Bible Study Does the Bible communicate a young age of the Earth, Yes or No?

[chessman]

Does the Bible (the original Hebrew and/or Greek texts) communicate a young age of the Earth to its readers? Yes or No?
If the truth is no (and Christians are truth seekers), should Christians teach that it does?
I am claiming the answer is no, simply put, because nowhere in the text does the Bible state the age of the Earth as young. However, the closet thing I can find for an age is “ancient” or “old” in the Bible.
Genesis 49:26 (NIV) 26 Your father’s blessings are greater than the blessings of the ancient mountains, than the bounty of the age-old hills.
So the purpose for this thread is to see if I am wrong about this assertion? I’m open to being wrong on this point. Maybe I’m missing something.
Here’s some of my arguments for why the age of the Earth is not taught by the Bible in Genesis 1, 2, 5 or 11 to any more detail than the Genesis 49 passage or others like it that describe the Earth as “Ancient” or old but certainly not young.

a. Nowhere in Genesis 1 (a logical place for an age of the Earth to be placed) does the text state the age of the Earth. Genesis begins with the Hebrew word translated “In the Beginning” with no qualifier or historical time stamp. I understand that prior to Gen 1:1 the Earth or an earthly king/ruler, or any human whatsoever were even created yet to reference “in the beginning”. But if Moses was the author of Genesis 1, then he could have provided some precise point of reference in the Creation story if he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so. God (through Moses) could have said something like he did in Jeremiah for example “In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah… (Jer 26:1) or the other places this Hebrew word translated “in the beginning” is also used. It’s my understanding from God’s word that we humans (ancient Hebrew or 21st Century American) are not meant to know the age of the Earth precisely, other than it’s “ancient” such that’s God’s eternality, compared even to the mountains is impressive to us. God’s Word says “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth” in Job 38:4-7 rhetorically (and rather correctively I believe) to correct Job’s misunderstanding of God’s will and authority in his life. That text was written to Job yet it’s also for us, as all Bible passages are. So what’s the lesson(s) for us? There are many lessons to be sure, but with regard to the question of the age of the Earth, one lesson is clear; We will never fully understand the when/where/how of the “foundations of the earth” unless it’s revealed to us by God in His Word or in eternity in His presence. However, this Job passage and in consideration of the Genesis 49 passage, to me, indicates a very old Earth versus a young one. I say “fully understand” because I’m not saying there are not some things or aspects about the earth we can know including its relative age. For examples we can fully know:
1. “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made” (Psalm 33:6). From this specially revealed knowledge we at least know the Earth was not here for all past eternity, as some people used to think they knew, but were wrong.
2. “he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18). From this knowledge we at least know the Earth does have at least one purpose. Earth is to be inhabited (again Earth seems pretty special for this purpose). But it could be the case, through not having God’s Word that a person came to believe God had no purpose in creating Earth. That Earth was no more “inhabitable” than all the other planets. It would seem that a person would have to be talked into this atheist belief, though, just looking at the plain evidence otherwise (Romans 1:19).
3. We also know another purpose for the Earth. Jesus’ glorification (God himself) is the reason/purpose for all creation Acts 14:15, Col 1:16-17 with Jesus’ eternal “years” of glorification compared to the Earth’s limited “years” (Heb 1:10, 11:3, Rev 4:11). I understand that Jesus could be glorified through a young (6,xxx and counting) or old (4,600,000,000 and counting) Earth. But it just seems like the biblical intention is that earth be understood as old, not young.

b. I’ve never understood a dating argument based on Genesis 1, as it’s clearly not there but often cited as if age were there in the text. But using Genesis 5 as the first proof text for age,… maybe. After all it does say “This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, …”. So as Bill Clinton would say, when does when mean when? Or when does father mean grandfather or great-grand-father? Genesis 5 was never meant by God (then or now) to convey a date or age for the creation of the Earth (or Adam for that matter) but rather Genesis 5’s geneaology's primary purpose was to provide an historical bloodline as that is the Hebrew’s view of any genealogy’s purpose, I’m told. Obviously (at least to me) this is somewhat of an opinionated argument, though Hebrew scholars are the one making it. It could be true or it could be false. After all, “years” and “total lifetimes” are present in the Genesis 5 text and should be seen as historically accurate. I do interpret them as historically accurate! Adam, I believe, was the first man and did live 930 years. (I bet he got really tired of posting to FacebookJ by at least age 800). This issue, certainly deserves some study and I certainly see where a dating of creation might be a reasonable understanding from this Gen 5 text, given the English translation using “son” and “fathered” and then giving the fathers’ lifetimes. I can add them up as a continuous chronology (not genealogy) as well as anybody else, then or now. The real question then, that should be asked and answered is; what this text meant to the Hebrews in their time and in their language. From every scholar I’ve ever heard and other biblical texts “father” in Hebrew can just as easily be recognized as grandfather to a Hebrew reader or “son” as “grandson (Jesus, son of David). I typically have no reason to doubt honest and educated and well meaning English translations (KJV or otherwise) until there does seem to be either 1) potential internal conflicts with other Biblical texts (which I do see on the young Earth view in Gen 5, more later if someone desires), 2) conflicts with plain observations in God’s creation/nature (which I do see) or 3) someone that I respect brings it to my attention. It’s an area that I’ve studied as a lay Christian for many years as there’s a lot of information available concerning Hebrew genealogies, “father” – (yalad), http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/3205.htm However, to summarize this study, I simply quote from the ESV study bible’s notes as they seem to be a respected group of theologians and Hebrew experts (not that they cannot all be wrong):

“Since the word “fathered” in a genealogy can mean “fathered an ancestor of,” it is possible that this genealogy skips any number of generations; certainly the literary conventions allow for this. That omissions do actually occur appears from comparing, for example, the genealogy of Moses in Ex. 6:16–20 with that of Joshua in 1 Chron. 7:23–27: undoubtedly the genealogy for Moses has been compressed (cf. also Ezra 7:1–5 with 1 Chron. 6:4–14). At three points in Gen. 5:3–31, the pattern is briefly broken to introduce additional information involving Adam–Seth, Enoch, and Lamech–Noah.
​

A key argument that Genesis 5 is telescoped (skipping generations) is that it never totals up all the years from Adam to Noah as is typical in Hebrew literature if that were the purpose of the text. For example, the total years for Adam’s lifetime is totaled “Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.” 130 years plus 800 years = 930 years. But the Bible doesn’t total the 1,243 years from Adam’s birth to Noah’s birth if you were assuming “father” does not mean grandfathered or something. Nor does any other Scripture give us this total number of years from Adam to Noah. In fact, many other Scriptures seem to depict Creation as very ancient, not just 4,000 years or so prior to Jesus’ incarnation. Ironically Gen 1:11-12, Psalm 90:1-4, Psalm 102:25-27, Proverbs 8:22-23, Habakkuk 3:6, 2 Peter 3:5-8, Job 38, 2 Tim 1:9, 1 Cor 2:6-7, etc. None of these passages date the Earth precisely (admittedly), but they sure do biblically convey to readers that the Earth (mountains, etc.) are a lot more “ancient” or “old” than as compared to a man’s lifespan such as Adam’s 930 years. 6,000 years is not that much more than a 930 year lifespan or Job’s “full of years” life.

c. Clearly “fathered a son” is not meant to convey necessarily direct first generation offspring. In English we most often (but not always) say “son” to mean first generation male offspring and we say “grandson” to mean second generation male offspring, etc. It is my understanding the Hebrew language has no word equivalent to “grandson” or “great-grandson”. Thus Genesis 5 cannot (and should not) be used to date Adam’s creation from a timeline type point of reference back from Noah’s birthday (if we even knew Noah’s birthday). Doing so, is actually presenting what is most likely untrue as truth. Harsh words, I know, but it’s very important.

d. Telescoping in Hebrew genealogies is not a newly “evolved” or a modern idea either. It’s certainly a 1st Century apostle’s (Matthew) custom for sure (Jesus, son of David). Also, from the Amplified Bible’s notes:

Amplified Bible notes: Genesis 5:31 It is now well known that the age of mankind cannot be reckoned in years from the facts listed in genealogies, for there are numerous known intentional gaps in them. For example, as B. B. Warfield (Studies in Theology) points out, the genealogy in Matt. 1:1-17 omits the three kings, Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah, and indicates that Joram (Matt. 1:8) begat Uzziah, who was his great-greatgrandson. The mistaking of compressed genealogies as bases for chronology has been very misleading. So far, the dates in years of very early Old Testament events are altogether speculative and relative, and the tendency is to put them farther and farther back into antiquity.
​

e. And going back even further to Moses’ lifetime… Moses’, Aaron’s, and Miriam’s genealogies are given four times in the Bible (Exodus 6:16–20; Numbers 26:57–59; 1 Chronicles 6:1–3; 23:6, 12–13).
Joshua was born in Egypt and a part of the Exodus with Moses. His genealogy is given in Numbers
13:8, 16; 1 Chronicles 7:20–27. These two genealogies cover the same 430–year historical period (Exodus 12:40–41; Acts 7:6) of Israel’s sojourn to Egypt until the Exodus from Egypt, yet one lists only four “generations” and the other has twelve generations. Obviously the Hebrew’s (Moses in particular as the Author of Genesis and Exodus) telescoped genealogies.

f. According to the years given and assuming “son” means first generation offspring of the “father”, Methuselah died in the year of the flood, yet that’s not mentioned in the text. My point is not that it couldn’t be true, but that you’d think it would be mentioned as true, if it were.

g. Why would Genesis 5 not be telescoped since there are lots of Biblical evidence that it was? Unless Gen 5’s genealogy is telescoped (omitting some offspring along the line), it conflicts with the same genealogy given in Luke 3:23-38 from Adam to Noah.

h. If the Bible does state the age of the Earth, then what is it’s age, exactly?

In summary, I fail to see why there’s any Biblical motivation whatsoever to say that the Genesis 5 genealogy is not telescoped. Therefore, I see no justification that the Age of the Earth can be known from the Bible, other than it’s “ancient” as multiple other texts say.

Are there any arguments from other Scripture dating the creation of the Earth or describing it as “young”?

Are there any Biblically based arguments that defeat or negate the “ancient” age arguments I present above?



p.s. It is my hope and desire for there to be lot’s of feedback (negative and positive) on the arguments I presented above on this subject within this thread. However, I hope the thread stays well within the ToS for this forum (respectful, honest, etc.) and strictly on this particular topic (what does the Bible teach). For example, it’s not going to be helpful or relevant to discuss evolution or any other “scientific” observations or conclusions thereof for this particular question. Please reference actual Biblical text(s) or original language/context type commentary on them, but nothing else, for now.

 

[farouk]

chessman: There is a guy who taught materials science at London University who has written various books, who apparently feels that a young earth is not incompatible with the evidence. His name is Edgar H Andrews. He's not only a blogger like me , but is recognized in his field.

 

[Sparkey]

Greetings, chessman!

I've been looking forward to this post and may choose to reply later (after I've had some time to study specific Scriptures on the topic). It looks like you've put a lot of work into this and I hope that it generates the type of discussion you look forward to.

Cordially,
Sparrow

 

[Sparkey]

INTRODUCTION (a.k.a. my rhetoric): I understand and am convinced that the bible predates me personally. The Bible itself was written sometime after the earth was formed and sometime before I was formed in my mother's womb. This is a simple observation on my part that I expect none will even attempt to oppose.

Continuing that line of thought and as far as Job goes, we can certainly agree that the earth was formed before him. But can we zero in on the birthday of Job, and if so, can we translate that number into the Roman Calendar format? My next simple assertion: I can't. Better minds than mine may have tried, but if they did, I can't find record of their successful attempts to pinpoint exact dates for Job either.

Truth found in the BIBLE: Assumption: The passage of time in the earlier passages of Genesis is indicated by counts of generations: an individual lived so many years, begat a son, and died at such and such an age; when the ages at each birth of a new generation are added together, the result is the total number of years elapsed.

Conclusion(s): Point #1. Adam was alive during the lives of his next eight generations. Noah and Shem were the only two generations before the flood that would not have been able to talk with Adam.
​

Point #2. Noah was alive during the lives of his next nine generations. He died two years before Abraham was born and would have been able to talk with Terah, Abraham's father. Noah lived for 350 years after the flood. Check my math, but it looks to me that the timespan from Adam to Abram was 1948 "biblical" years. Those years were not communicated in terms of our calendar (which had not been invented) but instead were based on the Jubilees calendar, which has exactly 52 (not 54) weeks, and 364 (not 365) days. Note: we can look at Jude 1:14 to see that Enoch was called the "seventh from Adam" (confirming what was stated in Gen 5:3 through Gen 5:18).

Note: Shem (one of Noah's three sons) was born before the flood and was alive during his next ten generations, and he outlived seven of them. Abraham, the ninth generation from Shem, was alive for 150 years before Shem died, Isaac, Abraham's son, was alive for 50 years before Shem died. Both Abraham and Isaac would have been able to talk with Shem. Obviously the departure from Egypt came shortly thereafter (according to Scripture found in Genesis 11:26 to Genesis 25:10). That takes us close to the time when the Jordan was crossed (or thereabouts).

​

​

_____________________________________
I am sure you can see where this goes.
Readers are free to draw their own conclusions.​

Additional Biblical Data (known facts): In later books the passage of years is calibrated to events in the overall narrative (for example, see 1 Kings 6:1).

The construction of Temple of Solomon began in the 480th year after the Exodus. The dating provided in 1 Kings 6:1 also gives a dating for the Exodus. If it is true, as many suppose, that the reign of Solomon began in 971 B.C. and ended at 913 B.C., this means the temple was begun in 967 B.C. That being true, this also means that the Exodus took place in 1447 B.C.

Some may attempt to confirm this by inter-relationships of the reigns of kings (e.g., king A of Israel came to the throne in year X of king B of Judah and ruled Z number of years), for example in 1 Kings 15:25-28, but IMHO this is not needed to get an approximate timeframe for the dates and events mentioned in the Bible. From Scripture, we know that the dating of the Temple of Solomon is set to 480 years (1/2 a century or so) after the Exodus.

Further, we know that the Flood came between the time of Adam and the Exodus from Egypt. Prior to the flood, men lived less than 1,000 years. My conclusion is that although we might not be able to arrive at a PRECISE DATE, we are able to arrive at a reasonable (according to the Bible) date regarding the billions of years vs. thousands of years (or being sloppy, 10's of thousands of years) debate. Recall that one billion is a thousand times larger than a million, which in turn is 1,000 times larger than one thousand. Either my sense of what the Bible says is wrong (and one can not use it for this purpose whatsoever) or we can arrive at approximate dates, but not precise dates with the information at hand.

The Question: Is the earth ancient? Yep, it is more ancient than any of my known ancestors. But does the Bible (God's Word) actually tell us the age of the Earth, the age of the Universe or when Adam was created? I've only attempted to look at when Adam was created relative to me in this thread.

Sequence of events (from my point-of-view)
Me ----> Jesus ----> Solomon's Temple ----> Exodus from Egypt ----> Flood ----> Adam.

The chronology I've attempted is less than exhaustive (some may say "sloppy") but I would assert that there is insufficient space to fit a million years into the time between Adam and me. When was Adam created relative than me? Well, let's see. I'd say it wasn't that all that long ago. Certainly not the millions of years some may want to think.

 

[Sinthesis]

The communication of any message includes the receiver as one of the elements in the communication process. Thus the very same Bible passage can communicate different messages to different readers. So, does the Bible communicate a young age of the Earth? Yes and No, depending on the reader.

 

[Eugene]

Hi Chessman, I'm not sure you're heading in this direction but I'll just paste this simplified explanation from Wikipedia of what is known of a doctrine named the Gap Theory.

Gap of Time

Gap theorists generally assert that an indefinite span of time exists between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. The time span can be, and usually is, very large (Millions or Billions of years) encompassing the so-called “geologic ages.â€
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. Genesis 1:1-2

Judgment

Proponents of this theory propose that a cataclysmic judgment was pronounced upon the earth prior to the seven-day-creation event, because of Satan's (Lucifer's) Fall. Some of the proponents of this theory also believe that there existed a race of pre-Adamic beings. Certainly, many believe the earth was filled with various types of (now extinct) animals. These animals, of course, (possibly including Dinosaurs?) were destroyed during the cataclysmic judgment.
The gap theory was preached in Europe and America long before Darwin's Theory of Evolution was written and before modern geological science was born. The Gap Theory does not always agree with some adherents of the theory of "Catastrophe and Reconstitution", since a judgment is not always required in the theory of "Catastrophe and Reconstitution".
The gap theory basically states that: In the beginning, God created the Earth to be inhabited. This fact is made very clear in Isaiah 45:18:[1]

For this is what the LORD says--he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited--he says: "I am the LORD, and there is no other. Isaiah 45:18

 

[chessman]

Hi and thanks for the post and interest in the topic.

Hi Chessman, I'm not sure you're heading in this direction but I'll just paste this simplified explanation from Wikipedia of what is known of a doctrine named the Gap Theory.

No, I'm not headed to Gap Theory or Wikipedia but rather to the truth as described in the Bible. I'm honestly seeking to align my beliefs to the truth (not wikipedia). I've read and studied the Bible and never found any un-truth within it. Yet when I hear other Christians (that also love the Bible as God's Word) say that the Age of the Earth is described in the Bible as ~6,000 years old, I'm confused as to what's true or not. Because when I read it and study it, I didn't get that out of it. I’m not sure if you’d call that Gap Theory or not. I call it Christian Theory. Since even within this description of Gap Theory I see conflicts with the Bible.

Gap of Time

Gap theorists generally assert that an indefinite span of time exists between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

The time span can be, and usually is, very large (Millions or Billions of years) encompassing the so-called “geologic ages.”
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. Genesis 1:1-2

Gen 1:1 sounds like a title to a story or a summary type statement. God did it, not Ra or some other Egyptian mythological god. Then Gen 1:2 starts to give some details (but certainly not all the details). I doesn’t say when, for example, He created the Earth.

Proponents of this theory propose that a cataclysmic judgment was pronounced upon the earth prior to the seven-day-creation event, because of Satan's (Lucifer's) Fall.

Well then, count me out of Gap Theory. Sounds like speculation and un-reasonable speculation to me. Why would a spiritual creature’s sin (Satan), cause a judgment on the planet created for Adam, Moses, Jesus and you and me? Where’s that taught in the Bible? I understand from the Bible that the ground and thorns were a "curse" as a result of Adam's sin, but the effect was more of a punishment to Adam and his descentdant than the "Earth". The Earth doesn't feel thorns or care about weeds or pain or death for that matter.

 

[reba]

Here is a extremely simplistic thought based on faith...

My mind tells me no one can be 'born' of God ( no sperm).... crucified, dead , buried, in the ground for a few ( this is not the place for the battle of the number of days) rise to forgive me of my sins...Be building a place for me... I must accept His Word on faith. If I can accept, lets say the book of John on faith, why not Genesis?

 

[Sinthesis]

Can faith in any particular interpretation of Genesis save your soul? Effective interpretations of Genesis will point the reader towards the Gospel through various literary methods. It is faith in the Gospel of Jesus which saves, not faith in the age of the earth.

 

[chessman]

I must accept His Word on faith. If I can accept, lets say the book of John on faith, why not Genesis?

Reba, you bring up a good point and a good question. Why would a Christian not accept Genesis on faith? I do accept Genesis on my God given faith. Biblical faith is evidential faith. The evidence is "son" can and does mean great-great grandson in Hebrew. To them, they could say Jesus, "son of David" and not bat an eye.

 

[chessman]

Can faith in any particular interpretation of Genesis save your soul? Effective interpretations of Genesis will point the reader towards the Gospel through various literary methods. It is faith in the Gospel of Jesus which saves, not faith in the age of the earth.

Thanks Sinthesis for the grounding. Amen.

Ephesians 2:8
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—

In many ways, I don't really care who's right and who's wrong about the age of the Earth. However, I feel that we can bare false witness to others when we claim to know "because the Bible tells me so" when in fact it doesn't tell me so. It's not a salvation issue, however.

 

[chessman]

Thanks Sparrowhawke for you input. I am after the truth as my opinion and assumptions could be wrong. The actual question is the age of the Earth and therefore only related to Adam by the Hebrew word Yom, which clearly can mean long periods of time as it does in other Biblical texts, including Genesis. Whether Yom means 24 hours or 24 million years, we agree the Earth was created by God and came prior to Adam who was also created by God.

...
Truth found in the BIBLE: Assumption: The passage of time in the earlier passages of Genesis is indicated by counts of generations:

Actually the evidence is the passage of time is indicated by skipping some generations and breaking the lineage to record a Hebrew genealogy that's not necessarily representative of an unbroken lineage from Adam to Noah. After all, it's clearly broken in multiple places as Hebrew scholars have noticed since it was authored. Plus Adam to Noah is 10 generations (and we have ten fingers to remember their names) and the 10 generations from Noah to Jesus. An assumption I have is that a memorization device was used with only the significant ancestry members listed.
...

The Question: Is the earth ancient? Yep, it is more ancient than any of my known ancestors. But does the Bible (God's Word) actually tell us the age of the Earth, the age of the Universe or when Adam was created? I've only attempted to look at when Adam was created relative to me in this thread.
. When was Adam created relative than me? Well, let's see. I'd say it wasn't that all that long ago. Certainly not the millions of years some may want to think.

It's not Adam's creation that's the question, but the Earth. Clearly there is no question that the Biblical text (and Jesus Himself) confirms Adam as the first human. So he came prior to all of us. But you cannot use Hebrew genealogies to say just exactly how long ago.

 

[gr8grace]

I hold to the Gap theory, from my studies I actually hold to the Gap fact. I believe the bible communicates a old earth.

Gen 1:2 the earth WAS without FORM AND VOID, and DARKNESS was over the face of the DEEP.

"the" could be translated "but"

"was" is hayah in Hebrew and is active. It is used in the same way as Gen 19:26....But Lot's wife,behind him,looked back and BECAME (hayah)a pillar of salt.

"formless and void" Tohu wa bohu in Hebrew. And it is used in Isa 24:1 to denote desolation and In Isa 34:11 to denote confusion. And Jer 4:23-26 Uses Tohu wa bohu in a judgement from the Lord.
And in Jer 4:25 He tells us that there is "no man". When was there or when is there ever a period when there was "no Man?"

"darkness" choshek in hebrew. the same word used in Exo 10:21-22 a created darkness that could be felt.

"deep" tehowm in the Hebrew and it is where we get our word abyss from.

So Gen 1:2 could be read as: but the earth BECAME confused and desolate and a spiritual darkness was over the face of the deep.

In Job 38:7 God is telling Job about creating the earth and the angels ALL shouted for joy. So the angels were already created and ALL shouted for joy so Satan had not fallen yet.

I believe that there could be 1 minute to 1 billion years between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. we just do not know.

In Jer 4:23-26 We see a fierce Judgment when there was no man:

I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

24I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

25I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. ( So when was there no man?)

26I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

27For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.

I believe this was Satans fall, And the Genesis account is Gods Promise that he would not make a full end. (verse 27).

Gen 5 is the Gospel in a nutshell also....with the meanings of each persons name.

Adam.........Man
Seth...........Appointed
Enosh.........Human
Kenan.........Curse
Mahalalel....The blessed God
Jared..........shall come down
Enoch.........Consecrate Himself
Methusalah..His death shall bring
Lemech.......Conquering
Noah...........rest, comfort.

Enoch was the prophet before the flood, and He was (raptured out?) before the actual tribulation of the flood.....interesting.

Methusalah's death would usher in the flood, and He ends up being the oldest recorded person in the Bible.......Grace before judgement?

 

[Sparkey]

Truth found in the BIBLE: Assumption: The passage of time in the earlier passages of Genesis is indicated by counts of generations: an individual lived so many years, begat a son, and died at such and such an age; when the ages at each birth of a new generation are added together, the result is the total number of years elapsed.

Thanks Sparrowhawke for you input. I am after the truth as my opinion and assumptions could be wrong. The actual question is the age of the Earth and therefore only related to Adam by the Hebrew word Yom, which clearly can mean long periods of time as it does in other Biblical texts, including Genesis. Whether Yom means 24 hours or 24 million years, we agree the Earth was created by God and came prior to Adam who was also created by God.

You raise two issues here:

1. You've apparently discounted my observation about our ability to add the ages found in Gen 5 to form a chronology of the earliest Patriarchs.
2. You've rephrased your question to consider esoteric meanings of the Hebrew Word "yom"

Regarding the first aspect of your reply (chronology):
If I had a son (I do) and he was born when I was 34 years old (he was). And if he had a son (he does) who was born when my son was 21, and my grandson was now 5 years old, how many years have passed? Simple math, right? That's like saying, What is the sum of 34 + 21 + 5, right? We should neither discount nor ignore the obvious when we read the bible, right? I need more than your assertion here to follow you in this. (more on this later)

Regarding the second aspect of your reply (day/yom theories):
Here is where we call the natural experts of the Hebrew spoken today into the picture.  What do the Rabbi's have to say about the word "Yom" combined with numerical ordinals, as in "the first yom/day, the second yom/day" & etc.  We don't have to guess here.  That is where Eugene guessed you were headed when he quoted Wiki.  I have no personal expertise but have researched the subject over a period of years as I assume you have as well.  Do we have bias that influenced our research?  Maybe.  My best summary statement for my conclusive thought so far is, "I don't know if the earth is young or old but there is no space for a million years to be inserted between Adam and me."  Can you state that you know how old the earth is?  Is it 5 yom's older than Adam?  If so, can we state precisely how long each specific yom/day was?  If it wasn't approximately 24 hours, does the bible tell us how long it was exactly?  My answer is, "No," but perhaps a teacher of Torah (a Rabbi, respected in his community) has already weighed in on the subject and could be quoted. I would like to stipulate that the source should be a Hebrew expert, and that the question considered is the use of the word "Yom" as found in the first couple chapters of Genesis, where it is combined with numbers and given as a sequence (ordinal numbers). There will be instances that do not fit these restrictions, but they must be interpreted according to their context and separate from other, distinct contexts. From my research, these discussions should not be used to derive a general all-purpose meaning because clearly there are at least two meanings that may apply. Can we agree to abide by the opinion of experts?
Perhaps that is where we will draw the line between our opinions on this subject.

Actually the evidence is the passage of time is indicated by skipping some generations and breaking the lineage to record a Hebrew genealogy that's not necessarily representative of an unbroken lineage from Adam to Noah.

Yes, something you've termed "telescoping". And you've previously supported the theory of 'telescoping' being applied to Genesis 5 by reference to Scripture seen in the New Testament, "Jesus Christ, the son of David..." (Mt 1:1) By the way, the NT Scripture does not make that statement except in preface and Matthew immediately goes on to detail his meaning. The genealogy found in Matthew documents the legal claim that Jesus has to be seated on the Throne of David through his adoptive parent, Joseph. But even if I were to accept your premise, that telescoping has necessarily occurred in Gen 5, there is no way to insert 2 thousand years between generations and still retain the sense of the passage. Additionally, Matthew followed the genealogy with a summary statement and stated, "Abraham to David, 14 generations." (see Matt.1:17) That's why I left off my analysis of the Gen 5 OT genealogy at Abraham (or thereabouts). I marked that place with the right-aligned text

_____________________________________
I am sure you can see where this goes.
Readers are free to draw their own conclusions.​

My conclusion here is that we don't have much wiggle room.

After all, [the lineage to record Hebrew genealogies] is clearly broken in multiple places as Hebrew scholars have noticed since it was authorized.

Multiple Hebrew scholars have noticed this for the Genesis 5 genealogy? That particular linage record is the only one that I've quoted and relied upon so far. Are you able to provide references for your multiple Hebrew scholars so that I might examine them? I am aware that other genealogies have what is called a "telescoping" influence. I've not used those and purposefully not mentioned them. The genealogies of Genesis 5 differ in at least one respect from others. In Gen 5 we see a formula repeated, “When X had lived Y years, he became the father of Z”, rather than simply “X was the father of Y” or “X the son of Y” as we see elsewhere in the Bible.

Plus Adam to Noah is 10 generations (and we have ten fingers to remember their names) and the 10 generations from Noah to Jesus. An assumption I have is that a memorization device was used with only the significant ancestry members listed.

Ahhhh, so because we have 8 fingers and two thumbs it must be a mnemonic device only? I can't readily agree with this conclusion as an absolute necessity, but I'm willing to let this slide. I just don't believe that your assertion here is authoritative. Kindly pardon the tone of my reply to this, the choice was to ignore your thought or consider it speculative. I chose the latter.

It's not Adam's creation that's the question, but the Earth. Clearly there is no question that the Biblical text (and Jesus Himself) confirms Adam as the first human. So he came prior to all of us. But you cannot use Hebrew genealogies to say just exactly how long ago.

You've now stated your conclusion that I can not use Hebrew genealogies, I've responded and narrow'd our field of focus to the genealogy found in Genesis, chapter 5 only. I think that we can use it for that purpose, and believe that you don't want to; you've made assertions (without evidence) to that effect and have gone as far as tell me that I can't (meaning that I shouldn't). The only differences I've found that are debated about Genesis 5 genealogies stem from variations in text when comparing three different versions - Hebrew Texts, the Vulgate and the Septuagint. I know of none who straight up say, "The holy word of God is wrong here and it contradicts itself - look over at this other chapter - I'll show you where it clearly says that Adam had 3 sons between him and who we now know is his great-grandson, Seth," or any such thing.

As I've said, kindly give me the source for your conclusion that the work that I've presented here so far is wrong or at minimum dubious.

In the conversation so far between you and me, I've introduced the subject of the Genesis 5 genealogy, spoken to your reply thought about "telescoping" as it pertains to the ages of the earliest Patriarchs and the Chronology of the History of Man (according to the bible). I've limited my discussion here to a single passage and what I think of as obvious conclusions: "There are less than 10,000 years between me and Adam." The reason that this approach was chosen is simple also; to narrow our field of focus and prompt a next look at the time before Adam. You've mentioned the Yom/Day/Age theory and I know it is popular, but that is a discussion that I will like to give you first crack at expanding and exploring. I've suggested another couple limitations that seemed prudent (to me). One being that we look to the teachers of the Torah, and two, since I have done this in the past, that we confine our discussion to usage of the term "yom" when it is used in a fashion similar to its use in the main text of the early chapters of Genesis.

:dunno First Question: Do we have agreement that from Adam to me is less than 10,000 years?

 

[chessman]

You've apparently discounted myobservation …

I’venot discounted it but rather I take the advice of the ESV (from my first post),NIV and amplified Study Bible committees that state you cannot simply add thedates to form a chronology. I respecttheir analysis. Do you discount theirstatements? If yes, why?

You've rephrased your question to consider esotericmeanings of the Hebrew Word "yom"
[/LIST]

I’ve not rephrased my question. It’s still the original question “Does the Bible (the original Hebrew and/orGreek texts) communicate a young age of the Earth to its readers? Yes or No? I discussed Yom in responding to your 8 Febpost where you make the conclusion that Adam was alive for the next eightgenerations. I don’t understand why youwould say this, given the expert opinions stated in my first post that you cannotcalculate an unbroken chronology given the Hebrew word translated “sonâ€. I did respond to your conclusion ofthe truth of the Bible, based on your assumption. Your assumption (that son in Hebrew cannotmean grandson or great-great-great grandson is the root of how you conclude theEarth is not more than 10,000 years old and that Adam was create the same weekas the Earth. Right? Then we should evaluate the evidence for thisassumption.

Simplemath, right? That's like saying, What is the sum of 34 + 21 + 5, right? Weshould neither discount nor ignore the obvious when we read the bible, right? Ineed more than your assertion here to follow you in this.(more on this later)

I’m not discounting the“obviousâ€. First, do you feel the ESV,NIV and Amplified bible translators “discounted the obviousâ€? See my initial post with the ESV, NIV andAmplified Bible study notes. It’s morethan an “assertion†on my part. It’s notreally fair on your part to say I’ve given no evidence for my claim. I simply started with these study notes fromrespected Bible committees. They all sayyour simple math is not appropriate to the text. Otherwise, yes I’d agree with you. Add it up and that’s the number of years fromAdam to Noah, no questions asked. Ourbetter yet, it would have been no question, had Moses added them up. But frankly, in the most honest study, youcannot add up the years since clearly the text does not mean a literal son(first generation). That’s not to say that Adam was not real or that he did nothave real sons. Or certainly not that he didn’t live to 930 years old. I believe every word of the original text init’s original meaning.

[/I] Can you state that you know how old theearth is?

No. But the Biblesays it’s ancient.

can we state precisely how longeach specific yom/day was?

No.

If it wasn't approximately 24hours, does the bible tell us how long it was exactly?

No. It doesn’t say approximately 24 hours, by theway. However, I get Biblically that Day3 was at least long enough for the trees to bear fruit, seed and reproduceafter their kind, however.
Gen 1:11 Then God said, “Let theland produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bearfruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.†And it was so. 12 Theland produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds andtrees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw thatit was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
I believe God can made and do anything and could have madetress that were already bearing fruit, seed and I suppose reproducing in lessthan 24 hours if He wanted to. However,I don’t read this day as stating that he did. The “land†did.

I would like to stipulate thatthe source should be a Hebrew expert, and that the question considered is theuse of the word "Yom" as found in the first couple chapters ofGenesis,

FirstHebrew expert is the Bible: Like Gen 1:5and 1:14 where it clearly means less than 24 hours or Gen 2:4 where it means more than 24 hours. Then the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew andEnglish Lexicon.

where it is combined with numbersand given as a sequence (ordinal numbers).

Why would you want to make a “rule†like thatfor the use of Yom? Who is creating a“rule†and for what purpose? It’s really just that simple.

Can we agree to abide by theopinion of experts?

Perhaps that is wherewe will draw the line between our opinions on this subject.

Sure, do you consider the ESV and NIV Bible committees to beexperts? If not, why not?

"Jesus Christ, the son ofDavid..." (Mt 1:1) By the way, the NT Scripture does not make thatstatement except in preface and Matthew immediately goes on to detail hismeaning.

Matthew 20:30
30 Two blind men were sitting by the roadside, and when theyheard that Jesus was going by, they shouted, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy onus!†This is off topic, but by the way,you misquoted me. My point is a Hebrewperson understood “son†to mean “line of descent†not first generationoffspring. Are you saying that’s nottrue?

"Are you able to providereferences for your multiple Hebrew scholars so that I might examine them?

See references below to ESV and NIV or in myoriginal post. I’ve added some otherexpert commentators as well, if you’re interested. But since you’ve not provided anyexpert analysis to indicate why the ESV, NIV, AMP committee’s statements arebogus, frankly the weight of the evidence is on the side of my “assertionâ€.

"Ahhhh, so because we have 8fingers and two thumbs it must be a mnemonic device only? I can't readily agreewith this conclusion as an absolute necessity, but I'm willing to let thisslide.

I just don't believe that your assertion here isauthoritative. Kindly pardon the tone of my reply to this, the choice was toignore your thought or consider it speculative. I chose the latter.

I can ignore the tone (although I’d prefer not to getderogatory) however, what I said was “An assumption I have is that amemorization device was used with only the significant ancestry memberslisted.†And you turn this into mesaying it’s a “conclusionâ€, “absolute necessity†or “authoritativeâ€. I never said it was. Are you misquoting me or justmis-understanding what I said? I’m notquite sure how I could have been clearer with my wording that it was myfallible opinion. I care nothing aboutarguing, name-calling or insulting someone’s intelligence on this forum. I recognize a digitus primus manus (pollex)is the first digit of the hand and it is opposable to the other digits(fingers) on the human hand, by the way. Also, this observation of Hebrew’s using memorization tools is notoriginal to me. Whether this is one ornot, nobody knows for sure.

I know of none whostraight up say, "The holy word of God is wrong here and it contradictsitself - look over at this other chapter - I'll show you where it clearly saysthat Adam had 3 sons between him and who we now know is his great-grandson,Seth," or any such thing.

I’ve never said that either. Thisis not a quote from me or even a paraphrase. This statement is misleading toward my position. I trust the Holy Word of God with mylife. I cannot ignore your tone andimplication here. Seth is obviously Adam’s son in the sense that you mean itsince the text does offer their there dialog later in Genesis, etc. However, I don’t think the same is true forall the other “fatherâ€/ “son†relationships. Those are where I’d say telescoping is possible.

"As I've said, kindly give me the source foryour conclusion that the work that I've presented here so far is wrong or atminimum dubious.

Thesource for my conclusion is in my original post I listed the Amplified Bibleand ESV study notes. Those Hebrewtranslators where specifically who I meant in my. Here it is again:

“Since the word “fathered†in agenealogy can mean “fathered an ancestor of,†it is possible that thisgenealogy skips any number of generations; certainly the literary conventionsallow for this. That omissions do actually occur appears from comparing, forexample, the genealogy of Moses in Ex. 6:16–20 with that of Joshua in 1 Chron.7:23–27: undoubtedly the genealogy for Moses has been compressed (cf. also Ezra7:1–5 with 1 Chron. 6:4–14). At three points in Gen. 5:3–31, the pattern isbriefly broken to introduce additional information involving Adam–Seth, Enoch,and Lamech–Noah.â€

“Amplified Bible notes: Genesis5:31 It is now well known that the age of mankind cannot be reckoned in yearsfrom the facts listed in genealogies, for there are numerous known intentionalgaps in them.â€

Can you please clarify where you’ve provided work that negates these experts’summary statements that I’ve not addressed already?

First, I agree with you that Sethwas Adam’s son and Adam did live 930 years (approximately, could be 929.5 or930.1). That doesn’t mean that otherlineages listed are not telescoped, however. I have read many other individual scholars such as Norm Geisler, K.Lawson Younger, John Lawson, John Lennox, and others who say you cannot add upthese genealogies to get a chronology for this reason. They love the Lord and His Word astruth. None would promote that Sethwasn’t Adam’s direct son either (to my knowledge) since the text says that hewas and they have discussions together, etc. However, where (in the “generationsâ€) there is no direct evidenceotherwise, the Hebrew would have understood “son†to mean a descendant, evendistant descendant. So it do not feelthis is evidence that supports a young Earth.
Second,I disagree with your assertion that there’s some “rule†that Yom cannot be usedto mean long periods of time, even in conjunction with a list of“ordinalsâ€. My evidence for this isreading experts listed above. Alsosources like “In the Beginning We Misunderstood, Johnny V. Miller, John M.Sodden, http://www.amazon.com/In-Beginning-We-Misunderstood-Interpreting/dp/0825439272/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360510072&sr=8-1&keywords=in+the+beginning+we+misunderstood
They point out that the normal way of indicating the “firstâ€of anything in Hebrew is not what is used here for days 1-5. What’s used is the word for “one†and mostall translations use “firstâ€, “secondâ€, etc. except the NASB which ismore true to the actual text, versus the thought. It is only on the “Sixth Day†where thenormal Hebrew word for “Sixth†ordinal is used.
Maybe it’s a good time to reiteratea couple of observations. From what Ican tell of your statements here and other topics, you and I are not that farapart on biblical interpretations. Toboil it all down to the disagreements; 1) “Son†can mean descendant and “yom†can mean a long period of time. I say yes to both and you say no,correct? Maybe any further dialog shouldconcentrate on your arguments against the evidence present above for my case.
Certainly staying away fromarguments about fingersJ Just kidding,just kidding.

…Yom…that is a discussion that Iwill like to give you first crack at expanding and exploring. …

I don’tmind that either as long as it’s honest, respectful and you don’t misquote meor insinuate that I think “the holy word of God is wrong or contradictsitselfâ€. If I thought that, logicallyspeaking, why would I care to discuss it with other Christians? What do you say about Soden’s observation tostart with? Do you feel there is nomerit to them?

First Question: Do we haveagreement that from Adam to me is less than 10,000 years?

No. I believe the ESVtranslators (OT Hebrew Scholars) that I mentioned above and other expertssay; that you cannot add up the genealogiesinto a chronology. But it’sinteresting. Do you allow 10,000years? How would you justify more than7,000 years?

 

[Sparkey]

Perhaps that is where we will draw the line between our opinions on this subject.

Hmmm... what to say? A person persuaded against his will is of the same opinion still.

Do we have agreement that from Adam to me is less than 10,000 years?

No. I believe the ESVtranslators (OT Hebrew Scholars) that I mentioned above and other expertssay; that you cannot add up the genealogiesinto a chronology. But it’sinteresting. Do you allow 10,000years? How would you justify more than7,000 years?

My question asked if we might agree about less than 10,000 years. I did not assert that was the case. Justification? In the spirit of the Bereans, mentioned in Acts 17:11, I'm generous with the math while I'm seeking to prove what I think of as your teaching.

I should admit that I misunderstood you too, when you mentioned "OT Hebrew Scholars" - I pictured old scholars who were Hebrew (Jewish). I now think you meant "scholars who have studied such things." Is that a better understanding on my part?


Cordially,
~Sparrow


PS. Loved this part:

Certainly staying away from arguments about fingersJ Just kidding,just kidding.

 

[chessman]

Yes, i meant a professor or expert of OT Hebrew language, not necessarily Jewish. One day i want to learn Hebrew.

 

[Sparkey]

I'm familiar with the arguments this topic has generated. My way of looking at it is that we are entering into a conversation that has been going on for long time now. That doesn't mean that I should discount your thoughts at all, and I'd ask that if I am giving that impression you would correct me for it. Maybe we should slow it down a bit?

The way that I've approached this in the past is to first see if I could "cut through the cloud" of information by making some broad sweeping generalities of my own provided they do not benefit my position that the earth may be considered young.

For instance, in the discussion about 4.6 billion years vs. less than ten thousand years, would it be okay to simply conclude that genealogies don't really matter? Even stretching the benefit of the doubt as far as I am able, I know of no way to pad the time from Adam to current day so that it stretches even over 30 thousand years. Can we agree that this time period can rightly be considered to be less than 50 or 100 thousand years? I mean, just to sweep the path toward a clarification regarding what I see as our real difference: What does the Bible mean by the word "Ancient"? Could it mean billions of years or no? If the genealogy discussion is seen by both of us as unfruitful in this light, I think it's okay to agree about that without my attempt to split hairs.

In a similar fashion we might be able to agree that the commonly quoted passage of 2Pet 3:8 will not serve to justify the position of billions of years. It fails because it come shy by an order of at least 4.4 x 10^9 or so.

 

[chessman]

Thanks, and I agree we should slow it down and move step by step, so to speak. Between you and me, I feel there are some points we need to go back and clarify however. Can you respond to just two questions I have for you quickly?

1. I started with the ESV and AMP study notes on the subject of developing chronologies from the Genesis genealogies because it's a summary statement, not a detailed analysis. I don't recall you responding to their summary. Do you feel their study and statement can be trusted? If not, why?

and

My question asked if we might agree about less than 10,000 years. I did not assert that was the case.

2. I'm not always technical or precise in my langauge either. But when you said "we might agree about less than 10,000 years", does that mean you'd agree to 9,999 years from Adam to now?

 

[Sparkey]

If we can get past the stipulation that we won't sweat the small stuff about a couple ten-thousand year time-periods or so, and will both strive to focus on the bigger picture, I will agree to not mention the term "Scientific" in a derogatory fashion and completely leave out the term "Geologic Time-Frame" in the ensuing discussion.

You, being the OP, could pick the cut off number: Does less than 32,127 years sound arbitrary enough? Maybe less than 10,000 (my preference) is better. Maybe not. Feel free to bump it to a number the majority experts you've encountered in your research are comfortable with. I'll respond to you're last post (#19) next, but I try to keep in mind that this is more than a conversation between the two of us -so it is my habit to leave time for other members to interject without having feel like they need to hurry up about it.