Scale of Noah's Flood: Rich Deem

[Storyteller]

I don't mind long answers

How do I decide without knowing whete to look?

Right now, I lean towards OEC but to be fair, only because I am more familiar with it. Can you give me a couple of reasons why you personally believe in YEC? Please

[Jac3510]

I don't mind long answers

How do I decide without knowing whete to look?

Right now, I lean towards OEC but to be fair, only because I am more familiar with it. Can you give me a couple of reasons why you personally believe in YEC? Please

A couple (=2), without defense, as requested:

1. yom cannot be legitimately translated as anything other than "day" and the reference is clearly an ordinary day (the ordinary use of the term). Unless, then, the word has no referent and is a mere literary device, then there is frankly no room in the Genesis chronology for millions, much less billions, of years.

2. There was no death before the Fall. Therefore, there is no place more millions, much less billions, of years.

[Philip]

1. yom cannot be legitimately translated as anything other than "day" and the reference is clearly an ordinary day (the ordinary use of the term). Unless, then, the word has no referent and is a mere literary device, then there is frankly no room in the Genesis chronology for millions, much less billions, of years.

2. There was no death before the Fall. Therefore, there is no place more millions, much less billions, of years.

So says Jac!. And many others with his level of theology training also disagree!

I think what matters, as this is one of those Scriptural issues that is a conundrum for many, is that SOMEHOW the text is true, as it IS the Word of God. That much I know, is that it IS true. How that played out in real time and events, whether longer or shorter, ultimately, doesn't really matter. But it does bring up many questions in my mind. But God had Scripture recorded as He wanted it, and He knows exactly His reasons for how it turned out, and what it does clearly explain, and why other things are more of a mystery. And, actually, what really got me to thinking about it again was the Flood discussion, not the original Creation/time issue. And I can guarantee you that there is much to this we will never understand until this Age is over. I enjoy the debate until it gets hostile, or until some accuses one of not believing Scripture, or asserting that belief in an Old Earth equates with belief in evolution.

[RickD]

This may be a silly question, or so blindingly obvious that I have missed it, but what evidence in the bible points to the age of the universe

Tis a short question with a long answer that certainly goes well beyond a discussion on Ps 104

and does it really matter?

OECs say no. I say yes, quite a bit. We reportassert, you decide. *shrug*

I think of course the age of the earth matters. How much it matters, or how important the issue is, is subjective.

[Storyteller]

Why do you think it matters?

[Jac3510]

So says Jac!. And many others with his level of theology training also disagree!

Yes, so says Jac. And Jac says that is what Scripture says. She asked for my opinion, not for the opinion of those who disagree. I gave it, as I said, without defense.

[Storyteller]

Some stuff for me to think about...

(Jac, have asked a couple of questions on the bible question thread, would appreciate your opinion, and of course anyone elses)

[Philip]

And Jac says that is what Scripture says

Rather, Jac says what HE thinks Scripture MEANS, concerning the age of the earth.

[RickD]

Why do you think it matters?

I don't think it matters if God created the universe in an instant, in six 24-hour days, or billions of years. He could have done it however He wanted.

But I think it matters if we ignore or brush aside, the overwhelming scientific evidence, in favor of a biblical interpretation which contradicts the scientific evidence.

As I've said before, there are two things that cannot contradict each other. Scripture and nature. God is the author of both.

For me personally, as a layman who is neither a scientist nor a theologian, I can only make a decision on what I am able to understand to the best of my ability.

And I believe the scientific evidence is overwhelming for an old earth. And I believe scripture, while not giving us an age of the earth, certainly allows for an old earth, when the text is read literally.

[Jac3510]

And Jac says that is what Scripture says

Rather, Jac says what HE thinks Scripture MEANS, concerning the age of the earth.

Yes, that is what I think Scripture means. I'm enjoying your tautological restatements of my own statements . . . here, let me return the favor:

• Philp says that Jac says he understands the Scriptures to teach YEC!!!11!1

edit:

Haha, Phil derailed his own thread.

[RickD]

You guys are tho thilly!!!

[Kurieuo]

ST, I'd argue that time is nowhere intended of day. Not 24 hours, not an unspecified period of time. It is left open-ended.

Furthermore, the structure of "day one", "day two" (translations with the definite article i.e., "the first day", "the second day" are literally inaccurate), such a structure of "day" following immediately by a number is only ever found in Genesis 1. So contrary to a popular YEC argument promoted by MacArthur, there are no prior exegetical rules that dictate whether such should always be understood as ordinary day, rather than the symbolic variant of yom that is also found in the Hebrew Lexicon.

Note, and this is a very important point to be clear on, what makes "day" an ordinary day in ancient Hebraic thought are the heavens. This is illustrated in Joshua's long day where the day does end until the Sun sets. Whether intentional, I notice Jac to his credit has here been a bit more careful here to not inject "24 hours", perhaps due to our past discussions. On this account then, if we take yom to mean an ordinary day then we must have the heavens on or prior to Day 1.

It should be understood that many YECs claim the heavens aren't created until Day 4. Such an interpretation breaks away from a literal ordinary understanding of day (yom). Like Day-Age proponents who argue that the property of day representing a "start and end" is the symbolic focus of Moses, those YECs who believe the heavens are created on Day 4 say a different property of day (i.e., the time period of an ordinary day, 24 hours) is the symbolic focus of Moses.

So to be clear here, a strictly literal interpretation of yom necessitates having the heavens in existence on or before Day 1 otherwise no ordinary day can be had for each day. Any other interpretation turns "day" into a symbol of something else (i.e., "24 hours" or an "age").

Now what of "day" being more of a symbolic reference? Understanding "day" as a literary device symbolic of 'an age' or 'period of time' is a valid variant found in the Hebrew Lexicon. Another valid symbolic referent is a time period of '24 hours'. In order to understand what variant is intended by the author, we need to closely examine the context and words surrounding where yom is used. When we do this, provided we keep to the immediate Genesis 1 text alone, it really is a matter of a coin flip what is to be preferred. I do swing in favour of Moses intending the use of an "ordinary day" from Day 1 which means the heavens were created on or before Day 1 (i.e., "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth").

HOWEVER, when we start including Scriptural references elsewhere, like Genesis 2:4 where all days are said to be a day: "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." Also, we understand the theological teachings found in the NT (and Psalm) with entering God's rest, and the seventh day of rest starts to possess a far more spiritually enriching meaning than that of an ordinary day. Just read over Hebrews 4:1-11 where we are to enter God's rest associated with the seventh day (the argument being that the seventh day still remains open to this day and hasn't ended):

• Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard. 3 For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said,
  
  “As I swore in My wrath,
  They shall not enter My rest,”
  although His works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; 5 and again in this passage, “They shall not enter My rest.” 6 Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, 7 He again fixes a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before,
  
  “Today if you hear His voice,
  Do not harden your hearts.”
  8 For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that. 9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. 10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. 11 Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience.

Now some, such as Jac, argue we should not look to Scripture elsewhere when interpreting Genesis 1; we should focus on the Genesis 1 passage alone. To do otherwise is to break from the Historical-Grammatical hermeneutic, a method that attempts to understand a particular passage as the author would have understood it. When we do this, we risk breaking away from a more objective interpretation and being influenced by subjectivity and social contexts (i.e., modern science).

Consider also that a person 1000s of years later can't change what the original author intended. Thus, if the original author intended ordinary days, then it is irrelevant what theological insights about God's seventh day of rest are drawn out 1000 years on. Entering into "God's day of rest" is just a new, albeit parallel insight drawn out, but it doesn't change the original intended meaning of Genesis 1 if an ordinary day was intended.

I'm pretty sure this is one way Jac might respond to the Hebrews passage, because I know he strictly adheres to the Historical-Grammatical method of interpretation. I advocate that method too, but am less strict when I see a clear and deeper spiritual or prophetic message in Scripture that I believe is holistically inspired of God.

[Kurieuo]

It is also important to note that an older Earth interpretation does have consequences, as Jac highlighted, on theological thoughts about death, pain and suffering in the world.

It is commonly taught, a traditional Christian understanding since Augustine (4th century), that sin ruined the world and caused the death and destruction we now see. Such conclusions also receive some support from Scripture, for example, where it says that the wages of sin in death (Romans 6:23), death is an enemy (1 Cor 15:26) to us that will be done away with. Some Christians seem unable to resolve the difficulty of God's goodness and love for us, with the death and pain seen in the natural world unless the blame is placed squarely upon our sin.

Nonetheless, there are also Scriptural passages where God gives the lion its prey (Psalm 104:21) and withhold common sense from an ostrich who lays eggs in the Sun unmindful a foot might crush them, and which treats its young harshly as though they were not hers. (Job 39:13-18)

So then, again, it's up to you to read and decide.

[abelcainsbrother]

But the bible tells us the earth is old even if it does not specifically tell us how old it is. The bible does not tell us the earth is young though or 6-10,000 years old. And so when we have the bible and science claiming the earth is old,why would we reject it? Of course,there will be those who choose a certain translation of the bible that seems to back up their interpretation. But we can at least show that the Holy Bible revealed to us the earth is old almost 500 years ago,long before modern science and even evolution that is only about 150 years old.

YEC's are known to accuse old earthers of accommodating evolution and billions of years and compromising scripture,but this is not so. The truth is that Christians have not always been young earth creationists like they want you to believe. Young Earth Creationism is actually a new creation interpretation and belief compared to Old Earth Creationists,the only difference is there was a time when the age of the earth was not such of a burning,hot-topic issue like it is today. The truth is that the KJV bible translated almost 500 years ago shows that the KJV translation revealed the heavens and earth are old. This was long before modern science.

Genesis 2:4 " These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created,in the day the LORD God made the earth and heavens.". This shows us that there were generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created which tells us the heavens and earth are old,it does not tell us specifically how old the earth is but it does let us know they are old. And yet the bible has never told us the heavens and earth are young,even if you reject the KJV translation. We can at least see how almost 500 years ago it was known the heavens and earth are old.

This is why old earth creationism became very popular once modern day science made discoveries that confirmed the heavens and earth are millions of years old. It confirmed this interpretation.The truth is that OEC became the dominant view and belief amongst the majority of Christians as well as bible theologians up until about the 1970''s when YEC first started being pushed and promoted by Henry Morris who had written his book "The Genesis Flood" in 1961. and it started to grow. But it was first in the late 1800's that Ellen G White a Seventh Day Adventist revealed the earth was really young through a prophecy she had,then George McCeady Pice a Seventh Day Adventist in the 1930's began really pushing and promoting what would later grow into young earth creation science,at this time it was just George himself challenging the scientific community with YEC. It was years later in 1961 when Henry Morris greatly inspired by George wrote his book " The Genesis Flood" in 1961 ,but it was not until the 1970's that Young Earth Creation Science ministries started popping up,at this time the majority of Christians and bible scholars and theologians were old earth creationists pretty much they were either Gap Creationists or Day Age creationists.

But yet now because young earth creation science has grown since the 1970's they want you to now believe that Christians have always been young earth creationists. But it is even worse because YEC has grown so much since then that today it is reversed to where now the majority of bible theologians are YEC and it is considered almost heretical to not accept YEC but also newer translations have came out that are biased toward YEC. This is why today so many people are YEC.

George McCready Price
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McCready_Price

Gap Creationism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism

[abelcainsbrother]

Why do you think it matters?

I think it matters because it confirms God's word true one way or the other,either young earth or old earth. So we need to find out which is right so that we can teach the truth of God's word and show evidence that confirms it true. It is like when prophecies are fulfilled we add it to all of the other prophecies that have been fulfilled to show the truth of God's word and to show how God knows the future.The truth will always shine through for those who seek the truth if and when we have the correct interpretation and can show evidence that confirms it. God's word is revealed more true as time goes on if we are paying attention and can notice it.

And when we have so many people doubting the truth of God's word? We need all of the evidence we can get. This is why I think it matters. I just want the truth of God's word to shine through regardless of the interpretation,but it won't if we have the wrong interpretation. I realize that if a person is saved they may not need any evidence,they know in their heart it is true but this does not mean there is no evidence for what we believe is true.