Young Earth/Old Earth

[Binyawmene]

Indeed -yes, it's been a while. My understanding about God speaking the universe into existence in Genesis 1:1 focuses more on the Hebrew language textual meaning of this single sentence instead of understanding it from a "good English" rendering as a summary statement prior to "day" one. You might remember my graphic depicting the difference on how an initial understanding of an opening sentence can make or break comprehension about the context of the first chapter.

Very interesting link.

Completed action, but continuous on-going
bereshiyth רֵאשִׁית - "In [the] beginning"
1). be "In" and iyth a grammatical marker implying "of"
2). The definite article "the" is missing but implied.
3). reshiyth for "beginning means chief or head"
4). We would read this as: "In [the] head of" or colloquially "In [the] beginning of"

In Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. From the underlying the word "bara" (or created as past tense) is in the masculine form. Since it is in the masculine then the pronoun "he" is automatically implied. That means "God" becomes the subject or "God [he] created." Now that we have the word "God" as the subject (with a pronoun indicators) followed by the verb conjugation "created." This makes "God [he] created" as a simple active voice (a perfect verb conjugation using the simple past tense), which that denotes a completed action in the past. So "the shamayim (heavens) and aretz (earth);" the universe is completed (foreordained with all the built-in requirements and fine-tuned of physical constants and laws) and "continuous" (still on-going in the unfolding of space-time fabric through the expansion and natural process of stars, planets, moons, and galaxies) to this very day. God created [ex nihilo] is still unfolding. The earth also came from that natural process of the expansion. This takes us to Genesis 1:2 which only picks up at a certain point in space-time where the earth is still going through its formation "takes shape like clay under a seal" (Job 38:14). As if God is the potter and the earth is clay while HE is fashioning "tohu" and "bohu" earth for HIS glory (Isaiah 45:18).

A while back Richard Deem had an excellent table explaining the differences between creation beliefs in his God and Science webpage. Apparently, it's undergoing construction now. He is a Reasons to Believe apologist.

That's cool. I haven't been following any Reasons to Believe articles lately.

It's true that the Bible does not provide any temporal information about how much time elapsed between the successive days.

As Christians there is nothing wrong using science to fill in the gaps. After all, God's word in Scripture does not contradict God's work in creation, the two revelations are from the same God. Its faulty human interpretations from both sides of the spectrum (Theologians and Scientists) that creates the contradiction. When both Scripture and creation is properly understood, then there is a harmonious picture revealing God and his invisible qualities (Hebrews 11:3, Psalms 33:6, 9, Job 12:7-9, Romans 1:19-20).

Scripture "God's word"
Special Revelation
Biblical Inerrancy
Human Interpretation
Theology

Creation "God's work"
General Revelation
Record of Nature
Human Interpretation
Science

...and there is scientific evidence that there was a time when planet Earth had no continents with only deep water on its entire surface. Certainly uninhabitable for humans. ( Genesis 1:2 is correct! )

Right. And don't forget 2 Peter 3:5.

I'm reminded of a particular meteor impact that occured not too long ago in geologic timescales.

Truely amazing.

Wow! There is a lot of meat to chew on here.

Thanks for the introduction.

______
.

I encourage creationists to study fossils from the record of nature. The geological column gives period of segments (triassic, jurassic, and cretaceous), that occurred from one period to the next period. So digging underneath the land reveals fossil forms of dinosaurs, catastrophes, extinctions, and sudden appearances of new animal forms. A "big bang" type of "explosion so to speak, like: bird explosion, fish explosion, and mammal explosion, etc. The cool thing is that birds appear in the column before the appearance of mammals. It just suddenly appeared as if someone placed and planted them there in the geological column.

It was paleontologists that discovered this sudden appearance (a pattern of explosions) of new animal forms that is abrupt, without any obvious connections to the animals that came before it. You have the Avalon explosion which dates around 575 million years ago. The first and second explosions are followed by a more dramatic Cambrian explosion that began around 543 million years ago. The fossil forms are in a state of stasis, exhibit no directional change and fully formed. They appeared in the fossil record looking the same as when they disappeared. These animals remained unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappeared (catastrophes and extinctions) and suddenly replaced by a different unrelated fully grown animal forms such as bird-kind.

What does it mean by sudden appearance? Basically, after the extinction of dinosaurs there was an explosion of an entirely new kind appearing fully grown embedded forms in the fossil record. These sudden appearance like the bird explosion, just didn't happen right after the extinction of dinosaurs, there are thousands of years of time gaps between dinosaurs and birds. It simply means there was no patterns, signs, and traces in the fossil record of gradual continuous intermediate and transitional sequences interlinking birds supposedly emerging from an earlier type dinosaur. Birds simply had a sudden appearance out of nowhere. How did they get there? Evolutionists would often use Archaeopteryx (means "ancient feather"), the "feather" is supposedly a sign and trace, a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds being derived from the Jurassic period. This is based on a assumed feathers imprinted in a fossil discovered in 1861, just two years after Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species." But, yet, no matter how controversial these fossils of Archaeopteryx are, (the feather dinosaur with faulty interpretation or just a typical ancient extinct bird) is the central basis in science for the origin of birds to this day.

Evolutionary Model: Dinosaurs evolved from another quadrupedal reptiles called archosaurs after the Permian extinction. Dinosaurs were quadrupedal and evolved into bipedal. There were different species of dinosaurs that spread-out from archosaurs. They existed among each other and evolved alongside each other. They were able to walk, run, and jump, also gigantism and shrink in size. But there was these particular group of clade of dinosaurs, they were up-right and small size called Theropods from the triassic period. They survived through the triassic extinction, jurassic extinction, and cretaceous extinction. And the behavior of theropods kept jumping off of tree branches or clifts for millions of years. Until they eventually evolved a adaptive trait, such as feathers and eventually grew wings, from natural selection. This gave birth to a transition of half-dinosaur and half-bird, or a furry fuzz and feathers hybrid from speciation. They were still land-based and flightless that could somewhat glide through the air. Then finally they evolved into flight, a full blown emergence took its course (dinosaurs are no longer dinosaurs), and became a entirely brand-new kind or known as our modern birds.

 

[TB2]

As Christians there is nothing wrong using science to fill in the gaps. After all, God's word in Scripture does not contradict God's work in creation, the two revelations are from the same God. Its faulty human interpretations from both sides of the spectrum (Theologians and Scientists) that creates the contradiction. When both Scripture and creation is properly understood, then there is a harmonious picture revealing God and his invisible qualities (Hebrews 11:3, Psalms 33:6, 9, Job 12:7-9, Romans 1:19-20).

But perhaps Genesis does not intend to teach science. Welcome your thoughts on "Scientific Concordism vs Divine Accommodation"

 

[GeneZ]

But perhaps Genesis does not intend to teach science. Welcome your thoughts on "Scientific Concordism vs Divine Accommodation"

We are going to be shown that God provided all the answers.

Its there. Its buried and needs to be dug out.

But, first one must know God is real and not some inept being who does not know how to give answers that are needed.

Why this mess then?

2 Timothy 4:3 reveals the problem:

​

​

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. ​

Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number ​

of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.​

Some call it the GAP theory. Its in the Hebrew text... Known to Bible scholars long before the controversy came into being at the advent of science classifying fossil evidence that opened a giant door of desperation for the Devil who needed to cover up what went on before God replaced the prehistoric creation with this one.

Satan is a liar and covers up like a corrupt politician who has an in with the media.

One great source to read is to be found here....
https://custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html

grace and peace ................

 

[TB2]

Why this mess then?

2 Timothy 4:3 reveals the problem:
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

Correct, doctrine. No theological doctrine is being questioned.

Some call it the GAP theory. Its in the Hebrew text... Known to Bible scholars long before the controversy came into being at the advent of science classifying fossil evidence that opened a giant door of desperation for the Devil who needed to cover up what went on before God replaced the prehistoric creation with this one.

Agreed. In fact, Genesis doesn't speak on science issues at all. Gap Theory, Day-Age Theory, Framework Hypothesis, Old Earth Creationism, Young Earth Creationism---they are all attempts to harmonize Genesis with modern science when the message of Genesis 1 is something else entirely. See, "Scientific Concordism vs Divine Accommodation"

Blessings

 

[GeneZ]

Correct, doctrine. No theological doctrine is being questioned.

Agreed. In fact, Genesis doesn't speak on science issues at all. Gap Theory, Day-Age Theory, Framework Hypothesis, Old Earth Creationism, Young Earth Creationism---they are all attempts to harmonize Genesis with modern science when the message of Genesis 1 is something else entirely. See, "Scientific Concordism vs Divine Accommodation"

Blessings

Its not an attempt. It was known long before the scientific theories arose. It was just ignored by the scholars who saw the previous creations indicated. For there was no controversy in their day. It was not invented afterwards. It preceded .

 

[TB2]

Its not an attempt. It was known long before the scientific theories arose. It was just ignored by the scholars who saw the previous creations indicated. For there was no controversy in their day. It was not invented afterwards. It preceded .

Apologies, I think I misunderstood you. I thought you were rejecting the Gap Theory. Are you saying you accept the Gap Theory?

 

[TB2]

@GeneZ I started reading through your link. I like how the Preface gives the Masoretic, Septuagint, and Latin of Genesis 1

The Introduction makes the following statement:

"Essentially, there are two possible interpretations of Gen. 1.2. Either it is a chaos which marks the first stage of God's creative activity, or it is a chaos which resulted from some catastrophic event marring what had formerly been an orderly and beautiful world. Not infrequently it is argued that it cannot be a picture of a "destroyed" earth because there is no geological evidence for such an event on a global scale. But the fundamental question at issue here is not the absence or otherwise of geological evidence for such an event. The real question is, "What does the text really mean?"

Love that last question! Yes, that's most important. And we can only determine meaning by understanding Genesis 1 in its original, historical context; which means the context of the Ancient Near East (ANE), not modern science. Sounds like we're on the same page or close, thereabouts.

May I suggest that there is a third possible interpretation? In the ANE context, it was widely believed that *before* creation the 'cosmos/universe' was in a state of primeval chaos represented by the primeval waters. Out of these chaotic primeval waters the (pagan) false gods were believed to have originated, and creation was a matter of creating and ordering inhabitable space within the primeval waters of chaos. Similar to how on Day 2 God creates a firmament 'sky' "in the midst of the waters" to separate the waters, and then further orders creation from there. That is not to say Genesis 1 is condoning, paganism. Just the opposite, it seems to be a refutation of ancient Egyptian pagan creation myths, and seems to directly allude to them, given the parallels in the opening three verses of Gen:

In context, Gen 1.2-3 seems to allude to the common ANE belief of a pre-existent chaotic state represented by the primeval waters. Genesis 1 does not explain any further, but makes clear that there is only one true God, not many gods.

 

[GeneZ]

Apologies, I think I misunderstood you. I thought you were rejecting the Gap Theory. Are you saying you accept the Gap Theory?

I call it the "Gap Fact."

The following is a link to a book written by a scientist.
He shows how the Gap was known to Bible scholars long before "Dar-lose" was born.

One great source to read is to be found here....
https://custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html

Read the chapter - "A LONG-HELD VIEW."

grace and peace ............

 

[TB2]

I call it the "Gap Fact."

The following is a link to a book written by a scientist.
He shows how the Gap was known to Bible scholars long before "Dar-lose" was born.

One great source to read is to be found here....
https://custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html

Read the chapter - "A LONG-HELD VIEW."

grace and peace ............

Well, I wouldn't call it the "Gap Fact." Like I said, there's a third way to interpret it: tohu wabohu is a reference to the pre-existent primeval waters of chaos widely believed in the Ancient Near East.

 

[David1701]

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

Doug

By the light that God had created.

 

[David1701]

I call it the "Gap Fact."

The following is a link to a book written by a scientist.
He shows how the Gap was known to Bible scholars long before "Dar-lose" was born.

One great source to read is to be found here....
https://custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html

Read the chapter - "A LONG-HELD VIEW."

grace and peace ............

Here's plenty of info. debunking the Gap Theory (better - "Gap Fiction").

Gap Theory

One popular interpretation of Genesis 1 shoehorns a millions-of-years gap between verses 1 and 2. Is this a valid interpretation?

answersingenesis.org

 

[TB2]

Here's plenty of info. debunking the Gap Theory (better - "Gap Fiction").

Gap Theory

One popular interpretation of Genesis 1 shoehorns a millions-of-years gap between verses 1 and 2. Is this a valid interpretation?

answersingenesis.org

I could be mistaken, but I think @GeneZ is advocating an older, traditional "gap theory" unrelated to Old Earth Creationism and not argued on that basis (the link GeneZ provided seems to suggest that). But perhaps GeneZ can clarify.

Gen 1.2-3 does present a bit of a conundrum (or mystery at the least), as it suggests pre-existent matter was already present prior to the start of the Creation week.

 

[GeneZ]

Well, I wouldn't call it the "Gap Fact." Like I said, there's a third way to interpret it: tohu wabohu is a reference to the pre-existent primeval waters of chaos widely believed in the Ancient Near East.

We need some background for 'tohu wabohu.'

Jeremiah was dealing with rebellious Jews who were throwing their screaming babies into furnaces as a means to further stimulate
their sexual arousal during the pagan sex rituals they had grabbed into.

God was furious with that people. God judged them and many were killed by a military invasion by Nebucanneezar's army.

Jeremiah, being a prophet, issued a dire warning to them of a severe judgement coming upon them from God.
What did Jeremiah use to let them know how severely they were to be judged?

Jeremiah cited Genesis 1:2!

The Jews knew the Hebrew meaning. It meant 'utter destruction and desolation.'

That is why Jeremiah in his prophesy had to add a modifier to Genesis 1:2.
He did it (in part) to let the angels watching to know, that what was to happen to the Jews,
would not leave them totally wiped from the surface of the earth like ! For Genesis 1:2 spoke
of the utter destruction of the prehistoric world they had once known.

Here is what Jeremiah prophesied to that people.
Keep in mind. Jeremiah was citing Genesis 1:2 from the Hebrew!

​

I looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless and void;
And to the heavens, and they had no light.
I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking,
And all the hills moved to and fro.
I looked, and behold, there was no man,
And all the birds of the heavens 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 thus says the Lord,​

“The whole land will be ruined,
though I will not destroy it completely."

“For this the earth shall mourn
And the heavens above be dark,
Because I have spoken, I have purposed,
And I will not change My mind, nor will I turn from it.”
At the sound of the horseman and bowman every city flees;
They go into the thickets and climb among the rocks;
Every city is forsaken,
And no man dwells in them. Jeremiah 4:23-29​

Note, after citing Genesis 1:2, Jeremiah had to add verse 27 to his prophesy to balance it out.

Jeremiah 4:27 -

He needed to add the following, so Israel would not assume that like what was found in Genesis 1:2,
they were not to be completely wiped off from the earth.
For in Genesis 1:2 , the Hebrew reader saw and knew it meant an utter destruction!!

27 This is what the Lord says:​

​

“The whole land will be ruined,
though I will not destroy it completely."​

Jeremiah had to add that to make them know some Jews would survive!

Meaning?

Genesis 1:2 in the Hebrew was never intended to be mild like we see so many times in compromised mainstream translations.

Why are we not told this?

I had to learn that from a professor of ancient languages who taught ancient languages at a Bible college.
Scholars with integrity who have no agenda to keep, seek truth will agree with what it means.

grace and peace ....................
........

 

[David1701]

I could be mistaken, but I think @GeneZ is advocating an older, traditional "gap theory" unrelated to Old Earth Creationism and not argued on that basis (the link GeneZ provided seems to suggest that). But perhaps GeneZ can clarify.

Gen 1.2-3 does present a bit of a conundrum (or mystery at the least), as it suggests pre-existent matter was already present prior to the start of the Creation week.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth ... then ... we are told the condition of the earth at this point: it was, as yet, unformed, unfilled and in darkness (because light had not yet been created). I don't see any mystery here at all.

 

[GeneZ]

I could be mistaken, but I think @GeneZ is advocating an older, traditional "gap theory" unrelated to Old Earth Creationism and not argued on that basis (the link GeneZ provided seems to suggest that). But perhaps GeneZ can clarify.

Gen 1.2-3 does present a bit of a conundrum (or mystery at the least), as it suggests pre-existent matter was already present prior to the start of the Creation week.

In the beginning (before Day One in Genesis One) the heaven and earth was already created by God "out from nothing." [bara]

The Hebrew reveals a sense of being done outside of time at the original creation.

"In the beginning that was not a beginning."

God was moving out from eternity into time and space.

 

[TB2]

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth ... then ... we are told the condition of the earth at this point: it was, as yet, unformed, unfilled and in darkness (because light had not yet been created). I don't see any mystery here at all.

It all hinges on how one interprets the opening verse. Apparently there is some ambiguity in the Hebrew of Gen 1.1. Here's what one commentary says:

......

The "formless and void" suggests a state of chaos. The six days of creation are focused on God ordering and giving meaning, purpose, and function to His creation and created things. God's creative works are the antithesis of the chaos pictured in v 2-3. It seems to leave two basic options, neither of which are appealing:

(1) God created this initial chaos (But why? It's antithetical to God's acts during the six days); or

(2) The primeval chaos was already there, pre-existent (which is of course problematic for obvious reasons of pre-existent matter before creation)

(I suppose the "gap theory," would be a third (3) option, but it involves a lot of conjecture not supported by Scripture)

 

[TB2]

Genesis 1:2 in the Hebrew was never intended to be mild like we see so many times in compromised mainstream translations.

There is always something lost in translation, but I wouldn't say it's a nefarious motive of "compromised mainstream translations." That goes to the other extreme.

Why are we not told this?

I had to learn that from a professor of ancient languages who taught ancient languages at a Bible college.
Scholars with integrity who have no agenda to keep, seek truth will agree with what it means.

Again, I don't think there's any nefarious agenda. The opening verses of Genesis are very difficult to translate/interpret.

We need some background for 'tohu wabohu.'

Here's what one of my commentaries says:

 

[GeneZ]

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth ... then ... we are told the condition of the earth at this point: it was, as yet, unformed, unfilled and in darkness (because light had not yet been created). I don't see any mystery here at all.

The Masoretic text puts a special notation in Genesis One to reveal to the reader that there is to be a pause between verse 1 and 2.

Why?

The Torah was being taught a people that did not have their own Bibles. They stood and got their teaching directly from Moses .

That note to pause cause an effect like a radio drama taking place where the listener needed to use his imagination to create in his mind images while following the narrative coming from the one speaking. In radio they used to use organ music to show a change in scene giving it a pause between scenes,

The pause is also a technique we see in movies where someone was speaking about something that happened.... and then there is a fade out..... And, then a fade in, unto the time what was being spoken about was taking place. Like when someone was reminiscing about some past event... then a fade out.. to take us to be watching the reliving of what past event in a new scene. That way showing us what that person was remembering as if we are being there..

So?

In the beginning God created the heavens and earth! (very dramatic presentation) . ..

Then.. Pause....

Then. Fade back to a new scene, placing the hearer in the next scene in the point of time of its taking place.

So, when some folks dig in and wish to argue over.. The earth "became" - or - The earth "was" - toho wabohu? It still can mean "was" and still be speaking of another time. For the fade out caused by the pause was taking us out of one point of time, and taking us to another point in time.

So? When it says the earth was in ruin, and having an eerie sense of emptiness surrounding it? (tohu wabohu)
That verse was placing us in a time to view the actual destroyed planet. It does not mean God created it that way.

"God created the heavens and earth,." (then a pause with fade out)..
Then, pause ends and a fade in to show us what became of the earth. But, as if we were viewing it in actual time of its ruined state of being.

Genesis 1:2 simply has us looking at the state of the planet at a given point of time. A moment when God began to move to restore life on the planet to be recovered after tohu wabohu.

Some will ague about ... "It became." Or "It was" tohu wabohu ...all they like. For hey are missing the factor of a fade out/pause after verse One. Followed by a fade into another point in time as seen in Genesis 1:2.

I hope I made that clear enough to help.



grace and peace ...............

 

[Inertia]

It all hinges on how one interprets the opening verse.

......

I couldn't agree with your first sentence more.

The author's use of merisms throughout that expresses meaning to the original intended audience continues to enhance understanding for people thousands of years later.

______
.

 

[David1701]

It all hinges on how one interprets the opening verse. Apparently there is some ambiguity in the Hebrew of Gen 1.1. Here's what one commentary says:

......

The "formless and void" suggests a state of chaos. The six days of creation are focused on God ordering and giving meaning, purpose, and function to His creation and created things. God's creative works are the antithesis of the chaos pictured in v 2-3. It seems to leave two basic options, neither of which are appealing:

(1) God created this initial chaos (But why? It's antithetical to God's acts during the six days); or

(2) The primeval chaos was already there, pre-existent (which is of course problematic for obvious reasons of pre-existent matter before creation)

(I suppose the "gap theory," would be a third (3) option, but it involves a lot of conjecture not supported by Scripture)

If we take the creation that people do (e.g. artists) as a kind of low-level picture of God's creation: you start by getting an unformed and unfilled canvas ("chaos" would be inaccurate), then add the various parts of the picture, over a period of time, until the picture is complete.