The smoking gun, of the Earth’s age

[Thinkingstuff]

Not really Matt. I am absolutely convinced and believe that God created the heavens and earth. I believe Genesis can honestly be interpreted in several ways. I don't doubt God did it. But I doubt it was in 24 hour days as that makes no sense with what we see in our world. So I do have great faith in God ... but not necessarily in others interpretations.

It is possible to count the age of ice in the polar caps. Like tree rings a new layer is developed each year. These, with core samples, can be counted, but this is very time consuming. However we know that there is ice that is 12 thousand years old. In fact this is a very conservative estimate and counting. That predates the age of earth held by many Christians.

The important thing is that God did it ... not how he did it or how long it took. Days, years or millions of years to me it makes no difference. That God did it is important.

I tend to look at it as an outline form in the type of literature it is. Day is the dividing point or the organizational method. Note how the passages are laid out

4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day. 31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Each bolded aspect seem to be a refrain almost musical in design. So it seem to be almost a musical chant design with a refrain indicating organization points of a day. Look at the sixth day. Concluding refrain - "all that he made... and it was very good" seems to conclude the refrain note the 7th day does not have this refrain in that it is set apart

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

So if you take the 1st and 3rd day there is correlation that the 3rd is a more detailed explicitive of the first day as is the 2nd and 4th day and 3rd and 6th day. The seventh day is added into an already established created time frame and is a new thing added after creation is complete. Thus its seems to me this is a literary technique to explain creation in an easy way so as can be remembered by children with the refrain "And there was evening, and there was morning" indicating a deliniation of the next organizational step which is related to day.

I can almost imagine Hebrew children singing a "creation song" like our kids sing "Father Abraham"

 

[RAdam]

I tend to look at it as an outline form in the type of literature it is. Day is the dividing point or the organizational method. Note how the passages are laid out Each bolded aspect seem to be a refrain almost musical in design. So it seem to be almost a musical chant design with a refrain indicating organization points of a day. Look at the sixth day. Concluding refrain - "all that he made... and it was very good" seems to conclude the refrain note the 7th day does not have this refrain in that it is set apart So if you take the 1st and 3rd day there is correlation that the 3rd is a more detailed explicitive of the first day as is the 2nd and 4th day and 3rd and 6th day. The seventh day is added into an already established created time frame and is a new thing added after creation is complete. Thus its seems to me this is a literary technique to explain creation in an easy way so as can be remembered by children with the refrain "And there was evening, and there was morning" indicating a deliniation of the next organizational step which is related to day.

I can almost imagine Hebrew children singing a "creation song" like our kids sing "Father Abraham"

I think imagine is the key word. That whole post was nothing more than something created in your imagination without a single bit of scripture to back you up.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Stilllearning, when God "filled in" Daniel, he still didn't get it.

Daniel 12:8 - And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?

He didn't get it. Here's what Peter said:

1 Peter 1:10-12 - Of which salvation teh prophets have enquired and searched dilligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

Notice that not only did they not understand the things they wrote, but it was not formed in their minds according to their understanding. Rather, it came from the Spirit of Christ which was in them. It was signified by the Spirit, which testified beforehand the suffering sof Christ and the glory that should follow. When these men wrote, it wasn't something they had derived. They were moved by the Holy Ghost to write exactly what they wrote and even they didn't understand what they wrote. Your whole idea falls apart under the scrutiny of scripture.

I think you meant me but I could be mistaken. However, when you said

but it was not formed in their minds according to their understanding.

Your absolutely right. So when they wrote things they explained it how they saw it or experienced it God then made it alive by using their terminology and stylistic writings to express something greather than they knew. Which is why it says in the bible there are four corners of the earth. Or that the winds come from gates. That is because the men didn't understand the science we have to day and expressed them in the fashion they understood it. However, God still uses their expression and limited abilities to get his meanings across and a poetic referrence is easily made more majestic as in my point with Psalms 22. God did not dictate that to David. Rather David was lamenting and it came out that way to God's glory. But It was David's experience that David wrote and this is how God works together with man to have the scripture written. Its almost symbyotic. This is how man cooperates with God in the writing of the text.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I think imagine is the key word. That whole post was nothing more than something created in your imagination without a single bit of scripture to back you up.

I used the whole first chapter of Genesis. How is that for scripture See this is the thing I disagree with you entirely and I'm making my case using scripture and so forth. You on the otherhand resort to personal insult and insuation rather than reasoned arguement. I haven't insulted you or suggested you are imagining things but I do put forth my arguments using scripture text to show literary stylistic writings period context etc...
Jesus said by this they shall know you are mine. What was it? Love, charity. You do argue in such a way by insulting that I deem that if I were laying on the road to Jericho you would leave me there bleeding on the side of the road simply because I disagree with you. You can see this attitude of yours by how you insult rather than engage. You have shown yourself to be no different that the Catholic Leaders who placed Galileo in Jail because he had verifiable evidence that the universe was not geocentric but that the solar system at least was heliocentric. They said the same things of Galileo. "oh you don't believe God." Galileo certainly believed in God but because he didn't agree with how they viewed the bible they insulted him and locked him up. This seems to be your methodology. Note I used Genesis to back up my supposition. You retort with insult.

 

[RAdam]

How was that personal insult? There is no mention anywhere in the bible of Hebrew children singing a song or of the creation account in the first chapter of Genesis being a song. You created that entirely in your imagination without the support of scripture. Prove me wrong. Find me one verse that supports your position. I'll quote your very words: "I can almost imagine Hebrew children singing a "creation song" like our kids sing 'Father Abraham'."

That's not a personal insult.

 

[RAdam]

You keep saying that man cooperates with God in writing the text. That might be right if it wasn't completely wrong. Peter said, "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." That's pretty simple. It didn't come by the will of man. Well, if it isn't by the will of man, whose will did it come by? God's. They spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. That isn't cooperation.

You say they wrote as they understood. Problem is, they wrote things no man in their day knew. That's a huge hole in your theory that you haven't even attempted to patch up.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Good and godly men have disagreed on this for years and we're not going to solve it today or tomorrow either. I am comfortable with literal 24-hour days and a six-day creation interpretation but I won't make it a test of fellowship.

 

[Luke2427]

I think StillLearning perhaps should have said: "The Hebrew word 'yom' (translated 'day' in English), when used with a numeral (first day, second day, etc.) always a twenty-four hour day".

This is a common misconception:

Claim 2: Yom with a number (ordinal) always refers to 24 hour days

The claim has been made that when yom is used with a number, it always refers to a 24-hour day:

"Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 410 times, and each time it means an ordinary day—why would Genesis 1 be the exception?"1

Let's look at some notable exceptions to this "rule," just using the first day as an example. The number used for "first day" is the Hebrew word echad,12 which means "one." The first exception to the "rule" is found in Genesis 29:20, where echad yom refers to a period of seven years that Jacob served Laban to obtain Rachel.13

In the book of 1 Samuel, David says that he "will perish one day [echad yom] by the hand of Saul."14 Obviously, David was not expecting to die in exactly 24 hours. In fact, David was never killed by Saul, but died of old age many decades later.

A prophecy from the book of Daniel describes the demise of the ruler of the Syrian kingdom, Seleucus Philopator, the Son of Antiochus the Great. According to Daniel 11:20, "within a few days [echad yom] he will be shattered."15 The reign of Seleucus actually lasted 12 years16 - a relatively short period of time, but certainly not 24 hours!

There are several examples where echad yom refers to the Day of the Lord - a period usually interpreted as being seven years in length.17 Specific examples that specify a period of time longer than 24 hours include the following:

'For behold, the stone that I have set before Joshua; on one stone are seven eyes. Behold, I will engrave an inscription on it,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day [echad yom]. 'In that day,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'every one of you will invite his neighbor to sit under his vine and under his fig tree.'" (Zechariah 3:9-10)

For it will be a unique day [echad yom] which is known to the LORD, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at evening time there will be light. And it will come about in that day that living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea; it will be in summer as well as in winter. (Zechariah 14:7-8)

"He [the Lord] will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day, That we may live before Him. (Hosea 6:2)

If we are to interpret echad yom as referring only to a 24 hour day, then people will only be able to invite their neighbors over during one 24 hour period of time. Obviously, Zechariah 3:9-10 refers to an extended period of time. Later in his book, Zechariah describes this "one day" as being "in summer as well as in winter." This verse clearly indicates that this "one day" must be at least six months in length. The third example above is somewhat difficult to interpret, but is often interpreted as representing long periods of time. Gill's commentary says,"...these two and three days may be expressive of a long and short time, as interpreters differently explain them; of a long time, as the third day is a long time for a man to lie dead..."18 These six examples clearly establish that when yom is used with a number it does not always refer to 24-hour days.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

How was that personal insult? There is no mention anywhere in the bible of Hebrew children singing a song or of the creation account in the first chapter of Genesis being a song. You created that entirely in your imagination without the support of scripture. Prove me wrong. Find me one verse that supports your position. I'll quote your very words: "I can almost imagine Hebrew children singing a "creation song" like our kids sing 'Father Abraham'."

That's not a personal insult.

Do not play coy with me! You're saying I used no scripture and the whole synopsis was imagination. When in fact I've shown the literary aspect of refrain like refrains in psalms. The creation account has a musical tint to it with a standard refrain as can be seen literarily.

Since we understand that Moses is responsible for writing the Torah or Pentatuch it is also understood that he obtain the genesis account via oral tradition. Which partly was compiled and partly given by God. Because of these events I made a comment that since we can see a standard musical refrain in the liturature of the creation account that I made a side comment about hebrew children in Egypt singing this stuff as Our children would sing Father Abraham.

your insult came in when you suggested that my noted "imagined" view of children was my method of making the determination about the literary style of writing and organizational method or that I just invented it. Or that I don't use evidence to make a conclusion. That is insulting. Instead of arguing the context of my argument to form a disagreement as a debater would you simply charge me with imagination. That is insulting. The fact is you weren't there and niether was I but it seems there is reasonable supposition that the creation account can be looked at more than one way by literary review of the text.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You keep saying that man cooperates with God in writing the text. That might be right if it wasn't completely wrong. Peter said, "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." That's pretty simple. It didn't come by the will of man. Well, if it isn't by the will of man, whose will did it come by? God's. They spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. That isn't cooperation.

You say they wrote as they understood. Problem is, they wrote things no man in their day knew. That's a huge hole in your theory that you haven't even attempted to patch up.

Not at all. They wrote what they knew. God used their styles to show more. I am certain that if Job actually believed the world was placed on a pillar but being destraught in his emotion and said it supported by nothing and God holds it there. Job still believed in the pillar. Certainly Job wasn't thinking gravity and space as we understand it. But God took his terms and used it to reveal a truth. But here is the point. JOB SAID IT FROM WHAT HE WAS THINKING. GOD DID NOT DICTATE IT TO HIM. In otherword it was Job who said it and the spirit gave his words life. There needs to be no patch it still is a cooperation unless you want me to believe God took pen to paper and wrote the whole scriptures himself. God and Man. God orchestrating Man and inspiring him to write. that is cooperation.

 

[Robert Snow]

You know full well what my question means and you are avoiding answering it. That is very telling.

If you can't believe that God created Adam and Eve as fully formed human beings, then of course you don't believe he created the world as the Bible says either.

You can refer back to post #49 of this thread.

You claim that CTB won't answer your question. How about you Man up and say what you are referring to concerning his salvation. Are you saying that since CTB doesn't believe in a literal 24 hour day creation, he is lost and going to hell? Come on answer the question, not be afraid!

 

[matt wade]

You claim that CTB won't answer your question. How about you Man up and say what you are referring to concerning his salvation. Are you saying that since CTB doesn't believe in a literal 24 hour day creation, he is lost and going to hell? Come on answer the question, not be afraid!

I'm saying that anyone that doesn't believe in a literal 24 hour day creation is not saved. I said it in the other post and I'm saying it again. Do you have a hard time understanding that?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I'm saying that anyone that doesn't believe in a literal 24 hour day creation is not saved. I said it in the other post and I'm saying it again. Do you have a hard time understanding that?

And what part of scripture do you find that judgement in? So, in order to be saved you must have faith in Jesus + 24 hour actual creation cycl that doesn't permit the earth to be older than 6,000 years? Didn't the Pharisees say the the apostles and jesus couldn't be "saved" because they "worked" on the sabath not according to god's word in Torah?

 

[Robert Snow]

I'm saying that anyone that doesn't believe in a literal 24 hour day creation is not saved. I said it in the other post and I'm saying it again. Do you have a hard time understanding that?

This just one more in a long line of foolish statements you continually make concerning your brothers in Christ. God forgive your ignorance and arrogance!

 

[matt wade]

And what part of scripture do you find that judgement in? So, in order to be saved you must have faith in Jesus + 24 hour actual creation cycl that doesn't permit the earth to be older than 6,000 years? Didn't the Pharisees say the the apostles and jesus couldn't be "saved" because they "worked" on the sabath not according to god's word in Torah?

If you don't believe in the God of the Bible, you believe in the wrong God. How can one be saved when they believe in the wrong God?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If you don't believe in the God of the Bible, you believe in the wrong God. How can one be saved when they believe in the wrong God?

I don't believe God is wrong. I believe God is right. I believe the same God who inspired the writing of Scriptures also became man and died for my sin. What we are at odds about is how to interpret the genesis one account. Not every thing in the bible hold equal literal value. For instance there are fictional accounts in the bible. Doesn't mean the points are less true. You will no doubt say there is no fictional accounts. I suggest you review the Parables of Jesus once again. They were stories or works of fiction to make a point. Now I'm not saying Genesis one is a fictional account but I'm not certain God intends you to treat those passages as scientific verification on the exact way the universe was created. What is important is that God did it and he did it the way he says it but that way may be misunderstood by both you and I. I think its the height of arrogance to suggest that if someone doesn't believe exactly as you do that they aren't saved. I leave that determination to God. The requirement for salvation is Belief on Jesus. There is a lot of Minutae that get past off as requirements for salvation.

 

[matt wade]

I don't believe God is wrong. I believe God is right. I believe the same God who inspired the writing of Scriptures also became man and died for my sin. What we are at odds about is how to interpret the genesis one account. Not every thing in the bible hold equal literal value. For instance there are fictional accounts in the bible. Doesn't mean the points are less true. You will no doubt say there is no fictional accounts. I suggest you review the Parables of Jesus once again. They were stories or works of fiction to make a point. Now I'm not saying Genesis one is a fictional account but I'm not certain God intends you to treat those passages as scientific verification on the exact way the universe was created. What is important is that God did it and he did it the way he says it but that way may be misunderstood by both you and I. I think its the height of arrogance to suggest that if someone doesn't believe exactly as you do that they aren't saved. I leave that determination to God. The requirement for salvation is Belief on Jesus. There is a lot of Minutae that get past off as requirements for salvation.

If you doubt the Genesis account, then you doubt the inerrant nature of Scripture. Doubting the inerrant nature of Scripture means you believe in the wrong God. We are at odds with each other. You are at odds with God.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If you doubt the Genesis account, then you doubt the inerrant nature of Scripture. Doubting the inerrant nature of Scripture means you believe in the wrong God. We are at odds with each other. You are at odds with God.

Thats like me saying if you doubt Jesus own words in John 6:51 and 53 then "you doubt the inerrant nature of Scripture. Doubting the inerrant nature of Scripture means you believe in the wrong God. Then We are at odd with each other. You are at odds with God"

So do you believe you must eat the flesh of Jesus and Drink his blood? If you don't you doubt the inerrant nature of Scripture. See how silly that is? Muslims have this type of faith. Your either for or against me and if you are against me then you are against God. And if you are against God you must burn.

See so your own logic does you in. Of course I believe in the errant word of God but I believe its meaning (especially genesis 1) differently than you do with creation. Just like you would disagree with some one who mentions John 6:51. But Jesus is clear YOU MUST EAT HIS FLESH. If you interpret it as it is written it means chew or gnaw his flesh. Its clear as is YOM meaning 24 hours. But you choose one over the other. Both are spoken literally. So do you have a problem with the inerrant word of God?

 

[matt wade]

Thats like me saying if you doubt Jesus own words in John 6:51 and 53 then "you doubt the inerrant nature of Scripture. Doubting the inerrant nature of Scripture means you believe in the wrong God. Then We are at odd with each other. You are at odds with God"

You may say that all you like. I believe in Jesus words throughout the entire book of John, not juse 6:51 and 6:53. I know how to take things in context.

There is no additional context to the Genesis account that would tell us that it is anything but a literal 7 day period. The only way to come to the conclusion that it is not a literal 7 day period is by disregarding what it plainly says.

Question for you, since Crabby wouldn't answer, do you believe God instantly created Adam and Eve as fully developed human beings?

(oh, and btw, in my last post it should have said "We are at not at odds with each other. You are at odds with God.".)

 

[InTheLight]

I'm saying that anyone that doesn't believe in a literal 24 hour day creation is not saved. I said it in the other post and I'm saying it again. Do you have a hard time understanding that?

Click USER CP

Click Edit Ignore List

Add Member to your list...
(type) Matt Wade

Click OKAY

DONE!

It's easy!