Age of the Earth 2

[artsylady]

hi Tim: Glad you can join us but I don't know how much more debate I can do on this age of the earth and interpretting Genesis. It gets tiresome, so we've pretty much agreed to disagree on this. I've never been a Hovind fan myself, so I'm not coming from where you were. Incidentally, some have come here as old age creationists and have become YECs in the past few months.

However, I will go into this a bit. It sure seems that the writer of Genesis went out of his way to make sure we all know what day means. After all God created the darkness and he called it night, he created the light which he called day and there was evening and morning the first day. If you don't beleive that these are literal days, you're going to have to affix new meanings to the words 'morning' and 'evening' and 'darkness' and 'light'? What do you think these 4 words mean?

So the 6th day is composed of:

A. the creation of land animals

B. the creation of Adam

C. the creation of Eve after Adam names all of the animals

Seems like a lot in one literal 24 hour day, methinks.

Would A and B and the first part of C be difficult for God to accomplish? No, of course not. So the only difficult part is Adam naming the animals. Well, I'm not sure how long this needs to take, especially if all the animals are surrounding him. He he name all of the dinosaurs, just 'dinosaurs?" all of the things in the air 'birds"? Did he name all of little tiny critters 'bugs". There's no way of knowing. Maybe he generalized. We just don't know. And if he had 10 hours to do this, it might have been enough.

2. The "Day of the Lord" refers to a seven year period of time.

Where and when?

3. Genesis 2:4 refers to all 6 days of creation as one day, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven."

Is this an analogy or should it be interpreted with the calendar day interpretation?

This part is questionable.

4. The seventh day of Genesis is not closed. In all other days, "there is the evening and the morning, the n day."

But the sixth day IS closed. Nothing happened on the seventh day. I'm not sure I understand this point.

In the book of Hebrews, the author tells us to labor to enter into God's seventh day of rest. By any calculation, God's seventh day of rest has been at least 6,000 years long:

For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works"... Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:4-11)

So are we supposed to work six literal days and then enter into eternal rest too? I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.

Clearly, in the Exodus, when God gave us the commandments, we are to work six days and rest on the seventh and the comparison to God creating the earth is made here.

5. The psalmist (Moses, the author of Genesis) says "For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night." (Psalms 90:4).

Moses didn't write the psalms. David did. David was renowned for his poetic writing. Moses was not.

In any case, do you think each day of creation was then a thouand years, based on the above poetic writing, which seems like a similie, because it uses the word "like'. A simile uses the words 'like' or 'as' to describe something. Much like David's son used a simile in describing his lover -'thy hair is like a flock of goats". doesn't sound like much of a compliment but I guess it was in those days. Both David and Solomon were known for their poetic writings.

6. The apostle Peter tells us with God "A thousand years is as one day" (2 Peter 3:8).

Again, a simile. But you forgot the last part, which say "and a thousand years AS one day". I think the verse is speaking of how we live here on earth is very important, because in the afterlife, time is limitless.

Or, are you again saying that the 'days' of creation equal one thousand years each?

7. The third day must have been longer than 24-hours, since the text indicates a process that would take a year or longer. On this day, God allowed the land to produce vegetation, tress and fruit. The text specifically states that the land produced trees that bore fruit with seed in it (3). Any horticulturist knows that fruit-bearing trees requires several years to grow to produce fruit. However, the text states that the land produced these trees (indicating a natural process) and that it all occurred on the third day. Obviously, such a "day" could not have been only 24 hours long.

Was Adam created as a baby, unable to create new life? No, he was created as a full adult. It's most likely that so were all of God's creations. Your comparison to a horticulturalist and fruit bearing trees doesn't apply. A horticulturalist also knows that the very beginning of any tree is a SEED. You're saying then that God created only seeds and babies? I don't think so.

Valid Interpretations

The Day-Age Interpretation - The six days of the Day-Age view are understood in the same sense as "in that day" of Isaiah 11:10-11

[Lekcit]

Hello all. I am new here and am interested in the most recent post focusing on "Biblical Proofs for an Old Earth."

It has rightly been note that the creation part of the 6th day would take no time at all because God was doing it. That only leaves the naming of the animals. The thing is that all of science agrees that the number of species that we have now has increased many times over from even a hundred years ago, so one would have to them surmise that Adam would have had no trouble at all naming all of the animals 6000 years ago. Remember too that he would not have to name German Shepherd, Labrador, Bulldog etc; he would only have to say simply "dog."

Further I would like to present some Biblical Proofs for a young earth which I think will have a stronger bearing than those that are supposed to support an old earth.

The thing that we have to look at is the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis 1. Thing that we have to ask ourselves is does the word "day" ever mean "day" and if "day" doesn't mean "day" when does "day" mean "day." Confused? Let me help.

Let's leave Genesis 1 out of the picture for a moment and concentrate on the rest of the OT. In Genesis 1 the Hebrew word is "yom", now this can mean a long time. The thing is to look at it in the context and determine what the language says. Every other time that a 24 hour period is meant the word yom is used in conjunction with the phrase "evening and morning"; a number; or the word "night". So any time you see the word "yom" used with any of the three I mentioned before it means 24 hours.

Now that we understand that, let's look at Genesis 1. What do we have? Every time the word "yom", or "day" if you prefer, is used it is used in conjunction with one of those phrases. Usually at least two of them and sometimes all three. Look at it, you have "night, evening and morning, number, day." It is all throughout Genesis 1. I don't think that there can be any other interpretation because it is all based on what does the language say.

And the interesting thing that I've found is that guys like Paddel Pung from Wheaton College, who are day-age or gap theorists or what have you, agree that if you read Genesis 1 without any outside influence, it means 6-24 hour periods of time.

The other, more important thing, I think, is that when you say that it wasn't really a day then you make God out to be a liar. People begin to say, "If you don't believe your God when he says '6 days', then how can you believe him when he says 'Believe in me and you will be saved'?"

My preaching professor in college out it this way:

"If you have problems with Genesis 1, then you will have problems with John 3:16."

I have devoted a good amount of time to this as you might can tell and would be happy to point you to my sources.

(Also to the one who fell into Kent Hovind's darkness, fear not Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis can help. Send me a PM and I can help.)

[artsylady]

i trust aig too.

[Bread_of_Life]

The thing is that all of science agrees that the number of species that we have now has increased many times over from even a hundred years ago,

erm, sorry, who agrees this? In fact, if anything, the number of species has been *decreasing* because the rate of extinction is extremely high, because of man's interference in the world.

What evidence do you have that the number of species is increasing, and how is it increasing (by what process are species being generated?)

Remember too that he would not have to name German Shepherd, Labrador, Bulldog etc; he would only have to say simply "dog."

These are not species, but breeds. They have also been artificially created, by man, they are not the product of natural or biological evolution.

[Guest Genxpastor]

I have answered this question previously. According to every old Earth theory I am familiar with dinosaurs died off long before humans came into being. This contradicts scripture.

And this changes your religious doctrine and practice how...?? Sorry, I'm lost here.

Steve,

Saint Wes and Truseek summed it up well. To consider scripture in part and not whole can lead not only to errors in interpretaions, but full blown heresies as well. On a personal level I found myself invigorated when I learned I could actually trust the Bible...and if the Bible is trust worthy and I learn what it says...then I best get busy spreading the Faith and teaching my children.

It's a matter of trust. Do you trust this God that guards your soul 100%? Does He lie or give faulty information? If you never had a textbook in school with little dinosaurs frolicking about and you read Genesis would you ever get the idea of millions of years? Take away all your books, TV, professors, etc and then read Genesis...Would you ever get the idea of millions of years?...I think not. Evolution attacks the credibilty of my personal savior Jesus Christ. I know that there are many well meaning christians that try to blend evolutionary science with their religous beliefs but I believe their arguments are weak. People say, "Well, that's just your interpretation...honestly, I'm just trying to read the Word in a straight forward manner.

Steve Look at 2nd Peter 3:3-6. Evolutionary science as far as I know denies the truth of this passage. KJV calls them "willingly ignorant."

Please don't take 3:8 out of context as well it was written in Greek you can't apply it to the Hebrew text. It simply means that God is transcendent of Time. Besides in Old T. there is a reference to a day being like a watch in a night (3-4 hours). I added this because some want to say that a day equals a 1000 years.

By the way, if you are sick of hearing about the talk origins web site go to www.trueorigins.org for a refreshing change...lol

I'm glad you asked your question..it's a good one that needs to be asked.

Blessings my brothers you are in my prayers.

Genxpastor...(John)

P.S. Truth has hardly ever been embraced by the mass

[Lekcit]

Genx,

I assume you are referring to the 2 Peter passage. (Again I am new and haven't taken the time to fully read everything.)

You say rightly that you cannot use a verse in Greek to understand a Hebrew word. You just can't do it. Further I don't hear anyone attempting to apply this concept to Joshua and Jericho or Jonah and the whale. No one argues that those were literal days. They only apply it to Genesis 1 even though the word is used the same way in all three instances as I pointed out before.

SA,

If you honestly want to believe that there are less animals on the earth now than 100 even 1000 years ago, I for one don't see it but maybe this will help:

[url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/naming.asp]Naming the animals: all in a day

[truseek]

Can you offer any definitive evidence for this not being the case

No, because you can't prove a negative.

Only true to an extent. One can, by inference and inductotive reasoning, though perhaps not through scientific method, prove a negative. Just as science has proven that the world is not flat. All meaningful statements are exclusive, that is to say that when we say anything with any meaning, we exclude the opposite.

In Christ

Truseek

[Elisha]

Thanks for the kind responses I received. Usually, other YEC's get rather heated and resort to name-calling.

If you don't beleive that these are literal days, you're going to have to affix new meanings to the words 'morning' and 'evening' and 'darkness' and 'light'? What do you think these 4 words mean?

Well, I've given interpretations which provide such answers. That's in debate now.

Evidences for an Old Earth

Would A and B and the first part of C be difficult for God to accomplish? No, of course not. So the only difficult part is Adam naming the animals. Well, I'm not sure how long this needs to take, especially if all the animals are surrounding him. He he name all of the dinosaurs, just 'dinosaurs?" all of the things in the air 'birds"? Did he name all of little tiny critters 'bugs". There's no way of knowing. Maybe he generalized. We just don't know. And if he had 10 hours to do this, it might have been enough.

I never said it would be difficult for God. It definitely did take time, though. God put Adam in a deep sleep, not a sleep where Adam lied just for a few seconds until Eve was created. The only reason I named the other factors is because it does take away a certain degree of time from Adam naming the animals.

I've read all of the YEC responses to this and they don't add up; unless you want to add to the text or take it in a metaphorical way. Check out Nik's estimates.

But the sixth day IS closed. Nothing happened on the seventh day. I'm not sure I understand this point.

But the seventh day is referred to as day, yet it's open. See the confusion this causes me?

Moses didn't write the psalms. David did. David was renowned for his poetic writing. Moses was not.

I never said Moses wrote them entirely. This is a side-issue, though. When I've got some time, I might start a thread on it.

In any case, do you think each day of creation was then a thouand years, based on the above poetic writing, which seems like a similie, because it uses the word "like'. A simile uses the words 'like' or 'as' to describe something. Much like David's son used a simile in describing his lover -'thy hair is like a flock of goats". doesn't sound like much of a compliment but I guess it was in those days. Both David and Solomon were known for their poetic writings.

I don't know how long the creation days were; though I can give my opinion. All I do know is that there's no justification for such a literal reading as that which YEC's posit.

Are you saying the Psalms scripture is metaphorical? If so, then why can't I say Genesis 1 & 2 is metaphorical?

Again, a simile. But you forgot the last part, which say "and a thousand years AS one day". I think the verse is speaking of how we live here on earth is very important, because in the afterlife, time is limitless.

Or, are you again saying that the 'days' of creation equal one thousand years each?

No, I'm not saying that. I recognize metaphorical speach when I see it. Your interpretation breaks the scripture apart and into metaphorical speech (which I agree with). But, if we can do this here, then why not in Genesis?

Your comparison to a horticulturalist and fruit bearing trees doesn't apply. A horticulturalist also knows that the very beginning of any tree is a SEED. You're saying then that God created only seeds and babies? I don't think so.

It very much applies. Notice it doesn't read, "God helped it grow faster". It does read, "God allowed the land to produce vegetation". So, the land is doing the producing, not God. This demonstrably will take longer than a day.

Yes, day can also mean time period. However, in this verse, you don't have mention of morning and evening. How do you interpret morning and evening in regards to Genesis? Or darkness and light?

I've already replied that nowhere does Genesis tell us to judge creation in this way, but is simply telling us what light and darkness is to be called. You left out this that I typed:

"The six days are taken as sequential but as overlapping and perhaps merging into one another. According to this view, the Genesis 1 creation week describes events from the point of view of the earth, which is being prepared as the habitation for man."

You didn't offer a response to Frame Work and Analogical. Both are kind of related, but noticeably distinct

Well how long do you think the sixth day lasted? Where does it say Adam could NOT age? Did the fall happen after the sixth day? Yes. The 6th day is clearly closed.

1. I don't know how long the sixth day lasted. All I do know is that it didn't last merely 24 hours. That's obvious.

2. Where does it say Adam could age? This would be a very important thing for the author to explain, yet no hintings are found anywhere. You realize, if he could age physically, he would've been quite old in appearance if it weren't for the fall. I'll just agree to disagree on this, though. Pointless to the discussion anyway, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Lastly, what about the argument from Gen. 2:4? You admit that "it's questionable". Combined with all of the other arguments and I think I have a good case still.

Lekcit,

I've already responded to a lot of what's in your post. I have a response to this, though:

People begin to say, "If you don't believe your God when he says '6 days', then how can you believe him when he says 'Believe in me and you will be saved'?"

When biblical text reads that Jesus will return surrounded by flames, I don't think God is saying Jesus will come back a cosmic bunsen burner. The same with the sword coming from Jesus' mouth... I don't think Jesus will actually be coming back choking on a sword. It's metaphorical speech. You'll reply with the "evening/night" argument, but I've already responded to that above.

[Bread_of_Life]

lekcit,

I'm afraid that the page you linked me into is of no help at all, since it gives no evidence of any sort that there are more species around today than there were 100 years ago, or 6,000 years ago. Rather, the page you linked me into makes the assumption that there were fewer species of animals around 6,000 years ago, in order to avoid the falsification of the Genesis account, but it does not provide evidence for this. It also makes the apology that Adam have have been naming groups of animals rather than each individual animal (which is not what the bible says btw, it says "Adam called every living creature," but hey.

Since you made this claim, the least you could do is justify it with some evidence. You are still to show any evidence that the numbers of species alive today is greater than that alive 100 years ago, or 6,000 years ago.

[Lekcit]

SA,

Can you honestly tell me that in the time span of, let's say, 100 years that there are less animals now? That isn't true with humans, and is certainly isn't true with animals. What other proof do you need besides logic?

Elisha,

I'm not 100% certain I understand fully your post. I will say this though. You asked why couldn't Genesis 1 and 2 be metaphorical. It's simple really. We understand that books such as Psalms and Revelation are not fully metaphorical because of the language. Quite simply the format of Genesis shows that it is to be taken as a historical book and therefore should be read as such. There is nothing in Genesis 3 - 50 to suggest a figurative interpretation so why attempt to apply one to that small of a percentage.

Also as to the issue of day seven. We don't see that being "closed" as you say by the phrase "evening and morning." The other 6 days were "closed" and then the next introduced to show what was done on each day and to delineate the actions taken on each day. There is no need for such a "closure" for day 7. Further, the word "day" there is used in conjunction with a number so, as I pointed out before, that shows that it is a 24 hour period, even though there is no "closure." Also we don't see any of the other days throughout the rest of the Bible, but you clearly understand those days as being done. I hope that you now begin to see the inconsistency that is present here.

Let me also point you to this article which should help with why Genesis should be taken literally:

Should Genesis be taken literally?

In His Grip.