Young earth vs. ancient earth- where do you stand?

Post by **_mattrose** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:39 pm

I've heard that there are gaps in the genealogical records that seem to point to persons of significance rather than naming every individual. I've haven't check myself though. I've also heard that some genealogies in the bible differ as well, which would seem to back up this theory. Have you heard of this?

The author of Jude seems to accept that there weren't gaps in the Genesis genealogies, at least in the first 7 generations (and there's where most people place significant gaps).

Jude 1:14
Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones

Post by **_anothersteve** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:05 pm

mattrose,

Thanks for your concise responce, I was hoping not to divert to far from TK's original question.

Steve

Post by **_Derek** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:48 pm

I hate to bring this up again, because I always do but...

Exo 20:9-11 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Every effort I have seen to make this comport wtih Old Earth, in my opinion, falls short. I would say the same about the first chapter of Genesis as well, but this direct comparison to the work week, seems to be an impossible hurdle for the Old Earth position. You have to interpret God as shifting from a six day week to a "six day" (i.e. six million/billion year) week in the same sentence.

That being said, I'm probably a 3. Just so I don't seem too obnoxious.

<b>anothersteve said:</B>

One question I have is this. It wasn't until the fourth day that God said "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years," So how long were the days before? Could evening and morning be just a poetic way of saying, in our vernacular,"The dawing and setting of an era(day) in creation"?

All I can see, comparing scripture with scripture on this one is:

Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

I realize, of course, that this passage (and others like it) say that there will not be any night (Rev. 21:25), but this would still be an exceptable explanation to me. Especially in light of the Exodus passage above, and the fact that He keeps calling them days after the advent of the sun.

To put it more simply, I could say that God can create light if He wants right?

It is also my opinion (and many smarter scholarly types) that Gen. is not poetry at all, and shouldn't be interpreted as such.

God bless,

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Sun Nov 26, 2006 11:43 am

Exo 20:9-11 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

I'd rate myself a 7 as i lean toward the old earth view because God gave humans the inate drive to learn,discover,uncover and create and IMHO i do not think He would make the universe appear to be billions of years old when in fact it isn't. The Ex 20.9-11 verses that Derek quoted are the strongest support for the YEC but God could be telling man to emulate His creation process using "man" days to reflect the God days of creation. And the same author who wrote this tells us that God days are not 24 hours.
Psalm 90.4 "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past , and as a watch in the night."
Yes it's poetic and not literal but that does'nt mean the truth it reveals is any less true then if it were literal.
In Psalm 19 God tells us something "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork." Since God is talking to us humans he knew we would one day discover the age of the universe therefore when He tells us His glory is revealed to us humans i think that includes the age of his creation. To create the universe with age already built in would be confusing us and IMHO not revealing a part of that glory to us.
Certain things like the trinity are not so clear in the bible and it is quite possible the "God days" are not the same as "man days" and just as with the trinity which most accept without really understanding , God days may be some type of day-age God chooses to not specifically reveal to us.

Post by **_Derek** » Sun Nov 26, 2006 2:12 pm

I'd rate myself a 7 as i lean toward the old earth view because God gave humans the inate drive to learn,discover,uncover and create and IMHO i do not think He would make the universe appear to be billions of years old when in fact it isn't. The Ex 20.9-11 verses that Derek quoted are the strongest support for the YEC but God could be telling man to emulate His creation process using "man" days to reflect the God days of creation. And the same author who wrote this tells us that God days are not 24 hours.
Psalm 90.4 "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past , and as a watch in the night."

There is no comparison between this verse (nor 2 Pet. 3:8) and Genesis/Exodus. I am not sure why they are always appealed to.

1. Psalm 90 isn't talking about creation "days" at all.

2.There is no mention of the words "like" or "as" (comparative particles) in Genesis or Exodus in conjunction with the words "evening and morning" or "and it was the x day" like in Ps. 90.

3. There is in the immediate context, which must be completely ignored, in Exodus 20 a comparison to the work week of men. Yet in one half of a sentece He is speaking of "God days" and in the other "man days"?

4. If God meant for the days in Gen and Exodus to refer to "God days" He sure went out of His way to make them read like "man days" in the contexts. (i.e. the reference to "evening and morning" w/ a number in Genesis and the comparison to the work week in Exodus).

5. There is no warrant for going to a verse or two that uses "yom" figuratively, (in poetry that has nothing to do with creation no less), and then using that as justification for interpreting a historical narrative portion of scripture figurativly regardless of what the immediate contexts of those passages would have us believe. Exegetically, what is your justification for doing this? Because the word "yom" is in both passages?

To create the universe with age already built in would be confusing us and IMHO not revealing a part of that glory to us.

The data regarding the age of the universe is interpreted by some (granted-even most) scientists as having the appearance of billions of years. You speak here as if it's just plain fact. There are many credible scientists that think otherwise.

God bless!

Post by **_Derek** » Sun Nov 26, 2006 2:26 pm

But if you for any reason might wanna rack yer brains some more, check this out:
tribalogue: the days of creation, by gerhard f. hasel

Thanks Rick. Good one.

The above article is a very good one dealing with why the bible is speaking of six literal days. This is what I feel is the bilbical interpretation.

I am wondering though, does anyone know of an article stating the opposite? The Old Earth camp seem to always say "well, in can mean this" and then proceed to, in my opinion, re-interpret away the plain meaning of the pertinent passages.

Is there an Old Earth article/website/book that thinks the bible does teach an old earth, as opposed to "it can" be interpreted as teaching an old earth. Someone that thinks this view is the biblical view.

I ask this, because as I've said before, I think that it is the Old Earth view its self and not the relevant passages of scripture, that requires a non literal interpretation of the word "yom" or day.

God bless,

Post by **_TK** » Sun Nov 26, 2006 6:42 pm

derek--

hugh ross's "the genesis question" makes the case with the perspective you mentioned; so does his "creation and time."

many articles can be found here:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... _old_earth

TK

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Sun Nov 26, 2006 7:07 pm

I am wondering though, does anyone know of an article stating the opposite? The Old Earth camp seem to always say "well, in can mean this" and then proceed to, in my opinion, re-interpret away the plain meaning of the pertinent passages.

If i'm not mistaken Derek i think many early church fathers believed the days of creation to not be 24 hour days and if that's the case then scripture isn't being re-interpreted.
A good book that presents the evidence from the 3 main views is called " The Genesis Debate" by David G. Hagopian. It has a foreward by Norman Geisler and the 24 hr day view is defended by Duncan and Hall , the day age by Ross and Gleason Archer and the framework view by Irons and Kline.

Post by **_Derek** » Sun Nov 26, 2006 7:22 pm

Hi TK,

I looked through the section called "the Bible and Science," but wasn't able to find anything defending the notion that the context of Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 allow for millions and billions of years.

Can you piont me to a specific article that deals with the exegetical problem that I see with the Old Earth stance?

I am going to get the book if it deals with the above problem. I read a (admittingly-very biased) review on AIG of the book and it sounds like the same thing that is put forth by the Old Earth folks on here and elsewhere about the word "yom". But I'll take your word for it.

God bless,

Post by **_Derek** » Sun Nov 26, 2006 7:36 pm

If i'm not mistaken Derek i think many early church fathers believed the days of creation to not be 24 hour days and if that's the case then scripture isn't being re-interpreted.

You are not mistaken. They did actually. But they followed a method of interpretation that stated as a rule that everything had more than one meaning. A literal and spiritual meaning in every verse. (Steve talks about it on his church history lectures). Frankly, it led them to some odd interpretations. Here's an excerpt from the article Rick C. posted.

1. Some Medieval Understandings of Creation "Days." The Alexandrian church father Origen (ca. A.D. 185 - ca. 254), an accomplished practitioner and defender of the allegorical method of interpretation,4 is credited with being the first to understand the creation "days" in an allegorical and non-literal manner.5

Augustine (A.D. 354 - 430), the most famous of the Latin Fathers, followed Origen in arguing that the creation "days" are to be understood allegorically, rather than literally.6 Augustine is understood to teach that God created the world in a single flash of a moment.

I should have said "interpreted away" instead of re-interpreted. Sorry.

I would ask these church fathers exactly the same questions I ask here. Although Augustine teaches here that the earth was created in a moment, I would ask where he gets this idea. Not from scripture obviously. Exegetically, how is it justified? For Origin and Augustine, it came from their philosophical presuppositions (see article). Not from the scriptures.

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check out The Genesis Debate.

God bless,