Young Earth/Old Earth

[ChristB4us]

That's mostly correct. The word translated as 'heaven' is from the King James translators and this is incorrect. It has a plural meaning and it is properly translated in English as 'heavens'. This is easy to recognize in Hebrew ( הַשָּׁמַיִם ) due to the ( יִם ) on the left side of the word. The NKJV and many other translations also adopted the plural meaning.

The 1599 Geneva Bible has the same.

Genesis 1:1 In the [b]beginning (A)God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:1 KJV & 1599 Geneva Bible

Tyndale Version has it that way too.

Genesis 1:11 In the begynnynge God created heaven and erth.

Tyndale Version of Genesis 1:1

It is a brief description of the initial creation event that focuses on the creation of the universe as well as Earth. Additional detail is found in other creation passages in the bible.

In Genesis 1:2 a paradigm shift occurs where the primary focus is on a water-covered Earth or Eretz in Hebrew ( אָרֶץ ).

Do not translate a single word at the expense of the other words in that verse as that verse was testifying that the earth was non-existent.

It was not an earth covered with water.

The second day when God created gravity, He separated the firmament ( thus creating the water planet ) from the other firmament being the upper atmosphere. That was the beginning of the creation of the planet earth that second day in creation before He finished the creation of that earth that third day by laying the foundations hence land which means it wasn't there as if under water.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

Indeed.

Genesis 2:1 "The heavens and the earth were completed with everything that was in them. By the seventh day, God finished the work that he had been doing, and he ceased on the seventh day all the work that he had been doing. God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because on it he ceased all the work that he had been doing in creation." (NET)

This passage summarizes all of God's work.

________
.

It summarizes all of God's work as being done in 6 days for Him to rest on the 7th day. Now if creation was before verse 2 as you apply that to mean, then it cannot be written that He was done creating everything in six days for Him to rest on the 7th day.

@GeneZ & @David1701 & @Carbon & @TibiasDad & @CrowCross

 

[ChristB4us]

It appears that the original element was created ex-nihlo...H2O....From that water God made "dirt"...and from the dirt God made Adam..and from Adams rib (side) God made Eve.

The second day God created gravity by separating one firmament hence the water planet from the other firmament hence the upper atmosphere. I doubt you can get any element of gravity from water. God spoke it and it was so.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

And so God spoke the land into existence in laying the foundations thereof and so it does not necessarily meant that God created the land from water.

Although God created Adam from the dust, I believe He did it from there, foreseeing the fall of man in how death shall come by sin for which man would return to the dust, albeit, He did spoken that dust as in the laying of that land intro existence by His word.

But since we prophesy in part and know in part, we shall see him face to face one day and know all things.

 

[Inertia]

The 1599 Geneva Bible has the same.

Genesis 1:1 In the [b]beginning (A)God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:1 KJV & 1599 Geneva Bible

Tyndale Version has it that way too.

Genesis 1:11 In the begynnynge God created heaven and erth.

Tyndale Version of Genesis 1:1

Indeed. A correct rendition of the Hebrew ( הַשָּׁמַיִם ) communicates the plural perspective of the heavens to its original audience as many translators recognize today.

Do not translate a single word at the expense of the other words in that verse as that verse was testifying that the earth was non-existent.

Well, opinions concerning the duration and the sequence of events as recorded in Genesis are ultimately settled by understanding the limitations and the extent of meaning that is imposed on words translated from biblical Hebrew. The best way to define meaning in the bible is by referencing the bible to itself.

God's creation was initiated as in the short narrative written in Genesis 1:1 and the Earth (eretz) was indeed non-existent as well as spacetime and all matter as John also explains:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made" ( John 1:1-3, NKJV)

"All things were made through Him, and nothing was made that was made..."

Spacetime and matter did not co-exist with God as a part of God's creation.

It was not an earth covered with water.

Genesis 1:2 focuses on the state of the earth (eretz, אָרֶץ ), prior to the first day in Genesis 1:3 and Genesis 1:2 isn't describing planet Earth as we currently use the term. Land, dust, and dirt are meanings that the audience at the time would understand. The eretz had existed - without shape and empty (desolate) because deep water was over the surface.

The term "was" does not appear in the Hebrew. It's only there for "good English".

"Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water." (Genesis 1:2, NET)

That said, later in Genesis 1:9-10 "the dry" came into existence.

"God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear." It was so. God called the dry ground "land" and the gathered waters he called "seas." God saw that it was good."

______
.

 

[ChristB4us]

Indeed. A correct rendition of the Hebrew ( הַשָּׁמַיִם ) communicates the plural perspective of the heavens to its original audience as many translators recognize today.

May I remind you to check the Hebrew word for God since it is plural as well and yet written as singular in English?

 

[TibiasDad]

If that were so? How did we get "day and night" if that were the case?

After such an explosion it would have to be an all encompassing, sustained, light after such an gigantic explosion..
Add to that? It would not be able to be switched on and off, like we see for the first three days and nights in Genesis.

“Day and night” is a figurative or poetic description. It represents the beginning and completion of a specific segment of time.

Light is specified as a period called “day” and the darkness as another specified period called night. The absence of light is the definition of darkness, and the differential of the two implies that a regular “daily” occurrence of “day and night” being physically divided into periodic cycles, which suggests that within this “first day” the initial systems of “stars” and “planets”- from which a hypothetical observer would see both daylight and night.

In other words, we know that the rotation of the earth is what causes us to experience day and night, so that type of thing was happening early on in the earliest stages of the universe starting to appear.

After the beginning and the heaven and earth were created, the prehistoric world was created. Angels were given dominion over that world like Adam over the created world he was placed into.

Angels were the first rational creatures to be given dominion over animals - their own animals. Dinosaurs.

Imagination is a fictional reality in which there in a true sense of what might be but without the need of actual proof of its validity.

I’d like to see your novel about how angels and dinosaurs existed together and in relationship to each other. This, however, is not the place for such fantasy.

Doug

 

[GeneZ]

“Day and night” is a figurative or poetic description.

That is a cop out...

 

[Inertia]

May I remind you to check the Hebrew word for God since it is plural as well and yet written as singular in English?

Oh, we completely agree here. English doesn't always communicate an important underlying understanding that the original audience understood.

It's true.

- Elohim (אֱלֹהִים) is plural
- "ha' shamayim" (The heavens הַשָּׁמַיִם ) is also plural
- Genesis 1:1 is a Qal completed event in Hebrew. ( This is also not communicated in English. )
- Genesis 1:1 is the initial creation event
- Genesis 1:2 provides information the state of a water covered world after the initial completed event.
- God's special creation days begin with Genesis 1:3. "And God said..."

I don't believe that matter co-existed with God prior to speaking it into existence. The time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:3 is unstated.

________
.

 

[ChristB4us]

Oh, we completely agree here. English doesn't always communicate an important underlying understanding that the original audience understood.

It's true.

- Elohim (אֱלֹהִים) is plural
- "ha' shamayim" (The heavens הַשָּׁמַיִם ) is also plural
- Genesis 1:1 is a Qal completed event in Hebrew. ( This is also not communicated in English. )
- Genesis 1:1 is the initial creation event
- Genesis 1:2 provides information the state of a water covered world after the initial completed event.
- God's special creation days begin with Genesis 1:3. "And God said..."

I don't believe that matter co-existed with God prior to speaking it into existence. The time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:3 is unstated.

________
.

Except for the point of establishing the actual beginning of creation by that actual first day to be called the first day in His words.

You cannot have Him rested from all His work in creation of the heaven and the earth on the seventh day in Genesis 2:1-3 unless it actually meant that it took Him 6 days to do it all in Genesis 1:1.

 

[TibiasDad]

That is a cop out...

How then is a day and night measured if the sun is not yet created?

Doug

 

[Carbon]

How then is a day and night measured if the sun is not yet created?

Doug

That would have nothing to do with the length of a day if it was a long period of time.

 

[Inertia]

Except for the point of establishing the actual beginning of creation by that actual first day to be called the first day in His words.

Ah, I see. Here is where we begin to diverge in our understanding. I assume that you are referring to Exodus 31:17, and Exodus 20:11, right?

"It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed." (Exodus 31:17, KJV)

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:11, KJV)

Historically, Henry Morris* employed this argument by emphasizing the word "in" to demonstrate that Genesis 1:1-2 was included within the six day creative sequence. As it turns out, the Hebrew does not have the word translated in English as "in" within either Exodus 31:17 or Exodus 20:11. In particular, the older King James versions expressed this by italicizing words that were not in Hebrew. The word translated as "in" in English is the word bet ( בְּ ) in Hebrew. It is clearly seen in Genesis 1:1: In beginning ( בְּרֵאשִׁית ), not in the beginning. ( The word translated in English as "the" is not in the Hebrew here. )

Henry Morris was incorrect. Moreover, Genesis 1:1 specifically uses the word "bara" (בָּרָא ) translated as "created", but in Exodus 20:11 and in Exodus 31:17) the word translated as "make" is the word "asa" ( עָשָׂה ). Bara in Genesis 1:1 is creation ex nihilo. Asa in Exodus is creating from what exists.

- created - בָּרָא (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject) - God is doing the work i.e. speaking into existence
- make - עָשָׂה (Qal) to do work, make, form - produces from what has been made - engineering

Please see Genesis 1:7 as an example: "And God made..."

You cannot have Him rested from all His work in creation of the heaven and the earth on the seventh day in Genesis 2:1-3 unless it actually meant that it took Him 6 days to do it all in Genesis 1:1.

What's necessary and sufficient is that God created all of spacetime, all matter, including time itself - and that necessarily includes his creative days and everything else He has done prior to his listed creative days.

______

* Henry M Morris, "The Genesis Record", page 42, (Grand Rapids Michigan, Baker Books, 1976)
.

 

[GeneZ]

How then is a day and night measured if the sun is not yet created?

Doug

For the first three days in Genesis it was just like the prehistoric days in concept and execution.

In Genesis One angels were witnessing to the restoring of what they had lost.
They were not expecting to see a sun. For in the previous world Lucifer used
to bring in the morning light, and then the Lord Himself would takeover for the remainder of the light of day.

Its also why we see certain angels called "morning stars" in Job 38.

Lucifer was referred to as being the light of the morning. Isaiah 14:12.

No sun was needed in the prehistoric world. Angels and God gave it its light.

The Lord in the future will once again become the source of light. No more sun will exist.

Revelation 22:5​

​

There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, ​

for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.​

​

​

grace and peace!

 

[TibiasDad]

For the first three days in Genesis it was just like the prehistoric days in concept and execution.

In Genesis One angels were witnessing to the restoring of what they had lost.
They were not expecting to see a sun. For in the previous world Lucifer used
to bring in the morning light, and then the Lord Himself would takeover for the remainder of the light of day.

Its also why we see certain angels called "morning stars" in Job 38.

Lucifer was referred to as being the light of the morning. Isaiah 14:12.

No sun was needed in the prehistoric world. Angels and God gave it its light.

The Lord in the future will once again become the source of light. No more sun will exist.

Revelation 22:5​

​

There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, ​

for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.​

​

​

grace and peace!

I’m sorry, but this is a story that has no concrete evidence whatsoever to support it.

Doug

 

[Carbon]

I’m sorry, but this is a story that has no concrete evidence whatsoever to support it.

Doug

You got that right.

 

[TB2]

It's important to compartmentalize Scripture and modern science, and see what they each say independent of one another.

Modern science

1. That the earth/universe is billions of years old is established beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Substantial empirical evidence exists for biological evolution, common ancestry, and macroevolution.
3. We have no geological evidence of a global flood occurring at any time in Earth's history
4. Unlike biological evolution, we have zero evidence for abiogenesis. Our sum total scientific knowledge to date suggests that life *cannot* spontaneously emerge from nonlife via natural processes.

Scripture

1. Scripture seems to teach a young earth.
2. "Day" in Genesis means a regular day. We can tell this from the context, as the alternative doesn't make sense ("and there was evening and morning the first 'long period of time'" Huh?)
3. The biblical Flood is not taught as a global flood, but as a flood of COSMIC proportions way beyond just global; a reversal of the very creation week itself and return to watery chaos before land on Day 3 and separation of waters above and below on Day 2.
4. The Bible does not teach that the fossil record is the result of Noah's Flood and there are good scientific and biblical reasons to think that it isn't.
5. Genesis 1 teaches that on Day 2, God created a solid structural divider ("firmament") to separate the waters above from the waters below. Genesis 1 teaches a prescientific view of the world.
6. The best evidence indicates that Genesis 1 neither contradicts nor supports science, but has little to nothing to do with modern science. The best evidence indicates that Genesis 1 is not a scientific account but a *theological polemic (attack)* against pagan Egyptian creation myths. Genesis 1 actually reads like a step-by-step refutation of Egpytian pagan cosmology. Even many of the creation events are in the same order.
7. Genesis 1 also seems to portray creation as a *cosmic temple* of sorts that God inhabits. (God is present with His creation).
8. Genesis 1 is a wholly unique genre that is a combination of *both* poetry and prose. Some call it "exalted prose."

*There are two basic 'solutions' to the science vs Scripture problem: (1) Concordism. Science and Scripture are in agreement. The problem is this requires twisting science to fit Scripture or Scripture to fit science to get it to work. (2) Accommodationism. God accommodated Himself to humanity. God stoops down to our level. In ancient times they had incorrect prescientific views. Instead of correcting their faulty prescientific views, God communicated timeless theological truth in terms they could understand. While not answering all questions, this seems the best way of maintaining divine inspiration without having to change Scripture to say something that it doesn't say.

 

[GeneZ]

I’m sorry, but this is a story that has no concrete evidence whatsoever to support it.

Doug

It does....

But, sorry. Not everyone will be able to see it.

 

[Carbon]

First I want to say, I have been enjoying your posts. I look forward to many more.

It's important to compartmentalize Scripture and modern science, and see what they each say independent of one another.

The only times I have ever heard a suggestion like this is from those who finally make the claim that OE ers are trying to make the bible fit science. Though there may be people who do such a thing, I believe it is nonsense.

Modern science

1. That the earth/universe is billions of years old is established beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Substantial empirical evidence exists for biological evolution, common ancestry, and macroevolution.
3. We have no geological evidence of a global flood occurring at any time in Earth's history
4. Unlike biological evolution, we have zero evidence for abiogenesis. Our sum total scientific knowledge to date suggests that life *cannot* spontaneously emerge from nonlife via natural processes.

Who really cares what they think? Christians shouldn't let secularism interfere with the age of the earth that scripture teaches. It's pretty insecure to let evolutionists dictate what we believe about the bible and the age of the earth.

Scripture

1. Scripture seems to teach a young earth.

Seems to? How so?

2. "Day" in Genesis means a regular day. We can tell this from the context, as the alternative doesn't make sense ("and there was evening and morning the first 'long period of time'" Huh?)

You sure can read that into it. It's funny that many in the first century thought that the days were periods of time. .....

3. The biblical Flood is not taught as a global flood, but as a flood of COSMIC proportions way beyond just global; a reversal of the very creation week itself and return to watery chaos before land on Day 3 and separation of waters above and below on Day 2.

Som don't some do teach a global flood.

4. The Bible does not teach that the fossil record is the result of Noah's Flood and there are good scientific and biblical reasons to think that it isn't.

??

5. Genesis 1 teaches that on Day 2, God created a solid structural divider ("firmament") to separate the waters above from the waters below. Genesis 1 teaches a prescientific view of the world.

Genesis 1:1 teaches God created the earth and the heavens.

6. The best evidence indicates that Genesis 1 neither contradicts nor supports science, but has little to nothing to do with modern science. The best evidence indicates that Genesis 1 is not a scientific account but a *theological polemic (attack)* against pagan Egyptian creation myths. Genesis 1 actually reads like a step-by-step refutation of Egpytian pagan cosmology. Even many of the creation events are in the same order.

??

7. Genesis 1 also seems to portray creation as a *cosmic temple* of sorts that God inhabits. (God is present with His creation).

Who says He is not?

8. Genesis 1 is a wholly unique genre that is a combination of *both* poetry and prose. Some call it "exalted prose."

Okay

*There are two basic 'solutions' to the science vs Scripture problem: (1) Concordism. Science and Scripture are in agreement. The problem is this requires twisting science to fit Scripture or Scripture to fit science to get it to work. (2) Accommodationism. God accommodated Himself to humanity. God stoops down to our level. In ancient times they had incorrect prescientific views. Instead of correcting their faulty prescientific views, God communicated timeless theological truth in terms they could understand. While not answering all questions, this seems the best way of maintaining divine inspiration without having to change Scripture to say something that it doesn't say.

Or, God created the earth as He did, through periods of time. And it just so happens that the evolutionists think they have something to prove creation wrong. But they have this because young Earthers gave it to them and continue to fuel their fire.

 

[GeneZ]

I’m sorry, but this is a story that has no concrete evidence whatsoever to support it.

Doug

None what so ever?

OK.... You a young earth creationist?

 

[GeneZ]

The only times I have ever heard a suggestion like this is from those who finally make the claim that OE ers are trying to make the bible fit science. Though there may be people who do such a thing, I believe it is nonsense.

There were Bible scholars who saw Biblical evidence for a prehistoric world long before Darwin was born.
It was before they knew what to make of it.

Science ironically came along and showed what they saw in the Bible to be true with the discovery of prehistoric fossils.

The following book was written by a Christian who was a scientist.

https://custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html

Look at chapter "Long-held View."

 

[TB2]

Who really cares what they think? Christians shouldn't let secularism interfere with the age of the earth that scripture teaches. It's pretty insecure to let evolutionists dictate what we believe about the bible and the age of the earth.

Well, I guess I care, lol. Because I'm a Christian, but I'm also an evolutionary biologist and paleontologist. The evidence for evolution and old ages is established beyond a reasonable doubt (I say this as a former YEC who refused to believe the statement that I just made. It took 20-30 years of looking at the evidence to finally convince that I could find no way around this conclusion regarding evolution and old ages. Believe me, it's not how I wanted things to go). By contrast, the origin of life, not so much (zero evidence for abiogenesis).

You sure can read that into it. It's funny that many in the first century thought that the days were periods of time.

Actually, no one in the first century. In later centuries the six days + "a 1000 years is like a day to the Lord" was used as a model to think of historical periods or end times symbolically in those terms, but not the days of Genesis themselves, which were still recognized as regular days. The context demands it: "There was evening and morning the first 1,000 years" doesn't even make sense."

Som don't some do teach a global flood

But putting aside our own views, it's pretty inescapable that the biblical Flood is portrayed as a global flood of COSMIC proportions; an undoing of creation itself. There are Hebrew catch words that link Genesis 1 & the Flood account.

??

See my post under "Intelligent Design" titled "Why the Fossil Record Can't Be the Result of Noah's Flood" where I start by giving biblical reasons for this (with explanatory diagrams that I think you will find very helpful/useful).

??

I can explain much more in depth if needed. But for now here's a good summary article on the subject by an evangelical OT scholar I personally know.

Johnston, Gordon H. "Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian creation myths." BIBLIOTHECA SACRA-DALLAS- 165.658 (2008): 178.

He summarizes the evidence that Genesis 1 is a theological polemic against Egyptian pagan creation myths. The lexical, structural/literary, and thematic/conceptual parallels between Genesis 1 and ancient Egyptian cosmology are too many to be accidental or coincidence. But rather than supporting, Genesis is a direct refutation. It's almost as if the Israelites had been indoctrinated during their 400 years in slavery and God has to undo that and refute that indoctrination.

Or, God created the earth as He did, through periods of time. And it just so happens that the evolutionists think they have something to prove creation wrong. But they have this because young Earthers gave it to them and continue to fuel their fire.

I don't quite follow.
I do know though that even the most generous reading (to concordism) of Genesis 1 still does not fit modern science, *even if* we say "days" are long periods of time. Genesis 1 still doesn't agree with modern science. But this is not a problem. It's only a problem if Genesis 1 is meant to be understood as a modern scientific account.

But it's not. Its a theological polemic (attack) against Egyptian pagan creation myths the same way the plagues were polemic attacks on Egpytian pagan religion. Egyptians worship the Nile, God turns to blood. Worship the sun god Ra, God darkens it. The plagues were power displays demonstrating the superior power of Yawheh. We see the same type of anti pagan campaign in Genesis 1.

There're also really no escaping the fact that Genesis 1 gives an inaccurate prescientific view of the world. Again, this is only a problem if Genesis is meant to be a modern scientific account. This is why accommodationism makes more sense than concordism. The only way to get around the prescientific view of earth presented in Genesis 1 (*like a solid 'sky' firmament) is to change the meaning of the Hebrew words.