• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Age of the earth...Young or old?

Stop telling other Christians that they dont believe the bible because they dont agree with you. Bro, learn to attack what you see as wrong, not the person.
As I've said...it's amazing how christians can believe a dead guy can come back to life on day 3....yet can't believe what Genesis teaches about what the risen savior did in creation week.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here ya go.
“I looked at the earth, and behold, it was a formless and desolate emptiness; And to the heavens, and they had no light.

I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking, And all the hills jolted back and forth.

I looked, and behold, there was no human, And all the birds of the sky had fled.

I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a wilderness, And all its cities were pulled down Before the LORD, before His fierce anger.

For this is what the LORD says: “The whole land shall be a desolation, Yet I will not execute a complete destruction

“For this the earth will mourn, And the heavens above will become dark, Because I have spoken, I have purposed, And I have not changed My mind, nor will I turn from it.””

(Jeremiah 4:23-28 NAS20)
That verse is presented as future prophecy. Read the following verse gappers always leave out...

27 For this is what the LORD says:
“The whole land will be desolate,
but I will not finish its destruction.
 
OK folks. Lets tone down the rhetoric or the thread will need to be locked for a time for every one to take a deep breath.
 
I addressed several of the issues you had raised: e.g. I demonstrated that Jesus taught that there were not billions of years before Adam; that he taught that the days of the creation week were literal; and that the 1st C. contextual understanding was of an earth that was only about 5,000 years old.

My post was already fairly long, so I waited to see if I would get a fair, sensible and substantive response, before addressing anything else.
Actually, I am afraid you didn't address any of my questions. Please reread my posts #275 and #276. I asked you to address issues arising from a 'straight-forward' reading of the text in Genesis 1. Your response was to quote New Testament scripture about seven days. This is all good, except that 1st century Judaism is not the ancient near eastern context I was talking about - they are about 1500+ years apart. In addition, in post # 276, I did make the point about the importance of the number seven.

For the record, I have no problem with accepting the days in Genesis 1 as seven 24 hours days. In fact I don't have a problem with anyone believing in a young, or old earth, as I do not think the text (understood correctly) makes a claim one way or the other. What I do have a problem with is people misrepresenting the text as saying something it does not and then questioning your salvation if you believe differently (this was my experience many years ago). There are many respected Christians on every side of this debate and we should extend respect and courtesy to each other, and maybe even learn something along the way.

I am more than willing to give you fair, sensible and substantive response, but I do ask that you actually address my questions.
 
No, it does not answer my question. I have been told that Genesis 1 is a 'straight-forward sequential historical account'. However here is a big problem. God called the light 'Day' but we have no sun. Saying it is God's glory (which we have a Hebrew word for - 'shekinah' - which was not used) or the light from angels or anything else is not the straight-forward use of the word Day.
I would offer.

No gap theory. In that way no man can call two or more what God calls one beginning .His revealing the first public premier showing.

Kind of like Light curtains. . action.

Three things that make up the very essence of God the Faithful, invisible Creator. Three denoting the end of a matter throughout the bible

(1)God is eternal Spirit as the Father. . the breath of life . (2) God is Love and not that he can only exercise its power .And (3) God is light and not that he can also create it temporally. Let there be a Sun rise day four .

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

1 John 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

In the beginning God prophesied "let there be Light". . . . our Creator introduced His own self." show time" the veil lifted . . revealing the darkness.

His presence was the literal the light of the whole world . Closes the literal light for 12 hours of night revealing it 12 hours as day .

Day three Christ saw pride in the spirit of lucifer the light bearer, who was to protect the glory rather than usurp .

Christ's glory departed. Day four the temporal light the Sun and the moon used to represent the glory of God. The Sun and the moon as a wedding parable in Psalm 19 .The Father the source of faith the unseen eternal things . The reflected glory, Jesus the Son of man, the first born of many sons of God, believers .

Psalm 19:1-7 King James Version The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom (Christ ) coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof. The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.

Jerimiah 4: 23-24 below sheds a little light of revelation

Jerimiah 4: 23“I looked at the earth, and behold, it was a formless and desolate emptiness; And to the heavens, and they had no light.

No light, no gospel, no revealing of the hidden things of darkness.

Jerimiah 4: 24(Christ the light) I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking, And all the hills jolted back and forth.

On the last day under the Sun the glory as the light of the whole world will return 7 times brighter than the first three days. . . no need for night to represent evil

Revaltion 21: 22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.
 
That verse is presented as future prophecy. Read the following verse gappers always leave out...

27 For this is what the LORD says:
“The whole land will be desolate,
but I will not finish its destruction.
Ya…I was just dredging up an old memory.
 
Yes, the archaic meaning of the word 'science' is knowledge. However that is not the sense in which we are using the word. When we are talking about science we are talking about it as "the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained". While the knowledge presented in Genesis 1-3 does mention life, air, water, sun, moon, stars, plants, animals and mankind, it does not do so in any way that fits this definition of science.
<sigh>
Historical science is different from the kinds of science that put men on the moon, or invented computers, etc.. Historical science is the attempt to piece together what happened in the past, by applying hypotheses to the evidence. Of course, this results in speculation and uncertainty; but, it is often presented as if it were fact.

Christians have a huge advantage re. historical science, because we have God's statements in the Bible. We can use these to test man's hypotheses (e.g. secular science has a very wrong order of creation and its timescales are many orders of magnitude out).

So let's examine the claim of YECs, as described by Henry Morris, that "The creation account is clear, definite, sequential and matter-of-fact, giving every appearance of straight forward historical narrative."
Henry Morris was correct in this statement; also, it's not "YECs"; it's Bible believers.


If we approach Genesis 1 in this manner, it is not long before we run into problems. Verse 1 is clear, that God alone is the Creator of heaven and earth. But from verse 2 questions start being raised. It appears that in verse 2 the earth is already in existence though not fit for habitation. What is “the face of the deep” and “the face of the waters” in verse 2? Did water already exist as well?
What are you talking about? Gen. 1:2 is clear.

Here is Day 1 of the creation week.

Gen. 1:1-5 (Webster)
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night: and the evening and the morning were the first day.

1) God creates the heavens and the earth (not all their contents, yet).
2) At this point, the earth is, as yet, unformed and unfilled. It's dark and the Spirit of God is hovering/brooding upon the face of the deep waters (yes, God had created water as part of the earth).
3) God creates a light source (not the sun, which is not created until Day 4).
4) The darkness, then the light constitute the first evening and morning - Day 1 complete.

There is absolutely nothing hard to understand here.

But it is verses 3-5 and verse 14 which to me is one of the clearest examples of why a ‘straight-forward sequential’ reading is simply not possible:


And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Covered above.


Compare this with verse 14:


And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.”
You should have said, "Contrast this with verse 14", since they are on different days and about different things.

How can we have the light of Day in verse 4 when the sun wasn’t created until verse 14?
God created a different light source on Day 1 (we're not told what it was) - easy.


And when was the day and night separated – verse 4 or verse 14? How can there be evening and morning if the lights were not in the heavens to be a marker of days until day 4?
Light and dark were separated on Day 1, as the Bible states. The additional separation of having stars created, and for them to be visible at night, was on Day 4 - easy.

Evening and morning depend upon dark and light, not stars (we can't even see the stars when it's cloudy) - easy.
 
I could go on and talk about other verses, or even look at the differences between Gen 1 and Gen 2. But instead, let’s step back a bit and look at the structure of the passage. Dr John Dickson writes:

Genesis 1 … is not written in the style we normally associate with historical report. It is difficult even to describe the passage as prose. The original Hebrew of this passage is marked by intricate structure, rhythm, parallelism, chiasmus, repetition and the lavish use of number symbolism. These features are not observed together in those parts of the Bible we recognize as historical prose.

The days of creation are separated into 2 triads - the first establishing the spears or domains and the second filling them.

The number seven (in the ancient Hebrew world representing the divine number, goodness and perfection) and its multiples appears in extraordinary ways:
  • The first sentence consists of seven Hebrew words, the second 14.
  • The words ‘heaven’ and ‘earth’ both appear 21 times.
  • ‘God’ is mentioned 35 times.
  • The repeated phrases ‘and it was so’ and ‘God saw that it was good’ both occur seven times.
  • And of course the whole passage is structured around seven scenes (days of the week).
And this is only scratching the surface.
Can you honestly say these are characteristics of a straight-forward sequential account?
Dickson is wrong about the Hebrew writing style of Genesis 1 (yes, I checked this, years ago). It is written in Hebrew narrative form (this happened, then that, then this, etc.).

There are complex numerical patterns in every book of the OT! Genesis is normal, in that regard. There have been whole books written about this.

Genesis 1 (in fact, the first 11 chapters) is unique, in that it is the foundation for everything else. It establishes facts that are necessary to understand the rest of the Bible.
 
For the record, I have no problem with accepting the days in Genesis 1 as seven 24 hours days. In fact I don't have a problem with anyone believing in a young, or old earth, as I do not think the text (understood correctly) makes a claim one way or the other. What I do have a problem with is people misrepresenting the text as saying something it does not and then questioning your salvation if you believe differently (this was my experience many years ago). There are many respected Christians on every side of this debate and we should extend respect and courtesy to each other, and maybe even learn something along the way.
I can agree with that point....salvation isn't based upon a particular belief in Genesis. The problem is one starts to slide down the slippery slope....long days turn into epochs...these long epochs turn into uniformitarian beliefs.....which turns into God presented Genesis as some form of myth or allegory .....which often becomes God used evolutionism to create man....which could then easily mean Adam and Eve didn't really fall in the Garden of Eden because it didn't really exist....which leaves the question as to why mankind sins and how their fallen nature and need for redemption came about.
 
Maybe what is being missed in these discussions is the foundational point of the creation account in Genesis. What it is that God is doing.

It is not the creation of everything. Other things already have been created. We know of some of those things because we are told---such as angels. But almost nothing of what it was like before the earth and all that it is in it was created.

The creation account in Genesis is God preparing a home for mankind and also a home for all the rest that he created. But mainly it is the account of mankind's home being created and his responsibilities given.

If we read it as such, there is no need to parse the things that came to be on what days. There has always been light for example, since God is light. But that light was not applied in and to man's home until God did so. He arranged the sun and moon etc. so as to make man's home habitable for the creatures he would create to live there, and establishes the boundaries of time and space for this creation. All according to His perfect design and for His perfect purpose.

What we call science as God allows us to gain knowledge, is already existent to the nth degree in everything. We can touch on it, are highly susceptible to jump to our own theories and conclusions concerning this science, but can never penetrate all its depths. Anymore than "scientist" when they try and find through science the source of life, to isolate that one ingredient that is life in order to duplicate it in a lab, can do so. Or that we can explain in what way God is light. We are just to small, to finite, too limited.

Christians know that the source of life is not an ingredient, but is God Himself. That He is the source of everything. And there faith rests.
 
If we read it as such, there is no need to parse the things that came to be on what days. There has always been light for example, since God is light. But that light was not applied in and to man's home until God did so. He arranged the sun and moon etc. so as to make man's home habitable for the creatures he would create to live there, and establishes the boundaries of time and space for this creation. All according to His perfect design and for His perfect purpose.
Yes, God created the sun on day 4 as part of the process of making the earth habitable. God could have created the sun on day 1...but for some reason God made and placed the sun on day 4.
 
Yes, God created the sun on day 4 as part of the process of making the earth habitable. God could have created the sun on day 1...but for some reason God made and placed the sun on day 4.
He did it on day four because that is when it was needed to sustain what came after. The creation account is the preparation of earth for habitation and its boundaries set. Those things are sustained by the sun and earth's position to it, and everything else in creation that does that.
 
He did it on day four because that is when it was needed to sustain what came after.
As well as the plants created the preceding day.
They were also created as signs to mark the seasons and days and years.
 
For the record, I have no problem with accepting the days in Genesis 1 as seven 24 hours days.

I believe it's illogical to hold to 24 hours day for creation. But that's just me, and I wasn't convince when I visit the Creation Museum or any Scriptural proof-text. To me, the word "day" in Hebrew language has many meanings. It can be a 24-hour day and also be a long period of time day. That is what divides Old earthers from Young earthers. From the Genesis account 1, there are descriptions "evening" and "morning" for the separate six creation days. Of course, when you think normally about 24 hours (like the average Joe does), then it would be "from evening to evening" (24 hours) or "from morning to morning" (24 hours). I am not suggesting two days equals one day or 12 hours equals one day. But this literary device simply doesn't follow our modern thinking and conception of day pattern. So, something more is going on besides a 24-hour day.
And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. (vs. 5).​
And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. (vs. 8).​
And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day. (vs. 13).​
And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. (vs. 19).​
And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day. (vs. 23).​
And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day. (vs. 31).​

But then, there is no such description of "evening" and "morning" as a boundary being assigned for the seventh day. Why? There may be some Biblical clues for an answer. The description denotes the idea that each separate sequence days there was a starting point (evening) and a ending point (morning). This many imply that the seventh day is continuous and on-going. God's rest is finished, but we are still in the seventh day.

Genesis 2:1-3 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

The Creator 'Jesus Christ' said:
John 5:16-18 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. In his defense Jesus said to them, My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.​

This is about the Sabbath day and alluding to the idea of God resting in (Genesis 2:3). Jesus Christ is not a deist. God's rest has another significant, then a visual concept of a non-omnipotent God sitting on a throne asleep for 24 hours (Hebrews 4:9). The Father has been working from the very start of the seventh day up to this very day of age. Or in other words, working up to his very time era, and even, in our time era too I may add. This strongly suggests God finished resting, but the seventh day of resting had not yet ended since we are still in the seventh day. Even the author of Hebrews appeals to Genesis account.

Hebrews 4:3-8 Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, “So I declared on oath in my anger, ‘They shall never enter my rest.’" And yet his works have been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: “On the seventh day God rested from all his works." And again in the passage above he says, “They shall never enter my rest.” Therefore since it still remains for some to enter that rest, and since those who formerly had the good news proclaimed to them did not go in because of their disobedience,​

This implies that seventh day is still continuous and on-going. God has foreordained certain people to enter rest or others not to enter rest. Of course, you didn't physically exist in the start of the seventh day. You haven't been created in your mother's womb yet. But the fabric of this is still unfolding from the very start of God's rest to this very day of age. From creating Adam and Eve up to you and I, through the course of time. The Bible doesn't teach another "day" to follow the sequence of the 7th. day, but the seventh day is today. Not yesterday or tomorrow, but today. Unless the eight day is still yet to come after the resting is finished.

God again set a certain day, calling it “Today.” This he did when a long time later he spoke through David, as in the passage already quoted: “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts." For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day.

Therefore, it seems unreasonable to conclude that the references to “evening” and “morning” in Genesis 1 can refer to normal solar days. Young earthers suggest there is no sun or moon in the sky until the fourth creation day (Genesis 1:14-15). The obvious. The textual considerations seem to lead one to conclude that these are not normal days as people understand days. These creation days are long period of time, which are meant to be understood as analogous to human (24-hour) workdays. Not to be taken in a literal sense. Since the seventh “day” continues, as Scripture indicates, it could imply that the other six creation days were also long periods of time, rather than just 24-hour days.
 
Last edited:
<sigh>
Historical science is different from the kinds of science that put men on the moon, or invented computers, etc.. Historical science is the attempt to piece together what happened in the past, by applying hypotheses to the evidence. Of course, this results in speculation and uncertainty; but, it is often presented as if it were fact.

Christians have a huge advantage re. historical science, because we have God's statements in the Bible. We can use these to test man's hypotheses (e.g. secular science has a very wrong order of creation and its timescales are many orders of magnitude out).

The Bible is not a scientific text book and to try to use it as such will lead to misunderstandings.

Henry Morris was correct in this statement; also, it's not "YECs"; it's Bible believers.

Please do not say only those who agree with the YECs are Bible believers. This is insulting and arrogant.

What are you talking about? Gen. 1:2 is clear.

Here is Day 1 of the creation week.

Gen. 1:1-5 (Webster)
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night: and the evening and the morning were the first day.

1) God creates the heavens and the earth (not all their contents, yet).

Really? Nothing hard to understand? OK, you say in verse 1 that God creates the heavens and the earth but not all their content yet. However, most scholars refer to verse 1 as a summary statement for the rest of the chapter. But you are saying that God created the heavens and the earth before Day 1 of creation week. Great, then I think we are in agreement.

2) At this point, the earth is, as yet, unformed and unfilled. It's dark and the Spirit of God is hovering/brooding upon the face of the deep waters (yes, God had created water as part of the earth).

When you say the earth is, as yet, unformed and unfilled, what exactly do you mean? Words matter, so let's be clear. Do you mean that the planet earth existed as some sort of gas or dust, or watery mass or that it existed as some watery planet, or something else?
Again, this is before Day 1 of creation week so let's be clear what we are starting with.

3) God creates a light source (not the sun, which is not created until Day 4).

How can it be a 'straight-forward' account if we don't know what the light source was? Be careful here because you are adding words to Scripture. It does not say that God created another light source. He says 'Let there be light'. Light is not a material object. He calls the light 'Day'. Day is not a material object. If we are interpreting this as modern readers, we know that the light of day is from the sun - but there is not sun. How can this be a 'straight-forward' account if you have to read unknown elements into the passage for it to make sense?

Did you know that in the ancient near east it was a common belief that the sun was not the source of daylight? This is totally understandable, given that the light of dawn appears before the sun rises on the horizon.

4) The darkness, then the light constitute the first evening and morning - Day 1 complete.

There is absolutely nothing hard to understand here.

See above.

You should have said, "Contrast this with verse 14", since they are on different days and about different things.


God created a different light source on Day 1 (we're not told what it was) - easy.

You have to make up a different light source to make your reading of the text make sense. But this is not what the text says. God calls the light Day. It can't be any clearer. We know that the light of day comes from the sun. If you want to refer to the text as a 'straight-forward' account, then it should be clear what it is without needing to make up stuff.

Light and dark were separated on Day 1, as the Bible states. The additional separation of having stars created, and for them to be visible at night, was on Day 4 - easy.

Evening and morning depend upon dark and light, not stars (we can't even see the stars when it's cloudy) - easy.

Yes, on day 1 we have separation of light and dark - no material creation here - agreed.
 
In a different thread @Arial that you started, this is one paragraph from it. I found it interesting and had some thoughts but did not want to throw it off track, so (I hope you don't mind) I copied and pasted it here. Here it is.
Arial Wrote: In Gen 3 Adam fails in obedience and he and Eve are cast out of this land, barred from entering it lest they eat of the tree of life and live forever. Sin and death have entered creation through mankind. The ground is cursed, mankind is cursed, the deceiver is cursed, and a promise is made. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall crush your head, and you shall bruise his heel.
You say, sin and death entered. What do you mean by entering? It entered the Garden of Eden? I dont think so actually.. Look what God says to Adam, in Genesis 3,
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

I think Adam was put to work the ground outside the garden, he still had to work it, nothing changed, it will be with more difficulty now. It wasn't the ground in the Garden of Eden, why curse something that they are just getting thrown out of anyway? If it was the ground in the Garden, an angel wouldn't have to guard the Tree of Life. After all, the ground is cursed, wouldnt that be part? But I dont think the ground in the Garden was meant. God said, in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; And we know Adam didn't live in the Garden all the remaining days of his life.


But outside the garden, the earth compared to the Garden of Eden? I'd say would be quite a difference. Who knows how much earth time had passed while they were in the Garden, (a type and shadow of heaven), paradise. But rather, because of what Adam had done, the ground (where all humanity will be now) is cursed. Adam's sin didn't curse it (scripture does not teach such) but because of his sin, God put them out of the garden, and because of the ground (earth) he would have to work harder.
 
Dickson is wrong about the Hebrew writing style of Genesis 1 (yes, I checked this, years ago). It is written in Hebrew narrative form (this happened, then that, then this, etc.).

There are complex numerical patterns in every book of the OT! Genesis is normal, in that regard. There have been whole books written about this.

Please show me another historical account in the Old Testament that has the same structure, rhythm, parallelism, chiasmus, repetition and the lavish use of number symbolism that Genesis 1 has.

Genesis 1 (in fact, the first 11 chapters) is unique, in that it is the foundation for everything else. It establishes facts that are necessary to understand the rest of the Bible.

Yes, Genesis 1 is unique and sets the foundation for everything else. We are both agreed on that.
 
Back
Top