Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[armchairscholar]

Deuteronomy 29:29: "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever." Do you think that God is restricted by time? Here are the facts as we know them from the Scriptures:

• According to Genesis 1–2, Adam and Eve were created as mature adults, not as infants.
• Stars were visible to Adam and Eve despite their light taking years to travel to Earth (Genesis 1:14–15).
• Ecosystems, rivers, and plants were fully formed and ready to sustain life (Genesis 2:10–12).
• Genesis 2:9 states that God created trees that were already bearing fruit, implying they appeared to have grown over time, even though they were created instantly.

And some you may dismiss:

• The transformation of water into wine at Cana (John 2:1–11) produced wine that appeared aged and suitable for immediate consumption.
• The multiplication of loaves and fish (Matthew 14:13–21) created food that appeared to have been processed and prepared.

I don't understand this claim that it is "deceptive," as on one hand you claim that there is no biblical proof of either position, yet claim God is deceptive, where did he state that the earth was not made old? If he directly stated that, then it is true that God is being deceptive and the argument fails, but if not, then where are you basing this "deception" off of? God’s creation is beyond human comprehension (Job 38–39), so if Genesis gives an account of visible stars, fully formed ecosystems, trees bearing fruit, and mature humans immediate upon their creation, and moreover the aged wine of Cana and prepared loves and fish of the 5,000, where is this deception?

I need to point out some issues with this argument. The examples given (Adam and Eve, stars, ecosystems) are actually part of the creation narrative itself - they're fundamentally different from fossils, which weren't mentioned at all in Genesis.

The "appearance of age" argument creates a bigger theological problem than it solves. If God placed fossils in the ground that appear to be millions of years old (complete with decay rates, geological layers, and DNA evidence), but they're actually not real evidence of past life, that would mean God deliberately created false evidence. This conflicts with the Catholic understanding of God's nature as Truth itself.

The wine at Cana and the loaves/fishes were miraculous events witnessed firsthand and recorded as such. They're not comparable to creating an elaborate worldwide system of false evidence that would mislead scientists trying to honestly study God's creation.

I also notice this argument seems motivated by a desire to reconcile scientific evidence with a particular interpretation of Genesis, rather than considering that our interpretation might need updating. The Catholic Church has long held that scientific truth and religious truth cannot contradict each other - they're both aspects of God's truth.

Just my two cents as someone who's spent time studying both the historical and psychological aspects of how we interpret scripture.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Taking Genesis literally, nothing and nowhere is it said that the things made in creation were not fully actualized upon creation, in fact the opposite: "And He said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done." The hebrew for "bring forth the green herb and such as may seed" is עֵ֚שֶׂב מַזְרִ֣יעַ זֶ֔רַע. The literal hebrew of the verse is the herb yielding (מַזְרִ֣יעַ, maz-rî-a‘) seed. God did not say "being forth the seed that bring the herb" he says "the herb that yields seed," implying that the herb was created in its actualized state with seeds, therefore the entire maturing process for it was skipped. Moreover, the next verse says the same of the fruit tree, using the word עֹ֤שֶׂה (‘ō-śeh) instead of mazira. עֹ֤שֶׂה (‘ō-śeh)'s literal meaning is bearing, with the KJV interpreting it as "yielding" (for AV), meaning that the fruit tree was made already yielding the necessary seeds to produce more of itself, it did not have to go through the process of being a seed, then growing into the tree.

This is important because if these things were made for humans to eat from (Genesis 1:29–30), and they came already prepared for human use, then the world, with its resources and wisdom for humans to grow wise with, were made actualized for humans to use.

So what?

I do not accept Genesis as a literal history text, and am always puzzled by the people who claim it as such over what God's own creation tells us. I mean, if we only have to use the Bible, then what's the point of investigating the world around us? Astrology, archaeology, history; everything is worthless then.

And, once again, I have to point out that none of this makes the idea of embedded age; of God creating the world 6000 years ago but embedding it with billions of years of age and history, any less deceptive to me or others.

 

[AveChristusRex]

So what?

I do not accept Genesis as a literal history text, and am always puzzled by the people who claim it as such over what God's own creation tells us. I mean, if we only have to use the Bible, then what's the point of investigating the world around us? Astrology, archaeology, history; everything is worthless then.

And, once again, I have to point out that none of this makes the idea of embedded age; of God creating the world 6000 years ago but embedding it with billions of years of age and history, any less deceptive to me or others.

So you have no theological response like armchairscholar, rather a dismissal due to your position that Genesis is not literal?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So you have no theological response like armchairscholar, rather a dismissal due to your position that Genesis is not literal?

My theological response is that a literal Genesis in the face of what we know about God's creation makes no sense. @armchairscholar goes into more details on the specifics, but my view pretty much aligns spot on with his.

Not every response needs to be a whole ream of script. A dismissal is as equally valid a response.

 

[River Jordan]

So what is your definition of earth as used in Genesis 1:1?

Definition? It's just a general statement telling us that God created everything.

 

[AveChristusRex]

My theological response is that a literal Genesis in the face of what we know about God's creation makes no sense. @armchairscholar goes into more details on the specifics, but my view pretty much aligns spot on with his.

Not every response needs to be a whole ream of script. A dismissal is as equally valid a response.

I guess, I just have to note that no non-embedded age individual has procured a verse or any quotes as to invalidate our position, it has just been [albeit respectful] dismissals (so far) with @armchairscholar breaking it up a little

 

[BCP1928]

So God lied, or at least did not tell the full truth? I have read much of the apocrypha, and works such as the Apocalypse of Abraham speak of God showing Abraham the beginning and the end upon his death, or Enoch and Elijah being taken up by God into heaven as humans, implying they were fully prepared to see the true face of God. These are examples of the incomprehensible being comprehensible to some in the time that you are implying was rife with primitive thinking and God had to essentially use a slideshow to explain things. I don't think God would dumb down His chosen people in such a way: "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law" (Deuteronomy 29:29). Would you say this is wrong, and the things [i.e., the wisdom/understanding] that were revealed did not last forever, only for a certain time until it was corrected?

No, God didn't lie, you are just strutting your own superior piety.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I guess, I just have to note that no non-embedded age individual has procured a verse or any quotes as to invalidate our position, it has just been [albeit respectful] dismissals (so far) with @armchairscholar breaking it up a little

You nor anyone has ever presented a verse or quote directly from the Bible to show why anyone should take embedded age as a valid Biblical concept. I've seen verses out of context and verses that require a massive amount of twisting to make them to fit. But a direct verse from the Bible itself talking about embedded age? Nada. Zilch. Nothing.

 

[AveChristusRex]

You nor anyone has ever presented a verse or quote directly from the Bible to show why anyone should take embedded age as a valid Biblical concept. I've seen verses out of context and verses that require a massive amount of twisting to make them to fit. But a direct verse from the Bible itself talking about embedded age? Nada. Zilch. Nothing.

First one:

Taking Genesis literally, nothing and nowhere is it said that the things made in creation were not fully actualized upon creation, in fact the opposite: "And He said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done." The hebrew for "bring forth the green herb and such as may seed" is עֵ֚שֶׂב מַזְרִ֣יעַ זֶ֔רַע. The literal hebrew of the verse is the herb yielding (מַזְרִ֣יעַ, maz-rî-a‘) seed. God did not say "being forth the seed that bring the herb" he says "the herb that yields seed," implying that the herb was created in its actualized state with seeds, therefore the entire maturing process for it was skipped. Moreover, the next verse says the same of the fruit tree, using the word עֹ֤שֶׂה (‘ō-śeh) instead of mazira. עֹ֤שֶׂה (‘ō-śeh)'s literal meaning is bearing, with the KJV interpreting it as "yielding" (for AV), meaning that the fruit tree was made already yielding the necessary seeds to produce more of itself, it did not have to go through the process of being a seed, then growing into the tree.

This is important because if these things were made for humans to eat from (Genesis 1:29–30), and they came already prepared for human use, then the world, with its resources and wisdom for humans to grow wise with, were made actualized for humans to use.

Second one:

Deuteronomy 29:29: "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever." Do you think that God is restricted by time? Here are the facts as we know them from the Scriptures:

• According to Genesis 1–2, Adam and Eve were created as mature adults, not as infants.
• Stars were visible to Adam and Eve despite their light taking years to travel to Earth (Genesis 1:14–15).
• Ecosystems, rivers, and plants were fully formed and ready to sustain life (Genesis 2:10–12).
• Genesis 2:9 states that God created trees that were already bearing fruit, implying they appeared to have grown over time, even though they were created instantly.

And some you may dismiss:

• The transformation of water into wine at Cana (John 2:1–11) produced wine that appeared aged and suitable for immediate consumption.
• The multiplication of loaves and fish (Matthew 14:13–21) created food that appeared to have been processed and prepared.

I don't understand this claim that it is "deceptive," as on one hand you claim that there is no biblical proof of either position, yet claim God is deceptive, where did he state that the earth was not made old? If he directly stated that, then it is true that God is being deceptive and the argument fails, but if not, then where are you basing this "deception" off of? God’s creation is beyond human comprehension (Job 38–39), so if Genesis gives an account of visible stars, fully formed ecosystems, trees bearing fruit, and mature humans immediate upon their creation, and moreover the aged wine of Cana and prepared loves and fish of the 5,000, where is this deception?

Third one:

It is not extra-biblical per se, though not explicitly stated. As I said in a previous thread, I lean towards the Omphalos hypothesis, but it is the perfect substitute for Creationists [in the event of proving natural evidence of an old earth] for scientific evidence of YEC in my mind. The foundation of the philosophy that embedded age would be a delusion by God comes from 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12: "For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." If He did it once; why can't this be an example? Moreover, here are a few examples of it being used in a biblical context: First, 55 years before Henry Gosse's book, François-René de Chateaubriand's Génie du christianisme (The Genius of Christianity, 1802) in defense of the Catholic faith, wrote: "God could have, and undoubtedly did, create the world with all the signs of its antiquity and perfection that it now displays." Second, in the Talmud, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hanania states that the world was created in Nisan, during spring, citing the verse "trees yielding fruit," indicating that trees were created in their fruit-bearing state. The Talmud elaborates: "Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All the acts of creation were created in their full stature, with full understanding, and with their full beauty. As it says: "And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their hosts" – do not read "hosts" but "beauty"" (תלמוד בבלי, מסכת ראש השנה, דף י"א, עמוד א'). Thirdly, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson wrote in response to a question about fossils: "Even if the time given by the Torah for the age of the world seems too short for fossilization processes (though I see no way to prove this definitively), we can easily accept the possibility that God created fossils as they appear—bones or skeletons (for reasons known to Him)—just as He could create fully formed organisms, Adam in his entirety, and ready-made products like coal or diamonds, without any developmental process" (Tevet 5722, printed in "Faith and Science," p. 89).

Here are a few more examples from Church Fathers to show its possible implicit meaning in the Scriptures:

• Regarding Genesis, St. Ephrem the Syrian described a world in which divine creation instantly produced fully grown organisms: "Although the grasses were only a moment old at their creation, they appeared as if they were months old. Likewise, the trees, although only a day old when they sprouted forth, were nevertheless like ... years old as they were fully grown and fruits were already budding on their branches."
• John D. Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research wrote in 1990 about the "appearance of age," saying that: "...what [God] created was functionally complete right from the start—able to fulfill the purpose for which it was created."
• Aristotle's concept of "Potentiality and Actuality" is the notion of a created world that appears to have undergone natural processes (actuality) despite being brought into existence fully formed (potentiality realized instantly by God).
• St. Augustine proposed that God created the world with "seeds" (rationes seminales) that would unfold over time, similar to Gosse (through the potential of embedding the appearance or potential of development within creation).

As Schneerson said, even if the fossilization processes proves the time for the age of the world seems too short, we can easily accept the possibility that God created fossils as they appear without any developmental process. I heavily lean on the Omphalos hypothesis, though the age of the earth that was made old is unknown. Still, the earth is 7,539 years old, give or take. The earth appears to have undergone natural processes (actuality) despite being brought into existence fully formed (potentiality realized instantly by God) during the six day period; however, the "old" that was made is unknown in how actually "old" the "old" is. (Note, as AV has pointed out, I accept more of the idea of the Omphalos hypothesis, not the word-for-word meaning of Gosse's work.)

I think it is possible that it is implicitly stated in the Scriptures, and therefore nor purely extra-biblical.

Just three examples.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

First one:

Second one:

Third one:

Just three examples.

I repeat:
I've seen verses out of context and verses that require a massive amount of twisting to make them to fit. But a direct verse from the Bible itself talking about embedded age? Nada. Zilch. Nothing.

All you've done is just double down on that fact to show I'm right.

 

[AveChristusRex]

I repeat:
I've seen verses out of context and verses that require a massive amount of twisting to make them to fit. But a direct verse from the Bible itself talking about embedded age? Nada. Zilch. Nothing.

All you've done is just double down on that fact to show I'm right.

Is there a verse saying Genesis is an allegory, without a massive amount of twisting?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Is there a verse saying Genesis is an allegory, without a massive amount of twisting?

Oh, you're a comedian, all right.

 

[BCP1928]

Is there a verse saying Genesis is an allegory, without a massive amount of twisting?

Is allegory the only literary form besides accurate literal history that you know about?

 

[AveChristusRex]

I need to point out some issues with this argument. The examples given (Adam and Eve, stars, ecosystems) are actually part of the creation narrative itself - they're fundamentally different from fossils, which weren't mentioned at all in Genesis.

The "appearance of age" argument creates a bigger theological problem than it solves. If God placed fossils in the ground that appear to be millions of years old (complete with decay rates, geological layers, and DNA evidence), but they're actually not real evidence of past life, that would mean God deliberately created false evidence. This conflicts with the Catholic understanding of God's nature as Truth itself.

The wine at Cana and the loaves/fishes were miraculous events witnessed firsthand and recorded as such. They're not comparable to creating an elaborate worldwide system of false evidence that would mislead scientists trying to honestly study God's creation.

I also notice this argument seems motivated by a desire to reconcile scientific evidence with a particular interpretation of Genesis, rather than considering that our interpretation might need updating. The Catholic Church has long held that scientific truth and religious truth cannot contradict each other - they're both aspects of God's truth.

Just my two cents as someone who's spent time studying both the historical and psychological aspects of how we interpret scripture.

Good points, let me try to answer them in the Catholic mind.

I need to point out some issues with this argument. The examples given (Adam and Eve, stars, ecosystems) are actually part of the creation narrative itself - they're fundamentally different from fossils, which weren't mentioned at all in Genesis.

If the only hangup on this issue is fossils, then we can look to the matter of the Flood being the reason, I don't actually believe fossils were already in the earth upon its inception no, but I do think the earth was prepared for habitation upon its inception.

The "appearance of age" argument creates a bigger theological problem than it solves. If God placed fossils in the ground that appear to be millions of years old (complete with decay rates, geological layers, and DNA evidence), but they're actually not real evidence of past life, that would mean God deliberately created false evidence. This conflicts with the Catholic understanding of God's nature as Truth itself.

Again, the Bible shows that thorns, disease, and carnivory originated after Adam’s sin, therefore fossils must have existed after creation. Fossils formed in response to the rapid flood event.

The wine at Cana and the loaves/fishes were miraculous events witnessed firsthand and recorded as such. They're not comparable to creating an elaborate worldwide system of false evidence that would mislead scientists trying to honestly study God's creation.

I will repeat what AV said on the matter, it is fine to say that a fossil is a million years old, it is not fine to say it was formed a million years ago. The world was made for humans to dwell in it on the sixth day, and also for animals to dwell in it for humans sake.

I need to point out some issues with this argument. The examples given (Adam and Eve, stars, ecosystems) are actually part of the creation I also notice this argument seems motivated by a desire to reconcile scientific evidence with a particular interpretation of Genesis, rather than considering that our interpretation might need updating. The Catholic Church has long held that scientific truth and religious truth cannot contradict each other - they're both aspects of God's truth.

The Church has never officially dogmatized a certain position, but the near-universal consensus of the Fathers shows YEC, and some of those Fathers feeling embedded age was a valid point even before the science, so this is not a desire to reconcile evidence, as the embedded age position came into consideration far before we even knew of most of the scientific evidence used against Genesis today.

Good points, though.

 

[AveChristusRex]

Oh, you're a comedian, all right.

It is a genuine question: where in the Bible does it say that Genesis is an allegory, or are you saying that Genesis was written by an individual who thought the earth was only a few thousand years old and was interpreted differently later? If you say that Genesis was written with YEC in mind, then it validates our position because all scripture is God-breathed, and therefore impossible [in itself] to lead people astray into error.

 

[AveChristusRex]

Is allegory the only literary form besides accurate literal history that you know about?

There are three literally forms used by the Church Fathers:

1. Literal (St. Theophilus, St. Ephraim the Syrian, St. John Chrysostom, St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Peter of Alexandria, St. Isaac the Syrian, St. Ambrose of Milan; Lactantius & St. Thomas Aquinas)
2. Allegory (St. Irenaeus, Origen, St. Basil, St. Barnabas)
3. Literal, embedded age (St. Ephrem the Syrian & St. Augustine)

I am not aware of the Fathers positing any others than that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It is a genuine question: where in the Bible does it say that Genesis is an allegory, or are you saying that Genesis was written by an individual who thought the earth was only a few thousand years old and was interpreted differently later? If you say that Genesis was written with YEC in mind, then it validates our position because all scripture is God-breathed, and therefore impossible [in itself] to lead people astray into error.

I never said that Genesis was written with YEC in mind. What I said, and I'll directly quote myself from post #1779 where I said of Genesis as: "a story created by the ancient Jews to explain their world as to the best their knowledge allowed them to." So if you're going to say I said something, get what I said right.

Nothing about Genesis is clear historical fact, or even possible historical fact. We have no evidence of the human population coming from two people and then a single family of several individuals, no evidence of a global flood, no evidence of the Tower of Babel being the source of all of the world's languages after everyone having one single language. There is too much of Genesis that is clearly poetry and allegory, yet many people take it as fact, especially the parts that don't make sense if taken literally.

I don't need anything in the Bible saying that Genesis is allegory to take it as allegory, and there's also nothing in the Bible or serious church doctrine (I was raised Anglican fyi) that Genesis MUST be taken as fact for any reasons of salvation or history. Just like there's nothing in the Bible that supports embedded age or even says anything about embedded age as a concept.

 

[AveChristusRex]

I never said that Genesis was written with YEC in mind. What I said, and I'll directly quote myself from post #1779 where I said of Genesis as: "a story created by the ancient Jews to explain their world as to the best their knowledge allowed them to." So if you're going to say I said something, get what I said right.

Nothing about Genesis is clear historical fact, or even possible historical fact. We have no evidence of the human population coming from two people and then a single family of several individuals, no evidence of a global flood, no evidence of the Tower of Babel being the source of all of the world's languages after everyone having one single language. There is too much of Genesis that is clearly poetry and allegory, yet many people take it as fact, especially the parts that don't make sense if taken literally.

So the anciew Jews made up Genesis, God had nothing to do with it?

I don't need anything in the Bible saying that Genesis is allegory to take it as allegory, and there's also nothing in the Bible or serious church doctrine (I was raised Anglican fyi) that Genesis MUST be taken as fact for any reasons of salvation or history. Just like there's nothing in the Bible that supports embedded age or even says anything about embedded age as a concept.

The Bible uses the word yam, which is not used metaphorically in any other place in Scripture. Moreover, the near-universal consensus of the Fathers shows YEC, and some of those Fathers feeling embedded age was a valid point even before the science. And [with all the respect and love in the world ] to say that "I don't need anything in the Bible saying that Genesis is allegory" and yet shame the embedded age position for adhering to a scriptural interpretation, is quite telling I think

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So the anciew Jews made up Genesis, God had nothing to do with it?

What a weird attempt to twist what I'm saying...
Who do the Jews worship?

The Bible uses the word yam, which is not used metaphorically in any other place in Scripture. Moreover, the near-universal consensus of the Fathers shows YEC, and some of those Fathers feeling embedded age was a valid point even before the science. And [with all the respect and love in the world ] to say that "I don't need anything in the Bible saying that Genesis is allegory" and yet shame the embedded age position for adhering to a scriptural interpretation, is quite telling I think

The Church Fathers had the exact same problem as the ancient Jews who wrote the Old Testament: they only knew what they knew about the world. They didn't know what we now know about the world. To use them as some kind of be-all and end-all of the topic is... it's weird.

Embedded age isn't mentioned in the Bible and is solely the creation of fallible men who try and use post hoc logic of the world we now know because of modern science to try and square it away with a literal Genesis account.

Honestly, you wouldn't get as much people getting on at you over this if you just went and said "I believe that the Earth is 6000 years in every single way".

 

[AveChristusRex]

What a weird attempt to twist what I'm saying...
Who do the Jews worship?

You did not answer the question, did the ancient Jews make up Genesis to explain how they got there?

The Church Fathers had the exact same problem as the ancient Jews who wrote the Old Testament: they only knew what they knew about the world. They didn't know what we now know about the world. To use them as some kind of be-all and end-all of the topic is... it's weird.

That is because you are not Catholic or Orthodox, and therefore, have no consideration for the authority of the Church Fathers. Ask any Catholic, if the Church Fathers almost unanimously agree on a topic, is that held in high regard @armchairscholar?

Embedded age isn't mentioned in the Bible and is solely the creation of fallible men who try and use post hoc logic of the world we now know because of modern science to try and square it away with a literal Genesis account.

Second, it is mentioned that things during creation were made fully actualized, therein lies our hypothesis.

Honestly, you wouldn't get as much people getting on at you over this if you just went and said "I believe that the Earth is 6000 years in every single way".

What is interesting is the refusal to cite biblical notation on this matter, if a discussion is to be had, it should be had with notation, rather than the dismissal mentality or "I don't need to show biblical evidence".