How old is the earth

SUGAAAAA · Post by **SUGAAAAA** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:26 pm

IRQ Conflict wrote:
Jay_7 wrote:and a day to us is a thousand years too God, so it could be 11000 years old, i really have no idea.
The context in which this scripture was refering to was in referance to the second comming of Christ. It had nothing to do with creation.

It says a day is like 1000 years to God, what you're saying is this only applies to the Second Coming, why cant it apply to God in general? he exists outside of time. Who's to say a day is like 1000 years only when it concerns Jesus's second coming?

that would mean a day is like 24 hours to him, whenever we arent talking about the second coming.

IRQ Conflict · Post by **IRQ Conflict** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:27 pm

Kurieuo, Mr Deems assumptions of scripture are flawed. There are many holes in his theory. And his interpretation of the context of 'day' is absolutly incorrect.

It is difficult to say how long the second day was. Part of the verse indicates that God " let the separation be" (suggesting natural process), but then the text goes on to explain that God "made" the separation. The Hebrew word asah10 translated "made" suggests that God formed the separation from materials that already existed, rather than creating it brand new. As such, the formation could involve both supernatural and natural processes. If the separation was allowed to form on its own, it would be expected that the second day could be a very long period of time.

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Many Christians assume that all the days are exactly 24-hours long. Neither the Genesis 1 text nor other Bible verses directly address how long the first day was.

Again, this is incorrect.

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

None of the rabbis tried to juggle this 'day' (in Genesis 2:4) to suit pagan philosophy (the Greek philosophers held to a long-ages understanding). Instead, most of them correctly took 'day' here to mean 'at the time when' creation took place.7

Turning to some of the more modern Jewish scholars, I discovered a stubborn refusal to dilute the plain meaning in the Hebrew Scriptures. Professor Ginsberg had this to say:

'There is nothing in the first chapter of Genesis to justify the spiritualisation of the expression “day”. On the contrary, the definition given in verse 5 of the word in question imperatively demands that “yom” should be understood in the same sense as we understand the word “day” in common parlance, i.e. as a natural day.'12

Link

I could really pick this literal interpretation thing appart, but the info is here for you too see.

IRQ Conflict · Post by **IRQ Conflict** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:35 pm

SUGAAAAA wrote:It says a day is like 1000 years to God, what you're saying is this only applies to the Second Coming, why cant it apply to God in general? he exists outside of time. Who's to say a day is like 1000 years only when it concerns Jesus's second coming?

that would mean a day is like 24 hours to him, whenever we arent talking about the second coming.

Context my freind, context. Who is to say that we should take scripture out of context, that is to cut and paste scriptures where we want. To make it say what we want regardless of the fact it didn't say that until you edited it?

In communications and linguistics, context is the meaning of a message (such as a sentence), its relationship to other parts of the message (such as a book), the environment in which the communication occurred, and any perceptions which may be associated with the communication. In other words, context is a "frame" through which we view a message.

Once you take something 'out of context' it loses it's meaning until you 'paste' it into another context ie Gen 1:4

IRQ Conflict · Post by **IRQ Conflict** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:06 am

Canuckster1127 wrote:I know how I answer the questions below as an Old Earther. I'd like to know how my Young Earth brothers and sisters answer them. I'm not trying to trap you but I may have some follow-up questions.

1. Genesis 1 - The Fourth Creation day. How do you explain 24 hour days from day 1 - 3 when the astronomical bodies needed to frame that time frame were not in existence?

2. Follow-up to Question 1, what exegetical rules or hermeneutical principles are you introducing in you answer to Question 1 and how do you allow for their application throughout the Creation narrative in other areas?

3. How do you reconcile the differences in the creation narratives in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 in terms of chronological order? Obviously, the 2 do not match, so either one must be right (or more right) than the other in terms of context and intent of the writer. On what basis do you decide in favor of the one over the other? Is your evidence for your decision, internal or external to the text?

That's all for now. I promise to answer my own questions for you.

I'd be interested in understanding better why you hold to the position you do.

Thanks,

Bart

1. You presuppose God 'needed the sun and moon' to tell us how long it took Him to accomplish His goals? Heh! my dear friend, God created time.

Job 38:31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?

The context that you purposefully framed question 1 in is indeed a trap. A question to you might be How did God tell the time before He created switzerland.

Quite honestly, no one knows but God.

#3 Another issue of not looking into the original context of scripture. Here is a good study on the apparent contradictions between Gen1 and 2

I'd be interested in understanding better why you hold to the position you do.

Faith, with a healthy dose of reason and a splash of experience

Why 'long days'?
Romans 3:4a: ' … let God be true, and every man a liar.'

In every instance where someone has not accepted the 'days' of creation to be ordinary days, it is because they have not allowed the words of Scripture to speak to them in context, as the language requires for communication. They have been influenced by ideas from outside of Scripture. Thus they have set a precedent that could allow any word to be reinterpreted by the preconceived ideas of the person reading the words. Ultimately, this will lead to a communication breakdown, as the same words in the same context could mean different things to different people.

-AiG

If I misinterpreted anything you were / were not asking, I apologize.

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:34 am

IRQ Conflict wrote:Kurieuo, Mr Deems assumptions of scripture are flawed. There are many holes in his theory. And his interpretation of the context of 'day' is absolutly incorrect.

I've studied Hebrew, and really, any dictionary will reveal his interpretation of yom is a correct and accurate interpretation. If you disagree, can you do me a favour... look up online in any Hebrew dictionary the word yom, then copy and paste all the definitions that are listed here.

I thought a link someone posted in another thread with a word study on yom was quite accurate and good. You want a thorough word study I would recommed http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm. In the end we have several meanings yom can be in Genesis 1, and there is no rule which prevents accepting one of its literal interpretations as an unspecified amount of time.

To leave you with a further thought. What do you make of Genesis 2:4?: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." This passage refers to all of the creation events in Genesis 1, yet it suggests everything was created within a day. Which is it if yom only means a 24-hour day—was everything created within a day, or over six days?

Kurieuo

IRQ Conflict · Post by **IRQ Conflict** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:35 am

Hey! I have studied the word Yom as well. And it is used quite similarly as 'day' is in the english language. I interpret 'Yom" in Gen 2:4 in the context of past tense as "In that day" ie "back then" "In those day's" you know what I mean right? Edit: (both 'day' and 'day(s)' are yom. as in Gen 1:4)

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

I'm no expert, and haven't looked it up. But that is how I read this particular verse. The meaning of the word yom and the word day are identical, it's the context in which it's used that makes the difference.

after/before/in/of/
to/yester/that/those/these/day(s)

My question to you would be if God meant a very long period of time as opposed to a 24 hour day, why would he not just come out and say it? Like, He could say Yeaow! thats yom!! I gotta wait till she cools down...

יום
yôm
yome
From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.

generations

תּלדה תּולדה
tôledâh tôledâh
to-led-aw', to-led-aw'
From H3205; (plural only) descent, that is, family; (figuratively) history: - birth, generations.

Edit: I have strongs dictionary for Greek and Hebrew. Yom appears to change it's plurality with context as well as meaning. Unlike the english word day.

IRQ Conflict · Post by **IRQ Conflict** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:55 am

Here is a good study as to why we shouldn't misquote scripture.

The whole of the creation restored ... to what?
The Bible says there will be a future restoration (Acts 3:21), with no death or suffering. How could all things be restored in the future to no more death and suffering unless the beginning was also free of death and suffering? The whole message of the gospel falls apart if you allow millions of years (with death and suffering) for the world's creation.

I think if we call God a liar to appease our understanding, or rather the lack of , we may as well say He lied about the whole thing don't you?

Hahahaha! ok, answers in creation are gonna tell God what He means

First, let's look at what evening and morning are not. They are not actual evening and mornings, as this requires a sunrise and sunset. According to young earth theory, the Sun was not created until Day Four, thus there could be no sunrise or sunset for the first three days of creation. However, God uses the terms evening and morning for those first three days. Therefore, they cannot be actual evenings and mornings.

Ok, give me a link that actually believes what God says and I'll take it seriously. Now I know where Bart gets his ideas.

Wait! wait! this gets better:

When God refers to a large number, He uses picture stories, such as Abraham's descendants being as numerous as the sand. Why does He do this? If God had said, "You will have millions of descendants," Abraham would have asked, "What is a million?"

Now there telling us Father Abrahms as dumb as some of the 50 million creatures Adam named!

IRQ Conflict · Post by **IRQ Conflict** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:20 am

I'm sorry, I have to quote this I can't resist, I couldn't believe what I was reading:

Young earth advocates counter that traditionally, church fathers have always held that sunrise and sunsets do not constitute a day, and they accepted the sun creation on Day Four with no hint of the first three days being anything other than 24-hour days. For instance, Sarfati in Refuting Compromise mentions Luther and Calvin (page 84-86). However, Luther and Calvin did not have the means of modern science at their disposal. At the time, geocentricity was still accepted! Don't fall into the trap of following the teachings of our church fathers.

I wanna cry!

Since humans did not witness creation, our own concept of a 24-hour day does not apply. The only thing that matters is God's concept of time. Thus, the only evidence we have to accurately assess the age of creation is the creation itself. Since the rocks and stars say we are billions of years old, that must be the truth. This fits perfectly with a literal interpretation of Genesis, and an inerrant Bible, and does not impact any other Biblical doctrines.

Oh my, "does not impact any other Biblical doctrines". Hmmm tsk tsk. How sad when science takes precidence over the Word of God. I don't want to be them when God tells em the answers to which thier coveted science project couldn't.

The Bible tells us that Adam was created on the sixth day. If he lived through day six and day seven, and then died when he was 930 years old, and if each of these days was a thousand or a million years, you have major problems!

-AiG

August · Post by **August** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:00 am

What about the 7th day? How long is that?

IRQ Conflict · Post by **IRQ Conflict** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:44 am

August wrote:What about the 7th day? How long is that?

A morning and Evening, that is according to the Creator

But then again I got me this nifty, Binford 5000 radioocillyscope for christmas.....

… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1—11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

1.

creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
2.

the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
3.

Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.'

-James Barr, Oriel Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture, Oxford University

August · Post by **August** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:47 am

IRQ Conflict wrote:
August wrote:What about the 7th day? How long is that?
A morning and Evening, that is according to the Creator But then again I got me this nifty, Binford 5000 radioocillyscope for christmas.....

What Scripture tells you the 7th day was a morning and an evening?

IRQ Conflict · Post by **IRQ Conflict** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:04 am

Hey! your right! it doesn't does it! I'll look further into it!

Gen 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.

I just took it for granted that the other 6 were a morning and evening so it should follow on the 7th day. Too tiered right now though.

An important point here is that the Hebrew word shabat (rest, or cease—God never tires, of course) in Genesis 2:3 is in the perfect form meaning action finished in the past. Certainly God is still 'resting' from the work of creation, because this has finished (see above). But Scripture never says that God is 'resting on the seventh day.' Rather, Scripture teaches that God's seventh-day rest is completed. This is contrary to what we would expect if the seventh day were still continuing.

Therefore, the seventh day can only be understood as a normal [earth-rotation] day in history on which God ceased His creative work.

-AiG

Although this makes sense. I look into it more tommarow

August · Post by **August** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:06 am

IRQ Conflict wrote:Hey! your right! it doesn't does it! I'll look further into it!

Gen 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.

I just took it for granted that the other 6 were a morning and evening so it should follow on the 7th day. Too tiered right now though.

I suggest you read Hebrews 4, that speaks about it a bit.

IRQ Conflict · Post by **IRQ Conflict** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:33 am

Must..ssttaayy awwakkee...

Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

ἡμέρα
hēmera
hay-mer'-ah
Feminine (with G5610 implied) of a derivative of ἧμαι hēmai (to sit; akin to the base of G1476) meaning tame, that is, gentle; day, that is, (literally) the time space between dawn and dark, or the whole 24 hours (but several days were usually reckoned by the Jews as inclusive of the parts of both extremes); figuratively a period (always defined more or less clearly by the context): - age, + alway, (mid-) day (by day, [-ly]), + for ever, judgment, (day) time, while, years.

EDIT:Supportive Link

IRQ Conflict · Post by **IRQ Conflict** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:55 am

In regards to what I supposed the translation was I e-mailed good ol mom as shes dealt with Hebrew before (translating) This is what she sent me:

"To me" as I read this passage, the reason generations is plural is because He's talking about more that 1 thing, the 'heavens' generation (literally 'birth') and the 'earths' generation (literally 'birth'). There is no plural of 'Yom' it's always used the same way but gets translated singular or plural.
'yom' means a 12 hr day like 'sunrise to sunset' or a 24 hr day 'sunset to sunset' or it can mean a space of time such as 'age'. The fact that it is said 'day' instead of 'days' is simply by choice of translation. How the translators of the day spoke. Their use of language.
It also means besides 'day', 'time', 'weather', 'when' & 'then'. The word 'Yom' here cannot be used to contradict Gen 1 no matter how you translate it, because it's always used in singular, but, it is by no means any kind of proof that it was a long period of time.
When literally translated, it's 'the day'. My Hebrew Bible isn't here & I'm supposing Dad has left it over at Chrissy's for me to verify this. I don't know if this is any help or not?

Im tourturing myself...I need sleep Mayby she's right? I'll leave it to you folks to chew it up, in the meantime I need some zzz's!

Evidence for God from Science

How old is the earth

Re: Just a couple of Questions