How to explain 13.8 billion years?

[St_Worm2]

Actually it is pretty clear if you read Augustine that he rejected a literal 24 hour day.

Hi again Benelchi, I've read a LOT of Augustine's works, but I've never noted any rejection of a literal 24 hr day in anything of his I've read so far (something I feel certain I would have noticed ). He certainly rejects the idea of an "old earth" as the quote I posited above from The City of God makes clear (he believes the Creation happened less than 6,000 years prior to his writing of The City of God), so he could not have believed the first days of Creation were much longer than 24 hours each

If you know of a quote(s) of his that clearly indicate a personal belief in something like a "Day-Age", please be sure to point them out to us (with some indication of which work(s) of his you are quoting, of course, again, so we can read them in context).

They followed this interpretation because Adam didn't die in the day that he ate the fruit, but he did die within 1000 years.

That may be true (again, it would be nice to have some referenced quotes so we'd know which publications you are talking about and who wrote them). Also, while it's true that God made a way to spare our first parents' immediate physical death (Genesis 3:21), they both died that day, spiritually.

The point is that many of those who lived long ago, and understood the language and culture, rejected the idea that the days of Genesis 1 were literal 24 hour days, to insist that is the only way these days can be understood goes far, far, beyond the evidence.

Not disagreeing with that. As I said in my post above, St. Augustine was confronted with various scientific theories concerning the Creation back in his day.

Yours in Christ,
David

 

[dad]

Yes

OK so it looks like this

Now it came to pass after this, that Nahash the king of the children of Ammon died, and his son reigned in his stead.

So?

 

[benelchi]

OK so it looks like this

Now it came to pass after this, that Nahash the king of the children of Ammon died, and his son reigned in his stead.

So?

I am not sure where you are reading, but that isn't 2 Chr. 21:19 in any version.

 

[BobRyan]

I have no idea what ""down-scale" model of a flood" means. I do know that no model for a worldwide Flood 4,000 years ago comports with the evidence God left behind in His creation..

until you look at the actual physical evidence with sea fossils on the tops of all major mountain chains. Hint - even the limestone deposits are telling the story with "observable evidence".

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 129. Seashells on Mountaintops
"Fossilized sea life lies atop every major mountain range on earth—far above sea level" and in most cases - far from the nearest body of water.

 

[BobRyan]

I noticed that you didn't answer my question:

Just out of curiosity, how does YOUR bible translate 2 Chr. 21:19? Were the translators of your bible wrong?​

18 So after all this the Lord smote him in his bowels with an incurable sickness. 19 Now it came about in the course of time, at the end of two years, that his bowels came out because of his sickness and he died in great pain. And his people made no fire for him like the fire for his fathers

What is your point??? What does it have to do with anything on this thread?

 

[rjs330]

Do we have the originals, yes or no? It really is a quite simple question.

Men are fallible. Even men inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Does the bolded portion mean that you accept that there might be minor faults in the Bible?

Which is exactly what every person reading the Bible does. You, me, everyone.

The difference is that I don't interpret the Bible in such a way that denies the evidence God left behind in His fingerprints in the world.

No we don't have originals. If you think that makes the Bible unreliable and false then you are wrong. We have far more manuscripts that verify the current scriptures are reliable than any other ancient writing. The manuscripts verify that what is written, what we have is perfectly reliable.

Yes men are fallible. But with the amount of manuscripts we have the fallibility is mitigated to the point of minutia.

The portions of Scripture that may contain faults are so minor that it's irrelevant.

I completely disagree on that we all force Scripture into preconceived notions. We don't have to do that. The issue here is that Genesis is one part where the scriptural gymnastics have to be so crazy to make it say what it doesn't in order to make creation into more than six days.

The earth may very well be very old. Genesis 1 says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form and void.

How long was it in this state before God began the life creation process? The Bible doesn't say. It does say once the life creation process started it took six days. It says how God did it and how long it took.

I find it interesting that we can claim all kinds of scriptural misinterpretation and bias but refuse to acknowledge any scientific misinterpretation or bias.

The truth is the scriptures speak for themselves without the need of interpretation. Science does not.

 

[BobRyan]

Would you classify this verse as "allegorical?"

"In the course of time, at the end of two years, his bowels came out because of the disease, and he died in great agony. His people made no fire in his honor, like the fires made for his fathers." (2 Chr. 21:19 ESV)​

No I would not -- what is your point??

 

[BobRyan]

Do we have the originals, yes or no? It really is a quite simple question.

Men are fallible. Even men inspired by the Holy Spirit.

hint: Dead Sea scrolls.

 

[BobRyan]

A
I see nothing in the quote of St. Augustine's that you posited for us above to indicate the "length" of the first three days of Creation, do you?

Augustine argues that God "being infinite" in power and knowledge would never "choose" to take so LONG a time as 7 literal days to make life on earth and so the text must refer to some much SHORTER time and thus be using "day" and "evening and morning" symbolically since the literal seven days is too LONG a time for the events described -- in Augustine's humble opinion.

Thus he establishes the principle of "bible bending" any time one's preference or sweet-imagination needs it... which is what blind faith evolutionism is requesting at the moment.

 

[benelchi]

No I would not -- what is your point??

The point is that the Hebrew text reads two days, but translators recognize that יום in this verse refers to a year and not a 24 hour day.

 

[benelchi]

Augustine argues that God "being infinite" in power and knowledge would never "choose" to take so LONG a time as 7 literal days to make life on earth and so the text must refer to some much SHORTER time and thus be using "day" and "evening and morning" symbolically since the literal seven days is too LONG a time for the events described -- in Augustine's humble opinion.

Thus he establishes the principle of "bible bending" any time one's preference or sweet-imagination needs it... which is what blind faith evolutionism is requesting at the moment.

Bible bending happens with organizations like AiG and CRI who choose to limit God in ways that the early readers of Scripture rejected.

Please don’t create unnecessary division among believers over God’s creation!

 

[prodromos]

The idea that God created light in transit and created the earth with an appearance of history is supported by Scripture? Do you have chapter and verse to support that rather extraordinary claim?

Genesis 1:14-19
And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

The creation narrative does not suggest that when God put the sun, the moon and the stars in the sky that they were not immediately visible, yet since it takes many years for the light from the stars to reach the earth, the narrative suggests that God created each star complete with its sphere of emanated energy.

 

[St_Worm2]

Augustine argues that God "being infinite" in power and knowledge would never "choose" to take so LONG a time as 7 literal days to make life on earth and so the text must refer to some much SHORTER time and thus be using "day" and "evening and morning" symbolically since the literal seven days is too LONG a time for the events described -- in Augustine's humble opinion.

Hi Bob, please refer me to the publication of Augustine's that you are referring to above so I can take a look at what he said for myself (as well be able to read it in context).

Thanks!

--David

 

[benelchi]

Genesis 1:14-19
And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

The creation narrative does not suggest that when God put the sun, the moon and the stars in the sky that they were not immediately visible, yet since it takes many years for the light from the stars to reach the earth, the narrative suggests that God created each star complete with its sphere of emanated energy.

That sounds kind of deceptive.

 

[BobRyan]

Bible bending happens with organizations like AiG and CRI who choose to limit God in ways that the early readers of Scripture rejected.

Please don’t create unnecessary division among believers over God’s creation!

Just not in real life.

In real life we have the professors of OT and Hebrew language studies in all major world-class universities admitting to the incredibly obvious literal 7 day details of Genesis 2:1-3 and Exodus 20:11.

2+2 = 4 ... is NOT "a matter of interpretation".

God can say something that is accurate, correct, and understandable - and so with "literal virgin birth" and "literal bodily resurrection of Christ" and "literal bodily ascension of Christ" and "literal 7 day creation week"

In the Bible we have this "legal code" -

Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - SIX days you shall labor... For in SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Gen 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made

No such language found in even ONE of evolutionism's 'texts' to state that particular "belief".

As for "the obvious" it is not merely Bible believing Christians that notice it.

Turns out ---

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘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: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

Don't miss this part ---

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘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: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

 

[benelchi]

Just not in real life.

In real life we have the professors of OT and Hebrew language studies in all major world-class universities admitting to the incredibly obvious literal 7 day details of Genesis 2:1-3 and Exodus 20:11.



Don't miss this part ---

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘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: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

Either this is a false quote or he is dishonest or ignorant. The Hebrew professor at Wheaton (a world class university) holds views that are very, vary, far from this, and he is one of many Hebrew scholars that reject a literal 6 day 24 hr. interpretation. Additionally, most Hebrew scholars are not dogmatic about how the days should be interpreted (even the ones who prefer a 6 day 24 hr. interpretation) because they recognize that the language doesn't demand this interpretation.


Additionally, I know of no Hebrew scholar that supports the conclusion promoted by AiG regarding generations (the topic of the article to which I linked).

 

[dad]

I am not sure where you are reading, but that isn't 2 Chr. 21:19 in any version.

You forgot the 2 before.

How about this one?

In the course of time, at the end of the second year, his bowels came out because of the disease, and he died in great pain. His people made no funeral fire in his honor, as they had for his predecessors.

Now, what is your point?

 

[BobRyan]

Hi Bob, please refer me to the publication of Augustine's that you are referring to above so I can take a look at what he said for myself (as well be able to read it in context).

Thanks!

--David

From Augustine on the Days of Creation

, but rather as under the wonderful and unutterable power of the Wisdom of God, which reaches from end to end mightily and governs all graciously. For this power of Divine Wisdom does not reach by stages or arrive by steps. It was just as easy, then, for God to create everything as it is for Wisdom to exercise this mighty power. For through Wisdom all things were made, and the motion we now see in creatures, measured by the lapse of time, as each one fulfills its proper function, comes to creatures from those causal reasons implanted in them, which God scattered as seeds at the moment of creation when He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created. Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at plodding pace at which they now pass. Time brings about the development of these creatures according to the laws of their numbers, but there was no passage of time when they received these laws at creation.2

From; Augustine. The Literal Meaning of Genesis, translated by John Hammond Taylor (1982), Vol. 1, Book 4, Chapter 33, paragraph 51–52, p. 141, italics in the original. New York: Newman Press.


So then, although it is without any stretch of time being involved that God makes things, having ‘the power to act available to him whenever he will,’ (Wisdom of Solomon 12:18) all the same the time-bound natures made by him go though their temporal movements in time (Augustine 2002c, 7.28).

============== Wikipedia

From Allegorical interpretations of Genesis - Wikipedia

In the book, Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way. Augustine also doesn’t envisage original sin as originating structural changes in the universe, and even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall. … [18]

In The City of God, Augustine also defended the idea of a young Earth. Augustine rejected both the immortality of the human race proposed by pagans, and contemporary ideas of ages (such as those of certain Greeks and Egyptians) that differed from the Church's sacred writings:

Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been... They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.[19]

St. Augustine also comments on the word "day" in the creation week, admitting the interpretation is difficult:

But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say![20]

 

[BobRyan]

Bible bending happens with organizations like AiG and CRI who choose to limit God in ways that the early readers of Scripture rejected.

Please don’t create unnecessary division among believers over God’s creation!

Just not in real life.

In real life we have the professors of OT and Hebrew language studies in all major world-class universities admitting to the incredibly obvious literal 7 day details of Genesis 2:1-3 and Exodus 20:11.

2+2 = 4 ... is NOT "a matter of interpretation".

God can say something that is accurate, correct, and understandable - and so with "literal virgin birth" and "literal bodily resurrection of Christ" and "literal bodily ascension of Christ" and "literal 7 day creation week"

In the Bible we have this "legal code" -

Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - SIX days you shall labor... For in SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Gen 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made

No such language found in even ONE of evolutionism's 'texts' to state that particular "belief".

As for "the obvious" it is not merely Bible believing Christians that notice it.

Turns out ---

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘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: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

Don't miss this part ---

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘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: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

Either this is a false quote or he is dishonest or ignorant.

The fact that you find this detail to be "inconvenient" does not make if false - nor does it make professor Barr "dishonest or ignorant".

I guess we all knew that already.

The Hebrew professor at Wheaton (a world class university) holds views that are very, vary, far from this

In what sense do you prove that Barr meant to place Wheaton on par with Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Berkley, Cambridge, Vanderbilt etc as 'world class universities' ???

No one doubts that compromised professors exist - who reject the direct interpretation of the text - and seek to bend it to fit their bias of evolutionism and their preference to marry the Bible to evolutionism even though Darwin himself stated that such an exercise was pure nonsense.

 

[St_Worm2]

From; Augustine. The Literal Meaning of Genesis, translated by John Hammond Taylor (1982), Vol. 1, Book 4, Chapter 33, paragraph 51–52, p. 141, italics in the original. New York: Newman Press.

Thanks Bob, I quoted the very same passage earlier in this thread (though I am not coming to the same conclusion about it that you have obviously, so I will go back and look at it again).

As for St. Augustine being YEC, that seems abundantly clear however.

--David