Genesis

[Mallon]

I just don't see the argument that the world would look different if it were younger.

If you cannot distinguish between the differences of a young and old earth, I take it you do not accept YEC "science" that argues in favour of a young earth, then?

 

[jds1977]

Why does the earth need to contain dinosaur bones, meteor craters, or palaeosols in order for us to exist???
Is this an informed apologetic, or just ad hoc?

I think he's talking about plants (day 3) need sunlight (day 4) to survive...as opposed to to plants then thousands of years and then sunlight, then 1000's etc..
Here I am posting again...I'm such an addict!! haha

 

[Mallon]

I think he's talking about plants (day 3) need sunlight (day 4) to survive...as opposed to to plants then thousands of years and then sunlight, then 1000's etc..
Here I am posting again...I'm such an addict!! haha

I don't think so...
But this brings up an important question that YECs love to ask of TEs, then: Where do you draw the line?
If you're going to argue the Omphalos hypothesis, then where do you draw the line as to what is 'created' history as what is 'natural' history?
You might argue that radiometric clocks must be set at billions of years in order to sustain human life (Why? I do not know) and therefore reflect 'created' history. You might also argue that the dinosaur bones in the earth were deposited by Noah's Flood and reflect 'natural' history. Of the history preserved in the earth, how can we distinguish using a YEC framework what is 'natural' and what is 'created'? I see this as a MAJOR stumbling block for those YECs who want to promote earth sciences in support of their view.

 

[Robert_Barnes]

Any errors or outdated information in Middle School textbooks, as I see it, are less the fault of science and more the fault of the education system for not having the funds for better materials. Also, the information in those books are by necessity simplified to make them accessible to the students. Anybody partaking in a technical scientific discussion should reference textbooks at least at the college level.

More likely the fault of lazy and/or incompetent editors.

Bad editors deserve a special place in hell.

 

[Assyrian]

You need to reread Genesis one. Yes God is not confined to time, but the passage you are refering to does not apply, because of words like "day and night the first day." You cannot interprete this as one day being a thousand years. The wording if clear that it is a 24 hour period.

Yet the idea that God is not confined to time or that a 'day' in God's sight can be vastly longer than a human day comes from Moses himself, the only writer in whole bible who even mentions a six day creation. This incidentally is in a Psalm discussing the creation, Psalm 90, and he goes on to use the words 'evening' and 'morning' metaphorically, so I don't see why their use with day in Gen 1 means the days have to be literal.

 

[Robert_Barnes]

there is no party line with TE's like there is with YECism. so i can speak only for myself.

Which part of Genesis do TE's actually believe?

i believe all of Genesis, as i do believe all of the Scriptures. my beliefs are indistinguishable from any other conservative reformed Christian. On the topic of Gen 1 i think that the best interpretation is framework. I think Adam is historical and a single individual, as is the confession of my church, however i don't believe he is the physical progenitor of all mankind but the federal head of all human beings and the physical progenitor of the Semitic peoples only, unfortunately (the later phrase is) contrary to the confession.

Which part of Genesis do TE's actually believe?
unfortunately you still have not read the memo that it is a difference in interpretation (and in underlying hermeneutical principles) not in "actually believe" that TE's and YECists in general disagree over the first 5 chapters of Genesis.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory and as such has almost no effect on my theology, i'd challenge you to distinguish anything i've written here on CF in more than 5k postings from J.G.Machen, BB. Warfield, J.Calvin or any other reformed Christian, other than the one point that Adam is not the physical father of all humanity.

Framework Creation!!!

 

[shernren]

Yes.

I just don't see the argument that the world would look different if it were younger.

This is sort of like the evil twin for the anthropic principle.

But it must carry some weight, or else why would all those YECs go to the trouble of arguing precisely that the world does look younger? Why don't AiG and ICR and the whole lot just throw their hands in the air, say "It was all created young to look old, and if you don't believe it you don't have enough faith!", and go send their funding where it will actually do some good?

 

[pastorkevin73]

Yet the idea that God is not confined to time or that a 'day' in God's sight can be vastly longer than a human day comes from Moses himself, the only writer in whole bible who even mentions a six day creation. This incidentally is in a Psalm discussing the creation, Psalm 90, and he goes on to use the words 'evening' and 'morning' metaphorically, so I don't see why their use with day in Gen 1 means the days have to be literal.

Here is the exact wording in Genesis 1:5

And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

The same phrase is used in verses 8 (second day), 13 (third day), 19 (fourth day), 23 (fifth day), 31 (sixth day). Doesn't sound metaphorical.

 

[KerrMetric]

Doesn't sound metaphorical.

Doesn't seem defined either.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Here is the exact wording in Genesis 1:5



The same phrase is used in verses 8 (second day), 13 (third day), 19 (fourth day), 23 (fifth day), 31 (sixth day). Doesn't sound metaphorical.

there are at least two ways of interpreting these words.

either evening, morning, (recapitulation and redefinition) = the day first.

note that day is defined as DAYLIGHT in Gen 1:5, not the total of night + daylight. but ONLY the period of light.

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

your usage requires the word YOM to be redefined in the same verse as it is defined. odd thing to do.

or sequential.
evening, morning* day-first

afaik, there is no way to distinguish which of these interpretations of just 3 words is God's Own Interpretation. but the second one doesn't require this redefinition of YOM.


notes:
* corrected night, daylight to proper evening, morning. oops.

 

[jds1977]

3. Biblical uses of the word ‘day’:
a. The Hebrew word for day (​

yom) is used 2301 times in the Old
Testament. Outside of Genesis 1:​

i.​

​

Yom + ordinal number (used 410 times) always indicates an ordinary
day.
ii. The words ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ together (38 times) always
indicate an ordinary day.​

iii.​

​

Yom + ‘evening’ or ‘morning’ (23 times each) always indicates an
ordinary day.​

iv.​

​

Yom + ‘night’ (52 times) always indicates an ordinary day.
b. Genesis 2:4—Yom is not qualified with a number or the phrases
‘evening and/or morning,’ and represents a period of time.​

Hey look...I copied and pasted!

 

[KerrMetric]

Hey look...I copied and pasted!

Don't worry, you'll fit right in on this forum.

 

[Deamiter]

These look suspiciously like ordinal numbers along with "yom"...

http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm

Four times in the Old Testament Yom is translated "year." In I Kings 1:1, "David was old and stricken in years..." In 2 Chronicles 21:19, "after the end of two years" and in the very next verse "Thirty and two years old." Finally, in Amos 4:4, "...and your tithes after three years." In each case, Yom represents years, not days.

This rule about Yom and ordinal numbers is utterly fabricated anyway. The rule didn't exist until geologists discovered evidence for old age and YEC scholars needed to make up a rule to show that Yom couldn't mean age. You won't find Hebrew scholars who were not YEC to begin with that have recorded or supported such a rule in the Hebrew language. To use a rule that was designed to support YEC (not simply describe Hebrew) and use the rule as evidence for YEC is highly circular logic!

Oh right, when you copy and paste, it's good form (and more honest) to cite your source.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Hey look...I copied and pasted!

the interesting thing about the usage of YOM in Gen 1 is that the pattern is: ordinal for days 1 and 5, and cardinal for the others.

http://mysite.verizon.net/bbbweb/bucher-steinmann_critique_working.html

i.
Yom + ordinal number (used 410 times) always indicates an ordinary
day.
ii. The words ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ together (38 times) always
indicate an ordinary day.

http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/bereshit/per.html
a nice essay on how the days of the week are used in modern Hebrew

Even within the creation account, Yom is used to represent four different time periods.

1. Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate a 12-hour period
2. Genesis 1:14 "And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate 24-hour days
3. Genesis 2:4 "...in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate the entire creative week.

The fourth usage of Yom in the creation account is in the summary for each of the six creation days, "and there was morning and evening the first day".

from: http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm

another article that talks about the unusualness of the ordinal, cardinal, cardinal pattern in the days of the Creation Week.

in any case, even if you don't read Hebrew you can google and see that your quoted material misses the big point about the YOM followed by either an ordinal or a cardinal number.

and that still doesn't address the basic problem with how to read the 3 words: evening, morning, daylight. whether sequentially or recapitulate.

 

[jds1977]

You won't find Hebrew scholars who were not YEC to begin with that have recorded or supported such a rule in the Hebrew language.

No wonder that James Barr, then Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University, wrote:

‘ … probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that … creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience … .’6
​

Barr does not believe the Genesis account to be true history, but does not seek to evade what the Hebrew words so clearly teach.

Does James Barr count?

 

[pastorkevin73]

There is one thing eveyone is forgetting in reference to "the first day". We are forgetting a few words before. Again Gen 1:5

And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

There is a hint here; that being evening and morning are used before "the first day". It doesn't sound like Yowm is used as a year here, rather a literal day; a 24 hour period; sunrise to sunrise; sunset to sunset (whichever of those you want to you). One cycle of daylight and night.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Do you have any evidence for that one?

 

[Xaero]

Yet the idea that God is not confined to time or that a 'day' in God's sight can be vastly longer than a human day comes from Moses

himself, the only writer in whole bible who even mentions a six day creation. This incidentally is in a Psalm discussing the creation, Psalm 90, and he goes

on to use the words 'evening' and 'morning' metaphorically, so I don't see why their use with day in Gen 1 means the days have to be literal.

Thanks, i didn't recognize that moses was the author of this psalm.

Psa 90:6 "In the morning it flourisheth, and groweth up; in the evening it is cut down, and withereth."
Grass doesn't grow up and get withered in one day.
The morning and evening refers to the lifespan of grass!

Dan 8:26 "And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told [is] true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it [shall be] for many days."
From the context of the prophecy it seems that "morning" and "evening" refers to the rise and fall of the kingdoms mentioned in Daniel 8.


In Psalm 90 the grass is compared to the lifecycle of the human: growing up and then withering, like kingdoms rise and fall. All these things have their morning and evening.

So, there is a no problem with reading Genesis 1:"and there was evening and there was morning" as something like "fall and rise" or "dying and breaking forth" of created things.

Yom + ‘evening’ or ‘morning’ (23 times each) always indicates an ordinary day.

This is not true as i've shown above.

Also, the exact phrase "and there was evening and there was morning" is never used again outside from Genesis 1 to describe the passing by of a regular 24-hour day. Show me this phrase elsewhere in scripture! I couldn't find one:
http://blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/...trongs=no&exact=0&word=evening+morning&page=1

Exd 18:13 "And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening."
Exd 27:21 "In the tabernacle of the congregation without the vail, which [is] before the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall order it from evening to morning before the LORD: [it shall be] a statute for ever unto their generations on the behalf of the children of Israel."

"from .. to .."
"from .. unto .."

differs a bit from: "and it was .. and it was .."

 

[Markus6]

a literal day; a 24 hour period; sunrise to sunrise; sunset to sunset (whichever of those you want to you). One cycle of daylight and night.

All that happened before the sun was created?

 

[Xaero]

I just don't see the argument that the world would look different if it were younger.

If the universe is young all traces of natural processes in astronomic and geologic areas would be more random, at least when we try to look past 6000 years. The YECs avoid this aspect every time: The imprints written by the natural laws are clearly seen in the earth.

Imagine a recent created landscape with hills and lakes that could be designed in a way that you won't see it's young age with the bare eye.
When you dig up the whole hill and examine the lake and other natural formations you wouldn't expect to find clear signs of a million years history of geological processes. The landscape would have a apparent look of old age that could not been explained by any theory.

But there are lakes with 100000 varves of layered sediments. There are traces of astronomical cycles of 23k over 41k years predicted through astronomical equations. There is a switching magnetic earth field seen in ferro-magnetic stones on ocean floors etc.

These phenomenons are all too unusual for an recent created earth and fit so well into an old earth.