# The Creation of Earth



## cupotea (Jul 20, 2005)

It was about 6000 years ago, no?

I wouldn't even think to ask if it weren't for a sermon I heard last Sunday. A guest pastor at the church I'm attending for the summer (it's Congregational) was preaching about how scientific discoveries prove the existence of God, and he mentioned that the world was created through the Big Bang billions of years ago.

I was pretty surprised to hear that said right out in a Congregational Church. What do you guys think?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 20, 2005)

Theistic evolution?


----------



## cupotea (Jul 20, 2005)

Glad you see it the same way as I do. I wondered where he got that from, and how he justified it. We didn't see the creation of the world, so we don't when or how. But the Bible tells us it was about 6000 years ago, and it was done by God's hand, and it took 6 days. I know there are loopy churches that find ways to interpret it differently, I just didn't think Congregational was one of them.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 20, 2005)

6 literal 24 hour days. And the seventh was a sabbath.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Theistic evolution?



not necessarily and probably not.
OEC accepts a very old earth and yet believes each kind created supernaturally.

OEC, ie long ages for the days of creation is acceptable under the creation reports for both the OPC and the PCA, which BTW are extraordinarily good committee reports on the issues.

http://www.pcanet.org/history/creation/report.html
http://www.opc.org/GA/CreationReport.pdf

both rule out theistic evolution as an acceptable stand for a teaching elder.

....


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 20, 2005)

I thought it was around 10'000 years ago?

blade


----------



## Robin (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Cottonball_
> It was about 6000 years ago, no?



The age of the earth is NOT in the Bible. The geneologies in the OT are not successive. Plus, the age of the earth does NO harm or question to God's creative authority; the Gospel or salvation.

However, a historical Adam-garden-covenant is important and necessary. Theistic evolution is totally destructive to the Gospel.

But, you mention the AGE of the earth. If that's all that was considered, it's really no problem. Everything else must be in place though.



r.


----------



## Poimen (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Cottonball_
> ...



 

I believe in a young earth and I am virulently opposed to any kind of macro-evolution being imposed on the scriptures and yet I would assert that it is of the most blindest dogmatism to assert a definitive age of the earth and a '24 hour' period for the days of creation (Please note that this is not in reply to anyone here; just a blanket statement opposing fundamentalism). 

I think the following statement is very balanced:



> We believe that the whole creation was accomplished in six days (Gen. 1:31-2:2; Ex. 20:11). The creation days are to be understood as regular (solar) days, (Gen 1:14) and not as periods, times or years. The creation days are clearly defined as having morning and evening (Gen 1:5b, 8b, 13, 19, 23, 31b). We believe, therefore, in a young earth, and not one that is millions of years old.



http://www.burlingtonocrc.com/creation.html


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 20, 2005)

Westminster Confession, Chap. 4:



> I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,(a) for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness,(b) in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, *in the space of six days*; and all very good.(c)
> 
> (a) Heb. 1:2; John 1:2, 3; Gen. 1:2; Job. 26:13; Job. 33:4.
> (b) Rom. 1:20; Jer. 10:12; Ps. 104:24; Ps. 33:5, 6.
> (c) Gen. 1 chap.; Heb. 11:3; Col. 1:16; Acts 17:24.



John Calvin and Others on the Age and Creation of the Earth

John Calvin:


> "They will not refrain from guffaws when they are informed that but little more than *five thousand years have passed since the creation of the universe*... Must we pass over in silence the creation of the universe? No! God's truth is so powerful, both in this respect and in every other, that it has nothing to fear from the evilspeaking of wicked men." [John Calvin, _Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Vol. 2, edited by John T. McNeill (Philadelphia, PA; Westminster Press, 1960), p. 925 -- emphasis added]



Martin Luther:


> "We know from Moses that the world was not in existence before 6,000 years ago."



James Ussher on the Date of Creation



> Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould stated that if Bishop Usher was right about the Bible being true, then the date would be correct.



Johannes Kepler's Estimated Date of Creation: 3993 B.C.
Isaac Newton's Estimated Date of Creation: 3998 B.C.
Eusebius' Estimated Date of Creation: 3184 B.C.

Robert Dabney on Creation

Answers in Genesis on the 'Young Earth'

Answers in Genesis on Creation Compromises

Ken Gentry on the Reformed Faith and Six Day Creation

Ken Gentry on 'In the Space of Six Days'

GPTS Statement on Creation

Robert Shaw:


> According to the generally received chronology, the Mosaic creation took place 4004 years before the birth of Christ. If, indeed, the accounts of the Egyptians, Hindus, and Chinese, were to be credited, we should believe that the universe has existed, in its present form, for many millions of years; but these accounts have been satisfactorily proved to be false. And as a strong presumption that the world has not yet existed 6000 years, it has been often remarked that the invention of arts, and the erection of the earliest empires, are of no great antiquity, and can be traced back to their origin.



Evidence for a Young Earth

Creation Library


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Cottonball_
> ...



Why do you believe the Genesis genealogies are not accurate? Particlularly the specific numbers of ages and years? God put them there for a reason right?


----------



## Archlute (Jul 20, 2005)

Out here at WSC they really push the framework hypothesis (which, BTW, it cannot be called, according to some, unless you also say "six-day hypothesis"!). I am not in agreement with this at all, as it is a skewed hermeneutic employed with the goal of defending the impact of the Gospel from the derision of the intellegensia who think that scientific claims demand something other than a "biblicist rendering" of the creation account. It claims to be sensitive to a Hebraic understanding of the peotic/literary nature of the creation account, while never answering the question, "Well, O.K., now that we've discussed all of the literary techniques and artistry, just what was the actual temporal/sequential nature of those days?" It is driven by a concordist impulse at heart, although they try their pastoral and scholarly best to deny it.

One thing that I must agree with however, is that the geneologies, while inspired by the Holy Spirit, and while completely accurate in all that they set forth, do indeed have omissions in places. Dr. Estelle did a fine and irrefutable job of showing this by comparing various geneologies in Scripture, and pointing out where there is no doubt that for theological reasons the various authors of these geneologies omitted certain names that had been included in other listings. That does not mean that they are not in the geneological line, but that these geneologies are not strictly successive and chronological at all places. He emphasised that all of history is theologically shaped (even the historiography of secular historians), and that God has also directed the authors of Scripture to set forth the history of redemption with utterly truthful, yet divinely shaped, perspective.

The purpose of this was to show that even if you uncompromisingly support a six solar-day creation, as I myself do, that you must still allow for the possibility that the age between Adam and Noah allow for larger time spans than you would get if you just plugged in the numbers of the geneologies. There were also examples of "ben-*****" (son of so and so) being employed, in Hebrew fasion, where actually the individual was a grandson or even a great grandson. I don't have my notes at hand, for exact references, but these things were definately there when we looked them up.


----------



## daveb (Jul 20, 2005)

This thread brought to mind something I read the other day:

"...when ministers seek to tell the geologist the age of the earth, although the Scriptures are entirely silent on the point, they too transgress the limits of their sphere."

Michael Horton, _Beyond Culture Wars_, 103.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Jul 20, 2005)

It is driven by a concordist impulse at heart,

i'm curious. if God is the author of both the book of nature and the Scriptures, why does the word concordist have such a negative connotation in the conservative community? 

....


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 6 literal 24 hour days. And the seventh was a sabbath.


----------



## Archlute (Jul 20, 2005)

I think what bothers me the most about it is its failure to challenge the unbelieving presuppositions at work in the findings of much "scientific evidence", and realigning the Scriptures' plain sense with that without much of a challenge to the interpretation of those findings (and, yes, I understand and agree with the concepts analogous language in Scripture, anthropomorphisms, yada, yada). While agreeing that God wrote both the book of nature and the Scriptures, I also am convinced that unregenerate scientists are blinded and actively opposed to a proper and fully Scriptural understanding of those facts, and the inconsistency of some of my professors on this point, and the Van Tillians that they profess to be, is maddening. I mean, on one hand, he just finishes ingraining into our brains the idea that "there are no brute and uninterpreted facts, and all knowledge is theologically shaped" when explaining the passages of Scripture on creation, and then he turns around the next moment and discusses the interpretation of certain scientists as if they were "brute facts" and our Scriptural interpretations must bend to them. Very inconsistent and frusterating. 

I realized that the above statement is not very well defended and nuanced, but after spending over a full third of last semester having "Framework" ground into my head for a Penateuch course (yes, we had to fit the rest of the pentateuch into the remaining nine weeks) I am not very keen about an extended discussion. Sorry.


----------



## Archlute (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> It is driven by a concordist impulse at heart,
> 
> i'm curious. if God is the author of both the book of nature and the Scriptures, why does the word concordist have such a negative connotation in the conservative community?
> ...



I apologize for not listing this referent in my response, still figuring these things out.

[Edited on 7-20-2005 by Archlute]


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Jul 20, 2005)

> While agreeing that God wrote both the book of nature and the Scriptures, I also am convinced that unregenerate scientists are blinded and actively opposed to a proper and fully Scriptural understanding of those facts,



the work in geology that presents an ancient earth was done by Christians who were trying to prove that the flood had occurred planetwide. 
so either this blindness includes lots of Christians, not just then but in the intervening 2 centuries.
or the blindness is specific to honoring God as God and has little to nothing to do with the physical sciences.


.....


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> It is driven by a concordist impulse at heart,
> 
> i'm curious. if God is the author of both the book of nature and the Scriptures, why does the word concordist have such a negative connotation in the conservative community?
> ...



Because, it usually means that a person is going to use scientific experiments in order to reveal to us what the Bible must really be saying.

CT


----------



## JohnV (Jul 20, 2005)

The point is, the minister got his information neither from general revelation nor special revelation. Nor did he receive any commission from God to preach it. If the laying on of hands means anything anymore, then it ought to mean that the person is commissioned by God through duly ordained ministers of His. What this particular incident amounts to is a man preaching his own gospel, not God's. There is only one view that is properly from general and special revelation, (not one or the other, but both in reference to each other saying the precise same thing), and that is the six-day view. Anything else is speculative at best. 

We can come up with theories that fit into the Scriptural wording, and seem to fit the modern scientific speculations, but that does not mean a whole lot because that's all it is. What we have to look for is irrefutable (not just unrefuted) truths, and we may base things only on those truths, especially if we are going to preach God's Word. And when we do that, preach God's Word, we have to even more sure before we preach. We can't play tug-of-war with each other, with the Holy Spirit as the chord we're tugging on.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> 
> 
> > While agreeing that God wrote both the book of nature and the Scriptures, I also am convinced that unregenerate scientists are blinded and actively opposed to a proper and fully Scriptural understanding of those facts,
> ...



For your question to have teeth, I think you have to assume that it is not possible to mix Christian with non Christian presuppositions. Since I do not see any reason to believe that the two cannot be mixed (however badly the result is), I do not see where you are attempting to take the conversation. Just becomes one takes the presupposition that the flood was global (a very good presupposition) does not mean that all other presuppositions are consistent with scriptures.

CT


----------



## Archlute (Jul 20, 2005)

I agree John. It was clear to me in class that the obvious meaning of the text was an intellectual embarrassment to some, and that the main reason these ideas were trying to be wrapped around the words of Scripture was to make the creation passage look more scientifically respectable. Exegetically speaking, they are clearly speculative. 

It is also a matter of simple truth. This hit home when I was leading a congregation in reciting the decalogue one Lord's Day. We came to the part in the fourth commandment regarding the six days for work and one for rest and worship being linked with the six days of creation, and it hit me like a lightning bolt that if a priest in Israel were to have recited this to the people, all the while winking at the "simple meaning" of the passage while knowing the "true and hidden meaning", he would be a hypocrite and unsuited to lead the people of the God of all truth in worship. Likewise, for God to have Moses state this relationship between creation days and worship days, all the while knowing that he could have had Moses write about the "first through six era/ages/generations", or what have you is a flight of fancy. God is not so trancendent that he cannot convey clear concepts in Scripture regarding time and structure (look at the instructions for the tabernacle, etc.)

Also, as much as critics like to stress that "yom" has many shades of meaning, it is obvious that "yom" in this context means solar days. No one from that camp has yet given a convincing explaination of how else to understand yom in the context of this - "wayhi ereb wayhi boqer yom echad" (then it was evening and it was morning, the first day/day one). Regardless of the timing of formation of the sun, moon, and stars, since these distinctions carry themselves through the entire week. Evening and morning (ereb weboqer) are certainly clear in their meaning elsewhere in the Hebrew text.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 20, 2005)

That's right, Adam. God was not fishing for a way to state His commandment, worried about the limitations of a so-called "pre-scientific" audience. His Word will stand forever, even long after our scientific speculations become the joke of future generations. It is still just as reliable in every word, and still just a true to His meaning; not limited to that generation's understanding, or lack of it. There is only one creation view found in Scripture, and you've stated it, as you found in the decalogue. Anything else is nothing more than speculation. We are not just miles away from putting God's stamp of approval on other views, we are lightyears away from that. We are not even close to equating the six-day view to any other view. We have no right to be waving our Sola Scriptura flag in one hand and holding the flags of speculative views with the other.


----------



## daveb (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by daveb_
> This thread brought to mind something I read the other day:
> 
> "...when ministers seek to tell the geologist the age of the earth, although the Scriptures are entirely silent on the point, they too transgress the limits of their sphere."
> ...



This is the objection I face quite regularly. I certainly affirm the literal 6 day creation with 24hr days and believe the earth is ~6000 years old.

What do you think of Horton's statement? Is he being careful not to exegetically go where we do not have warrant? Is this a denial of Scriptural evidence?


----------



## JohnV (Jul 20, 2005)

quote]


> "...when ministers seek to tell the geologist the age of the earth, although the Scriptures are entirely silent on the point, they too transgress the limits of their sphere."
> 
> Michael Horton, Beyond Culture Wars, 103.



What do you think of Horton's statement? Is he being careful not to exegetically go where we do not have warrant? Is this a denial of Scriptural evidence? [/quote]

I don't have Horton's context of that statement, so I can't say what his intention is. But the bare statement itself supposes more than is actually true. We do have warrant to speak on some things that are stated in Scripture that bear on the age of the earth, though the references are not specific as to exact times. It is a greater stretch, by far, to suppose that time frames theorized by man can also fit into the Biblical scheme. A forced fit is a forced fit, no matter how you slice it. If the objection is that the "ministers seek to tell the geologist the age of the earth", then it ought also to objected that geologists try to tell the ministers the age of the earth, for both are equally in the dark, forensically. But what I would object to more is the geologist telling the minister the proper exegesis of the Bible when it comes to what is received by faith (Heb 11:3) 

Why are Christians so skiddish about telling the geologist anything, but can't see that it is the geologist who is trying to do the dictating outside his field, not the ministers preaching outside of theirs? Hypothesis is not fact, it is just hypothesis; but the Bible is the Bible. And other theories of origins are not doctrine, but just hypotheses. However, God said that we were to keep the seventh day separate as He did at creation; and we are merely hypothesizing if we make of it other than the plain reading of the text. We have no warrant to do that, and could easily be guilty of subverting God's own deliberate reference by doing so. 

What I was objecting to was the illicit trust in man's theories on par with trust in Scripture. It is God who makes the tie of the creation to six normal days, so that is not jsut human theory; it is revelation. I object strongly to putting down God's reference and elevating man's theories, so that they appear to be on par, as if we have a multiple choice of equal weights here. This completely confuses the actuality of the case. We have man's theories compared to God's Word, and they are not even close to being on par. There are theories, and as theories they may be fun to think about as possiblities. But we don't have a multiple choice of equal views to choose from, each being equally obedient in faith as the other (Heb 11:3). Listing them side by side is like lining up dandelions against a Redwood tree to see which is biggest.


----------



## daveb (Jul 20, 2005)

Thanks for your insight John I appreciate it very much. We only have certainty with the revelation we have received from the Lord. The theories of men, no matter how enticing they may appear, are simply not to be considered on the same level. I often have to remind myself to speak where Scripture speaks and be silent where Scripture is silent.

In the book Horton mentions that scientists should not comment on spiritual realities since it is out of their "sphere". My apologies for not including this portion.


----------



## cupotea (Jul 20, 2005)

Thanks, guys! I've enjoyed reading your replies, and I'm glad to know you agree with me. I guess the question to ask now, then, is: what was with that minister?!


----------



## JohnV (Jul 20, 2005)

Lack of proper oversight.


----------



## Robin (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Robin_
> ...



The reason for the geneologies are to attest Christ and the unbroken thread of the Gospel. The geneologies are not complete - they are accurate - but not successive, meaning recording one patriarch after another. The point is to prove God's awesome work in preserving the Gospel thread from Genesis 3:15. Likewise, the point of the Creation story/days is to attest God as Creator, in power and majesty...NOT to calculate the age of the earth or further speculation beyond the Text's content. 

r.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



God placed those numbers there right? There are inspired correct? Did Methuselah actually live to be 969 years old? Did he actually have a son named Lamech at age 182? Or is this just more Hebrew poetry which needs a framework spin? 

I'm talking about the Genesis geneology here. I fully understand that Matthew and Luke took some inspired license in their accounts (even though Luke's account is almost identical to Genesis). But Matthew and Luke don't have specific numbers either. Genesis has specific numbers. They can't be ignored.


----------



## cupotea (Jul 21, 2005)

I do think it's pretty neat/impressive of Ussher to have done all of that math, adding up the generations. Perhaps I especially appreciate it because my roommate, when hearing about it, shreeked, "What an idiot!"


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Cottonball_
> It was about 6000 years ago, no?
> 
> I wouldn't even think to ask if it weren't for a sermon I heard last Sunday. A guest pastor at the church I'm attending for the summer (it's Congregational) was preaching about how scientific discoveries prove the existence of God, and he mentioned that the world was created through the Big Bang billions of years ago.
> ...



October 14th, 4004 BC at 9 AM.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> God placed those numbers there right? There are inspired correct? Did Methuselah actually live to be 969 years old? Did he actually have a son named Lamech at age 182? Or is this just more Hebrew poetry which needs a framework spin?
> 
> I'm talking about the Genesis geneology here. I fully understand that Matthew and Luke took some inspired license in their accounts (even though Luke's account is almost identical to Genesis). But Matthew and Luke don't have specific numbers either. Genesis has specific numbers. They can't be ignored.



Genesis 5/10 present real hermeneutical challenges, don't they? They are certainly written in a way that seems to imply chronology. And yet, there are demonstrable gaps in them, when one compares them with the gospels. Another challenge is that we have recorded histories that go back that far: Egypt, Sumer, etc. We might expect that going back to c. 2800 BC (Ussher's Flood date roughly), but not before.

I used to argue for an unbroken genealogy in Gen 5/10, but now I just don't know.


----------



## Robin (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Robin_
> ...



Hey Pat... Rev. Carroll is onto something.

There are many factors that affect interpretation of how God works in history. Some are: the use of numbers in Scripture can be quite different than our uses; motifs (trees; water; wine; clotheing; rocks, Etc.) This will accomplish a double-purpose: the items are literal and historical to the moment AND also symbolize a broader point in the whole story of Redemptive history. Literal AND symbolic. It may shock our arrogant sense of superior-knowledge, but the qualities of genre in the Bible are continuing to prove quite different than expected. Our problem is mostly cultural/historical ignorance - and then those pesky times when God simply insists that He is God and is silent on details of things we think we need to know. Clearly, THE one point not worth distraction is *date-setting* - especially, when it comes to using it as an apologetic (which is NO apologetic.)

Setting dates is impossible - because God has FIXED it that way. Why? He requires faith in the Gospel - validated by the works He has done, so the glory goes entirely to Him.

As an aside, I'm studying the qualities of OT prophecy language, now...so far, it is fascinating to learn that the content of them are mixed with many different "timelines." It's right and prudent to consider these differences and to have a more reserved, respectful stance towards the Text, which in my opinion, has many intricate facets.

I am humbled by God's works in history...and more arrested with the knowledge of His continuing orchestration of Redemptive history via the Gospel.



r.

[Edited on 7-22-2005 by Robin]


----------



## JohnV (Jul 21, 2005)

> The geneologies are not complete - they are accurate - but not successive, meaning recording one patriarch after another. The point is to prove God's awesome work in preserving the Gospel thread from Genesis 3:15. Likewise, the point of the Creation story/days is to attest God as Creator, in power and majesty...NOT to calculate the age of the earth or further speculation beyond the Text's content.


It may be difficult to accept one assumption, but that does not make the other one automatically right, whether or not it is hard to accept. There could be many reasons for what appears as a broken genealogy, especially if the ages mentioned are correct. It is not impossible to have uncles hundreds of years younger than their nephews; a man could marry a woman who could be counted as two generations previous; or the father of one son could have more years separating him from him than a grandfather or greatgrandfather of his friend or neighbour. Things like this would really mess up the intention of a genealogy, and could easily lead to unaccustomed accountings. It is obvious that a lot was left out, such as why one generation was passed over in the redemptive genealogy, when another generation not necessarily as faithful was counted in. It isn't just a matter of accuracy, and I don't doubt that accuracy. We also have use common sense. You can't just shrug it off as if it is only symbolic; nor can you count the generations like we would in our day, with our much shorter life-spans.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...


Which histories you are refering to? As I understand it, we have about 3000 years of written history (which puts us to about 1000 B.C.) apart from the Bible. The rest is implied history (i.e. interpreted by presuppositions).

Matthew and Luke had points to make in their geneaolgies. They did not contain the specific numbers. But Genesis contains specific numbers of ages and lifespans. How can we not take them to be what the natural reading would say? What would justify denying the literal understanding of that account knowing that it is a narrative history, not prophecy or prose? To say those numbers aren't important, as some would seem to imply, seems to me to fly in the face of the great details God purposely left us. 

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Which histories you are refering to? As I understand it, we have about 3000 years of written history (which puts us to about 1000 B.C.) apart from the Bible. The rest is implied history (i.e. interpreted by presuppositions).



Egyptian, primarily. But you may be right about the presuppositions.



> Matthew and Luke had points to make in their geneaolgies.



And you don't think Moses did?



> They did not contain the specific numbers. But Genesis contains specific numbers of ages and lifespans. How can we not take them to be what the natural reading would say? What would justify denying the literal understanding of that account knowing that it is a narrative history, not prophecy or prose?



Do we know that?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



Same here.

I think some of the difficulty can be resolved by looking at the Hebrew, rather than looking merely at our English translations.

Of course, I am not a Hebrew scholar. But from what I have read about Genesis 5 and 10, the word "begat" in Hebrew does NOT mean the same thing that it does in English. In English, it is unmistakable. If I say, "John begat Vinny at age 65", then that means Vinny is John's child, and was born when John was 65 years old. But in Hebrew, the usage can be much looser. 

It is my understanding that it would be _just as accurate_ to translate the Hebrew word for "begat" as "became the ancestor of". 

(The RSV gets a little closer to this translation by using the phrase "became the father of" in Genesis 5 . . . but of course you know that "father" is often used in Scripture as synonymous with "ancestor" [cf. Gal. 3:29].)

Now, if I say, "John became the ancestor of Vinny at age 65", that _could_ still mean that Vinny is John's child, and was born when John was 65 years old. But that is not the _only_ possible meaning. It could also mean that, at age 65, John fathered Vinny's great-great grandfather. We are told that John became Vinny's ancestor at the age of 65, but we have _no idea whatsoever_ how many years there were in between the birth of Vinny's great-great grandfather, and the birth of Vinny himself.

In other words, a strict dateable chronology _might perhaps_ be true in Genesis 5 and 10, but we can be in no way _sure_ that is the case. There might be hundreds or thousands of years in between Jared and Enoch. We just don't know.

(However, it does seem clear that there were no interceding generations between Lamech and Noah, since we are specifically told that Lamech named Noah. But we are not told that information about those between Seth and Lamech.)


----------



## Robin (Jul 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by daveb_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by daveb_
> ...



Horton is doing what we should do: not speak beyond Scripture. As to the literal day conclusion, a 6,000 year-old earth cannot be derived from it. The dots are not connected. Calculating the age of the earth is speculating.

APOLOGETICS ADVICE

What I've learned, so far...when in apologetical discussions, we should refrain from concluding the earth's age and steer towards the historical FACTS of God's creation power to the existence of Adam and Eve. 

From here, I argue the fact of Adam and Eve from Christ -- since Jesus attested their reality. That way, the opponent is confronted with Christ's authority. (Btw, I have never seen the opposition prevail, here. It seems not many are ready to deal with Jesus' words. Must be something powerful in the name?)

Admitting the mistakes and knuckleheadedness of our forebears is also good to do. Move back to *Christ*'s teaching a historical Adam; Noah; Jonah. The point is: *not* to defend incredible claims of a God that spoke the universe into existence; talking snakes; a global flood; a man living inside a fish - but to defend: Jesus Christ, who lived, died and was raised on the third day. Let the Gospel defend God's existence and power.

This is what Scripture does...and I think we're wise to do the same.



Robin


----------



## sastark (Jul 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Horton is doing what we should do: not speak beyond Scripture. As to the literal day conclusion, a 6,000 year-old earth cannot be derived from it. The dots are not connected. Calculating the age of the earth is speculating.
> 
> APOLOGETICS ADVICE
> ...



Robin, I may be completely misunderstanding what you are saying, and if I am, I apologize in advance.

Are you saying that God speaking the universe into existence, the temptation of Eve by Satan, a global flood, and Jonah in the belly of the fish are *not* historical facts? Are you saying that we need to gloss over the "difficult" parts of the OT and focus only on Christ and the NT?

Again, if I am misunderstanding what you are saying, I apologize. I'm really not trying to put words in your mouth.

But, if that is what you are saying, how in the world do you expect an unbeliever to accept the historical fact that a virgin got pregnant by the Holy Spirit, gave birth to the Son of God incarnate, this boy became a man who was perfect, never sinning, that He was cruicfied, was dead for three days and then came back to life, after which His physical body ascended into heaven where He waits until the Last judgment? I mean, really, which is more "difficult" to believe? Personally, the fact that I believe in the above stated historical facts makes it *easy* for me to believe the "difficult" passages of the OT. A virgin giving birth. A man being dead for three days and then coming back to life. A body ascending in to heaven. And you think a talking snake is a stretch?


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Jul 22, 2005)

Robin while using that argument seems strong, all a skeptic has to do, is to deny the miracles of Jesus, hence stripping the Gospel of which the Creation is dependent upon, of its power.

I say preach the whole Bible. What is ridiculously laughable is a man descending from a monkey. I illucidate and mock this tenet so much with utmost sophistication that I drive my opponents into shame. I also show that it is the very evolutionary concept that gave rise to racism, by pointing out the fraudulent studies that show that Africans are by nature inferior to caucasians. If there is one thing a skeptic cannot stand is to be called a racist. All you have to do, is to show him being a racist is a natural extension of his "scientific thinking". Their natural selection is thrown to shreds when one shows discrimination against various groups. Simply say, well I guess African Americans are getting their just deserts from their inherent inferior status, hence those discriminating against them is doing no wrong etc.

After exposing that, I leave them in their shame.

[Edited on 7-22-2005 by Slippery]


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Jul 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> Robin while using that argument seems strong, all a skeptic has to do, is to deny the miracles of Jesus, hence stripping the Gospel of which the Creation is dependent upon, of its power.
> 
> I say preach the whole Bible. What is ridiculously laughable is a man descending from a monkey. I illucidate and mock this tenet so much with utmost sophistication that I drive my opponents into shame. I also show that it is the very evolutionary concept that gave rise to racism, by pointing out the fraudulent studies that show that Africans are by nature inferior to caucasians. If there is one thing a skeptic cannot stand is to be called a racist. All you have to do, is to show him being a racist is a natural extension of his "scientific thinking". Their natural selection is thrown to shreds when one shows discrimination against various groups. Simply say, well I guess African Americans are getting their just deserts from their inherent inferior status, hence those discriminating against them is doing no wrong etc.
> ...



you must be unaware of the Hamatic verses and their usage for justifying the black man's slavery in the American South. Neither racism or social darwinianism are logical outcomes of evolutionary thought and to posit this argument will not shame any competent debater. They are historical metaphysics drawn out of the science and don't condemn the science any more than Dabney's _Defense of Virginia_ invalidates Christianity.

in fact i will PM you two places for you to argue this, i'd love to see you try this old PRATT- "point refuted a thousand times" there.

after posting remorse:
i apologize for the strength of this, i spend hours each day discussing these things and forget where i am.
i love Dabney's work and think him a great Christian but i struggled long to understand and counter his arguments.
http://dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/hap6.html

the abuse of something is no argument against its use.
Dabney doesn't so much abuse Scripture as allow his culture to blind him to Scriptures greater principles.

there are several excellent books on social darwinianism as a perversion of the science
i have only skimmed the End of Racism by D'Souza, Dinesh
but when i re-engage with the topic i will start there.

also on the list tbr
science and politics of racial research; tucker, williams
social darwinism; bannister, robert
....


[Edited on 7-22-2005 by rmwilliamsjr]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> 
> you must be unaware of the Hamatic verses and their usage for justifying the black man's slavery in the American South. Neither racism or social darwinianism are logical outcomes of evolutionary thought and to posit this argument will not shame any competent debater. They are historical metaphysics drawn out of the science and don't condemn the science any more than Dabney's _Defense of Virginia_ invalidates Christianity.



 Well said!


----------



## JohnV (Jul 22, 2005)

Keon is right about the lack of shame. People claim descendency from monkeys and are not the least ashamed of such utter stupidity. They are even proud. We also do such things in Christian circles. I've seen a whole denomination crumble under the self-centred suggestions of feminism. But they are not at all ashamed. If people are not ashamed of such things, there remains hardly anything left to say to them that would convince them of anything at all. If people are that gullible, you can't even be sure that they understood the gospel, even if they assent to it. 

If we just think about it a minute: why would the Scripture state that a particular person became an "ancestor" at a particular age, if it did not intend to state that that person became the father of a son at that age? It boggles the mind. What becomes of the rule about plain meaning, and what about the Biblical mandate not to dispute about words? Are the doubts cast upon Scripture so compelling? Don't the doubts also cast doubts upon alternative meanings equally as much? 

For example, one could call into question the meaning of the word "yom", but that is hardly a licence to go touting other theories based on other meanings of the word; especially it is no licence to think that other views of creation are on anywhere near the same level as the six-day view we find in Scripture; that would constitute a giant leap in logic. 

I agree that there is much we don't understand. But not understanding is not proof. And it does not overthrow Scripture. It doesn't even overthrow myth.


----------



## Robin (Jul 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Robin_
> ...



Seth,

No - I'm not saying the OT is not historical! I'm saying, let Jesus defend Adam and Eve; Noah; Jonah. I am saying that too often the Christian accepts too much burden of proof from opponents -- and worse -- is unaware or doubtful of the P O W E R of Christ's words in apologetics. (Which is sin and dishonors the Lord.)

Apparently, Paul never sought to begin his argument from the pagan ideologies in Athens (Acts 17:16.) Athenians believed the world was mounted on the back of a giant tortoise; that the sun was Apollo driving his fiery chariot; and other unChristian scientific ideas. While Paul knew and quoted (v. 28) their scholars' writings of the day he boldly proclaimed God's creative authority and led right to the Gospel. As the Text explains, he didn't gain many converts; they called him a "babbler." But he was faithful to the call of every apologist for Christ. (I am also saying the content of Paul's speech in Acts 17:16-- is the way to go for the pagan. Our times being similar to theirs!)

What you might be missing Seth is, God creates faith in the hearts of dead sinners by hearing the Gospel. The moment human ears come into contact with the information about Christ (1 Cor. 15) it is that very thing that God has empowered to make the dead-soul live. The Gospel is "infectious" in the best sense. Exposure to it will bring about God's intended purpose. (The ultimate result, we may not be privileged to witness, btw.)

If God promises to create belief via a specific thing: the Gospel -- why do we delay in bringing the discussion to that asap -- do we doubt Him? 

It's one thing to get hung-up on arguing about the reality of the global flood; it's another to explain the Gospel from the flood story (which can be done wonderfully.) I prefer the latter.

I hope everyone's clear as to what the Gospel is and is not. Mentioning the word: Gospel IS NOT The Gospel. However, explaining that a man (Jesus Christ) was dead and became alive again...that IS.

And Seth....whether you know it or not, you believe in (example)Noah's ark because you first believed The Dead-Guy came back to life. 

I know...this doesn't have the WOW-factor that the search for Noah's ark may have. The Gospel is "foolish" to the Greek (those interested in knowledge) and a "stumbling block" to the Jew (those interested in religion.) These two categories summarize all the unbelief on the planet. God's means to "complete" the time of the Gentiles is The Gospel.



R.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't doubt Moses had a point to his record, but he is much more specific. He gives specific ages when fathers had children, and how long they lived afterward. What are we to do with such specific data? Even if the descendent named is not a son but a grandson or great grandson, the specific age of the "father" is still mentioned when that descendent was born. That pattern repeats over and over again. I don't think God gave us such specifics just to be ignored. Unless an alternative explaination exists for how to understand these specific ages, I have no reason to doubt a literal understanding of the ages recorded. Thus, a chronology can be constructed from the Genesis account. Does this mean we are trying to use the Bible for scientific conclusions? No. It's history. Real history. These are real people, who lived real lives in history. We may learn spiritual lessons from them, we may see the divine providence in preserving the line of Christ, but these are still real people. I see know reason to doubt the ages given.


----------



## Robin (Jul 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> Robin while using that argument seems strong, all a skeptic has to do, is to deny the miracles of Jesus, hence stripping the Gospel of which the Creation is dependent upon, of its power.
> I say preach the whole Bible.



Keon,

I didn't want to let this slip by....

If I understand correctly, it is thought if Jesus' miracles are denied, the Gospel is left powerless??

I wonder what scriptural proof is there for that assumption?

If you're meaning that denying the resurrection (as a miracle) -- well, I suppose the denial of it will keep them in their sin. But it is written....no matter who denies XYZ miracles of Christ...the information about Him: His life, death, resurrection is still MORE POWERFUL - and is the power to save them. God's purpose will not be thwarted.

Explaining the knowledge of Christ to hostile unbelievers may not make us look smart or powerful. But the Bible insists that it is precisely THIS foolishness (the knowledge of Christ) that IS the power of God. (1 Cor. 1:17-24)

Btw, I am not saying there must be a present-visible agreement with the opponent. I am saying we are to P R O C L A I M the Message, and leave it (if need be.) At the very least, make sure they understand what the proposition is: a real dead-guy comes back to life, in real history-violating the laws of physics; a complete reversal of death. This is a stripped-bare version - but the concept is what's important. 

Human-agreement does not empower the Gospel! The Holy Spirit empowers it. 

Whenever the Gospel is clearly explained/proclaimed, it accomplishes God's purpose (whether we see results or not.) Who knew that even Pharaoh's unbelief was ordained to reveal God's power and name? Bear in mind, the unbeliever is given the breath in which he curses God - by God Himself.

Are we willing to suffer and be reviled for believing such an idiotic story? Scripture says suffering in this way proves we are Christ's.

Selah



r.



[Edited on 7-23-2005 by Robin]


----------



## JohnV (Jul 23, 2005)

Robin:

I think what some of the objections are taking into account is that, if you cannot trust the Bible when it deals with verifiable things, like science and history, then there is no reason to trust the Bible in matters of faith. That would be how an unbeliever would look at it. Which is ridiculous, of course, because they are in no better shape in verifying their own theologies in the manner they make claim against Christianity. However, the way a Christian looks at it, because the Word is reliable in matters of faith, there is also an umimpeachable reliability in matters of science and history. Not because we take it in faith, but because we have a very real and knowledgable faith in a very real and knowable God. Nothing stands on a faith that springs out of ourselves, as it does for unbelievers.

So, although you are right about implanted faith, there is also an intrinsic validity to proving that things of real history and real science are tied to a real faith. We can, in sum, trust facts as facts because they too are revelations of God's divinity and power just as they are. What we are doing is showing the unbeliever that he cannnot make of them whatever he fancies in his imagination, but that a fact is a fact, not something that is true only when subjected to his interpretation. We are not reading everything out of a man-made faith, or grid of our own making. We can show that we are reading the facts just as they really are. For all truth ties together, or else we wouldn't know truth at all.

[Edited on 7-24-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## Robin (Jul 24, 2005)

Well said, John! 

All I was trying to emphasize was the Gospel is not a part of General Revelation (nature.) It falls in the Special Revelation (Christ in history relayed in Scripture) camp. There is no way to prove the Gospel from General Revelation; it inhabits the presinct of Special Revelation, only. (Important distinctions to understand.)



r.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 24, 2005)

Funny thing, though, once you know that the world was created by God through faith, all of general revelation becomes like a majestic exclamation point for special revelation, like they never were apart from each other. Makes you wonder how you never saw it before.


----------



## Robin (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Funny thing, though, once you know that the world was created by God through faith, all of general revelation becomes like a majestic exclamation point for special revelation, like they never were apart from each other. Makes you wonder how you never saw it before.



Ain't that the truth?!!! Many times elation overwhelms me in the garden upon seeing a bumble-bee or new plant growth. (It doesn't take much...) It's like having "God-glasses" on: a sense of admiration and wonder for the beloved Creator's skill and artistry, comes to the fore of my heart. Meanwhile, my pagan-friend (scientist) who regularly studies nature and is impressed by it, cannot understand my reactions. He is simply indifferent to an awareness of Who is (or might be) responsible - though the appreciation and interest is there.



r.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



I'm not suggesting that the genealogies are not historical. I AM suggesting, however, that they may be selective. I will agree with you that the language, when read plainly, does seem to present chronology in an unbroken fashion. Still, evolutionary gobleddygook aside, we have too much recorded human history to squeeze into 6008 years, 7 months, 25 days (as of today). There must be another answer.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



Too much recorded history? I guess I'm not understanding which history you are refering to. We have the Bible and then some ancient fragments before about 1000 BC or so, unless you wish to include mythologies. That leaves hundreds of years, at least, between then and the Flood. Alot can happen in a few hundred years, especially with the corruptions of their histories into mythologies, and the migrations of men over vast amounts of land, before they start recording things down. Apart from the Bible there is no recorded history that goes back that far, at least none to my knowledge. The rest of ancient history is speculative on the part of the secular historian.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_Too much recorded history? I guess I'm not understanding which history you are refering to. We have the Bible and then some ancient fragments before about 1000 BC or so, unless you wish to include mythologies. That leaves hundreds of years, at least, between then and the Flood. Alot can happen in a few hundred years, especially with the corruptions of their histories into mythologies, and the migrations of men over vast amounts of land, before they start recording things down. Apart from the Bible there is no recorded history that goes back that far, at least none to my knowledge. The rest of ancient history is speculative on the part of the secular historian.



I cannot believe you mean 1000 BC. Hammurabi is predates Moses by 400 years (c. 1800 BC) and Sargon 1 predates Moses by a millennium (c. 2400 BC), which is BEFORE Ussher's Flood date. The gospel genealogies add names that Moses does not, which is a real problem for us viewing the Genesis genealogies as chronology as we would normally view it.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_Too much recorded history? I guess I'm not understanding which history you are refering to. We have the Bible and then some ancient fragments before about 1000 BC or so, unless you wish to include mythologies. That leaves hundreds of years, at least, between then and the Flood. Alot can happen in a few hundred years, especially with the corruptions of their histories into mythologies, and the migrations of men over vast amounts of land, before they start recording things down. Apart from the Bible there is no recorded history that goes back that far, at least none to my knowledge. The rest of ancient history is speculative on the part of the secular historian.
> ...



i would add to that list 4800 year old Chinese characters
http://www.anton-heyboer.org/i_ching/websites/oldestchar/nat_geographic.htm


----------



## Authorised (Jul 25, 2005)

How does one who believes in a 6000 year-old earth reconcile that belief with mainstream science? Carbon dating has settled this issue.


----------



## New wine skin (Jul 25, 2005)

Aaron, your question will start a new thread. Please note many discussions already exist on this board that would be a response to your question.


----------



## New wine skin (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...





You quote this as if its fact.... it is speculation and should be represented as such.


----------



## just_grace (Jul 25, 2005)

*Time...*

One day and a thousand years are the same to God...

Wake up and smell the coffee.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> I cannot believe you mean 1000 BC. Hammurabi is predates Moses by 400 years (c. 1800 BC) and Sargon 1 predates Moses by a millennium (c. 2400 BC), which is BEFORE Ussher's Flood date. The gospel genealogies add names that Moses does not, which is a real problem for us viewing the Genesis genealogies as chronology as we would normally view it.



Does Hammurabi include history? I thought it was only laws. If it's only laws then fixing a date, to me, seems rather speculative. But please correct me if I'm wrong. 

Isn't Sargon a mythology? Correct me if I am wrong.

And again, regarding Luke and Matthew, I admitted the possibility that in Genesis, the descendent born could have been a grandson or great grandson, but the age of that father was still correct when the descendant was born. So it's entirely possible for Luke/Matt to know other generational names, and include them, especially since they are not concerned with numbers like Genesis is. Plus, Luke's genealogy of the genesis generations is indentical to Genesis except for Cainan (Luke 3:36), which is a few generations after the flood (Luke appears to follow the septuagint here). Matthew deliberately omits anything before Abraham and formulates his genealogy to point to David, thus his account doesn't even deal with the genesis narratives prior to Abraham. The only other extensive geneaology is in 1 Chron. which is identical to Genesis. Genesis stops keeping track of specific ages with Jacob. Luke then only differs from Genesis by one name. How some could blow this out of proportion by saying their are huge ommisions in Genesis seems to me not to deal with the facts. I admit it does get fuzzy between the time in Egypt and the time of David, and also between the time of the Exile and Joseph. But this doesn't affect the Genesis chronology, with the exception of trying to explain Cainan (Lk. 3:36)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> One day and a thousand years are the same to God...
> 
> Wake up and smell the coffee.



Okay, Six one thousand year days, and one 24hr sabbath.

Is that better?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 25, 2005)

A word on the authority of modern science as it relates to the age of the earth...the age of the earth relates directly to its origins. God has given us special revelation as to the origins of the earth. There were no witnesses, but we have the inspired testimony of Moses; and empirical secular science (falsely so-called) is unequipped to properly tell us how long the earth has been in existence. Although the Bible does not spell out for us exactly how old the earth is, we can properly deduce reasonable estimates based on the chronologies found in Scripture. Attempts made to exceed reasonable estimates based on the authority of modern science in opposition to God's Word are simply wrong. The modern secular scientist has his presuppostions about origins and the Christian has his based on the Bible. The age of the earth is fundamentally a theological question, not a question for empirical science to answer. This is not a rejection of science, because true science, in words of Kepler, is "thinking God's thoughts after him." It is rejection of secular presuppositions upon which modern science is based in opposition to God's Word. 

As J.G. Vos says in _The Separated Life_, 



> ...experience or science can never of itself be binding on the conscience of man.
> 
> Moreover, those who wish to introduce science as an additional authority always speak as if it were a very simple matter to ascertain what science has to say on any particular question. They always speak as if somewhere there were a sort of scientific pope who could utter ex cathedra the final, united, unquestionable voice of science. They seem to presuppose that the voice of science can be heard, speaking with authoritative accents, by simply consulting a few volumes in the public library. The truth is, however, that 'science' is an abstraction. There is in the world today no such thing as the voice of science; there are only the voices of a multitude of scientists, and they are anything but agreed among themselves. Now who is to decide which of these many voices is to be accepted as the authoritative voice of science? One scientist, a professor in a great university, states that years of research have failed to demonstrate that a certain practice shortens life. Another scientist, of equal scientific standing, maintains the contrary position. Who is to decide which represents the authoritative voice of 'science'? All to often those who wish to place science alongside of Scripture as a standard of faith and conduct wish at the same time to be the judges of what is science; those who hold certain views they regard as scientists; all others they reject as being prejudiced or otherwise untrustworthy. Can any pope or church assembly decide just what kinds of science "” the opinions of just which scientists "” are authoritative and therefore, along with Scripture, binding on the conscience of man? No, in matters of science every person must decide for himself. And even if certain scientific theories are believed to be true, they cannot be binding on the conscience. We must beware of the sin mentioned in the Larger Catechism, no. 105, of 'making men the lords of our faith and conscience.' All human authority, however expert or learned, is fallible, and therefore cannot bind the conscience.



Westminster Confession, Chap. 20:



> II. God alone is Lord of the conscience,(k) and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in any thing contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith or worship.(l) So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience,(m) is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.(n)
> 
> (k) Jam. 4:12; Rom. 14:4.
> (l) Acts 4:19; Acts 5:29; I Cor. 7:23; Matt. 23:8, 9, 10; II Cor. 1:24; Matt. 15:9.
> ...



For a young earth creationist perspective on carbon dating, see this article.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by just_grace_
> ...



Of course I was kidding.....The wake up and smell the coffee comment kinda prodded me. I wanted to say stick this in your pipe and smoke it. but I refrained. Well, until just now. 

Wake up and smell the pipe tobacco.

The Sabbath was 24hrs so I think the others were also. 

Isn't the 1000 years thing kinda taken out of context?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> One day and a thousand years are the same to God...
> 
> Wake up and smell the coffee.



So the people who first told/read the creation account were led astray for thousands of years until the new testament came along? 

There is also the problem of many taking this stance and then draining all content out of the creation story. (Not necessarily accusing of such)

However the biggest problem with this stance is that confusing God being above and beyond time, with His being able to interact with the universe in actual time.

Lastly, if the Bible is actually silent then science surely is not going to speak in its place on this issue. The best we can look forward to is a big whole in our knowledge.

CT


----------



## just_grace (Jul 26, 2005)

*Time...*

I think Peter could have said one day and a million years are the same to God. Sorry if it's out of context. It's just a verse of Holy Scripture that helps me when I muse about questions as raised in this thread.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Authorised_
> How does one who believes in a 6000 year-old earth reconcile that belief with mainstream science? Carbon dating has settled this issue.



I don't know how "settled" the issueis where carbon dating is concerned. It has been shown to be wildly inaccurate.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 26, 2005)

I'll admit, Patrick, there are problems with both views. Sargon 1 is not mythological, however. There are numerous extant inscriptions regarding his rule. I can provide references if you really want me to.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> I'll admit, Patrick, there are problems with both views. Sargon 1 is not mythological, however. There are numerous extant inscriptions regarding his rule. I can provide references if you really want me to.



I don't doubt his existence or that he ruled at some point. I just though tthere was a lot of mythological elements to the story. And I also wonder at how they came about with the date?


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



I came across a brief article about him here.


----------



## cultureshock (Sep 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Archlute_
> Out here at WSC they really push the framework hypothesis (which, BTW, it cannot be called, according to some, unless you also say "six-day hypothesis"!). I am not in agreement with this at all, as it is a skewed hermeneutic employed with the goal of defending the impact of the Gospel from the derision of the intellegensia who think that scientific claims demand something other than a "biblicist rendering" of the creation account. It claims to be sensitive to a Hebraic understanding of the peotic/literary nature of the creation account, while never answering the question, "Well, O.K., now that we've discussed all of the literary techniques and artistry, just what was the actual temporal/sequential nature of those days?" It is driven by a concordist impulse at heart, although they try their pastoral and scholarly best to deny it.
> 
> One thing that I must agree with however, is that the geneologies, while inspired by the Holy Spirit, and while completely accurate in all that they set forth, do indeed have omissions in places. Dr. Estelle did a fine and irrefutable job of showing this by comparing various geneologies in Scripture, and pointing out where there is no doubt that for theological reasons the various authors of these geneologies omitted certain names that had been included in other listings. That does not mean that they are not in the geneological line, but that these geneologies are not strictly successive and chronological at all places. He emphasised that all of history is theologically shaped (even the historiography of secular historians), and that God has also directed the authors of Scripture to set forth the history of redemption with utterly truthful, yet divinely shaped, perspective.
> ...



Adam, I agree with you about the framework hypothesis. Their points about Hebrew poetry may all be valid, but they have not really provided a biblical case against six ordinary days. The only reason I can see for going that direction would be in order to make peace with contemporary science. Formerly, I was open to such a position. However, the result of majoring in physics & astronomy and philosophy was that my confidence in science was completely shaken, especially as it regards cosmology and eschatology (attempts to interpret the starting and ending of the history of the world). The sciences are not equipped to discern the starting place of the world. Van Til nails them on this point with his reasoning about the mind of natural man.

That being said, I still wonder whether creation in six ordinary days should be a matter of subscription for ordination. I am not decided on the matter.

Brian


----------



## cultureshock (Sep 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> The Sabbath was 24hrs so I think the others were also.
> 
> Isn't the 1000 years thing kinda taken out of context?



The 1000 years reference is used in the Scriptures with regards to creation (cf. Ps. 90:4). However, the point in Ps. 90 is not to say that the six days are each a thousand years, but that time is in God's hands. In the New Testament, Peter alludes to it to make the point that God's timing is not on the same plane as man's (2 Pet. 3:8).

It is possible that these verses could allow for a bit of uncertainty in the length of the seven days, since the seven days could be recorded solely with reference to God's timing, which is not necessarily the same as man's timing. The way we, as men, understand "days" is in terms of the apparent rotation of the sun. The Scriptures seem to support this in the account of the creation of the sun and moon (Gen. 1:18). Yet, because there was no sun until the fourth day, I think it is presumptuous to assume that we know exaxctly what amount of time is meant by "day" in this passage. Even now, the length of a solar day is not necessarily fixed to a precise value (such as 24.000 hours), but slowly lengthens as the earth loses rotational momentum with respect to the sun. I'm all in favor of saying that the first week was composed of "days", but how do you define those days when the sun was not yet created? Beyond that, how can you insist on a particular length of time for those days when the Scriptures simply do not specify how long?

I do not see how the Sabbath pattern suffers if the days turn out to be longer than what we call ordinary days. What was established in creation was a one day in seven pattern. That one-in-seven principle can stand as an example for man, in an analogous sense, even if the days were not actually 24 hrs.

I think the framework position is very mistaken if it suggests that creation happened all at once. The six days, even if they do not strictly denote precisely how long it took, they at least denote a chronological sequence.

I am trying to cautiously work through these issues, trying to be silent where Scripture is silent. Please be gracious with me if you don't agree, because I am not settled on a position yet.

Brian

[Edited on 9-7-2005 by cultureshock]


----------



## JohnV (Sep 6, 2005)

> Even now, the length of a solar day is not necessarily fixed to a precise value (such as 24.000 hours), but slowly lengthens as the earth loses rotational momentum with respect to the sun. I'm all in favor of saying that the first week was composed of "days", but how do you define those days when the sun was not yet created? Beyond that, how can you insist on a particular length of time for those days when the Scriptures simply do not specify how long?
> 
> I do not see how the Sabbath pattern suffers if the days turn out to be longer than what we call ordinary days. What was established in creation was a one day in seven pattern. That one-in-seven principle can stand as an example for man, in an analogous sense, even if the days were not actually 24 hrs.


Brian:
All you're doing is changing the definition of the words, and inserting meanings. For instance, if you question the length of a day, this does not qualify offering a different length for a day; and offering a "one day in seven pattern" as being established in stead of establishing one day in seven does not make it qualify as the Biblical pattern that the Bible teaches. How do you know that the Bible intends to establish only a "one in seven pattern" as opposed to one day in seven? You have no warrant for that; and if anything at all, we have God Himself placing the days of creation right side by side with the work week and the sabbath in the Decalogue, justifying the one with the other. 

Is there any reason why a day could not be a day before the sun was created? The earth could have orbited the spot where the sun was going to be right from the start, and have been turning on its axis right from the start; and it would seem presumptuous of us to think that the earth was not being formed into its final position and action from the very first of creation. So it would seem to me that a day would be a day with or without the sun.


----------



## cultureshock (Sep 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Brian:
> All you're doing is changing the definition of the words, and inserting meanings. For instance, if you question the length of a day, this does not qualify offering a different length for a day; and offering a "one day in seven pattern" as being established in stead of establishing one day in seven does not make it qualify as the Biblical pattern that the Bible teaches. How do you know that the Bible intends to establish only a "one in seven pattern" as opposed to one day in seven? You have no warrant for that; and if anything at all, we have God Himself placing the days of creation right side by side with the work week and the sabbath in the Decalogue, justifying the one with the other.



John, I guess I already agree that a day is a day. What I don't see is why people strongly insist on 24 hour days, especially when the true length of a day is not necessarily constant. I would probably presume that the seven days were days of ordinary length as we conceive of it, but the text really doesn't say. I don't want to force that conclusion on anyone if it is not truly embedded in the text.

In saying that the Bible establishes a one in seven day pattern, I mean to say that the Bible establishes _at least_ this pattern, and this is all that is _necessary_ to establish the Sabbath for man. It may establish more than a pattern, but more is not required for the Sabbath institution.



> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Is there any reason why a day could not be a day before the sun was created? The earth could have orbited the spot where the sun was going to be right from the start, and have been turning on its axis right from the start; and it would seem presumptuous of us to think that the earth was not being formed into its final position and action from the very first of creation. So it would seem to me that a day would be a day with or without the sun.



Personally, I don't want to make assumptions either way about the initial conditions of the world when the text does not say.

Brian


----------



## rgrove (Sep 7, 2005)

Good grief. There is no valid argument against a six day creation using the normal view of a day being approximately 24 hours. The only reason to even question it is because Christians have accepted atheist presuppositions about the world around us. Also, how exactly is Christ "restoring all things" (acts 3:21)? Are all breathing animals still subject to death after Christ's return then? Death is absolutely impossible before the fall or it makes absolutely no sense that creation is groaning in anticipation of it's redemption (Rom 8:22) and it makes absolutely no sense that death is the last enemy to be conquered (1 Cor 15:26). Death is normal so long as it's not man? Adam watched animals die of horrible disease and suffer in other horrible ways? Or Adam was living his perfect life in a good creation built on top of millions of years of bones from all the death and destruction that came before him? Nonsense. 

Also, if one believes that a straightforward interpretation of Genesis is impossible because of modern science, then the flood of Noah's age goes right along with it. This makes God a liar every time a localized flood takes place. Nonsense.

The Son accepted the Genesis account:

Mark 10:6 "_But from the beginning of creation, "˜God made them male and female.'_"

The Father stated it point blank:

Ex 20:11 - "_For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy._"

So I accept the Genesis creation account as is no questions asked. I haven't even gone into books like the Book of Job which witness to the post flood ice age and the clear and unambigous presence of dinasaurs.

As for a day, all a day needs is light. The light could easily have been Christ Himself before the sun came to be as it will be in the full consumation of the new heavens and the new earth:

Rev 23-25 - "_And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it, and its gates will never be shut by day"”and there will be no night there._" 

This fits perfectly as in the beginning he would have been the light and he will be in the end as well. The Bible speaks directly to this issue for anyone that wants to listen and not cave into the presuppositions of God-haters.

[Edited on 9-7-2005 by rgrove]


----------



## JohnV (Sep 7, 2005)

Ron:

It is not wrong to test the spirits. What I object to is things like asserting that we do not know the exact length of the creation day, or exactly what is meant by the word "day" or "yom", and so we too easily take that as a licence to jump to all kinds of conclusions, as if one is as warranted as another. Let's not pretend that we know that it is something else because we think we've ruled out one meaning. Let's not build our edifaces with foundations ten feet off the ground. 



> All a day needs is light


It doesn't even need that. A day could be on turn on the axis, whether full turn (sidereal day) or almost-full turn (solar day). It doesn't even really need the reference point of where the sun would be intended to be; but we have no reason to question that the spot, the location, was there from the start, whether or not the sun was created, and that the earth was already on its course around that spot, turning on its axis. God would know a day as a day with or without the sun, because He knew where the earth was in relation to where the sun would be on the fourth day.


----------



## J Andrew Deane (Sep 17, 2005)

This post is coming from a very exegetically based ground.

But my experience would say that those who have issues with the notion of 6 24 hour periods are convinced by scientific arguments with regards to the age of the earth.

I am personally not very committed either way---for those who are open to the notion of a very old earth/universe, what is the most compelling piece of data for you?


----------

