YEC is not Absolute: Though Genesis Is Literal

Karaite · #1 24th September 2003, 12:11 PM

Hi,

As someone who believes in the literal interpretation of Genesis, I would seem to fit the general YEC type. I will subscribe to the belief that the earth was created in six days, and the days, as described in Genesis, would seem to be presented in the same manner as a regular calendar day is presented, i.e. "day and night, evening and morning." Many have attempted to take the word for day, and make it into epochs, but that is not a correct interpretation, and it does not fit the context.

However, I am not closed minded, so I will not deny that it is possible that Genesis could be speaking of days that are different from our perceptions of day. I could also see the possibility of Genesis being symbolic/metaphorical.

There is a theory presented by Dr. Shroeders, "The Age Of The Universe", in his book "Genesis And The Big Bang."

Excerpt:

Let's look at the development of time, day-by-day, based on the expansion factor. Every time the universe doubles, the perception of time is cut in half. Now when the universe was small, it was doubling very rapidly. But as the universe gets bigger, the doubling time gets exponentially longer. This rate of expansion is quoted in "The Principles of Physical Cosmology," a textbook that is used literally around the world.

(In case you want to know, this exponential rate of expansion has a specific number averaged at 10 to the 12th power. That is in fact the temperature of quark confinement, when matter freezes out of the energy: 10.9 times 10 to the 12th power Kelvin degrees divided by (or the ratio to) the temperature of the universe today, 2.73 degrees. That's the initial ratio which changes exponentially as the universe expands.)

The calculations come out to be as follows:

The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.
The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.
The third day also lasted half of the previous day, 2 billion years.
The fourth day - one billion years.
The fifth day - one-half billion years.
The sixth day - one-quarter billion years.

When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?

But there's more. The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of those days. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world, and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I'll give you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine.

Please go to the link and read the entire article, because unless you do so, you will not understand why Dr. Shroeders makes the above statements. The paper is not too long, but you need to be patient with it, because it is not a short paper, either. And you need to pay close attention to the details, so you will be able to better appreciate the theory.

This is quite a compelling argument, because it is well supported by scientific studies of how time works and/or affects the material world. And the best thing about it is that, it may be possible to hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis, without having to declare the earth to be "young" in a sense. For example, this would mean that the earth (and the universe) were aging at a much faster rate than today, because time would have a greater effect on it.

After reading on Dr. Shroeders' theory, I feel confident in my belief in a literal Genesis, as opposed to trying to use different kinds of tactics to mold the story into my preconceived beliefs.

Blessings!

PS. I will offer another theory, which is not one I like too much, but I find to be of great interest, since it was presented way before the time Darwinism.

obediah001 · #2 24th September 2003, 12:15 PM

Jesus spoke of the days of creation in the New Testament & from His refrence it is clear He understood the days to be 24 hour days.

notto · #3 24th September 2003, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by Karaite[color=red

]
When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?
[/color]

Modern cosmology also tells us the the while the universe may be 15 billion years old, that the earth is only 4 some billion years old (with our solar system and galaxy being somewhere inbetween). How does this fit into his model? This would seem to place the creation of the earth somewhere between day two and three. Not really biblical.

His model may seem to "fit" modern cosmology at one level but the details would show otherwise.

Karaite · #4 24th September 2003, 12:57 PM

To Obediah:
Could you explain how that relates to my post? I mean, does that deny my post, or does it agree, or is it non-related?

Did you take the time to look into Dr. Shroeders' article? I would recommend that you do, because it is quite a feed for the mind. If you are intellectually hungry, of course.

Karaite · #5 24th September 2003, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by notto

Modern cosmology also tells us the the while the universe may be 15 billion years old, that the earth is only 4 some billion years old (with our solar system and galaxy being somewhere inbetween). How does this fit into his model? This would seem to place the creation of the earth somewhere between day two and three. Not really biblical.

His model may seem to "fit" modern cosmology at one level but the details would show otherwise.

It seems that he starts counting on the third day, where the real work with the earth begins, i.e., the water from the middle is removed, and allows vegetation to arise, etc.

The first two days would seem to be more in relationship to the "explosion", which is why (in the article) he mentions that "choschech" (darkness) means "dark-energy". And this he takes from Nachmanides, who commented that, the first creation was this "energy"--the only material creation--and from it all the basic elements of the physical creation were taken.

So, in that interpretation, the first two days would not be speaking of the developing earth, but of the developing universe. The earth would be "a peice" or "a result" of that.

I think you will understand it better once you read the article.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · #6 25th September 2003, 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by obediah001

Jesus spoke of the days of creation in the New Testament & from His refrence it is clear He understood the days to be 24 hour days.

No. He spoke of them exactly the same way I might do. At no point did He say they were 24 hours. You are putting words in Our Lord's mouth.

Sinai · #7 25th September 2003, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by Karaite

Hi,

As someone who believes in the literal interpretation of Genesis, I would seem to fit the general YEC type. I will subscribe to the belief that the earth was created in six days, and the days, as described in Genesis, would seem to be presented in the same manner as a regular calendar day is presented, i.e. "day and night, evening and morning." Many have attempted to take the word for day, and make it into epochs, but that is not a correct interpretation, and it does not fit the context.

However, I am not closed minded, so I will not deny that it is possible that Genesis could be speaking of days that are different from our perceptions of day. I could also see the possibility of Genesis being symbolic/metaphorical.

There is a theory presented by Dr. Shroeders, "The Age Of The Universe", in his book "Genesis And The Big Bang."

Excerpt:

Let's look at the development of time, day-by-day, based on the expansion factor. Every time the universe doubles, the perception of time is cut in half. Now when the universe was small, it was doubling very rapidly. But as the universe gets bigger, the doubling time gets exponentially longer. This rate of expansion is quoted in "The Principles of Physical Cosmology," a textbook that is used literally around the world.

(In case you want to know, this exponential rate of expansion has a specific number averaged at 10 to the 12th power. That is in fact the temperature of quark confinement, when matter freezes out of the energy: 10.9 times 10 to the 12th power Kelvin degrees divided by (or the ratio to) the temperature of the universe today, 2.73 degrees. That's the initial ratio which changes exponentially as the universe expands.)

The calculations come out to be as follows:
The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.

The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.

The third day also lasted half of the previous day, 2 billion years.

The fourth day - one billion years.

The fifth day - one-half billion years.

The sixth day - one-quarter billion years.

When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?

But there's more. The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of those days. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world, and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I'll give you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine.

Please go to the link and read the entire article, because unless you do so, you will not understand why Dr. Shroeders makes the above statements. The paper is not too long, but you need to be patient with it, because it is not a short paper, either. And you need to pay close attention to the details, so you will be able to better appreciate the theory.

This is quite a compelling argument, because it is well supported by scientific studies of how time works and/or affects the material world. And the best thing about it is that, it may be possible to hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis, without having to declare the earth to be "young" in a sense. For example, this would mean that the earth (and the universe) were aging at a much faster rate than today, because time would have a greater effect on it.

After reading on Dr. Shroeders' theory, I feel confident in my belief in a literal Genesis, as opposed to trying to use different kinds of tactics to mold the story into my preconceived beliefs.

Blessings!

PS. I will offer another theory, which is not one I like too much, but I find to be of great interest, since it was presented way before the time Darwinism.

Sinai · #8 25th September 2003, 09:59 AM

I am glad you enjoyed Dr. Schroeder's article. Have you read any of his books yet? They are some of the most interesting and stimulating reading I have ever encountered. Bring along your Bible study materials when you read what he has to say, though, as you will probably want to delve into the original Hebrew as well as taking notes as you go along. After all, Dr. Schroeder is both a respected scientist and a Hebrew scholar.

One of the things I especially respect about Dr. Schroeder's methods is that he relies upon several of the most respected ancient Jewish theologians (whose writings predate the modern scientific era by hundreds of years) so that the biblical commentary will not be tainted by scientific discoveries. He then uses writings by the most respected scientists and scientific journals to show the consistency between the ancient biblical scriptures and the current scientific data.

As you have apparently discovered, his writings will give you a great deal of food for thought.....

Karaite · #9 25th September 2003, 01:42 PM

Sinai,

I have not read any of his books, yet. But I can believe that his writings would be very much stimulating, especially after reading that article. I used to spend a lot of time reading about the Aish HaTorah website--though not recently--and was able to see a lot of the Jewish writings and their traditions.

I think the great commentarists of Judaism were big time thinkers, and they invested a lot of time into the study of the Torah, but a lot of writings are also purely based on assumptions, and oral traditions that do not have the authoritative weight of the Scriptures. For example, the Kabbalists (who believed in 're-incarnation') when explaining the reason for which Judah slept with his daughter-in-law, thinking that she was a prostitute, they claim that Shelah was not able to have children (or something like that, not sure what it was), and that since the Messiah is supposed to be a descendant of Judah, God/or the Spirit made Judah go and look for this woman, and that the twins that were born, they were the same Er and Onan.

I know I may be wrong in the details, but that is the general idea of what happened, according to the Kabbalist. And that is not too far from the interpretations of some of the other commentarists (Rashi is the greates of the Jewish commentarists, and he was a Kabbalist).

Judaism today is very much influenced by these theories, beliefs, traditions, etc. So, there is going to be a lot of interesting things that they will say, but not all will be biblically rooted.

So, yes, it is a good idea to use your Bible while reading that type of writing. And I don't think his ideas are too far from the Bible, especially when you look into the writings of many christians who make even more outrageous claims.

lucaspa · #10 26th September 2003, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Karaite

Hi,

The calculations come out to be as follows:
The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.

The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.

The third day also lasted half of the previous day, 2 billion years.

The fourth day - one billion years.

The fifth day - one-half billion years.

The sixth day - one-quarter billion years.

When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?

Schroeder did here what any scientist should do -- he made a risky prediction. In this case, he predicted that the real age of the universe would really be 15.75 billion years. At the time he wrote it, the range was 10-20 billion years, so it looked like he was safe.

However, since then the age of the universe has been refined and it's not 15.75 billion years. Instead, it's 13.4 +/- 0.3 billion years. That means that there's only 1 chance in 100,000 that the universe is really 15.75 billion years old (taking 7 standard deviations, and I'll explain that if you want). This means that Schroeder is wrong.

Nice try, but his theory got falsified by the data.

But there's more. The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of those days. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world, and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I'll give you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine.

That's falsified too. For instance, day 4 specifically says the plants used in agriculture were created. These plants are all flowering plants, and those didn't appear until 80 million years ago -- the 6th day in the chronology. Oops.

So, two falsifications and still counting.