an obvious error, since EVERY object that can be seen HAS form.  

Or, describe any object that can be seen that doesn't have form.  

[SavedOnebyGrace]

4 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

This sounds quite like the "day-age" theory to account for an earth much older than Adam.  But that theory has many holes in it.

Actually, taking the words of v.2 as used elsewhere in the Bible, like "tohu wabohu", like Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11, we see that the phrase is used to describe desolation, chaos, waste, etc.  Hardly any way to describe God's original creation.

And the silly universal translation of "formless" is an obvious error, since EVERY object that can be seen HAS form.  

Or, describe any object that can be seen that doesn't have form.  

What proves that the either the day-age or gap theory of interpretation of Genesis 1 is proven by the scientific evidence that the Earth and its Moon are of two different ages, created at two different times.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Earth = 4.54 billion years (Earth)

Source: https://www.space.com/moon-older-than-thought-apollo-lunar-rocks.html = 4.51 billion years (Moon)

Source: https://www.space.com/moon-older-than-thought-apollo-lunar-rocks.html = 4.56 billion years (Sun)

Source: https://www.space.com/moon-older-than-thought-apollo-lunar-rocks.html = 4.56 billion years (Solar System)

Source: https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/featured_science/tenyear/age.html = 13.7 billion years old (Age of Universe)

There's nothing here to support the illogical argument of YEC. Scientific evidence supports the Age of the Universe being created first, then Solar System and Sun being created at near the same time, then the Earth, and finally the Moon. That is the current scientific understanding.

[Starise]

14 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

This sounds quite like the "day-age" theory to account for an earth much older than Adam.  But that theory has many holes in it.

Actually, taking the words of v.2 as used elsewhere in the Bible, like "tohu wabohu", like Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11, we see that the phrase is used to describe desolation, chaos, waste, etc.  Hardly any way to describe God's original creation.

And the silly universal translation of "formless" is an obvious error, since EVERY object that can be seen HAS form.  

Or, describe any object that can be seen that doesn't have form.  

I believe you interpreted my post different than my intention, which is probably my error.

I am still on the fence with regard to what happened before the seven days creation with regard to the rest of the universe. How much time was there "in the beginning" before the Lord started work on the 7 days?

Two basic views for those who believe in a literal 7 days,

- An unfathomable amount of time passed before the Spirit of God hovered over those waters.

-POW it was a sudden thing. God just threw everything into place.

Notice there is no time given for the time before the 7 days, that is if there was time before then. We can say Gen 1 is a summary with " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" which would be a summation of the description to follow. I don't see the seven days as starting until the Spirit of God hovered over the earth which seems to have been covered in water and totally dark, maybe similar to Titan now.

What I read is God began something with something, and that something was obviously already here.

[FreeGrace]

9 hours ago, SavedOnebyGrace said:

What proves that the either the day-age or gap theory of interpretation of Genesis 1 is proven by the scientific evidence that the Earth and its Moon are of two different ages, created at two different times.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Earth = 4.54 billion years (Earth)

Source: https://www.space.com/moon-older-than-thought-apollo-lunar-rocks.html = 4.51 billion years (Moon)

Source: https://www.space.com/moon-older-than-thought-apollo-lunar-rocks.html = 4.56 billion years (Sun)

Source: https://www.space.com/moon-older-than-thought-apollo-lunar-rocks.html = 4.56 billion years (Solar System)

Source: https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/featured_science/tenyear/age.html = 13.7 billion years old (Age of Universe)

There's nothing here to support the illogical argument of YEC. Scientific evidence supports the Age of the Universe being created first, then Solar System and Sun being created at near the same time, then the Earth, and finally the Moon. That is the current scientific understanding.

Thanks for the information!

[FreeGrace]

1 minute ago, Starise said:

I believe you interpreted my post different than my intention, which is probably my error.

Oops.  Maybe mine.  

1 minute ago, Starise said:

I am still on the fence with regard to what happened before the seven days creation with regard to the rest of the universe. How much time was there "in the beginning" before the Lord started work on the 7 days?

I view the '7 days' as a restoration of an earth that became an uninhabitable wasteland.  There is ample evidence from how "tohu wabohu" are used elsewhere to come to that conclusion.  God simply restored earth for man's use.  So that shows a time gap, but how long is anyone's guess.  

1 minute ago, Starise said:

Two basic views for those who believe in a literal 7 days,

- An unfathomable amount of time passed before the Spirit of God hovered over those waters.

-POW it was a sudden thing. God just threw everything into place.

I view the POW or as some call it, the BIG BANG theory, when God spoke the universe into existence.  Psa 33:6,9  This would correspond to Gen 1:1

1 minute ago, Starise said:

Notice there is no time given for the time before the 7 days, that is if there was time before then. We can say Gen 1 is a summary with " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" which would be a summation of the description to follow.

Well, what we do have is v.2 which is better translated as "but the earth became an uninhabital wasteland".  This shows that something happened to earth and changed it between v.1 and v.2.  And God left out all details.

1 minute ago, Starise said:

I don't see the seven days as starting until the Spirit of God hovered over the earth which seems to have been covered in water and totally dark, maybe similar to Titan now.

Correct.  Which I view as a restoration.  btw, there is support for this in the NT.

Heb 11:3 - By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.  ESV

The bolded word is 'katartizo'.  From biblehub.com -

 

katartizó: to complete, prepare

Original Word: καταρτίζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: katartizó
Phonetic Spelling: (kat-ar-tid'-zo)
Definition: to complete, prepare
Usage: (a) I fit (join) together; met: I compact together, (b) act. and mid: I prepare, perfect, for his (its) full destination or use, bring into its proper condition (whether for the first time, or after a lapse).

HELPS Word-studies

2675 katartízō (from 2596 /katá, "according to, down," intensifying artizō, "to adjust," which is derived from 739 /ártios, "properly adjusted") – properly, exactly fit (adjust) to be in good working order, i.e. adjusted exactly "down" to fully function.

If the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland, then God would have HAD TO prepare it for mankind.  Or "bring into its proper condition (original condition), and note the parenthesis:  whether for the first time or after a lapse!!

Also notice the HELPS:  "properly adjusted" can easily refer to a restoration.

And, 'katartizo' is actually translated as "restored" in several verses:  Gal 6:1 and 1 Pet 5:10.

1 minute ago, Starise said:

What I read is God began something with something, and that something was obviously already here.

what I read is that God began the universe with the word of His mouth (Psa 33:6,9) and after the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland, He restored it for man's use.

I thoroughly reject the idea of evolution.  I am fully a creationist and a restorationist.