6,000 Years?

[River Jordan]

I just noticed that we are discussing life on earth for 6000 years and that the half-life is about 6000 years. Is it like 1.618? Carbon (12) is the building block of life and C-14 can be used to measure time. I was just wondering.

It means if you have a certain amount of C-14, in 6,000 years half of it will have decayed into N-14.

I wrote before that I believe there are 6000 years between Adam and us, but I'm still uncertain about the time before Adam. The first three days of Genesis still give me trouble for a 24-hour day. The Great Year (25,800 years) also seems to fit in somewhere. The Bible and archeology have to fit better more than 6000 years ago. I trust the Bible, but I don't think all scientists want to deceive.

You're touching on debates about interpreting Genesis that have gone on for centuries. Within Christianity Origen was discussing non-literal interpretations of Genesis in the 2nd century, and Thomas Aquinas in the 13th for example. And Jewish Rabbis and scholars were doing the same well before that!

 

[Job 33:6]

I'll be honest, I feel that reading the scripture to mean anything other than that it began on day one and then day two is dishonest reading and trying to shoehorn in the concept of evolution into the scripture. We try and use a gap to put the idea in there, but I just can't read it that way.

I'm not speaking of a gap between 1:1 and 1:2. I'm talking about verse 1 not actually being an event at all, in and of itself.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

Just look at it. Imagine the analogy.

When George began to create a piece of furniture, now the furniture was formless and broken, and then George said, let there be a screwdriver.

It's not so much about there being a gap between 1:1 and 1:2 so much as it is a plain observation that the text never actually says how long the furniture was there before George began creating it.

 

[tampasteve]

"When George began to create the furniture" doesn't say anything about the age of the furniture before George began to create it.

It does if we believe that he is in the process of creating that furniture ex nihilo.

 

[River Jordan]

The professionals understand the limitations also. They expect and rely upon recalibrations.

Calibrations that include known dates such as the eruption at Pompeii.

If you don’t have a verifiable starting point of the initial C14 then the results hold no authority. Professionals accept C14 as this is the best tool they have. Again unverifiable starting C14.

Well I'm sorry, but I am not about to change my mind about this just based on what you say. Scientists know what they're doing and they publish their results for everyone to read. If you think you've found a flaw in their work then you should take it up with them and see how it goes.

 

[tampasteve]

I'm not speaking of a gap between 1:1 and 1:2. I'm talking about verse 1 not actually being an event at all, in and of itself.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

Just look at it. Imagine the analogy.

When George began to create a piece of furniture, now the furniture was formless and broken, and then George said, let there be a screwdriver.

It's not so much about there being a gap between 1:1 and 1:2 so much as it is a plain observation that the text never actually says how long the furniture was there before George began creating it.

Sorry, I see where you are coming from, but I just can't read the text in that manner in a personally honest way. I am not trying to say you are being dishonest with your own views - we each hold our own and this isn't a salvific issue - but for me to be true to myself and my understandings I just can't see it in the same manner.

 

[Job 33:6]

It does if we believe that he is in the process of creating that furniture ex nihilo.

And to that I would say, anyone who actually looks at the Hebrew word bara, can see that this position is just not justified.

 

[River Jordan]

I'll be honest, I feel that reading the scripture to mean anything other than that it began on day one and then day two is dishonest reading and trying to shoehorn in the concept of evolution into the scripture.

The problem there is some Jewish Rabbis and Christian scholars were advocating a different interpretation of Genesis long before anyone knew a thing about evolution or how old the earth was.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sorry, I see where you are coming from, but I just can't read the text in that manner in a personally honest way. I am not trying to say you are being dishonest with your own views - we each hold our own and this isn't a salvific issue - but for me to be true to myself and my understandings I just can't see it in the same manner.

Shrugs*

Here it is. What do you mean "I just can't read the text in that manner" ?

The English language only works in certain ways. It can't really not be read as it is.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

You could argue that you disagree with the translation. But you can't not see what the translation says. This is about basic English language in grammar, it's not really something that can subjectively be disputed.

If someone said:

When George began to ride his bike, now his bike was wobbly and broken...then George said "let there be a screwdriver".

English doesn't allow us to say "well his bike must be 6,000 years old".

English just doesn't let that happen.

Unless someone denies what the English says. Even counting back the genealogies doesn't make a difference if the very first verse says nothing of how long the bike was around before George fixed it.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sorry, I see where you are coming from, but I just can't read the text in that manner in a personally honest way. I am not trying to say you are being dishonest with your own views - we each hold our own and this isn't a salvific issue - but for me to be true to myself and my understandings I just can't see it in the same manner.

And sorry, I don't mean to be antagonistic. But, it's ok to just say "I don't agree with that translation".

But it's not really meaningful to say "I just can't read it that way" because English only works in certain ways.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am a retired scientist and I am also a practicing Catholic. I have not come across anything and I mean anything at all from science where there is an inherent conflict between science and being Catholic. There are likely individual scientists who are anti religion but I don't believe they have much influence.

On the other hand I can understand the conflict between creationists beliefs and science because of specific their beliefs in an young earth.

Yes, that's basically what I've already said here too, Frank. Like you, I don't have a conflicting view of science in conjunction with the Bible, but being the amateur philosopher that I am, I'm very cognizant of when and where and who the scientific troublemakers have been, especially during the last 20 years or so. It is those particular individuals whom I was referring to earlier.

You're right that there aren't that many anti-religious scientists, but the few that have raised their voices in the public have caused a stir among the crowds.

 

[Job 33:6]

It does if we believe that he is in the process of creating that furniture ex nihilo.

This is a good response here. But there is a really deep assumption here that when God creates in Genesis 1:1, that it is in terms of ex nihilo ways. But anyone who actually looks at how the Hebrew word bara is used when God creates throughout all of the old testament, and anyone who looks at any ancient near eastern creation texts of any nation, will see that both inside and outside of the Bible, this term always means ex materia or something related to function or purpose. But it never ever means, not in any clear way id say, ex nihilo creation.

There are no clear instances of that term referring to ex nihilo creation.

But we could find many very plainly clear instances of this term meaning something otherwise. Such as when God bara'd a blacksmith. Or when God created Jerusalem. Or when God created the Ammonites etc.

 

[tampasteve]

The problem there is some Jewish Rabbis and Christian scholars were advocating a different interpretation of Genesis long before anyone knew a thing about evolution or how old the earth was.

Ah yes, I am vary familiar with the idea that each verse or idea can have many interpretations, often said up to 7. As Christians. if we didn't believe that then we would have to toss out some of the prophesies of Jesus as they had other fulfillments. As such the other perspective can be viewed as well.

Shrugs*

Here it is. What do you mean "I just can't read the text in that manner" ?

The English language only works in certain ways. It can't really not be read as it is.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

You could argue that you disagree with the translation. But you can't not see what the translation says. This is about basic English language in grammar, it's not really something that can subjectively be disputed.

If someone said:

When George began to ride his bike, now his bike was wobbly and broken...then George said "let there be a screwdriver".

English doesn't allow us to say "well his bike must be 6,000 years old".

English just doesn't let that happen.

Unless someone denies what the English says.

And sorry, I don't mean to be antagonistic. But, it's ok to just say "I don't agree with that translation".

But it's not really meaningful to say "I just can't read it that way" because English only works in certain ways.

*shrugs back and smiles kindly*
If God is creating everything ex nihilo on Day 1 then it can be in chaos as he is creating, I don't have an issue with that. I suppose I could argue that the meaning isn't conveyed in the translation, which would be a fair assessment from my view.

Don't worry, I am not taking this as antagonistic, and i hope that I am not coming across that way either, it is a healthy conversation.

This is a good response here. But there is a really deep assumption here that when God creates in Genesis 1:1, that it is in terms of ex nihilo ways. But anyone who actually looks at how the Hebrew word bara is used when God creates throughout all of the old testament, and anyone who looks at any ancient near eastern creation texts of any nation, will see that both inside and outside of the Bible, this term always means ex materia or something related to function or purpose. But it never ever means, not in any clear way id say, ex nihilo creation.

But we could find many very plainly clear instances of this term in the Hebrew Bible, not meaning ex nihilo creation.

Sure there are instances.....but let's be clear - there are times we don't follow a Hebrew word directly for understanding. I am not going to get into it, but the whole "alma" controversy means that we need to interpret the scriptures in our own tradition as well as understanding. I view the ex nihilo as the most probable and plain meaning in the text of Gen 1.

 

[Job 33:6]

This is a good response here. But there is a really deep assumption here that when God creates in Genesis 1:1, that it is in terms of ex nihilo ways. But anyone who actually looks at how the Hebrew word bara is used when God creates throughout all of the old testament, and anyone who looks at any ancient near eastern creation texts of any nation, will see that both inside and outside of the Bible, this term always means ex materia or something related to function or purpose. But it never ever means, not in any clear way id say, ex nihilo creation.

There are no clear instances of that term referring to ex nihilo creation.

But we could find many very plainly clear instances of this term meaning something otherwise. Such as when God bara'd a blacksmith. Or when God created Jerusalem. Or when God created the Ammonites etc.

"But we could find many very plainly clear instances of this term meaning something otherwise. Such as when God bara'd a blacksmith. Or when God created Jerusalem. Or when God created the Ammonites etc."

And I'd be happy to dig up these verses if interested.

 

[Platte]

Abrahams age does not correlate to the age of the earth no more does Adam's. Because though Adam was present "from the beginning" as we can see, "the beginning" is a dependent clause. It's the beginning when God created, not the beginning of matter itself.

Again:

"When George began to create a piece of furniture, now the furniture was formless and broken, and George said, let there be

Abrahams age does not correlate to the age of the earth no more does Adam's. Because though Adam was present "from the beginning" as we can see, "the beginning" is a dependent clause. It's the beginning when God created, not the beginning of matter itself.

Again:

"When George began to create a piece of furniture, now the furniture was formless and broken, and George said, let there be a screwdriver"

"When George began to create the furniture" doesn't say anything about the age of the furniture before George began to create it.

But you can give us a date for Abraham.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sure there are instances.....but let's be clear - there are times we don't follow a Hebrew word directly for understanding. I am not going to get into it, but the whole "alma" controversy means that we need to interpret the scriptures in our own tradition as well as understanding. I view the ex nihilo as the most probable and plain meaning in the text of Gen 1.

On what basis? Whatever the reason may be, what we have here is a case of, at best, ambiguity.

It's not as though you're deriving this position from the text, if your position is to diverge from the Hebrew and into external traditions. Because anyone can have traditions about anything.

Why should your tradition be more meaningful or more real, than traditions of the ancient Israelites who were the original authors and audiences of the old testament?

 

[River Jordan]

Ah yes, I am vary familiar with the idea that each verse or idea can have many interpretations, often said up to 7. As Christians. if we didn't believe that then we would have to toss out some of the prophesies of Jesus as they had other fulfillments. As such the other perspective can be viewed as well.

But that's not the point. The claim that non-literal interpretations stemmed from attempts to reconcile evolution and ancient earth with Genesis is contradicted by history. Jewish and Christian scholars were advocating non-literal interpretations long before we knew anything about evolution or the age of the earth.

 

[Frank Robert]

Agreed. That’s why I’m saying you can’t argue against Creation using carbon dating as your authority

I agree carbon dating is not a good argument against Creationism when it's simpler to view the empirical evidence.

 

[tampasteve]

On what basis? Whatever the reason may be, what we have here is a case of, at best, ambiguity.

It's not as though you're deriving this position from the text, if your position is to diverge from the Hebrew and into external traditions. Because anyone can have traditions about anything.

Ok, bringing alma back into it, the prophesy for the Messiah simply says that it must be alma, "a young woman" and not necessarily a virgin, and the other example used for Isaiah 7:14 is often Hezekiah, thereby the claim that Jesus must be "born of a virgin" is pagan...and Jesus isn't the messiah. That's the Jewish claim anyway, but of course nearly every Christian scholar translates it as virgin and the virgin birth is foundational to our faith. In one reading of the same text we can say it means virgin in relation to the Messiah and young woman in relation to King Hezekiah.

The text in Gen 1. is describing the creation of everything, IMO changing the meaning to be anything other than a plain reading and ex nihilo is problematic and leads one to have to question much of the veracity of the entire text.

Why should your tradition be more meaningful or more real, than traditions of the ancient Israelites who were the original authors and audiences of the old testament?

Different people different traditions. Also we have the Holy Spirit, the largely did not. Also, most did believe in a literal interpretation of the text, some did not of course (just as now), but many - perhaps most even - did. It is not genuine to say that the ancient Israelites did not view Gen. as literal.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ok, bringing alma back into it, the prophesy for the Messiah simply says that it must be alma, "a young woman" and not necessarily a virgin, and the other example used for Isaiah 7:14 is often Hezekiah, thereby the claim that Jesus must be "born of a virgin" is pagan...and Jesus isn't the messiah. That's the Jewish claim anyway, but of course nearly every Christian scholar translates it as virgin and the virgin birth is foundational to our faith. In one reading of the same text we can say it means virgin in relation to the Messiah and young woman in relation to King Hezekiah.

The text in Gen 1. is describing the creation of everything, IMO changing the meaning to be anything other than a plain reading and ex nihilo is problematic and leads one to have to question much of the veracity of the entire text.


Different people different traditions. Also we have the Holy Spirit, the largely did not. Also, most did believe in a literal interpretation of the text, some did not of course (just as now), but many - perhaps most even - did. It is not genuine to say that the ancient Israelites did not view Gen. as literal.

Well here, you've resolved your own challenge.

"one reading of the same text we can say it means virgin in relation to the Messiah and young woman in relation to King Hezekiah."

In reality, we don't actually have 1 reading of 1 text. We have 2 readings of 1 text. The original Isaiah reading (which may or may not involve a virgin) and Mathews later reading which involves Mary.

Rather than erasing the old testament with the new, the solution is to hold the two in balance, respecting each in its own light.

Another good example of this issue is found in Genesis 1:26. People say that the "Us" is Jesus and the holy Spirit and the father.

But obviously the ancient isrealites and Moses had no idea who Jesus was, so when they wrote and listened to that, that's not what they would have understood.

And interestingly enough, with the tower of Babel, God says "let us go down and confuse their language", but no pastor gets up on stage and ever preaches about Jesus confusing languages of people at Babel.

And further in Isaiah 6, "us" is used in reference to God and his angels and council.


The point is that, there two two different contexts and two different readings. And I'm sure you know this.

But you can't erase the old testament with the new. Rather you must hold them both, in balance with one another. Understanding that the old testament readers never had the full revelation and thus the old testament doesn't actually say those things.

But simultaneously there is another potential assumption at play here. And that is the assumption that Mathew is not merely using the old testament to convey new truths. But that Mathew is making an effort at re-telling the book of Isaiah.

But Mathew need not be saying that Isaiah was intended to be understood that way (a virgin) by its original isrealite audience. Rather he's only speaking to his later audiences about revelations that he has for people of that later time.

 

[Job 33:6]

All this to say, the new testament does not overwrite the old testament. If they say conflicting things, the solution is not to delete the old testament in favor of the new.

And for that reason, we cannot replace Genesis, just because John had something else to say.

What challenges would an ex materia reading do for something like the gospel? I'd say, it doesn't have any impact at all.

@tampasteve what would you say to this?