The Year of Creation

[Theofilus]

We know that modern animals and plant evolved from earlier species in a continuous process. The first ones did not appear fully formed.

Actually, we "know" no such thing. The original poster asked that we not debate evolution vs. creation, so I won't go into it now. Maybe I'll request permission from the moderators to post in the science section and discuss it there later. My appologies to the original poster for my part in derailing this thread.

totopic

If you want to use the information given in the Bible to figure out the age of the earth, there is nothing wrong with that, but there are a few things you should keep in mind.

Any attempt at dating creation will be based to a large extent on genealogies. Although the Jews kept very good genealogical records, they didn't follow the same rules as we do today. Levirate mariages, for example, make it possible for someone to be born many years after his legally recognized father dies. Also, they used the term "son" rather more loosely than we do. Jesus was called the "son of David" and the Pharisees called themselves "children of Abraham". Genealogies in the Bible will, therefore, never give exact dates. They can, however, give a good estimate of the time in question.

There are some gaps of unknown duration. We do not have a list of people's ages from Jacob to Moses, for example. Abraham was told that his decendants would be "strangers in a country not their own" for four hundred years (Gen. 15:13), but we are told that the "sojourning of the children of Israel" was 430 years (Ex. 12:40). Which do we use, 400 or 430? And when do we start counting the years, when Joseph came to Egypt, or when his father and brothers came many years later?

After the Israelites leave Egypt, we don't have much to go on until we get to king Solomon. I Kings tells us that he started building the Temple "in the fourth year" of his reign, and that this was "In the four hundred and eightieth year" after the exodus. The phrase "in the ... year" can mean any time during that year. Also, as I understand it, the method of determining what was the first year of a kings reign varied. Sometimes, the first year of a kings reign was the entire calendar year (according to the calendar of the time) during which the king came to power. In other cases it was the first calendar year that started after his reign started. In still other cases the first year was the 1-year period starting from the time he became king.

All of these things and others mean that we can't know exactly the date of the creation. Many people, both Jews and Christians, have tried calculating such a date, and they all agree that, according to the information in the Bible, the earth was created about 6000 years ago. The most precise (not necessarily accurate) date I've ever heard was one calculated by a 17th century bishop named James Usher. He figured that the first day of creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC.

 

[Vic C.]

The year of creation was year 1.

Plus, there are not 38,000 or 33,000 or whatever Christian denominations in the world. I just don't know why people do this or do not actually pay attention to how people arrive at these inflated numbers.


totopic

 

[jasoncran]

pm free for acess to science forum theo.

 

[JamesG]

.
Funny how some Christians get all hung up on when the Creation started or when it will end. And then they have to be young earth or old earth, like it makes any difference to humans who only live about a hundred years anyway. And why should I care about such a thing being a young earther who believes that the universe is very old? Why does it matter when the universe or the earth was created. We aren't heading in that direction anyway. Let the Evolutionists have their beliefs. It ain't gonna hurt us none. It's a free country, at least here in America. Not trying to discourage curiosity. But some things we just aren't supposed to know in this life. And IMHO, how far the universe or the earth extends timewise in either direction is a part of some of those things.

JamesG

 

[jasoncran]

some percieve it that the exegesis is poor if you try to state the book of genesis isnt taken literal.

the earth may be older then we think, but evolution while not essiantial to salvation isnt easily defendable (poor exegesis) if we look at the referering verses to creation.

i do agree i do think the lord deliberately didnt tell us these things to the t. he wanted us to know that he did do that , and i wont go into the flood nor other things in genesis.

 

[Theofilus]

i do agree i do think the lord deliberately didnt tell us these things to the t. he wanted us to know that he did do that , and i wont go into the flood nor other things in genesis.

I disagree. I think God did deliberatly tell us the age of the earth. The Icelandic National Anthem says "With you a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as no more than a day". The Bible confirms this in Psalm 90:4 and II Peter 3:8. (We have a cool National Anthem )

Ahem... Back to seriousness...

Based on these verses, both Jews and Christians have believed for thousands of years that as the week has 7 days - 6 work days and the Sabbath - human history will last 7 thousand years - 6 "days" for us to work and a Sabbath, known to Christians as the milennial reign of Christ and to Jews as the Messianic Age.If it's true that the earth is about 6000 years old, then the Sabbath is almost here.

 

[jasoncran]

i'm not saying that he has nothng to say, but lets see here,

in the begining god created the heaven and earth, now the earth was without form and darkness was upon face of the deep. and the Spirit moved upon the waters.

does that describe any reference to the formation of the earth, molecules, and atoms?

i am a creationist but i will be honest, we dont know how the lord created men from dust only that he states that he did it. did he speak and supernaturally and it came to pass?

not scientific but most likely but does that rule out any future discoveries that wont negate the bible statements? no

same with the verses quoted. its rather hard to understand the means which he did it, i am more concerned with the idea that the bible is being poorly understood then which means that the
Lord does it.

this is my opinion, the lord knows that we wont fully grasp or know the creation story or means so that lets trust was it said and accept by faith and trust his word and do what he commands.

 

[Oats]

btw since we believe that God created, who's to say that God didnt make it fully formed having the appearence of age when in fact it wasnt old at all.

It would be a strange and deceitful god who would tell such an elaborate lie.

Not at all. It just shows that He's consistant. When Adam and Eve were created, they could talk and were able to have children. God didn't create infants, but grown people. The animals were also told to "be fruitful and multiply". They were adult animals. The trees were already bearing fruit. He didn't create seeds, but mature trees. The universe itself was created with the appearance of age. Although they are many lightyears away, the stars and galaxies were already visible, as if the light had been travelling for millions of years. If everything else was created with the appearance of age, why should the earth be an exception.

Thank you ....A lot

 

[shodan]

Please, do not argue creation or any such thing in here, go somewhere to do that. Stick to the OP, thanks.

This is a funny way to start a post where you go on to argue for a date for creation!

Genealogies have gaps. You cannot determine ages from them.

The provlem [ok one of my keys just quit working...guess it is ovvious which one] with these devates is that most of the focus is on science instead of Scripture. [I'll see if I can find something to copy and paste, the missing letter is irritating ]...

But for all the claims about the authority of Scripture, who ever starts there? Instead of reading about science, read about Scripture. Read commentaries.

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.[OT figure of speech here, merism, equals totality i.e. "universe"] And the earth was without form and void and darkness covered the face of the deep…â€

“….And God said, ‘Let there be light’…

How much time elapsed in the age of the earth between “darkness†v.2 and v. 3“Let there be light� We have no clue in Scripture.

Day One and the days that follow are the week in which God sets his creation in order for the creation of man.

“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.†Deu. 20 ['heavens, earth in the creation week refer to the land and the sky, not the universe]

This verse is often wrongly used. Here, speaking of that week, “the LORD made†not "created" as in Gen. 1:1. “Made†has the same connotation as our “making†our bed. We set in order what is already there.

John Calvin, ages before evolution arrived, made many great comments on Genesis: “He who would learn astronomy…let him go elsewhere….â€


Calvin: †Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied tht this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God.â€

 

[Theofilus]

How much time elapsed in the age of the earth between “darkness†v.2 and v. 3“Let there be light� We have no clue in Scripture.

We don't know precicely, but we do have a clue.

“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.†Deu. 20

The whole thing took a total of 6 days, so the "gap" seems to have been something less than 24 hours.The only reason for making up the "gap theory" is to reconcile the creation account of the Bible with the theory of evolution. There are many problems that arise when people try to do that, not the least of which is that evolution denies the existance of God, while the biblical account assumes His existance. There's no way of getting them to fit together.

 

[logical bob]

The only reason for making up the "gap theory" is to reconcile the creation account of the Bible with the theory of evolution. There are many problems that arise when people try to do that, not the least of which is that evolution denies the existance of God, while the biblical account assumes His existance. There's no way of getting them to fit together.

The theory of evolution doesn't deny the existence of God. It doesn't make any reference to God at all. Science deals with what can be observed and measured. Since we can't measure God, science has nothing to say on the subject.

The majority of Christians worldwide would disagree with you when you say science and the Bible can't fit together. Even on this forum, many people have an active faith while accepting science. Holding out for 6 literal days seem a little bit like insisting that there must really have been a Good Samaritan.

It's wise to base you beliefs on what's true rather than trying to force the facts to fit what you believe. The evidence for evolution and the age of the earth (which I'd certainly be happy to discuss with you in the science forum) isn't going to go away because you find it theologically awkward.

 

[Pard]

Just chiming in for a moment...

The Bible and science fit together wonderfully. Science is the study of God's creation.

The problem arises when science tries to do anything but agree with the Bible. I am referring to scientists who have admitted that things int he Bible, like the flood, make the most sense but they will never admit it because it is in the Bible. When we try to tailor fit our science to work AROUND the Bible instead of WITH the Bible, this is when science and the Bible clash.

Thought it may seem bleak, science, real science, will always back up the Bible 100%.

Bob,

Because I really do not want to argue with you, I'm just letting you know that was for Theo. Oh... and I will not be arguing with you. Sorry, got other things to do.

 

[Godfrey]

The only reason for making up the "gap theory" is to reconcile the creation account of the Bible with the theory of evolution.

Mm. I incline to the gap theory, but not on those grounds. The argument that, where tohu and bohu occur elsewhere in the OT (Is.34.11, Jer.4.23), they are associated with God's judgment seems very persuasive to me.

 

[Theofilus]

The majority of Christians worldwide would disagree with you when you say science and the Bible can't fit together.

When did I say that "science and the Bible can't fit together"? I said no such thing. I merely pointed out that one specific theory, believed by many scientists (not a scientific theory) and one particular story in the Bible don't fit together. Many scientific discoveries have supported what the Bible says. There is pretty much no conflict, until you get to evolution.

 

[jasoncran]

its hard to fit evolution in when you genesis written the way it is,proper exegisis of any verse requires us to look at the time written and the audience. and the culture etc

genesis doesnt seem like hebrew poetry, unless some one can show me otherwise.

 

[shodan]

The whole thing took a total of 6 days, so the "gap" seems to have been something less than 24 hours.The only reason for making up the "gap theory" is to reconcile the creation account of the Bible with the theory of evolution. There are many problems that arise when people try to do that, not the least of which is that evolution denies the existance of God, while the biblical account assumes His existance. There's no way of getting them to fit together.

The whole thing? Really???

Read verses 1 and 2, that precedes day one in V. 3 where the week starts.

I make no reference to the 'gap theory' ...it is unsound speculation without merit.

You are reading into the Scripture 20th C. ideas instead of letting the Scripture speak. I said nothing re: the theory of evolution. Read the Scripture.


For those who want to study Scripture re: Genesis 1
See Calvin's commentary online.

See also NICOT

And the first rate Bible Student's Commentary: Genesis
by G. Charles Aalders
see used on amazon [get it while you can, out of print] or try other used sellers
The late conservative OT scholar, Gleason Archer highly recommended it.

Study God's words instead of wallowing in opinions.

 

[jasoncran]

its a recap on that.

 

[Theofilus]

The whole thing took a total of 6 days, so the "gap" seems to have been something less than 24 hours.The only reason for making up the "gap theory" is to reconcile the creation account of the Bible with the theory of evolution. There are many problems that arise when people try to do that, not the least of which is that evolution denies the existance of God, while the biblical account assumes His existance. There's no way of getting them to fit together.

The whole thing? Really???

Read verses 1 and 2, that precedes day one in V. 3 where the week starts.

Verse 3 isn't where the week started. If you look through the whole story, you see that "and there was evening and there was morning..." always comes after a description of what happened on that day. Now, you read what you yourself posted.

“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.†Deu. 20

The creation of the heavens and the earth was part of what happened during those 6 days.

I make no reference to the 'gap theory' ...it is unsound speculation without merit.

I agree that it is unsound and without merit, but you definitely did make a reference to it. You said:

How much time elapsed in the age of the earth between “darkness†v.2 and v. 3“Let there be light� We have no clue in Scripture.

That's the "gap theory" in a nutshell. You try to reconcile a six day creation with an old earth by puting a gap of unknown duration in between verses.

You are reading into the Scripture 20th C. ideas instead of letting the Scripture speak.

No, you're the one doing that. The gap theory is a 20 century idea and you are reading it into scripture. Nothing in scripture indicates a gap of any more than 24 hour between any two verses in the creation story.

I said nothing re: the theory of evolution. Read the Scripture.

I didn't say that you did.I just pointed out that for thousands of years nobody saw any reason to put a gap of billions of years anywhere in the Bible. It wasn't until scientists started claiming that the earth was billions of years old that anyone thought of doing that. It was done to reconcile the biblical account with what the scientists were saying. The scientists, in turn, have no reason for having an earth billions of years old, except to accomodate the theory of evolution. In other words, the only reason for the gap theory is to accomodate evolution.

 

[shodan]

its hard to fit evolution in when you genesis written the way it is,proper exegisis of any verse requires us to look at the time written and the audience. and the culture etc

genesis doesnt seem like hebrew poetry, unless some one can show me otherwise.

If you check commentaries, you will find your conclusion correct: Not hebrew poetry.

There is a wonderful symmetry to it.

 

[westtexas]

genesis doesnt seem like hebrew poetry, unless some one can show me otherwise.

Jason, this is a site that Rick posted in one of the discussions on creation quite a while back. It's pretty good.
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_genesis_1.html
Westtexas