Age of the Earth 2

[Guest Genxpastor]

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

Edited July 26, 2004 by Genxpastor

[Elisha]

Please outline for me what you want that you feel I have not provided and I will do my level best to provide it.

I've already outlined this... twice. I summed up my arguments in one post (either this page or the last page) and you cherry-picked one argument of mine to refute (a rather weak one), then offer your conclusions. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

yet you seem unwilling to accept it

Yet you don't give a direct response, because I directly responded to you with:

"Once again, I press with:

"I gave scriptures from the creation account, which still value a response. Also, you're yet to respond to the other valid interpretations I gave. One of them actually keeps the literal language, but says it was pointing towards a different intention of the words."

[You responded to one interpretation with the "both interpretations are the same" argument, but this ignores my other arguments which give reasoning to provide a distinction between the two.]

Yet I don't see you questioning whether they are literal and yet, as I have pointed out now three times, the usage of the word "yom" is the same in both instances and clearly means a literal day.

In order for it to be "clear", then you have to be fair and respond to what I typed above. This is ironic coming from someone who just gave an unjustified accusation of closed-mindedness and intellectual dishonesty... Your responses thus far amount to cherry-picking. At best.

As for your "other scripture" argument:

I think your comparison is groundless and unparallel, because you are skipping around my arguments for the Creation account not being calendar days. To me there is an obvious distinction - i.e. there's reason to believe other scripture being calendar days and reason to not believe Creation being calendar days.

I can tell you're enjoying such argumentation, though (cherry-picking which arguments of mine you want to respond to). You've picked a rather weak one from me. I'll grant you that I'm wrong just so you can respond to some of my stronger ones (sad that I have to do this)."

Also, Lekcit, I've already read that article and responded to it in an e-mail to AiG, yet I received no response. Do you have anything to say for yourself or should I expect more untenable lengthy links from AiG? I can easily give a link-response, but I don't want a link war. A discussion is much better. So, do you have a direct refutation to SA's calculations or to my other arguments and other plausible interpretations?

Edited July 27, 2004 by Elisha

[Lekcit]

Elisha,

Either I'm missing them or they aren't clear. I do wish to attempt to answer your questions but do not know what they are. Please just list them once more so I can answer them. Either number them or bullet them so I know precisely what you are talking about.

What reason can you give to show that the language usage which, as I pointed out, is different in Genesis 1 from the rest of the Old Testament when that usage is exactly the same.

Also, since I have posted a couple different articles from AIG, which article specifically did you respond to and might I read that letter. It seems to me that they would do their level best to respond as best as they can, although I wouldn't expect a personal response from them any more than I would expect one from Billy Graham. Their ministry is just to big to do that.

[Elisha]

It seems to me that they would do their level best to respond as best as they can, although I wouldn't expect a personal response from them any more than I would expect one from Billy Graham. Their ministry is just to big to do that.

I sent a response to them concerning Adam naming the animals. It's a popular fact that YEC's at such sites either don't respond or don't respond adequately. Nik (Scientific Atheist) got into an e-mail exchange with the Creationists at ICR (I believe)... even they didn't refute his arguments, but spent the entire response attacking Nik.

I don't have my response; no need to keep it. Just as I don't keep my responses to Terry Watkins.

If you want, I'll take the time to offer a point-by-point refutation of the article, but I'd rather not. I prefer discussing issues with someone who wants to give their own insight. Link wars can go on forever.

The size of their ministry matters not. JP Holding has all sorts of things to do, yet he always gives me a response. Even the very busy chaps at LeadershipU respond to my questions.

Please just list them once more so I can answer them. Either number them or bullet them so I know precisely what you are talking about.

1. The naming of the animals argument.

"Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day."

So, God created man on the 6th day. Look at Gen. 2. It reads,

"Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field."

Not only was man created on the 6th day, but he also named the creatures on the sixth day, because the creatures of the land were created on the sixth day. The creation of birds did take place on the 5th day, but we've still got to wait for the creation of land animals, which took place on the 6th.

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.

[All you gave in response is a self-defeating article from AiG, yet you gave no response to Nik's calculations.]

2. 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?

3. 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).

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

6. 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.

Other 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

[Bread_of_Life]

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

Good argument, never thought of that.

[All you gave in response is a self-defeating article from AiG, yet you gave no response to Nik's calculations.]

Actually, he (and AiG) said that there were many fewer animals then than now - and that species numbers have been increasing ever since. Of course, our knowledge of the fossil record refutes this - as well as the fact that he didn't manage to give ANY evidence for this at all, other than wishful thinking, and the idea that 10-30 million species can evolve from 10,000 at a rate of around 5,000 a year.

[artsylady]

Of course, our knowledge of the fossil record refutes this - as well as the fact that he didn't manage to give ANY evidence for this at all, other than wishful thinking, and the idea that 10-30 million species can evolve from 10,000 at a rate of around 5,000 a year.

The only thing we can deduct from certainty from the fossil record is that those animals that were buried died. That's it. Anything else is speculation. Sure animals not shown in the fossil record MIGHT have become extinct, but once again, when we consider that we only know of about 10 percent of species on the earth, the unknown is 80 percent! That's a huge UNKNOWN! We don't know more than we know! lol. Yet you speak with such certainty. It's craziness.

[Elisha]

I know Nik doesn

Edited July 28, 2004 by Elisha

[Bread_of_Life]

The only thing we can deduct from certainty from the fossil record is that those animals that were buried died.

We also can get a good estimate of the number of species alive back when they were buried. All of these species must be added to those alive today to give us a final figure of the number of species Adam had to name.

This total numbers tens of millions.

[artsylady]

YEC

[artsylady]

It's was GOD'S decision to create a mate for Adam, as per Genesis 18:1. "It is not good that a man should be alone. I will make him a help mate for him" so it had nothing to do with Adam's feelings of lonliness.

Adam didn't name every single species. He gave names to the cattle, the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field.

As per fowl of the air, we can assume that Adam named them all 'birds', because later in the scriptures, the bat is referred to as a bird.

What's the Hebrew word for 'beast' as in 'beasts of the field"? To me it means large animal, but I'm not sure. Anyone know?

As well, what are the 'cattle'? What did that word mean back then? I don't know that it necessarily mean what we now know as cattle, because words such as bat and rabbit today have different meanings than they did back then.

Adam was not a scientist. He may have looked at all jumping creatures and called them 'jumping creatures'. lol. He could have looked at all things in the air and called them 'birds'. He may have called all of the reptiles 'lizards'. I mean, think about it - WE do that TODAY!