Age of the earth, why is it relevant?!

[Halbhh]

Telling the lost God doesn't exist?? lol Some of your logic/conclusions there aren't the least bit logical. It's like evolution, you just think it makes sense but you missed/skewed so much in drawing the conclusion.

First I know it's his, it's all his...that has no bearing here. Actually, not much if what you said had anything to do with what you replied to.

Secondly, he didn't have to explain, (not even sure why you are telling me that) he gave us enough sense to understand language/the bible, and if someone chooses to get evolution out of those words, I already said, it's up to them, but they should be ready for disagreement. I already explained my thoughts on how they got what they did there, and it didn't come from just reading/understanding the bible, as I repeat below, please read/pay attention to what I said. Personally, I just read the Bible, and refuse to go with what someone "prefers" to get from scripture, someone that wants to steer me into believing evolution like they have you all, simple as that.

Young Earth isn't in the Bible.

It's an idea.

Saying it's the scripture as often is done, such as by claiming its merely understanding the words, is actually adding to scripture.

We aren't told the time passage during verse 1 before the light in verse 3. Saying it's less than 24 hours for instance is an idea, not scripture.

Instead say, " it's just my view, but I think ... "

 

[Kenny'sID]

Instead say, " it's just my view, but I think ... "

More of that "logic"

So you say as a matter of factly, young earth is not in the bible, but we should always follow with it's JMO?

You do realize our opinion is what we think is fact, right? And FWIW, we are speaking for ourselves here so whether you call it opinion or not it's what we think is fact unless we state otherwise.

 

[Jamsie]

See my last post.

I did, again it answers nothing but your interpretation and with avoidance of what scripture clearly states. You claim that Halbhh missed/skewed but you are unable to actually detail what he or anyone else "missed/skewed, other than your interpretation. On the other hand you are the one that has "missed/skewed" the word "yatsa'", and you refuse to give the actual meanings.(home and sustenance are not to be found with "yatsa'" in any concordance)

You wrote - "he gave us enough sense to understand language/the bible..."

We agree, God gave us reason which allows us to understand him and His word as best we are able. So in truth you as well as anyone else's interpretation is "leaning on your own understanding".

To the point of the OP:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7] St. Augustine

 

[Halbhh]

More of that "logic"

So you say as a matter of factly, young earth is not in the bible, but we should always follow with it's JMO?

You do realize our opinion is what we think is fact, right? And FWIW, we are speaking for ourselves here so whether you call it opinion or not it's what we think is fact unless we state otherwise.

Don't know what JMO stands for, but definitely all positions people take on small (and relatively less important) details about how God created, merely detail like geology, mere numerical quantity of time (like 156 hours) and such, that are not stated in scripture, are of course their own views/guesses (even if they heard a preacher claim his view on whatever small detail on such is Truth or believing God's Word, when it's actually not in the Bible plainly).

 

[Jamsie]

Don't know what JMO stands for, but definitely all positions people take on small (and relatively less important) details about how God created, merely detail like geology, mere numerical quantity of time (like 156 hours) and such, that are not stated in scripture, are of course their own views/guesses (even if they heard a preacher claim his view on whatever small detail on such is Truth or believing God's Word, when it's actually not in the Bible plainly).

I believe JMO is "just my opinion", however in this case you are correct time is not quantified in Genesis 1, so it is more than simply opinion. Again, as to the OP it is significant in a world being indoctrinated by science...of course perhaps that is why the rise of strong Apologists.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I did, again it answers nothing but your interpretation and with avoidance of what scripture clearly states.

Oh, I see, mine is interpretation but your interpretation is what scripture really says.

Gotcha'

 

[Jamsie]

Oh, I see, mine is interpretation but your interpretation is what scripture really says.
Gotcha'

Kenny'sID, I'm not sure why you involve yourself with these discussions when you either refuse or simply can't answer the questions posed to you. Please show me where exactly I stated that yours is interpretation and mine is not? If you are referring to Halbhh and the comment concerning time in Genesis...then simply show me where in Genesis there is a time reference. (And to be specific, other then command days but between Gen.1:1 and the 6 days of creation)

I did write this... "So in truth you as well as anyone else's interpretation is "leaning on your own understanding"." (I would assume you understand that anyone does not exempt me)

 

[Kenny'sID]

Kenny'sID, I'm not sure why you involve yourself with these discussions when you either refuse or simply can't answer the questions posed to you. Please show me where exactly I stated that yours is interpretation and mine is not? If you are referring to Halbhh and the comment concerning time in Genesis...then simply show me where in Genesis there is a time reference. (And to be specific, other then command days but between Gen.1:1 and the 6 days of creation)

I did write this... "So in truth you as well as anyone else's interpretation is "leaning on your own understanding"." (I would assume you understand that anyone does not exempt me)

I can't hold your hand on every post. If you can't figure out something as simple as what your own comment was saying, probably best to put it away. Maybe it's dawn on you eventually, maybe not.

I guess it all falls on what we choose to believe. see you have no idea what I meant, because you chose not to see/admit what you actually said there, much like you see what you choose to see in the bible. You choose evolution to be true, that's the conclusion you will draw from the bible, regardless of what it says. You choose what man has taught, not how you would read the bible had you never heard of evolution. And that's your choice, but trying to convince me/others here, is a waste of my time and yours

As far as not answering questions, I already commented that wasn't so, and why... I won't repeat myself.

 

[Jamsie]

I can't hold your hand on every post. If you can't figure out something as simple as what your own comment was saying, probably best to put it away. Maybe it's dawn on you eventually, maybe not.

I guess it all falls on what we choose to believe. see you have no idea what I meant, because you chose not to see/admit what you actually said there, much like you see what you choose to see in the bible. You choose evolution to be true, that's the conclusion you will draw from the bible, regardless of what it says. You choose what man has taught, not how you would read the bible had you never heard of evolution. And that's your choice, but trying to convince me/others here, is a waste of my time and yours

As far as not answering questions, I already commented that wasn't so, and why... I won't repeat myself.

I apologize as I should have been more specific regarding the context. If you read the paragraph instead of just one sentence you will see what was being referred to, here: "I did, again it answers nothing but your interpretation and with avoidance of what scripture clearly states. You claim that Halbhh missed/skewed but you are unable to actually detail what he or anyone else "missed/skewed, other than your interpretation. On the other hand you are the one that has "missed/skewed" the word "yatsa'", and you refuse to give the actual meanings.(home and sustenance are not to be found with "yatsa'" in any concordance)" Telling some that they "missed/skewed" without explanation is of little value.

So where is the time reference between Gen. 1 and the creation week? And what does "yatsa'" mean? Again, please show me where you have actually addressed the questions that were posed to you...it doesn't matter you didn't, so you needn't worry about repeating yourself. (Simple matter go through the post and copy and paste where you've have answered the questions...except for "yatsa'" because you did answer that but were wrong.

 

[Jamsie]

As far as not answering questions, I already commented that wasn't so, and why... I won't repeat myself.

If at some point in the future you are willing to have a serious discussion and are prepared to actually answer questions that would be great. Lucubration is a worthwhile use of time when one is interested in a subject, and along the way you might try and research "yatsa'".

 

[Kenny'sID]

If at some point in the future you are willing to have a serious discussion and are prepared to actually answer questions that would be great.

Sorry, but we tried that, and I stopped taking you seriously when you chose to consider my replies to be non replies when they didn't agree with you, and you now say due to my short comings the discussion up to now was not a serious discussion?

The reality here, you completely skipped past some of my points without so much as mentioning them, much less addressing them, (And no, I did not and will not badger you over that, just making a point.) and all while making false claims/insisting I wouldn't address your points. It's not all about you, take some responsibility, and stop placing blame on anyone but yourself...

 

[Jamsie]

Sorry, but we tried that, and I stopped taking you seriously when you chose to consider my replies to be non replies when they didn't agree with you, and you now say due to my short comings the discussion up to now was not a serious discussion?

Again, the invitation stills stands prove your contentions as to me not answering you, as I can prove that you did not answer me. If I didn't I will apologize....

 

[Kenny'sID]

Again, the invitation stills stands prove your contentions as to me not answering you, as I can prove that you did not answer me. If I didn't I will apologize....

An invitation to more of the same. After being give reason not to take you seriously time and time again, no reason to bother.

 

[Jamsie]

An invitation to more of the same. After being give reason not to take you seriously time and time again, no reason to bother.

No problem...I will take some time to go through the posts and show you....

 

[Jamsie]

An invitation to more of the same. After being give reason not to take you seriously time and time again, no reason to bother.

Here is a synopsis of our alleged exchange - Part 1

Post #168 Kenny'sID wrote - "Just to many changes form the simple word has to come into play, in order to make evolution work."

Why not detail for me the "Changes" that I made to scripture? No Answer Otherwise this is just an unsubstantiated claim and a vague general non-specific contention of little value. If you mean interpretation as opposed to changes then still you need to show where exactly it is amiss and how I'm reading into the passage to "make evolution work". In order to do that one would need to show how scripture is being "stretched" or twisted.

Kenny'sID wrote - "It's as though someone pulled that out of scripture to make it work with evolution and no one would think any such thing had the theory of evolution never been introduced."

Simple, what was "pulled out" of scripture? No Answer Is DNA in the bible?, Atoms, electrons, protons, etc., etc., in the bible? No Answer Give some consideration to Romans 1:20...or would you suggest that if it isn't in the Bible we can have no "understanding"? No Answer

Kenny'sID wrote - "At any rate seems a lot of stretch, and "leaning unto our own understanding", as well as assumptions, to reach your possible conclusion, something that also leaves questions/confusion, or us knowing nothing concrete."

Again, general and vague response... where is the stretch? No Answer How is it "leaning...understanding"? What assumptions? No Answer What are the questions? No Answer What confusion? No Answer "Nothing Concrete"... Do you understand all things? It is only a stretch to you because it disagrees with your interpretation... but if you were to read other posts on this thread you will find many in disagreement with your interpretation.

Kenny'sID wrote - "Then there is that thing were God is not a God of confusion, while again, that leaves us confused/guessing in the end. I'd think, just as he told it like it was with creation, he would have simply said they evolved if they did...but he did not, why would he not?

What is confusing? No Answer That God used processes just as we see in the natural world today? Again, specifically address your contention... As I pointed out to you and you did not answer, if as in Gen. 1:3 is clearly immediate - "And God said, Let there be light and there was light"...So if all creation was immediate why was this pattern not followed as in And God said, "Let there be living creatures and there was living creatures"? No Answer So wouldn't he simply have stated as in Gen. 1:3 the immediate? You said , below, "he's smart enough to make us understand..." so why not use the pattern of Gen. 1:3? Again, no answer from you on this...

Kenny'sID wrote - "And he's smart enough to make us understand anything, dispelling the popular argument, he put it the way he did because "we wouldn't understand evolution" ...yet another completely unbiblical "leaning to our our understanding" not his word."

Nobody doubts that he could make us understand, then why isn't it specifically stated in the bible as to the exact time? No Answer In truth YEC and strict creationists (those rejecting any plausible interpretations other than immediacy and "6,000 years") do in fact "lean on their own understanding" dismissing any evidence to the contrary and being open to reasoned and hermeneutically sound interpretations, Romans 1:20. It is also "unbiblical" to not use our God given reason to plumb the depths of scripture, and rather to just muddle along based on our own pedantic understanding. So do you believe in pre-trib, post-trib, midtrib, or even no-trib and why isn't it made so clear that there is no room for discussion? No Answer (As you note "he's smart enough to make us understand anything"... so why do opinions vary?)

Kenny'sID wrote -"It's simply my opinion, an opinion that I have no doubt is shared by many, that you are adding so many unfounded "could have beens" that you end up pulling something from scripture that is far from the simple story being told there."

True, it is simply your opinion...it may be shared by many so I will wait for them to respond. If you think that the creation of the universe, earth, and all of life is simple...so be it. It may be simple on the surface to say "God created" and we would all here agree but to "understand the things that have been made" is far from simple...otherwise the Bible would explain all of the scientific discoveries over the past hundreds - thousands of years...

Kenny'sID wrote - "Let the water/land bring forth" the water and land are home to things being brought since it was spoken and up to now, things being born of bodies (brought forth) created by God, but some want to lean unto their own understanding, and once the bible is stretched so far that's what it becomes, our own understanding/no longer the truth, a stretch of the simple truths of the bible because "we are smart", we then end up with things like theories and unproven confusion, like evolution....or the unreasonable."

Again, this says very little to address the mediate command..."the water and land are home to things being brought since it was spoken and up to now, things being born of bodies (brought forth) created by God..., a very confusing and muddled reply. Where does the bible say that the land and water are "home to things" in the creation narrative, of course we can reason this but it says little about the actual details of creation. "Things being born of bodies (brought forth) created by God" once again, how were the bodies created since the bible says nothing like this, rather it says "Let the land produce... ? What you don't address is the HOW based on scripture so it seems you are the one "leaning" and "stretching" and "own understanding" and "no longer the truth". You have absolutely no proof that a) the universe/earth is 6,000 or so years old. b) That God did not create through processes. c) That scripture is being "stretched"... rather your responses amount to my "overthinking", "Reason can get out of hand", "some want to lean unto their own understanding", "bible is stretched", ".../no longer the truth", "we are smart", "unreasonable" and none of these speak to what the scripture/passages actually say. Again, answers these specifically or question me on my interpretation without the vague responses as listed above....

What does "Let the land produce..." mean? Incorrect Answer
How is it not mediate creation? No Answer
Was the command sufficient to create? No Answer
If the command was sufficient then why would it be necessary to qualify as "God made"? No Answer
Gen. 1:3 is clearly immediate - And God said, Let there be light and there was light"...So if all creation was immediate why was this pattern not followed as in And God said, "Let there be living creatures and there was living creatures"? Again, No Answer
Why the often use of "And it was so" after the command to created matter? No Answer
The command was to the "land"/earth/dust and we are told that man and animal are from the same substance what does that suggest? No Answer
Do you not see a structure of creation as was noted with Gen. 1? No Answer
We know that plant, animal, and human life involves a process why is it so anathema that this same process was from the beginning? No Answer

 

[Jamsie]

An invitation to more of the same. After being give reason not to take you seriously time and time again, no reason to bother.

Part 2:

Post @220 Kenny'sID Wrote: Please show me what I was unable to address? As well as what point I excused myself? If I missed something I will address it, if I did not, then it's on you fro making the accusation...we shall see

Post #220

I copied Post #181 - "The reasons doen't really matter and since I have seen your views already, and know they will remain the same, there is no more point."

I noted your response to the meaning of "Let the Land produce..." as home - "Where in the Bible or any concordance is the word "produce" or "bring forth" defined as "home"?

Post #229 Kenny'sID wrote:"Would you like me to quote the KJV instead? What version do you want?"

I wrote: "Yes, show me where the Bible has produce/bring forth defined as "home" in any version of scripture... a simple question no need for a book to be written. No Answer Certainly the word "home" is set as dwelling place or other such references elsewhere ... but nowhere in Gen. 1 is the word used, it seems that is merely an interpretation without, I'm afraid, any validity."

Again, rewrote all of the questions you failed to answer (as above) plus: *As concerns Adam how does one qualify the time between Gen. 1:27 and then the detail in Gen. 2:7-23, with 24 hours? No Answer

I wrote: Please show me exactly where I have changed a single word? No Answer

Post #244 Kenny'sID wrote: "Are you serious?? My use of the word home was part of me replying to you. what do you want from me? I have to use words here, it's the only way to communicate. Are you saying the land and the water are not home to things living?

Post #245 I wrote: "A simple and plain reading of Genesis does not say "Let the land home..." or "be home" or "live in the home", so either you used the wrong word, obviously, or you are avoiding what the word produce or bring forth means, pretty simple. If you can show how the Hebrew word "yatsa'" in Gen. 1:24 means home I will apologize? No Answer

Post #254 Skywriting wrote: Big Hint: 24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, land crawlers, and wild animals according to their kinds.” And it was so.

Post #256 Kenny'sID wrote: "All sustenance for everything born of the animals God created comes from the earth. If you wish to pretend the earth is doing the creating, because man said so...up to you. Think about it, you didn't get that understanding from the bible, you go it from the many who attempt to make the bible fit evolution, a definition that would never have been considered if someone had not presented the concept of evolution.

Post #257 I wrote: Perhaps you might want to read the Genesis account again to understand exactly what the Bible states. Nobody said that the earth did the creating...so forget the straw man. It is obvious that you did not read my posts but in spite of that do not distort and twist was is being said.

1. And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures..." any plain reading concludes that God is directly mediating through the land. There is no direct command to living creatures except by way of the land producing, no reference to "sustenance", no mention of "home" but the command is to "LET THE LAND", plain and simple. It isn't man that said so...it is God that said so. At some point it may be worth looking up "produce" or "Bring forth" until then you are simply twisting scripture.


Post #271 Kenny'sID wrote: Sorry, but we tried that, and I stopped taking you seriously when you chose to consider my replies to be non replies when they didn't agree with you, and you now say due to my short comings the discussion up to now was not a serious discussion?

No, actually your replies were non-replies, the substance amounted to accusing one of twisting, stretching, leaning, etc. but never answering in reasoned detail. How was the Hebrew word "yatsa'" twisted? If you think this is a one sided view of the exchange...then prove it.

 

[Tetra]

Here is a synopsis of our alleged exchange - Part 1

Post #168 Kenny'sID wrote - "Just to many changes form the simple word has to come into play, in order to make evolution work."

Why not detail for me the "Changes" that I made to scripture? No Answer Otherwise this is just an unsubstantiated claim and a vague general non-specific contention of little value. If you mean interpretation as opposed to changes then still you need to show where exactly it is amiss and how I'm reading into the passage to "make evolution work". In order to do that one would need to show how scripture is being "stretched" or twisted.

Kenny'sID wrote - "It's as though someone pulled that out of scripture to make it work with evolution and no one would think any such thing had the theory of evolution never been introduced."

Simple, what was "pulled out" of scripture? No Answer Is DNA in the bible?, Atoms, electrons, protons, etc., etc., in the bible? No Answer Give some consideration to Romans 1:20...or would you suggest that if it isn't in the Bible we can have no "understanding"? No Answer

Kenny'sID wrote - "At any rate seems a lot of stretch, and "leaning unto our own understanding", as well as assumptions, to reach your possible conclusion, something that also leaves questions/confusion, or us knowing nothing concrete."

Again, general and vague response... where is the stretch? No Answer How is it "leaning...understanding"? What assumptions? No Answer What are the questions? No Answer What confusion? No Answer "Nothing Concrete"... Do you understand all things? It is only a stretch to you because it disagrees with your interpretation... but if you were to read other posts on this thread you will find many in disagreement with your interpretation.

Kenny'sID wrote - "Then there is that thing were God is not a God of confusion, while again, that leaves us confused/guessing in the end. I'd think, just as he told it like it was with creation, he would have simply said they evolved if they did...but he did not, why would he not?

What is confusing? No Answer That God used processes just as we see in the natural world today? Again, specifically address your contention... As I pointed out to you and you did not answer, if as in Gen. 1:3 is clearly immediate - "And God said, Let there be light and there was light"...So if all creation was immediate why was this pattern not followed as in And God said, "Let there be living creatures and there was living creatures"? No Answer So wouldn't he simply have stated as in Gen. 1:3 the immediate? You said , below, "he's smart enough to make us understand..." so why not use the pattern of Gen. 1:3? Again, no answer from you on this...

Kenny'sID wrote - "And he's smart enough to make us understand anything, dispelling the popular argument, he put it the way he did because "we wouldn't understand evolution" ...yet another completely unbiblical "leaning to our our understanding" not his word."

Nobody doubts that he could make us understand, then why isn't it specifically stated in the bible as to the exact time? No Answer In truth YEC and strict creationists (those rejecting any plausible interpretations other than immediacy and "6,000 years") do in fact "lean on their own understanding" dismissing any evidence to the contrary and being open to reasoned and hermeneutically sound interpretations, Romans 1:20. It is also "unbiblical" to not use our God given reason to plumb the depths of scripture, and rather to just muddle along based on our own pedantic understanding. So do you believe in pre-trib, post-trib, midtrib, or even no-trib and why isn't it made so clear that there is no room for discussion? No Answer (As you note "he's smart enough to make us understand anything"... so why do opinions vary?)

Kenny'sID wrote -"It's simply my opinion, an opinion that I have no doubt is shared by many, that you are adding so many unfounded "could have beens" that you end up pulling something from scripture that is far from the simple story being told there."

True, it is simply your opinion...it may be shared by many so I will wait for them to respond. If you think that the creation of the universe, earth, and all of life is simple...so be it. It may be simple on the surface to say "God created" and we would all here agree but to "understand the things that have been made" is far from simple...otherwise the Bible would explain all of the scientific discoveries over the past hundreds - thousands of years...

Kenny'sID wrote - "Let the water/land bring forth" the water and land are home to things being brought since it was spoken and up to now, things being born of bodies (brought forth) created by God, but some want to lean unto their own understanding, and once the bible is stretched so far that's what it becomes, our own understanding/no longer the truth, a stretch of the simple truths of the bible because "we are smart", we then end up with things like theories and unproven confusion, like evolution....or the unreasonable."

Again, this says very little to address the mediate command..."the water and land are home to things being brought since it was spoken and up to now, things being born of bodies (brought forth) created by God..., a very confusing and muddled reply. Where does the bible say that the land and water are "home to things" in the creation narrative, of course we can reason this but it says little about the actual details of creation. "Things being born of bodies (brought forth) created by God" once again, how were the bodies created since the bible says nothing like this, rather it says "Let the land produce... ? What you don't address is the HOW based on scripture so it seems you are the one "leaning" and "stretching" and "own understanding" and "no longer the truth". You have absolutely no proof that a) the universe/earth is 6,000 or so years old. b) That God did not create through processes. c) That scripture is being "stretched"... rather your responses amount to my "overthinking", "Reason can get out of hand", "some want to lean unto their own understanding", "bible is stretched", ".../no longer the truth", "we are smart", "unreasonable" and none of these speak to what the scripture/passages actually say. Again, answers these specifically or question me on my interpretation without the vague responses as listed above....

What does "Let the land produce..." mean? Incorrect Answer
How is it not mediate creation? No Answer
Was the command sufficient to create? No Answer
If the command was sufficient then why would it be necessary to qualify as "God made"? No Answer
Gen. 1:3 is clearly immediate - And God said, Let there be light and there was light"...So if all creation was immediate why was this pattern not followed as in And God said, "Let there be living creatures and there was living creatures"? Again, No Answer
Why the often use of "And it was so" after the command to created matter? No Answer
The command was to the "land"/earth/dust and we are told that man and animal are from the same substance what does that suggest? No Answer
Do you not see a structure of creation as was noted with Gen. 1? No Answer
We know that plant, animal, and human life involves a process why is it so anathema that this same process was from the beginning? No Answer

I find this hilarious man (no offence intended)!!! Only because this is 100% something I have done in the past out of pure frustration. Amazing.

 

[pat34lee]

Young Earth isn't in the Bible.

It's an idea.

Saying it's the scripture as often is done, such as by claiming its merely understanding the words, is actually adding to scripture.

We aren't told the time passage during verse 1 before the light in verse 3. Saying it's less than 24 hours for instance is an idea, not scripture.

Instead say, " it's just my view, but I think ... "

Wrong. Day and night are introduced in Genesis 1.
Morning and evening were also introduced.
You don't have all four unless you have a 24 hour day.
There is nothing in the text to indicate anything else.
You have to bring in that from other sources, and I wouldn't
recommend doing that with the bible, because you're only
going to corrupt it, not make it better.

 

[pat34lee]

I believe JMO is "just my opinion", however in this case you are correct time is not quantified in Genesis 1, so it is more than simply opinion. Again, as to the OP it is significant in a world being indoctrinated by science...of course perhaps that is why the rise of strong Apologists.

Time is certainly quantified in Genesis 1.
Day and night, morning and evening. 24 hours.
Unless you can show that he changed the meaning of the words.

 

[pat34lee]

For old earthers,
You can't make the bible fit long ages without turning
it from a historical account to allegory. If you turn the
first chapter to allegory, then anything regarding Adam
and Eve is out the window. From there, Noah is a story
and the rest of scripture falls flat behind it. You have no
more bible because it has become a book of folk tales.