The Creation of Earth

[VirginiaHuguenot]

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.
(m) Col. 2:20, 22, 23; Gal. 1:10; Gal. 2:4, 5; Gal. 5:1.
(n) Rom. 10:17; Rom. 14:23; Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11; John 4:22; Hos. 5:11; Rev. 13:12, 16, 17; Jer. 8:9.

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by puritansailor

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?

I came across a brief article about him here.

 

[cultureshock]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?