[_ Old Earth _] Genesis and the age of the earth

[Grazer]

Each day in Genesis begins with "And God said" But Genesis starts off with "In the beginning" and states the heavens and the earth was created, then goes into day 1. So when was the beginning? It doesn't say.

The whole concept of 6000 years came about after a 16th century bishop added up the geneologies in the Bible, ages etc and came to 4000 BC (ish) This assumes the 6 days were consecutive but more importantly 7th day was a 24 hour day. Each day ends with "And there was evening and there was morning, the X day" but day 7 doesn't. It has no ending like the others. So how long has the 7th day gone on for in Genesis? Again, it doesn't say.

The word day has many meanings depending on the context. A 24 hour day, the middle of the day, in my grandads day; all the same word but very different meanings. The question of the nature of the days is not a modern one. Saint Augustine was wrestling with this nearly 2000 years ago:

"But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!"

There's also the fact that in the english version, days are tendered ("the" first day) In the original Hebrew, this definite article (ha) is not used to qualify days 1-5. As Basil of Caesarea puts it;

"If the beginning of time is called "one day" rather than "the first day" it is because scripture wishes to establish its relationship with eternity. It was in reality fit and natural to call "one" the day whose character is to be one wholly seperated and isolated from the others"

A more accurate wording would be "A first day, A second day......the sixth day...." The nature of the days and the age of the earth then are 2 different issues.

Science has not come into it and the validity of the evolution theory (which is often massively misunderstood or misinterpreted) should be settled by science not scripture.

But on the age of the earth, Professor John Lennox put it brilliantly; "Genesis doesn't say so I shouldn't either"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cX0SIN64o0

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[cupid dave]

Each day in Genesis begins with "And God said" But Genesis starts off with "In the beginning" and states the heavens and the earth was created, then goes into day 1. So when was the beginning? It doesn't say.

The whole concept of 6000 years came about after a 16th century bishop added up the geneologies in the Bible, ages etc and came to 4000 BC (ish) This assumes the 6 days were consecutive but more importantly 7th day was a 24 hour day. Each day ends with "And there was evening and there was morning, the X day" but day 7 doesn't. It has no ending like the others. So how long has the 7th day gone on for in Genesis? Again, it doesn't say.

The word day has many meanings depending on the context. A 24 hour day, the middle of the day, in my grandads day; all the same word but very different meanings. The question of the nature of the days is not a modern one. Saint Augustine was wrestling with this nearly 2000 years ago:

"But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!"

There's also the fact that in the english version, days are tendered ("the" first day) In the original Hebrew, this definite article (ha) is not used to qualify days 1-5. As Basil of Caesarea puts it;

"If the beginning of time is called "one day" rather than "the first day" it is because scripture wishes to establish its relationship with eternity. It was in reality fit and natural to call "one" the day whose character is to be one wholly seperated and isolated from the others"

A more accurate wording would be "A first day, A second day......the sixth day...." The nature of the days and the age of the earth then are 2 different issues.

Science has not come into it and the validity of the evolution theory (which is often massively misunderstood or misinterpreted) should be settled by science not scripture.

But on the age of the earth, Professor John Lennox put it brilliantly; "Genesis doesn't say so I shouldn't either"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cX0SIN64o0

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

EXCELLENT

This is exactly yhe observation of the Theistic Evolution Bible reader, wherein our present science of Geology is used so instructively in the support of the Theory of Evolution.

Geologists note that six layers of rocks esxist, one on top of the other, ech punctuated by some catastrophic or globe event which marks a break in the past with some new, long era of time thereafter.
In these separations of the six rock layers the mass estinctions followed by a whole new drama of creation in regard to different life forms can be noted by biologists.
The thin layers of Rare Earth elements (Siderophiles) that separate the 6 major geological "days" from one another, such as the 100,000-years-thick layer of iridium in the K-T boundary come only from meteroic impacts (Acts-of-God) are one of the ways we recognize that the Six Geological Ears exist and correspond to the "six days" in Genesis.



NOTE:
Siderophiles - The Rare Earth Elements Os, Au, Pt, Ni, Co, Pd, and Ir, are Siderophile Elements. Their abundance in the lower K-T layer is indicative of an asteroid impact. Iridium (Ir) has been found in the K-T layer around the world. The discovery of a 100,000-years-thick layer of iridium in the K-T boundary in New Zealand, Denmark, and Italy. Iridium is rare on Earth except near the Earth's center, but relatively abundant in chondritic meteors (stony meteors with chondrules, spherical blobs of silicates which pre-date planetary formation). A meteoritic origin of this iridium layer seems likely. This layer became known as the iridium anomaly.

 

[Hammer]

The whole concept of 6000 years came about after a 16th century bishop added up the geneologies in the Bible, ages etc and came to 4000 BC (ish) This assumes the 6 days were consecutive but more importantly 7th day was a 24 hour day. Each day ends with "And there was evening and there was morning, the X day" but day 7 doesn't. It has no ending like the others. So how long has the 7th day gone on for in Genesis? Again, it doesn't say.

The trouble with trying stretch the creation week into billions of years is that it doesn't solve the conflict between the Bible and what you erroneously call science. Evolution (bio/cosmo) is built on a presumption of atheism. It is Atheist doctrine, not science. You want to reconcile Theism with Atheism. That can't happen.

Man was created before the 7th day. If the 7th day was millions of years long, then man has been around for millions of years. Atheists don't believe man has been around for millions of years.

 

[Grazer]

The trouble with trying stretch the creation week into billions of years is that it doesn't solve the conflict between the Bible and what you erroneously call science. Evolution (bio/cosmo) is built on a presumption of atheism. It is Atheist doctrine, not science. You want to reconcile Theism with Atheism. That can't happen.

Man was created before the 7th day. If the 7th day was millions of years long, then man has been around for millions of years. Atheists don't believe man has been around for millions of years.

I think you've missed the point I'm trying to make. I'm not saying Genesis supports an old earth, I'm saying it doesn't support any age since it simply doesn't say for the 2 main reasons I've given.

As for evolution being atheistic, I've covered that elsewhere. It seems a lot of people have bought into Dawkins's mantra. I really recommend reading Francis Collins.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[lordkalvan]

The trouble with trying stretch the creation week into billions of years is that it doesn't solve the conflict between the Bible and what you erroneously call science.

What conflict is that and how (and why) have you resolved it?

Evolution (bio/cosmo) is built on a presumption of atheism. It is Atheist doctrine, not science.

Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller would disagree with you, to name two Christian evolutionary biologists.

You want to reconcile Theism with Atheism. That can't happen.

Well, as evolutionary science does not ipso facto require such a reconciliation, your point is moot.

Man was created before the 7th day. If the 7th day was millions of years long, then man has been around for millions of years. Atheists don't believe man has been around for millions of years.

Most atheists that I am familiar with tend to go where the evidence leads. This doesn't necessariy mean that they are always right, of course.

 

[Hammer]

I think you've missed the point I'm trying to make. I'm not saying Genesis supports an old earth, I'm saying it doesn't support any age since it simply doesn't say for the 2 main reasons I've given.

I think I got your point. You say the Bible doesn't say how long the 7th day is, and "day" can be used to mean periods longer than a die. And, I think my reply demolishes any notion of stretching the 7th day into millions of years.

 

[cupid dave]

I think I got your point. You say the Bible doesn't say how long the 7th day is, and "day" can be used to mean periods longer than a die. And, I think my reply demolishes any notion of stretching the 7th day into millions of years.

Understanding the seven days to compare with the seven Geological Eras would equate the seventh "day" to the Cenozoic Era which is already 60 million year long:

 

[cupid dave]

I think you've missed the point I'm trying to make. I'm not saying Genesis supports an old earth, I'm saying it doesn't support any age since it simply doesn't say for the 2 main reasons I've given.

As for evolution being atheistic, I've covered that elsewhere. It seems a lot of people have bought into Dawkins's mantra. I really recommend reading Francis Collins.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

You are right about the fact that Genesis does not say how long a "day" is until the 4th day when God makes the sun and moon time keepers over earth days of 24 hours.
Conversely, that act specifically informs the reader that those first seven "days" were not 24 hours, and could be any duration that fits the facts such as the Geological Eras.


Even the church people ought prefer this factual connection between science and the Bibe to those who insist that their previous Middle Age understanding was that seven 24 hour hour days was the meaning.
The Bible would be wrong in that case and supported as true in this case.

The choice ought be clear, that church people have no obligation to support faith in some guy's misinterpretation back in the Dark Ages when those interpretations can be seen as wrong.
They need remind themselves thattheir faith is in Jesus and that the Bible will finally win out against its distractors.

 

[Grazer]

I think I got your point. You say the Bible doesn't say how long the 7th day is, and "day" can be used to mean periods longer than a die. And, I think my reply demolishes any notion of stretching the 7th day into millions of years.

It does but since I never made any such claim anyway its largely irrelevant. What about the paragraph about the first couple of verses of genesis and how each day starts?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Hammer]

It does but since I never made any such claim anyway its largely irrelevant. What about the paragraph about the first couple of verses of genesis and how each day starts?

What of it? No one days the age of the Earth from the first two verses.

 

[Grazer]

What of it? No one days the age of the Earth from the first two verses.

Well you can't date the earth using Genesis full stop if my interpretation is correct, especially of the first couple of verses.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[stovebolts]

Each day in Genesis begins with "And God said" But Genesis starts off with "In the beginning" and states the heavens and the earth was created, then goes into day 1. So when was the beginning? It doesn't say.

Genesis 1:1 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.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Hope that helps answer your question.

The whole concept of 6000 years came about after a 16th century bishop added up the geneologies in the Bible, ages etc and came to 4000 BC (ish) This assumes the 6 days were consecutive but more importantly 7th day was a 24 hour day. Each day ends with "And there was evening and there was morning, the X day" but day 7 doesn't. It has no ending like the others. So how long has the 7th day gone on for in Genesis? Again, it doesn't say.

Two things. The concept of the earth being 6000 years old comes from the Jews, not some 16th century Bishop.

As far as the 7th day, it has been previously established that a day consists of an evening and a morning. If you would like to know more about the 7th day, read Hebrews 4. Here is a snipit. Hebrews 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

The word day has many meanings depending on the context. A 24 hour day, the middle of the day, in my grandads day; all the same word but very different meanings. The question of the nature of the days is not a modern one. Saint Augustine was wrestling with this nearly 2000 years ago:

"But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!"

There's also the fact that in the english version, days are tendered ("the" first day) In the original Hebrew, this definite article (ha) is not used to qualify days 1-5. As Basil of Caesarea puts it;

"If the beginning of time is called "one day" rather than "the first day" it is because scripture wishes to establish its relationship with eternity. It was in reality fit and natural to call "one" the day whose character is to be one wholly seperated and isolated from the others"

A more accurate wording would be "A first day, A second day......the sixth day...." The nature of the days and the age of the earth then are 2 different issues.

Please read the below link. Here is a snipit.
http://creation.com/hebrew-scholar-affirms-that-genesis-means-what-it-says-ting-wang

Many ‘old-earth creationists’ claim to believe that Genesis was truly history, but they want to fit in the billions of years proposed by scientists who weren’t there. So they assert that the creation days were really long periods of time. Dr Wang firmly refutes this suggestion:

‘The semantic range [list of all possible meanings] of the English word “day” is not unlike the range of the Hebrew word (yôm). No-one denies that “day” can mean a period or era in some contexts in both languages. For example, that’s what we mean if we say, “in Martin Luther’s day … .”

‘Similarly, in Proverbs 25:13 we find “as the cold of snow in the time/‘day’ of the harvest.” However, it’s totally improper to claim “day” can mean “era” in a different context. For instance, “on the last day of Luther’s life … ,” “day” clearly must mean an ordinary day—the modifier “last” and the context—Luther’s passing—render the meaning clear.

‘In Genesis 1, yôm comes with “evening” and “morning”, and is modified by a number. So it’s obvious that the Hebrew text is describing a 24-hour day—the exegetical burden of proof rests crushingly upon those who view otherwise (notice too that in Jeremiah 33:17–22, God’s covenant with the day and the night, so that both will come at the appointed time, is as unalterable as the promise that a son of David will reign). But no amount of evidence will convince those who are persuaded to play devil’s advocate—just like the serpent in Genesis 3, they must ask, “Did God really say?”’

Some have claimed that biblical Hebrew had no long-age words available. However, Dr Wang showed the falsity of this:

One of the most familiar passages in the Hebrew Bible is found in Ecclesiastes 3:1–8, the “God makes all things beautiful in his time” passage. In Hebrew, two words for “time” appear. The passage begins “There is a season (זְמָן zeman) for everything, and a time (עֵת ‘et) for every activity under heaven: a time (עֵת) to be born and a time (עֵת) to die, a time (עֵת) to plant and a time (עֵת) to uproot, a time to kill and a time to heal … ,” and so on. Whereas זְמָן is only used in the later books Esther, Ecclesiastes, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah, (עֵת) is used throughout Scripture, and would be an appropriate term to communicate an indefinite period of time, though most likely used without a number.

Science has not come into it and the validity of the evolution theory (which is often massively misunderstood or misinterpreted) should be settled by science not scripture.

Your pitting science against Scripture. What you don't understand is that Science can very well support a Young Earth. You seem to think that Science and Creation are at odds. They are not at Odds. What is at odds are the assumptions Evolutionist Scientists propagate as fact. Evolution is not fact, it is a theory and if you look at the assumptions Evolution takes for granted, you'll see it's based on scientific facts as is creation. Science and Creation are not at odds as you seem to believe.

But on the age of the earth, Professor John Lennox put it brilliantly; "Genesis doesn't say so I shouldn't either"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cX0SIN64o0

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

The problem is, the Bible is very clear on what a day is and it always has been. More so, an argument on silence is a poor argument at best. Tell me, are you a New Testament Christian? If so, do you go to church to worship at least once a week? Tell me, does your church use musical instruments as part of it's corporate worship? If so, what New Testament scripture would you use to authorize musical instruments since the New Testament is silent on the issue?. By your above reasoning, the New Testament says nothing on worshiping with musical instruments, so neither should you.

 

[Grazer]

I'm not sure if I have explained myself very well or you've misunderstood but a conflict between science and scripture is precisely what I'm trying to avoid.

To me, Genesis is not a science textbook and looking at what it says, it leaves the age of the earth undetermined but its not trying to answer that question. Even if you take a literalistic interpretation, you still can't get the age for the reasons I've put.

I'm not assuming either evolution or creationism is true. This was just looking purely at the text and analysing/studying it.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[stovebolts]

Well you can't date the earth using Genesis full stop if my interpretation is correct, especially of the first couple of verses.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

Your interpretation isn't correct simply because your using it out of it's contextual base.

Here is a problem we see all over scripture. Scripture always has a main intent. It was written with a particular agenda for a specific purpose. Often, we miss the intent. However, the passages themselves inspire us to other thoughts, and those thoughts to other thoughts and before we know it, we are interpreting scripture with our thoughts and tagging our own thoughts as the primary intent of the passage, when in reality our thoughts can often be light years away from the scriptures main intent. To add to this delima, this erroneous interpretation is then used to build other erroneous interpretations and before you know it, we've lost the whole intent.

If you want to see the main intent of creation, then set it within it's cultural context and put it against it's contemporaries of it's day. It's a lot of hard work, but well worth it when you've finished. The seventh day signifies a God who rests, and invites his creation into that rest with him. This is contrast against the pantheon which existed within it's contextual historical setting which pit the gods against humanity where humanity was worthless, created from mud and blood from Tiamate (part of the pantheon) and was despised.

Read Hebrews 4...

 

[Grazer]

Your interpretation isn't correct simply because your using it out of it's contextual base.

Here is a problem we see all over scripture. Scripture always has a main intent. It was written with a particular agenda for a specific purpose. Often, we miss the intent. However, the passages themselves inspire us to other thoughts, and those thoughts to other thoughts and before we know it, we are interpreting scripture with our thoughts and tagging our own thoughts as the primary intent of the passage, when in reality our thoughts can often be light years away from the scriptures main intent. To add to this delima, this erroneous interpretation is then used to build other erroneous interpretations and before you know it, we've lost the whole intent.

If you want to see the main intent of creation, then set it within it's cultural context and put it against it's contemporaries of it's day. It's a lot of hard work, but well worth it when you've finished. The seventh day signifies a God who rests, and invites his creation into that rest with him. This is contrast against the pantheon which existed within it's contextual historical setting which pit the gods against humanity where humanity was worthless, created from mud and blood from Tiamate (part of the pantheon) and was despised.

Read Hebrews 4...

Yeah that's how I look at most texts but that wasn't the point of the exercise. It was to simply look at genesis and see if you really can calculate the age of the earth from it. If you want a more detailed discussion on cultural settings I'm.more than happy to have that. We may have more in agreement than it appears.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[stovebolts]

I'm not sure if I have explained myself very well or you've misunderstood but a conflict between science and scripture is precisely what I'm trying to avoid.

To me, Genesis is not a science textbook and looking at what it says, it leaves the age of the earth undetermined but its not trying to answer that question. Even if you take a literalistic interpretation, you still can't get the age for the reasons I've put.

I'm not assuming either evolution or creationism is true. This was just looking purely at the text and analysing/studying it.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

From a textual basis, the Genesis account of creation does not address the earth as 4 billion years old. The historical account is not set within the tension of creation / evolution. It is set within tension of God and Pantheon. It was never designed to support Evolution but rather, it was used to support order, and not chaos. It was also used to support supremacy of the LORD over any other ideas that existed at that time which challenged the LORD's sovereignty over creation. In modern day thinking, Evolution challenges the LORD's sovereignty and creates chaos where there was once order.

What is clear, is that the word day in the biblical creation account has always been interpreted as a literal day until Evolution started becoming popular. Mamondies, a hghly respected Jewish scholar toyed with the idea of evolution and the earth being older than 6,000 years old, but his interpretation was not widely accepted.

What you seriously need to consider is that the creation account was written in Hebrew, and you won't find a Hebrew scholar that interprets Genesis 1 as anything but a 24 hour day. Keep in mind, the Jews today are still around.... they haven't gone anywhere and the original Hebrew language is still being used by many of them. It is not a simple language...

Here is a snipit I do hope you will read. It's from a Jewish site that is very active and authorative globally.

http://www.chabad.org/library/artic...-Old-is-the-Universe-According-to-Judaism.htm

 

[cupid dave]

From a textual basis, the Genesis account of creation does not address the earth as 4 billion years old. The historical account is not set within the tension of creation / evolution. It is set within tension of God and Pantheon. It was never designed to support Evolution but rather, it was used to support order, and not chaos. It was also used to support supremacy of the LORD over any other ideas that existed at that time which challenged the LORD's sovereignty over creation.

In modern day thinking, Evolution challenges the LORD's sovereignty and creates chaos where there was once order.

What is clear, is that the word day in the biblical creation account has always been interpreted as a literal day until Evolution started becoming popular. Mamondies, a hghly respected Jewish scholar toyed with the idea of evolution and the earth being older than 6,000 years old, but his interpretation was not widely accepted.

What you seriously need to consider is that the creation account was written in Hebrew, and you won't find a Hebrew scholar that interprets Genesis 1 as anything but a 24 hour day. Keep in mind, the Jews today are still around.... they haven't gone anywhere and the original Hebrew language is still being used by many of them. It is not a simple language...

Here is a snipit I do hope you will read. It's from a Jewish site that is very active and authorative globally.

http://www.chabad.org/library/artic...-Old-is-the-Universe-According-to-Judaism.htm

I agree with the premise:
It was also used to support supremacy of the LORD over any other ideas that existed at that time which challenged the LORD's sovereignty over creation.

The Bible is still to be used that same way.

Theistic Evolution Theology shows that Genesis predates the modern Science that explains the details of the Cosmic Evolution.

Theistic Evolution also shows that the largest view of the Genesis story parallels the general concept of Evolution as the mechanism utilized by "God" to accomplish the Spontaneous Generation of first life.

Theistic Evolution Theology shows that these acts were followed by a slow development, first, of the Plant Kingdom, then followed later by the Animal Kingdom.

Theistic Evolution Theology then shows that the genealogy parallels the evolution of man through 22 steps of ascent by now esxtinct species in his linage.

 

[stovebolts]

Theistic evolution violates the commandment regarding the Sabbath...

 

[cupid dave]

Here is a problem we see all over scripture. Scripture always has a main intent. It was written with a particular agenda for a specific purpose. Often, we miss the intent. ...

The purpose of reading any book is to discover the intent of the writer.
We read the book first, then based on what was written and our reading comprehension, THEN we explain what w=that message was all about.


You are witnessing to the error of the churches and the whole Bible community, to include Islam and the Talmud writers, and the Mormons book which are reports on what these readers saw as the "intent" of the Bible writers.
The denominational Chruches all have written their catecisms or doctrine and dogmas in order to tell us what they each have made out of a reading of the scriptures.

All of these are Psychological Pre-set rules by which the reader is instructed to make what he will read/study fit into that particular mold.

This has required the invention of surrealistic ideas and the construction of theological theories or various concepts invented solely to explain various passages that do not reasonable fit the pre-set mold.

For example, Islam is founded upon the argument that no man can be raised from the dead, and that the Trinity idea defies common sense, that 3 is not 1.

Even the denominational churches are divided on Trinity.

The point is that a reader today fairs better without the indoctrination and imposition of some one of these merely quesses about what the intent was for these writings.

The one intent we can support what I say here with is that the book is closed until the time of the end.

That intent, that we should wait before we assume we know everything about this book seems to criticize your idea directly.

 

[cupid dave]

Theistic evolution violates the commandment regarding the Sabbath...

How so...