Evidence for God from Science

First time poster here..

I was reading over the web-site owner's theory of the 6 days of creation... Basically that the days were not actual 24 hour periods, but rather "longer" periods of time.

And yet, the author still agrees that plant, animal, and man were CREATED by God - just that they were created in a longer period of time than 6 literal days.

I don't understand this theory at all. Questions raised are..

1. If man was still created, how does this "fit" with science as the author claims? Ie, you have evolutionists using radiological dating to support that hominids existed millions of years ago (not that I agree) - I don't see how this evolutionist view fits with the author's interpretation of Genesis, regardless of how long the "days" were. If God created Adam and Eve, then you don't have hominids. If God created animals and Adam named 'em, you don't have origin of species.

2. Even if the "days" represented many thousands of years each, this doesn't "fit" with science's claim that dinsosaurs roamed the earth for 140 million years (or whatever it is)... And that the last dinosaurs died out many millions of years ago.

3. The author uses the phrase "let there be light" to mean that light already existed, but that God simply "let it appear." I find this to be a huge stretch as well... The "let there be" phrase is quite consistent throughout the 6 days of creation - and was applied to things which didn't exist but were obviously created by God (such as plant life). Ie, God said "let their be plants..." and obviously plants DIDN'T exist before (unlike the "light" theory) - so the author's applied meaning of "let their be" in regard to light, doesn't wash when later on the same EXACT phrase is applied to the creation of plant life, animal life, etc.

4. Vs 4 to me doesn't seem at all to be a recant of what God already did. What would the necessity of the recant be?? It would be totally redundant. And I don't believe the inspired word of God to be redundant. Yet the author claims that vs 4 is just a recant that God *already* created the sun, the moon, and the stars in Genesis 1:1-2, which he uses to support that the sun was already created in 1:1, and NOT in 1: 4.

5. The author uses the "day and night" text to support that God had already created the Sun in Genesis 1:1. He mentioned that the light HAD to be a fixed source (and therefore the sun) since you had day and night. Now, this "day and night" was used through the creation process, represented by light and dark - which to me is an OBVIOUS, typical day and night cycle. Yet despite this, the author says that the days were not actual days.

I just don't get how his "longer days" explains ANYTHING in regard to "fitting" with science - unless of course the author is equating "longer days" with MANY MANY MILLIONS, and possibly BILLIONS of years, which I find a huge stretch. And there seems to be contradictions throughout his explanation (no offense).

Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% Christian. But I'm currently researching old earth and young earth in more detail, and don't understand his picture of old earth at all. I simply want to understand the author's theory here better, if anybody can help.

Great site by the way!!

I'm not sure I understand the exact problems. Not all hominids are human, and modern humans are relatively recent on the timeline (Day-Age will usually argue for about 50,000 years).

RTB have a timeline detailing what was going on throughout the various creation days via a Day-Age perspective at http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... ndex.shtml. Might be worth a look.

Kurieuo

I explained the problems (as I see them) above. So by the chart the day/age theory represents that the days have now stretched to BILLIONS of years?? Hard to believe!

If that's the case, why then would the bible refer VERY clearly to "night and day" (light and dark) as it follows the creation process? Night and day doesn't represent billions of years in my book.

"Days" have not been stretched, but rather the literal meaning of yom being an unspecified period is used. As for "day and night", do you mean the "evening and morning" phrase? Many responses to questions have been posted in the thread at http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=1844, including responses to this question. I am sure you will find clarification for many of your questions there.

If you are also really looking into the Day-Age position, I often recommend downloading viewing the slideshow presentation at Sword&Spirit titled In the Beginning (22.7MB PPT).

Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:"Days" have not been stretched, but rather the literal meaning of yom being an unspecified period is used. As for "day and night", do you mean the "evening and morning" phrase? Many responses to questions have been posted in the thread at http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=1844, including responses to this question. I am sure you will find clarification for many of your questions there.

If you are also really looking into the Day-Age position, I often recommend downloading viewing the slideshow presentation at Sword&Spirit titled In the Beginning (22.7MB PPT).

Kurieuo

There are a TON of biblical facts to support that the days in Genesis were actual days. How can all these *facts* be refuted. If these are correct (which you'll find that they ARE), Genesis would be the ONLY place in the entire Bible where day (used in the context it is) would mean something different from an actual day... Day agers are changing the meaning of Genesis just so their theory fits with modern science, it would seem...


A classical, well-respected Hebrew-English lexicon8 (a one-way dictionary) has seven headings and many subheadings for the meaning of yom—but defines the creation days of Genesis 1 as ordinary days under the heading 'day as defined by evening and morning.'

A number, and the phrase 'evening and morning,' are used for each of the six days of creation (Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31).

Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 410 times, and each time it means an ordinary day9—why would Genesis 1 be the exception?10
Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word 'evening' or 'morning'11 23 times. 'Evening' and 'morning' appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day—why would Genesis 1 be the exception?12

In Genesis 1:5, yom occurs in context with the word 'night.' Outside of Genesis 1, 'night' is used with yom 53 times—and each time it means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Even the usage of the word 'light' with yom in this passage determines the meaning as ordinary day.13

The plural of yom, which does not appear in Genesis 1, can be used to communicate a longer time period, e.g. 'in those days.'14 Adding a number here would be nonsensical. Clearly, in Exodus 20:11 where a number is used with days, it unambiguously refers to six Earth-rotation days.

There are words in biblical Hebrew (such as olam or qedem) that are very suitable for communicating long periods of time, or indefinite time, but none of these words are used in Genesis 1.15 Alternatively, the days or years could have been compared with grains of sand if long periods were meant.

Dr James Barr (Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University), who himself does not believe Genesis is true history, nonetheless admitted as far as the language of Genesis 1 is concerned that:

' … 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 Gen. 1—11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) 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 (c) Noah's Flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.'16

Hi Liger, welcome to the board.

I will try to answer your questions in more detail later on, but for now I have one for you: How long is the 7th day?

liger wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:"Days" have not been stretched, but rather the literal meaning of yom being an unspecified period is used. As for "day and night", do you mean the "evening and morning" phrase? Many responses to questions have been posted in the thread at http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=1844, including responses to this question. I am sure you will find clarification for many of your questions there.

If you are also really looking into the Day-Age position, I often recommend downloading viewing the slideshow presentation at Sword&Spirit titled In the Beginning (22.7MB PPT).

Kurieuo

There are a TON of biblical facts to support that the days in Genesis were actual days. How can all these *facts* be refuted. If these are correct (which you'll find that they ARE), Genesis would be the ONLY place in the entire Bible where day (used in the context it is) would mean something different from an actual day... Day agers are changing the meaning of Genesis just so their theory fits with modern science, it would seem...


A classical, well-respected Hebrew-English lexicon8 (a one-way dictionary) has seven headings and many subheadings for the meaning of yom—but defines the creation days of Genesis 1 as ordinary days under the heading 'day as defined by evening and morning.'

A number, and the phrase 'evening and morning,' are used for each of the six days of creation (Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31).

Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 410 times, and each time it means an ordinary day9—why would Genesis 1 be the exception?10
Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word 'evening' or 'morning'11 23 times. 'Evening' and 'morning' appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day—why would Genesis 1 be the exception?12

In Genesis 1:5, yom occurs in context with the word 'night.' Outside of Genesis 1, 'night' is used with yom 53 times—and each time it means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Even the usage of the word 'light' with yom in this passage determines the meaning as ordinary day.13

The plural of yom, which does not appear in Genesis 1, can be used to communicate a longer time period, e.g. 'in those days.'14 Adding a number here would be nonsensical. Clearly, in Exodus 20:11 where a number is used with days, it unambiguously refers to six Earth-rotation days.

There are words in biblical Hebrew (such as olam or qedem) that are very suitable for communicating long periods of time, or indefinite time, but none of these words are used in Genesis 1.15 Alternatively, the days or years could have been compared with grains of sand if long periods were meant.

Dr James Barr (Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University), who himself does not believe Genesis is true history, nonetheless admitted as far as the language of Genesis 1 is concerned that:

' … 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 Gen. 1—11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) 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 (c) Noah's Flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.'16

Why don't you deal with those "tons" of facts one at a time on the basis of their own merits instead of a general appeal?

Old Earth Creationists have been around long before the advent of modern science. In fact, You'll find if you study the history in this realm that the majority of the Church through the ages held to a form of Old Earth Creationism. St. Augustine was a major voice in this realm. There's been a strong representation of Young Earth Creationism as well. It was not in fact until the 20th century that this became the hot issue that it is now. In my opinion, what has happened is that Young Earth Creationism has arisen as fierce proponents of a particular method of interpreting Scripture have chosen to equate their method of interpretation with the Scriptures tthemselves.

That's why I expect that this particular thread may rapidly degenerate into an attack of OEC's in general rather than an interaction with the material.

I hope I am wrong though. I intend to keep to the high road anyway.

There are many Biblical Hebrew Scholars at major universities who accept or concede the possibility of the days in Genesis being understood as ages.

Barr's quote, is in fact, taken grossly out of context as he is overstating his point purposely to diminish the Bible, not to support Young Earth Creationism.

If you need a listing of Old Earth proponents including major university Hebrew Scholars, just ask.

One of the more productive approaches to debate and learning that I've discovered is the importance of not attempting to declare one's own position as so overwhelmingly clear that any reasonable or intelligent person could take the same facts that I do and not come to a different conclusion. Usually the need to do that, comes from my own insecurity or an underlying need to avoid facing the implications of what a refutation of my position would be.

The fact of the matter is that there are many very sincere, devoted and committed Christians in both camps and the majority of each camp believes their position to be a literal interpretation of Scripture. Both cannot be right although to a certain degree, both can be wrong or have elements of only partial understanding.

I know that it is a passionate issue and it touches important and essential elements of truth and belief. Even so, maybe we can all try and draw back a little bit from the grandstanding and hyperbole to actually interact and address the issues.

Canuckster1127 wrote:There are many Biblical Hebrew Scholars at major universities who accept or concede the possibility of the days in Genesis being understood as ages.

Barr's quote, is in fact, taken grossly out of context as he is overstating his point purposely to diminish the Bible, not to support Young Earth Creationism.

If you need a listing of Old Earth proponents including major university Hebrew Scholars, just ask.

That is exactly right.

Furthermore, an appeal to authority will not get us far, who is to decide whose expert has the most authority?

As Canuckster said, deal with the material, and we can make some progress in the discussion.

Canuckster1127 wrote:

liger wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:"Days" have not been stretched, but rather the literal meaning of yom being an unspecified period is used. As for "day and night", do you mean the "evening and morning" phrase? Many responses to questions have been posted in the thread at http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=1844, including responses to this question. I am sure you will find clarification for many of your questions there.

If you are also really looking into the Day-Age position, I often recommend downloading viewing the slideshow presentation at Sword&Spirit titled In the Beginning (22.7MB PPT).

Kurieuo

There are a TON of biblical facts to support that the days in Genesis were actual days. How can all these *facts* be refuted. If these are correct (which you'll find that they ARE), Genesis would be the ONLY place in the entire Bible where day (used in the context it is) would mean something different from an actual day... Day agers are changing the meaning of Genesis just so their theory fits with modern science, it would seem...


A classical, well-respected Hebrew-English lexicon8 (a one-way dictionary) has seven headings and many subheadings for the meaning of yom—but defines the creation days of Genesis 1 as ordinary days under the heading 'day as defined by evening and morning.'

A number, and the phrase 'evening and morning,' are used for each of the six days of creation (Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31).

Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 410 times, and each time it means an ordinary day9—why would Genesis 1 be the exception?10
Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word 'evening' or 'morning'11 23 times. 'Evening' and 'morning' appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day—why would Genesis 1 be the exception?12

In Genesis 1:5, yom occurs in context with the word 'night.' Outside of Genesis 1, 'night' is used with yom 53 times—and each time it means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Even the usage of the word 'light' with yom in this passage determines the meaning as ordinary day.13

The plural of yom, which does not appear in Genesis 1, can be used to communicate a longer time period, e.g. 'in those days.'14 Adding a number here would be nonsensical. Clearly, in Exodus 20:11 where a number is used with days, it unambiguously refers to six Earth-rotation days.

There are words in biblical Hebrew (such as olam or qedem) that are very suitable for communicating long periods of time, or indefinite time, but none of these words are used in Genesis 1.15 Alternatively, the days or years could have been compared with grains of sand if long periods were meant.

Dr James Barr (Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University), who himself does not believe Genesis is true history, nonetheless admitted as far as the language of Genesis 1 is concerned that:

' … 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 Gen. 1—11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) 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 (c) Noah's Flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.'16

Why don't you deal with those "tons" of facts one at a time on the basis of their own merits instead of a general appeal?

Old Earth Creationists have been around long before the advent of modern science. In fact, You'll find if you study the history in this realm that the majority of the Church through the ages held to a form of Old Earth Creationism. St. Augustine was a major voice in this realm. There's been a strong representation of Young Earth Creationism as well. It was not in fact until the 20th century that this became the hot issue that it is now. In my opinion, what has happened is that Young Earth Creationism has arisen as fierce proponents of a particular method of interpreting Scripture have chosen to equate their method of interpretation with the Scriptures tthemselves.

That's why I expect that this particular thread may rapidly degenerate into an attack of OEC's in general rather than an interaction with the material.

I hope I am wrong though. I intend to keep to the high road anyway.

There are many Biblical Hebrew Scholars at major universities who accept or concede the possibility of the days in Genesis being understood as ages.

Barr's quote, is in fact, taken grossly out of context as he is overstating his point purposely to diminish the Bible, not to support Young Earth Creationism.

If you need a listing of Old Earth proponents including major university Hebrew Scholars, just ask.

One of the more productive approaches to debate and learning that I've discovered is the importance of not attempting to declare one's own position as so overwhelmingly clear that any reasonable or intelligent person could take the same facts that I do and not come to a different conclusion. Usually the need to do that, comes from my own insecurity or an underlying need to avoid facing the implications of what a refutation of my position would be.

The fact of the matter is that there are many very sincere, devoted and committed Christians in both camps and the majority of each camp believes their position to be a literal interpretation of Scripture. Both cannot be right although to a certain degree, both can be wrong or have elements of only partial understanding.

I know that it is a passionate issue and it touches important and essential elements of truth and belief. Even so, maybe we can all try and draw back a little bit from the grandstanding and hyperbole to actually interact and address the issues.

I don't refute anything that you've said. I believe it. However it doesn't answer the issues..

Take, for example, Exodus 20:11. This, IMO, *clearly* represents that God created the earth in 7 literal days. Take it out of context and IN context (either way) and it represents 7 literal days.

I appreciate your comments though, and would be interested to hear any arguments on that vs. specifically. I can go with old earth arguments until I get to that vs. in particular. It seems to be an old earth killer.

As far as Hebrew scholars go, I'd *love* to hear what they say in terms of Exodus 20:11 potentially supporting the old earth argument. Any info. would be greatly appreciated. (I'm "stuck" in the middle of old earth and new earth, as it stands.)

Exodus 20:11 is a strong argument.

It's not unsurmountable however. The appeal in Exodus is as easily understood as an appeal to a pattern without equal time periods. Clearly the context in Exodus is 24 hour days. The primary apeal to Genesis is seven, not necessarily the length of the days.

More important to Genesis is the internal arguments. If you can't answer those questions on the basis of the passage itself, then any appeal to another passage is pretty much irrelevent,

What's the answer from YEC that satisfies the internal questions there?

If these are sequential 24 hour days, what's the basis for that assertion without the sun until day 4?

If these are sequential 24 hour days, what's the explanation for the events of day 6 and how do you make them fit?

If these are sequential 24 hour days why does day 7 not follow the same pattern? Is day seven over? Was it a 24 hour day?

Just imagine for a moment that you are a Hebrew hearing the Genesis account for the first time. In other words, assume you are part of the original audience.

Where would you be? (Answer ... probably in the wilderness in the later part of the Exodus when Moses wrote Genesis under inspiration.)

As a Hebrew, would you be applying the understanding of a 20th century western civilized person with a scientific education expecting precise language and explanations? (Answer .... pretty obvious, don't you think?)

Is there a theme in Genesis that the Hebrew in the Exodus would be picking up on that maybe we western civilized people don't? (Answer ... yup .... God's deliverence .... God's bringing order out of chaos ..... God having a purpose and design for His people as evidenced by his plan and dealings in the past?)

Is it reasonable to expect an agricultural, nomadic people to have a language which God would use to grant us scientific information to the standards we expect?

Do you think that it is possible to allow for these factors without lessening inspiration or God's truth and imagining that perhaps what we are arguing about in this realm may be incidental to what God is attempting to say in this passage? Is Genesis 1 -2 God's science lesson? I understand why YEC does this. It is because they respect the text so much that they reason that if there appears to be a disagreement between scripture and anything else then Scripture is right, no matter what. I actually agree with that. What I don't agree with however, is that when we stretch and torture the text to say something that God did not intend and further there is a pretty good basis to believe that the original audience didn't believe it the way we are arguing. then what is wrong is not the scriptures. What is wrong is our theology. Do you see the difference between the two?

My primary argument for OEC is not science. I don't think it's a coincidence that science agrees with an Old Earth. That's a secondary argument for me. Strong, but secondary.

Primary is Scripture itself. I think YEC is more than bad science. I think it is bad theology and bad Hermeneutics. I also think it is a stumbling block to many who equate YEC with Biblical Christianity and therefore they reject Christianity out of hand.

These are questions I ask now that I didn't know to ask earlier when this seemed a vitally important issue to me.

It is important. But I think we're asking many of the wrong questions when we push hard on the science and theology parallels.

Stetching the text to say more than God said is not a question of literalism. It's a question of context and a question of purpose.

That's my take on it anyway.

Here's a link on Exodus 20:11.

http://www.newcreationism.org/Old_Earth ... pture.html

Not necessarily definitve. You can look these up as easily as I can.

The article cited was interesting.

However, I don't think it adequately answered the Exodus 20:11 argument (it somehow claimed that Exodus 20:11 wasn't referencing the 7 days in Geneis - "for in 6 days the LORD made heaven and earth" -- what else would that possibly be referencing? ..Was there some other earth I'm missing here? =)

And you are right, based on Exodus 20 verses 9 and 10 as follows, 11 without question refers to literal days (which supports the young earth argument completely)...

Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:


Exd 20:10 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:


Exd 20:11 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.

Linger,

Your tone is rude. First of all, Exodus is making a point about how the work week should look and be executed. The allusion to the Genesis creation days is not a strong argument for Genesis to be 6 literal days. Allusions are used to make a point to specific audiences. Moses was showing this audience what the ideal work week was by referring to the Genesis "days".

Allusions do not take away from inerrancy. For instance, the Lord said that a day is like 1000 years-does this make God a liar? Also in the Psalms, he said there were a 1000 generations before Abraham-does this make God a liar? We can all cite authorities whom contradict one another, but the bottom line is that God created the whoel world for his glory and Man was the crowning jewel.

The point of the Genesis creation story was to show that God was not the rock, the sun was not God, the moon was not God, God was the creator of animals and fish and plant-not part of animals, fish or plants. The culture that the Jews were called out of worshiped the creature, not the Creator. Once you understand the perspective of the audience and the message God was communicating, then you understand the message.

Hominids were apes. Neaderthals and Homo Erectus were genetically distinct from Adam.

Dan

liger wrote:The article cited was interesting.

However, I don't think it adequately answered the Exodus 20:11 argument (it somehow claimed that Exodus 20:11 wasn't referencing the 7 days in Geneis - "for in 6 days the LORD made heaven and earth" -- what else would that possibly be referencing? ..Was there some other earth I'm missing here? =)

And you are right, based on Exodus 20 verses 9 and 10 as follows, 11 without question refers to literal days (which supports the young earth argument completely)...

Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:


Exd 20:10 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:


Exd 20:11 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.

Liger, repeating your position and not responding to my lengthy posts is not debate nor is it an indication of honestly seeking.

You're within your rights to believe what you wish and find convincing what you wish.

I'm not sensing either willingness to interact directly with this issue despite your protests to the contrary and so I'm going to wait until you actually begin interacting before vesting any more time into this.

Exodus 20 clearly refers to 24 hour days. There's certainly legitimacy in utilizing that argument in favor of 24 hour days in Genesis. But you appear to be deliberately missing the point, that the appeal here is to pattern, not necessarily length. Further, it is meaningless if the internal issues of Genesis itself are not addressed.

It is a strong corallary argument. I concede that. It is not a deciding argument by any means however, if you leave the primary questions of Genesis itself unanswered.