Evidence for God from Science

Saw this video on WND about "why a young earth" is foundational to the Christian faith. Found the whole premise irritating because I thought that Christ crucified was the foundation of the Christian faith, not whether the earth was young or old. This video seems to imply that any view outside young earth creationism is heretical, which seems to echo the underpinnings of Ken Ham. Apparently it's worse than that since the author of the video, David Rives, sells Kent Hovind's "creation seminar" DVD on his website. An interesting part of the video is were David Rives states that "most Hebrew scholars agree the wording indicates a literal 24 hour day." Wasn't it Sir Isaac Newton, in the 17th century, who was the first to translate Genesis in the original Hebrew text, giving us a greater understanding of the word "day"? Prior to that didn't scholars and the patriarchs only translate the Greek text (Septuagint), thus leaving us with a translation of a translation? The remaining claims stated in the video seem rather baseless, if even worthy of debate.

"For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified"

http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/why-is-young ... important/

tetelesti wrote:Saw this video on WND about "why a young earth" is foundational to the Christian faith. Found the whole premise irritating because I thought that Christ crucified was the foundation of the Christian faith, not whether the earth was young or old. This video seems to imply that any view outside young earth creationism is heretical, which seems to echo the underpinnings of Ken Ham. Apparently it's worse than that since the author of the video, David Rives, sells Kent Hovind's "creation seminar" DVD on his website.

You're using the term "foundational" differently than they are. You are thinking of the basic essence of the faith in the sense of that which is denied is to go on to deny the faith itself. They are using the term in the sense of the most basic support. There are OECs on this board who have (rightly) argued that if Adam and Eve never existed, then the faith is, in this sense, undermined, because there is no historical basis for the Fall. It is this sense of "foundational" that has led the Catholic Church to affirm that, whatever one believes about the age of the earth or evolution, one must believe that Adam and Eve were historical figures, the pair from whom all people today descended.

So on their view, YEC is foundational in that sense because OEC requires death was in the world before sin. The normal OEC response is that the death that came from the Fall is spiritual death. The real difference, then, in YEC and OEC is not soteriological (pertaining to salvation) but eschatological (pertaining to the end times, kingdom, etc.).

By the way, this is the final reason that I was persuaded that YEC is the biblical view. OEC advocates are simply wrong when they think that the death introduced into the world by sin was human death and/or spiritual death.

An interesting part of the video is were David Rives states that "most Hebrew scholars agree the wording indicates a literal 24 hour day." Wasn't it Sir Isaac Newton, in the 17th century, who was the first to translate Genesis in the original Hebrew text, giving us a greater understanding of the word "day"? Prior to that didn't scholars and the patriarchs only translate the Greek text (Septuagint), thus leaving us with a translation of a translation? The remaining claims stated in the video seem rather baseless, if even worthy of debate.

"For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified"

http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/why-is-young ... important/

No, Newton was not the first person to translate or work from the Hebrew scriptures. I have no idea where you even got such an idea. To take only one example, Jerome worked from the Hebrew OT (much to the chagrin of some Catholic scholars). Beyond that, the LXX vs. MT has no bearing on this discussion, anyway. The Hebrew word is yom. The Greek word is hemera. Those two words are as synonymous as any two words can be in any language. To try to suggest that yom can mean a long period of time and that hermera . . . well, that's just incorrect. In fact, one of the interesting things that LXX scholars will point out is that the LXX is a VERY "wooden" translation of the Torah, but that is not at all the case in later parts of the OT. And that's something I can also attest to, having read significant portions of both the Hebrew OT and the LXX.

Beyond all that, though, the argument they are making is just silly. It doesn't really matter what the majority of Hebrew scholars believe, even if they could prove their claims. What matters is what can be shown, and if the majority are wrong, then they are just wrong. The only question we should be dealing with is what does yom mean in Genesis 1. I am convinced, after looking at every single occurrence of yom in the Torah and Joshua (604 occurrences, each classified individually in its various state: construct, absolute, with prepositions and without, (an)arthrous, etc.), that there is absolutely no doubt based on the way the word is used (from a strictly linguistic perspective) that Moses intended the word to mean a normal, 24 hour day, and any assertion to the contrary is completely baseless, absurd, and ignores the textual evidence as we have it.

But that's just me.

Jac3510 wrote:

tetelesti wrote:Saw this video on WND about "why a young earth" is foundational to the Christian faith. Found the whole premise irritating because I thought that Christ crucified was the foundation of the Christian faith, not whether the earth was young or old. This video seems to imply that any view outside young earth creationism is heretical, which seems to echo the underpinnings of Ken Ham. Apparently it's worse than that since the author of the video, David Rives, sells Kent Hovind's "creation seminar" DVD on his website.

You're using the term "foundational" differently than they are. You are thinking of the basic essence of the faith in the sense of that which is denied is to go on to deny the faith itself. They are using the term in the sense of the most basic support. There are OECs on this board who have (rightly) argued that if Adam and Eve never existed, then the faith is, in this sense, undermined, because there is no historical basis for the Fall. It is this sense of "foundational" that has led the Catholic Church to affirm that, whatever one believes about the age of the earth or evolution, one must believe that Adam and Eve were historical figures, the pair from whom all people today descended.

I should have elaborated further in that I do believe the creation event is foundational to our faith, but not the timing. OEC or YEC, we can both agree that God created the heavens and the earth. It's the way the video presents its opinion concerning YEC being foundational to the faith. Sort of reminiscent of Ken Ham calling OEC's yada yada yada..... I know we've already been down that road, so we'll leave it at that.

So on their view, YEC is foundational in that sense because OEC requires death was in the world before sin. The normal OEC response is that the death that came from the Fall is spiritual death. The real difference, then, in YEC and OEC is not soteriological (pertaining to salvation) but eschatological (pertaining to the end times, kingdom, etc.).

By the way, this is the final reason that I was persuaded that YEC is the biblical view. OEC advocates are simply wrong when they think that the death introduced into the world by sin was human death and/or spiritual death.

Could you elaborate further on the difference between YEC & OEC being eschatological.

Don't we both agree that the fall was the cause of spiritual death?

No, Newton was not the first person to translate or work from the Hebrew scriptures. I have no idea where you even got such an idea. To take only one example, Jerome worked from the Hebrew OT (much to the chagrin of some Catholic scholars). Beyond that, the LXX vs. MT has no bearing on this discussion, anyway. The Hebrew word is yom. The Greek word is hemera. Those two words are as synonymous as any two words can be in any language. To try to suggest that yom can mean a long period of time and that hermera . . . well, that's just incorrect. In fact, one of the interesting things that LXX scholars will point out is that the LXX is a VERY "wooden" translation of the Torah, but that is not at all the case in later parts of the OT. And that's something I can also attest to, having read significant portions of both the Hebrew OT and the LXX.

I believe it's an article I found on ReasonsToBelieve's website, though I'm currently unable to locate it. If I come across it I'll post the link here. So what does it mean when Genesis 2:4 states that the whole creation was created in a day. Particularly if it's a "wooden" translation of the original Hebrew, shouldn't it read in the "days" that God made the heavens and the earth?

Beyond all that, though, the argument they are making is just silly. It doesn't really matter what the majority of Hebrew scholars believe, even if they could prove their claims. What matters is what can be shown, and if the majority are wrong, then they are just wrong. The only question we should be dealing with is what does yom mean in Genesis 1. I am convinced, after looking at every single occurrence of yom in the Torah and Joshua (604 occurrences, each classified individually in its various state: construct, absolute, with prepositions and without, (an)arthrous, etc.), that there is absolutely no doubt based on the way the word is used (from a strictly linguistic perspective) that Moses intended the word to mean a normal, 24 hour day, and any assertion to the contrary is completely baseless, absurd, and ignores the textual evidence as we have it.

But that's just me.

Nice closing statement. So can you tell me where the word "yom" designates an unspecified period of time, specifically a long time span? Just curious...

tetelesti wrote:Could you elaborate further on the difference between YEC & OEC being eschatological.

Don't we both agree that the fall was the cause of spiritual death?

YECs think that when the prophets paint a picture of the millennial reign of Christ that it will be a restoration of what was originally the case in Eden. Moreover, they tend to see the death of man as a special--and indeed, the primary--case of the main problem facing all of creation, namely, that of corruption and decay. Thus YECs tend to argue that the final state of man, namely, his glorified state, will bring with it the glorification of creation as well (or, better, the redemption of creation from the curse placed on it when Adam fell). In short, on the YEC view, the Bible teaches that when Adam fell, he brought all of creation down with him, and that God's plan is not merely to restore mankind, but, in fact, it is to restore all of creation to its original state, which He has chosen to do through the restoration of mankind (which, by the way, tells us something about the necessity--or at least fittingness--of the incarnation!).

And yes, we both agree that the Fall was the cause of "spiritual death." But, again, YECs tend not to make as firm a distinction between spiritual and physical death as OECs do. That's one of the really big issues for me and, again, one of the reasons I am now firmly YEC. I think the OEC theology of the results of death is just fundamentally wrong in that it makes a false distinction between the two and therefore misunderstands the consequences and results of sin. When Paul says, "The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life," he's not talking about spiritual death. He means physical death. We die physically because, spiritually, we've been separated from the source of life (God Himself) by our sin. And for me, that's a big deal--I just don't think OEC theology takes seriously the doctrine of sin as it simply tends to relegate its effects to a spiritual sphere.

I believe it's an article I found on ReasonsToBelieve's website, though I'm currently unable to locate it. If I come across it I'll post the link here. So what does it mean when Genesis 2:4 states that the whole creation was created in a day. Particularly if it's a "wooden" translation of the original Hebrew, shouldn't it read in the "days" that God made the heavens and the earth?

I'd be surprised to see Ross' group make such a mistake, but all the same, if you find the article, do post it.

As to your question, you'll notice that yom is the object of a preposition ("in," or be (pronounced "beh" in Hebrew)). That's one of the linguistic flags that proves interesting when you look at every occurrence of the word. The preposition is not determinative of meaning, but it is informative. In any case, when you see the phrase beyom ("in the day"), the phrase refers less to any particular duration (twenty four hours or otherwise) but instead to the factuality, or, better, the temporal context, of any given event.

Thus, in Gen. 2:4, the phrase is used to show that what follows is not something that happened after the creation account discussed in chapter 1 as if there were two creation stories--if only people would pay closer attention to the text they would see this. What Moses has done is told the story of creation and then said, "Now, during this story of creation, this was happening in this particular place."

To reiterate, yom, when used as the object of a preposition, tends to set the temporal context for any given event. You can see this rather easily yourself if you just go to Biblegateway and search "in the day" (in quotation marks) in the search box. You will see similar phrases have similar roles in carrying the story along: in the days (where yom is plural), in that day (using the demonstrative pronoun), etc.

Nice closing statement. So can you tell me where the word "yom" designates an unspecified period of time, specifically a long time span? Just curious...

Unfortunately, I don't have the chart I made on hand. It's on a hard drive I haven't recovered yet as the computer died the big death. What I can tell you is it never really refers to a long span of time--at least, not intentionally. What the word does, in some constructions, is set the temporal context for an event. Sometimes, those events take a long time to unfold, and so the "day" (or, more common, "days") turns out to be a long period of time. But that's just a function of the nature of the event being discussed, not of the word itself.

So, some examples . . .

"The Day of the Lord" (here, "The Day" is in the construct state) is a "long, unspecified period of time." It lasts at least seven years and depending on your theology a thousand or perhaps even more!

"In the days of Abraham" refers to the hundred plus years of his life (notice that yom is both plural and the object of the preposition).

"that day" (as in Exod 8:22) some times refers to the Day of the Lord or at least to a time of judgment, which is usually more than 24 hours.

"the day of" (as in, "the day of the captivity," as in Judges 18:30) often, though not always, refers to an long, unfolding event rather than a singular action that happens within 24 hours.

Again, I'd emphasize, none of these constructions exclude a 24 hour meaning of the word. As always, context is king. You would have to do what I did: look at every single occurrence of the word and classify it. But when you do that work, what you will find is that the word yom ALWAYS refers to a normal, twenty-four hour day when it is "naked"--that is, when it occurs in the singular, not as the object of a preposition, when it is in the absolute state, etc. On the flip side, EVERY TIME it refers to something other than a twenty-four hour day, it is augmented by some linguistic markers as those I've been discussing above.

You can, of course, argue that Genesis 1 is just an exception. I would simply turn and ask you your warrant for insisting that out of 604 occurrences (and I only got through Joshua, but I suspect the pattern strongly holds throughout the entire OT), the first chapter of the Bible is the one and only place that things are different.

Actually, while I'm no YEC, I still think that the word yom, is in fact the 24 hour day period as described in genesis. To think that the writers of Genesis, simply had been using the word to mean more than 24 hour period is quite absurd. There was no reason to do it since its fair to say that the early writers believed the earth to be made in six literal days. The use of the 7th day as the lord's sabbath among Israel shows clearly that they literally meant a single full day. It goes without saying, the O.T seems to favor the YEC view of six literal days, even though I think its in error.

It goes without saying, the O.T seems to favor the YEC view of six literal days, even though I think its in error.

So, Neo, WHO do you believe is the ULTIMATE Author of Genesis? If the ultimate author is GOD, who would have foreknown the entire audience that would one day eventually read it, then does it not stand to reason that He inspired it to be written with specific nuances of language - or was this entirely up to Moses and those whom helped him write it down. Or was it ONLY man's thoughts/words that were recorded? That's a slippery slope. Also, how much of Genesis do you think is "in error?" And how do you know which parts were God-driven/inspired and which weren't? Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you - and that what you are asserting is in error is the YEC view?

neo-x wrote:Actually, while I'm no YEC, I still think that the word yom, is in fact the 24 hour day period as described in genesis. To think that the writers of Genesis, simply had been using the word to mean more than 24 hour period is quite absurd. There was no reason to do it since its fair to say that the early writers believed the earth to be made in six literal days. The use of the 7th day as the lord's sabbath among Israel shows clearly that they literally meant a single full day. It goes without saying, the O.T seems to favor the YEC view of six literal days, even though I think its in error.

Neo, I too would like to hear your explanation on this. You seem to be saying that the OT teaches YEC, but the bible is wrong. Please explain.

I don't think God was the author of genesis. it makes no sense, fills no known purpose. Inspired does not mean dictated on any level. And if God did dictate it, then that is a separate problem with tons of problem down the road.

It is my personal opinion, that the authors clearly favored a 6 day literal creation. And I think there is plenty to suggest that and hard to argue with. We know from evidence that is not the case. But even if we can argue around technicalities for a possible 6 day creation scenario, I'd say it still is a far fetched idea, given what we know today.

And that is the error I think which is present. We can argue and believe that the word yom means longer periods, but that only makes sense in hindsight as we know today, not at the point of writing. 3500 years back we would have no reason to object to a 6 day creation and it was the same for the authors too. And though the story of genesis even if taken as a metaphor, shows that the point of the story is not the creation time range, the earlier people simply had no reason to take yom and use it for more than day within genesis 1 and the rest of the pentateuch.

The only work around is that yom does not mean yom but God dictated the words to mean more than they seem and thus future generations could look into it and interpret it. I say its possible, only I don't think this happened. Because there are clearly parts which are not written by God, nor dictated by God. And some which I believe are not even inspired by God. Take the account of genealogies in NUMBERS, I sure don't see the point of being Godly inspired writing, it serves no purpose for future generations.

I have no doubt that God inspired these individuals, but how much of that inspiration means dictation? Its hard to say. I think the writers wrote what they thought of and how they made sense of it, within already established frameworks.

So yes, I do think that the bible means 6 day creation when it says so, at least to the ancients. because that was the only way it would make sense to them.

I don't think the bible is wrong literally, I think the story is not factual. The ancients considered it factual and thats the error. Its like a simplified story to make a point and I don't think thats much of a problem. The only way its wrong is when you say the story is literal which I don't think is.

I am sure that the ancients believed that the world was created in 6 days, ie: 144 hours ( on the 7th day, God rested).
Of course that opens up a few issues ( why God needs rest for one...):
If we are looking at Genesis as a literal AND concrete chronological telling of creation:
God created light before the Sun, so has was 24 hours measured?
How was there vegetation without sunlight?
Why have/need two separate days to created animals on earth?
Is man only to be a vegetarian according to Genesis 1:29-30 ?
If the world was formless and void, how was there water?

And so forth...

Neo wrote: "I don't think the bible is wrong literally, I think the story is not factual."

Neo, your quote above is nonsensical doublespeak! If something is not factual then it is wrong literally and otherwise. You're basically saying that the foundational book of the Bible is filled with lies mixed with some level of non-discernable truths? Really?

So God wasn't in control of His word confirmed to be as such by Jesus Himself?!!! So God didn't have the POWER to protect His word? He can create and speak a universe into existence but yet He couldn't protect His word? And so He sends His word to Mankind like a drunk throwing a beer can out of a car window - not caring where it lands, or what is done with it, or what lies it is eventually mixed with? His word wasn't important enough to Him for Him to protect it? So God essentially inspires only portions of His confirmed word (confirmed by Jesus, the OT), but the rest of it He lets humans make up their own false narratives and conjectures, only to mix and blend their human-originated fictions with those that are the very word of God? Anyone believing such should just throw their Bible in the trash can, because discerning which parts are trustworthy as being the actual revealed thoughts of God and which parts are simply the writers' own stabs at the creative writing of fairy tales, would be totally impossible. It would be worthless to us as trying to apply it as God's truths to mankind, as we'd have no idea which was which, whether it is from God or man. So was the Resurrection and the need to repent just more creative writings? No? Yes? How do you know?

Jesus confirmed the accounts surrounding Adam and Eve in Matthew 19:4-5.

"And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself" (Luke 24:27)

Jesus referred to the entire Canon by mentioning all the prophets from Abel (from Genesis, the first book and first martyr) to Zechariah (Chronicles, the last book, and the last martyr) (Matt. 23:35)

Yes Philip, I can throw my bible in the trashcan...the jews knew these scriptures back to back and still were blind.

ON a side note, even if I am wrong, you have to prove then that the WHOLE bible was dictated, if not you are guilty of your own standard. I mean how do you know that the part NOT DICTATED by God, are genuine? That ends up in problem.

I am following a simple pattern, what doesn't make sense, serves no purpose, should/can be questioned. And I do question.

Adam and eve even if they existed, were not the first humans anyway, that is a proven scientific thing, you want to neglect that, its upto you.

Neo wrote:
I don't think God was the author of genesis. it makes no sense, fills no known purpose. Inspired does not mean dictated on any level. And if God did dictate it, then that is a separate problem with tons of problem down the road.

Neo, 2 Timothy 3:16 says:
16 All Scripture is [a]inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

Neo, All scripture is God-breathed, and inspired by Him. If God conceived and inspired scripture, God is the Author.

It is my personal opinion, that the authors clearly favored a 6 day literal creation. And I think there is plenty to suggest that and hard to argue with. We know from evidence that is not the case. But even if we can argue around technicalities for a possible 6 day creation scenario, I'd say it still is a far fetched idea, given what we know today.

You say that the authors of scripture favored a 6 literal "24 hour" day creation. Yet you believe what the evidence shows you, is that the 6 24 hour day creation is wrong. So, correct me if I'm misreading you, but you believe scripture is errant?

And that is the error I think which is present. We can argue and believe that the word yom means longer periods, but that only makes sense in hindsight as we know today, not at the point of writing. 3500 years back we would have no reason to object to a 6 day creation and it was the same for the authors too. And though the story of genesis even if taken as a metaphor, shows that the point of the story is not the creation time range, the earlier people simply had no reason to take yom and use it for more than day within genesis 1 and the rest of the pentateuch.

Neo, there are plenty of times "yom" is used in scripture, that it didn't mean "24 hours":

Here yom is used to mean "time":

Genesis 4:3:
3 So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground.

In Deuteronomy 10:10, yom is used as a "time"(40 days and 40 nights):
10 “I, moreover, stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights like the first time, and the Lord listened to me that time also; the Lord was not willing to destroy you.

Isaiah 30:8:
Now go, write it on a tablet before them And inscribe it on a scroll, That it may serve in the time to come As a witness forever

Yom is also translated as "year':

I Kings 1:1
2 Chronicles 21:19
Amos 4:4

Yom translated as "age":
Genesis 18:11 and 24:1
Joshua 23:1 and 23:2
Genesis 21:2, Genesis 21:7
Genesis 47:28
Zechariah 8:4

There are many other times "yom" is translated as Ago, Always, Season, Continually, Ever, Evermore.

Neo, Yom has several literal meanings. Ancient Hebrew only had one word(yom) that literally meant different things, depending on context.

The only work around is that yom does not mean yom but God dictated the words to mean more than they seem and thus future generations could look into it and interpret it. I say its possible, only I don't think this happened. Because there are clearly parts which are not written by God, nor dictated by God. And some which I believe are not even inspired by God. Take the account of genealogies in NUMBERS, I sure don't see the point of being Godly inspired writing, it serves no purpose for future generations.

Neo, this part of what you wrote that I bolded, troubles me. You really believe parts of scripture weren't inspired by God?

Rick believe me, it troubles me too.

Do you think that when paul wrote that to timothy, the gospels were not written and the canon he was referring to held apocryphal writings too, and talmud, not the n. T, because most of it was not written down yet.

There is a distinction here rick, im saying the story of Genesis is not factual, that it was never factual, the error is to treat it as factual as the early authors did. Thats why you find support for 6 day creation, because they all assumed it was true. Thats the error and it is reflected clearly. They of course did it to keep consistency and because it was perfectly acceptable.

When i see the Genesis 1 account, i dont see it as wrong because i know the story is trying to impart basic lessons of theism, not literal proof. So i dont see it as wrong, if you see it as wrong its because you are treating parts of it literal, therefore from your pov it must look errant but i don't have to assume that from where I stand.

And yes rick i do think parts of the Bible are not inspired. The book we read is not in the way it was when they were written, they have been translated, edited, re_edited, copied, they differ on verse counts, manuscripts. Its like any work of literature in its copying and editing. Men wrote and edited these. They wrote what made sense to them, in hindsight we need to take that into account.

Thanks for posting the references rick regarding yom, i am aware of these. Even if i grant that yom is an age in Genesis 1, that still makes no sense because the later writers didn't consider that when mentioning creation account , if it had been that apparent they would have. But as i said, its a no brainer for them. They took it as it was, only now that we have evidence for oec, is why we need to rethink yom in Genesis otherwise there would be no need.