ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Many try (unsuccessfully I think) to tie 2nd Peter 3:8 with long creation days.

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Almost ironically, I do think this has direct application, considering its context, but instead to day-ages of the building of the new creation, with the Millennial reign fulfilling the Sabbath day. If this is the case, we are incredibly close to the Sabbath millennium. For this reason (among others) I tend toward a 6,000 year age for the earth, and generally forsake longer periods of 10,000 or more years.

Of course it wasn’t just for the Jews that God required Sabbaths; the land itself had them, and Judah ended up in Babylon due to a failure to meet the requirement of letting the land lie fallow for the Sabbath year — 70 years in exile for 490 years of infraction, the “Desolations of Jerusalem.” (2Chron 36:21; Lev 25:4)

It’s during this time that Daniel receives the OT’s key prophecy: the 70 weeks (490 years) 69 weeks of which were fulfilled with Messiah, but I digress.

I am intrigued by Jewish perspectives on the Torah, because there is a richness of depth in tradition, both written and oral, which ties itself directly to the history of God’s chosen people and his irrevocable promises (cf. Jer 31:33-37).

Is it not tradition that the feast of Pentecost has its first fulfillment with the giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai? (With it’s Messianic fulfillment in the birth of the Church.) I’ve even heard that Enoch’s birthday (and/or ascension day) is thought to be this same day, although I have no source for this aspect of tradition.

It’s at least interesting to consider that Pentecost (Lev 23:15; Acts 2) occurred after a Jubilee of days (50) following the Firstfruits (resurrection). The application of the feasts to Messianic fulfillment is exciting to me, although my education in these matters has a long way to go. The first four of the seven Mosaic feasts have been fulfilled, how will the last three pan out? There are many speculations. Will the Messianic age be the fulfillment of the Jubilee, when all are made free, and the land reverts to its rightful owner?

Peace and grace,

Apollos

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee. Peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy palaces. – Psalm 122:6-7

Thanks for posting the link to the summary article. It is fascinating that there is such literal correspondence in modern genetic findings to the implications of Genesis. I haven’t yet read the full article, but I’ve downloaded it.

I thought I’d add a remark from a Jewish commentary that I found while looking for what the RTB article said was evidence of Jewish belief in long ages in Genesis.

When God gave Moses the Torah on Mt. Sinai the Shabbat (cesation from work) was “re-instituted” as a special covenant sign for Israel. From a plain reading it appears that Israel had no previous inclination towards observing a six day work week and Sabbath rest. But in the Ten Commandments God ordered the Sabbath rest, and directly related it to six days of Creation. The maximum penalty for willfully disregarding the seventh day of rest was death, and one man was put to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath. The Jewish commentary pointed out that God himself still “observed” the the seventh day Sabbath rest as well in that He did not provide Manna on the Sabbath, Exodus 16:25-30. The people of Israel were instructed to gather a double portion on the sixth day and prepare the Sabbath meal before the Sabbath. The Jewish commentary pointed out that, similar to the requirement of gathering a double portion on the sixth day, the sixth day of creation was also loaded with more creative activity that previous days.

I’ve read that some modern exegetes who hold to OEC say the many creative activities on day six weigh against taking it as a literal day. But, according to the commentary, there is correspondence with the God’s daily provision of Manna during the week.

Best Regards

Here is an article discussing DNA evidence for a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, for those interested: Written for a Generation to Come (this is actually a link to the summary, the entire article is linked from there)

I saved the following article of a few years ago because it shows that the current human population of earth readily corresponds with a literal view of Genesis.

From UK’s Telegraph – 2004

We are all related to man who lived in Asia in 1,415BC
By David Derbyshire, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 30/09/2004)

Everyone in the world is descended from a single person who lived around 3,500 years ago, according to a new study.

Scientists have worked out the most recent common ancestor of all six billion people alive today probably dwelt in eastern Asia around 1,415BC.

Although the date may seem relatively recent, researchers say the findings should not come as a surprise.

Anyone trying to trace their family tree soon discovers that the number of direct ancestors doubles every 20 to 30 years. It takes only a few centuries to clock up thousands of direct ancestors.

Using a computer model, researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology attempted to trace back the most recent common ancestor using estimated patterns of migration throughout history.

They calculated that the ancestor’s location in eastern Asia allowed his or her descendants to spread to Europe, Asia, remote Pacific Islands and the Americas. Going back a few thousand years more, the researchers found a time when a large fraction of people in the world were the common ancestors of everybody alive today – while the rest were ancestors of no one alive. That date was 5,353BC, the team reports in Nature.

The researchers, led by Dr Steve Olson, stressed that the date was an estimate.

“Nevertheless, our results suggest that the most recent common ancestor for the world’s current population lived in the relatively recent past – perhaps within the last few thousand years,” he said.

He added: “No matter the languages we speak or the colour of our skin, we share ancestors who planted rice on the banks of the Yangtze, who domesticated horses on the steppes of the Ukraine, who hunted giant sloths in the forest of north and south America and who laboured to build the Great Pyramid of Khufu.”

Although some groups of people may have lived in isolation from the rest of the world for hundreds of years, the researchers say no one alive today has been untouched by migration.

Best Regards

In the 1991 (1995 revised) Bible Society in Israel translation of the Greek NT into Hebrew, Mark 10:6, 13:19 and 2 Peter 3:4 are all rendered in Hebrew “beginning of the Creation” (resheet habriah) while 1 Peter 2:13 is rendered “human institution” (mossad enoshi) Moreover the Mark 10:6 side reference lists Mark 13:19 and 2 Peter 3:4. So this excellent modern translation into Hebrew sees Christ’s words in Mark 10:6 as relating to the “beginning of the Creation” and not an institution of marriage.

I also checked “The New Covenant Aramaic Peshitta Text, with Hebrew Translation” and found the same results. Mark 10:6, 13:19 and 2 Peter 3:4 are found as beginning of Creation. The Peshitta is considered a very early Aramaic translation of the Greek NT, though there are a small number who think it is actually the earliest record of the NT and that Greek versions came from it.

Regarding Genesis 1, I checked a small book produced in 1992 “Briat Haolam, Evolutzia, veDat” (Creation, Evolution and Religion). The book is a collection of lectures sponsored by HEMDAT, Freedom of Science, Religion and Culture in Israel, given Nov 25, 1992. The purpose essentially was to stimulate more study of modern science by Israeli children from religious families. The majority of speakers were professors promoting a 4.5 billion year old earth and common descent. A rabbi was also invited to lecture. He said that until the conjectures of science become more completely proven that religious Jews would retain their view of recent special creation less than 6,000 years ago of the “pashat” (i.e. “simple” or literal) understanding of the Torah. He did add that if the evidence became overwhelming and established beyond doubt, that religious Jews would take Genesis as an allegorical account.

So the rabbi is saying that on the face of it, Genesis reads in Hebrew as a prosaic account of recent Creation by Almighty God and that there is no obvious indication in the text of long ages.

Best Regards

Glad to read your posts here. I took the opportunity to check the link you posted and read the RTB News and Views – Old Earth Creationism: Setting the Record Straight. Quite interesting for sure.

This OEC group takes Genesis 1:1 as the Creation Singularity, prior to which there had been no creative activity, and also takes the six days as long ages – though they distinguish themselves from theistic evolution.

That still leaves, imho, a big problem with the seventh day mentioned in Genesis 2:1-3. In this passage the first six creation days are recounted, and then God blessed and sanctified the Seventh Day (yom) – the day of cessation (rest). God and the newly created Adam and Eve would have enjoyed this sanctified day. Now if the first six days actually involve long ages, then when did that age-long seventh-day Sabbath rest occur? How are we supposed to understand the Seventh Day? Do OEC folk say that this time, in contradistinction to the preceding six days, the Hebrew word “yom” means 24 hours? The Hebrew in verse 3 for “rested” (or ceased) is the word “Shabbat” (Sabbath) and is past tense, implying this seventh day Sabbath has occurred.

I was also quite surprised to read in the body of the RTB article:

“Jewish Rabbi (sic) contemporaries of the church fathers were also divided on the length of the creation days. A number explicitly endorsed the view that the creation days were long periods of time. For example, Onkelos (2nd century), Rashi (1040-1105 AD), Maimonides (1135-1204 AD), and Nahmanides (1194-1270 AD) all clearly believed in an old earth.(6) These conservative Jewish scholars were in a good position to understand the meaning of the original Hebrew text.”

So I decided to follow the reference (6) to read for myself their comments. When I went to the site of the reference material, here is all there was:

“I have read translations of ancient Jewish Rabbi (sic) commentary on the Pentateuch and Talmud By such authors as Onkelos (2nd century), Rashi (1040-1105), Maimonides (1135-1204), and Nahmanides (1194-1270) and they clearly believed in an old earth.”

It is highly dubious when a footnote fails so completely to lead to the pertinent passages in the noted works.

In any case, I have just been reading Rashi’s and Nahmanides’ commentary on Genesis and find nothing explicit about ages. I’ve also just read the translation of Onkelos for Genesis 1 and it translates the original Hebrew into Aramaic without embellishment or signs of long ages. There may be other passages that say something different, but it is not that easy to check since Jewish literature is like a vast sea and there were/are several methods of interpretation of Scripture that have to be identified before drawing conclusions.

One thing is certain. You can read Whiston’s rendering of a first century Pharisaical Jew’s comments about Genesis – Josephus’ Antiquities – at this link.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/josephus/ant-1.htm

He took Genesis as the Mosaic record, and all indications in his narrative seem to show that he took it to mean recent creation. Josephus was born 37 AD, and fought in the first Roman war that culminated in his capture, as well as the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Josephus wrote Antiquities under the sponsorship of Vespasian and Titus, generals of the Roman army who conquered Judea and became Ceasars of Rome. Part of Josephus’ aim in writing was to give the Greco-Roman world a better understanding of Judaism.

“Now I have undertaken the present work [Antiquities], as thinking it will appear to all the Greeks (or Gentiles) worthy of their study; for it will contain all our antiquities, and the constitution of our government, as interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures.”

I would like to make another comment about Mark 10:1-12. Christ, the Rabbi from Nazareth, taught the Jewish people who came to him to learn of God’s will. During his teaching he was called to task by Pharisees about divorce. So the context of this episode is a serious question of God’s will as revealed to Israel in the Torah. For Israel the five books of Moses are the source and foundation of divine law, and Moses the greatest of the prophets. A rabbi who “binds” the people to maintain certain behavior is obligated to find the source for his teaching in the Torah of Moses. Since divorce was permitted in Deuteronomy 24, Christ would have to show that his teaching about marriage sanctity actually precedes the giving of the Torah to Israel at Sinai. That being the case, it seems highly unlikely to me that Christ would base his teaching on a passage that was known to be allegorical, especially when the Pharisees could quote a prosaic passage that permitted divorce.

Of this episode in Mark 10 the RTB News and Views says:

“The context is the creation of the human race and the institution of marriage–not the creation of the universe.”

They go on to say that the Greek word “ktisis” is intended to convey the idea of “institution” as in 1 Peter 2:13, but not “Creation” as found later in the same book – Mark 13:19.

Mark 10:6 reads “archees ktiseos” – “beginning of Creation” in many translations

Mark 13:19 reads “archees ktiseos” and is known to be the “beginning of Creation”

And 2 Peter 3:4 reads “archees ktiseos” the “beginning of Creation”

But according to RTB this verse is supposed to be rendered:

“But from the beginning of the institution [of marriage], male and female made he them.”

Seems to me like the cart is before the horse here.

Since the same phrase in Greek is found in Mark 13 and obviously means the “beginning of Creation,” I am regrettably unable to find traction with RTBs explanation.

If you have some other links please post them. I would check them out.

Best Regards

I am not sure where that came from. My view of Scripture is that in the main, a Correct understanding as intended by God is absolutely possible. That said, I apologize for my poor communication skill for the confusion.

Actually, it is I who should apologize for poor communication: I did understand what you meant, and I agreed with it. My impression was that you were responding to the contrary view–that one cannot be confident of correctly understanding Scripture.

Thanks for clarifying.

–Rick

I appreciate Hugh Ross and all the good work that he has done but even I find it hard to take with his lack of criticism toward TE. If we are true to Scripture then not only should we stand firm amidst of criticism but we must criticize those that deviate from the Truth.

Rick responded on 05 Jun 2007 at 2:25 pm
I am generally in agreement with Teleologist regarding the attitude that gaining a correct understanding of Scripture is not to be expected.

I am not sure where that came from. My view of Scripture is that in the main, a Correct understanding as intended by God is absolutely possible. That said, I apologize for my poor communication skill for the confusion.

I agree with everyone who thinks that prophesies are difficult to be dogmatic. Prophesies are often loaded with metaphors (especially pertaining to eschatology) with a few exceptions. e.g. Jeremiah’s prediction of the end of captivity and the rebuilding of the temple. This was obviously clear to even Daniel through his study. I subscribe to the hermeneutical principle that to understand what God’s message is; we must apply the literal historical-grammatical method of interpretation i.e., what is the understanding of a passage at the time that it was written. This is the reason why a plain reading of the certain Passages is insufficient to fully understand what God’s intention is. In these circumstances we need to consult linguistic and historical scholarship to ascertain the Truth.

I would also concede that it is entirely possible that the majority of Saints in the past accept a 24 hour day. The main point I believe RTB makes, and I agree with, is that an OE view is not necessarily a reaction to Darwinian evolution. Like most YEC I was taught that the Earth is only 6-10ky old. The word day is obviously 24 hours, just look at your watch. Our view of that Genesis 1 has been engrained in us early at our point of conversion. My exegetical change to OE was when I realize that serious linguistic scholars have indicated that the Hebrew word “yom” can and is used in many literal forms. Before that illumination I’ve always been told that 24 hour is the “only” literal interpretation of “yom”.

Let me try to illustrate this with a thought experiment. Imagine you were born in an isolate island without the benefit of clocks to keep track of time. Someone comes to you and describes how the world and all the heavens were created.

3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light yomlight, and the darkness He called night. And there was end of yomlight/end of a creation period and there was start of yomlight/beginning of a creation period, one long period of time/sunrise & sunset/that period of time.
Ge 1:3-5

For the sake of brevity, I hope you get where I am going with this. My guess is that for a non-modernist the understanding of “yom” may not be as clear and an “age” view is certainly valid.

I have some small sense of what it feels like to be an “outsider” relative to a group I admire, so I can imagine that to be labeled a “compromiser” by other believers might be a rather painful thing. Let me not contribute to that in my interactions with other believers who are convinced that the weight of the evidence points in a different direction from how I see it.

I am generally in agreement with Teleologist regarding the attitude that gaining a correct understanding of Scripture is not to be expected. At the same time, I would temper that with observation that Scripture encompasses lots of different writings, some of which appear to have a very clear and obvious meaning, while others do not. It’s quite possible that some passages I would place in the latter category simply aren’t ready to be understood. For instance, of the message in Daniel 11, the angel told Daniel, “the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end” (12:9). If, as I happen to believe, we haven’t quite arrived at the time of the end, then presumably the prophecy isn’t open to our understanding.

The Psalms are noted for their poetry and imagery. “We are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.” Well, both parts of this are true, but only the first part is literally true. Human beings don’t belong to the ovine family. While much of the truth in the Psalms may be expressed literally (”The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul…”), it would seem dubious to assume that one can extract a literal understanding of the world from the Psalms. It says “The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.” Is that literal or poetic? Is the point of the passage to explain physical properties of our world, or is it to illustrate something else? An examination of Psalm 93 answers all of this. Verse 3 says, “the seas have lifted up their voice.” Obviously, then, the point isn’t to convey a literal understanding of the physical world. Moreover, the passage is full of parallelism, which characterizes Hebrew poetry; and the message is an exaltation of the Lord’s enduring majesty. I think it would be a mistake to pick on a passage like this and conclude that it’s perilously easy to misconstrue the Scriptures.

I briefly looked at the August, 2006 RTB newsletter and appreciated certain of its observations–such as that Evolution, as commonly taught, is untrue. As for the claim that the early Church Fathers accepted indefinite periods of time for the days in Genesis 1, I don’t know. I’ve read claims both ways, and Salvador has posted a quote from Bill Dembski conceding that “young earth creationism was largely the position of the church from the Church Fathers through the Reformers.” I haven’t looked carefully into the matter myself. I have read that among the Church Fathers one finds the view that the days of creation represented 1,000 years each–but only in the sense that they, as days of ordinary length, served to illustrate a larger overall history of 7,000 years. Moreover, I have also read that, while a couple of notables (Augustine and Origen) didn’t accept the days as literal, the consensus on the age of the earth itself tallied with the apparent biblical record of thousands of years. It’s easy to believe this, since, if one didn’t know better–if one had no exposure to information that contradicted it–what else would one understand from the text, if one considered it to convey straightforward history?

My personal difficulty with an old-earth view seems to stem from various sources, and it’s not necessarily easy to explain it thoroughly. It would be inaccurate to think that I simply believe the Bible literally. It would even be inaccurate to think that I deny the possibility of human inconsistencies or misconceptions within the Bible, because I’m not prepared to deny that possibility. (One must somehow account for the NT apostles’ apparent belief that the Second Coming was imminent, even though we are still here, 2,000 years later.) Perhaps at another time I may attempt to get into this further; however, this post is probably already longer than I’d really like it to be.

–Rick

I was unable to move your comment, but you may cut and paste it to the correct thread. In time, I hope to figure out how to do such things. Thank you for you patience.

Salvador

Well, it looks like I’ve loaned out my copy, it’s “ex libris”. Still, I seem to recall that it was suggested in the book that Moses, rather than writing entirely by divine inspiration (and please note my hedge there), made use of either oral or written tradition in composing Genesis, and includes some discussion of the “Toledot Theory”.

I expect you are quite correct in your other points, and my inartful comments about J.P Moreland were ripe fruit for the picking. I expecially like your last comment and sadly it seems to be too little practiced: “It goes without saying that we must approach Scripture with humility and prayer.” I very much appreciate your input and criticisms.

Salvador has brought up an interesting historical angle with the Galilean controversy over the fixity of the earth. What does correct hermaneutics have to say about the relevant verses, did the idea of what was correct change, and if so, why? I don’t bring this up to be argumentative; I honestly think it is a fascinating case and expect it could be quite instructive, but know little about it.

The spam buffer did indeed trap your post. Please accept my apologies for the delay.

Salvdor

SCheesman responded on 04 Jun 2007 at 9:25 am #
Here is a view from a different perspective from a former YEC, now OEC. What if the book of Genesis was not written by Moses, but passed down for thousands of years and editted to its present form by Moses, who acted as editor as much as author. This is basically the view of Hugh Ross in the “The Genesis Question”.

I don’t think that is the view of Hugh Ross and it certainly is not the view of this OEC and any Biblically conservative OEC that I know. Please provide the specific quotes from the book to support this claim about Ross.

SCheesman responded on 04 Jun 2007 at 9:25 am #
I think the “where do we stop?” criticism of Moreland, in the end is a cop-out and no solution. We all draw the line at different places where we are comfortable. If it was really all cut-and-dried would the current divisions in the church (R.C./Protesant or all the different protestant forms) exist?

This is an invalid and inane argument. Just because there are disagreements in exegete, it doesn’t mean that a correct hermeneutic is impossible. The converse to your reasoning is that Scripture must be “cut-and-dried” because so many Christians agree on a particular interpretation. Furthermore, Biblical hermeneutics from the historical grammatical point of view is like any other literature including the comments in this blog. Are the comments in this blog so amorphous that it is impossible to determine the correct meaning of what is being communicated? Are all the comments in this blog open to subjective diverse indeterminate interpretation?

SCheesman responded on 04 Jun 2007 at 8:38 pm
Now, I am likely with you here, being Anglican, but perhaps you find consubstantiation nearly as objectionabe as transubstantiation.

The solution to these and any diametrically positions is not to open it for subjective interpretation but we ought to double our efforts to discern the correct meaning of the Text free from our own prejudices. Either you are right and I am wrong or vice versa or maybe we are both wrong, but we can’t both be right. It goes without saying that we must approach Scripture with humility and prayer.

Did my comment get stuck in the spam filter? I tried reposting without the links but it didn’t work.

SCheesman responded on 04 Jun 2007 at 9:25 am #
Here is a view from a different perspective from a former YEC, now OEC. What if the book of Genesis was not written by Moses, but passed down for thousands of years and editted to its present form by Moses, who acted as editor as much as author. This is basically the view of Hugh Ross in the “The Genesis Question”.

I don’t think that is the view of Hugh Ross and it certainly is not the view of this OEC and any Biblically conservative OEC that I know. Please provide the specific quotes from the book to support this claim about Ross.

SCheesman responded on 04 Jun 2007 at 9:25 am #
I think the “where do we stop?” criticism of Moreland, in the end is a cop-out and no solution. We all draw the line at different places where we are comfortable. If it was really all cut-and-dried would the current divisions in the church (R.C./Protesant or all the different protestant forms) exist?

This is an invalid and inane argument. Just because there are disagreements in exegete, it doesn’t mean that a correct hermeneutic is impossible. The converse to your reasoning is that Scripture must be “cut-and-dried” because so many Christians agree on a particular interpretation. Furthermore, Biblical hermeneutics from the historical grammatical point of view is like any other literature including the comments in this blog. Are the comments in this blog so amorphous that it is impossible to determine the correct meaning of what is being communicated? Are all the comments in this blog open to subjective diverse indeterminate interpretation?

SCheesman responded on 04 Jun 2007 at 8:38 pm
Now, I am likely with you here, being Anglican, but perhaps you find consubstantiation nearly as objectionabe as transubstantiation.

The solution to these and any diametrically positions is not to open it for subjective interpretation but we ought to double our efforts to discern the correct meaning of the Text free from our own prejudices. Either you are right and I am wrong or vice versa or maybe we are both wrong, but we can’t both be right. It goes without saying that we must approach Scripture with humility and prayer.

Hello SChessman,
In reviewing your posts I can understand your background to a certain degree as well as your reasoning in holding to OEC.

While I certainly believe in the vitality, sufficiency and overall reliability of Scripture for providing convincing evidence of God’s interest in us his creatures, I do also recognize the difficulties in obtaining clear focus on every detail. We are obliged to “rightly divide the word of truth” and that means much study and magnanimity.

As for myself, I am someone who grew up a naturalist-materialist. While at university I suffered a debilitating encounter with philosophical dissonance. My engineering courses revealed a magnificently ordered universe, but the materialism I’d absorbed told me all was fortuitous with no greater purpose than to live out ~70 years and then pass into eternal oblivion. I had a very hard time squaring the idea that I, an American from a tranquil region, was somehow preferred to enjoy an inexplicable existence with innumerable unsought advantages compared to untold fellow humans who’ve struggled and suffered in abject poverty or war, many of whom died in infancy or youth. There are so many unresolved felony crimes in this world, so much violence, so much agony, that as a considerate atheist I was left utterly depressed.

To shorten things, I contemplated the possibility of an eternal God, a Judge of humanity, who could provide some requite to innocent victims of violent criminals or war and some punishment for the willfully wicked, and more meaning to my life. I eventually decided there was enough evidence to warrant attempting personal communication, and so I did. God very compellingly made himself known to me by answer to my specific prayer, and by an awareness of what is called “presence,” something I’d never perceived before.

Even with all that, it was about another year before I was finally convinced to buy a Bible and read it. I’d held a materialist aversion to religion in general and the Book of Legends in particular. But, convinced it was God’s leading, buy a Bible I did. My worldview began to transform. I became a believer in Christ as Lord and Redeemer.

At this early stage of faith I received special attention of God via a silent rebuke. One morning I was sitting by the open window next to the front door in the living room of my apartment. I was reading the passage of the Last Supper where Christ tells the disciples that they will all deny Him and abandon Him. Peter protested his fidelity to Christ, but He told him that before the rooster crows twice he will deny Him thrice. By this time I’d read the NT many times and I knew the passage and the poignant outcome. In my misplaced enthusiasm I started to say in my heart, “Boy Lord, if I had been there…” (I wouldn’t have denied You). At that instant, before I could even finish articulating my thought, a friend of my roommate passed the window heading for the front door. I was shocked! Here I was about to be discovered holding a Bible, the book I’d for so long considered a book of myths, actually reading it. I slammed the Bible shut and shoved it behind a pillow on the sofa. I answered the door and in a few seconds my roommate left with his friend – and I realized exactly what had happened. At the very instant where I read the passage of Christ foretelling His denial by all His disciples, the very moment I prayed in my heart to Christ about my fidelity, God intervened and showed me that I too, in misplaced pride, possessed the very same inability to abide faithful, not only to Christ, but to the Bible. This incident alone will forever convince me that God is the Creator, Sustainer and Redeemer of the universe, that he knows our deepest thoughts, and that he orchestrates all according to His purpose.

The above happened nearly 30 years ago, and it is not the only special interaction God has had with me, unworthy though as I am. I have grown in my confidence that God’s glory and will is revealed in Scripture and that Christ, the very Word Incarnate, is worthy of very sober study.

I’ve since lived in Israel for 17 years and have gained fluency in Hebrew by day-to-day usage, and I consult commentaries of experts. Though I certainly agree that the Hebrew word “yom” is not restricted to 24 hours in every usage in OT Hebrew, still there are many places where it can only mean a 24 hour day. Personally, when I read Genesis I am simply unable to see long ages in the Hebrew. I’ve tried to see ages between verse 1 and 2, and in the six days, but cannot. Nor do I see a description of evolution. What I do see is an omnipotent Creator performing overwhelming creative miracles in an apparently short time-span.

Could Genesis 1 be allegory or poetry? I understand your idea and cannot utterly deny the possibility. But I do think, as Rick pointed out, that Exodus 20 is a very heavy weight against it. God himself told Israel to keep the Shabbat holy because in six days God performed his works of creation, and the seventh day he ceased. I should also say that I find it highly likely that Genesis is actually based on previous records, an idea I believe I first read from Henry Morris. But if Moses really did speak directly with Almighty God, face to face, for 40 years, then I have full confidence that his editing of Genesis is just as accurate, reliable and understandable to Israel as the other four books.

I will certainly admit that I put far more trust in Scripture than in the world of materialistic science that misled me so terribly about ultimate questions. Still when I see Hubble deep-space photos of countless clusters of amazing galaxies I am stricken by the vast enormity. It reminds me that God is eternal and infinite, and yet that “In Him, we live and move and have our being.” The infinitesimal is also such a reminder. During a lecture a physicist stated that the density of the Higgs Field is some Trillion tons per cc. We humans are placed in the midst of the enormous macro universe and the infinitesimally micro, though enormously dense quantum world, and all that suspended in Almighty God, the Creator, Sustainer and Redeemer.

Hey Rick, I saw at your site that you are interested in Daniel and Revelation. Send me an email if you like to: benkeshet (at) bezeqint.net

Best Regards

Thanks for your perspective.

There’s a planetarium at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry not too far from where I live in southern Washington; and I’ve seen some of their presentations. I’ve found myself wondering what the point of all of it us. Regardless of how long it’s been around, why would God have created all of that, just for our one small planet? Even to someone like me, with little background in such things, the universe is made to seem an incomprehensibly vast place; and the things that we can see that take place in it make us and our world seem insignificant by comparison.

Given a glimpse of what’s out there beyond earth, our solar system, galaxy, etc., it’s easy for me to begin to question whether we’ve not attached a rather absurd level of importance to ourselves. If I didn’t have a solid grounding in the Christian faith, I can see myself easily beginning to feel a need to “move beyond,” or outgrow, the biblical account–sort of like one grows up and stops believing in Santa Claus.

A reflection that I find helpful is the consideration that God may have had a purpose for such a vast universe, and our experience of it, that would have come to pass had we not fallen into sin. Who knows what capabilities we might have had, for travel, for intellectual understanding, etc.? That’s a story that hasn’t been told yet and is probably known only to God.

–Rick

My point about and your response concerning “This is my body…”, however, seems telling. Your interpretation, which you find so clear, is in opposition to that held by the majority of Christians for the majority of history since Christ. Now, I am likely with you here, being Anglican, but perhaps you find consubstantiation nearly as objectionabe as transubstantiation.

Instead of getting into an argument over interpretation, let me share how the OEC viewpoints has increased my faith, and inspired no little sense of awe in me of the greatness of God, by considering some aspects of the creation which seem to have little purpose or meaning in a young-earth paradigm, but which become crucial to our existance, and evidence of the providence and wisdom of God, in an old-earth paradigm:

1) Why the existance of a giant universe measured in billions of light-years? Why the millions of other galaxies? For what purpose are they grouped in clusters?

2) Why our galaxy? Our star exists in a giant collection of stars that has been shown to be dynamically stable for billions of years. Why should it be, if the full lifetime of creation (from creation to second coming) can be counted in thousands of years? Moreover, our position in it is special, and ensures we remain in a location that keeps us safe from radiation (too near the center), while not so far away that a young planet would be starved of heavy metals. Our orbital period around the galaxy is on the order of 100 million years, located in a relatively small part now known as the galactic habitable zone. What for if we only need to be safe for 10,000 years? There are lots of different types of galaxies, and we could certainly survive in virtually all of them for 10,000 years if we were located in the right place, but we could only survive in a large spiral galaxy such as our own for billions of years, or even have a sun and planet such as our own produced by processes found within it.

3) Why are there supernova? Is it just a coincidence that giant stars are element-making machines, or that such a process takes millions of years? Why should it take so long. What are stars exploding for now? It takes more than 10,000 years to create a new star from a cloud of gas.

4) Why is there nuclear phenomena at all? Lord Kelvin (I believe) showed that simple gravitational collapse was sufficient to power the sun far longer than 100,000 years. What is the point of life-cycles of stars ranging into the billions of years, if they were never intended to last more than 10,000? Our own bodies are marvels of design, yet there is no one part (beyond the calcium of our bones) that outlasts its intended span by a factor of a thousand or more. We are travelling in a vehicle which seems to have a life-expectancy far beyond anything necessary for a young earth.

The simple answer is, that for a young-earth paradigm, none of the above is necessary at all. We could survive quite happily for 10,000 years with just our solar system if it were just created “as is”. There could be stars in any sort of random pattern for night lights. We could get along on this world quite nicely with no radioactivity, or nuclear fission or fusion and only atomic chemistry. It might even be safer.

But we find ourselves in a rather dangerous universe where a big-bang can start things up, but which is unable to produce heavier elements than hydrogen and helium, yet supernova are there to fill the gap. But it takes millions/billions of years for them to make a big difference. Moreover because these stars are in huge gravitational collections called galaxies, the products of their demise can accumulate over billions of years to form the seeds of a planet such as ours. The heat of radioactivity provides the energy to power convection in the earth, resulting in plate tectonics and geological activity.

A miraculous collision with a minor planet not only modifies the composition of the earth to its present state from what would naturally form from space dust, but provides a stabilizing companion, continuing ocean tides forces and explains the angular momentum imbalance, as well as its evolution over time.

All the above both makes sense and is critically essential in an old universe. It is all a giant coincidence, or redundant, or irrelevant, or just wondrous phenomena to a young earth.

When I want to put myself into a sense of humility and awe of God, I consider that 15 billion years ago, before time began, He knew all the physics and chemistry and biology necessary to create a being that could be in communion with Him, and set about to make it happen, and every part of that universe — all the galaxies, globular clusters, novae and supernovae, dark matter, whatever, were essential parts in the Great Plan to make a world safe for us to live and thrive. And God still saw it and thought it was good.

And when it came time to share the story of the creation with His people, God did not leave a textbook of nuclear physics, but captured, in a cogent, meaningful way, the pace and drama of the creation story. A story that revealed the Glory and wonder of God, but hid the details in poetry, awaiting the time when the tools for exploration and learning God left for us to discover could be used to discern the details behind it.

With this in mind, we have examples even from the scriptures that godly men may not understand God’s word fully, but see through a glass darkly.

With the fact we see through a glass darkly, I’m reluctant to say a matter is absolutely clear. God sees the matter clearly, and from my experience, I certainly have not. I’m deeply aware of my fallibility in understanding, and I gladly communicate that…..

With respect to God’s word being the rule for our life and understanding of reality, I have to offer some cautions as to what that means. I believe that nature was given for we humans so that we could understand God and His word, not the other way around. For example, it is awfully hard to read the scriptures and conclude what the basic laws of physics or mathematics are.

I, like Hodge, think nature is there to teach us God’s word and to understand it better. A good example?

Consider that Martin Luther berated Copernicus because Luther insisted the Word of God said,

“This fool [Copernicus] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.”

Martin Luther

And here is an observation by Bill Dembski:

Let me concede that young earth creationism was largely the position of the church from the Church Fathers through the Reformers (though there were exceptions, such as Origen and Augustine). Yet, during that time, church teaching also held that the earth was stationary. Psalm 93 states that the earth is established forever and cannot be moved. A literal interpretation of Psalm 93 seems to require geocentrism. And yet everyone at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) accepts the Copernican Revolution.

William Dembski

I point this out, that even though I’m a YEC (85% any way), I urge a little charity in dealing with each other. The Old Testament makes clear that even the Lord distinguishes between a mistake and a willful sin. One position will at least be wrong between the OECs and YECs.

I maintain, that to understand scripture, even with our fallible minds, we do well to understand nature. Nature has things to teach (even about scripture) which the scriptures are silent on. I believe God designed it that way. As the Lord said, “if these be silent, the stones will cry out.” That is my view of nature.

Your comments were just released. Please accept my apologies.

Salvador

I just read your comment. I will remark that, even while I disagree with your position, I wish to be cautious in doing so: perhaps you have good scriptural reasons that I have yet to appreciate. Nevertheless, here are my reflections, based on what you wrote.

You suggest that Genesis as an ancient document that Moses received from another source. However, as already observed the six-day creation account is affirmed by God to Moses directly, and in the hearing of the thousands of Israelites, in Exodus 20.

Second, the chronologies of Genesis 5 and 11 are constructed in a way that does not appear to admit of deliberate gaps; and later Bible writers accept these chronologies, thereby implicitly endorsing them. For instance, Jude speaks of Enoch as the seventh from Adam. The chronologies appear to put a limit on how far back in time one can go to get to the creation account.

I once dialogued with a guy who was very much impressed with Hugh Ross’s position, and he maintained that there definitely WERE gaps, as illustrated by Luke’s inclusion of Cainan, who is missing from Genesis 11. I’m aware of this difference but haven’t studied to learn how it might be accounted for. I guess the idea here is that, if there could be one “gap,” why couldn’t there be many? I would only respond that–again, the structure of the chronologies is such that the author evidently intended these records to reflect a direct father-to-son lineage, so that if there are people missing from the list, the omissions not deliberate.

So, let’s suppose that there were gaps. How many gaps would be needed to accommodate the thousands, or perhaps tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years supposed to have passed from Adam to Noah and then to Abraham? These men–the ones listed in Genesis 5, at least–lived hundreds of years; however, most were comparatively young when they fathered their first son. Many hadn’t yet reached 100, and none had reached 200. Most of the men in Genesis 11 were in their 30’s. If one wanted to add, say, 10,000 years between Adam and Noah, it would suggest that perhaps 50-100 names were missing from the list. Given that the lineage from Adam to Noah comprises 10 patriarchs, and that the lineage is constructed to suggest direct descent, the omission of so many names would reflect appallingly shoddy record-keeping; and, of course, suggesting such extensive gaps in Genesis 11 (which actually contains the one “chink in the armor”) compounds this problem. What would we think of an ordinary historian–regardless of inspiration–who couldn’t do any better than this? Moreover, if the Genesis records had really deteriorated so badly by the time of Moses, why should they have been deemed trustworthy at that time, or at subsequent times? Others may find gaps in Genesis 5 and 11 plausible; I do not.

You suggest that the the “where do we stop” criticism of Moreland is a cop-out. Perhaps it is: it does, after all, suggest a “throw the baby out with the bathwater,” black-and-white mentality. At the same time, expanding the days of Genesis 1 to vast, indeterminate spans of time does raise some questions, some of which I noted earlier.

I believe I’ve heard the suggestion that Jesus’s citing of Old Testament accounts need not force us to conclude that he understood them to convey actual history, rather than, perhaps, allegory. I’m dubious of this, of course. If the original creation account, to which Jesus alludes, is allegorical, where is the actual, historical account? Are we to understand that the Bible, contrary to appearance, does not, in fact, contain the true history but speaks of creation only in an allegorical sense?

Moreover, in Matthew 23:35, Jesus declares that the present generation will be held responsible for all the righteous blood shed on the earth–from Abel to Zechariah. Is Jesus making his generation responsible for the blood of a person whose biblical account is allegorical rather than literal history?

Jesus did tell his disciples that “This is my body, which is given for you.” He elsewhere told people that they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood (e.g., John 6)–and he lost a lot of followers that day because of the difficulty of what he had said. Yet it wasn’t long before those who stuck around received answers. We know he wasn’t talking about his physical body (which, in any event, hasn’t been available for even hypothetical consumption for close to 2,000 years) but that his followers are to assimilate him spiritually and that this is symbolized by the taking of communion.

“the exact, technical details of how the world came to be paled in consideration to telling the world of God’s love and justice.” May I gently suggest that this is as much a cop-out as the “where do we stop?” criticism? The Bible doesn’t purport to give us the technical details of Creation; however, it does give the appearance that the account is factual history as far as it goes. Moreover, nowhere does it suggest that, while the Genesis account is merely a beautiful allegory, “here’s what really happened.” It’s not important to know all the details, but it is important to know we can trust the details we are given.

Rick

http://www.christianresources.info/clues_to_creation_in_genesis.htm

Someone has OCR’d scans of Creation Revealed here:

http://www.christianresources.info/clues_to_creation_in_genesis.htm

Basically, Wiseman’s point in this book are that the six days were days of _revelation_ about Creation, not days of creation themselves. This is why there was rest on the 7th — because man, not God, needed the rest.

Anyway, I don’t follow this myself, but it is a much better OEC perspective than what I’ve seen before.

I haven’t read this all, but it seems relevant to the discussion:

http://www.grisda.org/origins/21005.htm

I appreciate many of the coments above, especially those expressing humility in our understanding and interpretation of scripture. Without wishing to start a different thread, I think no one will disagree that there remains active disagreement about seemingly simple statements written much more recently, in languages we would expect to understand even better, such as “This is my body which is given for you.”

Of course, our perspective colours our interpretation and vice-versa. As an OEC, I am much more open to the Hugh Ross interpretation of scripture because the possibility of Genesis being a much more ancient work exists, while a YEC interpretation naturally restricts the telling of Genesis to be more likely Moses’ own, and originally written in Hebrew.

I think the “where do we stop?” criticism of Moreland, in the end is a cop-out and no solution. We all draw the line at different places where we are comfortable. If it was really all cut-and-dried would the current divisions in the church (R.C./Protesant or all the different protestant forms) exist?

I think it is the height of presumption to pontificate on whether Jesus was YEC or OEC, simply because he chose to quote one scripture or another. Whether the scriptures Jesus quoted were allegorical or historical, the arguments Jesus made would have carried the same force, because his listeners saw all scripture as carrying the authority of God.

I suspect Jesus knew the truth, and He knew what his listeners needed to hear to lead them to salvation, and that the exact, technical details of how the world came to be paled in consideration to telling the world of God’s love and justice.

Just thinking out loud: I’m curious how those with OEC or TE views see other Biblical events, like the great flood and Noah’s ark, the tower of Babel, Jonah’s 3 days in the belly of a great fish, the 10 plagues of Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea, manna from heaven, the walls of Jericho, Elijah on Mt. Carmel, Daniel and the lions den, the handwriting on the wall, etc.

Is it just Genesis 1 that causes problems, or do these other events require allegorical interpretations as well?

I’m not trying to pick a fight, I’m genuinely curious how those with differing world views interpret these other miraculous events.

Thanks for that quote from Moreland. Given his apparent premises, I find his position entirely reasonable. Moreover, it’s evident that he regards the Scriptures with respect and that he’s merely taking a commonsense approach to what for many is the difficulty of harmonizing the Bible with the position of modern science on the age of the earth and universe. I understand him not to be compromising but to be open to an approach that–to the best of his knowledge–is faithful to Scripture while not turning a blind eye to science.

Since I’m not actually acquainted with what Archer and Kaiser have to say regarding the creation days, and how they defend their position, I’m left with the understanding that these two highly regarded exegetes have endorsed the days in Genesis 1 as vast, unspecified periods of time; but it’s not clear that they have made a case for this based strictly on the language. After all, other Hebrew scholars have not been so embracing of such flexibility. Moreover, as Apollos has already pointed out, this understanding of “day” doesn’t appear to have emerged until comparatively recently.

Also, I imagine it’s evident to most of us that the issue is not so simple as the scope of meaning that’s permissible for “yowm” in the context of Genesis 1. If we accept the conventional age of the earth and update our exegesis to recognize the days in Genesis as capable of meaning unspecified periods of time, what else comes with this package? How long ago did the first life appear? Were disease and death, as reflected in the fossil record, part of God’s original creation, which he pronounced “very good”?

This is an issue that seems to me major in some ways but minor in others. I consider it major, in that if the earth is far older than the Bible appears to indicate, it raises questions of whether we can understand and trust the text to teach us “true truth.” On the other hand, it seems minor, because such an issue doesn’t need to affect our ability as brothers and sisters in Christ to pray for one another and build each other up.

–Rick

Like many of you I left naturalism for Theism and Theistic evolution, but I continued to investigate and now am in the YEC camp.

I would select Sal’s first choice:

1. accept that the words of Genesis came from God, and should be interpreted to mean the Cosmos is young (several thousand years old)

Regarding the OEC-YEC debate, the testimony of Christ in relation to the creation “Singularity” is a significant determinant in my YEC view.

A major problem for positing an age preceding the current age, or a day-age interpretation of Genesis 1, comes from Mark 10:3-9. Christ based his demands for abiding marital commitment on the fact that “from the beginning of Creation, male and female He made them,” quoting Genesis 1:27.

To me, and I suspect to most YEC folk, that “beginning of Creation” leaves no room for 4.5 billion years prior to the creation of humans, much less 15 billion years since creation. Christ apparently advocates a YEC view in Mark 10.

An OEC proponent might argue that if Gen 1 refers to only the current age (assuming there were prior ages) then Mark 10:3-9 could not be evidence that there isn’t a prior age.

However Scripture nevertheless does posit a unique creative “Singularity.”

Both OEC and YEC communities agree that at one point the Eternal God brought forth the universe from an initial state devoid of previous creative ages, an initial state in which there had never been a preceding universe. That Hebrew idea opposed all other schemes of an eternal or cyclical Cosmos.

As far as I know both OEC and YEC folk see the first verse of Genesis as the description of that exclusive Singularity. The wording of Genesis 1:1 strongly implies this exclusive Singularity, distinguished as such by the Hebrew “bara” to depict unique creative activity beyond the fashioning or refashioning of existing substance.

There’s no explicit mention of an age between verse 1 and 2 of Gen. 1. Nor does a straightforward reading of subsequent creation days lead obviously to the idea of day-ages (materialists deride Genesis as a description of evolution). Both age-gap and day-age ideas appear to be read into the text, not derived from it (eisegesis instead of exegesis). This is especially telling in Gen. 2:1-3 which sums up the six creation days in relation to the seventh. The Hebrew “bara” again found in verse 3 re-emphasizes creative activity from the exclusive Singularity. All six days are related to the seventh, to become the Hebrew Shabbat, the weekly day of rest.

Christ’s view of Genesis was allied to first century Pharisaical culture, not that of the Hellenistic leaning Sadducees. Josephus, a self-described Pharisee, does not suggest long ages or epochs prior to or within Genesis 1 in his “Antiquities” but explicitly promotes recent creation.

The Rabbi from Nazareth had no incentive to presume creative ages prior to Genesis 1:1, nor an age between verse 1 and 2, nor six day-ages. There was no community of distinguished Hebrew biologists promoting Neo-Darwinian evolution, so there was no incentive to impose age-gaps or day-ages. Nor can Christians hastily argue that Christ was ignorant of Scripture or the facts of Creation.

It is thus much more natural to take Christ’s remark in Mark 10, “From the beginning of the Creation, male and female He made them” as referring to the exclusive creative Singularity. There is thus no Scriptural support for 4.5 billion years of prior earth history. Christ, de facto, advocated a YEC view.

Reservations about the sufficiency and reliability of Scripture on one issue, Creation, no doubt impinge on all other doctrines of Scripture.

In the empirical world, while there may be questions about the age of the universe, from what I’ve seen the questions cut both ways favoring neither long ages nor recent creation.

So, as Scripture posits, much of life is based on faith, not direct physical proof. I’ll stick with what I see as a YEC view

Best Regards

Since Sal quoted Moreland, let me quote from the same article which also expresses my view on this.

Now, when it comes to the days of Genesis…I’m of the view on this that while we ought not allow science to dictate to us our exegesis of the Old Testament, nevertheless, if there is an interpretation of the Old Testament that is exegetically permissible– that is, and old age interpretation; that is to say, if you can find conservative, inerrantist, evangelical Old Testament scholars that say that the interpretation of this text that treats the days of Genesis as unspecified periods of time, and that is a completely permissible thing to do on exegetical grounds alone, then my view is that that is a permissible option if it harmonizes the text with science because that option can be justified exegetically, independent of science.

Now…I’m not a Hebrew exegete. But I will tell you that two of the best-known exegetes of the Old Testament in the American evangelical community are Gleason Archer at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Walter Kaiser at Gordon Conwell. Walter Kaiser and Gleason Archer are respected in the entire United States as being faithful expositors of the Old Testament. Both of them know eight to ten Old Testament languages, and they both have spent their entire lives in Hebrew exegesis. Both of them believe the days of Genesis are…vast, unspecified periods of time, and are in no way required to be literal twenty-four hour days.

Now…my view, then, is this: if all of the Old Testament scholars at our seminaries that I trust, that love the Bible and that I respect their credibility were saying that it’s required of us to believe these days are twenty-four hour days, I’d have a problem. But if there is enough of these men that I trust–I’m not talking about people that are trying to give up real estate here and are just bellying up; I’m talking about men that the community recognizes to be trustworthy authorities of that Hebrew exegesis are saying that this is an option–then I’m going to say in that case it’s permissible. So that would be my basic response.

I personally have no problem with YEC at least YEC like Sal. The overwhelming majority of my brothers and sisters at my church are YEC. If I am wrong it does not compromise my commitment to Scripture or our faith in God. But I will not buy Sal any root beer in Heaven because I don’t think we use money up there.

With Biblical exegete aside, scientific evidence my secondary focus. I think the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of OE but with anomalies that may be applicable to YE. The problem I have with YE evidences is that it cannot be uniformly applied to current and majority of scientific research.

The argument is that if you take the days of Genesis as not being six days and take them as maybe longer periods of time, then where do you draw the line…why wouldn’t the same reasoning imply that we’ll eventually have to reinterpret the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus. Let me give you a counter-example. I doubt, sir, that you or anybody else in the room takes the biblical passages that say that ‘Jesus will call his angels from the four corners of the earth’ to teach a flat Earth. I also doubt that anyone in here says that when the sun rises and sets it literally means an earth-centered universe. But you must understand that…there were times when the church interpreted the text that taught that God–Christ will call his angels from the four corners of the world to teach very obviously that the world has four corners. The text says that. There is absolutely no evidence in that text that it means anything other than four corners. You can read it until you’re blue in the face, and it says that the Earth has four corners. Similarly, the Bible says the sun rises and sets. Now, that’s what it says. You can dance around it all you want. That’s what the text says. But there’s nobody in here that believes that. No one in here believes the earth has four corners. And so, what we’ve done is taken that language and interpreted it metaphorically. Similarly, with the rising and the setting of the sun, we treat that…phenomenologically–we say that’s the language of description; it is not meant to be taken literally.

I apologize for not responding sooner. Regarding your hypothesis that God could have built the stars nearby and then stretched out the heavens, from a standpoint of physics, this would still require a variable speed of light because the heavens are so large, to stretch them to the length they are now would mean He moved things faster than today’s speed of light (and the speed of light is a speed limit).

Setterfield has suggested there is evidence the heavens were stretched out before the appearnce of stars.

God is not constrained by the laws of phyiscs. However, I believe He delights to make the universe ordered by laws so that we may discover His works. The way physical laws are written make it possible to investigate the universe. I am of the strong opinion that nature is built such that it will testify of God, but though nature points to God, it will not be immediately obvious:

“It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of Kings to search out a matter.”

Proverbs 25:2

God has hidden mysteries out there for us to discover, but he has also provided a means for us to discover them if we search for them with Him in mind, and with all our heart and mind.

“…you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.”

Jeremiah 29:13

The bulk of the book is about Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo. Of these Kepler seems to have been the most Christ-like. Despite his many failings it is obvious that he loved God, had an open, generous spirit and even learned to show love towards his unlovely first wife. He wrote that she, “was of an angry nature,” but he, “learnt to have patience with her”. He wrote, “When I saw that she took my words to heart, I would rather have bitten my own finger than to give her further offence…” As a wife myself such words move me because they make it plain that she wasn’t just a chattel to him. She was his wife.

The really interesting thing to me is that, of the three, Kepler achieved the most, and that almost in spite of himself. He found his solutions by accident, if you believe in accidents. For me it looks as though God was looking after him. He wasn’t protected from making mistakes. He made mistakes that cancelled out earlier mistakes and so his work was fruitful and he is remembered for it. The other two are remembered chiefly for things they didn’t do and things they didn’t say. They are more grist for the anti-Christian propagandists’ mill.

The point of all this is to say that I do believe study of the physical evidence will help resolve the problem of whether the cosmos is old or young (I believe it is young) but I don’t believe that those who don’t love God with all their heart, mind, soul and strength will be of much service in that task. Both Copernicus and Galileo were more concerned with their reputations than they were with truth. Copernicus tried to save his reputation by keeping quiet until his life was almost over. Galileo tried to save his by being a sarcastic, dishonest bully.

My experience of life is that most of us (including myself – though I hope this is less of a fault than it used to be) don’t love God enough to be unafraid of what others might say about us if we disagree with them openly. We are children of our times just as much as Copernicus and Galileo were. They were in thrall to the Aristotelian idea of the perfection of circles and spheres. But knowing how that thralldom diminished them, as people and not just as scientists, maybe we can be motivated to cast off the ideas and desires that could keep us in thrall to the principalities and powers of this world. Let us, first and foremost, love God. And then we will eventually learn the truth, either here or in the hereafter. I don’t care much which it is.

P.S. Is there anyone out there who can answer my questions?

I’m actually quite charming in person, if I do say so myself.

I’m not aware of having interacted with you before, so Welcome.

As you will gather from my earlier post, I hold to a pretty strong position on this subject. Nothing wrong with that, but if I adopt a tone that comes across as demeaning or condescending (because I’m definitely capable of it), chalk it up to my human imperfection and know that I don’t desire to give offense.

I’m here because I’m attracted to the opportunity to interact with people who to a large extent believe as I do. I tend to shy away from places where I tend to feel marginalized, largely because I often don’t think I know enough to hold my own. What strength I have is not in science but more in Scripture. I suppose that’s nothing to be ashamed of, but I do happen to be the sort of person who, without a religious background, would probably give lots more credence to science than to some ancient book.

Anyway, I trust you’ll feel welcome here.

–Rick

We also have an ingrained conception of the English word day which is a translation of an ancient Hebrew word passed down from an oral tradition.

Hello teleologist,

I’m not convinced that we need to speculate on what the Hebrews could have possibly meant by “day.” We have language translations and commentaries throughout the centuries. Our understanding of the Hebrew text is not strictly limited to our understanding of ancient Hebrew.

In addition to the Masoretic text, finalized around the 10th century A.D., we have the Septuagint, a Hebrew to Greek translation completed in Alexandria in the 3rd century B.C., primarily in use during and following the time of Christ (most NT quotes of the OT are Septuagint renders). What knowledge of ancient Hebrew is lacking is more than made up for in with Greek, Aramaic, Latin, etc.

We also have Origen’s Hexapla, a Greek-Hebrew recension (3rd century AD), the Latin Vulgate (5th century AD), the Aramaic Targums (5th century).

In addition there are commentaries: Josephus (1st century AD), the Mishnah (2nd century AD), Gemara (2nd century and 5th AD), and numerous other patristics and commentators having multilingual capabilities and a real-time connection to the spoken languages of the day.

The idea that Genesis “days” are ages, and not literal days, is borne of a modern need to reconcile Scripture to scientific observations suggesting a billions-year cosmos; it’s not present in the early Church, nor early Judaism (to the best of my knowledge).

The language of Genesis to me is explicit — first day, second day; morning and evening = first day, etc.

If the earth is indeed old, I’d be more inclined to believe that the long ages post-dated the creation week, since we don’t have an explicit 6,000 year reference, only genealogical inferences. Since there are gaps in Matthew’s genealogy, I suppose there could be gaps in Luke’s as well, although I’m disinclined to believe it.

You are one of my dear friends.

Though I think YEC is the natural reading of the scriptures, how many times have I been mistaken about what I thought the scriptures said?

I think there is room for an Old Universe interpretation, but not much room. Of course, God is the final judge of what is the correct interpretation. The fact we have discussions like this is evidence of the fact we humans know so little…..it would be nice is the meaning of Genesis were as obvious as gravity. Even YECs cannot agree on the meaning of some words, like “firmament”!

If I had to pick an Old Earth interpretation it would be:

1. Gap theory, recreation
2. Throne room interpretation (a thousand years is as a day to God)
3. Multiple clocks

As of today, I would officially say I’m 85% YEC. I would be 100% YEC save for the fact I do not want to rush to judgement, and I believe people like yourself still have good evidential arguments.

Hey, you can buy me a root beer in heaven if the YECs are right.

Salvador

4. I accept that the words of Genesis came from God and take Genesis literally. The “days” of Genesis are literal days i.e., six long periods.

One important hermeneutic principle is to put it in historic and grammatical context. We must not understand the Scripture through our modern vernacular. I’ve heard groups like ICR and AiG used sophistry like “ask anybody what is the natural understanding of days?”. This is ridiculous because our modern society runs on a clock driven culture. We also have an ingrained conception of the English word day which is a translation of an ancient Hebrew word passed down from an oral tradition.

I am not an ancient Near East language expert, therefore I will defer to experts like Walter Kaiser and Gleason Archer for the best interpretation of these words. Let’s not delude ourselves, the Bible that we read and event he language that we study in seminaries are the results passed on to us by these experts.

I too take the Genesis account literally, that is, God’s creative efforts lasted six, twenty-four hour days, and I also don’t give much credence to gap theory.

Personally I think that the Earth’s appearance of age may be at least partially related to the fact that it preexisted time. General relativity, as I understand it, revealed that the passage of time is inextricably related to the speed of light. What are we to think of an earth that preexisted light itself? I tend to associate the creation of light in Genesis 1:3 with the creation of time. Note that we don’t see a separation of light from darkness until the next verse; and we don’t see the first day until verse 5.

My reading of these verses suggests to me that this separation of light from darkness took place during the course of the first day, during which the Earth descended from timelessness to a time-bound existence. I can’t imagine what effect this would have had on matter, and what reference frame would be demanded during this “deceleration.”

Certainly it can be considered possible for the creation of light to precede the creation of the sun, which could be thought a lamp, simply a source or generator (converter) of light. The apostle John’s claim is that God is light (1 John 1:5). I don’t think we need to consider the first source of light to be the sun, as even in secular cosmological models, it wasn’t the first source. (The origin of light itself being an utter mystery, to the best of my limited knowledge.)

Of course this could all be hogwash. I’m neither a scientist nor a mathematician.

Over the years I’ve learned to trust the scriptures, but not necessarily my understanding of them. We should take a similar stance toward science. We can trust the facts, but only tentatively trust our interpretation of them. For that reason I hold to the belief that our understanding of science is subject to our reconciliation of all the facts — many of which I’m certain — are not in yet. I fully expect a vindication of six day creation, and mostly expect a vindication of a 6,000 year old (or so) earth.

Science is important, but all of nature must come second to the Word, at least for believers (others are a different issue.)

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away (Matthew 24:35).

This gives the Bible an eternal and unyielding quality, IMHO.

Being a Biblical literalist I take the whole Bible literally, beginning, end, and tween. It seems to me to do otherwise compromises our ability to reconcile and accept the many extraordinary claims of Scripture.

</babbling>

It’s obvious to me that the authors of the NT thought they should interpret Genesis as 6 literal days. You’d think they’d know, since it was written in their language. Okay, they could have been wrong to interpret it that way… so I won’t claim that as PROOF. But it seems reasonable to me to defer to their interpretation. They were closer to that language than we are.

I also agree that there may very well be a reasonable way to account for literal days prior to the existence of the sun… in fact, I rather assume that there is. That’s why I continue to believe the Genesis account.

It’s becoming obvious to me that Christians who agreed to accommodate Darwinism in an attempt to preserve the Bible’s credibility in the face of what they surely thought was overwhelming evidence for evolution are going to have to eat some major crow very soon, if not already. Darwinism is collapsing under the weight of scientific discoveries which challenge it. (I know, that fight’s not quite over yet)

It’s my sense that the same pattern could repeat itself with respect to age of the Earth/universe and that we might learn something from what’s happened with evolution. So my inclination is not to take the bait. Stick to the Bible and, it appears, science will eventually align with the Biblical account just as the science behind Intelligent Design is reinforcing the Genesis account. (even if not with respect to age) If we bail on the Bible on this issue, we’ll be the ones eating crow when further research does reveal a young Earth.

The vaccilation makes Christians look confused and desperate, and there’s no reason why we should fall for that.

Having said all that, I’m all for pursuing the science and following the evidence wherever it leads and building a case based on THAT and not on a Biblical interpretation. But I do think that will ultimately support the Biblical account.

TRoutMac

If a sacred book informed us that, as a matter of course, a rock would float toward the sky when released from one’s hand, would one suggest that it was speaking figuratively, or would it simply be recognized that the book was obviously not right about this? Myself, I would conclude the latter–and I think any rational person would do likewise, absent a strong vested interest in protecting the book from being falsified.

Of course, this assumes that the context makes the clear the intended meaning–which is generally the case. In Psalm 19, we have the statement that “day after day they [the heavens] pour forth speech.” Since the poetic nature of the text is retained through the parallelism in the passage, anyone can see this is a figure of speech and that the Bible is not incorrect because we can’t stand outside and receive an audible message from the heavens.

A reason why I don’t subscribe to a gap theory is that in Exodus 20:11, God claims to have created the whole shebang in the course of six days–”the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them.” This means that if it wasn’t created within those six days, it doesn’t pertain to our world. Genesis 1 begins, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Now, the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving on the face of the waters. If God really did give us an accurate statement in Exodus 20:11, how could the “heavens and the earth” mentioned at the beginning of Genesis 1 be excluded–relegated to some time in the distant past?

As for the “days” being long periods of time… Genesis 1 uses the phrase “there was evening, and there was morning…” numerous times. Although it’s usually argued that “day” is flexible in meaning (and in an abstract sense it is, though context usually makes the meaning clear–as in English), are the words “evening” and “morning” ever used to mean something other than the end or beginning of an ordinary day?

TRoutMac, I guess I don’t really see a problem with defining a day in the absence of the sun. Genesis 1 introduces the term “day” not in terms of earth’s rotation around the sun but in terms of evening and morning; and it does this after God created light. The text doesn’t tell us what the source of that light was; however, it does make it clear that light preceded the celestial bodies we know of today. In Revelation 21/22 there are indications of light being provided by God for the New Jerusalem, apart from the natural sources we’re familiar with today.

I guess I’m a lot less trusting than many of what’s deemed to be the physical evidence. One reason is that evidence for a young earth would deprive anyone of the ability even to pretend that Darwinism was viable, so I don’t imagine that such evidence would be readily presented through most channels. It is the “creationist scientists” who would be doing the research and presenting such evidence–and it’s easy to write off these guys as “religiously motivated.” But if one were looking for evidence of a young earth, and not in a position to do original research oneself, where would one expect to find such evidence?

I don’t deny that there are challenges to the young universe model; however, the existence of even apparently formidable challenges certainly doesn’t stop science from trying to find solutions–provided the paradigm is acceptable. There are folks still claiming that a naturalistic origin of life is possible and that progress is being made in finding answers, for heaven’s sake! If the same determination were channeled into such problems as the young universe model entails, I rather suspect that its “challenges” would be regarded as of far less concern.

Incidentally, if I express myself strongly on this issue, it’s because this is something I feel strongly about. If in the process I come across in any way immoderate or offensive, that’s not my intent.

Rick

Knowledge of the age of the Earth or universe may not be up for discovery yet… at least not knowledge we can be CERTAIN of. I think knowledge about the of origin of life, however, IS. That is, it appears we’re in a period of history that will include a major paradigm shift in science in that particular area. Age of the Earth might come later, maybe even much later.

As for Biblical interpretation, I look forward to that discussion. I realize there are some honest problems (that may or may not have answers) with the 6-day Biblical account, even though I’m inclined to BELIEVE the Biblical account.

For example, how do you DEFINE a day in the absence of the sun, seeing that apparently the sun didn’t come about until the 4th day? And what the source of the light that God created on day 1 if light-bearers weren’t created until day 4?

And for those who like the idea of each day being millions of years, if sunlight didn’t come along until day 4, then how did the plants and trees that were created on day 3 survive in the absence of sunlight for millions of years? Or was the light created on day 1 sufficient to support plant life?

These are tough questions… I’m inclined to think that humans don’t have all the information we need to find the answer to them, but that at some point we will. We just have to keep looking. (I say “we” as though I’m one that’s looking… I may be curious, but I’m not a scientist.”

TRoutMac