The Earth is young

Hieronymus · Nov 18, 2017

Halbhh said:
The first "day" really was a day I think, with a morning and evening. A real day. Not a 1000 hour day or whatever. Just my own viewpoint (not gospel) So, since it was a real day, it did not start until after light, which I feel sure is from the sun because all six of the days have a morning and evening, and all are normal days.

But these are "God's earth days" which start at sundown, so you have 12 hours dark followed by 12 hours light.
To this day the Jews start the day at sundown.
This started in Genesis 1 already.
It's a bit confusing semantically that the light is called 'day' while the day starts at sundown, but that's probably clearer in the original language.

This is my view point. So you can see how it follows from that then that verse 1 would be before the first day, not part of the first day. I can't imagine any reason to think verse 1 would be during verse 3 or simultaneous to it.

From what i understand / remember, the "and" as the first word of verse 3 indicates that it's still the same moment or following directly after the previous sentence, without a gap.
Like "It was dark and i was riding my bike. And (then) i turned on my headlight to see the road".

That seems artificial to impose onto it. It seems more reasonable to me God created the Universe and the Earth, our solar system, and then, later, we have verse 3, and the first of the 6 days is observed in the vision. This is merely my view, however well or not informed. It's not gospel anymore than a view which is different would be. It does fit the text perfectly though.

I don't know if i'm right either, of course.
But i tend to read the text at face value, plus i have studied Genesis 1-3 a little in the past.
It would seem unlikely to me that there was no light in a long period before the first day.

...but then again, i'm not even sure how literally we should take Genesis 1 to 3, or even 4.
Cain being afraid people will kill him, while there weren't any people to kill him, building a city for himself and his wife...
And how about all those hominids?
I don't know what to think anymore, lately..

Hieronymus · Nov 18, 2017

mark kennedy said:
You don't have to be.

Hmm...
I wish i had a lot more knowledge and understanding of the science behind these things..
It turns out i have been easilymislead by 'creation science', while turning a blind eye to 'naturalistic science'.
At the moment i don't know what to think or what to believe.
I'm considering theistic evolution even..

Grandliseur · Nov 18, 2017

Halbhh said:
Since it's one of the most interesting of all questions for literalists like me, let me discuss it with you!

I think after the long time that passed during verse 1, billions of years, that the light that happens on the first day in verse 3-5 is the sun, since it starts the day/night cycle, clearly in the wording, and that means the sky is clouded so that the sun, moon and stars are not visible yet from the surface, exactly as it so happens mainstream science simulation shows would be the case.

I think day 1 is a literal, actual real day, as are all the others. Day 4, on which the sun, moon and stars become visible, in the vision, is the first day which has clear enough skies so that they are visible in the vision.

Of course, I think these days I think are actual days, seen in the vision, are widely spaced in time apart from each other.

God narrated to Moses in the visions the wordings, such as “Let there be light,” and "“Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” (of course not in english nor paraphrased, heh heh)

In order that Moses would not be 100% unable to understand anything at all about what he was seeing in the vision. Instead, he then had a very slight understanding of what he was seeing. We know that in scripture, it is normal that the person receiving a vision only understands some of it, or even little.

I am also a literalist but only by means of a harmonious method that must include all of the material in the OT as well as the NT.
Therefore, I will refer to my post which is #11. My whole interpretation is based on the conclusions in that material. It is a fairly simple interpretation that also uses what science tells us about these matters, but which atheists refuse to try to apply to the Bible's explanations. So, unless you can agree with my previous post, there is really no big reason to try to explain things.

If you do read that post, pay especially attention to what Adam was asked to do and to Paul's testimony given in the post.

Halbhh · Nov 18, 2017

Hieronymus said:
But these are "God's earth days" which start at sundown, so you have 12 hours dark followed by 12 hours light.
To this day the Jews start the day at sundown.
This started in Genesis 1 already.
It's a bit confusing semantically that the light is called 'day' while the day starts at sundown, but that's probably clearer in the original language.
From what i understand / remember, the "and" as the first word of verse 3 indicates that it's still the same moment or following directly after the previous sentence, without a gap.
Like "It was dark and i was riding my bike. And (then) i turned on my headlight to see the road". I don't know if i'm right either, of course.
But i tend to read the text at face value, plus i have studied Genesis 1-3 a little in the past.
It would seem unlikely to me that there was no light in a long period before the first day.

...but then again, i'm not even sure how literally we should take Genesis 1 to 3, or even 4.
Cain being afraid people will kill him, while there weren't any people to kill him, building a city for himself and his wife...
And how about all those hominids?
I don't know what to think anymore, lately..

I think we are only told some of what happened, because many other details are not profoundly important, and only the most profound things of much import (significance) are being given in those chapters. We are not told about Neanderthals, etc., other peoples, but only certain people, the ones in whom God put spirits perhaps. I will PM you though since I am starting to get more of how you see chapter 1 and it could be interesting discussion, but I don't want to hog the thread too much.

harko · Nov 18, 2017

Halbhh said:
Amen.

Those who don't know Christ, and wonder about the Bible need to hear it's ok to think the Earth is whatever age -- they are not required to agree to any particular guesses on any side about Genesis chapter 1.

They need to hear the Good News and Christ's words. God is able. No doubt He did things none of us have guessed.[

Hieronymus said:
But these are "God's earth days" which start at sundown, so you have 12 hours dark followed by 12 hours light.
To this day the Jews start the day at sundown.
This started in Genesis 1 already.
It's a bit confusing semantically that the light is called 'day' while the day starts at sundown, but that's probably clearer in the original language.
From what i understand / remember, the "and" as the first word of verse 3 indicates that it's still the same moment or following directly after the previous sentence, without a gap.
Like "It was dark and i was riding my bike. And (then) i turned on my headlight to see the road". I don't know if i'm right either, of course.
But i tend to read the text at face value, plus i have studied Genesis 1-3 a little in the past.
It would seem unlikely to me that there was no light in a long period before the first day.

...but then again, i'm not even sure how literally we should take Genesis 1 to 3, or even 4.
Cain being afraid people will kill him, while there weren't any people to kill him, building a city for himself and his wife...
And how about all those hominids?
I don't know what to think anymore, lately..

The key to stop wondering about what, if, maybe , is to realise all wordly so called knowledge doesn't matter! We need to just accept GOD IS! Instead of looking for answers to increase our faith just accept. There is no need to become so involved in looking for answers, we should just focus on the fact we are forgiven by the blood of Jesus

Ronald · Nov 18, 2017

Zoii said:
I have no interest in debating this topic. Im sure lots will with you though. It seems to be a very popular topic. I only seek to comment on the referencing.

When you examine the papers, listed in the reference list at the end of each section, that the author uses to illustrate each of his points, he uses articles and opinion pieces from other creationist centres. I have read what I could of these articles in two chapters you attached.

Now thats all fine EXCEPT when you purport an opinion to be a fact. Fact has to be supported by independent research that aims to enter the research without bias. All biases in fact must be declared and also declared is the means by which you eliminated bias.

So my take is - this is an interesting opinion piece lacking in unbiased evidence. Still Im sure you will get a lot enjoying the debate.

Oh, and the TOE is only based on unbiased evidence? Their evidence is so biased, that it ignores any bit of evidence that gets in way of their theory. Staunch evolutionists are spiritually blind to begin with and so can't see any real evidence of God all around them, are in denial or either bury or distort it as we've seen. Unfortunately, our school system has forced fed this theory with a biased intent, unbalanced and lacking the Biblical narrative. The result is confusion and what is now accepted by almost half of Christianity, a hybrid of the two views called theistic evolution. So they think God created basic things and let evolution take its course and in turn must distort the literal meaning of Genesis. Genesis is foundational, if you mess with that, you risk allegorizing and symbolizing other parts of the Bible that don't quite fit into your life.
The TOE is a house of cards, filled with guessing, assumptions and opinions.
The Bible is reliable, every word and most is to be taken literally. Symbolism is usually explained in scripture. The earth is young
... just ask God. He'll tell you.

mark kennedy · Nov 18, 2017

harko said:
The only thing that matters in all of this is the belief God created it!

There is the issue of what God created and when.

Hieronymus said:
Hmm...
I wish i had a lot more knowledge and understanding of the science behind these things..
It turns out i have been easilymislead by 'creation science', while turning a blind eye to 'naturalistic science'.
At the moment i don't know what to think or what to believe.
I'm considering theistic evolution even..

What we know is that the earth was covered in water and thick clouds, this is confirmed by scientific investigation they call it a reducing atmosphere. How life could have started without God is a matter of speculation that boarders on speculation, mythology even. Before you consider theistic evolution ask yourself one very important question. If God didn't create life in the first place are we really going to trust him for the promise of eternal life?

Grace and peace,
Mark

Hieronymus · Nov 18, 2017

mark kennedy said:
No it doesn't, it says God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning.

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.

Hieronymus · Nov 18, 2017

mark kennedy said:
What we know is that the earth was covered in water and thick clouds, this is confirmed by scientific investigation they call it a reducing atmosphere. How life could have started without God is a matter of speculation that boarders on speculation, mythology even. Before you consider theistic evolution ask yourself one very important question. If God didn't create life in the first place are we really going to trust him for the promise of eternal life.

Indeed...
But, theistic evolution is just "slow creation", which needs a Creator.

Grandliseur · Nov 18, 2017

Hieronymus said:
Maybe it was 'the light bearer', who apparently was God's first creature.

Make your own conclusion on the scripture, it is well known:

Micah 5: 2 AND THOU, BETHLEHEM Ephrata, art a little one among the thousands of Juda: out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity.

JacksBratt · Nov 18, 2017

Zoii said:
I have no interest in debating this topic. Im sure lots will with you though. It seems to be a very popular topic. I only seek to comment on the referencing.

When you examine the papers, listed in the reference list at the end of each section, that the author uses to illustrate each of his points, he uses articles and opinion pieces from other creationist centres. I have read what I could of these articles in two chapters you attached.

Now thats all fine EXCEPT when you purport an opinion to be a fact. Fact has to be supported by independent research that aims to enter the research without bias. All biases in fact must be declared and also declared is the means by which you eliminated bias.

So my take is - this is an interesting opinion piece lacking in unbiased evidence. Still Im sure you will get a lot enjoying the debate.

I think it would be impossible to find a source, for either YEC or OE that is not biased.

mark kennedy · Nov 18, 2017

Hieronymus said:
Indeed...
But, theistic evolution is just "slow creation", which needs a Creator.

No it doesn't and that is their dirty little secret, it's no different from atheistic materialism in any way that is meaningful.

Grandliseur · Nov 18, 2017

Grandliseur said:
I am also a literalist but only by means of a harmonious method that must include all of the material in the OT as well as the NT.
Therefore, I will refer to my post which is #11. My whole interpretation is based on the conclusions in that material. It is a fairly simple interpretation that also uses what science tells us about these matters, but which atheists refuse to try to apply to the Bible's explanations. So, unless you can agree with my previous post, there is really no big reason to try to explain things.

If you do read that post, pay especially attention to what Adam was asked to do and to Paul's testimony given in the post.

If you would like me to proceed with the explanation, I will, but it will be based on what was said in #11.

Hieronymus · Nov 18, 2017

Grandliseur said:
Make your own conclusion on the scripture, it is well known:

Micah 5: 2 AND THOU, BETHLEHEM Ephrata, art a little one among the thousands of Juda: out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity.

You're saying the un-incarnate Jesus (the Word, the Son of God) is the light in Genesis 1:1.
But the Word is the Creator and is not created (John 1).
Only begotten is a bit of an ambiguous translation of 'monogenese'. which rather means 'unique'.
Iirc Izak was described as Abraham's 'monogenese' son, but Abraham had more sons, so it's apparently not 'only begotten' but 'unique'

Halbhh · Nov 18, 2017

Ronald said:
Oh, and the TOE is only based on unbiased evidence? Their evidence is so biased, that it ignores any bit of evidence that gets in way of their theory. Staunch evolutionists are spiritually blind to begin with and so can't see any real evidence of God all around them, are in denial or either bury or distort it as we've seen. Unfortunately, our school system as force fed this theory with a biased intent, unbalanced and lacking the Biblical narrative. The result is confusion and what is now accepted by almost half if Christianity, a hybrid if the two views called theistic evolution. So they think God created basic things and let evolution take its course and on turn must distort the literal meaning of Genesis. Genesis is foundational, if you mess with that, you risk allegorizing and symbolizing other parts of the Bible that don't quite fit into your life.

The reason Creationism became an big issue, more than predestination etc., and I personally saw it become so again in the 1980s, getting more and more prominent, is because it was being preached prominently, as if it were...well, as if it were the gospel.

But actually it's a certain way of reading Genesis chapters 1-3. Why preach so forcefully, insisting it be in schools, etc.? Do people think we can only learn in schools, and that faith depends on an certain interpretation of Genesis 1 instead of on Matthew or Luke?.....

The real gospel is in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

So, Creationism should not even be preached prominently, but instead Christ and repentance should be preached prominently, and thank God this is indeed so!

Christ said to base faith on hearing and doing His words. Nothing else is the rock on which we are to base our faith.

Neither belief in a Created Old Earth, nor belief in a Created Young Earth can save.

Neither.

Only Christ can save.

Hieronymus · Nov 18, 2017

mark kennedy said:
No it doesn't and that is their dirty little secret, it's no different from atheistic materialism in any way that is meaningful.

I disagree.
There is creation behind theistic evolution, not random mutations that accidentally happened to survive and thrive with incomplete systems waiting to be accidentally completed.

mark kennedy · Nov 18, 2017

Hieronymus said:
I disagree.
There is creation behind theistic evolution, not random mutations that accidentally happened to survive and thrive with incomplete systems waiting to be accidentally completed.

Personally that is way too ambiguise and totally opposed to a literal reading of the Genesis account. It makes way more sense that God created life fully formed and capable of reproduction. Mutations are simply genetic mistakes, errors in the copy of DNA during the G2 period of cellular replication. To believe this answers the fundamental questions of life's origins is fantasy at best.

Grandliseur · Nov 18, 2017

Hieronymus said:
You're saying the un-incarnate Jesus (the Word, the Son of God) is the light in Genesis 1:1.
But the Word is the Creator and is not created (John 1).
Only begotten is a bit of an ambiguous translation of 'monogenese'. which rather means 'unique'.
Iirc Izak was described as Abraham's 'monogenese' son, but Abraham had more sons, so it's apparently not 'only begotten' but 'unique'

The only place our Lord appears directly in Genesis 1 in my opinion is when God says this:

26 And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.

Here God and our Lord appears together in the 'let us. . ." statement. That is, of course, the way I understand it.

Hieronymus · Nov 18, 2017

mark kennedy said:
Personally that is way too ambiguise and totally opposed to a literal reading of the Genesis account.

That's true.
It would mean Genesis 1 to 3 and maybe 4 too, are allegorical.
But that's what i used to believe when i was new to the faith, and i don't think it's a salvation issue.
However, nowhere in Scripture is it suggested to be an allegory.
But the same goes for the flat earth model (a disc is not a sphere).

It makes way more sense that God created life fully formed and capable of reproduction. Mutations are simply genetic mistakes, errors in the copy of DNA during the G2 period of cellular replication. To believe this answers the fundamental questions of life's origins is fantasy at best.

I agree.
However, there is quite a lot of evidence that makes it difficult to believe Genesis up to chapter 9.
Look at Madagascar, for example. Unique species there.
Hominids. What are we to make of those?
I don't know...
God dividing the waters, ordering the chaos (without form and void) seems similar to Marduk and the see serpent story.
It could be mythology rewritten to point to the True God YHWH Elohim.
I don't know..

Radagast · Nov 18, 2017

mindlight said:
My understanding is that after 60000 years the amount of C14 is worthless for dating cause there simply is not enough of it left.

If you have negligible carbon-14 left, the date is basically "40,000 years or older."

mindlight said:
The oldest confirmed dating of a tree is 5000 years ( counted by its rings) . The Swedish tree dated at 9500 years was done so by carbon 14 dating, but the possibility of contamination and other factors makes this a guess.

Tree rings actually go back about 10,000 years. This is done by finding logs with overlapping ring patterns.

The Earth is young

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Everything You say is Life to me

Active Member

Exhortations

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Searching for Truth

Natura non facit saltum

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Everything You say is Life to me

Well-Known Member

Natura non facit saltum

Active Member

Well-Known Member

comes and goes

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency