Old Rocks

[juvenissun]

If the days are actually ages, then plants existed long before there was any sunlight. As that obviously would not work, the theory does not work.

I started a thread which discussed this issue. Please comment if you like to.

 

[Assyrian]

I guess you are correct, byt day ageism is not based on a literal interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis.

No but it is based on a very common biblical symbolism that goes all the way back to Moses and what he tells us about God's days in a psalm looking at the creation, Psalm 90. They do take Genesis literally, but allow for figures that the bible has revealed.

If the days are actually ages, then plants existed long before there was any sunlight. As that obviously would not work, the theory does not work.

You would have to look at how Day Age folk read these passages. They don't seem to have a problem. Have a look at http://www.answersincreation.org/genesis1.htm
They see day four as God making the atmosphere clear so the sun and moon can be seen from the surface of the earth. It fits the creation account in Job 38 where the earth was at first covered with thick dark clouds.

Day Age creationist Hugh Ross' provides a list (from the PCA report) comparing different ways to interpret Gen 1 which deals with Day Age perspective on day four.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/4viewsofcreation.shtml
see also http://www.reasons.org/resources/faf/98q2faf/98q2seas.shtml

Personally I don't think a literal interpretation of Gen 1 actually fits six biblical calendar days, but that is a discussion that does not belong in this subforum

 

[Mallon]

If the days are actually ages, then plants existed long before there was any sunlight. As that obviously would not work, the theory does not work.

If you're willing to believe that God created the universe, the Earth, and all life within it in a miraculous poof of smoke, why not also allow for God to miraculously sustain plants without sunlight for hundreds of millions of years? At what point do you draw the line and say, "No way, that's too many miracles"?

 

[keyarch]

The paradox that separates Old Earth Creationists and Young earth Creationist is the age of the earth.

The paradox can be resolved if one understands Scripture to actually convey that:

The universe and planet earth (unfinished) was created by God in ancient times, first fruits; and that the rest of the account focuses on the earth, sun and moon at a specific point in time.

It helps to look to the Hebrew words and definitions for: beginning; heaven; create; make; earth and land. It also helps to know where words have been inserted into the translations that change the meaning of the original.

Here is how the events unfolded:

- God creates (out of nothing), at various times throughout time from the “beginning”, all that there is in the universe.
- God then comes to the planet earth (about 6k years ago), which is a globe covered in water and a thick cloud (gases, second "water") and darkness is on the surface of the lower "water" - the "deep". There is actually a mineral core below the deep.
- God gives his "light" onto the surface of the deep (where it was dark) and energizes it to then separate the two waters into an atmosphere.
- God forms the land masses and gathers the waters of the "deep" into one place. This doesn't mean that there was one homogenous land mass; it means that all the waters were touching. There could be islands and different continents in the shapes similar to what we today, recognizing that the global flood has affected land forms.
- God then goes on to create the plants.
- God then brings sun and moon (from what He already created) and sets them into position. Keep in mind that the stars were already there.
- Got then creates sea creatures and birds; and the next day land animals and Adam. Later that sixth day, He formed Eve from Adams rib.

This model (that should be added to the list in discussions of YEC vs OEC) is called “YBC” Young Biological Creation. It has also been called Young Biosphere Creation and Two Stage Creation. It is not the Gap Theory, Progressive Creation or related to any other model that tries to reconcile an old fossil record or any common descent of man from hominids or one that allows any biology to be more than the time of the creation week (about 6kya). It does however allow for the universe to be of any age and the minerals of the earth to be any age. It also suggests that as fossils are covered by “old” minerals, they are inherently contaminated by those minerals, and dating methods won’t give accurate results.

 

[Hammster]

If you're willing to believe that God created the universe, the Earth, and all life within it in a miraculous poof of smoke, why not also allow for God to miraculously sustain plants without sunlight for hundreds of millions of years? At what point do you draw the line and say, "No way, that's too many miracles"?

I'll take a stab at that one. One principle we must remember when reading Scripture is that it is written for us, but not to us. In other words, there are things that we can take from what is written, but we cannot make believe that it is a letter written to 21st century believers.

In the case of Genesis, it was written to the Jews so that they could have a better understanding of God and also their history. So you have to take chapter one of Genesis and understand it from the perspective of the Israelites at that time. And since the words for night, morning and a number are used with the word 'day', the only way an Israelite at the time would understand it would be one literal 24-hour day.

Do we have to understand how God did it? No, but there are creation scientists who are trying to answer the same questions as secular scientists. Like I said in an earlier post, the evidence is the same for all. It is the interpretation of the evidence that differs. And the literal creation scientists have decided to start with God's word as authoritative and go from there.

 

[Mallon]

I'll take a stab at that one. One principle we must remember when reading Scripture is that it is written for us, but not to us. In other words, there are things that we can take from what is written, but we cannot make believe that it is a letter written to 21st century believers.

In the case of Genesis, it was written to the Jews so that they could have a better understanding of God and also their history. So you have to take chapter one of Genesis and understand it from the perspective of the Israelites at that time.

I agree entirely. It seems we've reached very different conclusions about how to read the Genesis creation account from an early Hebrew's perspective, though. I go a step further than you in applying the principle of accomodation.

Would like to hear from Biblewriter on this one, too.

 

[Biblewriter]

The paradox can be resolved if one understands Scripture to actually convey that:

The universe and planet earth (unfinished) was created by God in ancient times, first fruits; and that the rest of the account focuses on the earth, sun and moon at a specific point in time.

It helps to look to the Hebrew words and definitions for: beginning; heaven; create; make; earth and land. It also helps to know where words have been inserted into the translations that change the meaning of the original.

Here is how the events unfolded:

- God creates (out of nothing), at various times throughout time from the “beginning”, all that there is in the universe.
- God then comes to the planet earth (about 6k years ago), which is a globe covered in water and a thick cloud (gases, second "water") and darkness is on the surface of the lower "water" - the "deep". There is actually a mineral core below the deep.
- God gives his "light" onto the surface of the deep (where it was dark) and energizes it to then separate the two waters into an atmosphere.
- God forms the land masses and gathers the waters of the "deep" into one place. This doesn't mean that there was one homogenous land mass; it means that all the waters were touching. There could be islands and different continents in the shapes similar to what we today, recognizing that the global flood has affected land forms.
- God then goes on to create the plants.
- God then brings sun and moon (from what He already created) and sets them into position. Keep in mind that the stars were already there.
- Got then creates sea creatures and birds; and the next day land animals and Adam. Later that sixth day, He formed Eve from Adams rib.

This model (that should be added to the list in discussions of YEC vs OEC) is called “YBC” Young Biological Creation. It has also been called Young Biosphere Creation and Two Stage Creation. It is not the Gap Theory, Progressive Creation or related to any other model that tries to reconcile an old fossil record or any common descent of man from hominids or one that allows any biology to be more than the time of the creation week (about 6kya). It does however allow for the universe to be of any age and the minerals of the earth to be any age. It also suggests that as fossils are covered by “old” minerals, they are inherently contaminated by those minerals, and dating methods won’t give accurate results.

Your YBC is a term that I never heard before, but it is the concept that I espoused.

 

[Biblewriter]

If you're willing to believe that God created the universe, the Earth, and all life within it in a miraculous poof of smoke, why not also allow for God to miraculously sustain plants without sunlight for hundreds of millions of years? At what point do you draw the line and say, "No way, that's too many miracles"?

When we are dealing with the concept of God, there is no such thing as "too many miracles." If God indeed exists, and if He is indeed all powerful, then there is nothing He cannot do, as long as doing it would not violate his character. (The scriptures say God cannot lie.) So no number of miracles is "too many."

The reverent question is not whether or not something is credible, but whether or not that is the real meaning of what God said. We have his words. I know of no debate as to the correct reading of this part of the Hebrew text. So the only legitimate debate involves what those words mean. Any person who advances a legitimate argument about the true meaning of the words used is arguing reverently. Anyone else is just advocating unbelief.

 

[alexwylde]

The paradox can be resolved if one understands Scripture to actually convey that:

The universe and planet earth (unfinished) was created by God in ancient times, first fruits; and that the rest of the account focuses on the earth, sun and moon at a specific point in time.

It helps to look to the Hebrew words and definitions for: beginning; heaven; create; make; earth and land. It also helps to know where words have been inserted into the translations that change the meaning of the original.

Here is how the events unfolded:

- God creates (out of nothing), at various times throughout time from the “beginning”, all that there is in the universe.
- God then comes to the planet earth (about 6k years ago), which is a globe covered in water and a thick cloud (gases, second "water") and darkness is on the surface of the lower "water" - the "deep". There is actually a mineral core below the deep.
- God gives his "light" onto the surface of the deep (where it was dark) and energizes it to then separate the two waters into an atmosphere.
- God forms the land masses and gathers the waters of the "deep" into one place. This doesn't mean that there was one homogenous land mass; it means that all the waters were touching. There could be islands and different continents in the shapes similar to what we today, recognizing that the global flood has affected land forms.
- God then goes on to create the plants.
- God then brings sun and moon (from what He already created) and sets them into position. Keep in mind that the stars were already there.
- Got then creates sea creatures and birds; and the next day land animals and Adam. Later that sixth day, He formed Eve from Adams rib.

This model (that should be added to the list in discussions of YEC vs OEC) is called “YBC” Young Biological Creation. It has also been called Young Biosphere Creation and Two Stage Creation. It is not the Gap Theory, Progressive Creation or related to any other model that tries to reconcile an old fossil record or any common descent of man from hominids or one that allows any biology to be more than the time of the creation week (about 6kya). It does however allow for the universe to be of any age and the minerals of the earth to be any age. It also suggests that as fossils are covered by “old” minerals, they are inherently contaminated by those minerals, and dating methods won’t give accurate results.

If you're going to be so literal about it, then why are you taking Genesis out of order? Plants come before light in Genesis.

 

[keyarch]

If you're going to be so literal about it, then why are you taking Genesis out of order? Plants come before light in Genesis.

Plants came before the "sun", but light (from God) on the surface of the deep is the very first thing that started the first regular day. I didn't take anything out of order, and yes, I'm very literal about the creation account in Genesis.

 

[Hammster]

The paradox can be resolved if one understands Scripture to actually convey that:

The universe and planet earth (unfinished) was created by God in ancient times, first fruits; and that the rest of the account focuses on the earth, sun and moon at a specific point in time.

It helps to look to the Hebrew words and definitions for: beginning; heaven; create; make; earth and land. It also helps to know where words have been inserted into the translations that change the meaning of the original.

Here is how the events unfolded:

- God creates (out of nothing), at various times throughout time from the “beginning”, all that there is in the universe.
- God then comes to the planet earth (about 6k years ago), which is a globe covered in water and a thick cloud (gases, second "water") and darkness is on the surface of the lower "water" - the "deep". There is actually a mineral core below the deep.
- God gives his "light" onto the surface of the deep (where it was dark) and energizes it to then separate the two waters into an atmosphere.
- God forms the land masses and gathers the waters of the "deep" into one place. This doesn't mean that there was one homogenous land mass; it means that all the waters were touching. There could be islands and different continents in the shapes similar to what we today, recognizing that the global flood has affected land forms.
- God then goes on to create the plants.
- God then brings sun and moon (from what He already created) and sets them into position. Keep in mind that the stars were already there.
- Got then creates sea creatures and birds; and the next day land animals and Adam. Later that sixth day, He formed Eve from Adams rib.

This model (that should be added to the list in discussions of YEC vs OEC) is called “YBC” Young Biological Creation. It has also been called Young Biosphere Creation and Two Stage Creation. It is not the Gap Theory, Progressive Creation or related to any other model that tries to reconcile an old fossil record or any common descent of man from hominids or one that allows any biology to be more than the time of the creation week (about 6kya). It does however allow for the universe to be of any age and the minerals of the earth to be any age. It also suggests that as fossils are covered by “old” minerals, they are inherently contaminated by those minerals, and dating methods won’t give accurate results.

Can you explain where in the Genesis account it says that the stars were already there?

 

[Hammster]

I agree entirely. It seems we've reached very different conclusions about how to read the Genesis creation account from an early Hebrew's perspective, though. I go a step further than you in applying the principle of accomodation.

Would like to hear from Biblewriter on this one, too.

What is the 'principle of accommodation'?

 

[Mallon]

What is the 'principle of accommodation'?

The notion that God speaks to us as a father speaks to his children. He speaks to our limitations and understanding, using imagery we are familiar with, in order to convey His message of salvation.
You are applying the principle of accomodation when you point out that Genesis was given to the Jews using language and concepts they were familiar with. I agree. I don't simply read the word "day" as an accomodation of God to the early Hebrews, though. I read the entire creation account as an accomodation of God to the early Hebrews.
I won't push my view here anymore. But if you're interested in reading more about accomodationism, this is a good introductory article:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

 

[keyarch]

Can you explain where in the Genesis account it says that the stars were already there?

Genesis 1:1.
Genesis 1:16 lets us know that they were in the upper heavens viewable with the lesser light that ruled the night (moon). God established TWO great lights on that day. "He made" in English translations relating to the stars at the end of the sentence is an addition that changes the whole meaning and is not translatable from the Hebrew. The picture is of the moon with the existing stars as the background.

 

[Biblewriter]

I agree entirely. It seems we've reached very different conclusions about how to read the Genesis creation account from an early Hebrew's perspective, though. I go a step further than you in applying the principle of accomodation.

Would like to hear from Biblewriter on this one, too.

I have already said I believe in the plenary and verbal inspiration of the scriptures. What does this mean? (I do not mean what do the words mean, I assume that is well known here.) It means that I believe the Bible does not contain the word of God, it is the very word of God.

If it indeed came from God, and if He is indeed all wise, all knowing, and absolutely truthful, then it must of necessity be absolutely accurate in its smallest detail. (Of course, once again, as it was originally written.) Then it is no longer a question of what it meant to the original audience. Nor is it a question of what the human writer meant. The only significant question is what did God mean by causing these words to be written.

What did God mean when He said it? If I can find the answer to this question, I know what the words mean. Any other exercise in regard to its meaning is an exercise in futility. It is worthless.

SO when I read this, or any other account in the Bible, I start from an assumption (yes, I admit that it is an assumption, but that is my faith) that every word of it is absolutely correct in its smallest detail, and absolutely true. So starting from this assumption, I try to understand what actually happened, only relying on the possible meanings of the actual words used.

I also assume that the words were intended to inform, not to obfuscate. That is, although not every detail is necessarily told, every detail that is included is true, and is intended to convey information.

 

[alexwylde]

So what are most YEC's viewpoints on "old rocks". Are more people inclined to believe that the dating method which scientists use is not verifiably accurate and that their conclusions are just wrong? OR do most people think that those rocks might be dated back billions of years, but God just put those rocks there as a test of our faith?

Your own opinion on the issue and your opinion about the general sentiment are both welcome.

 

[RobertByers]

The paradox that separates Old Earth Creationists and Young earth Creationist is the age of the earth. If Adam was created about 6000 years ago, and the earth was created within 6 24 hour days of the creation of Adam, then the earth is only 6000 years old. However if the duration of the "creation days" was not 24 hours, allowed by the usage of the word translated as day as referring to an indeterminate period of time, then the earth could be older, but mankind, defined as the offspring of Eve, could not.
So we have folks on both sides questioning the parentage of those on the other side.

According to a widely accepted theory from science, our solar system, including the sun and the earth, was formed when our "pre-solar" nebula collapsed about 5 billion years ago. The reason given for the age is that the oldest rocks on the earth seem about that old.

Those that offer the old earth date make an assumption, that when the earth was formed, it got so hot, all the minerals were broken down into molecules, so any atomic clocks that we ticking in the rocks of the nebula were destroyed when the earth was formed. But if they were not destroyed, then we are dating the age of the nebula rocks which could date from some supernova whose ejecta became part of our pre-solar nebula.

Unfortunately, even if the atomic clocks are discredited, we still must face all the evidence, like cave formations and coral reefs, that suggest the earth is tens of thousands to millions of years old. But the good news is this would get rid of all those billions of years where life supposedly evolved from non-life into the species of today.

caves and coral formations do not show a old earth. They just show a interpretation by some of how long they think it took to create them. it was not witnessed.
Caves are probably created instantly from the great events associated with post flood earth actions. Perhaps some from the flood year.
Caves are not from slow processes but the same fast ones that create most of earth scenery.

 

[RobertByers]

This argument is commonly given by YEC people to prove that there was no death in this earth before Adam's sin. This is indeed a legitimate conclusion, based on this scripture alone. But it is not a necessary conclusion, even if this is the only scripture considered. And other scriptures show that this conclusion cannot be correct.

Sin indeed entered into man's world through the sin of one man. And death likewise. But sin entered the earth before Adam sinned.

The first sin committed by a member of mankind was not committed by Adam, but by Eve. But Eve was responding to the previous sin committed by "the serpent," when he specifically denied both the truthfulness and the goodness of God. (Genesis 3:1-6) Whether this was a physical beast that Satan entered into or it was Satan himself is not clear, at least to me. But it was obviously the work of Satan.

YEC here. Death did not in any way enter the world until the fall. Until the curse. Before the curse there was not a curse. On creatures or man.
Death is so clearly a enemy of god and his creation that it could only take place where judgement must needs be given. This is after the couple ate the forbidden fruit.

The serpent was a real creature that was cursed above all other creatures but not killed because actually a being spoke through the serpent. The serpent lost its legs and today still one can see in its anatomy that they did once have legs. one of the few creatures with actual anatomical evidence of a previous state. All creatures were cursed but the nake got a extra nudge for association.
Satan was not in creation but was a spirit moving in the other world and found a passage to talk to adam/eve. He did not contribute to sin in the world. in fact he was thrown out of heaven after this action I think.
Creation was unaffected by Satans actions.

 

[Biblewriter]

YEC here. Death did not in any way enter the world until the fall. Until the curse. Before the curse there was not a curse. On creatures or man.
Death is so clearly a enemy of god and his creation that it could only take place where judgement must needs be given. This is after the couple ate the forbidden fruit.

The serpent was a real creature that was cursed above all other creatures but not killed because actually a being spoke through the serpent. The serpent lost its legs and today still one can see in its anatomy that they did once have legs. one of the few creatures with actual anatomical evidence of a previous state. All creatures were cursed but the nake got a extra nudge for association.
Satan was not in creation but was a spirit moving in the other world and found a passage to talk to adam/eve. He did not contribute to sin in the world. in fact he was thrown out of heaven after this action I think.
Creation was unaffected by Satans actions.

Satan was not in creation???

He was a created being. It is true that he is not a physical being in the sense that we are, but he was a part of the created universe.

He did not contribute to sin in the world???

How can you even imagine that the one who instigated a sin did not contribute to it? He conceived it. He told an explicit lie designed to make it happen. He directly advocated disobedience to God.

He was thrown out of heaven after this action I think?

There is not a particle of scriptural evidence to back this conclusion.

 

[alexwylde]

YEC here. Death did not in any way enter the world until the fall. Until the curse. Before the curse there was not a curse. On creatures or man.
Death is so clearly a enemy of god and his creation that it could only take place where judgement must needs be given. This is after the couple ate the forbidden fruit.

The serpent was a real creature that was cursed above all other creatures but not killed because actually a being spoke through the serpent. The serpent lost its legs and today still one can see in its anatomy that they did once have legs. one of the few creatures with actual anatomical evidence of a previous state. All creatures were cursed but the nake got a extra nudge for association.
Satan was not in creation but was a spirit moving in the other world and found a passage to talk to adam/eve. He did not contribute to sin in the world. in fact he was thrown out of heaven after this action I think.
Creation was unaffected by Satans actions.

Um. That's called evolution where I come from.