# Thoughts on Genesis and young earth



## adamjthompson (Oct 19, 2013)

Thoughts gathered from my pastor's sermon last week:

There are certain scientific observations, which may appear to point to an earth far older than the Bible suggests. (For example, the fact that we can see galaxies which are apparently millions of light years away.) However, this shouldn't really surprise us:

The Genesis 1 accounts shows that God created the world in a manner than was an exception to our normal rules of time and measurement. For example, light itself was created before the bodies (stars, etc.) that give the light.
The Bible records other miracles where God created something that appeared to be older than it was. (Jesus creating wine at the wedding of Cana.)

A simple example to see how time and space do not limit God. Draw two dots on the floor, 2 feet apart. Now stand on the two dots - it's very easy for you to be in two places at once. But from an ant's perspective, it's impossible to do such a thing. It's unthinkable. It's outside your realm of comprehension. If you were an ant, you would have to be in one place or the other, and it would take you a lot of time to travel from one to the other. But not for you as a human. God is far greater compared to humans than humans are greater than ants.


----------



## raydixon9 (Oct 20, 2013)

You didn't pose a question but I will comment on your thoughts:

There are many scientific theory's pointing to an old earth, but no scientific observations.

Does distant starlight prove an old earth? 

I agree that God created something out of nothing in a non "normal" way. I'm not sure where you are getting that this was outside of a normal time and measurement.

Are the sun, moon, and stars the only thing that gives light? Certainly the moon just reflects light. If we believe in a God that creates, can't he create light without a sun?

I'm not quite sure what the aim of your post is but I am quite certain that there is much debate to be had with your pastor.


----------



## adamjthompson (Oct 20, 2013)

raydixon9 said:


> Does distant starlight prove an old earth?


No, it doesn't. That's the point.  Distant starlight might make the earth appear to be older, but that doesn't mean it is older. Just like the wine Jesus created would have appeared to be older than 10 minutes, but it wasn't.



raydixon9 said:


> I agree that God created something out of nothing in a non "normal" way. I'm not sure where you are getting that this was outside of a normal time and measurement.


Genesis 1 indicates that God created light before he created the sun and stars. This is backwards from the current reality. So it shouldn't surprise us that when we try to measure time since creation using light/stars, our answer might not match scripture. In which case we should trust scripture.



raydixon9 said:


> Are the sun, moon, and stars the only thing that gives light? Certainly the moon just reflects light. If we believe in a God that creates, can't he create light without a sun?


 Yes, exactly. He apparently did. Which means we shouldn't expect to be able to accurately measure the age of the universe by the stars/light since they were created out of order, as it were.



raydixon9 said:


> I'm not quite sure what the aim of your post is but I am quite certain that there is much debate to be had with your pastor.


I don't see there is much to debate, unless one is an old-earth creationist / theistic evolutionist. The point is simply that the Bible itself gives us hints as to why our scientific measurements may not match the Biblical timeline, and hopefully encourages us to trust the Bible.


----------



## Leslie (Oct 20, 2013)

Some people read Genesis 1:1 as historically before, way before, the creation of planet earth. The creation of planet earth as recorded in the rest of Genesis may have been a vision of the process, from the point of view of a hypothetical person who was present at the time, a human description. If this comports with the original text and not just with the English translation thereof, then the Genesis account is consistent with an old earth as well as with a young earth.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 20, 2013)

Leslie said:


> If this comports with the original text



It doesn't.


----------



## Skyler (Oct 20, 2013)

adamjthompson said:


> raydixon9 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that God created something out of nothing in a non "normal" way. I'm not sure where you are getting that this was outside of a normal time and measurement.
> ...



So your position is that God created light in the shape of stars, the sun, nebulae, pulsars, etc. before creating the objects themselves - or without actually creating the objects themselves, in the case of "ancient" supernovae?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this interpretation of God's creation of "light" seems to rely on a technical definition of "light" that wasn't developed until thousands of years after the original writing.


----------



## adamjthompson (Oct 20, 2013)

Skyler said:


> adamjthompson said:
> 
> 
> > raydixon9 said:
> ...



I suppose that is one possibility. Personally, I wouldn't dare say exactly how God did it. 

My position is merely that there are hints in the text and elsewhere in scripture that might explain why scientific measurements may not match up with scripture.


----------



## Skyler (Oct 20, 2013)

adamjthompson said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > adamjthompson said:
> ...



Of course, I agree with you that the particulars of God's act of creation are mysteries beyond our ken. But personally I don't think that the distant starlight question falls under that category. It has ramifications for the nature of reality today. Take the "created-light" hypothesis for example.

Given the special cases of supernovae like SN 1987a, where the speed of light would predict the star's demise tens or hundreds thousands of years before the creation of the universe (given a young-earth cosmology), an explanation like "God created the light from the star in transit" would mean that the star never actually had a chance to exist; it was just the illusion of a star all along.

The practical implication of this view is that the universe could be full of illusions that God set up at creation that are indistinguishable from reality. Scientific endeavors to explain how reality works would then be, on some level, pointless, because we can't tell the difference between what is real and what is "God's finger" toying with our instruments to test our faith.

I don't think that's the way the Bible portrays either God or His creation. I tend to view as suspect any hypothesis that proposes "divine illusion" to explain a phenomenon that we don't understand. There's no Biblical precedent for God to treat His creation in the way the created-light hypothesis suggests. It seems more a stopgap solution to mollify opponents rather than a Biblically-based answer to the problem.

And honestly, I'd rather just answer the objection with "I have no idea" than propose a speculative solution that has severe repercussions for the study of God's creation. And without Scriptural support, I don't think there's reason to believe the "created-light" hypothesis is any more than speculation.

I know that's probably a longer response than you were looking for.  The distant-light problem is just one that's been of particular interest to me in my studies.


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 20, 2013)

Skyler said:


> I'd rather just answer the objection with "I have no idea" than propose a speculative solution that has severe repercussions for the study of God's creation. And without Scriptural support, I don't think there's reason to believe the "created-light" hypothesis is any more than speculation.



Jonathan, I appreciate this. 

One thing about "Creation Science" that routinely bothers me is the tendency, or temptation, to "reverse engineer" a speculative hypothesis to fit the empirical data that we might disbelieve anyway. I've been technically trained in astronomy and physics, and I prefer your "I don't know" approach over trying to figure out the mechanics of accounting for empirical observations.

I perceive order and I know our current equations do a pretty good job of describing that order. The ways and hows of that order are beyond my ken.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 21, 2013)

The creation of light on the first day seems to be in order to His dividing the light from the darkness and creating the first day. 

Would it not be as true to say that He created day and night on the first day, as much as that He created light?

Re Creationism, the Creationists may be falling into the trap of responding to modern "popular" science's , "We've got it all sussed", with, "Nah, we've got it all sussed."

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## adamjthompson (Oct 21, 2013)

Skyler said:


> adamjthompson said:
> 
> 
> > Skyler said:
> ...



Agreed. That's pretty close to the point of my OP. It's OK to say "Yes, the earth may appear to be older than XX,XXX years old. I don't know why, but I'm not surprised. Creation itself didn't follow the normal order of events, and God elsewhere created things that looked older than they were. I don't know why this is the case, but I will trust scripture."


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 21, 2013)

That the light was created before the other bodies certainly has good precedent (And to clarify my own view, I agree with saying "I don't know" in the end, even if we do accept the light's course as being created first or a number of other things that may or may not be supported by the text. Not only is there not enough data to be decisive, and not only is science limited, empirical, and ever advancing, but miracles tend to evoke an "I don't know."). Here is Calvin as one among others:

"14. Let there be lights Moses passes onwards to the fourth day, on which the stars were made. God had before created the light, but he now institutes a new order in nature, that the sun should be the dispenser of diurnal light, and the moon and stars should shine by night. And He assigns them this office, to teach us that all creatures are subject to his will, and execute what he enjoins upon them. For Moses relates nothing else than that God ordained certain instruments to diffuse through the earth, by reciprocal changes, that light which had been previously created. The only difference is this, that the light was before dispersed, but now proceeds from lucid bodies; which in serving this purpose, obey the command of God."

"Let there be light It we proper that the light, by means of which the world was to be adorned with such excellent beauty, should be first created; and this also was the commencement of the distinction, (among the creatures.) It did not, however, happen from inconsideration or by accident, that the light preceded the sun and the moon. To nothing are we more prone than to tie down the power of God to those instruments the agency of which he employs. The sun and moon supply us with light: And, according to our notions we so include this power to give light in them, that if they were taken away from the world, it would seem impossible for any light to remain. Therefore the Lord, by the very order of the creation, bears witness that he holds in his hand the light, which he is able to impart to us without the sun and moon. Further, it is certain from the context, that the light was so created as to be interchanged with darkness. But it may be asked, whether light and darkness succeeded each other in turn through the whole circuit of the world; or whether the darkness occupied one half of the circle, while light shone in the other. There is, however, no doubt that the order of their succession was alternate, but whether it was everywhere day at the same time, and everywhere night also, I would rather leave undecided; nor is it very necessary to be known."


Incidentally, how does the Gap theory allow for long ages anyway, since the things that we measure to have aged were not created in Genesis 1:1? But perhaps that's better for another thread.


----------



## Logan (Oct 21, 2013)

I once read a very interesting speculation from a physicist regarding general relativity and the creation days. Also note I believe in a literal six days.

He postulated that similar to time dilation when going into the event horizon of a black hole, if there was a "big bang" (or as Sproul calls it, the Big God) explosion one could have the reverse of an event horizon in which things outside the event horizon "speed up" while inside they go incredibly slow, relatively speaking. This would allow for stars, nubulae and galaxies to age, explode, starlight from billions of light years away to reach the earth, etc. From the perspective of earth, there was a literal six days. From the perspective of the rest of the galaxy, billions of years. 

Young earth, old universe.

I definitely believe God could have created it all having the light instantaneously arrive at the earth. But I also don't know that this is how God did it. In other words, God could have used other means, the passage just doesn't tell us. Again, this is speculation but it also helps me to realize that my ways are not God's ways and he _could_ have done something like this.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 21, 2013)

The Gap Theory doesn't answer certain questions, unless you allow for a "Ruin-Reconstruction" Gap Theory, as advocated by e.g. Thomas Chalmers and the Schofield Study Bible.

The important thing is to see what the biblical text says, not in order to answer the questions of naturalists and theistic evolutionists or offer an alternative, but firstly in order to give an accurate account of what the biblical text is saying: Six Days, or a gap followed by Six Days.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Skyler (Oct 21, 2013)

Afterthought said:


> That the light was created before the other bodies certainly has good precedent (And to clarify my own view, I agree with saying "I don't know" in the end, even if we do accept the light's course as being created first or a number of other things that may or may not be supported by the text. Not only is there not enough data to be decisive, and not only is science limited, empirical, and ever advancing, but miracles tend to evoke an "I don't know."). Here is Calvin as one among others:
> 
> "14. Let there be lights Moses passes onwards to the fourth day, on which the stars were made. God had before created the light, but he now institutes a new order in nature, that the sun should be the dispenser of diurnal light, and the moon and stars should shine by night. And He assigns them this office, to teach us that all creatures are subject to his will, and execute what he enjoins upon them. For Moses relates nothing else than that God ordained certain instruments to diffuse through the earth, by reciprocal changes, that light which had been previously created. The only difference is this, that the light was before dispersed, but now proceeds from lucid bodies; which in serving this purpose, obey the command of God."
> 
> "Let there be light It we proper that the light, by means of which the world was to be adorned with such excellent beauty, should be first created; and this also was the commencement of the distinction, (among the creatures.) It did not, however, happen from inconsideration or by accident, that the light preceded the sun and the moon. To nothing are we more prone than to tie down the power of God to those instruments the agency of which he employs. The sun and moon supply us with light: And, according to our notions we so include this power to give light in them, that if they were taken away from the world, it would seem impossible for any light to remain. Therefore the Lord, by the very order of the creation, bears witness that he holds in his hand the light, which he is able to impart to us without the sun and moon. Further, it is certain from the context, that the light was so created as to be interchanged with darkness. But it may be asked, whether light and darkness succeeded each other in turn through the whole circuit of the world; or whether the darkness occupied one half of the circle, while light shone in the other. There is, however, no doubt that the order of their succession was alternate, but whether it was everywhere day at the same time, and everywhere night also, I would rather leave undecided; nor is it very necessary to be known."



To clarify, I don't disagree that God created light separately from the sun, moon, and stars. I just don't think that the light He created gave the illusion of a sun, moon, and stars before they existed.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 21, 2013)

Just a couple of very interesting quotes from Augustine he deduces fron scripture.


"if we are justified in understanding in this light the creation of the angels, ..... by which all things were made, and whom we call the only-begotten Son of God; so that they, being illumined by the Light that created them, might themselves become light and be called “Day,” in participation of that unchangeable Light and Day which is the Word of God .....The true Light, which lights every man that comes into the world,” John 1:9 — this Light lights also every pure angel, that he may be light not in himself, but in God; from whom if an angel turn away, he becomes impure, as are all those who are called unclean spirits, and are no longer light in the Lord, but darkness in themselves"

"In fine, Scripture, when it would recount those days in order, never mentions the word night. It never says, “Night was,” but “The evening and the morning were the first day.”

CHURCH FATHERS: City of God, Book XI (St. Augustine)


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 21, 2013)

Skyler said:


> To clarify, I don't disagree that God created light separately from the sun, moon, and stars. I just don't think that the light He created gave the illusion of a sun, moon, and stars before they existed.






Peairtach said:


> The important thing is to see what the biblical text says, not in order to answer the questions of naturalists and theistic evolutionists or offer an alternative, but firstly in order to give an accurate account of what the biblical text is saying: Six Days, or a gap followed by Six Days.


I agree, but even those who think they see a gap in Scripture tend to present it as a possible reason for apparent age (e.g., Robert Shaw lists it as one way people understood the discoveries of geology), though as I asked above, I don't really see how it solves anything significant with respect to that. And you agree! Well, you agree that at least that it doesn't answer certain questions, anyway; so I guess that's one answer to my question.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 21, 2013)

*Raymond*


> > Quote Originally Posted by Peairtach
> > The important thing is to see what the biblical text says, not in order to answer the questions of naturalists and theistic evolutionists or offer an alternative, but firstly in order to give an accurate account of what the biblical text is saying: Six Days, or a gap followed by Six Days.
> 
> 
> I agree, but even those who think they see a gap in Scripture tend to present it as a possible reason for apparent age (e.g., Robert Shaw lists it as one way people understood the discoveries of geology), though as I asked above, I don't really see how it solves anything significant with respect to that. And you agree! Well, you agree that at least that it doesn't answer certain questions, anyway; so I guess that's one answer to my question.



There are different kinds of Gap Theory, and even if the first verses of Genesis indicate the possibility of a gap, they don't tell us anything about its duration.


----------

