Young Earth/Old Earth

[TB2]

they have a good heart and I like that. And the sermons always are Jesus centered so I go there. I’m just waiting for Jesus to come along and say “this is the truth” because I no longer trust in man’s many, many interpretations of the Bible.

Probably the most mature response and approach. We as believers probably need to be more upfront about admitting what we don't know (not just what we do, or think we do)

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Probably the most mature response and approach. We as believers probably need to be more upfront about admitting what we don't know (not just what we do, or think we do)

Some kind of balanced approach is needed - less dogmatic but not naive.

 

[David1701]

1c is about repairing.

Ever figure out why we should "just trust Thayer's" when references are not provided? The BAG lexicon had some 10 column inches of references; the other literature provide a number of tangible cases if you are interested further. (Tangible means concrete objects involved like broken bones, not abstract concepts like ownership of property or virtues).

If you can find those translations that favored frame and tell me if they have a footnote, that would be great. I had a similar very puzzling case on the term 'dexastha' (to receive in honor) in Acts 3:21 where half of 20 translations checked simply said to keep (pass.: must be kept)--as though God was tying Christ down, when the previous expression was that God was sending him!

On Jer 4:23, I don't think you understand the consequence. When you have a unique expression like tohu wa-bohu, and it only shows in one other place, a lot of weight must go on that. Of course, the Jerusalem instance is an analogy, so what? Literarily we would follow the analogy, not leave it.

What if we were reading LOTR and Gandalf just let Pippin keep a pilantir found at Saruman's tower as a toy and ignored what he knew (and we knew) from other experience? You'd probably choke at the inconsistency of the story.

Waltke and Cassuto are two outstanding conservative Hebrew scholars. Cassuto single-handedly destroyed the JEDP hypothesis in FROM ADAM TO NOAH. Both remark that the tense of the imperfect Hebrew in the pre-existing condition stage of the narrative (before new action starts) is 'already' and Waltke found that Genesis was answering ancient near east cosmologies (Egyptian, Persian, Hindi). They were incorrectly dualistic, where good and evil have equal power. Genesis has Yahweh, who had destroyed what was there in judgement, and was using the material to make a new earth and solar system.

(Later in Isaiah we will read that God would 'create evil, and make new' because it was unthinkable in OT theology that there would be equal powers. Our current term 'katartizo' comes back to this by being used in Rom 9:22. Paul would not accept that the evil that caused Israel's unbelief was a thing that had power comparable to God; instead that was formed by God for certain purposes, as objects of wrath, vs. 20--23.

Rabbi Cassuto showed that all of the oral transmission section of Gen 1--39 has the 4 part structure:
1, section title
2, pre-existing conditions
3, new action, narrative
4, summary line

 

[Carbon]

Well the earth is forever says the book so I am thinking it has been here a loooooooooonnnnnng time.

Well it did have a beginning, that’s for sure. I also lean heavily towards an old earth.

The Bible is a riddle and if you are 100% sure on something, you are probably wrong lol.

Ha, I get your point. Or, we eventually find out we know very little.

All I know is that Jesus is real and he is our Lord and savior! Everything else is speculation for me!

Well Jesus Christ is who it is all about.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Well it did have a beginning, that’s for sure. I also lean heavily towards an old earth.

Ha, I get your point. Or, we eventually find out we know very little.

Well Jesus Christ is who it is all about.

I'm curious to know what your reasons are for believing in an old earth?

Surely you don't believe in the theory of evolution, considering that there are basically no transitional fossils in the earth? If God can create lifeforms on earth out of nothing to get life started, why does it require millions of so called years for the universe to exist?

 

[Rella]

Old earth. ~Younger life. ~ Eve as the youngest created life.

But by no means 13.8 billion years. IMO

 

[Carbon]

Hi Dave.,

I'm curious to know what your reasons are for believing in an old earth?

My reasons are from study. To me, an old earth makes much more sense.

Surely you don't believe in the theory of evolution, considering that there are basically no transitional fossils in the earth?

Nope. Not at all.

If God can create lifeforms on earth out of nothing to get life started, why does it require millions of so called years for the universe to exist?

Good question. God is a God of creation. I believe God enjoys creating and putting things in order. And it is only to us that it takes millions of years. God is not subject to time, so He continues to see the creation as present. Because God created, for example, dinosaurs millions of years ago, and since then have become coal, for our benefit should also bring glory to His name.
Roman’s 1 teaches His creation points to Him, it glorifies Him. Some say He created the earth to look old. That to me is silly.
Seems people like to put God in a box.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Hi Dave.,

My reasons are from study. To me, an old earth makes much more sense.


Nope. Not at all.

Good question. God is a God of creation. I believe God enjoys creating and putting things in order. And it is only to us that it takes millions of years. God is not subject to time, so He continues to see the creation as present. Because God created, for example, dinosaurs millions of years ago, and since then have become coal, for our benefit should also bring glory to His name.
Roman’s 1 teaches His creation points to Him, it glorifies Him. Some say He created the earth to look old. That to me is silly.
Seems people like to put God in a box.

I heard recently a new theory for the extinction of the dinosaurs. They said something like a massive volcanic eruption blocked out the light of the sun. I don't actually know if this is a newer theory or not.

However, the words in the Bible for night and day being 24 hour periods seems to generally favour short periods of time. This would mean that dinosaurs co-existed with humans. I have seen what appears to be dinosaur footprints and human footprints in the same strata of the earth but I don't know what to make of that. And if Noah took dinosaurs onto the Ark what happened to them after that?

 

[TB2]

Well it did have a beginning, that’s for sure. I also lean heavily towards an old earth.

Science certainly indicates that the earth/universe is billions of years old beyond a reasonable doubt.

Scripture, on the face of it, seems to indicate a young age earth. But this is only a problem if Genesis 1 was intended to give us scientific information on the subject, which I don’t think it was. (See, "Scientific Concordism vs Divine Accommodation")

 

[TB2]

.....there are basically no transitional fossils in the earth....

In fairness, there are legit transitional forms and even YEC organizations advise against using the "no transitional forms" argument anymore (See, here, fifth bullet point from bottom of list)

 

[TB2]

I heard recently a new theory for the extinction of the dinosaurs. They said something like a massive volcanic eruption blocked out the light of the sun. I don't actually know if this is a newer theory or not

The asteroid impact is still the leading theory with the most supporting evidence

However, the words in the Bible for night and day being 24 hour periods seems to generally favour short periods of time.

Agreed. The context would seem to make a regular, normal day the only possible understanding ("And there was evening and there was morning the first 'long period of time'" doesn't even make sense)

This would mean that dinosaurs co-existed with humans. I have seen what appears to be dinosaur footprints and human footprints in the same strata of the earth but I don't know what to make of that. And if Noah took dinosaurs onto the Ark what happened to them after that?

Only if Genesis 1 was meant to give us scientific information on the subject, which I don’t think it was. (See, "Scientific Concordism vs Divine Accommodation")

 

[David1701]

1c is about repairing.

It's also referring to the realm of ethics, which is why I didn't mention it - it's irrelevant to our discussion.

Ever figure out why we should "just trust Thayer's" when references are not provided? The BAG lexicon had some 10 column inches of references; the other literature provide a number of tangible cases if you are interested further. (Tangible means concrete objects involved like broken bones, not abstract concepts like ownership of property or virtues).

I'm sure that the printed editions of Thayer's have a great deal more detail, but I only have an electronic edition, as I mentioned.

I know what tangible and abstract mean, thanks. I can't remember what year it was, in primary school, that I learned, but it was a long time ago.

If you can find those translations that favored frame and tell me if they have a footnote, that would be great. I had a similar very puzzling case on the term 'dexastha' (to receive in honor) in Acts 3:21 where half of 20 translations checked simply said to keep (pass.: must be kept)--as though God was tying Christ down, when the previous expression was that God was sending him!

I have a KJV Hebrew/Greek Key Study Bible with a note cross-referencing an explanation of "Katartizo". I only have it in printed form, so I'll type out the explanation.

Heb. 11:3 (KJV) Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

"2675 Katartizo; from the intens. prep. kata (2596), with, and artizo, to adjust, fit, finish, derived in turn from artios (739), fit, complete. The fundamental meaning is to put a thing in its appropriate position, to establish, set up, equip, arrange. NT meanings: to adjust, adapt, dispose of, perhaps with great wisdom and propriety (Heb. 10:5; 11:3); to fit (Rom. 9:22); to perfect, finish, complete (Matt. 21:16; 1 Thess. 3:10; Heb. 13:21; 1 Pet. 5:10); to instruct fully or perfectly (Luke 6:40); to refit, repair, mend, applied to nets which have been broken (Matt. 4:21; Mark 1:19); to reunite in mind and sentiment, to reconcile, as opposed to having schisms, ruptures (1 Cor. 1:10); to reduce, restore as it were a disjointed limb (Gal. 6:1). Deriv.: katartisis (2676), completion; prokatartizo (4294), to perfect beforehand, make right, equip beforehand."

The numbers are references to the numbered entries in Strong's Heb./Greek Dictionary, which this study Bible also contains, as a concordance and basic gloss.

On Jer 4:23, I don't think you understand the consequence. When you have a unique expression like tohu wa-bohu, and it only shows in one other place, a lot of weight must go on that. Of course, the Jerusalem instance is an analogy, so what? Literarily we would follow the analogy, not leave it.

Jer. 4:23-31 is a poetic passage, using metaphorical comparisons (not exact comparisons) with the unformed and dark state of the Earth, just after its creation, but before it had been formed into its intended, completed condition.

What if we were reading LOTR and Gandalf just let Pippin keep a pilantir found at Saruman's tower as a toy and ignored what he knew (and we knew) from other experience? You'd probably choke at the inconsistency of the story.

An unwise decision ... and?

Waltke and Cassuto are two outstanding conservative Hebrew scholars. Cassuto single-handedly destroyed the JEDP hypothesis in FROM ADAM TO NOAH. Both remark that the tense of the imperfect Hebrew in the pre-existing condition stage of the narrative (before new action starts) is 'already' and Waltke found that Genesis was answering ancient near east cosmologies (Egyptian, Persian, Hindi). They were incorrectly dualistic, where good and evil have equal power. Genesis has Yahweh, who had destroyed what was there in judgement, and was using the material to make a new earth and solar system.

Here's part of the note on Gen. 1:2, from the same Bible as previously.

"...the Hebrew construction of verse 2 is disjunctive, describing the result of the creation described in verse one. The phrase "without form and void" is often misunderstood because of this rendering. These words are found only in a few other places (Is. 34:11; 45:18; Jer. 4:23). They do not describe chaos, but rather emptiness. A better translation would be "unformed and unfilled"."

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

In fairness, there are legit transitional forms and even YEC organizations advise against using the "no transitional forms" argument anymore (See, here, fifth bullet point from bottom of list)

I don't think YEC are very honest sometimes, though perhaps they mean well.

However, I still see no really good reasons to think there are transitional species. What you present there looks like microevolution and not macroevolution.

 

[TB2]

I don't think YEC are very honest sometimes, though perhaps they mean well.

Unfortunately you are correct, but there are also legit YEC scientists who publish in respected scientific journals (though fewer in number). I was fortunate enough to study under such scientists when earning my paleontology degree. These legit YEC scientists were actually the ones who taught me about the problems with flood geology and evidence for long ages and evolution! They have faith that one day the evidence will vindicate YEC, but are committed to honesty in all things.

However, I still see no really good reasons to think there are transitional species. What you present there looks like microevolution and not macroevolution.

Microevolution and macroevolution are frequently misunderstood terms. The YEC "within kinds" vs "between kinds" is not the actual scientific definition of those terms. Microevolution is simply change in allele/gene frequency in a population over time. And macroevolution (speciation) is the origin of a new species when part of a population becomes reproductively isolated. In short, if part of a population ceases to be able to reproduce with the rest of the population, then that's macroevolution/speciation. That's all it is, and there is extensive evidence for it. We've observed instantaneous speciation in a single step (such as via polyploidy) and observed speciation in real-time. Macroevolution does not require (nor does it mean) large changes in physical appearance; just reproductive isolation.

The thing about the fish-tetrapod transition is that at first we only had fish and tetrapod fossils, but with continued digging an entire series of "in between" fossils have been discovered, including fossils like Tiktaalik that have a combination of *both* fish and tetrapod traits. Together, the series of fossils does not represent a single macroevolutionary event, but numerous macroevolutionary/speciation events.

 

[David1701]

In fairness, there are legit transitional forms and even YEC organizations advise against using the "no transitional forms" argument anymore (See, here, fifth bullet point from bottom of list)

Here's what that bullet point actually says.

"“There are no transitional forms.” Since there are candidates, even though they are highly dubious, it’s better to avoid possible comebacks by saying instead: ‘While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even 150 years later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples.’"

Arguments we think creationists should NOT use

Arguments we think creationists should NOT use

creation.com

 

[GeneZ]

None of the verses quoted ^above^ addresses the concept of death.

You have to think these things through.

What was Adam told would happen to him of the day he ate of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil?

It seems you do not know.

 

[TB2]

Here's what that bullet point actually says.

"“There are no transitional forms.” Since there are candidates, even though they are highly dubious, it’s better to avoid possible comebacks by saying instead: ‘While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even 150 years later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples.’"

Arguments we think creationists should NOT use

Arguments we think creationists should NOT use

creation.com

Correct. Creation International still has a negative take, but advise against saying there are no transitional fossils. It's one thing to say there are fewer transitional forms than Darwin predicted (true statement), it's quite another to say there are no transitional fossils at all (false statement). The latter statement can no longer be maintained, because we literally have fossils intermediate between that have been discovered that were unknown before; like Tiktaalik, which has *both* fish and tetrapod traits.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Correct. Creation International still has a negative take, but advise against saying there are no transitional fossils. It's one thing to say there are fewer transitional forms than Darwin predicted (true statement), it's quite another to say there are no transitional fossils at all (false statement). The latter statement can no longer be maintained, because we literally have fossils intermediate between that have been discovered that were unknown before; like Tiktaalik, which has *both* fish and tetrapod traits.

I don't believe I said "there are no transitional forms". I had to nuance it because it seems to me there isn't much evidence for them, even if there are some.

Do you believe that Adam and Eve evolved from ape like creatures that preceded them or do you believe they were a special creation?

Which came first, the tree or the seed?

 

[GeneZ]

@GeneZ You misunderstood me. My problem is not so much with what you said here:

What baffled me was how you go from that to the idea of some prehistoric creation.


What prehistoric creation existed before our world and how do you know that it was under dominion of angels? Can you provide some Scripture to support this claim. Thanks.

You can deduct that because of what it says here...

“How you have fallen from heaven,
O star of the morning, son of the dawn!
You have been cut down to the earth,
You who have weakened the nations!​

Prophesy goes back in time, as well as the future.
Prophets could report on what was prehistoric to the hearers.

If you don't think so? Look ate Genesis One. Moses was there?

The concept of nations did not begin with our creation....

At the fall of Adam Satan became the prince of our world.
He took right over like it was something he knew how it was to be done.

 

[CrowCross]

Correct. Creation International still has a negative take, but advise against saying there are no transitional fossils. It's one thing to say there are fewer transitional forms than Darwin predicted (true statement), it's quite another to say there are no transitional fossils at all (false statement). The latter statement can no longer be maintained, because we literally have fossils intermediate between that have been discovered that were unknown before; like Tiktaalik, which has *both* fish and tetrapod traits.

When one speaks of "transition forms" one is speaking of evolutionism...descent with modifications.
Creation International is therefor endorsing evo-ism by saying we should not say there are "no transitional".

On the other hand if they are speaking of the difference we see in species captured in the fossil record deposited by Noahs Flood....perhaps they may have a point. But, as we all know the differences in species such as we see in the dog world....such as a pug face and and the long snoot of a collie isn't really evolution.

To be honest when one looks at the crushed, broken and mostly missing fossil material of the Tikaalik....one has to wonder how the evo-scientist came to those great conclusions. I would suggest it's because they needed those biased conclusions to help out their narrative,