Age of the earth...Young or old?

[David1701]

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?

There are three "heavens": the sky, space and the realm where God dwells.

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.

God created a light source (not the sun) on Day 1. We are not told what it was, so we don't need to know.

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

We are told that there was water above the Earth - that is what we need to believe. Conjecture about what it was (e.g. a layer of water vapour), whilst it may be interesting, is unnecessary to believe what the text states.

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

Evidence please.

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?

Archaeologists have found evidence of surgery in ancient cultures; but, even if they hadn't, anyone knows that taking something out of your body is painful and traumatic, so putting Adam into a deep sleep is the kind thing to do. A child could understand this.

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

Are you proposing that the English translations are misleading? If so, then feel free to provide your evidence.

You are very wrong. Hermeneutics requires a good understanding of the literary and cultural contexts of a passage. By arcane knowledge do you mean the original Hebrew text and its original ancient Israelite culture?

As I've said previously, the Bible mostly explains itself. This is true in any language. Yes, there can be subtle nuances that can be lost in translation, but the vast majority of the meaning is maintained.

In any case, experts in Hebrew (native Hebrew speakers) say that Gen. 1 was intended as straightforward narrative.

 

[David1701]

@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?

I didn't know that you had lost your temper; however, apology accepted.

There is a difference between using dictionaries, concordances and commentaries (all standard practice) and what you have been proposing. The difference is that you are claiming that various hidden complexities (only known to those who have studied the ancient cultures) render the obvious meaning of the early chapters of Genesis misleading. I do not accept this, and you have provided no proof, only claims.

 

[Sereni-tea]

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.

Yes, you are right. This has gone on long enough. I refer you to post #276 which I have also repeated (and expanded) in post 449 above:

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. I don't have that information at hand

Each creative scene follows a deliberate four-fold pattern:
• a creative command (‘let there be light’, for example) followed by
• a report of the fulfilment of the command (‘and there was light’)
• an elaboration of creative detail (‘he separated the light from thedarkness’) and, finally
• a concluding day-formula (‘and there was evening, and there wasmorning—the first day’).
This pattern carries on through the whole account. The effect of all this isto underline the order and coherence of creation.

The repeated affirmation of the ‘goodness’ of the creation. Verses 4, 7, 12, 16, 21 and 25 tell us that what God made ‘was good’. The seventh and climactic reference in v.31 says that the creation‘was very good’. One gets the impression that the author is trying tocounter the low view of creation present in just about every pagan cultureof the time.

You yourself posted narratives with chiastic structures but did not contain any of the other techniques.

What I am saying is that the literary devices used in the passage speak loud and clear that there is much more to the passage than what is on the surface.

Since I have quoted so much from John Dickson's article I should provide a link if anyone is interested in reading it.
Genesis of Everything

Now I have jumped through enough of your hoops. I think I am done with this conversation. Thank you for your time.

 

[David1701]

Yes, you are right. This has gone on long enough. I refer you to post #276 which I have also repeated (and expanded) in post 449 above:

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. I don't have that information at hand

Each creative scene follows a deliberate four-fold pattern:
• a creative command (‘let there be light’, for example) followed by
• a report of the fulfilment of the command (‘and there was light’)
• an elaboration of creative detail (‘he separated the light from thedarkness’) and, finally
• a concluding day-formula (‘and there was evening, and there wasmorning—the first day’).
This pattern carries on through the whole account. The effect of all this isto underline the order and coherence of creation.

The repeated affirmation of the ‘goodness’ of the creation. Verses 4, 7, 12, 16, 21 and 25 tell us that what God made ‘was good’. The seventh and climactic reference in v.31 says that the creation‘was very good’. One gets the impression that the author is trying tocounter the low view of creation present in just about every pagan cultureof the time.

You yourself posted narratives with chiastic structures but did not contain any of the other techniques.

What I am saying is that the literary devices used in the passage speak loud and clear that there is much more to the passage than what is on the surface.

Since I have quoted so much from John Dickson's article I should provide a link if anyone is interested in reading it.
Genesis of Everything

Now I have jumped through enough of your hoops. I think I am done with this conversation. Thank you for your time.

Okay: so you are unwilling, or unable, to provide evidence that the clear surface meaning of Gen. 1 is wrong. That's okay; but don't claim that you have been asked to jump through hoops, and certainly not that you have done so.

 

[CrowCross]

5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up

Does this mean there were no seeds planted from which a plant springs up from...and all the plants were created by God without using seeds? That is fully mature or young saplings.

—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground,

On day 3 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.

The garden of Eden was a separate creation planted on day 6 not day 3.

Verse 5 states no bush of the field or small plants had yet sprung up.

Yup, the trees produced seeds but were not derived from seeds.

Verse 7 talks about man

Yup

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.

The verse is or can be somewhat complicated. It's presented as a sort of segue as chapter two turns to the formation of man on day 6.
When a man would be present to work the ground where he wasn't present on day 3 of God initial creation of plants... where he would now plant seeds which would grow and be harvested.

 

[Binyawmene]

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...

In Hebrews 11:3 "...the universe was formed at God’s command," the process is all energy and matter, space and time, dimensions and laws of physics started from an infinitely small point that got so HOT and expanded outwards. The Bible describes this as "stretching out" (Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15; Zechariah 12:1).

Like blowing up a balloon, the more you blow, the more the balloon will expand outwards. In that expansion the energy produced subatomic particles, nuclei of hydrogen, helium, lithium and deuterium from in a fog of radiation, radiation fog clears, and the universe is a transparent mass of expanding gas, the stars and galaxies formed which stars explode producing heavy elements, these elements formed new galaxies solar systems and planets. Thus, you have planet earth from atoms to complex molecules, our solar system including the planets and sun was created already in (Genesis 1:1, i.e. Jeremiah 33:25, Job 26:7). The sun and the moon was not created on the fourth day as young earthers suggest. And to this very day the universe is still expanding out and getting more colder and colder. Like a cup of hot coffee, you let it sit for a minute it starts getting colder, couple more minutes it gets colder and colder.

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.

If there was no sun present in Genesis 1:2, then the earth would not be spinning on its axis, no rotation around the sun, and no gravitational pull from the sun. The water would be ice, and the earth would drift off into space.

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

Great. Then you should read it again:

...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.​

This time address my post.

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

Don't evade and dance around my answer.

...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.​

This time address my post.

 

[makesends]

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.

You've already said that. The problem is, your use of it ignores that the those events are no different from the events concerning election and crucifixion.

The crucifixion was a one-time event —true enough.​

​

The salvation of the elect was a number beyond counting of events.​

​

The killing of the prophets was several events.​

You are only asserting that it is different and have not shown HOW it not the same. You say that it refers to the events —does not election do so? You say that it does not refer to pre-determination —then why should election refer to predetermination? What is really the difference?

 

[David1701]

You've already said that. The problem is, your use of it ignores that the those events are no different from the events concerning election and crucifixion.

The crucifixion was a one-time event —true enough.​

​

The salvation of the elect was a number beyond counting of events.​

​

The killing of the prophets was several events.​

You are only asserting that it is different and have not shown HOW it not the same. You say that it refers to the events —does not election do so? You say that it does not refer to pre-determination —then why should election refer to predetermination? What is really the difference?

<sigh>

Do you honestly not understand the difference between a one-off decision and a series of events?

God's choice of whom to save was a one-off decision (that is what election is - a choice of whom to save; and that choice was made before the foundation of the world). The actual saving of the people previously chosen happens as a series of events, but that is not election.

The killing of the prophets was a series of events that started soon after the foundation of world and continued for thousands of years.

I've made this as simple as I can; if you still can't understand it, then I recommend you to pray about it.

 

[makesends]

<sigh>

Do you honestly not understand the difference between a one-off decision and a series of events?

God's choice of whom to save was a one-off decision (that is what election is - a choice of whom to save; and that choice was made before the foundation of the world). The actual saving of the people previously chosen happens as a series of events, but that is not election.

The killing of the prophets was a series of events that started soon after the foundation of world and continued for thousands of years.

I've made this as simple as I can; if you still can't understand it, then I recommend you to pray about it.

"<sigh>"

I did not say that a one-off is no different from a series. I was saying that in the matter of pre-determining what comes after the foundation of the world, they are pre-determined the same way. God did not determine first that Abel would be killed, then after Abel was killed determine that the next prophet would be killed, etc. That's ludicrous. I don't even think YOU believe that God waited for Abel to be killed before deciding who came next.

"I've made this as simple as I can; if you still can't understand it, then I recommend you to pray about it."

Enough with the condescension, already.

 

[CrowCross]

...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.

That may be an explanation...a theory....but it's not what the bible says.

 

[David1701]

"<sigh>"

I did not say that a one-off is no different from a series. I was saying that in the matter of pre-determining what comes after the foundation of the world, they are pre-determined the same way. God did not determine first that Abel would be killed, then after Abel was killed determine that the next prophet would be killed, etc. That's ludicrous. I don't even think YOU believe that God waited for Abel to be killed before deciding who came next.

"I've made this as simple as I can; if you still can't understand it, then I recommend you to pray about it."

Enough with the condescension, already.

You still don't understand the issues, nor even what I posted. It's simply a fact that you're not up to it. If you find that condescending, well, I'm not responsible for your reaction.

 

[David1701]

That may be an explanation...a theory....but it's not what the bible says.

It's up to you, of course, but I wouldn't try to engage with that poster about this. You won't get a coherent response.

There are a few posters, in this thread, who are confused and lack understanding, but still feel free to contradict what the Bible says, based on opinions. The following Scripture is appropriate here.

Pro. 29:9 (Webster) If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rageth or laugheth, there is no rest.

 

[Alive]

You still don't understand the issues, nor even what I posted. It's simply a fact that you're not up to it. If you find that condescending, well, I'm not responsible for your reaction.

David--please stop making it about a person and keep it about the topic.

 

[CrowCross]

It's up to you, of course, but I wouldn't try to engage with that poster about this. You won't get a coherent response.

There are a few posters, in this thread, who are confused and lack understanding, but still feel free to contradict what the Bible says, based on opinions. The following Scripture is appropriate here.

Pro. 29:9 (Webster) If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rageth or laugheth, there is no rest.

There are many who insist that their high school indoctrination into abiogenesis as well as evolutionism trump the bible.

 

[David1701]

There are many who insist that their high school indoctrination into abiogenesis as well as evolutionism trump the bible.

Sad but true.

 

[Carbon]

It's up to you, of course, but I wouldn't try to engage with that poster about this. You won't get a coherent response.

There are a few posters, in this thread, who are confused and lack understanding, but still feel free to contradict what the Bible says, based on opinions. The following Scripture is appropriate here.

Pro. 29:9 (Webster) If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rageth or laugheth, there is no rest.

David, I am perfectly fine with you and the places you lack understanding. We are still brothers in the Lord. And, may I say I have always enjoyed your knowledge and wisdom in the word. you just lack it here. I think you are just too closed-minded. Sadly.

 

[Carbon]

There are many who insist that their high school indoctrination into abiogenesis as well as evolutionism trump the bible.

hmmm, and what does that have to do with anything here?

 

[David1701]

David--please stop making it about a person and keep it about the topic.

It's part of my calling to deal with the person (if needed) as well as the topic. If the forum will not allow this, then I'll need to go elsewhere.

That is part of the reason why I left WCF (along with their refusal to deal with false teachers). I'm sad to think that it's happening here as well.

 

[Alive]

It's part of my calling to deal with the person (if needed) as well as the topic. If the forum will not allow this, then I'll need to go elsewhere.

That is part of the reason why I left WCF (along with their refusal to deal with false teachers). I'm sad to think that it's happening here as well.

Well, David. You agreed to the rules. You can be just as effectual by refuting a doctrine or belief with scripture sans personal insult. More, in fact…because it personal insult that turns people away.
All forums have this rule. We very much want to project a friendliness for all.
I believe this is one reason forums have become, in large part, graveyards.
Consider the children.
Blessed are the Peacemakers….hammer the doctrine, but miss the person. They may be innocent and simply led wrongly.

 

[CrowCross]

hmmm, and what does that have to do with anything here?

Well, it's almost 500 post...things drift....I just mentioned that Evolutionism which subscribed to OE universalism is pretty much force fed to the students in school.