Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:I would expect it wouldn't have taken generations to form the heavens and earth, and that Genesis 2:4 would additionally read "in the days" (pluaral) rather than day (singular). All this suggests to me that a creation day (yom) in Genesis is not to be taken in their literal meaning of a 12 or 24 hour period of time, but rather in their literal meaning of an unspecified period of time.

I don't understand your position here Kurieuo. First you say that it wouldn't have taken generations to form heavens and Earth, but then say how the 'day' must thus refer to an unspecified time period???

Let me point out that Genesis 2:4 could possibly be refering the moment 'in the beginning' when God made the heavens and Earth. He made space-time (the physical laws of the universe, the actual universe itself which I believe will be shown to have shape in >3 dimensions some day) , and along with the 'container' of the universe He also made the Earth. The rest of the Genesis account to me, would be the act of formation rather than original creation. So Genesis 2:4 could possibly be referring to Genesis 1:1 and nothing more.

And also, NIV doesn't mention the 'day' in 2:4. Could it be that the context of 'day' is thus changed in 2:4 from the original through Chapter 1?

Just ask yourself what people would have thought 200 years ago and whether you are starting to think differently now. The Word hasn't changed in that time, so what has changed? Are you willing to let our extremely frail, limited, and likely flawed understanding of star, planet, and solar sysem formation affect your interpretation of the God's Word? And that's not even to mention the heresay upon which evolution is based, if we want to talk about flawed science. Ultimately it's your choice (and it won't really matter in the end), but I prefer to take a little more on Faith.

Felgar wrote: Let me point out that Genesis 2:4 could possibly be refering the moment 'in the beginning' when God made the heavens and Earth. He made space-time (the physical laws of the universe, the actual universe itself which I believe will be shown to have shape in >3 dimensions some day) , and along with the 'container' of the universe He also made the Earth. The rest of the Genesis account to me, would be the act of formation rather than original creation. So Genesis 2:4 could possibly be referring to Genesis 1:1 and nothing more.

And also, NIV doesn't mention the 'day' in 2:4. Could it be that the context of 'day' is thus changed in 2:4 from the original through Chapter 1?

Just ask yourself what people would have thought 200 years ago and whether you are starting to think differently now. The Word hasn't changed in that time, so what has changed? Are you willing to let our extremely frail, limited, and likely flawed understanding of star, planet, and solar sysem formation affect your interpretation of the God's Word? And that's not even to mention the heresay upon which evolution is based, if we want to talk about flawed science. Ultimately it's your choice (and it won't really matter in the end), but I prefer to take a little more on Faith.

200 years ago, our understanding of the universe was far worse than it is today. And if you want to speak of interpretation, remember that in the translation, the translators and even the writers did not have the scientific knowledge, so they were presented the information in a way that wouldn't make their brain explode. God COMMANDS to test everything. We are not supposed to take everything on blind faith like you suggest. That is the reason why people are willing to adapt the interpretation of Genesis. As time goes on, we will be able to understand it better. Sticking to old interpretations written by people who lacked the knowledge we do isn't my idea of testing everything, it's my idea of blind stubbornness.

Mastermind wrote:That is the reason why people are willing to adapt the interpretation of Genesis. As time goes on, we will be able to understand it better.

Right, but we're not there yet. When we are, then we can look at forming new conclusions.

Mastermind wrote:Sticking to old interpretations written by people who lacked the knowledge we do isn't my idea of testing everything, it's my idea of blind stubbornness.

And simply rewriting the Bible to fit the latest guess from the scientific community is my idea of foolishness.

Who said anything about rewriting the bible? It was translated wrong when they used a literal day to begin with.

Felgar wrote:I don't understand your position here Kurieuo. First you say that it wouldn't have taken generations to form heavens and Earth, but then say how the 'day' must thus refer to an unspecified time period???

You had asked how else would I expect it to be an literal Earth day? So when I stated, "I would expect it wouldn't have taken generations to form the heavens and earth," I was simply highlighting I wouldn't expect the heavens and earth to have taken generations in 2:4 if each yom were to be understood as 24 hour days. But seeing as it took generations to create the heavens and earth, then this says to me we're not dealing with your literal 24-hour days in Genesis 1, but rather the interpreation I take of day being literally understood as an unspecified period of time appears more adequate (I wish to emphasise that an unspecified period of time is also a literal interpretation of day in Hebrew Scripture).

Felgar wrote:Let me point out that Genesis 2:4 could possibly be refering the moment 'in the beginning' when God made the heavens and Earth.

This might work, but then Scripture would force you to conclude that the heavens and earth took generations to have come about, and not in one moment or a 24-hour day. For verse 4 reads "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 heavens." Yet, the word "these" seems to be in reference to the completed creation as lead into from verses 2:1-3. The Gill commentary notes that verse 4 is in reference to the "account, delivered in the preceding chapter, [and] is a history of the production of the heavens and earth, and of all things in them." But if you choose to understand it your way, then "the day" refers to the earth and heavens which took generations to come about. However, I believe it better to understand "the day" as reference to the whole of creation, which is what I believe most understand it to be.

So to summarise, the words "generations" and the summary of all of creation as one day, appears to cause an inconsistency in Scripture for those who hold to a 24-hour day view.

Felgar wrote:And also, NIV doesn't mention the 'day' in 2:4. Could it be that the context of 'day' is thus changed in 2:4 from the original through Chapter 1?

If you read the preface to the NIV you should discover the translators did not follow a word-for-word interpretation as does the KJV, but rather the translators look at the thought of the passage and than translated this thought into sentences that more easy to understand and read in English. They conclude by saying, "Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect man, this one undoubtedly falls short of its goals." I can admire the NIV (it is one of my favourite translations) for its readability and accuracy in general, but when it comes to word studies, the NIV just doesn't cut it. The KJV on the other hand set out to translate word for word, and so is a much better translation for word studies. But you will never get in a translation what was written in the original language.

Felgar wrote:Are you willing to let our extremely frail, limited, and likely flawed understanding of star, planet, and solar sysem formation affect your interpretation of the God's Word?

This is called the genetic fallacy. It would be like me saying that you're Christian, and so any reasons you make for Christianity are wrong because you're Christian. I have not once referred to science, as my interpretation is also heavily based on Scripture. And in the words of the NIV authors above "all translations of the Bible... [are] made as they are by imperfect man." If translations can be imperfect, how can you be so sure your interpretation of a translation is any less frail, limited and flawed than the interpretation of God's creation?

When I was much younger, before I was at all familiar with what science says, I remember taking the days in Genesis 1 to be "God days" and not necessarily 24 hour days. This was on my own, plain reading of the English text in what would have been the NKJV. It wasn't until I borrowed tapes from my parents and listened to them, that the preacher said if you don't believe the days in Genesis are 24 hours then you have no faith in God. Therefore, I thought he's the preacher and would know, so I guess they aren't "God days." As God struck a desire in my heart for knowledge, I came across this website. It presented information that rang of truth and made so much sense, and it did so in a manner that was unthreatening and controlling (i.e., "you aren't really a Christian as you don't have faith if you don't believe..."). I remember reading the day-age interpretation for the first time here, and I thought so "God days" were the correct understanding afterall. That's right... I went from a plain reading of Scripture understanding days to be "God days", to believing them to be 24 hours because I didn't have faith if I did (and I saw no reason not to accept them at that time as being 24 hours), back again to my original position.

I also find it significant that many Church Fathers did not necessarily hold to a 24-hour interpretation of days in Genesis, but allowed for greater time periods. Unless you wish to argue that the modern scientific understanding of our universe and Earth was around back then, your reasoning that Scripture is being disregarded in order to fit science has no support.

Felgar wrote:And that's not even to mention the heresay upon which evolution is based, if we want to talk about flawed science. Ultimately it's your choice (and it won't really matter in the end), but I prefer to take a little more on Faith.

Sorry, but your move in the last part of your sentence just makes me sick. I think you've been listening too much to the pastor who I heard on tape all those many years ago. Yet, two can play that game. I prefer to take even more on Faith, and believe that God would faithfully (not deceitfully) reveal Himself through creation, and that this would be compatible with God's word. Additionally, I don't see how evolution has anything to do with this...

To present a much fuller case, I present here a summary of my many reasons for why I believe a young earth interpretation is Scripturally inadequate:
<blockquote>1. Genesis 2:4 reads, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day [yom] that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens". Firstly I bring your attention to 'generations' - why not have 'days' rather than 'generations' (which implies much longer time) as a summary of God's creation so far? Additionally, this passage also summarises God's whole creation as a "day" (yom). Can you tell me whether one cake can be six cakes? Can 6 days [yom] be one day [yom]?

2.There is no rule of the Hebrew language demanding that all numbered days, even when used in a series and so on, must refer to a 24 day. Secondly the seventh day is used with yom and an ordinal in Genesis 2:2-3 and we know from other Biblical verses that the seventh day is left open, and so this would break such a rule even if there was one.

"For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works... Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest [God's rest on the seventh day], lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience." (Hebrews 4:4-11).

3. The figures of speech used in Psalm 90:2-6, Proverbs 8:22-31, Ecclesiastes 1:3-11, and Micah 6:2 all serve to depict for us the immeasurable antiquity of God's presence and plans. Considering phrases in Scripture such as, "Before the mountains were born, or you brought forth the earth and the world," are inspired from God, then it seems to me that such verses are letting us now that the earth has been around for quite some time before humanity—the world. Habakkuk 3:6 directly declares the mountains to be "ancient" and the hills to be "age-old." We constantly see mountains being refered to as ancient, but why is this the case if mankind has been around just as long?

4. Well-respected Christian apologist and Biblical inerrantist Norman Geisler summarises several Biblical arguments in his Baker Encyclopedica of Christian Apologetics. Some are as follows:
i) Hebrews 4 teaches that God is still in that seventh-day cessation from creating described as a day in Genesis 2:2-3. This day, then, is at least 6000 years long.
ii) Gen 1:12 (the third day) the text says, "The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds." Needless to say the land (not God) takes more than a day to produce mature vegetation.
iii) the sixth day, considering everything that happened, would appear to be considerably longer than a solar day. It seems highly unlikely all these events could be compressed within a 24 hour period.
- God created all the many thousands of land animals (Gen. 1:24-25)
- God formed man from dust (Gen. 2:7)
- God planted a garden (Gen 2:8), suggests activity involving time
- Adam observed and named all the thousands of animals (Gen. 2:19).
- God promised, "I will make him a helpmeet" (Gen. 2:18), denoting a subsequent time.
- Adam searched for a mate for himself, "But for Adam no suitable helper was found [implying a time of searching]" (Gen. 2:20)
- God put Adam to sleep for a time and operated on him, taking out one of his ribs and healing the flesh (Gen. 2:21)
- Adam indicated he had anticipated Eve for some time (Gen. 2:23).
- Eve was brough to Adam who observed her; accepted her; and was joined to her (Gen. 2:22-25).</blockquote>
I can also produce other arguments, but I believe these serve well for a strong Scriptural basis for rejecting the Young Earth creation position.

Kurieuo.

Felgar wrote:It it didn't repeat "there was evening and morning" on each day then I'd be more inclined to agree that a different interpretation is plausible.

Mastermind wrote:To be honest, I don't know what to make of "the evening and the morning" part, because gramatically, it doesn't seem to make sense with either theory. Perhaps one of the more hardcore members of the board can explain this to me.

There is a very good writing which might help by Jim Schicatano called The Biblical Creation Days of Genesis, which can be found at http://home.att.net/%7ejamspsu84/ttocday.html.

Kurieuo.

In my dying breath before being crushed by this avalanche of text I can utter a few more words.

Kurieuo wrote:the preacher said if you don't believe the days in Genesis are 24 hours then you have no faith in God. ... Sorry, but your move in the last part of your sentence just makes me sick. I think you've been listening too much to the pastor who I heard on tape all those many years ago.

That's not fair; See my first attempted conclusion of this topic:

Felgar wrote:Oh well, we disagree and I'm prepared to leave it at that. We'll find out the truth in due time.

Kurieuo wrote: I also find it significant that many Church Fathers did not necessarily hold to a 24-hour interpretation of days in Genesis, but allowed for greater time periods.

I was not aware of this, and be it true would certainly lend credence to your position.

Kurieuo wrote:Yet, two can play that game. I prefer to take even more on Faith, and believe that God would faithfully (not deceitfully) reveal Himself through creation, and that this would be compatible with God's word. Additionally, I don't see how evolution has anything to do with this...

First as I've said before I never have seen it as any form of deception.

Where evolution comes into play is that my impression is this: A less obvious interpretation of the Bible (long creation) is used to reconcile with the scientific appearance of age that our universe has. And it's one small step (and I've seen people argue it) that once we have those time scales even having humans evolve through some slight interference by God from monkeys is plausible and Biblically supported. Now you're arguing that this is not a less obvious interpretation, so to you I can see how you see this objection moot.

Kurieuo wrote: ii) Gen 1:12 (the third day) the text says, "The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds." Needless to say the land (not God) takes more than a day to produce mature vegetation.

Good point.

Kurieuo wrote: iii) the sixth day, considering everything that happened, would appear to be considerably longer than a solar day. It seems highly unlikely all these events could be compressed within a 24 hour period.

Also good points.

...

I could reiterate all of the common arguments against most of what you posted also... But I don't think it would be constructive - so I simply highlighted some points that do certainly lend credence to your reasoning. In the end we are both taking points of evidence and choosing what we feel is the most well-supported conclusion. Were the evidence overwhelming either way then there wouldn't be so much debate on the topic throughout the entire Christian community.

Felgar wrote:In my dying breath before being crushed by this avalanche of text I can utter a few more words.

Kurieuo wrote:the preacher said if you don't believe the days in Genesis are 24 hours then you have no faith in God. ... Sorry, but your move in the last part of your sentence just makes me sick. I think you've been listening too much to the pastor who I heard on tape all those many years ago.

That's not fair; See my first attempted conclusion of this topic:

Felgar wrote:Oh well, we disagree and I'm prepared to leave it at that. We'll find out the truth in due time.

My reaction (although I did not intend insult, but only to point out my distaste) was to where you wrote: "Ultimately it's your choice (and it won't really matter in the end), but I prefer to take a little more on Faith."

I've come across many YECs who claim their position to be "the" Biblical position, as though their "interpretation" is God's word. But such people fail to understand that there are also other Biblical positions other than a young earth, and ones have been upheld by the Evangelical Council of Biblical Inerrancy. Mind you, Theistic Evolution, a form of OEC, has been rejected by this same council as being inconsistent with Scripture (and I would agree with its rejection). However, the Day-Age (aka Progressive Creation) position is very different and has been embraced by this council and many well known Christians including James Dobson (Focus on the Family), Billy Graham, Lee Strobel, Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig, Paul Copan, J.P. Moreland, Greg Koukl, Gleason Archer, John Ankerberg, Hank Hannegraff ("The Bible Answer Man"), Jack Hayford, and many others.

What I'm trying to get at, is that our debate is not about orthodoxy, or a matter of who has more faith in Scripture. It is therefore rediculous for someone on one side to assert that they have more faith, or that someone opposing their view has little or no faith, seeing as boths sides clearly do value Scripture as a valid authority. What is different is perhaps our knowledge of Scripture, and our interpretation of such knowledge. So I find it a very distasteful tactic to accuse someone of having less faith based on diverging interpretations, let alone to portray one's self as having a superior faith. Such is to make faith into a work, something that can be boasted of, and this is something I believe is clearly rejected by the Apostle Paul.

Kurieuo.

PS. I'm just passionate about my theology (if it isn't already obvious), so please don't mistake my passion as hostility. I fully respect you, and would encourage you to share your thoughts, defend and attack my own position, and so forth. I see it as all good.

Kurieuo wrote:My reaction (although I did not intend insult, but only to point out my distaste) was to where you wrote: "Ultimately it's your choice (and it won't really matter in the end), but I prefer to take a little more on Faith."

I admit that was a poor choice of words, and I certainly should not have capitalized faith. Let me elaborate. I still see OEC as a means to explain the result of creation (the world we see) through natural development. The immediate conclusion is that God created the Earth (the whole solar system?) in a 'virgin' state, and the mountains, erosion, breaking of pangea, perhaps even evolution shown in the fossil record, was simply nature taking its course.

Now I should point out that YECs do the same thing, and I don't consider myself a YEC for that reason - even though you seem to regard me as one. YEC's try to find scientific reasons as to why an Earth literally only 6K years old looks to be 4.5 Billion. And so there are wild theories about white holes, changing properties of time and radioactivity, etc.

Neither camp is willing to accept that maybe 'God just made it like this'... It's why I espouse to the light on the way... Both sides regard that as a 'deception' but I don't, and actually I've come under attack from OEC's like yourself as well as passionate YEC's too. But this is what I meant originally - why the need to rush to new conclusions which seems to me to be for the purpose of reconciling with science, esspecially when this particular branch of science is so far from having anything nailed down? Doing that leads where I don't want to go (Theistic Evolution for instance)...

Now I've heard your points that Day-Age might be a better interpretation even despite all the science. And I'll take that to heart, esspecially considering that you definately have a strong foundation of scriptural knowledge that you're drawing upon.

P.S. If I ever move off 'Appearance of Age' I'll switch to Day-Age way before I ever start buying into YEC.

I recently read an article by Gerald Schroeder, Physicist and Jew, about the age of the universe and the creation account. I take the 'old earth' view and you have to admit the genesis account is not very generous with the details so we are left with a lot of questions.

Schroeder's explanation reconciles the literal 6 day time frame with an old universe using einstein's law of relativity. In other words 6 days from the point of creation equals about 16 billion years ago when looking backward in time here on earth. All of this based on what we know today about cosmology and relativity. After all, the concept of time is relative to where your clock is located. I thought that was an interesting take, but then again I'm not a cosmologist.

The details are in his book, which I have not read, but you can get an overview here.... http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html

What do you think?

k,

great articles! thank you!

Lurker wrote:Schroeder's explanation reconciles the literal 6 day time frame with an old universe using einstein's law of relativity. In other words 6 days from the point of creation equals about 16 billion years ago when looking backward in time here on earth.

Thanks for pointing this out, and I must admit I haven't really heard much about Schroeder's explanation. However, from what I've read there is a comment I have, which is that if Earth was created on day one, then according to Schroeder this would mean it was created no less than 12 billion years ago (gotten by ~15 billion years [age of the universe], divided by 7 days, times 6 [since it was created on day 1]). However, the age of Earth is placed at ~4.6 billion years old within Science. Therefore Schroder's model, though I still find it very interesting and see a lot of worth in many things he says, is still incompatible with what Science tells us.

Sorry just read to the bottom of Shroeder's article, where he says:

• The calculations come out to be as follows:
  - The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.
  - The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.
  - The third day also lasted half of the previous day, 2 billion years.
  - The fourth day - one billion years.
  - The fifth day - one-half billion years.
  - The sixth day - one-quarter billion years.
  
  When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?

Thus Earth must have been created no less than 7.75 billion years ago, which although much closer to what we know through Science, is still an inaccurate measurement. Additionally, the age of the universe has now been more finely narrowed down to about 13.7 billion years +/- 200 million years (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/m ... 30211.html). Do you know whether Shroeder would have a rejoiner for these things?

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo wrote:Thus Earth must have been created no less than 7.75 billion years ago, which although much closer to what we know through Science, is still an inaccurate measurement. Additionally, the age of the universe has now been more finely narrowed down to about 13.7 billion years +/- 200 million years (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/m ... 30211.html). Do you know whether Shroeder would have a rejoiner for these things?

I only read the same webpage that you did. I suspect the numbers on his website are rounded up/down so maybe the real calcs in his book tell a more accurate story. Maybe the "million million" number has been adjusted along with the recent recalculation. Not sure really.

You have to admit his numbers look pretty good which is why it caught my attention.
Lurker

I emailed Gerald Schroeder and to my surprise he responded in 1 day. Very cool. He had this to say about his calculations as it applies the known age of universe...

"I don't claim that my data are exact. That they all agree within plus minus 5% is good enough for me"

My first thoughts on this are how accurate are the calculations for the age of the universe? It was about 15 billion (I think) but recently revised downward. Who's to say in 5 years the number won't go back up (or down)?

Without reading the book, which I should do before making any strong claims, it appears Schroeder's explanation is a decent one that satisfies both the young and old age viewpoints.

Any comments?
Lurker

Hi Lurker,

Thanks for following through and asking him, I probably should have done the same thing .

Lurker wrote:He had this to say about his calculations as it applies the known age of universe...

"I don't claim that my data are exact. That they all agree within plus minus 5% is good enough for me"

My first thoughts on this are how accurate are the calculations for the age of the universe? It was about 15 billion (I think) but recently revised downward. Who's to say in 5 years the number won't go back up (or down)?

There's generally always been an age range of the universe, while the middle point of the range has often been taken up as "the age." The latest dating of the universe, based upon the WMAP discoveries (at the page I linked previously), reveal a much finer and accurate estimation.

While I might be tempted to overlook the age of the universe, I find the biggest problem lays with the dating of Earth. The estimates here just seem too inaccurate. However, I think Schroeder has some interesting Scriptural insights to be gleaned, even though what I know of his model thus far appears to have failed.

Kurieuo.