How Old Is The Earth?

[Bowman]

I know. You hold it so you don't have to be afraid of man's condemnation for believing what is considered foolishness to the worldly wise. You have tried to find a way to have your cake and eat it too.

I hold to the OEC position because it satisfies God's two Revelations to mankind.

Period.

 

[oldhermit]

ידוַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי מְאֹרֹתבִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם, לְהַבְדִּיל, בֵּין הַיּוֹם וּבֵין הַלָּיְלָה; וְהָיוּלְאֹתֹת וּלְמוֹעֲדִים, וּלְיָמִים וְשָׁנִים.
1.14 Vayomer Elohim yehi meorot birekia hashamayim lehavdil bein hayom uvein halailah vehayu leotot ulemoadim uleyamim veshanim.
And said God, Let be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to divide between the day and the night and let them be for signs, and for seasons and for days and years;


The Fourth Day has caused tremendous confusion among many Biblical readers.


This was the “day” that the sun, the moon, and the stars were believed to have been created. Yet simple reasoning provides us with an argument against such an interpretation.


The very first verse of the Bible tells us that the universe was created, and that light from the sun appeared on our world during the First Day.




“Let be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to divide…”: In the Hebrew, the verb hayah is introduced, and it is appropriate therefore to consider why.

Its introduction here seems to require that we understand this passage to mean something more than merely the placing of the sun and the moon and the stars in the sky. The use of the term "heavens" in Genesis 1:1 seems to indicate that the sun and moon and stars were created in the beginning and therefore were already in existence. Verse 14 clearly assumes their existence but now declares what the purpose of that existence is to be. Their purpose is to divide day from night, and to be for signs and for the regulation of the seasons.


Since the creation of the universe would certainly include the creation of the stars and galaxies, and the sun was shining light upon the Earth on the First Day, we have our first clues that these celestial bodies were not created on the Fourth Day.


Note that the text does not say that these luminaries were “created” on the fourth day. In Genesis 1:14, the Hebrew verb is Haya (be or exist) not Bara (create). In other words, “Let the lights in the sky be seen.” From the perspective from an observer on the earth’s surface, the existence of the luminaries could not be known until God transformed earth’s atmosphere from translucent to transparent. Verse 16, a parenthetical note, does use the verb ASA, but the form of the verb employed indicates only that God completed manufacturing the luminaries on or before the fourth “Day”.


The Hebrew verb ASA, translated “made” or “brought forth”, appears in the appropriate form for COMPLETED ACTION. (There are no verb tenses in the Hebrew language to parallel verb tenses in English, but THREE Hebrew verb forms are used to denote action already completed, action not yet completed, and commands.) Verse 16 does not specify when in the past the sun, moon, and stars were made. However, the wording of verses 17 & 18 provide a hint.


Notice the echo of wording from “day” One (Gen 3-5). These verses tell us WHY God created the Sun, Moon, and Stars and suggests that the sun was in place to fulfill its role on the first creation day:


Then said God, Let be light and was light. And saw God the light that good (it was) and separated God between the light and the darkness. And called God the light Day. And the darkness He called Night; and was the mixing and was the breaking forth time one. (Gen 1:3-5)


The compound Hebrew noun, shamayim wa’eres (heavens and Earth) in Genesis 1:1, places the making of the Sun and the stars BEFORE the first creation “day”:


In the beginning created God the heavens and the earth; and the earth was without form and empty, and darkness on the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was brooding on the face of the waters. (Gen 1:1-2)




Hebrew does not have a specific way of communicating a pluperfect tense. The definition of a pluperfect is that which denotes that an action or event was completed before a given time. This is where context is critical.

“Let be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to divide”: In the original Hebrew, the verb hayah is introduced, and it is appropriate, therefore, to consider why.

Its introduction and usage here seems to require that we understand this passage to mean something more than merely the placing of the sun, the moon, and the stars in the sky.

The use of the term "heavens" in Genesis 1:1 seems to indicate that the sun and moon and stars were created in the beginning and therefore were already in existence.

Verse 14 clearly assumes their existence, but now declares what the purpose of that existence is to be.
Their purpose is to divide day from night, and to be for signs and for the regulation of the seasons.

All living things require or respond to regulations of this kind; plant forms are obviously governed by the seasons, and there is considerable evidence that many living organisms like insects, birds, and even higher animal forms live by cycles regulated by the heavens.

This regulation encompasses migratory movements as well.

Verse 16 tells us that God brought forth “asah” the two great luminaries (i.e., the sun and the moon) to regulate the hours of daylight and darkness.

There is no mention of them being created at this time, for light as opposed to darkness was already distinguishable, as verses 3 and 5 indicate.

The appointment of these lights as signs comes only after they can be observed.

Bowman, I am not going to waste my time addressing all of the particulars of that post, suffice it to say that this is the biggest bunch of nonsense I have ever heard in my life. Your definition of terms are not definitions but are simply speculations. The events of creation are very carefully outline as a sequence of events that are marked by the passing of time that is represented in a period of six days. These days are clearly defined in the text as the culminating of a morning and an evening in every case. The text is very precise on exactly what was created on what day and you are suggesting that I simply dismiss all of that to accommodate your treatment of the text. That is not going to happen. If you have not read post #469, perhaps you should.

 

[Bowman]

Study up...

You might think so except the act of creation put the formation of the Sun on day four. I am sure I don't need to tell you this; and yet this ordering is a clear violation of reality.

Neither scripture nor cosmology supports our sun being created AFTER the earth.

One cannot have, "evening came, and morning came, the first day", without the Sun and the rotation of Earth on its axis.

I already stated this.

Nonetheless, we cannot deny that Genesis places the creation of the Sun, Moon, and stars on day four. How can we account for this paradox.

Only someone who ignores the original languages, completely, could arrive at this conclusion.

Apparently the Babylonian creation account also has this same order of events, and it's much older than the Genesis account. What do the Babylonians say about the creation of light. Why it was created first and the Sun days later. You see, it turns out that the Babylonians believed light existed apart from the Sun. Notice on a heavy overcast day, when the orb of the Sun is not visible through the clouds, there is still daylight. The Babylonians took this to mean that the Sun was not the primary source of light on the Earth. The Genesis account is copying the Babylonian version of things, and why not. In the Fertile Crescent their priests had mastered the celestial dance of the orbs and could even predict eclipses. Genesis tells us that Abraham came from the city of Ur, within the Babylonian empire, and no doubt he brought his version of their creation account with him. There, now we've settled the paradox of days and nights preceding the creation of the Sun. Wasn't that easy?

The Biblical creation accounts are the original.

 

[Bowman]

Come back when you can discuss...

Bowman, I am not going to waste my time addressing all of the particulars of that post, suffice it to say that this is the biggest bunch of nonsense I have ever heard in my life.

The material will be here should you have a change of heart...

Your definition of terms are not definitions but are simply speculations.

The definitions emanate from lexicography.

The events of creation are very carefully outline as a sequence of events that are marked by the passing of time that is represented in a period of six days. These days are clearly defined in the text as the culminating of a morning and an evening in every case. The text is very precise on exactly what was created on what day and you are suggesting that I simply dismiss all of that to accommodate your treatment of the text. That is not going to happen.

We're going to need more than your unreferenced dismissal of the exegesis, brother.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

What you refer to as "the peaks of that region" would have been hills (Strong's #2022, har). To insist that har includes 30,000 foot mountains, and on other continents, is ridiculous. The Bible is not telling us that Noah's flood was a deluge that covered the entire planet higher than the highest mountains.

Lol did they or did they not find fossils and evidence of marine life on Mount Everest?

 

[oldhermit]

Re: Come back when you can discuss...

The material will be here should you have a change of heart...




The definitions emanate from lexicography.





We're going to need more than your unreferenced dismissal of the exegesis, brother.

Bowman, I do not think it is productive for you and I to engage in this particular discussion with one another. Your arguments boarder on the insane and your treatment of the text is deplorable not to mention the fact that it stands in stark disagreement with the body of biblical scholarship. Perhaps we should confine our discussions to matters where we share a common frame of reference.

 

[Bowman]

Re: Come back when you can discuss...

Bowman, I do not think it is productive for you and I to engage in this particular discussion with one another. Your arguments boarder on the insane and your treatment of the text is deplorable not to mention the fact that it stands in stark disagreement with the body of biblical scholarship. Perhaps we should confine our discussions to matters where we share a common frame of reference.

Show us your exegesis...that way we will see who has the strongest position.

Simple.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Re: Come back when you can discuss...

Not to digress too much here, but I see this word "exegesis" being thrown around a lot. I do not know what this word means. What exactly is Exegesis?

 

[oldhermit]

Re: Come back when you can discuss...

Not to digress too much here, but I see this word "exegesis" being thrown around a lot. I do not know what this word means. What exactly is Exegesis?

It is from the Greek ἐξηγέομαι from which we get the word to exegete meaning to explain .

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Re: Come back when you can discuss...

It is from the Greek ἐξηγέομαι from which we get the word to exegete meaning to explain .

Ahh, that makes sense.

 

[Agricola]

Well whatever the age is, its one day older than yesterday!

 

[Elizabeth619]

And understanding the Flood story as Moses saw it is? Sister, there is a distinction between salvation issues, and side issues that Christians can disagree on and still go to heaven. The Flood is one of those side issues that Christians get way too worked up over. They discredit their witness when they show that they would rather argue with an unbeliever about the Flood than to tell them about Christ. My opinion.

When one tells another to put the bible aside to get the "real" story from an uninspired author is where I draw the line. I could find many books about different opinions of biblical stories. Some may make sense. Others may be so far fetched it becomes a whole different religion.
When someone says "for a proper understanding"....and suggests one looks towards other books rather than the bible I tend to question their intent.
I could read the Koran to study up on the flood. Would that be a good idea?

 

[jamie26301]

When one tells another to put the bible aside to get the "real" story from an uninspired author is where I draw the line. I could find many books about different opinions of biblical stories. Some may make sense. Others may be so far fetched it becomes a whole different religion.
When someone says "for a proper understanding"....and suggests one looks towards other books rather than the bible I tend to question their intent.
I could read the Koran to study up on the flood. Would that be a good idea?

Well, I think the thing to understand is that in order to understand any of the Bible's messages, you have to understand the people who wrote it... and the only way to do that is to read other books that have researched that topic. We are a different culture, with a different language - what we read in the ancient text today, with the English nuances, is not going to be the same message the Hebrews meant to convey. So, in effort to understand what the Hebrews meant, we need to investigate the text in it's original language and any archeological revelations we find of the Hebrew culture.

By the way, even in looking at these things, scholars are still going to disagree. Proving the Bible says one thing or another really isn't as simple as "Flip to Genesis 6-9. That's all you need."

 

[Historicist]

For a proper understanding of the flood story id prefer to read the bible. I'm pretty sure the writings and opinions of an archeologist isn't my way to salvation.

There was a time when people of your mindset claimed that the Bible required us to believe that the sun revolved around the earth. Grow up.

 

[Tintin]

No, Jamie, that's true and it's not a salvation issue but it's also not a side issue. One must always begin with the Bible and work from there (look at other resources etc. - compare and contrast them with the Bible. If they say something different, the Bible wins out). Not look at other sources and then try to cram them into the Bible. Always go back to the Bible.

 

[oldhermit]

Well, I think the thing to understand is that in order to understand any of the Bible's messages, you have to understand the people who wrote it... and the only way to do that is to read other books that have researched that topic. We are a different culture, with a different language - what we read in the ancient text today, with the English nuances, is not going to be the same message the Hebrews meant to convey. So, in effort to understand what the Hebrews meant, we need to investigate the text in it's original language and any archeological revelations we find of the Hebrew culture.

By the way, even in looking at these things, scholars are still going to disagree. Proving the Bible says one thing or another really isn't as simple as "Flip to Genesis 6-9. That's all you need."

Truth lies exclusively in the grammatical structure of the text, not in the history or the culture of the time in which it was written. You have to understand that the Bible is not of human origin. The Bible is a divinely revealed document that represents the mind of God, not the mind of culture. It has long been a matter of accepted practice to try to define scripture based on our limited understanding of human history. It has also been a matter of practice for the intellectuals to give more credence to how history records the use of the language found in the text than to allow the text itself to define its own use of language. This is certainly a mistake given the fact that scripture is a product of revealed knowledge rather than a human compilation of historical events. For example, it does not matter how the Greeks used the word logos within their culture. We should never be concerned with the historian's opinion on the first century cultural use of this word in secular literature. These things simply have no bearing upon how the Holy Spirit is using this word in John chapter one for example. The Holy Spirit takes human language out of the historical and cultural context and elevates it to reveal the mind of God. When we bring human intelligence to bear upon the language of revelation this serves only to minimize the text and to distort the message. We will never be able to understand what God has revealed of Himself by imposing human intelligence upon the text. Higher criticism has insisted upon using human intelligence as the agent to understand something that is completely outside of man and his familiar world. How absurd is this?

Higher criticism attempts to render the text subordinate to a historical and cultural framework. I cannot imagine why anyone would do this except to undermine or minimize the text. This denies the Word of God its authority over human reasoning and exalts human intelligence over the intelligence of God. It also disregards God as the controlling agent over human history. Scripture must be allowed to explain history. We should never try to use our understanding of history to explain scripture.

 

[Elizabeth619]

Well, I think the thing to understand is that in order to understand any of the Bible's messages, you have to understand the people who wrote it... and the only way to do that is to read other books that have researched that topic. We are a different culture, with a different language - what we read in the ancient text today, with the English nuances, is not going to be the same message the Hebrews meant to convey. So, in effort to understand what the Hebrews meant, we need to investigate the text in it's original language and any archeological revelations we find of the Hebrew culture.

By the way, even in looking at these things, scholars are still going to disagree. Proving the Bible says one thing or another really isn't as simple as "Flip to Genesis 6-9. That's all you need."

Theres a difference in studying on your own and taking someone elses word for it. Just because someone wrote a book about it doesnt make it factual.

 

[Historicist]

Lol did they or did they not find fossils and evidence of marine life on Mount Everest?

Yes, fossils are found at the highest elevations, but this is because of age old upheavals in the earth's crust. Mountain ranges were formed this way. The fossils, in other words, are on a mountain because the mountain was once at and/or below sea level. There are even mountain ranges below sea level (deep in the sea).

 

[jamie26301]

No, Jamie, that's true and it's not a salvation issue but it's also not a side issue. One must always begin with the Bible and work from there (look at other resources etc. - compare and contrast them with the Bible. If they say something different, the Bible wins out). Not look at other sources and then try to cram them into the Bible. Always go back to the Bible.

Well, what would you consider "side issues?" Some Christians would argue that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is NOT a side issue, because it is the Body and Blood of the Lord; some would say it is. I've seen in another thread that you are Lutheran. I was a devout Lutheran myself at one point. The doctrines still have a place in my heart, even though I don't hold them as certain anymore. The Real Presence was something I used to get really worked up over. I mean, how is the word "IS" symbolic? I'm sure you can relate.

Well, what if Moses, when relating the story of the flood, was exaggerating because that was his perception? Noah, who didn't know that the world is round and much more massive than it looks, would be inclined to record that the whole world was flooded, because that was all he knew at the time.

Columbus thought that he would land in India when he set sail. This whole continent didn't even know the Americas were an ocean away. And these were people WITH the Scriptures.

In order to get around this, and say the whole earth was flooded, you would have to say that Noah's limited perception just happened to be correct, or that his perception was inspired.

 

[Elizabeth619]

There was a time when people of your mindset claimed that the Bible required us to believe that the sun revolved around the earth. Grow up.

The fact that in almost every single post you make in response to someone you are rude, hateful, and arrogant shows me not to take anything you say as truth. You are incredibly demeaning to anyone who does not see things how YOU do. I don't worship God or study the bible to meet your approval. Maybe you should be less of a bitter person and more respectful before you tell anyone to "grow up".