Young earth vs Old earth?

Firstlightdawn said:

A miracle, by definition, is something nature cannot produce on its own, which means it isn’t explainable by normal physics. That doesn’t make it anti‑science; it just places it in a different category than ordinary natural processes.

The beginning — the very first word of the Bible — speaks about the moment creation becomes observable. Something existed before that beginning, but only in a way God understands. The text describes the start of our observable reality, not the start of God.

By definition, science cannot explain God. Science studies the patterns and processes of creation; God is the One who stands outside and above those processes. You can’t use a tool designed to measure nature to measure the Creator of nature. This is known as cause and effect.

Click to expand...

So you don’t think there’s anything supernatural going on in creation?

Firstlightdawn said:

Physics does not try to explain miracles. This is beyond the ability of science.

Click to expand...

You’re changing the topic of the discussion here. You said miracles do not violate the laws of physics. Now you’re changing the discussion to physics explaining miracles. Those are two different topics my friend.

BNR32FAN said:

So you don’t think there’s anything supernatural going on in creation?

Click to expand...

Hebrews 7:14

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

BNR32FAN said:

You’re changing the topic of the discussion here.

Click to expand...

“People don’t see the connection the way I do because I’m following the underlying pattern, not the surface categories. To me it’s one continuous line; to them it looks like separate topics.”

BNR32FAN said:

So you don’t think there’s anything supernatural going on in creation?

Click to expand...

What scripture are we talking about?

CoreyD said:

No problem.
A little under 6,000 years is fine.


People do say this.
However, Genesis 28:10 is not a summary.
It reads...

Jacob [yatsa - went out, or departed] left Beersheba and [halak - walked, came, proceeded, moved] set out for Haran.​

That's followed by Genesis 28:11...

On reaching a certain place, he spent the night there because the sun had set. And taking one of the stones from that place, he put it under his head and lay down to sleep.​

That's a recorded event in its process.
A summary is like this:

This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, Genesis 2:4​

Others similar, are... Genesis 5:1; Genesis 6:9; Genesis 10:1; Genesis 11:10; Matthew 1:1...

Besides that, since it is your opinion that "Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement", can you please tell me how you explain Genesis 1:2, which follows Genesis 1:1, and reads...
The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.

If Genesis 1:1 is a summary, how is it the earth exists before the actual making of it, is considered?


Thanks for acknowledging it's your opinion, because if indeed the first work is Genesis 1:2, then that would mean the waters are not part of the things God made in the earth, hence not created by God.
Is that what you believe?
If not, then you cannot deny the earth was already created, by God, and therefore, Genesis 1:1 refers to that event, rather than it being a summary, as the opinion goes.


Is Isaiah 45:7 referring to creation?
Let's take a look.
I form the light and create the darkness; I bring prosperity and create calamity. I, the LORD, do all these things

Did God create calamity, or what is ra': Evil, bad, wicked? Is that what you believe?
Can God create, or cause to exist, darkness? Certainly. That is what God did at Exodus 10:21.
Can God create calamity, or what is hurtful? Yes, he did this when he brought the ten plagues on the Egyptians, and destroyed them at the Red Sea.
That was a necessary evil, or calamity.

So, the scripture at Isaiah 45:7 can refer to any event where God brings forth light, darkness, prosperity, or calamity, and does not refer to creation at the beginning.
This is further verified by the fact that God is light, and therefore light is not a new creation, but as stated at Psalm 36:9

For with You is the fountain of life; In Your light we see light.​

When God said "let there be light", we can ask where to, from what source, and how, but there is no reason to assume light did not existOf course, now that we are alive, through the source of life, we know that there are many lights, and they all have a source.
Light is not an object.
Light is electromagnetic radiation that can be detected by the human eye, occupying a narrow range of wavelengths typically between 380 and 750 nanometres.

There is always a source of this electromagnetic radiation called light.


This is your opinion as well, thanks, but no, we do not want to rearrange Genesis 1 to fit the ideas of human reasoning.
That would be a violation of the rule at 1 Corinthians 4:6, and a dismissal of the principle found at Revelation 22:18

Thanks for sharing your opinion, though.

Click to expand...

You have commented on a number of things. I will address what I believe is the most important. Verse 1:1 as a summary statement.

The correct translation of Genesis 28:10 is: "And Jacob went forth from Bersabee and came to Haran." "to Haran" is חָרָֽנָה this form of the noun חָרָן (Haran or Charan) is used only in Genesis 27:43 and 28:10. The meaning in 27:43 is clearly that of being in Haran where Rebecca's brother is living. Most translations have toward because the next verse places Jacob in Bethel, not Haran. However, the correct (literal) Hebrew is "to Haran" so as to convey the idea Jacob is in Haran. That is, it is a summary statement. As H.C. Leupold states, "A characteristic Hebrew way of summarizing the whole story before the details are given" [H.C. Leupold D.D., *Exposition of Genesis*, Baker Book House, 1960, Volume II, p. 770].

The function of a summary statement is to make clear there is a purpose to the narrative. Jacob went to Haran for two reasons (1) wait for Esau to "cool off" as stated in Genesis 27:43 (2) find a wife from Rebecca's family, in Haran as stated in Genesis 27:46-28:2. The actual journey probably took a month. Jacob will spend many nights with others along the way, but despite seeing other women in other locations, Jacob did not entertain the idea of finding a wife from among the many opportunities he had in making the journey from Beersheba to Haran. Nor did he consider waiting in some other location for Esau's anger to subside. The summary statement alerts the reader the narrative is not about the journey. It is about what takes place in Haran (the narrative which follows.)

The meaning of Genesis 28:10 is "And Jacob went forth from Beersheba and came to Haran, (to let Esau's anger subside and find a wife from among Rebecca's family)."

The events is Bethel are to be understood in the context of Jacob finding a wife in Haran and returning safely (Esau's anger has subsided). In effect, the summary statement in Genesis 28:10 is followed by a narrative summarizing the result of the complete trip. The LORD makes clear Jacob's leaving the land promised will not nullify the promise made to Abram. Jacob then vows if the LORD does allow him to return in peace, the LORD will be his God. The entire passage is dependent on Jacob being in Haran to accomplish the reasons for leaving Isaac and Rebecca, and the land promised.

A summary statement is a way of saying there is a purpose which the details in the narrative will explicate. If we had no background to Jacob's life, the narrative of events in Haran would make it clear he went to find a wife from among his mother's family and (implied) God orchestrated events to keep him in Haran long enough for Esau's anger to subside. Genesis 28:10 summarizes Jacob did what was required.

Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement which like Genesis 28:10 tells the reader there is a purpose to creation which is to be found in the narrative. It is not saying God has done something. It is saying God did something (create the heavens and the earth) for a specific reason. It establishes, from the beginning, God has a purpose for creation, which will be found in the narrative which follows. That purpose is in Genesis 1:26, the only verse which explains what will happen before it is done. "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

This is true for 2 reasons. (1) Theologically, God had a reason for making man and giving man authority which was in the mind of God before anything was done. The fact it was placed on the sixth day does not mean the sixth day was when the plan first came to mind. (2) Scientifically, since man was created last, and man was to have certain authority within what God creates, everything which is created before man must be done with that in mind. IOW, what is going to be done last determines how all the preceding work will be done.

Any attempt to understand Genesis 1:1 as other than a summary statement will lead to understanding what follows incorrectly, both theologically and scientifically.