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

[Barbarian]

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.

A model is not the real thing, but is only a representation, so that in no way means that God was working on a timetable.

Moses taught a single day of rest based on what the Holy Spirit inspired him to write about the Creation Week.

So an allegory of creation was modeled on the concept of a week, (which preceded the writing of Genesis)

There is no "new idea" being added here.

I'm just pointing out the pitfall of assuming the model is the real thing.

 

[Sparkey]

You're just pointing to a pitfall? Oh, okay. Thank you for correcting your statement: "It [Genesis 1-3] is not about time at all."

Now we can agree that contrary to your statement it is indeed about time. It seems you stumbled a bit while trying to express that point about potential pitfalls. One may also point to the pitfall on the other side -- showing that the statement, "It's not about time at all," dismisses the truth of the matter utterly.

But we should wait for you to clarify your original thought first. If you were just pointing out the pitfall of assuming the model (which points to our reality) is also reality, could you show how it must be fiction as you allege? I fail to follow how God must have been telling us a story that had nothing to do with time, nothing to do with reality and only meant, "God created all things," as you have stated.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't see how pointing out that it's not about time, means that it's not about reality. My point is not a new one:

In "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a literal account of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way — it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal. One reason for this interpretation is the passage in Sirach 18:1, creavit omni simul ("he created all things at once"), which Augustine took as proof that the days of Genesis 1 had to be taken non-literally. Augustine also does not envision original sin as originating structural changes in the universe, and even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall. Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

I should point out that Augustine also recognized that creation is ongoing, and new things unfold from existing creation.

 

[Sparkey]

It's rather difficult for anyone to say that there is a single day set aside for rest (Sabbath) and worship while, at the same time alleging, "it's not about time."

Making the Creation Week to be "spiritual" rather than physical and trying to change it so that all things were created at once is NOT what I hear you declare. If you would like to change your beliefs from the billions of years you've spoken of in the past to "creavit omni simul," you may, of course, but that would necessitate greater change and corrections to what you've previously declared as well.

I'm not convinced that you've thought your new position out all that well. Are you?

 

[TOG]

I don't see how pointing out that it's not about time, means that it's not about reality. My point is not a new one:

In "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a literal account of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way — it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal. One reason for this interpretation is the passage in Sirach 18:1, creavit omni simul ("he created all things at once"), which Augustine took as proof that the days of Genesis 1 had to be taken non-literally. Augustine also does not envision original sin as originating structural changes in the universe, and even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall. Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

I should point out that Augustine also recognized that creation is ongoing, and new things unfold from existing creation.

Let me see if I got this straight. There was a guy who lived in the 4th - 5th centuries, who interpreted a single verse in a book most Christians don't recognize as Scripture (although the church you belong to does) to mean that everything was created in an instant, and you use this guy's belief to prove that creation must have taken billions of years (not just for life, but the whole universe). Is that about right?

The TOG​

 

[Sparkey]

In this discussion about the age of the earth we have focused on Scripture and looked at the account given to Moses by the Holy Spirit about the first week, the week of Creation. Your premise, that God was not focused on time as the events of the Creation Week was perhaps overstated when you declared, "It's not about time at all." Clearly, it was. The extent that it was about time though is indeed up for debate and many have advanced their thoughts regarding this matter.

I trust your quote about Augustine's thoughts and notice they do not align with what you've previously stated. According to the quote you've provided Genesis is, at least in part, about time. Augustine speaks about the timely events and suggests that they happened simultaneously. This does nothing to address our common beliefs about a single day being set aside for a period of rest, nor does it suggest that we continue to observe Sabbath.

The Theology behind the belief and the belief itself need to be aligned and I'd like to give you a chance to revise your position before going further in the discussion here.

 

[Barbarian]

In this discussion about the age of the earth we have focused on Scripture and looked at the account given to Moses by the Holy Spirit about the first week, the week of Creation. Your premise, that God was not focused on time as the events of the Creation Week was perhaps overstated when you declared, "It's not about time at all."

It isn't. Augustine regards the initial creation spoke of in Genesis as instantaneous, followed by an ongoing creation that continues today. His understanding was that the 'days' weren't about time at all, but were merely descriptions of

Clearly, it was. The extent that it was about time though is indeed up for debate and many have advanced their thoughts regarding this matter.

I trust your quote about Augustine's thoughts and notice they do not align with what you've previously stated.

In some ways, Augustine was wrong. He did not realize how old the Earth was, for example, Scripture does not say, and the evidence was unknown to him. So while he was aware that the "days" of Genesis were not actually periods of time, he didn't realize how much time there actually was. But of course, he was aware that we should consider our interpretations of scripture in light of new evidence.

According to the quote you've provided Genesis is, at least in part, about time.

I don't see it.

Augustine speaks about the timely events and suggests that they happened simultaneously.

One reason for this interpretation is the passage in Sirach 18:1, creavit omni simul ("he created all things at once"), which Augustine took as proof that the days of Genesis 1 had to be taken non-literally.

"At once" would indicate no time passed when the initial creation was complete.

This does nothing to address our common beliefs about a single day being set aside for a period of rest, nor does it suggest that we continue to observe Sabbath.

Since the week existed prior to the writing of Genesis, it seems that the model was taken from the week, and applied to Genesis as a metaphor for the creation. And so, God's intent that we set aside a period of time to rest and pray, is set in the metaphor of a week in which man works six days and rests on the seventh.

The Theology behind the belief and the belief itself need to be aligned and I'd like to give you a chance to revise your position before going further in the discussion here.

I don't see the misalignment here. But maybe I'm not understanding you. Can you be more specific?

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian said:

the "days" of Genesis were not actually periods of time

Gods word says different.. its written in the first chapter anything else is mans opinion..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Gods word says different.. its written in the first chapter anything else is mans opinion..

As we discussed earlier, re-interpreting Genesis as a literal history produces some logical absurdities. That was known well over a thousand years ago.

 

[Sparkey]

Scripture is consistent with various time periods (but not six literal days, for reasons we've discussed earlier). However, the evidence from God's creation shows it to be billions of years old. So that's the only answer that's consistent with scripture and the observable facts.

You don't see the mis-match? Okay. In the quote above your statement indicates "various time periods" while you address the consistency of Scripture.

One might note that although the term "time period" is used you don't seem to be speaking of periodic events. Your assessment does not claim any specific interval or duration to these "time periods" and seeks only to deny the possibility of a 24 hour day. The problem comes when we try to redefine words to the extent that a day can mean anything from milliseconds to billions of years.

When confronted with the declaration (and even commandment) by Moses, you later claim that the very concept of a week was back-filled to fit our reckoning because Genesis was not written at the time of creation. WHAT? Need I remind you that the Holy Spirit inspired the words. Are you certain that you want to accuse Moses of operating independently of the Holy Spirit as God's testimony was given here? Others have tried that and it didn't turn out well for them.

Now we contrast your statement about "various time periods" above with the Augustine quote and the allegation that all things were created at the same moment. Barbarian? What? Can you honestly say that you don't see any difference? The two concepts are mutually exclusive. Either there were days of creation or there were not.

Here is the Augustine quote (in part) for your ready reference:

I don't see how pointing out that it's not about time, means that it's not about reality. My point is not a new one:

... He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way — it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal. One reason for this interpretation is the passage in Sirach 18:1, creavit omni simul ("he created all things at once"), which Augustine took as proof that the days of Genesis 1 had to be taken non-literally. ...

You've strayed from the original assertion about multiple distinct periods of time (from your POST #33, quoted above) and went from "various periods of time" to "He created all things at once."

I don't see the misalignment here. But maybe I'm not understanding you. Can you be more specific?

More specific? Sure, thanks for asking. It isn't only in Genesis where we find mention of Man being created first. 1 Timothy 2:13 --> "For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve." Your concept of the earth as a creative intermediary and the interpretation that Man was 'created' by the earth (and not by God who formed man of the dust) contradicts what is clearly stated in the Bible. The word that is translated into English as "created" from 1 Timothy is plassō and may be used of a potter who forms or molds something from clay, wax, etc.

In addition, Genesis specifically applies order to the creation week. Evening and morning. Day First, the Second Day, the Third Day, etc. This sequential order eliminates the Augustine theory where all things were created simultaneously. Readers who give regard to such things are left wondering if words (yea! if Scripture itself) has any meaning whatsoever. You've spoken of logical absurdities and attempts to redefine but have not taken the time to examine the absurdities that accompany the many and diverse presentations / theories you've tried to advance here in defense of your concept.

 

[Free]

Just a note: The age of the earth is a separate discussion from evolution and the days of creation. This whole thread seems off-topic from the OP.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Just a note: The age of the earth is a separate discussion from evolution and the days of creation.

How is it unrelated? If Darwinian Evolution is true, then the proposed age of the Earth from YEC can't possibly be true. It's simple "if-then" logic.

The evidence for Evolution and Radiometric Dating proves the ancient nature of our planet. Radiometric Dating would perhaps be the most relevant to the issue, but I don't see that discussed here.. maybe I missed it.

 

[Sparkey]

Free, you might want to SAC with me to define the limits you seek to impose here. I'll need to have the boundaries of what may and what may not be discussed clearly defined. I will like to have you explain how the 6 Days of Creation have no bearing on the Age of the Earth, if you don't mind.

Alternatively you may post your requirements so that others may benefit as well. As you know, I am not a Young Earth (6,000 year) Proponent any more than I am an Opponent - but the Word of God does establish a very specific order to the events set forth in Genesis and supported by too many verses to list here.

 

[Sparkey]

The evidence for Evolution and Radiometric Dating proves the ancient nature of our planet. Radiometric Dating would perhaps be the most relevant to the issue, but I don't see that discussed here.. maybe I missed it.

I can't speak for Barbarian but the discussion about "God is not a deceiver" and "The Appearance of Age" touches on the subject. You're correct, of course, we've not yet gone to that and it does have bearing on the subject. My thought summarizes the concept into the question, "Was Adam created with a Belly-Button or not?"

Barbarian has sought to demonstrate that Adam was born of a female (who may or may not have been human) and my assertion is that the bible does not misrepresent God's action during the 6th day.

 

[Sparkey]

Checking myself here: I've gone back to the OP and have re-read the article to determine if we are or are not "On Topic". Here's part:

Length of creation days
Most people who read English translations of the Bible assume that the English words have the same meaning as the original languages in which the Bible was written (Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament, and Greek for the New Testament). In fact, the original biblical languages contained many fewer words than modern English, which means that the words in those languages had more different meanings. In the Genesis 1 creation account, each "day" ends as "evening and morning 'n' day,"5 where "n" is the day's number. Although many Christians claim this makes the days exactly 24-hours in length, the Hebrew word translated "day" in English actually has three literal translations; the daylight portion of a 24-hour day, a 24-hour day, and a long, unspecified period of time (as in "day of the dinosaurs").6 The Hebrew word translated "evening" also means "sunset," "night" or "ending of the day." The Hebrew word translated "morning" also means "sunrise," "coming of light," "beginning of the day," or "dawning," with possible metaphoric usage.7 Our English expression: "The dawning of an age" serves to illustrate this point. The intended meaning of the word should be determined from the context.

Many words have been spoken here. Some of them attempt to redefine words themselves.

"But now ask the beasts, and let them teach you; And the birds of the heavens, and let them tell you. "Or speak to the earth, and let it teach you; And let the fish of the sea declare to you. "Who among all these does not know That the hand of the LORD has done this, In whose hand is the life of every living thing, And the breath of all mankind? "Does not the ear test words, As the palate tastes its food? (Job 12:7-11)

Personally I like the idea of asking the earth itself and know that all agree that the LORD has done this. The stage is being set for the discussion of radiometric dating but the whole "appearance of age" things should be settled (if possible) first.

 

[Free]

The age of the earth is a cosmological question, seen in Gen 1:1. Evolution is a biological question and seen in Gen 1:11-27. So while evolution requires an old earth, biblically and scientifically the age of the earth and creation of life/evolution are separate questions. The Bible is completely silent on the age of the earth.

Perhaps the article mentions some things which keeps the discussion on topic, I didn't really look. I was just going by the topic title and discussion.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I can't speak for Barbarian but the discussion about "God is not a deceiver" and "The Appearance of Age" touches on the subject. You're correct, of course, we've not yet gone to that and it does have bearing on the subject. My thought summarizes the concept into the question, "Was Adam created with a Belly-Button or not?"

Barbarian has sought to demonstrate that Adam was born of a female (who may or may not have been human) and my assertion is that the bible does not misrepresent God's action during the 6th day.

Here's a better question for you, which will reveal a bit of a blindspot for those who think Adam and Eve were truly the first humans.

How did Cain, their first surviving son, go to the land of Nod.. and then find a wife.. and build a city? A city implies that there was enough manpower and numbers to actually build a city and then inhabit it.

The Genesis story is about the creation of the nation of Israel, you need to read it like a Jew would, not a Gentile.

 

[Sparkey]

Here's a better question for you, which will reveal a bit of a blindspot for those who think Adam and Eve were truly the first humans.

Having just been reminded by FREE to keep the discussion on topic I would suggest you should start a different thread for that discussion.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Having just been reminded by FREE to keep the discussion on topic I would suggest you should start a different thread for that discussion.

It's a perfectly relevant question. The benchmark for the age of the Earth for most Young Earth Creationists is the creation of Adam, which they believe was 6,000 years ago. However, evidence within that same narrative seems to suggest that there already existed human populations outside of the garden.

This is suggested by Genesis 4:14-17.

Why would Cain fear that someone would come and kill him if he were the only son remaining of Adam (Seth is not born until v.25)?
Who was living in Nod prior to Cain's arrival?
Who helped Cain build Enoch, and who lived there with him?
Who did Cain marry?

All of these questions are related to the age of the Earth, because they reveal the faulty timeline that YEC attempt to create.

 

[Sparkey]

All of these questions are related to the age of the Earth, because they reveal the faulty timeline that YEC attempt to create.

They may be relevant in reply to assertions as yet unmade, sure. They are not relevant to the current discussion. Again, you're free to open a different thread or continue the conversation segment here if you find somebody interested.