Hey guys,
Talking to EPM and reading many others (christians and atheists) I have found it interesting to weigh the evidence for young earth or old earth both Biblically and scientifically. I write this post because I have seen increasing evidence for an older earth and so I desire to see where it fits in with what God has told me through His Word.
Here we go:
When I read Genesis 1, I did find it hard to comprehend an old earth view in regard to the days. For one thing the word "day" is "yom" which seems to refer to a 24 hour period, especially when it refers to a morning and an evening.
However, looking closer at the days, I notice that day seven does not have a morning and an evening? I wonder why? Was day seven longer than the others or is it because day seven is not yet complete? "yom" can mean a long period of time not just 24 hours.
So I begin to wonder whether morning and evening simply represent complete periods of creation that God has made. I don't know when day seven ended but some people suggest that it ended when Jesus died on the cross and now He is creating a new heavens and a new earth (John 14:2,3. 1 Peter 3:13)
So why did God talk about "days" of creation with a morning and an evening? Throughout Exodus God tells them to follow the pattern of six days work and one day rest. I am thinking that God gave us an example to follow by example. God worked six "God days" and rested a seventh day.
We know that time is different for God and day to God or a watch in the night is as a thousand years. (Ps 90:4 "For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it is past, And like a watch in the night". 2Pe 3:8 "But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.")
So time is relative...as Einstein would say :) God worked days in relation to Him as an example for mankind to work six days and rest on the seventh.
Regarding lights in the heavens to rule the day. A problem arises, was there light in the beginning and yet no stars? Was the sun after the green foods?
"16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also."
One thing I notice about this verse is that the words "God made two great lights" implies that God had created them at an earlier date but was completing the work He started by clearing the atmosphere to let the sun and the moon rule their time periods properly.
"Made" is an imperfect tense thus it could possibly mean a past tense. So day one could mean that God created the heavens through the big bang and stretched it out as it says in Isa 40:22 "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."
What God did on day four was that He cleared the atmosphere to allow the great lights to become visible properly from a view from on earth.
Regarding the order of creation, it seems there may be a little bit of disorder as what people claim in the fossil record. An explanation I had heard suggested that when God wrote chapter 1 it covered millions of years so when God wrote the order of His work He did not give us a critical path analysis. He gave us a quick overview of His workings such as when I describe building a house, I would say 1. First came the builder 2. Second came the electrician 3. Third came the plumber, or similar.
What I now ask is "Did they all come with an exact stop and finish when I describe it this way or are they overlapped in their time periods?". So in general God gave us the rough accurate display of what He did...first came the plants...second came fish and third came the land animals, which then overlap each other.
What about animal death?
I always grew up thinking that there was no death before the Fall. But I don't even know where it say that in the Bible? Some people use Romans 5:12 " Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—"
But when I read that it seems to only talk about mankind's death. When I look at the world around me, I see beauty. Not just in things that look nice but in animals that can cause pain such as bees, how amazing and well made they are! Our world seems to fit like a clove and work together so well causing what some would say is the circle of life.
I struggle to comprehend a world with just beings (such as a lion) that didn't live off one another.
Psalm 104 is interesting:
17 Where the birds make their nests; The stork has her home in the fir trees.
18 The high hills are for the wild goats; The cliffs are a refuge for the rock badgers.
19 ¶ He appointed the moon for seasons; The sun knows its going down.
20 You make darkness, and it is night, In which all the beasts of the forest creep about.
21 The young lions roar after their prey, And seek their food from God.
22 When the sun rises, they gather together And lie down in their dens.
23 Man goes out to his work And to his labor until the evening.
24 O LORD, how manifold are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all. The earth is full of Your possessions—
NEway, I don't have a problem with death before Adam and Eve. However something is terribly wrong in the human race because the Bible says that death entered mankind through sin and that we were to have dominion over what God had created. The problems arisen in these areas (man's dominion) are what I believe is the result of the curse.
Regarding evolution and Genesis 1:
Some scientists seem to say that the fossil record is grouped rather than transitional, however should evolution be shown to be true and I am convinced then I find interesting wording used in Genesis 1.
11 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so."
and:
20 ¶ Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens."
and:
24 ¶ Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so.
Interesting, the verses speak for themselves.
Well, that is a quick overview of some thoughts that I have.
Cheers,
Dan
No death before the Fall doesn't make any sense at all because clearly Adam and Eve were supposed to be eating. So then to some apolgists you get the idea, well plants are really 'alive alive' so killing plants isn't really death. Like when Vera over at the swamp starts using the term 'Soulish' as in 'well octopi aren't soulish creatures' to make these strange categories to put things in so that it's not death when they die.
ReplyDeleteThen of course there is simply the level of the cell which is dying and being recycled continuously. Oh yeah but your cells won't be 'soulish'.
"Well done. You've taken your first step into a larger world."
ReplyDeleteJust kidding.
This position is certainly infinitely more defensible than the YEC / 6,000 year interpretation of genesis and it allows you to really marvel at a 14 billion year old creation - pretty awesome, eh?
So, are Adam and Eve still real characters? If so, when and where (according to modern references) were they?
Cheers,
An interesting book I read many years ago was Genesis and the Big Bang by Gerald Schroeder. From memory the writer was a nuclear physicist and, as a Jew, he looked at the origins of the universe from both scientific and religious perspectives. He compared scientific understanding with historical Jewish writings (including Genesis). I don’t recall the details, apart from his conclusion that there was no essential contradiction between the Genesis account and the scientific view of an old universe when the limitations and nature of both religious and scientific approaches were taken into account.
ReplyDeleteWhile tracking down the author’s name I came across the following website that refers to his work, but isn’t necessarily endorsed by Schroder himself. The site seems to be a presentation of a video dealing with the subject, but not having the facilities to view the video I can’t offer comment on its content. Others may like to have a look and offer their views.
http://www.genesisbigbang.com/
Hey, Daniel- I'll second Matt: if you accept an old Earth and (possibly) evolution, then you have a worldview that agrees with mine in many ways. And agreement is the reason I bother to argue with believers: I don't really care what people believe, or don't believe, about God; what's important to me is how they behave. And while I don't know what's going on in New Zealand, in the US fundamentalist Christians have an inordinate amount of political clout, which they use to try to impose their worldview on public school students in the form of insinuating creationism into science classes, and their understanding of Armageddon into foreign policy. This I regard as objectionable and dangerous.
ReplyDeleteBut if you are willing to leave science to scientists, and are a man of peace, then more power to you.
cheers from snowy Vienna, zilch
p.s. you might all enjoy this clip from the Simpsons, Creationism Vs. Evolution
ReplyDeleteHey guys,
ReplyDeleteJust a couple of things before the weekend.
So, are Adam and Eve still real characters? If so, when and where (according to modern references) were they?
Of course they are real people, when did I suggest they weren't?
I don't know where they were but if you read in Genesis you can read some pointers about the rivers that flowed from a river from the area.
If they are roughly the same rivers as we have today then Mesopotamia would be about where the garden of Eden was. Maybe the fertile strip?
Zilch,
And while I don't know what's going on in New Zealand, in the US fundamentalist Christians have an inordinate amount of political clout, which they use to try to impose their worldview on public school students in the form of insinuating creationism into science classes, and their understanding of Armageddon into foreign policy. This I regard as objectionable and dangerous.
Depends how you look at it. A lack of understanding/belief about end times is your world view. Why should the government impose a lack of knowledge/belief about prophecy (your view) regarding world issues?
God is a part of science in some people's worldview including mine. Would you be willing to say that a preconceived idea that our universe is godless, is not part of science? because that is basically the opposite worldview.
Every idea man has regarding science is influenced by his worldview, God or no God.
Eg. Can we trust science to be accurate if it was not designed to be trusted? or do some people just take its accuracy for granted as a preconceived idea and practice anyway?
So it is a plus for people that believe in a designer because they understand that the laws were made and not an accident.
However, people that believe in God can have god of the gaps ideas which are not so good and can hinder science.
What is the alternative to God in science?
It is no God, when someone searches for scientific truth, who or what do they seek or expect to find? once again it depends on their worldview.
But if you are willing to leave science to scientists, and are a man of peace, then more power to you.
I seek truth, if seeking truth leads to uncomfortable ends then so be it. But yes I am all for peace but truth must come first.
Onesimus,
Check out David Pawson's teaching on Genesis and age of the earth if you can... very interesting. (I know you like him)
BT,
Eating a fruit is killing
a fruit! :)
Have a great weekend guys
You Must Always Blow On The Pie
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCL_5WfcnnM
Daniel, you say:
ReplyDeleteA lack of understanding/belief about end times is your world view. Why should the government impose a lack of knowledge/belief about prophecy (your view) regarding world issues?
For several reasons. One- whose prophecies should the government go by- the Christian, the Hindu, or the Scientologist, etc? Since there is an equal lack of evidence that any of these are true, then how is the government to decide? Perhaps by reading chicken entrails?
Two- supposing the government decides to go the Christian route: which Christians should they listen to? As you may know, there are differing schools of thought within Christianity about the "end times"- premillenarians, postmillenarians, rapturereadyists, etc. Again, in lack of any real-world evidence for any of these, how are they to decide?
Three, and more to the point: if the government decides to act upon what they consider to be a prophecy, and not on information from the real world, then they are doing exactly what Hitler did: Hitler believed that he was appointed by God to rid the world of Jews. This belief is laughable to just about anyone, but unfortunately it had very real consequences for millions of people. Do you really want to go that route?
President Bush went that route, too: he called French President Mitterand just before invading Iraq and begged him to join America, saying that Iraq and Iran were Gog and Magog, and that God had told him to invade. Is this your idea of good politics? I sincerely hope not.
Every idea man has regarding science is influenced by his worldview, God or no God.
While this is true, it's not science. True scientists, whether they be atheists such as Richard Dawkins or believers such as Francis Collins, go by the evidence, and not by what they believe about God. Whether or not God exists, science itself is neutral, and thus God has no place in public school science classrooms, which is where American fundamentalists are trying to put Him- the Christian God, naturally.
cheers from cold Vienna, zilch
Amen, Zilch, amen.
ReplyDeleteDa Bomb,
The other part of my question was 'when'? Do you think the universe was created over a 13+ billion year period and Adam and Eve were specially created around 6,000 years ago in Mesopotamia? Or was it some time earlier? Were there other humans around before them?
Questions, questions, questions....
Do you think the universe was created over a 13+ billion year period and Adam and Eve were specially created around 6,000 years ago in Mesopotamia? Or was it some time earlier? Were there other humans around before them?
ReplyDeletePicky, picky, Matt. If we want to hook this soul for the Devil, we must proceed slowly.
Bathtub
ReplyDelete"No death before the Fall doesn't make any sense at all because clearly Adam and Eve were supposed to be eating."
I too may give you that there may have been physical death before the fall. Lifespan of the human being far more greater than it is today. However, what was different after the fall was there was spiritual death.
Matt,
ReplyDelete"The other part of my question was 'when'? Do you think the universe was created over a 13+ billion year period and Adam and Eve were specially created around 6,000 years ago in Mesopotamia? Or was it some time earlier?"
Yes. This is the view you get when you read the full biblical account and take in the full counsel of G-d. Unfortunately, tradition christian thought is biased and what you guys judge us on.
Were there other humans around before them?"
Again, the bible clearly states that Adam and the garden was created on or about the third day and man was created on the sixth day. Check it out. One of the main purposes of my ministry is to tear down the walls of tradition and erroneous teaching and get back to the original teaching of G-d.
Shalom
Zilch,
ReplyDeletePicky, picky, Matt. If we want to hook this soul for the Devil, we must proceed slowly.
Be careful! On the outside chance that G-d truly exists, you should take care of what you say. :-)
Zilch,
ReplyDeleteFor several reasons. One- whose prophecies should the government go by- the Christian, the Hindu, or the Scientologist, etc? Since there is an equal lack of evidence that any of these are true, then how is the government to decide? Perhaps by reading chicken entrails?
That's an easy one. The ones that have come to fruition. One just needs to study all of them without any bias, which enables one to come to an unbias conclusion.
Two- supposing the government decides to go the Christian route: which Christians should they listen to? As you may know, there are differing schools of thought within Christianity about the "end times"- premillenarians, postmillenarians, rapturereadyists, etc. Again, in lack of any real-world evidence for any of these, how are they to decide?
ReplyDeleteActually, they are complimentary rather than divisive as you imply. Satan has done a great job at putting out erroneous information in order to lead weak believe astray. Looking at the pre-trib, mid-trib, etc. from multi-level discernment, you get the complete picture.
Zilch,
ReplyDelete"Three, and more to the point: if the government decides to act upon what they consider to be a prophecy, and not on information from the real world, then they are doing exactly what Hitler did: Hitler believed that he was appointed by God to rid the world of Jews. This belief is laughable to just about anyone, but unfortunately it had very real consequences for millions of people. Do you really want to go that route?"
It is laughable because you take the worldly view of Bilblical Prophesy. Biblical Prophecy is given for two reasons and two reasons only. First, to lay out the plan of G-d and two, to reveal that scripture is a supernatural message from G-d therby prooving G-d exists. It is not for the foretelling of the future.
Zilch,
ReplyDelete"...science itself is neutral.."
This is the only part of that particular sentence that is true. However, if you believe that science is not taught with one biased side in mind, you are either very dis-illusioned and very naive. Both should sides should be taught and the receiver of the message should bare it out according to the weight of the evidence.
Onesimus,
ReplyDelete"An interesting book I read many years ago was Genesis and the Big Bang by Gerald Schroeder."
Excellent book. It is presently sitting on my shelf.
Shalom Daniel,
ReplyDeleteThis is a good posting. Sorry for being away.
Keith
I said:
ReplyDeletewhose prophecies should the government go by- the Christian, the Hindu, or the Scientologist, etc? Since there is an equal lack of evidence that any of these are true, then how is the government to decide? Perhaps by reading chicken entrails?
No Doubt replied:
That's an easy one. The ones that have come to fruition. One just needs to study all of them without any bias, which enables one to come to an unbias conclusion.
Study all of them? I don't know about you, but I have a day job, and there are lots of prophecies out there. I doubt that I could study them as fast as they are generated.
But the prophecies I have learned about, from many different Christian apologists, wackos, self-described prophets, as well as a smattering of astrological and heathen believers, all have one thing in common: none of them have come to fruition.
So my question is: why should I believe that any of these prophecies are anything other than fantasies?
Oh, and P.S. I said:
ReplyDeletePicky, picky, Matt. If we want to hook this soul for the Devil, we must proceed slowly.
No Doubt replied:
Be careful! On the outside chance that G-d truly exists, you should take care of what you say. :-)
Not to worry. Since neither God nor the Devil is willing to put their money where their mouth is, I'll just stick with being good- it's more fun than being bad.
Hi Dan,
ReplyDeleteFrancis Collins, is a physician-geneticist, noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP) and is described as "one of the most accomplished scientists of our time".
He is a devout Christian.
I would hope along with your investigations that you would take a look at the site he founded, The Biologos Foundation.
He and other writers there articulate very well and have addressed many of the questions you have. It's very interesting stuff.
http://biologos.org/
One just needs to study all of them without any bias...
ReplyDeleteDamn. Zilch beat me to it. Clearly we cannot study every proposed 'prophecy,' so there must be some more specific discriminating criteria.
Looking at the pre-trib, mid-trib, etc. from multi-level discernment, you get the complete picture.
Huh? What is "multi-level discernment"? From my perspective, the differences in denomination (whether compatible or indifferent to one another, as tribulation theologies generally are, or incompatible and mutually exclusive, as various other theologies are) illustrate that determining the correct religion is tantamount to impossible -- one would have to assume a particular denomination and/or set of doctrines, practice the religion accordingly, and see what results. Shall we proceed alphabetically, or, again, is there some more specific discriminating criteria?
Both should [sic] sides should be taught and the receiver of the message should bare it out according to the weight of the evidence.
"Both sides"? Are there only two sides? Should every side be taught? Should I direct you to this site to illustrate your naïve error? Science rejects those "sides" which are fruitless, or have been shown to be incorrect, and instead focuses on the "sides" which show promise via a combination of prediction and explanation. Until you present a "side" which succeeds in this regard -- better than the present model -- I expect your "side" is appropriately ignored. Even theoretical science is addled by this requirement -- try getting a grant to research a theory/hypothesis which offers no hope for prediction or explanation.
[All prophecies about which Zilch has learned] have one thing in common: none of them have come to fruition.
This is untrue, Z. ND will argue that many of the bible's prophecies came to fruition, but his argument lacks teeth -- a 'prophecy' which comes to fruition is meaningless unless its realization is far more unlikely than its failure, and a 'prophecy' which provides no explicit terminus is likewise meaningless, as those who accept it can constantly move the goalposts, citing their own error rather than admitting error in the 'prophecy.'
Surely, Z, you've encountered 'prophecy' which predicts the mundane, and surely you've encountered 'prophecy' which has been realized by way of calculated effort. When a 'prophet' 'prophesies' something which is possible to occur, and believers willfully enact the 'prophecy,' is that not a trivial example of fulfilled 'prophecy'? ND will struggle to deny this, but it is exactly this scenario which surrounds the 'fulfilled' biblical 'prophecies.'
Better put, then, only the meaningless 'prophecies' have "come to fruition," and those which have not are meaningless because they provide no explicit terminus. Hence, all 'prophecies' thus far offered are either meaningless, outright failures (see El Dani, Jehovah's Witnesses, et al), or pending [failure].
--
Stan
Froggie,
ReplyDeleteBiologos is an interesting site, but it isn't yet complete; I posted a comment or two when it was first activated, and they've yet to publish a single one (and I doubt very much that I'm the only one to submit a comment). Until they post comments (and hopefully address them), it's a billboard.
--
Stan
P.S. -- the word verification for my last post was, I kid you not, "crazi." Fitting.
No Doubt,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here;
"Yes. This is the view you get when you read the full biblical account and take in the full counsel of G-d. Unfortunately, tradition christian thought is biased and what you guys judge us on".
I mean, the last sentence doesn't make any grammatical sense and your 'yes' wasn't clearly aimed at any one specific thing I said. Could you possibly clarify your position on this?
Cheers,
Stan: by "come to fruition" I of course meant "come true in a scientifically significant way". I thought you got the memo.
ReplyDeleteStan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the heads up. Since Dr. Collins was appointed to the NIH (National institute of health) by Obama, he may have let the site slide.
Although, there are some good articles there showing how Christians can esily justify their scientific views.
Zilch,
ReplyDeletePicky, picky, Matt. If we want to hook this soul for the Devil, we must proceed slowly.
LOL, Dogmatism?
For several reasons. One- whose prophecies should the government go by- the Christian, the Hindu, or the Scientologist, etc? Since there is an equal lack of evidence that any of these are true, then how is the government to decide? Perhaps by reading chicken entrails?
What about all the "faiths". Christianity, Atheism, Hinduism, Islam...isms...
All faiths have a world view. We must pick the best one.
You ask "which Christian belief should we follow", but I ask the same of you...how can we be sure that your atheism is the correct belief?
I said: "Every idea man has regarding science is influenced by his worldview, God or no God."
While this is true, it's not science. True scientists, whether they be atheists such as Richard Dawkins or believers such as Francis Collins, go by the evidence, and not by what they believe about God.
But what you believe about God influeneces the way you look at science.
But what you believe about God influeneces [sic] the way you look at science.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what you believe about god, the inclined plane behaves the way it does. No matter what you think about god, light refraction behaves per Snell's law. No matter what god you worship, science shows that the age of the universe is more than 10,000 years, that there was no global flood, that the ToE works. It's only when we refuse to look through Galileo's telescope that we fail to see the Jovian moons now named after him, or the phases of Venus that proved the sun was our solar system's center. Like it or not, science works independently of the religious views of its practitioners.
I suppose, then, that you're right in a sense -- what a person believes about god does influence the way he looks at science. Young-earth creationists, for example, look at science with suspicion and fear. If you hold to any particular dogmatic view, then science can and will be a problem.
--
Stan
What about all the "faiths". Christianity, Atheism, Hinduism, Islam...isms...
ReplyDeleteAll faiths have a world view. We must pick the best one.
You ask "which Christian belief should we follow", but I ask the same of you...how can we be sure that your atheism is the correct belief?
As I said, Daniel, I have a day job, and I can't afford to look at every hairbrained belief someone has entertained sometime. Atheism is not a belief but rather a lack of belief in gods, the default position we all come into the world with. And although I'm willing to admit that I haven't fully investigated Voodoo or Cargo Cults, I haven't seen any signs from any of the religions I've encountered so far that they have any evidence going for them, so I'll stick with my parsimonious atheism for the moment.
Thus I'll ask, along with Stan: how are we to know which belief system, if any, is correct? Obviously we can't examine them all deeply, because life is short and bills are long.
As far as bein
Da Bomb said:
ReplyDeleteOnesimus,
Check out David Pawson's teaching on Genesis and age of the earth if you can... very interesting. (I know you like him)
-----
I've heard his teaching on the beginning of Genesis, but it was quite a while ago. I'll Have to have another listen.
I particularly like Pawson's take on the length of the days of creation - that the seventh day lasted until Jesus' resurrection when the beginning of the new creation marked the first day of a second week of creation. And that this time God starts with creating new man and concludes with the creation of a new heaven and earth.
Int he first creation God made an environment suitable for man. In the new creation He creates man to be suitable for a holy and righteous environment.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOnesimus,
ReplyDeleteYeah, Pawson really comes out with some interesting ideas and ways of putting things.
Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteI just noticed something. You never actually say why you think the earth might be old.
You go to a lot of trouble to say how the text can be congruent with an old earth, but you don't let us know why you are even considering that possibility in the first place.
Is it based on the science? Or is there something in Scripture that indicates an old, rather than a young, earth?
Cheers,
Hey Matt,
ReplyDeleteIs it based on the science? Or is there something in Scripture that indicates an old, rather than a young, earth?
Yes it is based on science and what God has told us through it...provided it is correct.
I particularly like this talk: http://www.reasons.org/age-earth/radiometric-dating-techniques/deep-core-tests-age-earth
Also, Biblically it easily suggests an old earth reading. I am still learning and studying.
cheers,
Dan
Da Bomb,
ReplyDelete"Yes it is based on science and what God has told us through it...provided it is correct".
How do you determine what is correct or not?
"Also, Biblically it easily suggests an old earth reading. I am still learning and studying".
What, in the Bible, specifically suggests an old earth, do you think?
Learning + Studying = good!
Cheers,
How do you determine what is correct or not?
ReplyDeleteBoth must be reconciled I believe. Either we have interpreted science wrong, or we have interpreted the Bible wrong.
What, in the Bible, specifically suggests an old earth, do you think?
Not specifically, the Bible gives no date. (except for some passages saying that the hills are ancient or something like that, though I can't remember where...maybe in Job?)
As I hoped to bring out in my post that an old earth reading is quite logical and probable. That is all I meant, that it can easily suggest an old earth reading.
cheers,
DB