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

[Vance]

Here is another analysis of the "morning and evening":

"Like the word "day" the Hebrew words for "evening" and "morning" ("arab" and "boqer") both have multiple definitions. It can be seen from Psalm 90:14 that "Morning" carries a meaning which is not tied to a twenty-four-hour day:

"O satisfy us early with thy mercy; that we may rejoice and be glad all our days." - K.J.V. Emphasis mine.
​

Here, the Hebrew word "boqer" (emphasized word) was translated as "early" rather than "in the morning" because it was obvious from context that "in the early part of a person's lifetime" rather than "in the morning of a particular twenty-four-hour period" was what the Psalmist had intended; otherwise, whether the blessing came in the morning or the evening would have very little to do with how much time would remain for rejoicing during that person's lifetime. 12 But what about when "evening and morning" appear together as argument #3 requires? Psalm 90:14 does not exactly apply because "evening" and "morning" are not both used there. "Evening" and "morning" occur together many places in the Bible. In the first chapter of Genesis, this happens six times. Other usages are: Exodus 18:13, 14 & 27:21; Leviticus 24:3; Numbers 9:21; 1 Samuel 17:16; 13 1 Chron. 16:40; 2 Chron. 2:4 & 31:3; Ezra 3:3; Job 4:20; Psalm 55:17 and Daniel 8:26. As can be seen from examining context of these verses, the expression usually carries the idea of "continuously." For example, instruction may be given to do something "evening and morning." Not only is the thing to be done in the evening and in the morning, but it is also understood that it is to be done day after day. The Living Bible renders the expression "Day and night" in Exodus 27:21. Other acceptable paraphrasings might be "day after day" or even "around the clock" in some cases. At first glance, the sense of "continuously" does not seem to fit into the context of Genesis 1 no matter which interpretation is assigned to the six days; but it is possible that this phrase is telling us that each of God's creative acts merely commenced on the particular day named and then continued during subsequent days. If this were the case, either interpretation ("age" or twenty-four-hour) would fit equally well. None of the usages of evening and morning appear to limit an event to just twenty-four hours. Job 4:20 speaks figuratively of men's "houses" of clay which are destroyed between "morning and evening." This process seems slow to men but not to God. Daniel 8:26 relates a vision of Daniel's which covered future dynasties of man up until the end time.

"And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days." - Daniel 8:26, K.J.V. Italics theirs.​

Here the expression "evening and morning" appears to mean something like "from beginning to end" - the entire rule of man. The translators of both the N.I.V. and N.A.S. Bibles rendered the phrase as "evenings and mornings" - apparently to make the greater-than-twenty-four-hour meaning more clear to modern readers. ("Evening" and "morning" are both singular in the Hebrew.) Daniel seems to confirm the greater-than-twenty-four-hour meaning, but the confirmation is weak; Genesis and Daniel represent very different times and cultures. 14 In any case, the presence of the expression "evening and morning" does not by itself establish that the "days" of creation were twenty-four hours in length. It would seem there is still no clear way to decide how to interpret the word "day." As before, the decision should be made on some other basis."

quoted from here: http://answers.org/newlook/NLCHPTR3.HTM#Argument%203

 

[Sinai]

Malaka (and any other young earth creationist who wishes to join our discussion)~~

Since this thread has changed pages since our last correspondence, let me repost the last comment I had made to you:

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.

Although we seem to agree that the Hebrew language of the Bible would support either the interpretation that the six yoms of creation were of 24-hours each or that they were of an indefinite or unspecified period of time, we seem to not be in agreement as to which interpretation is most likely to be correct.

You have set forth your basis for interpreting the Bible in post #27 on another thread in this same forum. You apparently believe that although the scriptures support other interpretations, the most literally correct interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis would be that it describes six consecutive 24-hour days. And although I also think your interpretation can be supported scripturally, I think other interpretations are more likely to be correct.

If this is a correct synopsis of where we stand and we are in agreement on these points, we can move forward (if you wish to do so) with each of us giving the reasons why we think our particular interpretation is more satisfactory to each of us.

 

[Sinai]

I say there, old chap: It's been four days now since the last post....

....Are you there???

 

[lucaspa]

Here is another analysis of the "morning and evening":





"Like the word "day" the Hebrew words for "evening" and "morning" ("arab" and "boqer") both have multiple definitions. It can be seen from Psalm 90:14 that "Morning" carries a meaning which is not tied to a twenty-four-hour day:

"O satisfy us early with thy mercy; that we may rejoice and be glad all our days." - K.J.V. Emphasis mine.




​

Here, the Hebrew word "boqer" (emphasized word) was translated as "early" rather than "in the morning" because it was obvious from context that "in the early part of a person's lifetime" rather than "in the morning of a particular twenty-four-hour period" was what the Psalmist had intended; otherwise, whether the blessing came in the morning or the evening would have very little to do with how much time would remain for rejoicing during that person's lifetime.

I think you are stretching here. It could easily have been translated as "in the morning" of a person's life. Since this is a poem, translators often choose another word that is not the definition but fits the meter better. "in the morning of a person's life" is many more syllables than boger. But "early" also has two syllables and therefore keeps the meter of the poem better.

To try to use this as denying "morning and evening" in Genesis 1 is ... worse than any of the convoluted exegeses I have seen you castigate YECers for.

But what about when "evening and morning" appear together as argument #3 requires? Psalm 90:14 does not exactly apply because "evening" and "morning" are not both used there. "Evening" and "morning" occur together many places in the Bible. In the first chapter of Genesis, this happens six times. Other usages are: Exodus 18:13, 14 & 27:21; Leviticus 24:3; Numbers 9:21; 1 Samuel 17:16; 13 1 Chron. 16:40; 2 Chron. 2:4 & 31:3; Ezra 3:3; Job 4:20; Psalm 55:17 and Daniel 8:26. As can be seen from examining context of these verses, the expression usually carries the idea of "continuously." For example, instruction may be given to do something "evening and morning." Not only is the thing to be done in the evening and in the morning, but it is also understood that it is to be done day after day. The Living Bible renders the expression "Day and night" in Exodus 27:21. Other acceptable paraphrasings might be "day after day" or even "around the clock" in some cases. At first glance, the sense of "continuously" does not seem to fit into the context of Genesis 1 no matter which interpretation is assigned to the six days; but it is possible that this phrase is telling us that each of God's creative acts merely commenced on the particular day named and then continued during subsequent days. If this were the case, either interpretation ("age" or twenty-four-hour) would fit equally well.

But it doesn't fit with the general theme that creation took 6 days and God rested on the 7th. Which is then inserted by the redactor into Exodus 20:11 to justify the Sabbath.

"In six days I, the Lord, made the earth, the sky, the seas, and everything in them, but on the seventh I rested. That is why I, the Lord, blessed the Sabbath and made it holy."

That justification simply doesn't work with the day-age theory you are proposing, does it?

 

[Alessandro]

By adding up time from Creation (Adam) up untill today, the result is thousands of years.

 

[lucaspa]

By adding up time from Creation (Adam) up untill today, the result is thousands of years.

That was what Bishop Ussher did. However, it's wrong. By 1800 everyone realized that the earth was millions of years old. A century before the discovery of radioactivity it was already obvious that Flood geology was false and that it had taken tens of millions of years to form the geology of the planet.

The current young earth movement was revived by George McReady Price, a Seventh Day Adventist, in the 1930s. Modern Flood geology dates from Whitcomb and Morris' The Genesis Flood in 1972. It's hopeless trying to revive a theory that has already been shown to be wrong. The data that showed it wrong in the first place hasn't gone away, and they don't have answers to that data anymore than the Christian geologists did in 1800.

 

[Vance]

Lucaspa said:

"But it doesn't fit with the general theme that creation took 6 days and God rested on the 7th. Which is then inserted by the redactor into Exodus 20:11 to justify the Sabbath.

"In six days I, the Lord, made the earth, the sky, the seas, and everything in them, but on the seventh I rested. That is why I, the Lord, blessed the Sabbath and made it holy."

That justification simply doesn't work with the day-age theory you are proposing, does it?"

But that is the point. I think that the "theme" that we see does not mean that Genesis one is using YOM in the 24 day period sense. The theme is that there are six periods of time for one rest period. We see that in the case of the work week, as you point out, the later writers used this scheme to prescribe six 24-hour work days, while in another they use the sheme to tell farmers to rotate their crops in every seventh year. (I will need to track down that reference). Seven became a holy number based on this scheme presented by God, and is applied to other areas as well, which have nothing to do with 24-hour days.

In short, the scheme set for us by God *is* 6-1, but not necessarily six 24 hour days, even though this is one of the ways the scheme is given effect, and even if it is the way it is most *often* given effect.

 

[Alessandro]

We only know the time from the creation account untill today, God only knows before that.

 

[Vance]

Why is it that the YEC's tend to limit their responses to short, conclusory, one liners while the rest of us actually try to back up our statements in some way?

 

[Alessandro]

When one is convinced of something it makes all the difference.
Short, clear, to the point.

 

[Vance]

But that means you are only talking to yourself and you might as well not post here. My point was that adding one-line conclusory statements adds nothing at all to the discussion. It is not as if we did not know you believed this conclusion, so it adds no new information. Fairly useless for a board such as this.

 

[Alessandro]

No problems though.

 

[Sinai]

When I started this thread on August 30, I posted the following challenge to my Christian brothers who reject scientific evidence that the universe is billions of years old because they think the Bible clearly states that the universe is only a few thousand years old:

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.

Thus far only Malaka has come forward with the requested verses and any explanation as to why he believes as he does--and Malaka has not continued in the discussion for the past two weeks.

I could understand the lack of responses if this thread were asking the young earth creationists to back up their stance with scientific evidence. But this thread is asking you to identify those scriptures that "cause you to believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old, and state why you think each verse requires that interpretation." In other words, I am merely asking for the particular Bible verses that you think require you to reject the overwhelming scientific evidence that the universe is billions of years old.

 

[Sinai]

Are there any scriptures that cause young earth creationists to believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old?

If so:

A. What are those verses?

B. Why do you think each verse you identified requires that interpretation?

C. Is there any other valid interpretation of that verse? Why or why not?

In other words, I am merely asking for the particular Bible verses that you think require you to reject the overwhelming scientific evidence that the universe is billions of years old.

 

[leflings]

I am not fit to go into scientific discussions about this subject, aswell as i am not fit to do discussions about the interpretation of the bible.

My believe in a young earth (about 6000 years) come from Kent Hovinds seminars. (Available from drdino (DOT) com/cse.asp?pg=real_video).

I believe that Gods' word is infallible. I believe that it was literally a six-days creation. As in 6 times 24 hours. And i believe that you can add up the dates in the bible (which makes the earth about 6000 years old).

I don't feel fit to debate about this subject, but I can only say that I am convinced about the earth is young, and I'm convinced because I have seen Kent Hovinds seminars. I really encourage all of you to see them.

If you already have seen them, I would like to hear what you have to say against it.

(Apparently I am not allowed to post links to external sites. Why that is I really have no clue about.)

 

[troodon]

I am not fit to go into scientific discussions about this subject, aswell as i am not fit to do discussions about the interpretation of the bible.

That's a shame given the fact that you seem to think your interpretation to be infallable. Perhaps I'm wrong though.

My believe in a young earth (about 6000 years) come from Kent Hovinds seminars. (Available from drdino (DOT) com/cse.asp?pg=real_video).

I don't feel fit to debate about this subject, but I can only say that I am convinced about the earth is young, and I'm convinced because I have seen Kent Hovinds seminars. I really encourage all of you to see them.

I've listened to about 3/4's of them. Are his points less false when you see them?

If you already have seen them, I would like to hear what you have to say against it.

I thought you didn't want to discuss anything....

(Apparently I am not allowed to post links to external sites. Why that is I really have no clue about.)

It's because you're a YEC! We oppress you!

No, I'm kidding. You need 15 posts (I think) before you can post links.

 

[Vance]

You see, everyone, this is what I am talking about.

Here is a well-meaning person who is basing a "convinced" belief on a single YEC's seminars.
This is the danger of YEC'ism. These people presenting the concepts and theories of YEC'ism do not present it as a possible approach, from which other Bible-believing Christians may (and most *do*) differ.

 

[Sinai]

I am not fit to go into scientific discussions about this subject, aswell as i am not fit to do discussions about the interpretation of the bible.

My believe in a young earth (about 6000 years) come from Kent Hovinds seminars. (Available from drdino (DOT) com/cse.asp?pg=real_video).

I believe that Gods' word is infallible. I believe that it was literally a six-days creation. As in 6 times 24 hours. And i believe that you can add up the dates in the bible (which makes the earth about 6000 years old).

I don't feel fit to debate about this subject, but I can only say that I am convinced about the earth is young, and I'm convinced because I have seen Kent Hovinds seminars. I really encourage all of you to see them.

Which scriptures cause you to think the universe was less than six days old when God formed humans?

Do you think that is the only viable interpretation of those scriptures?

Why or why not?

And thank you for sharing your reasons with us.

If you already have seen them, I would like to hear what you have to say against it.

I suggest that you do a search for "Kent Hovinds" and "Dr. Dino" here in Christian Forums. You will probably find more than you really will want to read......

 

[leflings]

That's a shame given the fact that you seem to think your interpretation to be infallable. Perhaps I'm wrong though.

The main reason for that is english not being my native language.

I've listened to about 3/4's of them. Are his points less false when you see them?

Are they false? I don't see anything false about them.

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but the opposite of being YEC would be? Theistic-Evolution? I would really like to hear some arguments (scriptures) about that.

 

[troodon]

The main reason for that is english not being my native language.

Fair enough

Are they false? I don't see anything false about them.

Name an argument; I'm sure my peers and I will be able to explain why it is false.

I guess the biggest thing that Hovind gets wrong in his lectures is his insistance that the universe is young. Falsifications are as follows:

The organization of fossils spanning the American midwest

The world's biogeography showing that a global flood could not have occured

Features of the Grand Canyon that could not exist if a global flood occured

Lines of evidence revolving around the Hawaiian Islands which falsify a global flood

Further evidence from the Hawaiian Islands which falsify a global flood

The presence of angular nonconformities falsify a global flood

The presence of varves falsify a global flood

The sheer mathematical impossibility of a global flood falsifies it

Extensive salt deposits falsify a global flood

Massive volcanic events and large impact craters falsify a young earth

Here can be seen Frumious Bandersnatches analysis of massive, quick tectonic changes required to quickly raise mountains

Y chromosome DNA falsifies the theory that the MRCA for humanity lived 4,500 years ago

Useless features (such as my elephant bird's humerus) falsify an "intelligent" designer

Same with these whale hindlimbs

Same with these vestigial structures (genetic and otherwise)

Cultures extending through the proposed date of a global flood falsify it

The inability of YECs to determine which strata are pre, post, and flood strata make's their stance on scientific ground shaky

This set of dinosaur footprints falsifies a global flood

The cosmic microwave background falsifies a young universe

Stellar distances falsify a young universe

The following characteristics of certain genes, proteins, and endogenous retroviruses provide evidence for evolution and falsify a "non-deceptive" creator

The enormous amount of transitional fossils falsify special creation by anything but a creator looking to trick us

Corresponding dates arrived with radiometric dating falsify beyond a shadow of a doubt a young earth

Dendrochronology falsifies a young earth

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but the opposite of being YEC would be? Theistic-Evolution? I would really like to hear some arguments (scriptures) about that.

Scripture thou shalt not get. The peace of mind you get from knowing that your beliefs do not demand reality being false, you shall get.