Creation Poll

[asc]

sorry to buck the trend, but i believe in an old earth.

 

[tellville]

sorry to buck the trend, but i believe in an old earth.

I believe in an earth that's older than me

 

[Brian Withnell]

I don't know; it doesn't matter to me.

That is what I see in the Bible.

It doesn't say, and it doesn't matter.

-----Added 3/2/2009 at 05:00:36 EST-----

How about a neo-Augustinian instantaneous creation view?

Just kidding. I voted 24/6.

It would have to be 24/7 right? Since the 7th day of rest was still part of the week of Creation.


Isn't it more correct to say that we believe in the 7 Day Creation view because the 7th Day was integral to the other six, even if God was resting?


When we say 6-Day Creation, then we negate the importance of God's purposeful rest on the 7th, right?


I move that we begin speaking of 7-Day Creationism.

The reason a lot of people don't put it 24x7 is that the seventh day continues even to today. God is still resting from creating ... he isn't creating any more, so he rests from that. That is one of the reasons there are those that state the other six days are also figurative.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Ugh, see it's a terrible poll. You can be a six-day creationist, but NOT hold to young earth.

.....gap theory??

No, far from it. I'm just saying the Bible doesn't indicate how old the earth is, just that God created it in six days. Adding up genealogies (a la Ussher) won't work, because their are demonstrable gaps in them.

I guess when I say I'm not a young earther, I mean that I don't think the world was created on [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology"]Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC.[/ame]

Matthew's genealogy has gaps. But Luke matched Genesis perfectly with one exception after Aphaxad. If I remember right, Chronicles matches Genesis too. The genealogies in Genesis are too specific regarding age to allow for any gaps. They list the age of the father and his age when his son (or descendant) was born. Seems like a reliable indicator to me. The only time Scripture gets less specific is from Joseph until Moses, and the time of the Judges. After the kings come we get the length of their reigns etc. and have confirmation from extrabiblical sources for dating. Either way, you only get a few hundred years leeway from Joseph until David. If we are going to treat the historical narratives as history, there is no other option than a young earth.

 

[TimV]

6 days here as well.

Interesting idea about time bending, Beth.

I'd leave the 24 hours out, but for the same reason I think the WM Divines did, that the turning relationship between the sun and earth isn't necessarily constant. Those guys were just as smart as we are, even if they didn't have the same amount of data.

 

[Tripel]

I believe God created the Earth in 6/24 hour days but he created it in a very mature state and that is why Scientist are so befuddled with dating things in the Millions of Years. The Earth is probably between 6-10, 000 years old however based on science it seems as if it is millions of years old.

Exactly what I meant.
Just like my Adam example. Adam was mature as far as his appearance but was in fact very young. God did not create our first parents as children and watch them grow into adulthood. He created them as adults with full grown minds and the ability to reason. I believe the same is true with the world. Although the earth may have the appearance of being very old it is in fact very young.

But that is just my

This makes sense to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand your view to be that science is likely accurate in showing the earth to be millions of years old, but that is only because the earth was created in an "aged" state with evidence of million-year-old history.
My question to you is what about dinosaurs? Aren't they "proven" to have lived millions of years ago? And if that's the case, do you think the earth was created with buried dinosaur bones?

 

[Brian Withnell]

I believe God created the Earth in 6/24 hour days but he created it in a very mature state and that is why Scientist are so befuddled with dating things in the Millions of Years. The Earth is probably between 6-10, 000 years old however based on science it seems as if it is millions of years old.

Exactly what I meant.
Just like my Adam example. Adam was mature as far as his appearance but was in fact very young. God did not create our first parents as children and watch them grow into adulthood. He created them as adults with full grown minds and the ability to reason. I believe the same is true with the world. Although the earth may have the appearance of being very old it is in fact very young.

But that is just my

This makes sense to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand your view to be that science is likely accurate in showing the earth to be millions of years old, but that is only because the earth was created in an "aged" state with evidence of million-year-old history.
My question to you is what about dinosaurs? Aren't they "proven" to have lived millions of years ago? And if that's the case, do you think the earth was created with buried dinosaur bones?

The view presents some problems. While it is possible ... Adam could even have been created with a scar on his right shoulder, bruises on his knees, and several calcified areas on bones in his legs that would have appeared to be healed breaks, it begs the question as to why God would create evidence of age that does not exist. Particularly troubling is then reconciling light from a "supernova" of a star that never existed. It would seem that is deceptive at the very least. (Which is why I lean toward an old universe.)

Is it possible that the light was created in transit for a star that never existed? Of course, but would that be in conformity to the character of God? I'd tan my son's hide if he fabricated information to an event that never happened; I'd say it was less than honest. When we take a young earth position, isn't that what we are saying about God? If not, why light for stars that never existed in the first place? If the creation account didn't have any reason to think other than 6x24, I'd still be troubled ... but with the creation account having evidence that could point to something else, the physical world evidence would have me lean toward the interpretation that allows them to agree.

 

[DMcFadden]

Brian,

There are a number of theoretical solutions to the distant starlight problem. I'm no physicist, but find Russ Humphreys' gravitational time dilation to be an intriguing possibility for explaining the phenomenon without recourse to starlight in transit. Jason Lisle (an astrophysicist PhD from University of Colorado working with Answers in Genesis) offers a variety of possible solutions as well. None of them require the seeming fabrication.

 

[kalawine]

I'm personally "6 day literal, young earth." But I have (BTW) untied the knot in the noose that I used to hang old earthers with. Peace!

 

[Confessor]

Creation was the night before October 23rd, 4004 BC. That's the answer. Now someone close the thread.



I'm 6/24 YEC, by the way.

 

[Wannabee]

Billions and billions of years. And it's flat. Get over it.




-----Added 3/3/2009 at 08:35:05 EST-----

Young earth - 6 literal days (evening and morning) - 13 hours, 36.6 minutes each, birth date - 3975 BC.

 

[Theognome]

Billions and billions of years. And it's flat. Get over it.




-----Added 3/3/2009 at 08:35:05 EST-----

Young earth - 6 literal days (evening and morning) - 13 hours, 36.6 minutes each, birth date - 3975 BC.

I see that you're not very specific on this issue.

Theognome

 

[Wannabee]

Okay, so it's out of the bag. I finally have an opinion on something.

Of course, but would that be in conformity to the character of God? I'd tan my son's hide if he fabricated information to an event that never happened; I'd say it was less than honest. When we take a young earth position, isn't that what we are saying about God?

No, Brian. This is an inaccurate assumption. Adam and Eve both were created in an "aged state." Every single animal and plant was created in an aged state. The earth, if science is to be believed, had to be created in an aged state to some degree. There were rivers, which would flow downhill. How could there be downhill without some sort of weathering?
The fact that you would tan your son's hide is an indication of the difference between the inherent character of your son and God, not justification to question His honesty in light of creating things in an aged state. I've heard this argument many times, and it appears to come down to an imposition of humanistic ideals on the character of God. How can we have the audacity to judge God on our terms? He's God! If He wants to create anything in any fashion He desires, then it is good. If He hardens Pharaoh's heart, it is good. If He hates Esau, it is good. Where were you, oh man, when God laid the foundation of the earth? Where were you when He drew the path of the sun? Where were you when He set the boundaries of the seas? Who are we to question the integrity of God, regardless of what He does?

Blessings

 

[Skyler]

Exactly what I meant.
Just like my Adam example. Adam was mature as far as his appearance but was in fact very young. God did not create our first parents as children and watch them grow into adulthood. He created them as adults with full grown minds and the ability to reason. I believe the same is true with the world. Although the earth may have the appearance of being very old it is in fact very young.

But that is just my

This makes sense to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand your view to be that science is likely accurate in showing the earth to be millions of years old, but that is only because the earth was created in an "aged" state with evidence of million-year-old history.
My question to you is what about dinosaurs? Aren't they "proven" to have lived millions of years ago? And if that's the case, do you think the earth was created with buried dinosaur bones?

The view presents some problems. While it is possible ... Adam could even have been created with a scar on his right shoulder, bruises on his knees, and several calcified areas on bones in his legs that would have appeared to be healed breaks, it begs the question as to why God would create evidence of age that does not exist. Particularly troubling is then reconciling light from a "supernova" of a star that never existed. It would seem that is deceptive at the very least. (Which is why I lean toward an old universe.)

Is it possible that the light was created in transit for a star that never existed? Of course, but would that be in conformity to the character of God? I'd tan my son's hide if he fabricated information to an event that never happened; I'd say it was less than honest. When we take a young earth position, isn't that what we are saying about God? If not, why light for stars that never existed in the first place? If the creation account didn't have any reason to think other than 6x24, I'd still be troubled ... but with the creation account having evidence that could point to something else, the physical world evidence would have me lean toward the interpretation that allows them to agree.

The starlight issue is not, as some would suggest, limited to the young earth view. Even the old-earth advocates peg the age of the universe at around 6 billion years If I recall correctly. We can see stars that are many light-years farther away than that--implying either an even older age, or some other mechanism.

The Humphrey white hole model provides an explanation for the phenomenon inside the framework of a young-earth model. Answers in Genesis has some resources on this topic; here's one link:

Stellar evolution, distant starlight and biblical authority

You can find more on their website.

edit:

This makes sense to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand your view to be that science is likely accurate in showing the earth to be millions of years old, but that is only because the earth was created in an "aged" state with evidence of million-year-old history.
My question to you is what about dinosaurs? Aren't they "proven" to have lived millions of years ago? And if that's the case, do you think the earth was created with buried dinosaur bones?

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Regards,

 

[Grace Alone]

I am okay with the 6/24 hour days and that is what my pastor teaches, but my actual answer is:

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:9

I honestly feel like it is just a little arrogant to believe that one has solved one of the mysteries of God, which in this case involves details of how and when God created the universe and the earth and all that is in it. He gave us limited information for a reason. I accept scripture as Truth and feel that we don't have to figure out every mystery while we are here. We'll find out the details soon enough.

 

[Claudiu]

It would have to be 24/7 right? Since the 7th day of rest was still part of the week of Creation.


Isn't it more correct to say that we believe in the 7 Day Creation view because the 7th Day was integral to the other six, even if God was resting?


When we say 6-Day Creation, then we negate the importance of God's purposeful rest on the 7th, right?


I move that we begin speaking of 7-Day Creationism.

I second the motion. But I want to leave out the 24 hour part. Hours were invented by either the Egyptians or the Bablyonians much later.

The number of hours, minutes or seconds may be our way to divide the day, and may be attributed to an historical human created standard.

But that’s why it is so precious that the Lord in Scripture makes sure we see it in a precise manner, as our own Solar day, with morning and evening.

And the evening and the morning were the third day Ge 1:13

That may not be the case....the sun and moon that were created to govern the day and night as we know were only created on the 4th day...so day and night before the 4th day could be a different time length compared to what we have now since we have the sun and moon to govern our time.

 

[Piano Hero]

I don't know how many of you have read "The Answers Book" by Ken Ham, but there's a pretty interesting article about this topic.

 

[HokieAirman]

Hmmm...I'm thinkin' the Bible's pretty clear on this. At least the 6 days and those days being normal days as we know them today. The only times the length of a day changed are written, I think. One is in Joshua I think (too parked to get up and look it up).

The age of the earth is a different thing. While Scripture uses gaps in genealogies for reason (like in Matthew 1), I'd like to see more clarity on why the other genealogies aren't accurate? That said, I would base my young earth beliefs on Ussher's writings, but truly don't know.

Scripture also seems to speak of the earth as the center of our solar system. Apparently there are models that show this able to work...all very interesting. I'm not prepared for a debate.

-----Added 3/4/2009 at 07:48:03 EST-----

Oh, and I've heard that carbon dating is only accurate to a few hundred years, so that's out.

 

[historyb]

I was told that in an archaeology class, there was a certain point that carbon saturated the ground If I recall correctly and so carbon dating is only reliable so far back.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Exactly what I meant.
Just like my Adam example. Adam was mature as far as his appearance but was in fact very young. God did not create our first parents as children and watch them grow into adulthood. He created them as adults with full grown minds and the ability to reason. I believe the same is true with the world. Although the earth may have the appearance of being very old it is in fact very young.

But that is just my

This makes sense to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand your view to be that science is likely accurate in showing the earth to be millions of years old, but that is only because the earth was created in an "aged" state with evidence of million-year-old history.
My question to you is what about dinosaurs? Aren't they "proven" to have lived millions of years ago? And if that's the case, do you think the earth was created with buried dinosaur bones?

The view presents some problems. While it is possible ... Adam could even have been created with a scar on his right shoulder, bruises on his knees, and several calcified areas on bones in his legs that would have appeared to be healed breaks, it begs the question as to why God would create evidence of age that does not exist. Particularly troubling is then reconciling light from a "supernova" of a star that never existed. It would seem that is deceptive at the very least. (Which is why I lean toward an old universe.)

Is it possible that the light was created in transit for a star that never existed? Of course, but would that be in conformity to the character of God? I'd tan my son's hide if he fabricated information to an event that never happened; I'd say it was less than honest. When we take a young earth position, isn't that what we are saying about God? If not, why light for stars that never existed in the first place? If the creation account didn't have any reason to think other than 6x24, I'd still be troubled ... but with the creation account having evidence that could point to something else, the physical world evidence would have me lean toward the interpretation that allows them to agree.

You are assuming that the so called "laws of nature" have always acted the same way. Creation is God's creature and obeys his will. If he wants the light to travel from a star faster for a while then slows things down, he may do that, and there's no inaccuracy regarding it's origin. If he wants to create nature and man in a "mature" condition then he may do so. He is not lying. We cannot impose our arbitrary definitions of "age" and "laws" upon his new and good creation. Examine your presuppositions brother. He is Lord of creation. He is not bound to our finite observations of current phenomena. Scientists today don't know the starting point. They only observe what happens in Creation now. God is free to change creation as he so wills, as all the miracles of Scripture attest. Any speculation about our origins is just that, speculation, because without the special revelation of God we don't know what happened. Not even Adam knew until God revealed it to him.

 

[christiana]

John MacArthur affirms six day creation at Shepherd's Conference:

Opening Session – John MacArthur

Posted:

(By Nathan Busenitz)

Despite a bit of rain, the Shepherds’ Conference opened with its usual anticipation and excitement. Our church is always so blessed to have hundreds of like-minded pastors and church leaders who come. And this year is no different. The enthusiasm is palpable.

The opening session begins with a choir of men from The Master’s Seminary singing two hymns, followed by the entire congregation of conference attendees lifting their voices in praise to God. The sound is loud. It is so loud that, even when singing at the top of your lungs, you can hardly hear yourself. Only those who have experienced the Shepherds’ Conference before can really appreciate what the singing is like—when three thousand pastors join together as one great choir. It is particularly moving and, in the most real sense, heavenly.

10:28 AM John MacArthur begins by noting that he wants to read to us the beginning of the Bible, and asks us to turn to Genesis 1. He continues by reading the entirety of chapter 1 and the first three verses of chapter 2.

10:33 Dr. MacArthur notes that two years ago, he opened the conference by talking about how self-respecting Calvinists should be premillennialists; and last year regarding how they should reject church-growth strategies. This year he will focus on how self-respecting evangelicals should affirm literal six-day creationism.

10:35 “The Bible does not take a back seat when it comes to getting things right scientifically.” Theology is the queen of the sciences and takes precedence over any other scientific theory. The One who created the universe knows how it was created; and He has revealed that perfect knowledge in the Bible.

10:37 If God is intelligent enough to create the universe, He is certainly capable of doing the comparatively simple task of revealing the truth about how He created the universe in a way that is straightforward and understandable.

10:39 Dr. MacArthur spends several moments talking about false creation views, noting that the true Creator would never reveal something false about His creation. When we come to the true record of creation in Scripture, it is a reliable account of the creation given to us by the Creator Himself.

10:41 Genesis 1 is clear and straightforward; it is simple and yet profound. Herbert Spencer was a non-Christian scientist who died a century ago. His greatest achievement was that he determined that everything that exists fits into one of five categories—time, force, action, space, matter. Genesis 1:1 revealed those categories millennia ago, “In the beginning,” that’s time, “God,” that’s force, “created,” that’s action, “the heavens,” that’s space, “the earth,” that’s matter.

10:44 There is no such thing as a science of creation. Why? Because there is no scientific way to explain creation. It was not a natural event or a series of natural events. It was a brief series of monumental supernatural events that cannot be explained by science. All true science is based on observation and no one observed creation. All true science necessitates verification by repetition and creation cannot be repeated, and thus it cannot be verified. Creation had no observers (except God) and cannot be repeated.

10:48 Creation has no connection at all to science anymore than the behavior of Lazarus could in any way reveal how he was raised from the dead. Creation was a massive supernatural miracle to be equaled by the future uncreation (2 Peter 3) when in a lot less than six days God destroys everything He created. Neither event, creation or uncreation, can be explained by any natural fixed laws. All that is left to the reader is the opportunity to believe.

10:50 Did God use evolution? The question is irrelevant and intrusive. But the answer is no. He couldn’t have used evolution because evolution requires death and the Bible reveals that there was no death before the Fall. God does not equivocate with Himself, He determined to create miraculously which is the only way that it could have happened because it is the way it did happen. And He did it all in six days. This is either true, or it’s not. If it is true, then Scripture is true. If it is not, then Scripture become suspect from the opening chapters. So from the very outset of the Bible, those who claim to believe the Bible face a formidable test.

10:52 Job 38–40 – Who are we to question God about creation, when He Himself has told us what He has done?

10:55 Evolution is a rejection of biblical revelation, and demonstrates a lack of fidelity to what Scripture has revealed about origins.

10:57 Ask any Christian organization in the world what their view is of Genesis 1 and 2 and you will get a sense for their level of fidelity to the Word of God.

10:58 The Genesis account is by all honest consideration simple, plain, clear, perspicuous, uncomplicated, unmistakable, unambiguous. Note John 1:1; Col. 1:16; Deut. 4:32; Psalm 104; 148; Isaiah 40:28; Eph. 3:9; Rev. 3:14.

11:03 Genesis 1 and 2 is not poetry; it does not have the characteristic of poetry.

11:04 The writers of the New Testament affirm the Genesis record. There are 165 passages in Genesis directly quoted or referred to in the New Testament. They are all straightforward affirmations of the book of Genesis and the simple account of creation that is contained there. Every New Testament writer refers to Genesis, and they universally affirm its truthfulness.

11:05 God created with a clear end in mind. God didn’t create and hope some meaningful plan evolved. He created with a very defined ultimate purpose that would be brought to its fulfillment.

11:07 Jonathan Edwards said, “Providence subordinates all successive changes in the affairs of mankind.” Everything from creation to consummation is part of one great divine plan being worked by God’s powerful providence. Note Isaiah 46:9; Eph. 3:8.

11:12 In creation we see the very beginning of the purposes of God in redemption. Note Rom. 5:18 – 19; 1 Cor. 15:21, 47–49; Rev. 2, 22.

11:14 One of the richest analogies between redemption and creation is in 2 Corinthians 4: “For God who said, ‘Light shall shine out of darkness.’” That is referring to creation. God said, “Let there be light.” Paul sees in the original creation of light an analogy of the light of salvation.

11:15 It is that same God who spoke light into the primeval darkness who is the One who has shown in our hearts to give the light of salvation. God creating light in the midst of the darkness is a picture of what He does in the darkness of the sinner’s heart. If some convoluted concept of evolution is introduced into the book of Genesis, the instantaneous miracle of God in redemption also becomes convoluted.

11:16 Jonathan Edwards pursued this idea, and noted that it was a magnificent picture of the life of a believer. This is the glory of redemption tucked in to the testimony of creation.

11:18 In closing his session, Dr. MacArthur switched from discussing Creation to discussing the great “uncreation” of the world described in 2 Peter 3. In so doing, he specifically focused on how silly and unnecessary it is for evangelicals to jump on the environmentalism bandwagon.

11:20 Evangelicalism’s eagerness to embrace global warming and other environmentalist agenda items is a lost cause.

11:26 The environmental movement is the bandwagon of the evolutionists, and Christians have no business jumping on the bandwagon. [Dr. MacArthur included a number of statistics and articles which we are not able to include here.]

Note: The audio from this session will soon be available for download on the Shepherds’ Conference website.

 

[Turtle]

I don't know; it doesn't matter to me.

That is what I see in the Bible.

It doesn't say, and it doesn't matter.

-----Added 3/2/2009 at 05:00:36 EST-----

How about a neo-Augustinian instantaneous creation view?

Just kidding. I voted 24/6.

It would have to be 24/7 right? Since the 7th day of rest was still part of the week of Creation.


Isn't it more correct to say that we believe in the 7 Day Creation view because the 7th Day was integral to the other six, even if God was resting?


When we say 6-Day Creation, then we negate the importance of God's purposeful rest on the 7th, right?


I move that we begin speaking of 7-Day Creationism.

The reason a lot of people don't put it 24x7 is that the seventh day continues even to today. God is still resting from creating ... he isn't creating any more, so he rests from that. That is one of the reasons there are those that state the other six days are also figurative.

I agree that the seventh day uniquely was not ended by an "evening" (or begun with a "morning") but those who would then argue the first six days are figurative must take into account that each of the six days are apparently limited by "the morning and the evening".




bryan
tampa, fl
.
.
.

 

[reformedminister]

Young earth, six day twenty four hour creation. Anything else is just simply heresy. I'm surprised there are so many reformed folks influenced by liberal darwinian teachings.

 

[Turtle]

I second the motion. But I want to leave out the 24 hour part. Hours were invented by either the Egyptians or the Bablyonians much later.

The number of hours, minutes or seconds may be our way to divide the day, and may be attributed to an historical human created standard.

But that’s why it is so precious that the Lord in Scripture makes sure we see it in a precise manner, as our own Solar day, with morning and evening.

And the evening and the morning were the third day Ge 1:13

That may not be the case....the sun and moon that were created to govern the day and night as we know were only created on the 4th day...so day and night before the 4th day could be a different time length compared to what we have now since we have the sun and moon to govern our time.

The rotation rate of the earth establishes the time between morning and evening. Is there cause to suppose the rate of rotation varied?

Light was created on the first day, along with Day and night.

 

[Wannabee]

The rotation rate of the earth establishes the time between morning and evening. Is there cause to suppose the rate of rotation varied?

Can we really know for sure. For instance, the law of atrophy dictates that the rotation of the earth must have slowed at least a small amount. But the nature of the earth before the flood was vastly different than anything we can know. Theories abound. Obviously weather as we know it didn't exist. There was no rain, which means that it's very possible that there was no wind. If, as some suppose, there was an ice canopy then the temperature of the entire planet would have been quite stable. The surface of the earth would not heat up as it does and air would not rise as it does today. Also to consider is how that canopy would have broke, and how waters came from beneath. One possibility is a meteor. But it would have had to have been massive to crush the ice canopy (causing instant and catastrophic weather patterns) and penetrate the earth's crust, thus releasing the waters from beneath. Could not such an occurrence affect the rotation of the earth, or even it's orbit?
I don't know the answers to all this, nor will I die on this hill. I consider this perspective a very valid idea. But when we confine truth more than God reveals then we're on thin ice. A day is an evening and a morning, whether it's 13 hours, 23 hours and 53 minutes or 31 hours.

Just some thoughts to consider.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

The rotation rate of the earth establishes the time between morning and evening. Is there cause to suppose the rate of rotation varied?

Can we really know for sure. For instance, the law of atrophy dictates that the rotation of the earth must have slowed at least a small amount. But the nature of the earth before the flood was vastly different than anything we can know. Theories abound. Obviously weather as we know it didn't exist. There was no rain, which means that it's very possible that there was no wind. If, as some suppose, there was an ice canopy then the temperature of the entire planet would have been quite stable. The surface of the earth would not heat up as it does and air would not rise as it does today. Also to consider is how that canopy would have broke, and how waters came from beneath. One possibility is a meteor. But it would have had to have been massive to crush the ice canopy (causing instant and catastrophic weather patterns) and penetrate the earth's crust, thus releasing the waters from beneath. Could not such an occurrence affect the rotation of the earth, or even it's orbit?
I don't know the answers to all this, nor will I die on this hill. I consider this perspective a very valid idea. But when we confine truth more than God reveals then we're on thin ice. A day is an evening and a morning, whether it's 13 hours, 23 hours and 53 minutes or 31 hours.

Just some thoughts to consider.

But all those considerations would never have entered the mind of the original ancient hearers. A day was a normal day to them. They were not blessed with Einstein yet. God was communicating to them in words they could readily understand.

 

[WarrenInSC]

How Young is "Young"?

 

[historyb]

The rotation rate of the earth establishes the time between morning and evening. Is there cause to suppose the rate of rotation varied?

Can we really know for sure. For instance, the law of atrophy dictates that the rotation of the earth must have slowed at least a small amount. But the nature of the earth before the flood was vastly different than anything we can know. Theories abound. Obviously weather as we know it didn't exist. There was no rain, which means that it's very possible that there was no wind. If, as some suppose, there was an ice canopy then the temperature of the entire planet would have been quite stable. The surface of the earth would not heat up as it does and air would not rise as it does today. Also to consider is how that canopy would have broke, and how waters came from beneath. One possibility is a meteor. But it would have had to have been massive to crush the ice canopy (causing instant and catastrophic weather patterns) and penetrate the earth's crust, thus releasing the waters from beneath. Could not such an occurrence affect the rotation of the earth, or even it's orbit?
I don't know the answers to all this, nor will I die on this hill. I consider this perspective a very valid idea. But when we confine truth more than God reveals then we're on thin ice. A day is an evening and a morning, whether it's 13 hours, 23 hours and 53 minutes or 31 hours.

Just some thoughts to consider.

But all those considerations would never have entered the mind of the original ancient hearers. A day was a normal day to them. They were not blessed with Einstein yet. God was communicating to them in words they could readily understand.

So are we smarter? That would presuppose that any man before us were dumb and God lied so they could better understand, either it happened the way God said or the whole Bible becomes suspect.

 

[Turtle]

...Just some thoughts to consider.

Certainly the rotation rate of the earth could have changed with the flood so as to cause time from morning to evening to be a different length. I would prefer a textual reference to accept that. I am content with not going beyond morning and evening for each of the six days.

As a side note, many who reject creation in six days also tend to allegorize the the first eleven chapters, including Noah and the ark (not suggesting any on PB would do that).

Unfortunately there are plenty of disreputable and unprovable claims of finding Noah's Ark that help further the notion that Noah and the Ark are just a fairy tale. For decades, National Geographic and TV documentaries have been very accommodating at hyping unprovable speculations about Noah's Ark, adding to its air of mythology.

bryan
tampa, fl
.
.
.
.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Can we really know for sure. For instance, the law of atrophy dictates that the rotation of the earth must have slowed at least a small amount. But the nature of the earth before the flood was vastly different than anything we can know. Theories abound. Obviously weather as we know it didn't exist. There was no rain, which means that it's very possible that there was no wind. If, as some suppose, there was an ice canopy then the temperature of the entire planet would have been quite stable. The surface of the earth would not heat up as it does and air would not rise as it does today. Also to consider is how that canopy would have broke, and how waters came from beneath. One possibility is a meteor. But it would have had to have been massive to crush the ice canopy (causing instant and catastrophic weather patterns) and penetrate the earth's crust, thus releasing the waters from beneath. Could not such an occurrence affect the rotation of the earth, or even it's orbit?
I don't know the answers to all this, nor will I die on this hill. I consider this perspective a very valid idea. But when we confine truth more than God reveals then we're on thin ice. A day is an evening and a morning, whether it's 13 hours, 23 hours and 53 minutes or 31 hours.

Just some thoughts to consider.

But all those considerations would never have entered the mind of the original ancient hearers. A day was a normal day to them. They were not blessed with Einstein yet. God was communicating to them in words they could readily understand.

So are we smarter? That would presuppose that any man before us were dumb and God lied so they could better understand, either it happened the way God said or the whole Bible becomes suspect.

Um... I don't know where you got any of that from my post. I'm a 6/24 guy (as evidenced by my previous posts), and I believe God speaks the truth (also evidenced by my previous posts). So a little more charity would be appreciated.

It has nothing to do with comparative intelligence but hermeneutics. We are asking all these modern scientific questions of the text when in fact to the original audience, a day was a normal day. They were not speculating on time and relativity. They understood what a normal day was and God told them it was a normal day because that's what it was (i.e. Exodus 20:11). To speculate that the day may have been longer or shorter to due to changes in rotational velocity was simply not a concern of the ancient world. That's a concern of the modern scientific mind attempting to reconcile the current conventional wisdom of science with the biblical text.