YECs: What scripture(s) make you think the universe is only a few thousand years old?

[Sinai]

Although there have been numerous discussions on this and related forums between "young earth creationists" (who generally believe the universe is only a few thousand years old) and those who accept mainstream scientific evidence that the universe is billions of years old (both figures being measured in Earth years looking back in time toward the initial point of creation), those discussions seem to have generally come down to the following:

A. The YECs will generally rely primarily upon their "faith" in the inerrancy of their interpretation of certain Bible verses (which may or may not be given or explained); and

B. Those believing in an "old universe" will generally rely primarily upon their faith in the accuracy of mainstream scientific data and evidence.

Any attempt by the YECs to present scientific data and evidence supportive of their position will tend to be refuted by mainstream scientific evidence to the contrary, and any attempt by the mainstreamers (for want of a better short term at the moment) to quote scriptures supportive of their position is typically dismissed by the YECs as not conforming with their interpretation.

In an effort to get past this impasse, I propose the following challenge to the young earth creationists: Please identify which portions of the original Hebrew text cause you to believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old, and state why you think each verse requires that interpretation. Please note that I am not asking about evolution, special creation of man, intelligent design or other similar issues at this time; we may get to those issues later, but lets start at the beginning and work from there.

Thank you.

 

[obediah001]

Science in no way has proven or even shown the earth to be old in Evolutionary age. There is not a single test which can be done which proves so. All of the so called radiometric dating methods ALL are based upon some half dozen plus assumtions some of which ahve been PROVEN erroneous, e.g. oxygen levels in the atmosphere WERE much higher in the past which effects the decay rate of all isotopes. Come on get real here Evolution is a fanciful theory which has as its sole clout political backing which is the ONLY thing that supports it!

 

[Vance]

But that doesn't answer the question.

 

[obediah001]

It shows the dating methods are wrong as they are based upon faulty assumptions or how aboutthe fact that they date the layers by the fossils found in them & they also date fossils by the layers they are found in; chase that one around awhile it is utter nonsense yet it is in the textbooks!

 

[Vance]

Yes, and we have heard these arguments many times before. The question was which exact verses cause you to hold your young-earth belief, and how you go about interpreting those verses. Pretty straightforward.

 

[Serapha]

I believe the Word of God is infallible, therefore,


Genesis 1

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

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

31 ...And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


Genesis 2

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.


Genesis 5

3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:

9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:

12 And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel

15 And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:

18 And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:

21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah

25 And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech:

28 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:

29 And he called his name Noah

32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

(Now here we see a possible geneology compression of a few years)



The non-canonized, yet normally accepted Book of Jasher records the following text from Chapter 5.

"And Noah was four hundred and ninety-eight years old, when he took Naamah for a wife.

And Naamah conceived and bare a son, and he called his name Japheth, saying, God has enlarged me in the earth; and she conceived again and bare a son, and he called his name Shem, saying, God has made me a remnant, to raise up seed in the midst of the earth.

And Noah was five hundred and two years old when Naamah bare Shem, and the boys grew up and went in the ways of the Lord, in all that Methuselah and Noah their father taught them."

Though we may not assume that the text is entirely accurate, it is another record and a contemporary of the Biblical text.



Genesis 11

10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:

12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:

14 And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber

16 And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg:

18 And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu:

20 And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug:

22 And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor:

24 And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah:

26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

(Again, we have a possible compression of geneologies)


However, the Book of Jasher identifies "Terah was seventy years old when he begat him, and Terah called the name of his son that was born to him Abram."


Genesis 21

5 And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him.

Genesis 25

26 And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them.



Genesis 35

23 The sons of Leah; Reuben, Jacob's firstborn, and Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Zebulun:

28 And the days of Isaac were an hundred and fourscore years.


Genesis 46

12 And the sons of Judah; Er, and Onan, and Shelah, and Pharez, and Zerah: but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan. And the sons of Pharez were Hezron and Hamul.


Numbers 26

21 And the sons of Pharez were; of Hezron, the family of the Hezronites: of Hamul, the family of the Hamulites.



Matthew 1

3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar;
and Phares begat Esrom;
and Esrom begat Aram;
4 And Aram begat Aminadab;
and Aminadab begat Naasson;
and Naasson begat Salmon;
5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab;
and Booz begat Obed of Ruth;
and Obed begat Jesse;
6 And Jesse begat David the king;
and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
7 And Solomon begat Roboam;
and Roboam begat Abia;
and Abia begat Asa;
8 And Asa begat Josaphat;
and Josaphat begat Joram;
and Joram begat Ozias;
9 And Ozias begat Joatham;
and Joatham begat Achaz;
and Achaz begat Ezekias;
10 And Ezekias begat Manasses;
and Manasses begat Amon;
and Amon begat Josias;
11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud;
and Abiud begat Eliakim;
and Eliakim begat Azor;
14 And Azor begat Sadoc;
and Sadoc begat Achim;
and Achim begat Eliud;
15 And Eliud begat Eleazar;
and Eleazar begat Matthan;
and Matthan begat Jacob;
16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.




Luke 3

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph,
which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat,
which was the son of Levi,
which was the son of Melchi,
which was the son of Janna,
which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias,
which was the son of Amos,
which was the son of Naum,
which was the son of Esli,
which was the son of Nagge,
6 Which was the son of Maath,
which was the son of Mattathias,
which was the son of Semei,
which was the son of Joseph,
which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna,
which was the son of Rhesa,
which was the son of Zorobabel,
which was the son of Salathiel,
which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi,
which was the son of Addi,
which was the son of Cosam,
which was the son of Elmodam,
which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose,
which was the son of Eliezer,
which was the son of Jorim,
which was the son of Matthat,
which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon,
which was the son of Juda,
which was the son of Joseph,
which was the son of Jonan,
which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea,
which was the son of Menan,
which was the son of Mattatha,
which was the son of Nathan,
which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse,
which was the son of Obed,
which was the son of Booz,
which was the son of Salmon,
which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab,
which was the son of Aram,
which was the son of Esrom,
which was the son of Phares,
which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob,
which was the son of Isaac,
which was the son of Abraham,
which was the son of Thara,
which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch,
which was the son of Ragau,
which was the son of Phalec,
which was the son of Heber,
which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan,
which was the son of Arphaxad,
which was the son of Sem,
which was the son of Noe,
which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala,
which was the son of Enoch,
which was the son of Jared,
which was the son of Maleleel,
hich was the son of Cainan,
8 Which was the son of Enos,
which was the son of Seth,
which was the son of Adam,
which was the son of God.



~~~~~~~~~~
Now, I am not going to do all the research into each of the genereations.... for that has been accomplished by many people before me.


But the general time of birth for Jesus Christ is circa 4 BCE, and it is now 2003 common era.


~malaka~

 

[Serapha]

I apologize... the inquiry was " Please identify which portions of the original Hebrew text cause you to believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old, and state why you think each verse requires that interpretation."

Sorry, you win... it takes part of the Greek text to get to Christ's birth.

You made the posting a lose/lose position.


Ignore my last. There is no "Hebrew" text that verifies the YEC stand.


and you certainly were aware of that when you posted the question.


~malaka~

 

[Sinai]

Genesis 1

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

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

31 ...And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Thank you for responding with a group of verses. Although you did not state why you think each verse requires you to believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old, I presume from your post that you are relying on the English translation's use of "day" to mean that you think there were six consecutive "days" of creation, and that each "day" is equal to one of the following:
A. 24 hours;
B. 1,000 years (relying on Psalm 90: 4 and 2 Peter 3:8); or
C. 6,000 years (relying on the "watch in the night" portion of Psalm 90: 4).

Is that what you are meaning from the use of those verses? If so, which of those do you accept as being correct? Do you think your particular interpretation is the only interpretation a Christian or Jew should use, or are there other interpretations that are biblically viable?

You then continued with geneologies, part of which included the ages of persons listed at the time they fathered the next son listed in the table. Since most of the list did not have any such ages included, you noted:

Now, I am not going to do all the research into each of the genereations.... for that has been accomplished by many people before me.
But the general time of birth for Jesus Christ is circa 4 BCE, and it is now 2003 common era.

Again, you don't state whose calculations you accept as being correct. Most young earth creationists seem to use the figures and dates provided by John Lightfoot and/or James Ussher around 1642-1658. Because some YECs are concerned about Lightfoot's and Ussher's assumptions that no generations were omitted from the biblical genealogies, about some of their sources and possible guesstimates regarding ages, and about their failure to use original texts or Hebrew scholarship, those young earth creationists generally extend the date of the creation of the universe to somewhere in the 10,000-50,000 year range.

But that is one of the reasons my challenge to young earth creationists was for them to "Please identify which portions of the original Hebrew text cause you to believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old, and state why you think each verse requires that interpretation." Whether you think "the beginning" was less than 6,000 years ago or was a little over 50,000 years ago, it would still be covered by the phrase "a few thousand." And in any event, it would be much less than the 11-20 billion year range shown by modern scientific data to be the age of the universe (with most currently centering around 13.5-14 billion years).

I apologize... the inquiry was " Please identify which portions of the original Hebrew text cause you to believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old, and state why you think each verse requires that interpretation."

Sorry, you win... it takes part of the Greek text to get to Christ's birth. You made the posting a lose/lose position.

Ignore my last. There is no "Hebrew" text that verifies the YEC stand. and you certainly were aware of that when you posted the question.

I am perfectly willing to explore the Greek text as well as the Hebrew if you wish, though I strongly suspect that the real issues will rest with the Hebrew.

If we can both learn more about the other's position, are both interested in seeking the truth and can learn what the Bible actually says with regard to these scriptures, it should be a win/win proposition.

 

[obediah001]

Jesus (in the New Testament) speaks of the days of creation & they are in His refrence clearly 24 hour days.

 

[Ark Guy]

Don't forget that Jesus told us that IN THE BEGINNING humans were made male and female.

Now according to the evo crowd, humans came along near the end...and not in the beginning of earths history 4.5 BY ago.

Just one more biblical point that shows a young earth.

 

[Serapha]

:

I am perfectly willing to explore the Greek text as well as the Hebrew if you wish, though I strongly suspect that the real issues will rest with the Hebrew.

If we can both learn more about the other's position, are both interested in seeking the truth and can learn what the Bible actually says with regard to these scriptures, it should be a win/win proposition.

Sinai,


I am not real big on sending people to sites... I looked everyone of those scriptures up when I responded to your letter... and it got late, so I stopped posting...

And, I certainly am aware of the "other" interpretations that people use to "justify" the creation into fitting science as man knows it.

If you want to learn, then lean my way and listen... because I have heard all the reasons... and there is none good enough to sway me away from the good ol' literal translation. I don't use a "pick and chose" definition... If the literal translation is applied to every passage every time that it is possible... all of the Bible falls into place and there are not contradictions like everyone else's teaching have...


So, when you are willing to listen, just let me know!


Bye


~malaka~

 

[obediah001]

I like Malak. That was a very cogent post.

 

[Sinai]

Sinai, I am not real big on sending people to sites...

Neither am I. Since this topic is addressed to you and any other young earth creationist who cares to respond, and since I would presume you have some reason for thinking the universe is only a few thousand years old rather than the billions of years shown by scientific evidence, this is a topic that should be available for study without the need for anyone to post to a website or to rely upon someone else to do one's thinking for him via internet.

And, I certainly am aware of the "other" interpretations that people use to "justify" the creation into fitting science as man knows it.

Great. Then you should have no problem answering the questions I asked you. So that you don't have to turn back to the first page, I'll repost them for you.

Thank you for responding with a group of verses. Although you did not state why you think each verse requires you to believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old, I presume from your post that you are relying on the English translation's use of "day" to mean that you think there were six consecutive "days" of creation, and that each "day" is equal to one of the following:
A. 24 hours;
B. 1,000 years (relying on Psalm 90: 4 and 2 Peter 3:8); or
C. 6,000 years (relying on the "watch in the night" portion of Psalm 90: 4).

Is that what you are meaning from the use of those verses? If so, which of those do you accept as being correct? Do you think your particular interpretation is the only interpretation a Christian or Jew should use, or are there other interpretations that are biblically viable?

If you want to learn, then lean my way and listen... because I have heard all the reasons... and there is none good enough to sway me away from the good ol' literal translation.

Good. And since the literal is the original Hebrew, we can start there. But first, please answer the questions I raised above. Thank you.

 

[Serapha]

Hi there!








Originally Posted By: Sinai

Thank you for responding with a group of verses. Although you did not state why you think each verse requires you to believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old, I presume from your post that you are relying on the English translation's use of "day" to mean that you think there were six consecutive "days" of creation, and that each "day" is equal to one of the following:
A. 24 hours;
B. 1,000 years (relying on Psalm 90: 4 and 2 Peter 3:8); or
C. 6,000 years (relying on the "watch in the night" portion of Psalm 90: 4).

Is that what you are meaning from the use of those verses? If so, which of those do you accept as being correct? Do you think your particular interpretation is the only interpretation a Christian or Jew should use, or are there other interpretations that are biblically viable?


~~~~~~~~~~~

Sinai,


I would take it to mean "ereb", and for it's first use in the Bible at Genesis 1:5, and since there is no previous "between the evenings", I take the first "ereb" to be the beginning of the first day. Thereafter, the "between the evenings" is a day. Since the text uses the terminology, and the evening and the morning, then I see no other way of taking the text except to be a literal 24-hour day.

No, professing Christians do not have to see it as a literal 24-hour day. Not every Christian is a fundamentalist dispensationalist. However, it is the only view that leaves no stone unturned in aligning the biblical texts. When the fundamentals of dispensational interpretation are applied consistently, the entire Bible lines right up.


"THAT" would be why I believe that the "ereb" of Genesis is a literal 24-hour day.

~malaka~

 

[Ark Guy]

Don't forget Hebrew 4:4

HEB 4:4 For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work."

The New Testament also seems to confirm that the days were literal 24 hour time periods.

 

[JohnR7]

Don't forget Hebrew 4:4

HEB 4:4 For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work."

The New Testament also seems to confirm that the days were literal 24 hour time periods.

Only if you quote it out of context.

Hebrews 4:3-4
For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said:
"So I swore in My wrath, 'They shall not enter My rest,' "

although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. [4] For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works";

Heb. 4:4 is a referance to the 1000 year reign of Christ. For six thousand years mankind has been working. Even though we live in the age of grace and our labor is a work of love.

So a literal reading of the Bible would mean a day in Genesis Chapter one is 1000 years in length. Just as Moses, Paul & Peter say it is.

Matthew 18:16b 'by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.'

This is not the year 6000, it is the year 13,970. It is 6000 years from when Adam was born. Some people think it is the year 11,970. Either way, you have 6000 years from when Adam, Eve and all the animals in the Garden were created.

 

[Sinai]

Originally Posted By: Sinai

Thank you for responding with a group of verses. Although you did not state why you think each verse requires you to believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old, I presume from your post that you are relying on the English translation's use of "day" to mean that you think there were six consecutive "days" of creation, and that each "day" is equal to one of the following:
A. 24 hours;
B. 1,000 years (relying on Psalm 90: 4 and 2 Peter 3:8); or
C. 6,000 years (relying on the "watch in the night" portion of Psalm 90: 4).

Is that what you are meaning from the use of those verses? If so, which of those do you accept as being correct? Do you think your particular interpretation is the only interpretation a Christian or Jew should use, or are there other interpretations that are biblically viable?
~~~~~~~~~~~

Sinai,

I would take it to mean "ereb", and for it's first use in the Bible at Genesis 1:5, and since there is no previous "between the evenings", I take the first "ereb" to be the beginning of the first day. Thereafter, the "between the evenings" is a day. Since the text uses the terminology, and the evening and the morning, then I see no other way of taking the text except to be a literal 24-hour day.

No, professing Christians do not have to see it as a literal 24-hour day. Not every Christian is a fundamentalist dispensationalist. However, it is the only view that leaves no stone unturned in aligning the biblical texts. When the fundamentals of dispensational interpretation are applied consistently, the entire Bible lines right up.

"THAT" would be why I believe that the "ereb" of Genesis is a literal 24-hour day.

Thank you for your excellent post, Malaka. That has to be one of the best explanations I have ever read from a young earth creationist as to why he (or she) believes the way he does. Thank you.

I would like to restate my understanding of the reasons you set out in your posts--both so that you can make certain I am grasping all your reasoning (and can correct any misunderstandings or misstatements by me) and so that those who are not familiar with Hebrew will be on the same page as us.

The key phrase in your interpreting "creation week" as being six consecutive 24-hour days seems to be (with the Hebrew words reversed to correspond to the English order) wayhi-'erev wayhi-voqer yom 'echadh....yom sheni....yom shelishi...., which is generally translated "and it was evening and it was morning day one....day second....day third," etc.

The Hebrew noun erev or ereb refers to the time of dusk beginning with the setting of the sun. It is generally translated as "evening" and is the time when the shadows of evening have grown long but it is not quite dark yet.

As you mentioned, "between the evenings" can be interpreted to mean a day, as you have done here. More commonly, "between the evenings" means between sunset and darkness,which is the time for offering the passover sacrifice and the lighting of the lamps.

 

[Serapha]

Only if you quote it out of context.



Heb. 4:4 is a referance to the 1000 year reign of Christ. For six thousand years mankind has been working. Even though we live in the age of grace and our labor is a work of love.

So a literal reading of the Bible would mean a day in Genesis Chapter one is 1000 years in length. Just as Moses, Paul & Peter say it is.

Matthew 18:16b 'by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.'

This is not the year 6000, it is the year 13,970. It is 6000 years from when Adam was born. Some people think it is the year 11,970. Either way, you have 6000 years from when Adam, Eve and all the animals in the Garden were created.

Hi there, JohnR7,


The majority of commentators do not agree with your interpretation of Hebrews 4:4. I just did a search of crosswalk.com which most Chistians use at one time or another... seven commentators stated it is a reference to a literal day. Only one had a reference to a thousand year reign.

So therefore, by the mouth of seven witnesses, the interpretation should be a literal 24-hour day.

Thanks for your input, I learned a better interpretation of Hebrews 4:4

~malaka~

 

[Serapha]

Thank you for your excellent post, Malaka. That has to be one of the best explanations I have ever read from a young earth creationist as to why he (or she) believes the way he does. Thank you.

I would like to restate my understanding of the reasons you set out in your posts--both so that you can make certain I am grasping all your reasoning (and can correct any misunderstandings or misstatements by me) and so that those who are not familiar with Hebrew will be on the same page as us.

The key phrase in your interpreting "creation week" as being six consecutive 24-hour days seems to be (with the Hebrew words reversed to correspond to the English order) wayhi-'erev wayhi-voqer yom 'echadh....yom sheni....yom shelishi...., which is generally translated "and it was evening and it was morning day one....day second....day third,"[/b] etc.

The Hebrew noun erev or ereb refers to the time of dusk beginning with the setting of the sun. It is generally translated as "evening" and is the time when the shadows of evening have grown long but it is not quite dark yet.

As you mentioned, "between the evenings" can be interpreted to mean a day, as you have done here. More commonly, "between the evenings" means between sunset and darkness,which is the time for offering the passover sacrifice and the lighting of the lamps.

Hi sinai!


Since no one was making sacrifices at the creation, then it would be better translated in context to be "between the evenings"


Thanks for bringing it to light that the Hebrew reference once sacrifices were made meant a different meaning.

~malaka~

 

[Sinai]

I would like to restate my understanding of the reasons you set out in your posts--both so that you can make certain I am grasping all your reasoning (and can correct any misunderstandings or misstatements by me) and so that those who are not familiar with Hebrew will be on the same page as us.

The key phrase in your interpreting "creation week" as being six consecutive 24-hour days seems to be (with the Hebrew words reversed to correspond to the English order) wayhi-'erev wayhi-voqer yom 'echadh....yom sheni....yom shelishi...., which is generally translated "and it was evening and it was morning day one....day second....day third," etc.

Three Hebrew words are especially important to our understanding of what the Bible may mean by this phrase:

1. The Hebrew noun erev or ereb, which refers to the time of dusk beginning with the setting of the sun. It is generally translated as "evening" and is the time when the shadows of evening have grown long but it is not quite dark yet. The word can be used either to mean that time of day just before everything gets totally dark, or it can be used to refer to coming darkness, a time of chaos or confusion, or a time when one cannot see quite clearly. The root of erev means “mixed-up, stirred together, disorderly”—which tends to be our visual sensation of being in the dark;

2. The Hebrew noun voqer or boker, which refers to morning or the breaking of day or that time when the rising of the sun allows one to see his way. Its root means “discernible, able to be distinguished, orderly”—which tends to be our visual sensation at the coming of day; and

3. The Hebrew noun yom, which is generally translated as day or as a period of time, although it can also mean a generation, an era, or an indefinite period of time.