Time of Creation

[Van]

When does the Bible say people were created: Less than 7000 years ago? More than 13,000 years ago?
When does the Bible say the earth was created? Within a few days of humans being created. Several indeterminate periods, possibly thousands or millions of years long, before humans?

The answers are not blowing in the wind, but are made clear in scripture. See Job 38 for the answer.

If we estimate the generation time span for all the generations, listed specifically in scripture, from Adam to Jesus, we can "guess" humans were created less than 7000 years ago. And we can guess the days of creation were 24 hour days, or indeterminate periods of time, but we still should know we do not know the answer to either question, based on Job 38.

 

[Van]

Sometimes we read that the Universe started with a "Big Bang" more than 14 billion years ago. Now if we were at the place where the big bang occurred and watched as the universe expanded to what we believe is its present location, we would have watched for about 14 billion years. However, if we were at the place where the big bang occurred and "rode" the expanding stuff (energy or matter or combo) traveling at the speed of light, we would arrive at its present expansion is not 14 billion years but in less than 14 seconds.

Rather than indicate I have any understanding of the foregoing, I cling to Job 38 and say I really do not know!

 

[SavedByGrace]

And we can guess the days of creation were 24 hour days, or indeterminate periods of time

there is no "guessing", what the days in Genesis 1 are. it is very clear by the terms "evening and morning", that no more than 24 hours are meant for each day, which is the literal meaning.

The days are NOT "periods of time", which leaves it open to either short or long periods, which then can mean hundreds or thousands, or millions of hours in each DAY!

 

[canadyjd]

Using the “generations” (about 40 years) to determine the age of the earth is problematic.

Hebrews did not record every single person born in a particular line, they emphasized those that were important. This is evident in the oft used phrase “and he had other sons and daughters”. It also explains the difference in the genealogies of Jesus found in Luke and Matthew.

I’ve heard the generation theory for decades. Two thousand years from Adam to the flood. Two thousand years from the flood to Jesus. Two thousand years from the resurrection until the 2 nd coming. (6000 years is perfection, 7000 years is completion)

The theory just doesn’t give enough time for the descendants of Noah to populate the earth with millions of people and vast kingdoms that are described in scripture, and in archeological evidence, imo.

Scripture does not tell us the exact age of the earth, universe. It is enough to accept God created everything, including time. Those who push the issue usually have a motive. They are pushing a theological view and believe a “young earth” supports the view.

peace to you

 

[Deacon]

The Golden Rule of Biblical Interpretation:
“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”

The problem with a 7 Day/24 Hour creation is that it does not jive with scientific data.
The Creation Research groups don’t have to work too hard to convince people who desire to follow their interpretation but for the vast number of scientifically educated people, their interpretation is nonsense.

For those recognizing the “fundamental truths” found in the natural sciences, the alternative was longer creation days.


But a while back, recognizing the dilemma, John H. Walton presented an interesting alternative interpretive theory.
He proposed that the creation days were periods where God assigned purpose.

“I propose that people in the ancient world believed that something existed not by virtue of its material properties, but by virtue of its having a function in an ordered system. Here I do not refer to an ordered system in scientific terms, but an ordered system in human terms, that is, in relation to society and culture. In this sort of functional ontology, the sun does not exist by virtue of its material properties, or even by its function as a burning ball of gas. Rather it exists by virtue of the role that it has in its sphere of existence, particularly in the way that it functions for humankind and human society.” The Lost World of Genesis One. (p.26).​

John H. Walton excepts a simple, 7 day creation AND an old earth.

His interpretation fits quite nicely with the complete narrative of Genesis One.

Rob

 

[SavedByGrace]

Exodus 20:8-11
King James Version

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

There can be no doubt that the working week, is based on the Creation Week, which had literal days, and not periods of time

"Science" so called, is a system that is developed by flawed, fallible, sinful humans, by people who are mostly not believers in the One True God of the Bible, and who are not guided by God the Holy Spirit.

I like the reading of the KJV of 1 Timothy 6:20

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called

We cannot, and must not conclude with Bernard Ramm:

“Hyper-orthodoxy does not believe its platform “to the hilt.” It is willing to retain faith in the Bible no matter what the scientists say. But would they really believe the Bible if at every point the Bible and science conflicted? If the differences between the sciences and the Bible were to grow to a very large number and were of the most serious nature, it would be questionable if they would retain faith in Scripture. True, we may believe some of the Bible “in spite of” science, but certainly the situation would change if we believed all of the Bible in spite of science. That is to say, the hyper-orthodox have made a virtue of disagreeing with science, and have not set any sort of limits as to how serious the divergences with science may go before they must rethink their position. Their guiding principle cannot be extended without making their entire position indefensible or simply absurd. We question that the hyper-orthodox would follow their principle through to its extremity, and therefore can only judge that it is an inadequate principle.” (Dr Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, p. 23)

The Original Writings of the 66 Books of the Word of God, and 100% Infallible, Inerrant, Perfect and Completely Trustworthy, on EVERYTHING that it contains. There are ZERO errors or contradictions, as IT IS The Word of The Perfect God of the Bible, to humans

 

[37818]

The Andromeda Galaxy measured distance is as seen is some 2.5 million years in our past. Being before the six days in which our earth was made.

 

[SavedByGrace]

The Andromeda Galaxy measured distance is as seen is some 2.5 million years in our past. Being before the six days in which our earth was made.

What complete nonsense!

Exactly HOW do us humans measure this?

 

[Deacon]

We cannot, and must not conclude with Bernard Ramm:

“Hyper-orthodoxy does not believe its platform “to the hilt.” It is willing to retain faith in the Bible no matter what the scientists say. But would they really believe the Bible if at every point the Bible and science conflicted? If the differences between the sciences and the Bible were to grow to a very large number and were of the most serious nature, it would be questionable if they would retain faith in Scripture. True, we may believe some of the Bible “in spite of” science, but certainly the situation would change if we believed all of the Bible in spite of science. That is to say, the hyper-orthodox have made a virtue of disagreeing with science, and have not set any sort of limits as to how serious the divergences with science may go before they must rethink their position. Their guiding principle cannot be extended without making their entire position indefensible or simply absurd. We question that the hyper-orthodox would follow their principle through to its extremity, and therefore can only judge that it is an inadequate principle.” (Dr Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, p. 23)

At one point Ramm’s book, “Protestant Biblical Interpretation” was the primary text for learning the science of biblical hermeneutics. It’s still a worthy read.
I have enjoyed Bernard Ramm’s works ever since I was introduced to them in college back in the 1970’s.
I’ve got 3 copies of his “Christian View of Science and Scripture” in my collection, it’s a dated classic.

It is quite revealing how often Young Earth Creationists persecute great Christian thinkers of the past simply because they noted that the Genesis account did not necessarily direct us to belief in a young earth.

It would be wise to carefully read the paragraph offered by Ramm and consider it thoughtfully.

The absurd notion of a 6000+ year old young earth is an essential, fundamental doctrine of Christianity is dangerous. Is it any wonder that those that have made it a primary doctrine have corrupted the gospel message to the point that many modern scientists have turned their back on Christianity.

Rob

 

[SavedByGrace]

At one point Ramm’s book, “Protestant Biblical Interpretation” was the primary text for learning the science of biblical hermeneutics. It’s still a worthy read.
I have enjoyed Bernard Ramm’s works ever since I was introduced to them in college back in the 1970’s.
I’ve got 3 copies of his “Christian View of Science and Scripture” in my collection, it’s a dated classic.

It is quite revealing how often Young Earth Creationists persecute great Christian thinkers of the past simply because they noted that the Genesis account did not necessarily direct us to belief in a young earth.

It would be wise to carefully read the paragraph offered by Ramm and consider it thoughtfully.

The absurd notion of a 6000+ year old young earth is an essential, fundamental doctrine of Christianity is dangerous. Is it any wonder that those that have made it a primary doctrine have corrupted the gospel message to the point that many modern scientists have turned their back on Christianity.

Rob

Do you believe in evolution

 

[Deacon]

Do you believe in evolution

Off topic
Perhaps start a new thread in the appropriate forum
Define your term, be precise

Rob

 

[Deacon]

”Dr. John Lightfoot, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, and one of the most eminent Hebrew scholars of his time, declared, as the result of his most profound and exhaustive study of the Scriptures, that "heaven and earth, centre and circumference, were created all together, in the same instant, and clouds full of water," and that "this work took place and man was created by the Trinity on October 23, 4004 B. C., at nine o'clock in the morning."
A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, Westminster Edition. Andrew Dickson White. D. Appleton and Company. 1896. vol. 1, page 9.

 

[37818]

What complete nonsense!

Exactly HOW do us humans measure this?

It is by observations and measurements and known laws of physics along with it's math.

What is the method used to find out the distance of Andromeda galaxy from us?

 

[SavedByGrace]

At one point Ramm’s book, “Protestant Biblical Interpretation” was the primary text for learning the science of biblical hermeneutics. It’s still a worthy read.
I have enjoyed Bernard Ramm’s works ever since I was introduced to them in college back in the 1970’s.
I’ve got 3 copies of his “Christian View of Science and Scripture” in my collection, it’s a dated classic.

It is quite revealing how often Young Earth Creationists persecute great Christian thinkers of the past simply because they noted that the Genesis account did not necessarily direct us to belief in a young earth.

It would be wise to carefully read the paragraph offered by Ramm and consider it thoughtfully.

The absurd notion of a 6000+ year old young earth is an essential, fundamental doctrine of Christianity is dangerous. Is it any wonder that those that have made it a primary doctrine have corrupted the gospel message to the point that many modern scientists have turned their back on Christianity.

Rob

It is by observations and measurements and known laws of physics along with it's math.

What is the method used to find out the distance of Andromeda galaxy from us?

you mean man-made mumbo jumbo?

it was not that long ago that these so called "experts" teach that the world was FLAT! The Holy Bible in the Books of Job and Isaiah, thousands of years ago, are very clear that the world is a CIRCLE!

These so called "laws" that you refer to, and rely upon, are mainly complete RUBBISH, like those that teach that the world that we live in is BILLIONS of years old!

 

[SavedByGrace]

At one point Ramm’s book, “Protestant Biblical Interpretation” was the primary text for learning the science of biblical hermeneutics. It’s still a worthy read.
I have enjoyed Bernard Ramm’s works ever since I was introduced to them in college back in the 1970’s.
I’ve got 3 copies of his “Christian View of Science and Scripture” in my collection, it’s a dated classic.

It is quite revealing how often Young Earth Creationists persecute great Christian thinkers of the past simply because they noted that the Genesis account did not necessarily direct us to belief in a young earth.

It would be wise to carefully read the paragraph offered by Ramm and consider it thoughtfully.

The absurd notion of a 6000+ year old young earth is an essential, fundamental doctrine of Christianity is dangerous. Is it any wonder that those that have made it a primary doctrine have corrupted the gospel message to the point that many modern scientists have turned their back on Christianity.

Rob

Ramm is very clear in what he says. IF the Infallible, Inspired, Inerrant, Perfect 66 Books of the Holy Bible Teach anything that "disagrees" with so called HUMAN "science", that has been developed by SINFUL, FALLIBLE HUMANS, then we are to reject what GOD says, and accept the LIES of the devil!

It is PRECISELY this TOTALLY RUBBISH thinking that has seen the Christian Church fall away from sound Bible Teachings, where even so called "pastors" openly teach that God did not Create the Universe that we live in, and that He does not really know the future, and therefore in limited in His Knowledge!

These are some of the DOCTRINE OF DEMONS that the devil has thrust on the GULLIBLE in the Church, who hanker after so called HUMAN SCIENCE, and disregard the Word of God!

 

[SavedByGrace]

”Dr. John Lightfoot, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, and one of the most eminent Hebrew scholars of his time, declared, as the result of his most profound and exhaustive study of the Scriptures, that "heaven and earth, centre and circumference, were created all together, in the same instant, and clouds full of water," and that "this work took place and man was created by the Trinity on October 23, 4004 B. C., at nine o'clock in the morning."
A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, Westminster Edition. Andrew Dickson White. D. Appleton and Company. 1896. vol. 1, page 9.

I suppose Dr Lightfoot was one of those present when the Lord says, "Let US make humans in OUR Image and after OUR Likeness"!!!

What he says is no more than pure SPECULATION, because he was not there when God Created!

 

[SavedByGrace]

The problem with a 7 Day/24 Hour creation is that it does not jive with scientific data

and this is right because?

the language used in Genesis 1, "evening and the morning were the first day", is very clear that a TWENTY-FOUR day is meant.

It does not simply say "yō·wm", which can also be understood of a period of time, but is very specific in using the combination of, "way·hî ‘e·reḇ way·hî ḇō·qer", literally, "and there was EVENING and there was MORNING", The TWO PARTS that make a TWENTY-FOUR HOUR DAY.

In Exodus 20 we read of the WORKING WEEK that is based on the CREATION WEEK, "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it" (verse 11)

No doubt that the DAYS are 24 hours!

 

[37818]

you mean man-made mumbo jumbo?

No. But that is what you think out of what you do not know.

 

[Deacon]

Ramm is very clear in what he says. IF the Infallible, Inspired, Inerrant, Perfect 66 Books of the Holy Bible Teach anything that "disagrees" with so called HUMAN "science", that has been developed by SINFUL, FALLIBLE HUMANS, then we are to reject what GOD says, and accept the LIES of the devil!

It is PRECISELY this TOTALLY RUBBISH thinking that has seen the Christian Church fall away from sound Bible Teachings, where even so called "pastors" openly teach that God did not Create the Universe that we live in, and that He does not really know the future, and therefore in limited in His Knowledge!

These are some of the DOCTRINE OF DEMONS that the devil has thrust on the GULLIBLE in the Church, who hanker after so called HUMAN SCIENCE, and disregard the Word of God!

Part of the reason I can no longer stomach reading YE creationist propaganda is that they promote their beliefs without interacting responsibly with those that believe differently.

You brought up Dr. Bernard Ramm.

Ramm is very clear in what he says. IF the Infallible, Inspired, Inerrant, Perfect 66 Books of the Holy Bible Teach anything that "disagrees" with so called HUMAN "science", that has been developed by SINFUL, FALLIBLE HUMANS, then we are to reject what GOD says, and accept the LIES of the devil!

First of all, you offer no quote that Bernard Ramm states what you allege he says.
Second, your interpretation is faulty. Ramm offers an "IF... THEN" comparison, not a rejection of inerrancy.
Thirdly, at the very least you should be vaguely familiar with his work.
Apparently you are only familiar with his work through the negative reviews of other YE creationists.
They are not trustworthy.
You really should read the works of those you reject before condemning them.

B. THE PROBLEM OF SCIENCE​

If we accept the divine inspiration of a Book which was written several centuries before the discoveries of modern science we are faced with the very acute problem of relating its statements about creation to those of modern science. ...
(1). When we assert the inerrancy of Scripture we do not assert that the Bible uses scientific language. ...
The Bible is a book adapted for all ages of the human race and therefore its vocabulary about nature must be popular. It is no objection against inerrancy that the Scriptures are in popular language.

(2). No objection can be brought against inerrancy because the language of the Bible is phenomenal.
A language which is phenomenal is restricted to terms of description and observation. Its language about astronomy, botany, zoology, and geology is restricted to the vocabulary of popular observation. What can be seen through microscope or telescope is not commented on. Phenomenal language is true because all it claims is to be descriptive.

(3). No objection can be brought against the inerrancy of the Bible because it is a culturally conditioned revelation. The Bible uses the terms and expressions of the times of its writers. Any revelation must be so accommodated to the human mind. ...

(4). It is not proper to attempt to find numerous correlations of Scripture and modern science.
The careful interpreter will not try to find the automobile in Nahum 1, or the airplane in Isaiah 60 or atomic theory in Hebrews 11:3 or atomic energy in 2 Peter 3. All such efforts to extract modern scientific theories out of Scripture eventually do more harm than good.

(5). It must be kept in mind that Genesis 1 is in outline form. ...
Genesis sums up creation in thirty-four verses (Gen. 1:1 to 2:3). The extreme brevity of the account must temper all our exegesis of it.

...our interpretations about science and Scripture should be kept fluid. Exegesis and science are both developing and progressing. It would be improper to make hard and fast interpretations if this is the situation.

Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics, Third Revised Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1970), 209-213.​

Rob

 

[SavedByGrace]

Part of the reason I can no longer stomach reading YE creationist propaganda is that they promote their beliefs without interacting responsibly with those that believe differently.

You brought up Dr. Bernard Ramm.

First of all, you offer no quote that Bernard Ramm states what you allege he says.
Second, your interpretation is faulty. Ramm offers an "IF... THEN" comparison, not a rejection of inerrancy.
Thirdly, at the very least you should be vaguely familiar with his work.
Apparently you are only familiar with his work through the negative reviews of other YE creationists.
They are not trustworthy.
You really should read the works of those you reject before condemning them.

B. THE PROBLEM OF SCIENCE​

If we accept the divine inspiration of a Book which was written several centuries before the discoveries of modern science we are faced with the very acute problem of relating its statements about creation to those of modern science. ...
(1). When we assert the inerrancy of Scripture we do not assert that the Bible uses scientific language. ...
The Bible is a book adapted for all ages of the human race and therefore its vocabulary about nature must be popular. It is no objection against inerrancy that the Scriptures are in popular language.

(2). No objection can be brought against inerrancy because the language of the Bible is phenomenal.
A language which is phenomenal is restricted to terms of description and observation. Its language about astronomy, botany, zoology, and geology is restricted to the vocabulary of popular observation. What can be seen through microscope or telescope is not commented on. Phenomenal language is true because all it claims is to be descriptive.

(3). No objection can be brought against the inerrancy of the Bible because it is a culturally conditioned revelation. The Bible uses the terms and expressions of the times of its writers. Any revelation must be so accommodated to the human mind. ...

(4). It is not proper to attempt to find numerous correlations of Scripture and modern science.
The careful interpreter will not try to find the automobile in Nahum 1, or the airplane in Isaiah 60 or atomic theory in Hebrews 11:3 or atomic energy in 2 Peter 3. All such efforts to extract modern scientific theories out of Scripture eventually do more harm than good.

(5). It must be kept in mind that Genesis 1 is in outline form. ...
Genesis sums up creation in thirty-four verses (Gen. 1:1 to 2:3). The extreme brevity of the account must temper all our exegesis of it.

...our interpretations about science and Scripture should be kept fluid. Exegesis and science are both developing and progressing. It would be improper to make hard and fast interpretations if this is the situation.

Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics, Third Revised Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1970), 209-213.​

Rob

simply put, we do NOT need "science" to "confirm" or "deny" anything that the Inspired, Infallible Word of God says!

The earth that we live in was 100% Created by The Three distinct Person in the Holy Trinity, out of nothing, otherwise known as "Creatio ex nihilo".

There is ZERO support in the Bible to even suggest an "old earth". Better men than Ramm, like, Gish and Morris and Whitcombe and Ham, have shown beyond any doubt, that we have a YOUNG EARTH. Till date what they have proven, has not been shown to be wrong!