Age of the earth

[Iosias]

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.

One of the problems with the modern 'fundamentalists' is that they don't seem to realise that the OT we have in our hands has been edited over many centuries. They don't seem to realise that the written records are based upon oral traditions which arose in cultic settings, hence the importance of determining the Sitz im Leben.

Have a gander at my Thoughts on Gen. 1:1-2:4a

 

[champuru]

One of the problems with the modern 'fundamentalists' is that they don't seem to realise that the OT we have in our hands has been edited over many centuries. They don't seem to realise that the written records are based upon oral traditions which arose in cultic settings, hence the importance of determining the Sitz im Leben.

Have a gander at my Thoughts on Gen. 1:1-2:4a

I took a look and what you said makes alot of sense.

 

[dead2self]

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.”
​

First I feel it does answer the question of genre. I do not claim that genre alone is enough to guarantee it's historical accuracy. But it is an important piece to rule the passage out as being poetic.

While I find Mr. Wenham's argument fascinating, what it appears to boil down to is an attempt to make a narration poetic because if it is taken a prose the implications are inconvienient. The statement by Cassuto, in my view, supports this. It is indeed far simpler to suppose this passage is somehow poetic. But I am going for the original meaning, not simplicity. But I thank you for this response. While I am most convinced of my position, I really wanted to understand how old earth creationists reconcile several things. This argument shows me how. I do not accept the argument as correct, but I understand your position now.

 

[dead2self]

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

Agreed. It is but a piece of this puzzle.

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.

I disagree here. The attempt tp take a passage that is clearly narrative and try to make it elevated prose which would make it poetic seems to me to be a bit of a convoluted workaround to a problem.

 

[dead2self]

One of the problems with the modern 'fundamentalists' is that they don't seem to realise that the OT we have in our hands has been edited over many centuries. They don't seem to realise that the written records are based upon oral traditions which arose in cultic settings, hence the importance of determining the Sitz im Leben.

Have a gander at my Thoughts on Gen. 1:1-2:4a

I think perhaps that starting off a post with "One of the problems with ....(insert favorite group to bash here)" is not the best way to do it.

For instance, if I were to start off listing off what I see as what is wrong with Liberalism I would get roasted for it. I ask if perhaps a little mutual respect might not be in order. If this simply degrades into a liberal vs. fundy cage match things will get ugly rapidly and no one will benefit.

But as for your comment, is the God you worship too weak to preserve His word for a mere handful of millenia? What we have is the word of God. The accuracy of modern texts (original language texts that is, not translations) is remarkable. I do not wish to get into this debate here, as it has been played out many many times. But I simply ask that you have a modicum of respect for the position that actually believes God inspired the Bible and managed to keep it intact.

 

[artybloke]

The attempt tp take a passage that is clearly narrative and try to make it elevated prose which would make it poetic seems to me to be a bit of a convoluted workaround to a problem.

a) Narrative or not has no bearing on it being factual or not. Elevated prose has no baring on it being factual or not. Poetic or not has no bearing on it being factual or not (The Charge of the Light Brigade is "factual"). Only whether the evidence actually confirms that it is factual has a bearing on that; and no amount of burying your head in the sand or listening to liars and fantasists like Gish will make the age of the earth any less than it is.

b) Genesis 1-2:2 is certainly rather more cadenced than Genesis 2: in fact, to me, even in English, it sounds more like a liturgical reading (see for instance, the Magnificat, or the various prayers and collects of the Book of Common Prayer) than a straight narrative (with its repetitions and chiasma, for instance, and its numerological basis.) It's certainly a lot more structured than Chapter 2, which has a much more story-based format.

 

[dead2self]

a) Narrative or not has no bearing on it being factual or not. Elevated prose has no baring on it being factual or not. Poetic or not has no bearing on it being factual or not (The Charge of the Light Brigade is "factual"). Only whether the evidence actually confirms that it is factual has a bearing on that; and no amount of burying your head in the sand or listening to liars and fantasists like Gish will make the age of the earth any less than it is.

b) Genesis 1-2:2 is certainly rather more cadenced than Genesis 2: in fact, to me, even in English, it sounds more like a liturgical reading (see for instance, the Magnificat, or the various prayers and collects of the Book of Common Prayer) than a straight narrative (with its repetitions and chiasma, for instance, and its numerological basis.) It's certainly a lot more structured than Chapter 2, which has a much more story-based format.

How slowly do I have to say it sir? I agree with you that genre is not the final proof needed. It's only part of the puzzle. But if you take an honest look at Biblical writing, narratives are generally factual while poetic passages are generally not. And must you be rude and label creationists as liars? I do not think it is necessary to civilized discourse. Perhaps we might conduct ourselves as adults then?

As for point b, I don't care in the slightest what it looks like in english. It was not written in english. In Hebrew, it looks like a narrative.

 

[artybloke]

But if you take an honest look at Biblical writing, narratives are generally factual while poetic passages are generally not

Not true.

Jonah, Ruth, Job, the Flood narratives, the parables of Jesus, probably Esther, all fictional.

And when creationists stop telling lies, I'll stop calling them that.

In Hebrew, it looks like a narrative.

Then you are sadly lacking in aesthetic appreciation.

 

[dead2self]

Not true.

Jonah, Ruth, Job, the Flood narratives, the parables of Jesus, probably Esther, all fictional.

Most of these I would classify as narrations of actual events. Yes, even Jonah.

And when creationists stop telling lies, I'll stop calling them that.

I see, anything you don't agree with is a lie then. I must say, unless you can prove your statement, it is simply rude to make such a claim. I think you are very wrong about things, but I am not calling you a liar. Being mistaken and lying are very different things sir. If you wish to continue a conversation with me I must ask you to stop accusing me of lies.

 

[Iosias]

But as for your comment, is the God you worship too weak to preserve His word for a mere handful of millenia? What we have is the word of God.

I affirm both the inspiration and the inerrancy of Scripture. What is important is to realise is that the Bible we hold in our hands has not always looked like it does now. It has been edited, the easiest and least controversial part is the Psalter. The psalms were written over millennia however the order they are in the Psalter is the result of a late (post-exilic) redaction. This can be seen in the prophetic books also.

1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles are typically Hebrew historical narrative. The Genesis creation account is vastly different from these in terms of structure and syntax. Hence whilst it uses the waw-conjuction which is characteristic of historical narrative the differences between historical narrative and the creation account is significant.

Think about the fairy tales, whilst they begin "Once upon a time" and end "and they all lived happily ever after" the actual structure is historical prose, but no one is going to say that they are history. Likewise, whilst the structure of the creation account is historical prose a far more fairer look at the account tells you it is not history, owing to the literary devices used.

 

[Iosias]

But if you take an honest look at Biblical writing, narratives are generally factual while poetic passages are generally not.

By using the term "generally" you are admitting that the case is not 100% hence your argument is rendered null and void.

Biblical narrative itself is highly interesting. For example, note the chronological differences between the Deuteronomist and Chronicler:

1 Chronicles 13:1-4 (No parallel)
1 Chronicles 13:5-14 = 2 Sam 6:1-11
1 Chronicles 14:1-16 = 2 Sam 5:11-25
1 Chronicles 14:17 (No parallel)
1 Chronicles 15:1-24 (No parallel)
1 Chronicles 15:25-16:3 = 2 Sam 6:12b-19a
1 Chronicles 16:8-22 = Ps 105:1-15
1 Chronicles 16:23-33 = Ps 96:1-13
1 Chronicles 16:34-36 = Ps 106:1, 47, 48
1 Chronicles 16:37-42 (No parallel)
1 Chronicles 16:43 = 2 Sam 6:19b-20a
​

 

[artybloke]

I see, anything you don't agree with is a lie then.

I've been reading the same so-called objections to evolution and the actual age of the earth for years. They are refuted time and time again with better facts and better science. The same people go away when they know they're beaten; and they find some other place to peddle their snake-oil. Or they come back when they think nobody's looking and peddle the same old nonsense. Nothing you've said is new, for instance, it's all PRATTs (problems refuted a thousand times), but it all gets recycled again and again.

Now, either the people who peddle this nonsense are particularly thick, though some claim to be qualified as scientists, in which case they're lying (to themselves or others) about the state of their own knowledge; or they are deliberately trying to deceive those who don't have sufficient scientific knowledge but have been told they have to believe in the literal truth of the Bible or their faith isn't strong enough.

Either way it's a form of lying. It's either self-deception or it's deception of others. And I'm not convinced that the professional groups and promoters of creationism like aig and icr are in it for anything other than the money and the power trip.

I don't suppose, however, that you yourself are lying. You have convinced yourself that somehow your faith depends on a literal scripture, so you look for arguments to bolster that belief. The creationist arguments are often complex-sounding enough to pass as scientific but not so difficult to understand you have to get out the Advanced Mathematics textbook.

But your faith doesn't depend on a literal scripture, it depends on a true scripture; and telling stories is not the same as lying. If a story like Ruth or Jonah isn't historical, it doesn't stop it from being full of truth. It just means that the truth is more literary than literal; symbolic than factual. In fact, I personally think a non-literal reading often deepens a story (not in any crudely-allegorical way either, but at a much deeper level.) A good story well told tells us something about ourselves and about God that no dry factual account can.

But it's so much easier to take the easy literalist way...

 

[ahiggs]

most of us young earthers, don't have enough faith to be evolutionists. there is too much speculation, and predisopsed ideas as to how old the earth is. the only thing we have to have faith in is when God said this is how it is we believe it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

most of us young earthers, don't have enough faith to be evolutionists. there is too much speculation, and predisopsed ideas as to how old the earth is. the only thing we have to have faith in is when God said this is how it is we believe it.

Greetings. So how do you calculate the age of the earth thru the Bible and why is that so important? Just curious.

Genesis 6:13 And Elohiym is saying to Noah end of All Flesh he come before Me, that she is full the land wrong/violence from presences of them and behold Me! ruining them the land.

Luke 3:6 And shall-be-seeing All Flesh the Salvation of the GOD.'

 

[ahiggs]

the way i read it God created the earth in 6 days about 6000 years ago, about 4000 years ago there was a world wide flood, about 2000 years ago God walked the earth as man. the flood explains alot of things that an old earth and slow erosion does not

 

[dead2self]

This is getting no where.

Iosias,

at least you are making something of an attempt at reasonable discussion, but every point you make you seem to think of it as destroying my views as you show that the point I am making alone proves nothing. Well, I presented more than one point, which together I see as proving the position. While you are quite adept at picking apart a single point and showing that it is not necessarily conclusive as evidence, you have not given a clear rebuttal to the evidence as a whole nor have you made the attempt. Furthermore you have done little to actually prove my points false and even less to prove your own position. Simply showing a different possible interpretation without proofs does not really do anything for me. It comes down to your interpretaion versus the evidence I have seen. Sorry, but the evidence wins. Alone my individual arguments admittedly will not conclusively prove YEC, but together they show the intenet of the author. And added to physical evidence in various scientific fields they form a very effective set of proofs fro YEC.


Artybloke,

What can I say. That last post is full of misconceptions and veiled insults. Also I see you comming fairly close to making some unfounded alleagations against organisations you disagree with.

Furthermore, my faith does in no way depend on a literal view of scripture. I am perfectly aware that there are non-literal passages in the Bible. I simply do not attempt to make literal texts allegorical to fit my worldview. I changed my worldview to fall into line with the truth of God's word. Quite the opposite of you terribly misinformed and offensive claim, my literal view of scripture depends on my faith. You see, my fath is the basis for actaully believing God means what He says. That faith is backed up with evidence both affirming His account and refuting the modern myths of the formation of the earth.

Anyway good sir, I have made clear my position, and you have made clear yours. You have no respect for anything I have to say as I am a literalist attempting to put my mind to sleep who happens to be a Fundamentalist. From my end, I cannot say I can respect your points either. Your tact is lacking immeasurably, you throw insults and vile accusations at me and those whose belifes I share. Now even though I am opposed to liberalism, I am abel to carry on reasonal discourse with one who is of that persuasion. I cannot, however, abide rudeness and insult. Again I must say goodbye to you. I do not imaging any firther conversation between you and me will be profitable to either of us ar anyone else subjected to it.

ahiggs,

Amen brother. I indeed takes more faith than I could muster to accept evolution. I abandoned that view when the faith required to hold it exceed that which I had.


LittleLambofJesus,

As ahiggs stated, we can date the earth with scripture. Working back from what timelines exist in scripture, compared against outside sources to verify dates we can get a farily good idea of the earth's age. Also, as he stated, the flood explains many things that Uniformatarianism cannot. Interestinlgy enough, the flood account would singlehandedly explain most of the earth's geological features and the extinctions and do so according to Catatrophism. I feel I must point out here that the current change in the scientific communtiy in leaving Uniformatarianism in favour of Catastrophism was in large part started by a scientist would does believe in an old-earth. It is not simply a creationsit fabrication here.

As for why it is important, is not every word that proceeds from the mouth of the LORD important? Is not the wholeness of the very nature of teh LORD important? This topic forces us to chose what we believe about the words God has spoken to us. It also has some inplications for the nature of God. I'd say that's important.

 

[Iosias]

Furthermore you have done little to actually prove my points false and even less to prove your own position.

My method of argument has been to show that your points are not conclusive as evidence. My own position is that the creation account is a biblical cosmogony based upon ancient oral traditions written as historical prose making use of literary devices. No-one would dispute my position. With your statements, especially when you said "if you take an honest look at Biblical writing, narratives are generally factual while poetic passages are generally not" you yourself recognise that there are exceptions to your own rule which is actually quite telling. Further, you have not yet proven that the creation account is history.

As I noted above, the Genesis creation account is vastly different from typical Hebrew historical narrative (e.g. Kings and Chronicles) in terms of structure and syntax. Hence whilst it uses the waw-conjuction which is characteristic of historical narrative the differences between historical narrative and the creation account is significant. Think about the fairy tales we were told when we were children. Whilst they begin "Once upon a time" and end "and they all lived happily ever after" the actual structure is historical prose, but no one is going to say that they are history, or historical or indeed factual. Likewise, whilst the structure of the creation account is historical prose a far more fairer look at the account tells you it is not history, owing to the literary devices used.

I would suggest a reading of Wenham's commentary on Genesis (you could borrow it from a library).

 

[artybloke]

I changed my worldview to fall into line with the truth of God's word.

No you didn't. You changed your world view to fall in line with the concordist interpretation of scripture that your minor branch of Christianity clings to.

And it still doesn't alter the fact that all the science says that there was no such thing as a worldwide flood and that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. That you continuously close your eyes to the truth is sad.

most of us young earthers, don't have enough faith to be evolutionists.

You don't need faith to accept facts. You do need an awful lot of gullibility to accept the lies of creationists.

 

[ahiggs]

actually there is evidence that every part of the world was under water at some point, and no one can prove it didn't happen all at once. for one the grand canyon is proof of a young earth. that could not have happened over millions of years, if it had there would be a delta, there is not one

 

[ahiggs]

i have still not seen one piece of evicence that supports an old earth, that does not start with preconceived assumptions