Reasons to Believe - RTB old earth

[Paidion]

...where did the 24 hour days before the creation of the sun come from?

Where did the LIGHT before the sun was created come from? (Genesis 1:3). How did God SEPARATE the light from the darkness? Doesn't that suggest that the light came from a particular direction? If the earth rotated on its axis, then the same conditions for night and day may have existed as today. It's just that the light source did not come from the sun, but from the previously created light source of Genesis 1:3.

[darinhouston]

I found the portion of the Talmud discussed above -- I see it recognizing an "other-ness" in the 6 days passages and seemed to regard it as something other than simply straightforward literal history. That, I believe, is the point of the article.

[TK]

Apollos wrote:

If someone doesn't acknowledge that the traditional interpretation is the most natural way of taking the text, then I do not think they are being honest with themselves. We all make such evaluations all the time, yet you've chosen to unfairly present this as some very convenient claim. If the meaning of a text is obvious, such that 99% of anyone without an agenda (including the wish to make scripture and modern scientific theory harmonious) can see clearly what it means, it isn't evidence that a person is unwilling to examine their beliefs if they think the one percent are kidding themselves.

I pretty much agree with what steve7150 wrote in response to this.

I agree with you that if we had no scientific knowledge and we just read Genesis 1 then of course it would give us the idea that the universe was created in a 6 day time period (and perhaps not very long ago). I don't have a problem admitting that at all.

But we DO have scientific knowledge- tons of it. The early church and early Hebrews didnt have any scientific knowledge (at least not what I mean by scientific knowledge). Now I understand that every dating method used today may be wrong and every scientist that says the universe is billions (vs thousands) of years old may be goofy but I doubt it. Like I have said before, I could see the scientists being wrong about the age of the universe, but BILLIONS of years wrong?? I find that a bit much. And is science pretty much correct in every other endeavor (chemistry, physics, physiology, etc etc) but drastically wrong in astronomy and geology? Why would we make that conclusion?

In regard to the language of Genesis 1 and the use of the word "day" I guess I dont see what the big deal is. Assuming the universe IS very ancient, but God wanted Moses to write an account that sets forth that God was the creator and that people could understand, what kind of language would he have used? He wasn't writing to rocket scientists, after all.

It seems the main reason rabid YECs thake that position is that they feel if they concede an ancient earth ithen evolution necessarily follows(or at least opens up the door to the possibility). Nothing could be further from the truth. Ross is no evolutionist.

All Hugh Ross says is that scripture and science are perfectly compatible. Sounds good to me.

TK

[alastairblake]

RTB and Ross would present some changing in MICRO evolution, but not species jumping or forms of Macro Evolution.

check out http://www.reasons.org/evolution/macro- ... -evolution if you want actual explanation. im not gonna attempt paraphrase.

[Homer]

TK wrote:

And is science pretty much correct in every other endeavor (chemistry, physics, physiology, etc etc) but drastically wrong in astronomy and geology? Why would we make that conclusion?

Science has been very wrong about many things. And very wrong for a long periods of time. We see it often in the medical field, but there it is discovered because actual scientific studies and experiments are conducted. Yet how many years were women told to take hormone replacement therapy, only to be told it could be very harmful when actual science, rather than theory, was utilized? And how about the discovery that most ulcers are caused by bacteria? The doctor who discovered that was laughed at because they "knew" he was wrong. As my physician of many years remarked "they are always changing it".

The problem with the science regarding the age of the earth is that there is no way to prove experimentally whether it is right or wrong; they always begin with assumptions

[Apollos]

I pretty much agree with what steve7150 wrote in response to this.

I agree with you that if we had no scientific knowledge and we just read Genesis 1 then of course it would give us the idea that the universe was created in a 6 day time period (and perhaps not very long ago). I don't have a problem admitting that at all.

Good, that was my point, and I think it a reasonable one, and you have agreed with it.

Rather than address Steve's post directly, I'll just throw it in here - of course we ought to seek to harmonize science and Scripture - I have never said otherwise. However, it cannot be done at the expense of the plain intended meaning of Scripture. That is where we disagree. Scripture clearly communicates creation in six days. Either it is wrong, or modern scientific presuppositions are wrong. Ignoring the plain intent of the verses and trying to reinterpret words contrary to their normal usage to make scripture conformable to modern theories is arbitrary at best. You are not taking the plain intent of the words, but are trying to find a way to paper over problems with them, just as a liberal judge would re-interpret the plain meaning of the Constitution. 'evening and morning were the second day' - I don't see that you can do anything with that, and judging from both the baseless hostility on the one hand, and the loud silence on the other, this observation has engendered so far, I have to conclude that the problem is acute.

But we DO have scientific knowledge- tons of it. The early church and early Hebrews didnt have any scientific knowledge (at least not what I mean by scientific knowledge).

Do you realize what you have just said? If I held your view, I would have no option but to admit that Gen. 1 had been written in such a way as to deceive people in the pre-scientific age into thinking that the world was made in six days. What's the point having a revelation from God if it's so obviously wrong?

Now I understand that every dating method used today may be wrong and every scientist that says the universe is billions (vs thousands) of years old may be goofy but I doubt it. Like I have said before, I could see the scientists being wrong about the age of the universe, but BILLIONS of years wrong?? I find that a bit much. And is science pretty much correct in every other endeavor (chemistry, physics, physiology, etc etc) but drastically wrong in astronomy and geology? Why would we make that conclusion?

Don't you see? You don't believe in evolution, therefore you have no grounds to make this argument, as you do believe that modern science has succumbed to mass delusion. And it is not true to state that 'every' scientist holds to an old universe - Humphreys, one time nuclear scientist at Los Alamos; Andrews, materials science at the University of London; Walt Brown, with his phd from MIT. Why isn't it possible that the same process that has worked into convincing scientists that evolution is a virtual fact, has worked to persuade them that the universe is billions of years old? Have you read Walt Brown??? One example - college astronomony - we were told that one theory of how the sun generates heat is the gravitational theory - it provides heat as it contracts under its own weight. However, we were told that this theory couldn't be right, not because it doesn't work, not because it isn't feasible, but because the sun in that scenario could only be tens of thousands of years old.

Lastly - and I made this point right at the beginning - there is a vast difference between technology and theoretical science - one has checks and balances, the other doesn't. Do you really think we would have flat screen TVs if scientists had to develop them theoretically, from scratch, with no testing of the hypothesis? But their theories are not falsifiable in this way, and any adverse evidence can simply be explained away by making adjustments to the theoretical model. If you don't think it's possible, you should at least read Walt Brown, whose book is the best in my opinion, and is available freely online. This guy posits hypotheses based on his geological model which often receive confirmation from new discoveries - such as that there would be salt water found deep under the earth (actually confirmed after he made the thesis).

In regard to the language of Genesis 1 and the use of the word "day" I guess I dont see what the big deal is. Assuming the universe IS very ancient, but God wanted Moses to write an account that sets forth that God was the creator and that people could understand, what kind of language would he have used? He wasn't writing to rocket scientists, after all.

It's funny how you guys keep saying it's not a big deal, as though I or anyone else am making it a bigger deal than you guys. I didn't start this thread, and only decided to chime in as I was surprised at how many of you there were, and how you all seemed to be taking the view as self-evident. However, to answer your question, if he used prose narrative to describe the events as history, he would have used historically true language. So it is a big deal, because the language he used tells us that the world was made in six days, and there is no room in the language for any other view. If the world wasn't made in six days, the account wouldn't have said that it was - it could have been much more vague, or it could have been written as poetry, not as an account of the history of the world. I can't see what the big deal is either - it plainly says what it says, as even unbelievers who don't believe it admit - yet there are some trying to break apart the passage and arbitrary give meanings to words which they simply don't possess. And the fact that the article on RTB was so appallingly written, and filled with so many errors, should really open the eyes of people on here that that website is not a serious resource for looking at the interpretation of Scripture.

It seems the main reason rabid YECs thake that position is that they feel if they concede an ancient earth ithen evolution necessarily follows(or at least opens up the door to the possibility). Nothing could be further from the truth. Ross is no evolutionist.

I'm surprised to hear you now talking about 'rabid YECs'. It really does seem to me that you guys have some issues with people. You're persuaded of a view which simply doesn't fit the Hebrew text, yet it's everyone else at fault again, everyone else making it a big deal. Is this victim mentality common among old earthers, because it isn't very attractive? What's that got to do with whether Genesis can teach an old earth or not? This is also a caricature. If the text allowed for an old earth, I and many others would have no problem admitting that - it wouldn't threaten me. This simplistic idea that YECs are all reactionaries simply is not the case. In the real world, there are usually reactionaries on both sides of an argument, and their presence or absence doesn't affect the truth or otherwise of a position. There seems to be a few on here.

All Hugh Ross says is that scripture and science are perfectly compatible. Sounds good to me.

Of course they are compatible. But when the integrity of the text is not respected, and when it's plain meaning is distorted with all kinds of rhetorical gymnastics to try to get around the obvious meaning conveyed by the author, there's a problem. But each to his own, I guess.

[Apollos]

RTB and Ross would present some changing in MICRO evolution, but not species jumping or forms of Macro Evolution.

check out http://www.reasons.org/evolution/macro- ... -evolution if you want actual explanation. im not gonna attempt paraphrase.

... and so would every reputable creation scientist. Perhaps you should try giving them a read as it really sounds like you are assuming that Ross is saying something that they aren't.

[jriccitelli]

You have to think that many ancient readers would of 'also' considered that 'everything' being created in 6 literal days as 'incredible', (Since it 'is' incredible!)Not necessarily 'symbolic', but rather a 'generalization' of something immense summarized into a short sequential account.
You have to admit an immense amount of creating, construction and activity goes on within the first 31 verses of Genesis. Note that God condenses the whole creation account to fit on 'one' page (scroll, whatever). That event if in any detail i am sure could fill the whole 900 pages. 'Alot' happened in the genesis, but it seems like God wasn't too interested in giving us much information about it.
Therefore the lack of words and detail could make a reader think; the 'writer' is making a summary of something large, to which He is purposely trying to compact, which would mean He may have to make allegorical type speech.
(Or, use words that the reader can understand to compartmentalize or file such epic events)

I would rather God gave much more detail in this account, and If consider the references to this as the reason for a 7 day week, I think that makes it difficult, but not impossible to correlate.
(I am not unmovable in my understanding of this, but I hold that God could have made earth, moon and sun in 6 days, and I believe in a young earth of approx. 20,000 yrs. But I think the universe would have to be day one, being billions of light years old, and the stars of verse 16, well...)

[Paidion]

Do you really think we would have flat screen TVs if scientists had to develop them theoretically, from scratch, with no testing of the hypothesis? But their theories are not falsifiable in this way, and any adverse evidence can simply be explained away by making adjustments to the theoretical model.

I think this is a VERY important point which Apollos has made. A true theory is falsifiable in principle. If it isn't then it's not a theory. My own pet name for it is "queery". For example, the current astronomical model for the universe predicted that there should have been 6 to 8 feet of dust on the surface of the moon, due to the falling of small particles over millions of years. As it turned out, there were only a couple of inches of dust on the surface of the moon. Did this fact disprove the astronomical model? No, the model was simply adjusted to accomodate the fact of only two inches of moon dust. And so it is with every factual discovery. It is impossible to falsify the evolution theory, since it is assumed to be correct and "scientific". So no matter what is discovered is accomodated into the theory by adjusting the evolutionary model.

Here is a more historical example. Many years ago, the "scientific" phlogiston hypothesis was proposed to explain the burning of materials in fire. Wood contains a substance called "phlogiston" as do all other infammable substances. After burning wood has lost all its phlogiston, the fire goes out, and you are left with ashes, which contain no phlogiston. Even after Joseph Priestly discovered oxygen in the 18th century, he continued to defend the phlogiston queery. When the modern theory came into vogue, that oxygen combined with some element in the burning material, most "scientists" tenaciously held on to the phlogiston queery. Those who held the oxygen model asked them, "When you burn wood in a stove, and you close the damper, why does the fire die down? The reason is that the fire gets less oxygen."

"Oh, no," the reply comes from those who hold the phlogiston model, "The reason the fire dies down, is that closing the damper prevents the phlogiston from escaping. It's obvious that this is the case, for why do the ashes that remain weigh less than the original wood? It's because the wood has lost its phlogiston! If oxygen were added to the wood, the ashes would weigh MORE.

Then a discovery was made. When you set aflame magnesium, the resulting white ash DOES WEIGH MORE that the original magnesium. So the oxygen people proudly declared a victory. "That's no proof," replied the phlogiston people. "SOMETIMES phlogiston has negative weight!"

Well this was unbelievable, but it illustrates the extent to which people will go in order to hang onto a strong belief. Eventually, the simpler explanation prevailed, that of oxygen being united to the carbon in wood to produce carbon dioxide (which is a gas, the weight of which when ADDED to the ashes is greater than that of the original wood), or in this case with the magnesium to produce magnesium oxide, a solid material which weighs more than the original magnesium.

The older model of the solar system had the sun and stars (as well as the planets) revolving around the earth. The unusual motions of the planets were explained by saying that they travelled in cycles and/or epicycles as they travelled around the earth. The simpler model of the planets revolving around the sun was eventully accepted.

It seems unwise to put a great deal of faith in the current "scientific" models. Like the models of the past, they are unlikely to survive, but be replaced by simpler models.
Although they are almost unversally accepted, there is reason to doubt even Einstein's theories of relativity. Do we really believe that objects shorten as they appoach the speed of light, and that time slows down?
It is assumed that the speed of light is always constant. What if time is the constant, and the speed of light varies? After all, Einstein's theories basically concern the behavious of light, do they not? I am not qualified to give a technical explanation of my thoughts, but I do know that there are others who have had similar doubts.

[steve7150]

Steve7150 wrote:
...where did the 24 hour days before the creation of the sun come from?

Where did the LIGHT before the sun was created come from? (Genesis 1:3). How did God SEPARATE the light from the darkness? Doesn't that suggest that the light came from a particular direction? If the earth rotated on its axis, then the same conditions for night and day may have existed as today. It's just that the light source did not come from the sun, but from the previously created light source of Genesis 1:3.





You mean God imitated exactly what the light from the sun would do before the sun was created and before man was created? Also the orbit and axis and a million other things about the earth are related to the gravity from the sun and the moon, which most believe were created during the 4th day. So for the first 3 or 4 days God did the job the sun and the moon would do in relation to the earth? For what purpose would he do this? Is there scriptural evidence for this conclusion? You can make deductions using "ifs", and that's fine but the YEC position has to fill in missing details also, to fit six 24 hour creation days.