6,000 Years?

[Job 33:6]

What does Gods Word reveal about the age of the earth in Gen 1:1 ? The answer is simple. In the beginning (first day of time) God created the universe and the earth.
He didn't finish His creation until the 6th day,, so yes the earth the was in darkness and without form, in the beginning (first day).

So we know God didn't spend billions of years adding the elements to form the earth, that's nonsense.

But again, the text doesn't say how long the earth was without form, prior to God beginning to create it. Did you miss my point? I can take a formless pizza and make a pizza in 6 hours. But how long the pizza was formless before I made it, is unanswered by the text.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But there has never been any reconciliation between "secular science" and Gods Word. These are irreconcilably opposed and mutually exclusive.

You can't apply then "scientific method" to Gods creation, because Gods creation way too complex to be examined and compartmentalized by applying the scientific method. Gods creation is supernatural, so you will never understand the supernatural by natural means.

Secular science cannot even begin to understand anything about the spiritual realm, because it is way beyond anything secular science is equipped for. So secular science is at a complete loss to begin with.

I didn't say anything about my view entailing reconciliation between science and the Bible. That's what you merely read into what it is you think I said.

You have your view, though. I get that and that's fine. (Edit: Now that I've seen that you've decided to push it further, back off......)

 

[Platte]

YEC is about the age of the earth. And there is nothing in the Hebrew text that implies that tohu means "empty space". Anyone who spends 5 minutes looking at the use of tohu in the Bible knows this.

The terms tohu wa bohu, and a review of what the terms mean and how they're used, would help us answer that. When we look at scripture, we find that these terms do not suggest a lack of material existence. But rather, they say something about the condition that the object is in.

Tohu is used 20 times in the Bible.

Genesis 1:2
Deuteronomy 32:10
1 Samuel 12:21 x2
Job 6:18
Job 12:24
Job 26:7
Psalm 107:40
Isaiah 24:10
Isaiah 29:21
Isaiah 34:11
Isaiah 40:17
Isaiah 40:23
Isaiah 41:29
Isaiah 44:9
Isaiah 44:18
Isaiah 45:19
Isaiah 49:4
Isaiah 59:4 and
Jeremiah 4:23

And what we see when we review these passages are that, the term moreso relates to purpose or meaning or function, than it does an actual materialistic formlessness.

So for example:
Isaiah 40:17 ESV
[17] All the nations are as nothing before him, they are accounted by him as less than nothing and emptiness.

The "nothing" here isn't saying that the nations are space-time voids of emptiness. Rather they are "nothing" in the sense of being worthless or meaningless.

Deuteronomy 32:10 ESV
[10] “He found him in a desert land, and in the howling waste of the wilderness; he encircled him, he cared for him, he kept him as the apple of his eye.

A desert land, in the howling waste of the wilderness.

Again, it's not empty space. It's just a place of worthless meaninglessness.

A third example:
Jeremiah 4:23-26 ESV
[23] I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light. [24] I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking, and all the hills moved to and fro. [25] I looked, and behold, there was no man, and all the birds of the air had fled. [26] I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a desert, and all its cities were laid in ruins before the Lord, before his fierce anger.

Again, it's not that the earth wasn't there. God is looking down on it. There were mountains. There were birds that had fled. There was a desert, the cities were in ruin.

Again, it's not that the earth was not there. It was there. It was just meaningless, worthless. Wasteland. Nothing meaningful or productive.

So when we go back to Genesis, with this understanding of tohu in mind:
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 see, the earth is there.

It's just worthless. And God takes that worthless earth, and creates it into something good. Tohu wa bohu, formless and empty. And God takes it and gives it form (on days 1-3) and then God fills it (days 4-6) and then by the end of the 6 days, it is very good. Meaningful, purposeful, and no longer empty because it's filled with animals (and people).

So with that perspective in mind, we can then ask, what is the age of the earth in the Bible? And the answer is, the text doesn't actually say.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

When God created it, or went to create it, began to create it, it was [already] tohu wa bohu.

In the beginning in which God created the heavens and the earth, is another way some have explained this. In the beginning of God creating...

The earth was. And different translations word this differently to try to make the Hebrew make sense in English. Because Hebrew doesn't have a clean 1:1 English match.

I think you are overlooking the obvious. The earth you are referring to was the condition of it when it was created. It was without form and void. No form when it was created. God had not formed the mountains and valleys or the topography of the earth. That’s a sensible and logical condition (first step) in its creation. It was also void - as we see creation of life was a few days away.

 

[Platte]

But again, the text doesn't say how long the earth was without form, prior to God beginning to create it. Did you miss my point? I can take a formless pizza and make a pizza in 6 hours. But how long the pizza was formless before I made it, is unanswered by the text.

Creation of the earth was part of day one. The “And”’s between each statement (KJV) clearly ties the verses to day 1 not as separate events. And the entire creation as noted throughout the Bible took 6 days.

 

[Job 33:6]

Creation of the earth was part of day one. The “And”’s between each statement (KJV) clearly ties the verses to day 1 not as separate events. And the entire creation as noted throughout the Bible took 6 days.

Yes, but before creation began, and before day 1 began, the text doesn't say how long the earth was formless before that time. Before the 6 days of creation.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

Imagine if I said, in the beginning when Platte made a pizza, the pizza was formless and empty, and then Platte said, let there be pepperoni. And after 6 hours, Platte made the pizza and it was no longer formless or empty of toppings.

Grammatically, the text doesn't address the question of how long the pizza was formless before Platte created it.

Or we can use this translation:
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.

When Platte began to make the pizza, the pizza was formless and empty of toppings. Then Platte said: let there be pepperoni.

And in 6 hours Platte finished all the work that he had done and the pizza was very good.

The text never says how long the pizza was formless before Platte began to make it in 6 hours.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think you are overlooking the obvious. The earth you are referring to was the condition of it when it was created. It was without form and void. No form when it was created. God had not formed the mountains and valleys or the topography of the earth. That’s a sensible and logical condition (first step) in its creation. It was also void - as we see creation of life was a few days away.

But the earth, even when formless, is still the earth. So, why would YECs not count the age of the earth leading up to creation while the earth was in its formless state?

I could say that the pizza had no form when you began to create it. If I said "in the beginning when Platte made a pizza, the pizza was formless", that still doesn't address the question of how long it was formless before creation of the formless earth began. Creation is a process over 6 days, it is not an instantaneous point in time in verse 1:1.

 

[Dan1988]

I taught philosophy of science. What you fail to see is that theories only qualify as theories after their predictions are repeatedly confirmed by evidence. Facts, in other words. And theories are never "proven." Logical certainty is not part of science. We merely gather enough evidence to make dissent unreasonable.


No, you're confused about these terms. An hypothesis is an explanation for an observed phenomenon. It is based on past experience, but is not considered a theory until it's been repeatedly confirmed by facts. Would you like some examples?


Unless you mean the religion of Christian Science, you're confused about that, too. And you seem confused between God's word, and some people who have presumed to speak for God. You interpretation of His word is not His word.


By middle school, students know the difference. See my comments above. Let's look at a scientific fact.
It is a fact that from the Earth, planets undergo "retrograde motion", in which planets sometimes appear to reverse direction briefly before resuming forward motion. It makes no sense in terms of a geocentric theory, so scientists of the time hypothesized "epicycles", in which could account for the apparent change in motion. It worked, sort of. Later, when it was realized that the Sun was at the center of the system, the hypothesis was falsified. And eventually, the predictions of the Heliocentric theory were confirmed one after the other,and the Geocentric theory was abandoned. Do you now see the relationship between facts and theories in science?


Only God truly creates, but of course scientists have invented many, many things. The smartphone, for example. The first workable digital computer and later the first electronic computer. How many would you like to see?


Turns out, that works pretty well. It's what Nikola Tesla did. Want a list of things he invented?

Your defense of "scientific theories", doesn't stand up to independent scrutiny. It's like asking the mafia to investigate itself.

Secular science relies on circular reasoning, whereby you start with an unproven premise and force it on the opposition.

In the short video below, some university professors are sked about the theory of evolution. It quickly becomes obvious that their "theory" is nothing more than wild imagination. They have no way of proving their theory, so they expect you to believe them, just because they say it true.

Unlike yourself and secular scientists in general, I need proof before I abandon my common sense and put my faith in some wild theory.

As for science inventing the smart phone, I reject that theory as well because scientists never invented anything. All they did is to keep performing experiments, until they discovered what God invented and then they simply composed the elements to manufacture the object.

One who invents something, sets the rules of engagement, sets the parameters and forces everyone to follow His recipe to manufacture the desired object. The secular scientists discovered that the way to manufacture a smart phone, by using the process of elimination (which is quite a pathetic) way to make new discoveries.

Todays scientists are nowhere near as advanced as the ancient scientists, they were vastly superior. So it could be said that mankind has degenerated, which proves that the theory of evolution is false.

 

[Jerry N.]

The biggest problem with the theory of evolution is that it is based on inductive reasoning.

“Conclusions reached via deductive reasoning cannot be incorrect if the premises are true. That’s because the conclusion doesn’t contain information that’s not in the premises. Unlike deductive reasoning, though, a conclusion reached via inductive reasoning goes beyond the information contained within the premises—it’s a generalization, and generalizations aren’t always accurate.”

"Inductive" vs. "Deductive": How To Reason Out Their Differences

My biggest problem with six 24 hour days of creation is that God didn’t make the sun and moon or place them in their correct position until the fourth day. We count days by the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun, which is approximately 24 hours. How can we say that the first three days were our 24 hour days, if that system of marking time had not been created yet? Maybe the day in Genesis was based on another system of time. Just speculating, but it might be one rotation of the Milky Way. Moses, or whoever wrote the first verses of Genesis, would not have a word to indicate exactly what that time was, and it is not important to the purpose of the narrative. The sequence of creation in the Bible matches fairly closely to what evolutionary theory speculates. As to the 6000 years, we are counting from Adam, and I’m sure it is pretty close. However, I think the time before Adam became the first man in the image of God might not be five 24-hour days. Unlike the Mormons, I don’t think that man’s being in the image of God has much to do with our physical appearance.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Your defense of "scientific theories", doesn't stand up to independent scrutiny. It's like asking the mafia to investigate itself.

Secular science relies on circular reasoning, whereby you start with an unproven premise and force it on the opposition.

In the short video below, some university professors are sked about the theory of evolution. It quickly becomes obvious that their "theory" is nothing more than wild imagination. They have no way of proving their theory, so they expect you to believe them, just because they say it true.

Unlike yourself and secular scientists in general, I need proof before I abandon my common sense and put my faith in some wild theory.

As for science inventing the smart phone, I reject that theory as well because scientists never invented anything. All they did is to keep performing experiments, until they discovered what God invented and then they simply composed the elements to manufacture the object.

One who invents something, sets the rules of engagement, sets the parameters and forces everyone to follow His recipe to manufacture the desired object. The secular scientists discovered that the way to manufacture a smart phone, by using the process of elimination (which is quite a pathetic) way to make new discoveries.

Todays scientists are nowhere near as advanced as the ancient scientists, they were vastly superior. So it could be said that mankind has degenerated, which proves that the theory of evolution is false.

So, where are we going to "read" these rules of engagement you're referring to in clear, distinct and comprehensive terms? Who are your selected gurus whom we should be beginning with in our scientific and biblical studies?

 

[Job 33:6]

The biggest problem with the theory of evolution is that it is based on inductive reasoning.

“Conclusions reached via deductive reasoning cannot be incorrect if the premises are true. That’s because the conclusion doesn’t contain information that’s not in the premises. Unlike deductive reasoning, though, a conclusion reached via inductive reasoning goes beyond the information contained within the premises—it’s a generalization, and generalizations aren’t always accurate.”

"Inductive" vs. "Deductive": How To Reason Out Their Differences

This all sounds fine, but the truth is we use inductive reasoning every day. For example, I use inductive reasoning to conclude that the sun will rise tomorrow. Sure, I could be wrong, but there's nothing irrational about that conclusion. Based on everything we know about heliocentrism and the consistency of natural laws, it's the most reasonable expectation.

The theory of evolution isn't about "proof", it's about prediction and reasoning.

YECism also ignores ancient Israelite cosmology in the old testament.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The biggest problem with the theory of evolution is that it is based on inductive reasoning.

“Conclusions reached via deductive reasoning cannot be incorrect if the premises are true. That’s because the conclusion doesn’t contain information that’s not in the premises. Unlike deductive reasoning, though, a conclusion reached via inductive reasoning goes beyond the information contained within the premises—it’s a generalization, and generalizations aren’t always accurate.”

"Inductive" vs. "Deductive": How To Reason Out Their Differences

My biggest problem with six 24 hour days of creation is that God didn’t make the sun and moon or place them in their correct position until the fourth day. We count days by the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun, which is approximately 24 hours. How can we say that the first three days were our 24 hour days, if that system of marking time had not been created yet? Maybe the day in Genesis was based on another system of time. Just speculating, but it might be one rotation of the Milky Way. Moses, or whoever wrote the first verses of Genesis, would not have a word to indicate exactly what that time was, and it is not important to the purpose of the narrative. The sequence of creation in the Bible matches fairly closely to what evolutionary theory speculates. As to the 6000 years, we are counting from Adam, and I’m sure it is pretty close. However, I think the time before Adam became the first man in the image of God might not be five 24-hour days. Unlike the Mormons, I don’t think that man’s being in the image of God has much to do with our physical appearance.

Don't forget, there's also Abductive and Retroductive reasoning in addition to both Deductive and Inductive.

 

[Jerry N.]

This all sounds fine, but the truth is we use inductive reasoning every day. For example, I use inductive reasoning to conclude that the sun will rise tomorrow. Sure, I could be wrong, but there's nothing irrational about that conclusion. Based on everything we know about heliocentrism and the consistency of natural laws, it's the most reasonable expectation.

The theory of evolution isn't about "proof", it's about prediction and reasoning.

YECism also ignores ancient Israelite cosmology in the old testament.

I don’t think that knowing the sun will rise tomorrow would be inductive reasoning. Much of science is deductive in that experimentation can model a process with proven laws of physics, chemistry, and other hard sciences. The problem is getting all of the premises right for deduction to work. Heliocentric motion can be modeled in ways that evolution cannot. What creationists are arguing about is the premises which are based on generalizing limited observations (inductive reasoning). Creationists have every reason to be skeptical, because people like Thomas Huxley, H.G. Wells and many others have used evolutionary theory to argue against there being a God creator. I might also add that science doesn’t have the best track record of getting things right. Personally, I wish that people studying evolution would be more humble in saying it is a theory (a good theory) and not fact. Have you noticed that the theory of the evolution of humans changes almost yearly? There is nothing wrong with that since new information is constantly being found, but their surety is unsettling. It is a bit like Fauci telling us to follow the science. You wrote"The theory of evolution isn't about "proof", it's about prediction and reasoning." This is true, but it is in the realm of probability much more than the rising of the sun.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don’t think that knowing the sun will rise tomorrow would be inductive reasoning.

It is inductive.

We observe: The sun has risen every single day in our lifetime and in all of recorded human history.

We generalize: Because it has always risen, we expect it will rise again tomorrow.

We conclude: Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow.

It's probably true. But certainly not guaranteed.

Much of science is deductive in that experimentation can model a process with proven laws of physics, chemistry, and other hard sciences. The problem is getting all of the premises right for deduction to work. Heliocentric motion can be modeled in ways that evolution cannot. What creationists are arguing about is the premises which are based on generalizing limited observations (inductive reasoning). Creationists have every reason to be skeptical, because people like Thomas Huxley, H.G. Wells and many others have used evolutionary theory to argue against there being a God creator.

Sure. Nothing wrong with being skeptical.

I might also add that science doesn’t have the best track record of getting things right. Personally, I wish that people studying evolution would be more humble in saying it is a theory (a good theory) and not fact. Have you noticed that the theory of the evolution of humans changes almost yearly? There is nothing wrong with that since new information is constantly being found, but their surety is unsettling.

It is refined over time, just like any other theory. But it's still the same in its general principals, as it was back in the 1800s. It's not like anyone is saying that life doesn't evolve over millions of years.

No theories are facts. But scientists like myself, it gets old hearing creationists, quite frankly, many spread pseudoscience in their efforts to protect the Bible. Rather than just receiving the Bible as it is (a non-literal account of history).

It is a bit like Fauci telling us to follow the science. You wrote"The theory of evolution isn't about "proof", it's about prediction and reasoning." This is true, but it is in the realm of probability much more than the rising of the sun.

One day, perhaps creationists will offer a competing idea, that has greater probabilities. Until then, it's just fruitless complaint. Perhaps not actually based on science at all.

 

[Jerry N.]

It is inductive.

We observe: The sun has risen every single day in our lifetime and in all of recorded human history.

We generalize: Because it has always risen, we expect it will rise again tomorrow.

We conclude: Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow.

It's probably true. But certainly not guaranteed.



Sure. Nothing wrong with being skeptical.


It is refined over time, just like any other theory. But it's still the same in its general principals, as it was back in the 1800s. It's not like anyone is saying that life doesn't evolve over millions of years.

No theories are facts. But scientists like myself, it gets old hearing creationists, quite frankly, many spread pseudoscience in their efforts to protect the Bible. Rather than just receiving the Bible as it is (a non-literal account of history).



One day, perhaps creationists will offer a competing idea, that has greater probabilities. Until then, it's just fruitless complaint. Perhaps not actually based on science at all.

It won’t happen either way, Creationists start with the premise that there is a creative God or divine cause. Scientists start with the premise that God is not part of the process. When scientists go back to the idea that they are studying creation to know more about God, it will change, but scientific study has defined itself differently. By the way, modeling can be a form of deductive reasoning if the premises are correct. I have done modeling in material science, and it is not induction.

 

[Job 33:6]

It won’t happen either way, Creationists start with the premise that there is a creative God or divine cause. Scientists start with the premise that God is not part of the process.

I am a believer, I start with the belief that there is a creative God and divine cause. I am also a scientist. And I believe that God simply used evolution.

Why make claims that simply aren't true of scientists or the world?

When scientists go back to the idea that they are studying creation to know more about God, it will change, but scientific study has defined itself differently.

Many of us are Christians today, and many of us have been Christians going back to the 1800s alongside Darwin. Things haven't changed.

If creationists want to be honest, this is a good starting point. But they never get this basic point right.

 

[Jerry N.]

I am a believer, I start with the belief that there is a creative God and divine cause. I am also a scientist. And I believe that God simply used evolution.

Why make claims that simply aren't true of scientists or the world?


Many of us are Christians today, and many of us have been Christians going back to the 1800s alongside Darwin. Things haven't changed.

If creationists want to be honest, this is a good starting point. But they never get this basic point right.

I didn’t mean that scientists don’t believe in God. I only meant that His existence is not a formal part of the process. I meant no disrespect. It is just that His influence on the process of evolution is not taken into account in published studies. I'm not against the study of evolution.

 

[Job 33:6]

I didn’t mean that scientists don’t believe in God. I only meant that His existence is not a formal part of the process. I meant no disrespect. It is just that His influence on the process of evolution is not taken into account in published studies. I'm not against the study of evolution.

Scientists publish on science. Scientists aren't publishers of theology. We aren't theologians. It's not really our job to do that. At least not in scientific journals.

If you buy a manual on plumping and piping. Or a manual on how to construct furniture, the authors of those documents may be Christian, but it isn't the purpose of those documents to provide theology.

Though you can find many Christian science related resources outside of academic journals. Biologos is a good resource for that kind of content. Or if you want science friendly hermeneutics, you can follow Bible scholars like Tremper Longman III, Pete Enns, Michael Heiser, John Walton etc. so there are plenty of resources. But that's not what scientific journals are for.

 

[Jerry N.]

Scientists publish on science. Scientists aren't publishers of theology. We aren't theologians. It's not really our job to do that. At least not in scientific journals.

If you buy a manual on plumping and piping. Or a manual on how to construct furniture, the authors of those documents may be Christian, but it isn't the purpose of those documents to provide theology.

Though you can find many Christian science related resources outside of academic journals. Biologos is a good resource for that kind of content. Or if you want science friendly hermeneutics, you can follow Bible scholars like Tremper Longman III, Pete Enns, Michael Heiser, John Walton etc. so there are plenty of resources. But that's not what scientific journals are for.

Thanks for the information. I didn’t mean to offend. I was actually thinking about people like Newton. One gets confused by media that says things like “nature decided that such and such should happen” or “birds choose to adapt to such and such.” These publications, which I know are not scientific, drive me crazy. Nature does not have that kind of volition.

 

[River Jordan]

What creationists are arguing about is the premises which are based on generalizing limited observations (inductive reasoning).

Not really. Creationists by and large argue against evolution for no other reason than that it contradicts their interpretation of scripture. If they had actual good scientific arguments they'd present them to scientists in scientific arenas, such as conferences or journals.

Creationists have every reason to be skeptical, because people like Thomas Huxley, H.G. Wells and many others have used evolutionary theory to argue against there being a God creator.

There are also Christians who have spoken of how understanding the evolutionary history of life on earth has given them a deeper appreciation for God's creation (Francis Collins is a good example), so that argument is pretty illogical.

Personally, I wish that people studying evolution would be more humble in saying it is a theory (a good theory) and not fact.

This is what erodes creationists' credibility. "It's only a theory" is an old, and fundamentally flawed creationist trope that instantly makes everyone who knows basic science roll their eyes and groan.

If I argued that the idea of atom-based matter isn't true because it's "only a theory" (atomic theory of matter), you'd probably recognize that as a silly argument. Well, it's the same when creationists say that about evolutionary theory.

Have you noticed that the theory of the evolution of humans changes almost yearly? There is nothing wrong with that since new information is constantly being found, but their surety is unsettling.

Not in any major way, no. I see occasional small-scale revisions, but nothing that would call into question the overall framework.

 

[River Jordan]

Scientists start with the premise that God is not part of the process.

No we don't.

When scientists go back to the idea that they are studying creation to know more about God, it will change,

How will it change? I'm a scientist who believes I'm studying God's creation. Do you think I do my work differently than my co-workers?