Age of the earth...Young or old?

[Sereni-tea]

This sounds as though you are interpreting what is historical narrative according the the rules of interpreting poetry.

I am pointing out the literary techniques used in Genesis 1. These are not things you would normally find in an historical account. No, Genesis 1 is not poetry, but nor is it a straight-forward historical account.

 

[Binyawmene]

You contradicted yourself...

I am certain you don't the scope of the discussion.

You said in the above post...

The gravity of Earth comes from the mass distribution within Earth and the centrifugal force from the Earth's rotation. Without the sun and the moon, there would be no gravity.......

Correct.

are you now saying without the sun and moon there would be no mass distribution within Earth or centrifugal force from the earth rotation???

Made no such claim. Thats you are talking not me.

 

[Sereni-tea]

There is no problem with the order.

Really?
Genesis 1 - trees before humans
Genesis 2 - man and then trees

 

[Arial]

I am pointing out the literary techniques used in Genesis 1. These are not things you would normally find in an historical account. No, Genesis 1 is not poetry, but nor is it a straight-forward historical account.

It is about as straIght forward an historical account as one can get. We have the beginning. God said. There was. First this, then that, then the other. What do you see as literary techniques?

 

[CrowCross]

Really?
Genesis 1 - trees before humans
Genesis 2 - man and then trees

That's pretty easy to refute...God made plants on day 3 prior to making man....then on day 6 God made plants specific to the garden...Genesis even tells us....8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden,....and put plants in it after making Adam.

So, yes...I say...really?

 

[Carbon]

The heavens and the earth were created on Day 1, as was light, but not the sun, moon or stars. So wait, what do we mean by heavens?

Exactly! I guess it's to each their own. Some know the sun and moon are part of the universe, some insist they are not.

 

[Carbon]

The heavens and the earth were created on Day 1, as was light, but not the sun, moon or stars. So wait, what do we mean by heavens?



Yes, you have pointed it out, but you haven't explained how there was light called 'Day' (when there was no sun) in a 'straight-forward' manner.



Irrelevant to our discussion about the plain meaning of the text? I disagree.



Except the 'order' (this happened, then that happened, etc) doesn't mesh too well with Genesis 1.


And this idea is supported where else in Scripture? There is nothing difficult because it is what we in our modern world understand. But is it the way the ancient thought? What did they know about surgery? Would they really have understood it this way?



Really? Straight-forward? Does your idea of straight-forward mean reading the English words without giving the original Hebrew any thought?



You are very wrong. Hermeneutics requires a good understanding of the literary and cultural contexts of a passage and you have demonstrated you understand neither. If by arcane knowledge you mean the original Hebrew text and its original ancient Israelite culture, then it is clear why you understand things the way you do and why you have no interest in exploring things further.

Soldier on!

 

[makesends]

I'm certain you don't know, or you would have demonstrated gravity. I know the difference between gravity on earthy and gravity in space. I also understand what you are saying, and I agree. Sure, the moon affects the sea tides, and the sun affects the atmosphere, without the sun there would be no water cycle or rain. However, what I am saying is that the "earth gravity" is caused by the sun and moon too.

The earth's gravity basically originates at the center of the earth's core. It's a force (so to speak) that is tugging you and everything else on earth to the center of the earth. Your car. Trees. etc. Even tugging at the sun and moon, which cause the earth to spin on its axis, and also to rotate around the sun. This force is very weak and cannot push you through the floor of your house. And push you all the way down into the 'fiery' center core of the earth. It can only tug. Why weak and can only tug? Because the sun's gravitational pull on the center of the earth's core and the earth's core gravitational pull on the sun. The sun is bigger and stronger which causes the force to be weak. Same with the moon. But the earth is bigger and strong than the moon. So, there is a gravitational or another force that is strong and is pushing upward from both the sun/moon and the earth itself. The ground (the solid surface of the earth) causes a balance between the tugging and the pushing is what we call gravity.

If you believe the sun and earth was created on the 4th. day, then can you demonstrate gravity on earth without the sun and moon? Why didn't the water float or drift away? Because there is a sun and gravity.

Haha! I'd love to see you try to explain this to a physicist!

 

[Sereni-tea]

It is about as straIght forward an historical account as one can get. We have the beginning. God said. There was. First this, then that, then the other. What do you see as literary techniques?

These are some of the literary techniques in Genesis 1:

• intricate structure
• rhythm
• parallelism
• chiasmus
• repetition
• lavish use of number symbolism

You might get one of these, or perhaps two. But all of them together? Definitely not something you see in straight-forward historical accounts.

Here are some examples:

The days of creation are separated into 2 triads - the first establishing the spheres or domains (light/darkness, waters above/waters below, land and vegetation) and the second filling them (sun, moon and stars, fish and birds, land animals and mankind).

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)

There is a lot of rhyming within the text - obviously in the Hebrew, not English.

What does all this mean? I agree with John Dickson who wrote:
This observation must be given some weight. While on literary grounds one cannot say that the world was not created in six days, one can safely conclude that the concerns of Genesis 1 lie elsewhere than providing a cosmic chronology. The genre of our text suggests that the author intended to convey his meaning through subtle and sophisticated means, not through the surface plot of the narrative (i.e. creation in six days).

 

[Sereni-tea]

That's pretty easy to refute...God made plants on day 3 prior to making man....then on day 6 God made plants specific to the garden...Genesis even tells us....8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden,....and put plants in it after making Adam.

So, yes...I say...really?

Except verse 5 is talking about the land in general and not Eden.

 

[CrowCross]

Except verse 5 is talking about the land in general and not Eden.

You'll need to cut and paste it. I don't see it.

 

[Binyawmene]

Haha! I'd love to see you try to explain this to a physicist!

You are welcome to challenge what I said.

 

[Sereni-tea]

You'll need to cut and paste it. I don't see it.

5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, 6 and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground— 7 then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. 8 And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Verse 5 states no bush of the field or small plants had yet sprung up.
Verse 7 talks about man
Verse 8 is the first mention of Eden.

You are right, of course, that there is no actual problem. But if we are going to stict with a strict linear chronology, we need to be consistent and then there are problems. This argument of course is petty and I am sorry for bringing it up.

 

[makesends]

You are welcome to challenge what I said.

Already done.

By comparison, you are essentially saying that the sun has no gravity of its own, but only obtains it by virtue of it's neighbors.

 

[Binyawmene]

Already done.

By comparison, you are essentially saying that the sun has no gravity of its own, but only obtains it by virtue of it's neighbors.

I've never made no such claims. Don't assume or make comparisons. If there is something you don't understand, then you could simply ask for an explanation. Are you going to challenge what I said?

 

[Sereni-tea]

Because you have used those claimed contexts to contradict the plain meaning, resulting in an esoteric interpretation requiring arcane knowledge. This is not how to interpret the Bible.

@David1701 I apologise for losing my temper earlier and have edited my post.

My understanding of Genesis 1 is based on a study of the original Hebrew text and the culture of the ancient Israelites. Is this what you call arcane knowledge? Isn't that why we use dictionaries and concordances, to see what the text said in the original languages? Isn't that why we refer to Study Bibles and commentaries to learn about the culture of the time and better understand what was said and why?

 

[JIM]

Since you can't demonstrate the gravity on earth without the sun and moon. Can you Scripturally explain how water didn't float and drift away in Genesis 1:3? A Bible verse? God of the gaps? You can't explain it, so God did it. But there is no Bible verse to demonstrate it. All you can do is appeal to common sense and basic science that there is gravity.

I don't need the Bible to explain anything about gravity. It doesn't even mention gravity. But the critical point here is that you haven't the slightest clue about what you are talking about. Genesis 1:3 certainly doesn't address gravity. It doesn't address water either.

 

[David1701]

There was a sun in Genesis 1:1 because of the stretching out of the heavens.

Feel free to show how you leapt from "stretching out of the heavens" to "There was a sun in Genesis 1:1". I'll be fascinated to see how you attempt to demonstrate causation...

God has fine-tuned all the laws, constants, and equations of physics for life to exist on earth (Psalms 8:3, and earth hang on nothing because of gravity Job 26:7) and in verse 2 there was darkness over the face of the deep. If you were looking up into space (face of the deep), then you wouldn't be able to see the constellations of the south (Job 9:9, Job 38:31).

The "face of the deep", is the deep water that was on Earth, just after God had created the Earth and heavens, on Day 1.

Why? Because in verse 3 there was also water on earth. Not only was there gravity to hold the water in place, but also a hydrologic cycle between the sun and earth (Job 38:9). The lights from space was already present and shinning but could not pass through the early earth's atmosphere. It would be like standing on the planet Venus and looking up. You would not be able to see any lights from space because of the oblique atmosphere. So when God said, "Let there be light;" he is not creating the sun's light itself since the sun is already there, rather the early earth's atmosphere changes from oblique to translucent atmosphere. And the earth's atmosphere would naturally take an unspecified long period of time to change.

I often enjoy "just so" stories - fiction can be such a pleasant diversion from the rigor of reality.

It was enough light to separate "light" from "darkness" but when looking up into space you still would not be able to see any moons, stars, and planets. You cannot see visible objects in space from a translucent atmosphere. Now in Genesis 1:14-18, the plant life was already created and need light to grow. The plants were giving off oxygen into the atmosphere. After an unspecified long period of time the atmosphere became transparent to the point that our sun and moon, and the planets and stars was made visible. Not made in the sense of created, but made to appear so that you can mark the seasons, days, and years.

Again, feel free to show why anyone should accept your claim, since it contradicts what the Bible states.

 

[David1701]

David1701 said:
You clearly either didn't read my post fully, or didn't understand it; nor did you understand the Scripture.

The blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, means starting at the foundation of the world, not that they were all slain then! In other words, Abel was slain near the foundation of the world, and other prophets were slain later.

I neither assumed that you claimed that Abel's murder was billions of years ago, neither was that what I posted. What I posted meant that Abel's murder was near the foundation of the world, not billions of years later.

So if "from the foundation of the world" world means from the foundation of the world for election and atonement, being one-time acts of God, whether predetermined or not, how does, "The blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, means starting at the foundation of the world, not that they were all slain then! In other words, Abel was slain near the foundation of the world, and other prophets were slain later.", mean that the slaying began near the foundation of the world, and not that it was a done thing "from the foundation of the world." Are you implying that God had not decided from the foundation of the world that these prophets would be slain? Did it happen in a vacuum?

Christ's sacrifice, and the Salvation of the Elect, are done in this temporal realm, yet God says they are accomplished. So with everything that God has decided. I am a bit curious what you think God has not decided.

When the Bible talks about "from the foundation of the world", re. election and Jesus going to the cross, it refers to the pre-determination by God of whom he would save and that Jesus would indeed be crucified for our sins. It is the pre-determination that is from the foundation of the world, as one-off decisions, not the events themselves.

In contrast to the above, when the Bible speaks of the prophets slain from the foundation of the world, it refers to the events, not a pre-determination that those events would occur. This is why your comparison fails.

 

[David1701]

Yes, you have identified other passages with chiasmus. Indeed many passages in Scripture have this structure.
Now tell me how they also have:

• intricate structure
• rhythm
• parallelism
• repetition
• lavish use of number symbolism

since that is what I asked. The point is that Genesis 1 has all of these together. Not just one of them.

Okay, this has gone on long enough. If you want to make a case, in discussion or debate, here is what you (and I don't just mean you personally) need to do:

1) Set down your proposition(s) (You've done this part)

2) Provide evidence and reasoning to attempt to demonstrate that your proposition(s) are correct

The "provide evidence" part is sadly lacking. Your proposition that Genesis 1 has intricate structure, rhythm, parallelism, chiasms, repetition and lavish use of numerical symbolism, needs to be backed up by evidence for these things, not merely claimed to be so, if you want to make a good case (please note that I am not saying whether or not these things are present, simply that you not provided evidence for them).

You have also proposed that the presence of intricate structure, etc., means that the apparently straightforward meaning of the text is incorrect. In order to make a case for this, you would, having firstly provided evidence for the intricate structure, etc., need to provide evidence that his negates what would otherwise be the obvious meaning of the text.

You have further proposed that there are no other narrative passages in the Bible that have all of the intricate structure, chiasms, etc. that are present in Gen. 1. Now, it would be unreasonable to expect you to go through every narrative passage in the Bible; however, it is reasonable to ask for a few examples of narrative passages that have, e.g., chiasms, but lack some or all of the other features you claimed for Gen. 1.

If you are unwilling, or unable, to do the above, then there is really no case for us to answer. I've indulged the one-sided request for evidence, but no longer.