Age of the earth

[Iosias]

Ok, I was going to specify this exception but it is so obvious I didn't bother. And nowhere have I or anyone else I have seen claimed he wrote that chapter. Also, as it is the final chapter of these 5 books and we are dealing with the first chapters of these books it is a non issue.

It's a highly pertinent issue in terms of authorship. We know as fact that Moses did not write the final chapter of the Pentateuch so to claim Mosaic authorship for the Pentateuch is just plain daft. Now if he didn't write the last chapter how can we be sure he wrote the rest of it? This is where it's important to recall that the Israelites were foundationally an oral culture. Hence the importance to determine the sources of the text we have.

Did Moses write the first five verses of Deuteronomy? It seems doubtfull and there is the faint wiff of redaction about them owing to the third person:

"These are the words Moses spoke to all Israel in the desert east of the Jordan—that is, in the Arabah—opposite Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth and Dizahab. (It takes eleven days to go from Horeb to Kadesh Barnea by the Mount Seir road.) In the fortieth year, on the first day of the eleventh month, Moses proclaimed to the Israelites all that the LORD had commanded him concerning them.This was after he had defeated Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon, and at Edrei had defeated Og king of Bashan, who reigned in Ashtaroth. East of the Jordan in the territory of Moab, Moses began to expound this law, saying:"

Indeed you can go through Deuteronomy and note all of the narrative sections which are redactions, for example 4:41-43

"Then Moses set aside three cities east of the Jordan, to which anyone who had killed a person could flee if he had unintentionally killed his neighbor without malice aforethought. He could flee into one of these cities and save his life. The cities were these: Bezer in the desert plateau, for the Reubenites; Ramoth in Gilead, for the Gadites; and Golan in Bashan, for the Manassites."
​

Then in 4:44-5:1

"This is the law Moses set before the Israelites. These are the stipulations, decrees and laws Moses gave them when they came out of Egypt and were in the valley near Beth Peor east of the Jordan, in the land of Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon and was defeated by Moses and the Israelites as they came out of Egypt. They took possession of his land and the land of Og king of Bashan, the two Amorite kings east of the Jordan. This land extended from Aroer on the rim of the Arnon Gorge to Mount Siyon (that is, Hermon), and included all the Arabah east of the Jordan, as far as the Sea of the Arabah, below the slopes of Pisgah. Moses summoned all Israel and said:"
​

The addresses made by Moses need not have been written down till very much later after they were given but even if they were their form was not the same as we have now.

What does this mean for Genesis? Well it certainly casts doubt upon your assertion that Moses wrote Genesis 1:1-2:4a. We know that whilst the Pentateuch is said to be written by Moses that does not mean he penned every single section. Therefore you need to prove that Moses wrote it, can you do this?

In terms of interpretation, the first question to ask of Genesis 1:1-2:4a is "What is its form?" Can you answer this using literary and form analysis?

 

[Markus6]

Ok, God lied to us so we could understand the Sabbath better then. Gotcha. And son't buy it, sorry.

He either 'lied' or acted. He didn't need to take 6 days to do his creating and he didn't need to rest on the 7th.

Same events looked at from different views. One delas with creation in general and one focuses more on localised events.

What about the different orders given?
Gen 1: Plants -> Animals -> Adam and Eve
Gen 2: Adam -> Plants -> Animals -> Eve

Hmm..I allways thought the closest star was 8 light minutes away...you know, Sol.

That would be the mainstream scientific view. The Genesis doesn't count the sun as a star.

Anyway, this is hardly the achilles heel you hoped for.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=446
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/267.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4389starlight10-10-2000.asp

It's not a point I'd use for ardent YECs, but a good one for those in the middle who are trying to work out what is true. It is very obvious and so it's not suprising that YECs have come up with explanations (a variety of them - one favourite being that the speed of light has been slowing down). However, to me the explanations seem to be overly creative use of (in this case) relativity, which are not accepted by any scientists outside of YEC, inorder to shoe horn a non-scientific theological text into modern science.

 

[dead2self]

It's a highly pertinent issue in terms of authorship. We know as fact that Moses did not write the final chapter of the Pentateuch so to claim Mosaic authorship for the Pentateuch is just plain daft. Now if he didn't write the last chapter how can we be sure he wrote the rest of it? This is where it's important to recall that the Israelites were foundationally an oral culture. Hence the importance to determine the sources of the text we have.

Did Moses write the first five verses of Deuteronomy? It seems doubtfull and there is the faint wiff of redaction about them owing to the third person:

"These are the words Moses spoke to all Israel in the desert east of the Jordan—that is, in the Arabah—opposite Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth and Dizahab. (It takes eleven days to go from Horeb to Kadesh Barnea by the Mount Seir road.) In the fortieth year, on the first day of the eleventh month, Moses proclaimed to the Israelites all that the LORD had commanded him concerning them.This was after he had defeated Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon, and at Edrei had defeated Og king of Bashan, who reigned in Ashtaroth. East of the Jordan in the territory of Moab, Moses began to expound this law, saying:"

Indeed you can go through Deuteronomy and note all of the narrative sections which are redactions, for example 4:41-43

"Then Moses set aside three cities east of the Jordan, to which anyone who had killed a person could flee if he had unintentionally killed his neighbor without malice aforethought. He could flee into one of these cities and save his life. The cities were these: Bezer in the desert plateau, for the Reubenites; Ramoth in Gilead, for the Gadites; and Golan in Bashan, for the Manassites."
​

Then in 4:44-5:1

"This is the law Moses set before the Israelites. These are the stipulations, decrees and laws Moses gave them when they came out of Egypt and were in the valley near Beth Peor east of the Jordan, in the land of Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon and was defeated by Moses and the Israelites as they came out of Egypt. They took possession of his land and the land of Og king of Bashan, the two Amorite kings east of the Jordan. This land extended from Aroer on the rim of the Arnon Gorge to Mount Siyon (that is, Hermon), and included all the Arabah east of the Jordan, as far as the Sea of the Arabah, below the slopes of Pisgah. Moses summoned all Israel and said:"
​

The addresses made by Moses need not have been written down till very much later after they were given but even if they were their form was not the same as we have now.

What does this mean for Genesis? Well it certainly casts doubt upon your assertion that Moses wrote Genesis 1:1-2:4a. We know that whilst the Pentateuch is said to be written by Moses that does not mean he penned every single section. Therefore you need to prove that Moses wrote it, can you do this?

In terms of interpretation, the first question to ask of Genesis 1:1-2:4a is "What is its form?" Can you answer this using literary and form analysis?

I'm not going to get into an argument on the authorship of Deuteronomy. It was written by Moses. I'm daft. So what. It is not pertinent to the discussion as we are dealing with Genesis which JESUS thought Moses wrote. Or are you willng to say Jesus is daft as well? Insulting my intelligence is one thing but I hope you have more than these simple arguments if you care to extent that insult to our Lord.

 

[dead2self]

He either 'lied' or acted. He didn't need to take 6 days to do his creating and he didn't need to rest on the 7th.

What about the different orders given?
Gen 1: Plants -> Animals -> Adam and Eve
Gen 2: Adam -> Plants -> Animals -> Eve

That would be the mainstream scientific view. The Genesis doesn't count the sun as a star.

It's not a point I'd use for ardent YECs, but a good one for those in the middle who are trying to work out what is true. It is very obvious and so it's not suprising that YECs have come up with explanations (a variety of them - one favourite being that the speed of light has been slowing down). However, to me the explanations seem to be overly creative use of (in this case) relativity, which are not accepted by any scientists outside of YEC, inorder to shoe horn a non-scientific theological text into modern science.

You say these are overly creative??? My good man, do you have any idea how creative old earthers need to be to make things work? Anyway, if you wouldn't use the argument for ardent young earthers that denotes that perhaps it's not an entirely defensible position. Also makes me wonder why you brought it up here? The only young earthers here seem awfull ardent to me.

Also, saying God was not honest troubles me deeply. I thought the Anglicans had a high view of God.

 

[Markus6]

You say these are overly creative??? My good man, do you have any idea how creative old earthers need to be to make things work?

We're coming from very different positions. I am an 'old earther' precisely because I don't see any creativity. I see an honest attempt to explain the data. The claim of creativity certainly seems to fit YEC better here. Humphries is faced with a fact that needs to be explained away for a certain interpretation of the bible to be true and so comes up with his theory. The theory that the earth is old, however, doesn't seem to have any motivation for creativity (coming, as it did, before the theory of evolution).

Anyway, if you wouldn't use the argument for ardent young earthers that denotes that perhaps it's not an entirely defensible position.

Or it denotes that ardent young earthers are so entrenched in their beliefs that obvious points no longer work. Out of curiosity: are you able to explain Humphries theory in laymans terms?

Also makes me wonder why you brought it up here? The only young earthers here seem awfull ardent to me.

Ahiggs came in asking for proof, I wasn't aware he was an ardent YEC so I presented the most obvious available.

Also, saying God was not honest troubles me deeply. I thought the Anglicans had a high view of God.

My view of Genesis is so fundamentally different from yours that I would in no way call it 'lying'. You brought that word up first and you will notice I used it in inverted commas. I, and Anglican's, have a very high view of God - infinitally high and beyond our comprehesion to be accurate.

 

[dead2self]

We're coming from very different positions. I am an 'old earther' precisely because I don't see any creativity. I see an honest attempt to explain the data. The claim of creativity certainly seems to fit YEC better here. Humphries is faced with a fact that needs to be explained away for a certain interpretation of the bible to be true and so comes up with his theory. The theory that the earth is old, however, doesn't seem to have any motivation for creativity (coming, as it did, before the theory of evolution).

Exactly. We are miles apart. For the record, I don't see creativity in the YEC defense. I was old earth previously but my eyes were opened to how much the science had to be abused to fit.

Or it denotes that ardent young earthers are so entrenched in their beliefs that obvious points no longer work. Out of curiosity: are you able to explain Humphries theory in laymans terms?

Exactly how old earthers tend to be I'm afraid. And no, I doubt I could explain it in laymans terms. It's not exactly grade 4 science.

Ahiggs came in asking for proof, I wasn't aware he was an ardent YEC so I presented the most obvious available.

Oh ok, makes sense.

My view of Genesis is so fundamentally different from yours that I would in no way call it 'lying'. You brought that word up first and you will notice I used it in inverted commas. I, and Anglican's, have a very high view of God - infinitally high and beyond our comprehesion to be accurate.

Firstly saying He was acting denotes He was not being honest. He was portraying as truth that which did not happen. Second, your view of Genesis is the whole point of this discussion. I want to know how someone with your views reconciles the material I gave with your views. All this other discussion is a huge sidebar.

 

[dead2self]

We're coming from very different positions. I am an 'old earther' precisely because I don't see any creativity. I see an honest attempt to explain the data. The claim of creativity certainly seems to fit YEC better here. Humphries is faced with a fact that needs to be explained away for a certain interpretation of the bible to be true and so comes up with his theory. The theory that the earth is old, however, doesn't seem to have any motivation for creativity (coming, as it did, before the theory of evolution).

Additionally, do you actually believe that the old earth theory had no motivation for creativity? That is slightly naive. Modern man was faced with the dilemma of how to explain geological rock formations in a way that discredits the Biblical account. Hence Old Earth. Unfortunately for them even secualr scientists are begining to abandon traditional explanations of how these formations occured and beginng to admit that they had to be created by major catastrophies rather than long years.

All our scientifuc theories are attempts to explain something within the framework of our worldview. An allusion that your worldviews scientists do this more honestly than those sharing my worldview simply will not fly.

 

[Markus6]

Firstly saying He was acting denotes He was not being honest. He was portraying as truth that which did not happen. Second, your view of Genesis is the whole point of this discussion. I want to know how someone with your views reconciles the material I gave with your views. All this other discussion is a huge sidebar.

In a young earth interpretation he was only acting out the sabbath, unless you believe he was bound by it. I believe he could have created the earth in 6 seconds and wouldn't have to rest at all, therefore him working within 7 days was acting out the sabbath. Now it doesn't matter to me whether God acted out the sabbath or chose to communicate theological truths about the creation within the framework of the sabbath. Either way I'm sure we can agree on two points:

• God is not bound by the sabbath, can create as quickly as he like and does not need to rest.
• Genesis 1 shows us that God has ordained the sabbath.

Additionally, do you actually believe that the old earth theory had no motivation for creativity? That is slightly naive. Modern man was faced with the dilemma of how to explain geological rock formations in a way that discredits the Biblical account. Hence Old Earth. Unfortunately for them even secualr scientists are begining to abandon traditional explanations of how these formations occured and beginng to admit that they had to be created by major catastrophies rather than long years.

All our scientifuc theories are attempts to explain something within the framework of our worldview. An allusion that your worldviews scientists do this more honestly than those sharing my worldview simply will not fly.

My worldview vs. your worldview? Do you have any proof that the scientists who began to posit that the world was old were trying to descredit the bible? To the contrary, these scientists believed the bible. Take Lord Kelvin as an example.

 

[Iosias]

I'm not going to get into an argument on the authorship of Deuteronomy. It was written by Moses. I'm daft. So what. It is not pertinent to the discussion as we are dealing with Genesis which JESUS thought Moses wrote. Or are you willng to say Jesus is daft as well? Insulting my intelligence is one thing but I hope you have more than these simple arguments if you care to extent that insult to our Lord.

No one has said that you are daft. The Pentateuch was called the 'law of Moses' by the Jews. This was a part of their vocabulary. When Jesus makes reference to the creation account as "Moses said..." he is simply making use of this customary terminology of the Jews and how they refered to the Pentateuch. Yet we know that Moses did not say or write all of the 'law of Moses' as I demonstrated using Deuteronomy.

All of which means that your refering to what Jesus said, when understood in the context in which they were said, do not in fact prove what you think it proves. It sounds nice, but cannot hold up to close scrutiny.

But even if he did, and it is irelevant to this issue anyway really, the more important issue is to ask"What is the form of Genesis 1:1-2:4a?" Can you answer this using literary and form analysis for me please?

 

[Eluria]

Does anyone watch the discovery channel anymore?

 

[dead2self]

In a young earth interpretation he was only acting out the sabbath, unless you believe he was bound by it. I believe he could have created the earth in 6 seconds and wouldn't have to rest at all, therefore him working within 7 days was acting out the sabbath. Now it doesn't matter to me whether God acted out the sabbath or chose to communicate theological truths about the creation within the framework of the sabbath. Either way I'm sure we can agree on two points:

• God is not bound by the sabbath, can create as quickly as he like and does not need to rest.
• Genesis 1 shows us that God has ordained the sabbath.

Though we disagree about inteprettion I agree to those to points of course.

My worldview vs. your worldview?

Yes. If you share my worldview I wonder why you argue against it. It seems clear we view the world very differently.

Do you have any proof that the scientists who began to posit that the world was old were trying to descredit the bible? To the contrary, these scientists believed the bible. Take Lord Kelvin as an example.

Offhand, no. And ok, not ALL of them had that motive. But many did. But really, this is at best a minor issue and I don't want to get bogged down in it when my original question remains largely ignored.

 

[dead2self]

No one has said that you are daft.

When you call holding a belief I am vehemently defending daft you're kind of calling me daft as well. Of course you may feel free. I get called worse than that and don't really care that much. Plus, it's a relatively tame name to be called.

The Pentateuch was called the 'law of Moses' by the Jews. This was a part of their vocabulary. When Jesus makes reference to the creation account as "Moses said..." he is simply making use of this customary terminology of the Jews and how they refered to the Pentateuch. Yet we know that Moses did not say or write all of the 'law of Moses' as I demonstrated using Deuteronomy.

All of which means that your refering to what Jesus said, when understood in the context in which they were said, do not in fact prove what you think it proves. It sounds nice, but cannot hold up to close scrutiny.

So let me get this straight. If the Bible opposes our views, then we say God meant the opposite of what He said? Jesus is not simply using customary terminology. He said Moses wrote it. Pretty plain for all to see. And as the creator of the universe, I'd hazard to say that He would not need to use any customary terminology as He in fact knows the author. Furthermore, where the Jews held traditional views that were mistaken, Jesus was not in the habit of reinforcing them. ather He exposed them and let the truth shine forth. For Him to state matter of factly that Moses wrote the creation account (which He did) if Moses didn't write it is dishonest and a sin. So clearly that's not what He did. It is your interpretation that falls under scrutiny, not mine. For your we have to imagine more allegorical speach where none is implied.

But even if he did, and it is irelevant to this issue anyway really, the more important issue is to ask"What is the form of Genesis 1:1-2:4a?" Can you answer this using literary and form analysis for me please?

Your joking right? I sure hope so. First it IS half the issue. In my question that started this particular discussion I put forth this very issue along with the other "more important" issue. And I also hope you are joking in asking for the analysis. I did it and save one comment by a poster no longer in the discussion it has gone totally ignored.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Does anyone watch the discovery channel anymore?

Nah. I like the Military channel

http://military.discovery.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8GuRGfJE0Q&feature=related

 

[Iosias]

When you call holding a belief I am vehemently defending daft you're kind of calling me daft as well.

I have not called your position daft.

Your joking right? I sure hope so. First it IS half the issue. In my question that started this particular discussion I put forth this very issue along with the other "more important" issue. And I also hope you are joking in asking for the analysis. I did it and save one comment by a poster no longer in the discussion it has gone totally ignored.

I am not asking for analysis but you to say in a sentence what genre Genesis 1:1-2:4a is and why based upon the Hebrew.

 

[champuru]

okay if you YECs believe that everything is so literal, tell me about the research done about the giant pillar that holds up the earth (Job 9:6, Psalm 75:3)

Or the linguistic contradiction between Gen. 10:5 (different languages) and Gen 11:1 (all one language)

 

[dead2self]

Iosias,

so to claim Mosaic authorship for the Pentateuch is just plain daft.

You said claiming Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is just plain daft. I claim just that with the obvious excpetion of the description of Moses' death. Sorry if I somehow got the impression my view was being called daft.

Furthermore I apologise for thinking you requested an analysis when you say this:

Can you answer this using literary and form analysis for me please?

Now, though I have provided the pertinent analysis before in this thread, let me do so again, and then give the requested summary.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=24

Given the ratio of preterites to finite verbs in the original Hebrew, we can say that the likelyhood of Genesis 1:1-2:3 being narrative in genre rather than poetic is %99.9972604.

 

[dead2self]

okay if you YECs believe that everything is so literal, tell me about the research done about the giant pillar that holds up the earth (Job 9:6, Psalm 75:3)

Or the linguistic contradiction between Gen. 10:5 (different languages) and Gen 11:1 (all one language)

First, YECs do not claim everything is literal. We simply look at the text to determine if it is or is not. That is kind of the purpose of our little exercise here I might add.

As for your issues, I am not going to even attempt to comment on them as they are way off topic.

I am simply asking for anwers to a large problem I see for old earth creationsim. Since everyone is so convinced my points are at best misinterpretaions or at worst evil creationist lies I simply ask for evindence to that effect. Not for other supposed probelms to be pointed out.

 

[Iosias]

Given the ratio of preterites to finite verbs in the original Hebrew, we can say that the likelyhood of Genesis 1:1-2:3 being narrative in genre rather than poetic is %99.9972604.

That doesn't really answer the question, as it being historical narrative does not mean that it is history. Gordon Wenham notes that whilst Gen. 1:1-2:4a is not poetry it is not your average historical narrative either, rather it is elevated prose. Wenham writes:

“Extrabiblical creation stories from the ancient Near East are usually poetic, but Gen 1 is not typical Hebrew poetry. Indeed, some writers endeavoring to underline that Gen 1 is pure priestly theology insist that it is not poetry at all….On the other hand, Gen 1 is not normal Hebrew prose either; its syntax is distinctively different from narrative prose. Cassuto, Loretz and Kselman have all pointed to poetic bicola or tricola in Gen 1, while admitting that most of the material is prose. It is possible that these poetic fragments go back to an earlier form of the creation account, though, as Cassuto observes, ‘it is simpler to suppose…the special importance of the subject led to an exaltation of style approaching the level of poetry’. Gen 1 is unique in the Old Testament…it is elevated prose, not pure poetry…in its present form it is a careful literary composition introducing the succeding narratives.”
​

 

[artybloke]

That something is prose is no guarantee of it's historicity; otherwise, Dickens would be taught in history class not literature class.

I think Gorden Wenham (above) hits the nail on the head: it's elevated prose; we might even want to use the modern term "prose poetry" for it.

 

[artybloke]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Reposted after attempt at censorship. I make no apologies for saying that I think creationism is a lie.