Part 3, Earth Millions of Years Old?

[Marcia]

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1).

Now as we progress into the days of creation, we are forced to ask, Are they literal 24hr-days and so on?

IOW, we are forced to wonder if, when God said "days," he really meant days as we understand it. He just used "days' to mislead us, assuming that "days" doesn't really mean what God knew we would understand to be "days."

 

[Marcia]

Thats the conclusion I came to. Which is why science doesn't bother me. Its when you get dogmatic about creation that strange ideas prop up like,... Have you heard someone say that demons are the spirits of the Antideluvian people? Or that dinosaurs were put in the earth just to give it a feel of being old. Or that there was a different world order from genesis 1:1 than in 1:2. Or that the "watchers" taught actual magic to the women they married. Etc...

It sounds like you are stereotyping.

I do not believe any of the above strange things (I don't quite get the dinosaur point, however) yet I believe in the 6 days. None of the Christians I know who believe as I do believes that stuff, either.

 

[TCGreek]

IOW, we are forced to wonder if, when God said "days," he really meant days as we understand it. He just used "days' to mislead us, assuming that "days" doesn't really mean what God knew we would understand to be "days."

The first few chapters of Genesis was written from an ANE perspective, which has a lot of mythical material to it.

But the issue comes down to the Hebrew behind "days." We shouldn't be arguing about the English word "days."

We need to wrestle with the Hebrew "yom."

 

[Marcia]

The first few chapters of Genesis was written from an ANE perspective, which has a lot of mythical material to it.

So you think Gen. 1 is mythical?

But the issue comes down to the Hebrew behind "days." We shouldn't be arguing about the English word "days."

We need to wrestle with the Hebrew "yom."

Okay, wrestle away! Doesn't context count here? How about the repetition of the 6 days of creation in Exodus (twice)?

 

[TCGreek]

So you think Gen. 1 is mythical?

Marcia, for the moment I adhere to the literal, but I'm not opposed to a mythical idea because of the ANE element.

Too many great evangelicals are on both sides of the issue for me to be dogmatic.

Besides, I've not studied this matter through thoroughly.

Okay, wrestle away! Doesn't context count here? How about the repetition of the 6 days of creation in Exodus (twice)?

I'm parroting at this point.

My name is TCGreek, not TCHebrew. :laugh:

 

[Ed Edwards]

'day' in English

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/day

DAY, NOUN --

1. the interval of light between two successive nights; the time between sunrise and sunset: Since there was no artificial illumination, all activities had to be carried on during the day.

2. the light of day; daylight: The owl sleeps by day and feeds by night.

3. Astronomy.
a. Also called mean solar day. a division of time equal to 24 hours and representing the average length of the period during which the earth makes one rotation on its axis.

b. Also called solar day. a division of time equal to the time elapsed between two consecutive returns of the same terrestrial meridian to the sun.

c. Also called civil day. a division of time equal to 24 hours but reckoned from one midnight to the next. Compare lunar day, sidereal day.

4. an analogous division of time for a planet other than the earth: the Martian day.

5. the portion of a day allotted to work: an eight-hour day.

6. a day on which something occurs: the day we met.

7. (often initial capital letter) a day assigned to a particular purpose or observance: New Year's Day.

8. a time considered as propitious or opportune: His day will come.

9. a day of contest or the contest itself: to win the day.

10. Often, days. a particular time or period: the present day; in days of old.

11. Usually, days. period of life or activity: His days are numbered.

12. period of existence, power, or influence: in the day of the dinosaurs.

13. light 1 (def. 19a).

—Idioms
14. call it a day, to stop one's activity for the day or for the present; quit temporarily: After rewriting the paper, she decided to call it a day.

15. 'day in', 'day out', 'every day without fail'; regularly: They endured the noise and dirt of the city day in, day out. Also, 'day in and day out.'

Origin: bef. 950; ME; OE dæg; c. G Tag

Also, I also like to talk about the one the main dictionaries seem to like to omit:

16. The 48-hour time period in which a particular named 'day' exists on the World somewhere. Example: Since the time the sun rose West of the International Date Line On 27 Mar 2008 until this is posted on BB, 42 hours have passed. Even so there is left 6 hours of the day: Friday 27 Mar 2008.

 

[TCGreek]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/day

1. the interval of light between two successive nights; the time between sunrise and sunset: Since there was no artificial illumination, all activities had to be carried on during the day.

2. the light of day; daylight: The owl sleeps by day and feeds by night.

3. Astronomy. a. Also called mean solar day. a division of time equal to 24 hours and representing the average length of the period during which the earth makes one rotation on its axis.

b. Also called solar day. a division of time equal to the time elapsed between two consecutive returns of the same terrestrial meridian to the sun.

c. Also called civil day. a division of time equal to 24 hours but reckoned from one midnight to the next. Compare lunar day, sidereal day. 4. an analogous division of time for a planet other than the earth: the Martian day.

5. the portion of a day allotted to work: an eight-hour day.

6. a day on which something occurs: the day we met.

7. (often initial capital letter) a day assigned to a particular purpose or observance: New Year's Day.

8. a time considered as propitious or opportune: His day will come.

9. a day of contest or the contest itself: to win the day.

10. Often, days. a particular time or period: the present day; in days of old.
11. Usually, days. period of life or activity: His days are numbered.

12. period of existence, power, or influence: in the day of the dinosaurs.

13. light 1 (def. 19a).

—Idioms
14. call it a day, to stop one's activity for the day or for the present; quit temporarily: After rewriting the paper, she decided to call it a day.

15. 'day in', 'day out', 'every day without fail'; regularly: They endured the noise and dirt of the city day in, day out. Also, 'day in and day out.'

Origin: bef. 950; ME; OE dæg; c. G Tag

Also, I also like to talk about the one the main dictionaries seem to like to omit:

16. The 48-hour time period in which a particular named 'day' exists on the World somewhere. Example: Since the time the sun rose West of the International Date Line On 27 Mar 2008 until this is posted on BB, 42 hours have passed. Even so there is left 6 hours of the day: Friday 27 Mar 2008.

So why do we have solid evangelical scholars who differ?

 

[Ed Edwards]

IMHO: the most likely meaning of 'day' in Genesis One:
8. a time considered as propitious or opportune

IMHO: the most likely meaning of 'day' in Bible Prophecy:
8. a time considered as propitious or opportune

 

[TCGreek]

IMHO: the most likely meaning of 'day' in Genesis One:
8. a time considered as propitious or opportune

IMHO: the most likely meaning of 'day' in Bible Prophecy:
8. a time considered as propitious or opportune

Now, I like your line of approach: Neither loose nor dogmatic. :thumbs:

 

[Jarthur001]

It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. I thought you got that. :thumbs:

I'm interested only in the redemptive story.

I did get it. This is why I asked it this way...

I'm not saying you believe it but allow it.

Again, ......What allows a non-literal meaning? If you had no text other than the Bible you would believe it or not but there is no reason it would believed to be a myth in and of itself, unless you believe all of the Bible is but a myth.

Case in point..

Which one is a myth..

1) Jesus rose from the dead in 3 days.
2) God made the world in 6 real days.

Based on the Bible text only which is allowed to be a myth and which is not?

I think you will find that you are drawn to allow others to hold to a myth based on other information apart from the Bible.


One would only will force a "myth" if an outside source is also believed to be true that would lead them that way.

Lets say that one believes the Big Bang idea to be true. If so that one would be forced to make it fit within the Bible view in order for the Bible to be true as well, being the Bible does not talk about the Big Bang. Does it not come down to what drives you? Does the Big bang drive you, or the Bible?

 

[MACE16]

I definitely lean towards a young earth point of view. I looked into some of the day-age theories, and I had a very close mentor of mine who believed the day-age theory. But, none of them made sense to me. It seems like God went "out of His way" to emphasize that the creation was complete in seven literal days.

 

[Jarthur001]

I definitely lean towards a young earth point of view. I looked into some of the day-age theories, and I had a very close mentor of mine who believed the day-age theory. But, none of them made sense to me. It seems like God went "out of His way" to emphasize that the creation was complete in seven literal days.

Indeed you are right. It is as if God knew some would want to change the meaning back when he wrote it, therefore he spelled it out for them. Still some deny.

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

He divided the two environments by daylight and no daylight (darkness). Now if we were to wonder how this was done by God we need only to look at what we know to be true. How do we get the daylight environment at times and other times we have darkness?

The Bible says...

Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, [and] the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts [is] his name:

A simple child science site says...

The sun warms our planet every day, provides the light by which we see and is absolutely necessary for life on Earth.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/sun.htm

Both science and the Bible agree that it is the Sun that gives us daylight.

But just how did God have it so that part is light and part is dark.

Answer...One major light source that does not move, and simply spin the earth.

Day is...time for Earth to make a complete rotation on its axis

One spin is one day.

When the earth spins 360º which cause the earth to be dark followed by light, because the light source is not changing, you have one day.

That is also what the Bible teaches...

5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

For anyone to read anything other than the day which we know it to be,and to which the Bible says is one day is adding to the text and adding to what we all know is one day

You would not believe anything other than when we already know is a day, unless you force what you see as a higher power on the text in order that the text matches your higher force. The text by itself stands only

Where do you place your higher power?

What do you make fit your logic?

Do you change the Bible to match your source?

 

[TCGreek]

I did get it. This is why I asked it this way...

I'm not saying you believe it but allow it.

Again, ......What allows a non-literal meaning? If you had no text other than the Bible you would believe it or not but there is no reason it would believed to be a myth in and of itself, unless you believe all of the Bible is but a myth.

Case in point..



I think you will find that you are drawn to allow others to hold to a myth based on other information apart from the Bible.


One would only will force a "myth" if an outside source is also believed to be true that would lead them that way.

Lets say that one believes the Big Bang idea to be true. If so that one would be forced to make it fit within the Bible view in order for the Bible to be true as well, being the Bible does not talk about the Big Bang. Does it not come down to what drives you? Does the Big bang drive you, or the Bible?

We are addressing Genesis 1. What does the resurrection of the Messiah have to do with this?

 

[Marcia]

My name is TCGreek, not TCHebrew. :laugh:

Okay! :laugh:

Well, my OT prof knows Hebrew (and teaches it as well as Greek though he seems to prefer Hebrew) and he believes it is 6 literal days. He also refuted the day/age theory in class but I can't recall what he said. Would have to find my notes.

 

[Jarthur001]

We are addressing Genesis 1. What does the resurrection of the Messiah have to do with this?

again.....
What allows a non-literal meaning of Genesis 1?

 

[TCGreek]

again.....
What allows a non-literal meaning of Genesis 1?

The possibility that Moses may have employed some ANE elements (maybe you should research the experts).

 

[Jarthur001]

The possibility that Moses may have employed some ANE elements (maybe you should research the experts).

Then you place your authority not in the text, but in what someone has said about the text. The text alone would never give you that understanding. You have plae your faith in something other then the Bible.

Now lets look at the experts.

Let's start with a quick summary from an Egyptologist, but one who is very familiar with Assyriology, K.A. Kitchen:

"The individual themes of creation and flood ... recur in other writings. Thus the Babylonian epic Enuma Elish (called 'Babylonian creation' in most books), completed by circa 1000 from older sources, has been repeatedly compared with Gen. 1-2. But despite the reiterated claims of an older generation of biblical scholars, Enuma Elish and Gen. 1-2 in fact share no direct relationship. Thus the word tehom/thm is common to both Hebrew and Ugaritic (north Syria) and means nothing more than 'deep, abyss.' It is not a deity, like Ti'amat, a goddess in Enuma Elish. In terms of theme, creation is the massively central concern of Gen. 1-2, but it is a mere tailpiece in Enuma Elish, which is dedicated to portraying the supremacy of the god Marduk of Babylon. The only clear comparisons between the two are the inevitable banalities: creation of earth and sky before the plants are put on the earth, and of plants before animals (that need to eat them) and humans; it could hardly have been otherwise! The creation of light before the luminaries is the only peculiarity that might indicate any link between the Hebrew and Enuma Elish narrative; but where did it earlier come from? Not known, as yet.

Thus most Assyriologists have long since rejected the idea of any direct link between Gen. 1-11 and Enuma Elish, and nothing else better can be found between Gen. 1-11 and any other Mesopotamian fragments." [OT:OROT, p.424ff; Note: His footnote mentions/references J.V. Kinnier-Wilson, W. G. Lambert, A. R. Millard, T. Jakobsen, with this intro: "Assyriologists generally reject any genetic relationship between Gen. 1-2 and the Mesopotamian data because of the considerable differences".]

Jeffrey H. Tigay Professor of Hebrew and Semitic Languages and Literatures in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations. says this...

"Not all details of the relationship of the Myth of Adapa to the Eden narrative are clear or necessarily convincing, but some relationship does seem indicated. The contrasts, aside from obviously wide divergence in details and plots, are most profound and characteristic in the area of underlying religious outlook."
"The above survey has led many scholars to the conclusion that the biblical Eden narrative has roots in Ancient Near Eastern literature. Yet, as stated above, these parallels are fragmentary, dealing with only a few motifs each, and the discrepancies in detail are often great. How these gaps were bridged cannot be said with certainty, presumably because of ignorance of the process of transmission of Ancient Near Eastern literature to the Bible." [Ency. Judacia, s.v. "Paradise", 13:82]

Richard Hess professor of Old Testament and Semitic languages, Denver Seminary says....

"In the study of material on Genesis 1-3, consideration should be given to G. F. Hasel's essays on the methodology and problems of applying the comparative approach to the first chapter of Genesis. In few other passages of the Bible have so many facile comparisons been made with ancient Near Eastern myths and so many far-reaching conclusions posited. Hasel provides observations on fundamental distinctions in the creation accounts, with a strong focus on an antimythological apologetic for Genesis." [ISI, "One Hundred Fifty Years of Comparative Studies on Genesis 1-11", p.19f]

David Toshio Tsumura professor of Old Testament at Japan Bible Seminay....

"So, Genesis 1 and 'Enuma Elish,' which was composed primarily to exalt Marduk in the pantheon of Babylon, have no direct relation to each other...

It is not correct to say that 'Enuma Elish' was adopted and adapted by the Israelites to produce the Genesis stories. As Lambert holds, there is 'no evidence of Hebrew borrowing from Babylon'. Sjoberg accepts Lambert's opinion that 'there was hardly any influence from the Babylonian text on the Old Testament creation accounts.' ...Along the same line, Sjoberg as an Assyriologist warns Old Testament scholars that 'it is no longer scientifically sound to assume that all ideas originated in Mesopotamia and moved westward.' ...It is difficult to assume that an earlier Canaanite dragon myth existed in the background of Gen. 1:2...Shea suggests that 'it is possible to view these two separate sources [Adapa and Genesis 2-3] as independent witnesses to a common event'...Niels-Erik Andreasen also thinks that 'parallels do indeed exist between Adam and Adapa, but they are seriously blunted by the entirely different contexts in which they occur.'..."[ISI, "Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern Stories of Creation and Flood, p.31ff]

"The similarities between the Genesis account and the 'Atra-Hasis Epic' do not support the idea that Genesis is a direct borrowing form the Mesopotamian but do indicate that Mesopotamian materials could have served as models for Genesis 1-11, as Jacobsen holds. P.D. Miller also admits that 'there were Mesopotamian models that anticipate the structure of Genesis 1-11 as a whole.' K. A. Kitchen notes a similar outline, namely 'creation-flood-later times,' and a common theme, namely 'creation, crisis, continuance of man,' of the 'primeval proto-history' in the 'Atra-Hasis Epic,' the Sumerian Flood story, and the Sumerian King List, as well as in the Genesis account. He recognizes here 'a common literary heritage, formulated in each case in Mesopotamia in the early 2nd millennium b.c.'...However, there are also many differences between the Mesopotamian traditions and the Genesis account, in addition to the basic concepts of divine-human relationship." [ISI, "Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern Stories of Creation and Flood, p.47]

"As Lambert and Millard note [in Atra Hasis: Babylonian Story of the Flood], 'It is obvious that the differences [between the Genesis Flood account and the Babylonian Flood Account in Atra-Hasis] are too great to encourage belief in direct connection between 'Atra-Hasis' and Genesis, but just as obviously there is some kind of involvement in the historical traditions generally of the two peoples.'" [ISI, "Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern Stories of Creation and Flood, p.31ff; Note: if both peoples experienced a common flood, I think that might count as 'some kind of involvement'!]

Want more experts?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Consider this Scripture:

1 Corinthians 10:32-33 (KJV1611 Edition):
Giue none offence, neither to the Iewes, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God:
33 Euen as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine owne profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saued.

The Gentiles, here are unsaved folks.

Who (the Bible Readers or the Lost) are claiming the following?

Caution: error statement follows:
If you can't believe (exactly like I do) Gen 1&2;
then how can you trust Romans 10:9-10?
Caution: error statement precedes.

Answer is: some Bible Readers.
The Lost look at a statement like above and figure:
Must have taken God more than one 24-hour-day to create the Sun. Them Bible Readers must be 4,000 Million (4 Billion) years short of a Creation. So what they say about Jesus dying for my sin must be PHONY also. The lost go away lost -- because the 'selected Bible Readers' fail to understand God enough to explaine God to the Lost. The lost have not profited by such logic and only the pride of the error prone 'certain Bible Readers' keeps them from seeing the error of what they do -

By contrast, consider the implication of my Trailer/Signature.

All VALID English Language Bibles
Collectively and Individually
contain and are
the Inerrant and Perfect
Written Word of God
preserved by Divine Appointment
for the generation in which they are translated.

By Axiom, Genesis 1 & 2 are the Inerrant and Perfect Written Word of God. If what some alleged 'Bible Reader' says that Gensis 1 & 2 means is in error, then it is NOT GOD WHO IS WRONG - it is that individual alleged 'Bible Reader' that is wrong.

Sorry folks, the simple fact that the Night Sky is Black indicates a Creator (not to mention a Big Bang ). But there are too many stars in that Night Sky for the night sky of Earth to be only 5,783 years old.

However, the imagery of God doing the work of creating the Earth in six time periods and using the 7th to rest -- this imagery shows we we in-God's-image-folk should also work 6 'days' and take the 7th 'day' for God-type rest. The image is about multi-millions of year long aeons - the weekly celebration of the Creative God is in 7 actual 24-hour-days.

But hey, different strokes for different folks, eh?

But do try to avoid deliberately disobeying the commandment of Our Lord & Savior, Messiah Jesus, found in 1 Corinthians 10:32-33.

And ye 24-hour-day creation folks had better explain why God's 7th day has alerady been 5,783 years long and counting

 

[canadyjd]

I'm interested only in the redemptive story.

If you are only interested in the redemption story, then you must hold to the literal understanding of Gen. 1+.

Jesus died for our sins, according to the scriptures. Why? Where did sin come from? Gen. 1 explains were we came from. Gen. 3 explains how sin entered into the world.

Romans 5 directly links the fall of man as recorded in Gen. 3 to the redemption of man found in Jesus Christ. There is your direct link to redemption.

If Adam is a myth, then the explanation of scripture of how sin entered into the world, why it kills us, and why Jesus had to redeem us from it is just a myth as well.

peace to youraying:

 

[Marcia]

Didn't these insinuations about Gen. 1 and 2 being influenced by ancient Semitic creation myths come from those stalwarts of anti-supernaturalism, the Higher Critics?