[_ Old Earth _] How Old Is The Earth ?

[Sparkey]

Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. ... Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days ...
[Job 38:3-4, 12 KJV]


Can we not hear the rebuke of our God to a man who "darkened counsel without understanding"? I pray we may yet hear for it is His counsel not ours.

The challenge to those who would change God's counsel is that they first change the morning: Command the morning. Go ahead and do it. Do it now so tomorrow all will see your authority to speak such things. Then may we believe and honor you.

 

[Sparkey]

Barb? I wish lordkalven were here to evaluate the consistency of what is being presented. I miss him, don't you? I'm sure he would agree that what was said so many thousands of years ago hangs together. It does not fall of its own weight, is worthy of consideration and not to be dismissed easily or readily.

We've discussed this for years now. I was surprised to hear you say that Adam was born. That's not how God described it. God says he knitted us (not Adam) in the womb. We are being "knitted together" even now by the Holy Spirit. Too bad we can't reconcile our view on these things. The Word of God being true is a deal breaker for me.

 

[Barbarian]

I see no problem with the account in Genesis, unless someone tries to rework it into a literal history. Nor do I see any problem with our bodies being produced as God says, in the same way other animals were produced. He says that we are different, because He breathes into us directly, the breath of life that makes us a living soul. Note that it doesn't say that He gives us a soul. We become a living soul. Each of us happens to be, by things we do not understand, limited to a body in this world, but it is not us.

You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.
G.K. Chesterton

The Hebrews did not believe there was an immortal soul. Ecclesiastes says:
Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know nothing more, neither have they a reward any more: for the memory of them is forgotten.

Clearly, that is not what Jesus told us. The Hebrew conception of a human was that there was no immortal part therein, but if we can trust Jesus, there is. The question of our bodies is a distraction, nothing more. Of course Adam was born. Nothing is produced with "the appearance of age." God is not deceptive. And yes, if He gave us the world we have, consistently knowable and operating by a few simple rules, and then put things in it that only appeared to be so, that would be entirely deceptive.

Why would it be less acceptable to you to have your body produced by evolution than to have it molded out of mud? I don't see the issue here.

It's not a salvation issue, since God is really indifferent to what you think of the way our bodies formed. I wish we could agree on this, but it's not the sort of things schisms are made of. It's a distraction from the real issue. Suffice to say that Christians who accept Genesis the way I do, (a majority, if that matters to you) also think that the word of God is true and trustworthy.

Perhaps if you had time, a review of Communion and Stewardship would help you understand where I'm coming from.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...th_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

 

[Asyncritus]

I see no problem with the account in Genesis, unless someone tries to rework it into a literal history. Nor do I see any problem with our bodies being produced as God says, in the same way other animals were produced.

That is a serious mistake.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

There is an enormous difference between the creation of man and this description.

Man is a separate, distinct, differently made creation.

First, there is a policy decision:

26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Then there is the implementation of the policy decision:

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And the details are given in ch 2:

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

This is an entirely different process to the creation of the animals. Most notably the breathing of the breath of life into his specific, individual nostrils.

There is nothing in common with the creation of the animals and the creation of man, save the modelling of the man from the dust of the earth.

The creation of the woman is even more distinct. She is not made of the dust of the ground at all, and is made later:

21 ¶ And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

He says that we are different, because He breathes into us directly, the breath of life that makes us a living soul. Note that it doesn't say that He gives us a soul. We become a living soul.

I'm happy to see that you have picked up on this. Quite correct.

The Hebrews did not believe there was an immortal soul. Ecclesiastes says:
Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know nothing more, neither have they a reward any more: for the memory of them is forgotten.

Again correct.

Clearly, that is not what Jesus told us. The Hebrew conception of a human was that there was no immortal part therein, but if we can trust Jesus, there is.

Back to the errors.

Do you really think that there had been such a monumental change in the human constitution in the time between Ecclesiastes (and several of the Psalms) and when Jesus spoke? Really?

The question of our bodies is a distraction, nothing more. Of course Adam was born.

Of course not. The account quoted above gives no such impression. He was made like a statue, and the breath of life breathed into his nostrils. 'Born' is a total misnomer. The absence of a mother should have given you a big hint there!

Nothing is produced with "the appearance of age." God is not deceptive. And yes, if He gave us the world we have, consistently knowable and operating by a few simple rules, and then put things in it that only appeared to be so, that would be entirely deceptive.

Come Barbarian. This is silly. Any tree, any fish, any mammal having just been created en masse (as the Cambrian layer shows extremely well) would have APPEARED to be x years/days/whatever old.

That is a necessity of the case, and it happened - but to say He did it that way in order to deceive us is going too far.

Why would it be less acceptable to you to have your body produced by evolution than to have it molded out of mud? I don't see the issue here.

For the good and simple reason that the Bible, which is the inspired word of God says clearly that it happened like that.

Any other supposition such as you are attempting to foist on us here is decidedly dodgy.

It's not a salvation issue, since God is really indifferent to what you think of the way our bodies formed. I wish we could agree on this, but it's not the sort of things schisms are made of. It's a distraction from the real issue.

The authority of the Word of God is a decided salvation issue, and a very real one. Reject that, and you're finished.

Suffice to say that Christians who accept Genesis the way I do, (a majority, if that matters to you) also think that the word of God is true and trustworthy.

Then I question the description of them as 'Christians'. Christianity is not something in which anything goes. There are clearly defined parameters, to which you either subscribe, or are no Christian.

Perhaps if you had time, a review of Communion and Stewardship would help you understand where I'm coming from.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...th_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

[/QUOTE]

Maybe a careful reading of Gen 1 and 2, with the attitude which says 'Look, this is the Word of the Living God. If I fail to give it that due reverence and respect, then the consequences could be fatal' would not go amiss.

As I see it, you are so hung up on scientific 'explanations', which are really no explanations at all, when it comes to evolution and abiogenesis as I have been showing you for the longest time now, that you are perfectly prepared to jettison the Bible.

The correct attitude is, if there's a contradiction between my scientific preconceptions (which will sooner or later change, and in which direction I cannot say) and what the Word of God says, then I will jettison the science, however much it may hurt.

Jesus believed it. And He rose from the dead. Did Darwin do anything like that?

I think not.

 

[jasoncran]

barb. the Hebrews yes they do believe that man has an immortal soul. the kaddish which predates the time of Christ has a prayer for the rabbi's soul in sheol. the rcc got the idea of purgatory comes from. both jews and rcc light said candle and pray. I have done part of this ritual. if death was defeated at the cross for the flesh and its over, why then does paul say that at the end of it all death shall be done away with and refers to it as the final enemy?

 

[Sparkey]

Of course Adam was born. Nothing is produced with "the appearance of age." God is not deceptive. And yes, if He gave us the world we have, consistently knowable and operating by a few simple rules, and then put things in it that only appeared to be so, that would be entirely deceptive.

The creation of the first man and the account that God (the only witness) gave do not demand the earth to be young. The implication is there but when we consider Adam and the question of his absent belly button...

IF man were born (and not created) then placed in the Garden of Eden (as the Bible stated) there would be need for nursemaids of some sort to nourish him. The idea of putting a baby into the Garden and then showing animals to it so that he'd know that there were no suitable mates to be found, then putting the baby to sleep while taking care of his need by creating a wife (and not mother) is a difficult one for me to even consider.

Really Barb? According to what I can gather from your fictional account Adam was "born" and then before God spoke to him and while yet a baby there were years that were needed in the 6th day (forget that we are told it was a single day) for him to mature and for the rest of the narrative to make any sense. But even if I were to give you that much I'd have to ask how you fit billions of years in there without Adam dying? There was no sin, no death, so maybe your idea could work --> but the idea of a million-year-old Adam is certainly not found in the Bible. Yes, we know that life expectancy was different then but THAT different? Where did you get that idea anyway?

Barbarian tries to refute the idea of God speaking to Adam on the same day he was created by introducing great lengths of time into the story:
"Immediately" being your addition to scripture to fit your desires.

Genesis 1:27 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. [28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.

But...

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. [8] And the Lord God had planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning: wherein he placed man whom he had formed.

God goes out and does some more creation, and at a later time:

Genesis 2:15 And the Lord God took man, and put him into the paradise of pleasure, to dress it, and to keep it. [16] And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: [17] But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

And only later created Eve, so that rules out immediate discussion from either creation story.

 

[Barbarian]

The creation of the first man and the account that God (the only witness) gave do not demand the earth to be young. The implication is there but when we consider Adam and the question of his absent belly button...

I missed the part where God said he had no belly button. I don't think it's in Genesis.

IF man were born (and not created)

Did God not create you? Were you not born?

then placed in the Garden of Eden (as the Bible stated) there would be need for nursemaids of some sort to nourish him. The idea of putting a baby into the Garden and then showing animals to it so that he'd know that there were no suitable mates to be found, then putting the baby to sleep while taking care of his need by creating a wife (and not mother) is a difficult one for me to even consider.

Thinking of Genesis as a literal history, rather than as an allegorical description of creation, does introduce some odd incongruities, yes.

Really Barb? According to what I can gather from your fictional account Adam was "born" and then before God spoke to him and while yet a baby there were years that were needed in the 6th day (forget that we are told it was a single day) for him to mature and for the rest of the narrative to make any sense. But even if I were to give you that much I'd have to ask how you fit billions of years in there without Adam dying?

Humans didn't show up for a few billion years. The first "Yom" was a big one. (actually, I think the early Christians were right, and "Yom" didn't represent periods of time at all, but were categories of creation.

We don't even know which species of human Adam was. I don't suppose it was H. ergaster, although it could have been. We just know that at some point, two humans were given something that made them different than all the other animals. And those two were the ancestors of all humans living today.

There was no sin, no death, so maybe your idea could work --> but the idea of a million-year-old Adam is certainly not found in the Bible.

Nor is it necessary, unless one tries to restructure the story into a literal history.

 

[Lewis]

How is this for a bunch of stomp down garbage' but to Barbarian this on point stuff..

Age of the Earth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian obeserves:
I see no problem with the account in Genesis, unless someone tries to rework it into a literal history. Nor do I see any problem with our bodies being produced as God says, in the same way other animals were produced.

That is a serious mistake.

I don't believe God makes mistakes.

God says that like man, all living things came from the pre-existing creation which is the Earth:
(Gen. 1:21-25)

There is an enormous difference between the creation of man and this description.

Of course. He made our bodies the way he made the other living things. But we got something else, which makes all the difference. That you body is the body of an animal is of no importance compared to the soul which you are. You are not your body.

Man is a separate, distinct, differently made creation.

Indeed. Each of us. Because of that difference. It's not the body.

First, there is a policy decision:

26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Of course, the "likeness" is in our soul and in our intellect, being capable of knowing good, and potentially of having fellowship with God.

Then there is the implementation of the policy decision:

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

God doesn't have eyelashes, or elbows, or feet. It's not a physical likeness.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Brought forth from the Earth, like the other living things, but then He does something different with us. And that makes all the difference.

The creation of the woman is even more distinct. She is not made of the dust of the ground at all, and is made later:

As the account itself shows, this is a metaphor for the way man and woman are intended for each other. And perhaps a bit of divine humor here; man is always brought forth by woman, not the other way around.

And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. [24] Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh.
Barbarian observes:

He says that we are different, because He breathes into us directly, the breath of life that makes us a living soul. Note that it doesn't say that He gives us a soul. We become a living soul.
I'm happy to see that you have picked up on this. Quite correct.

The Hebrews did not believe there was an immortal soul. Ecclesiastes says:
Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know nothing more, neither have they a reward any more: for the memory of them is forgotten.

Back to the errors.
Do you really think that there had been such a monumental change in the human constitution in the time between Ecclesiastes (and several of the Psalms) and when Jesus spoke? Really?

Can you imagine Jesus saying what the scribe of Ecclesiastes said? Seriously? He said just the opposite.

Barbarian observes:
The question of our bodies is a distraction, nothing more. Of course Adam was born.

Of course not. The account quoted above gives no such impression. He was made like a statue, and the breath of life breathed into his nostrils. 'Born' is a total misnomer. The absence of a mother should have given you a big hint there!

You're still trying to rearrange it as a literal history. And as you know, there's no logically consistent way to do it.

Barbarian observes:
Nothing is produced with "the appearance of age." God is not deceptive. And yes, if He gave us the world we have, consistently knowable and operating by a few simple rules, and then put things in it that only appeared to be so, that would be entirely deceptive.

Come Barbarian. This is silly. Any tree, any fish, any mammal having just been created en masse (as the Cambrian layer shows extremely well)

Given that we see the first chordates as extremely simple, minus fins, eyes, gills, etc, and only later and gradually, develop into the fish we see in later parts of the Cambrian and succeeding ages, you've clearly misunderstood what's in the fossil record.

would have APPEARED to be x years/days/whatever old.

Odd then, that we see larval and juvenile organisms there. That would be an extremely clever bit of dishonesty, making not only the appearance of age, but the appearance of matings that never happened. Give that the "appearance of age" is a man-made doctrine, with no support at all in scripture, why not just accept that what He shows us is an honest depiction of what was going on?

Barbarian asks:
Why would it be less acceptable to you to have your body produced by evolution than to have it molded out of mud? I don't see the issue here.

For the good and simple reason that the Bible, which is the inspired word of God says clearly that it happened like that.

But it doesn't. It merely says that he was formed of the slime of the earth. I suppose that's what creationists mean by "goo-to-you evolution." Suppositions like "appearance of age" are merely suggestions that God is less than completely honest.

Barbarian observes:
It's not a salvation issue, since God is really indifferent to what you think of the way our bodies formed. I wish we could agree on this, but it's not the sort of things schisms are made of. It's a distraction from the real issue.

The authority of the Word of God is a decided salvation issue, and a very real one.

Then it's probably not a good idea to be adding "appearance of age" and "literal history" to Genesis, since the text supports neither of these new doctrines.

Reject that, and you're finished.

I suspect, that in spite of everything, you're going to end up in Heaven, astonished at who else made it there.

Barbarian observes:
Suffice to say that Christians who accept Genesis the way I do, (a majority, if that matters to you) also think that the word of God is true and trustworthy.

Then I question the description of them as 'Christians'.

Doesn't matter, except to you personally. If you try to push people away from God, you only move yourself from Him.

Christianity is not something in which anything goes.

Creationism, for example. And appearance of age. "Life ex nihilo." Stuff like that aren't in there.

There are clearly defined parameters, to which you either subscribe, or are no Christian.

Somehow, I don't see you showing up and Peter saying "You believed in "appearance of age? The 'down' escalator is over there." You have to honestly know it's an insult to God for it to count as sin.

Barbarian suggests:
Perhaps if you had time, a review of Communion and Stewardship would help you understand where I'm coming from.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...th_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html​

Maybe a careful reading of Gen 1 and 2, with the attitude which says 'Look, this is the Word of the Living God. If I fail to give it that due reverence and respect, then the consequences could be fatal' would not go amiss.

That would be good for you, also. Note what's in it. And equally important, note whats not in it.

As I see it, you are so hung up on scientific 'explanations',

The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. He wasn't making a science text. Some things, He left for us to figure out on our own. That's what he gave you a mind to do.

which are really no explanations at all, when it comes to evolution and abiogenesis as I have been showing you for the longest time now, that you are perfectly prepared to jettison the Bible.

If you accept the Bible as it is, you'd notice that God says abiogenesis is the way He did it. No poofing. And of course, He made nature. So it can't contradict His word.

The correct attitude is, if there's a contradiction between my scientific preconceptions (which will sooner or later change, and in which direction I cannot say) and what the Word of God says, then I will jettison the science, however much it may hurt.

Interestingly, I don't yet see a case where an established theory contradicts His word. I think I know why.

Jesus believed it.

Of course He did. He invented evolution, remember?

And He rose from the dead. Did Darwin do anything like that?

Darwin just showed us a little more about the way His creation works. Not bad for a mere man.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Barbarian obeserves:
I see no problem with the account in Genesis, unless someone tries to rework it into a literal history. Nor do I see any problem with our bodies being produced as God says, in the same way other animals were produced.

Question for you Barbarian. Would you say that there was literally two human beings named Adam and Eve, who were the first human beings? Or would you say it is more accurate to affirm that Adam and Eve were a sort of prototype (perhaps even a community) who were called out among the Early Hominids?

Just curious as to your position on the matter.

 

[Barbarian]

Question for you Barbarian. Would you say that there was literally two human beings named Adam and Eve, who were the first human beings? Or would you say it is more accurate to affirm that Adam and Eve were a sort of prototype (perhaps even a community) who were called out among the Early Hominids?

I believe that there were two individual humans. I have no scientific support for that, except to point out that there is nothing in biology to rule out such a case.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I believe that there were two individual humans. I have no scientific support for that, except to point out that there is nothing in biology to rule out such a case.

Understood, and do agree that science doesn't necessarily rule out such a case. Interesting.

 

[Barbarian]

Barb? I wish lordkalven were here to evaluate the consistency of what is being presented. I miss him, don't you?

I do. I think I know where he goes on the net, now. At least he was. I was there for over a decade, but it got crazier and crazier, and finally even the administration went over the brink. He's more careful about how he says things; perhaps he'll have less trouble than I did.

I'm sure he would agree that what was said so many thousands of years ago hangs together. It does not fall of its own weight, is worthy of consideration and not to be dismissed easily or readily.

Genesis is the word of God. I don't see how it would fall apart. I just think dismissing it as a mere literal history is not only wrong, but misses the message therein.

 

[TOG]

Barbarian,

You have previously said that you had "reasons" (plural) for believing that the creation account in the first chapter of Genesis is not literal. You have also mentioned "logical inconsistencies" (also plural) that you feel are present if the account is taken as literal history. You have pointed out once such "inconsistency", which is that there was morning and evening before the sun was created. I answered this objection by pointing out that there could still be a morning and evening if there were light coming from a single direction. I could add to that also, that there will be a time in the future when we will have light without the sun (Rev. 21:23). I asked whether you had any other reasons or objections to a literal interpretation, since you used mentioned "reasons" and "inconsistencies" in plural. I've been waiting, but I haven't seen any other reasons. If I missed it, could you pleas point it out to me? Otherwise, could you please tell us what the other "logical inconsistencies" are?

The TOG​

 

[Barbarian]

You have previously said that you had "reasons" (plural) for believing that the creation account in the first chapter of Genesis is not literal.

Yes.

You have also mentioned "logical inconsistencies" (also plural) that you feel are present if the account is taken as literal history.

Right.

You have pointed out once such "inconsistency", which is that there was morning and evening before the sun was created. I answered this objection by pointing out that there could still be a morning and evening if there were light coming from a single direction.

And if there was a space alien with a big spotlight, we could make that work, too. The problem is, we don't have any evidence for such things. And if you are able to just make up things to cover over the problems, then any interpretation is valid.

I could add to that also, that there will be a time in the future when we will have light without the sun (Rev. 21:23).

After this world is gone, and a new one is founded. In this world, it doesn't work that way. A few things that show a literal interpretation is logically absurd:

I asked whether you had any other reasons or objections to a literal interpretation, since you used mentioned "reasons" and "inconsistencies" in plural. I've been waiting, but I haven't seen any other reasons. If I missed it, could you pleas point it out to me? Otherwise, could you please tell us what the other "logical inconsistencies" are?

In the first version of the creation story (chapter 1) plants were created on the third day, and Adam on the sixth day. In the second version, (chapter 2), Adam is created first, and then plants are created.

Notice also that the second version has the Earth being created in one day:
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth:

Genesis 1 has the other animals being created before Adam, and Genesis 2 has Adam being created before the other animals.

 

[TOG]

And if there was a space alien with a big spotlight, we could make that work, too. The problem is, we don't have any evidence for such things. And if you are able to just make up things to cover over the problems, then any interpretation is valid.

The difference is that the Bible says there can be light without the sun, but it doesn't mention space aliens.

After this world is gone, and a new one is founded. In this world, it doesn't work that way.

It doesn't currently work that way. But if we know it will in the future, why can't you believe it did in the past.

A few things that show a literal interpretation is logically absurd:

In the first version of the creation story (chapter 1) plants were created on the third day, and Adam on the sixth day. In the second version, (chapter 2), Adam is created first, and then plants are created.

This difference has bothered a lot of people, but it doesn't have to. Let's take a closer look at what the Bible says.

And no plant of the field was yet in the earth (Gen. 2:5 ASV)​

The word translated as "earth" is the Hebrew word "erets". It is the same word that is translated as "earth" in Gen. 1:1, where it obviously refers to the entire earth. If this is all we had to go on, it would indeed seem that Gen. 2:5 was saying that the earth had no vegetation at all. But that isn't all we have to go on.

The name of the first is Pishon: that is it which compasseth the whole land (erets) of Havilah, where there is gold (Gen. 2:11 ASV)​

"Erets" can also refer to a limited piece of land, as well as to the entire earth. In fact, according to the Blue Letter Bible, it is translated as "earth" 712 times in the KJV, but as "land" 1,543 times. All we need to do to make this "inconsistency" disappear is to translate "erets" as "land" rather than "earth" in Gen. 2:5. We see then that on the third day of creation, God created plants in the earth, but had not yet planted the Garden of Eden. In chapter two, we see Him put Adam in an uncultivated area, apparently with no vegetation at all, and God plants the garden after someone is there to take care of it. This interpretation also takes care of a some other perceived problems, such as the question of where poison plants or carnivorous animals came from. The have been here the whole time, but God saw to it that there were neither plants nor animals actually in Eden which would harm Adam and Eve.

Notice also that the second version has the Earth being created in one day:
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth:

You yourself have pointed out that the word day (Heb. "yom") can have several meanings. It can refer to a period of 24 hours, 12 hours or an unspecified longer period of time. This also applies to the English word "day" as we use it. We can use it to refer to a 24 hour period (the first day of the week is Sunday), a 12 hour period, or the daylight period (nocturnal animals sleep during the day) or a longer, undefined period of time (back in my day). We need to look at the context to see what it means. Since the days of Genesis 1 start in the evening, it can't be referring to the daylight part of the day and since they each have one evening and one morning, it can't be referring to a long period of time, such as millions of years. It must therefore be referring to 24 hour days. We must remember that Moses wrote all of this down thousands of years after it happened. Keeping those two things in mind - the 24 hour days of Gen. 1 and the thousands of years that had passed since - it is most likely that "day" in Gen. 2:4 is being used in the sense of "back in the day".

Genesis 1 has the other animals being created before Adam, and Genesis 2 has Adam being created before the other animals.

This is the same as with the plants. God created the animals on the earth before He created man, but only introduced them into the garden after Adam had been put there.

So you see, if we keep in mind that we serve an omnipotent, omniscient and all-wise God, and if we don't rule out the possibility that some guys back in the early 17th century might have gotten the translation wrong, then there don't have to be any logical inconsistencies. And just so you don't think that I just go around translating the Bible for myself any way I want to, I'd like to point out that there are a number of translations that use "land" rather than "earth" in Gen. 1:5, such as the ESV and HCSB.

The TOG​

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
And if there was a space alien with a big spotlight, we could make that work, too. The problem is, we don't have any evidence for such things. And if you are able to just make up things to cover over the problems, then any interpretation is valid.

The difference is that the Bible says there can be light without the sun, but it doesn't mention space aliens.

Neither of which would make a morning or an evening. So back to square one.

Barbarian observes:
After this world is gone, and a new one is founded. In this world, it doesn't work that way.

It doesn't currently work that way. But if we know it will in the future, why can't you believe it did in the past.

No evidence, no scriptural support.

Barbarian said: ↑
A few things that show a literal interpretation is logically absurd:

Barbarian observes:
In the first version of the creation story (chapter 1) plants were created on the third day, and Adam on the sixth day. In the second version, (chapter 2), Adam is created first, and then plants are created.

This difference has bothered a lot of people, but it doesn't have to. Let's take a closer look at what the Bible says.

And no plant of the field was yet in the earth (Gen. 2:5 ASV)

The word translated as "earth" is the Hebrew word "erets". It is the same word that is translated as "earth" in Gen. 1:1, where it obviously refers to the entire earth. If this is all we had to go on, it would indeed seem that Gen. 2:5 was saying that the earth had no vegetation at all. But that isn't all we have to go on.

Sorry, it still has the creation of plants before Adam in the first chapter, and after Adam in the second chapter. No way to get around that, except to make another unscriptural story to cover up the problem.

"Erets" can also refer to a limited piece of land, as well as to the entire earth. In fact, according to the Blue Letter Bible, it is translated as "earth" 712 times in the KJV, but as "land" 1,543 times. All we need to do to make this "inconsistency" disappear is to translate "erets" as "land" rather than "earth" in Gen. 2:5. We see then that on the third day of creation, God created plants in the earth, but had not yet planted the Garden of Eden. In chapter two, we see Him put Adam in an uncultivated area, apparently with no vegetation at all, and God plants the garden after someone is there to take care of it. This interpretation also takes care of a some other perceived problems, such as the question of where poison plants or carnivorous animals came from. The have been here the whole time, but God saw to it that there were neither plants nor animals actually in Eden which would harm Adam and Eve.

But of course, that's not what it says in Genesis. You've just summoned up another non-scriptural story to paper over the problems.

Barbarian said: ↑

Notice also that the second version has the Earth being created in one day:
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth:​

You yourself have pointed out that the word day (Heb. "yom") can have several meanings. It can refer to a period of 24 hours, 12 hours or an unspecified longer period of time. This also applies to the English word "day" as we use it. We can use it to refer to a 24 hour period (the first day of the week is Sunday), a 12 hour period, or the daylight period (nocturnal animals sleep during the day) or a longer, undefined period of time (back in my day).

So, if we decided to not use the word in a literal way, we can then assert that Genesis is literal? I don't think so.

We need to look at the context to see what it means. Since the days of Genesis 1 start in the evening, it can't be referring to the daylight part of the day and since they each have one evening and one morning, it can't be referring to a long period of time, such as millions of years. It must therefore be referring to 24 hour days. We must remember that Moses wrote all of this down thousands of years after it happened. Keeping those two things in mind - the 24 hour days of Gen. 1 and the thousands of years that had passed since - it is most likely that "day" in Gen. 2:4 is being used in the sense of "back in the day".

And more confabulation to cover up the problems. That should be a clue for you.

Barbarian said: ↑

Genesis 1 has the other animals being created before Adam, and Genesis 2 has Adam being created before the other animals.
​

This is the same as with the plants. God created the animals on the earth before He created man, but only introduced them into the garden after Adam had been put there

Again, that's not what Genesis says. It's just making up stories to cover up the logical difficulties.

So you see, if we keep in mind that we serve an omnipotent, omniscient and all-wise God, and if we don't rule out the possibility that some guys back in the early 17th century might have gotten the translation wrong, then there don't have to be any logical inconsistencies.

And now, we're down to "well, maybe it's just wrong." Once you start down that road, there's no end to it. What's so awful about just accepting it the way it is?

 

[TOG]

We need to look at the context to see what it means.

And more confabulation to cover up the problems.

If you consider looking at the context to get a proper understanding of the meaning to be "confabulation", then discussing this (or anything else, for that matter) with you any further is unlikely to have any useful results. If you want to believe that a billion years can have a single morning and a single evening, then you go right ahead and do that. But not matter how hard you believe it, it doesn't change the fact that it contradicts simple logic.

The TOG​

 

[Barbarian]

If you consider looking at the context to get a proper understanding of the meaning to be "confabulation",

Adding new material is hardly "looking at the context."

then discussing this (or anything else, for that matter) with you any further is unlikely to have any useful results.

If the text won't support your ideas, it won't help to add new things to the text.

If you want to believe that a billion years can have a single morning and a single evening

As most Christians, I accept it as it's written. It's not about time at all. It's about different categories of creation, not time periods. It's an allegory that God gave us so that we might understand that He created all things.

Adding new ideas to that, won't change what God told us.

 

[Sparkey]

You state "it's not about time at all," but you fail to consider the fact that our work week is modeled after God's creative acts. Moses taught a single day of rest based on what the Holy Spirit inspired him to write about the Creation Week. There is no "new idea" being added here.