Young earth vs. ancient earth- where do you stand?

[Guest]

I'm not sure where this discussion is or has gone...hmmmm? But you got me to thinkin. Actually, I've never thought about what I'm about to post till tonite. Namely, how the Hebrews saw "a day." I've considered this regarding "When was Jesus really resurrected?" but didn't think to apply Hebrew thought on Genesis till now. (Prolly ought to, huh)? I'm not sure if this will help y'all but here goes.

This gets kind of tricky. I'll be posting-thinking out loud...Ok.

Genesis 1, NIV
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 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.

The light is named "day" by God. We would call this "day-time" (it's not dark outside). God names "night." It is "night-time" (the sun has gone down). Simple enuf.

Verse 5b is where we get into a calendar day. The Hebrews didn't -- and Orthodox Jews still don't -- see a calendar day like we do. For us it is 12:00am (midnight) till 11:59pm. Hebrew calendar-days BEGIN at sundown and END at sunset!

So if I was following a Hebrew 24 hour day period here in Ohio...it would be "Tuesday night" right now beginning at whenever the sun went down earlier today. (I'm posting on Monday at 11:42pm Ohio time). "Tuesday" in this scenario would continue till tomorrow evening at the moment of sunset....when "Wednesday" would begin.

"Evening" to the Hebrews began at what we would call "noon." And depending on what area you live in (USA wise anyway)...you might say the same thing. At any rate, when the sun begins go down from its highest point, this is "evening" to the Hebrews. Evening continues till "night" time -- at which point the next calendar day begins also!

"Morning" to the Hebrews was from sunrise till evening (about noon in our thinking).

So, having made the heavens and the earth, God continued working in darkness, then created light and separated it from the darkness. His first "clocking-in" was, apparently, on the Night Shift. It seems like he quit working at about noon.

Where am I going with this? Some new "gap theory?" 'Don't know fersure....

Wait, 'think I just got something. Ok, now I see why the Jewish days begin when the sun goes down! God started in darkness and so do they! (I've always wondered about that)....
Rick

[Guest]

I'm at about 8.5...mostly Old Earth. And I lean toward the Hugh Ross OEC viewpoint. Ken Ham and Kent Hovind (whose works I have read) don't convince me. On the other hand, I don't have any particular problem with others who invoke YEC (as long as they don't bring up the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics), or those who hold the Theistic Evolution viewpoint.

To me, I figure the point of Genesis 1 is "God did it." But I'm not at all convinced that Genesis was an attempt to convey anything at all about how it was done.

BTW, I recommend the following for Old Earth views (the latter two are evolution-ish, so be forewarned):

"Creation and Time", Hugh Ross
"Genesis and the Big Bang", Gerald Schroeder
"The Language of God", Francis Collins

[Guest]

Well stated Derek. Further, I think its worth pointing out that God himself defines the word 'day' in Gen 1:5. That definition of course has to do with the presence (or absence) of physical 'light' which agrees well with the YEC position and morning/evening pairs for each day.

Gen 1.5 "So the evening and the morning were the first day." Well it's how God also defined the second,third,fourth,fifth and sixth day also.
While there are instances where either evening or morning are used the fact is that outside of Genesis there is only one other time the bible uses "evening and morning."
Psalm 55.17 "Evening and morning and at noon , will i pray." It may be irrelevant but it's interesting David added the word "noon" because he may have realized that evening and morning alone don't come across as a full day or all day long.
As Mattrose pointed out it is a phrase and it is a phrase used nowhere else in the bible to describe a day.

[Guest]

Gen 1.5 "So the evening and the morning were the first day." Well it's how God also defined the second,third,fourth,fifth and sixth day also.

I think that was his point.

While there are instances where either evening or morning are used the fact is that outside of Genesis there is only one other time the bible uses "evening and morning."
Psalm 55.17 "Evening and morning and at noon , will i pray." It may be irrelevant but it's interesting David added the word "noon" because he may have realized that evening and morning alone don't come across as a full day or all day long.
As Mattrose pointed out it is a phrase and it is a phrase used nowhere else in the bible to describe a day.

Hi Steve,

My point, (which I supported by scripture), was that any time the word "morning" "evening" or a number are coupled with "day" it is an ordinary day. Not that morning and evening in and of themselves mean an ordinary day. All three are coupled with the word "day" in Genesis 1.

If you want to keep believing what you believe, though I don't think you've provided a good reason to interpret the scripture that way, nor have you responded to the majority of the points I have made, you are free to do so. You are still my brother in the Lord. And no less so because you think the earth is really old!

In Jesus,

[Guest]

Not speaking for all Old-Earthers, but the language of Genesis 1 really doesn't even enter into the picture for me. I've read stuff on both sides that seems convincing, but in the end it doesn't matter.

To me, the fact that the apparent age of the earth is old is the key factor. I don't think there's a big conspiracy to make the earth look older than it is.

I highly recommend Gerald Schroeder's book Genesis and the Big Bang. But if you just want to read about the Age of the Earth part, check out his website:

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html

So, what do YEC's think about the apparent age of Earth (or the universe, for that matter)?

[/url]

[Guest]

Neither the YEC or OEC side disagree about what the earth looks like now, obviously. THe YEC's don't say the earth 'looks' young. They say it looks deluged and destroyed. The OEC say the earth looks the way it does b/c of age. Things can look old for two reasons. Either they've been through a lot or they're actually old. It's a misrepresentation, actually, to say that a YEC thinks everything looks 6000 years old. They actually think it looks like something 6000 years old that's been rampaged by water. Big difference!

[Guest]

If you want to keep believing what you believe, though I don't think you've provided a good reason to interpret the scripture that way, nor have you responded to the majority of the points I have made, you are free to do so. You are still my brother in the Lord. And no less so because you think the earth is really old!

Thanks Derek, and btw you may be right but some things don't seem to make sense to me like in the YE view how do we get from 30,000 species on the ark to 5,000,000 in 6,000 years?

[Guest]

Things can look old for two reasons. Either they've been through a lot or they're actually old.

In my case, it's the former.

[Guest]

I highly recommend Gerald Schroeder's book Genesis and the Big Bang. But if you just want to read about the Age of the Earth part, check out his website:

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html

Seth, from what I understand, it was Schroeder's book "The Hidden Face of God" that had a great impact on Antony Flew rejecting atheism. For those who don't know Antony Flew, he was one of the most notorious atheist of our time. He even debated CS Lewis at one time. Although he is not a Christian yet, he now acknowleldges there must be a God.

Here's Flew being quoted from secularhumanism.org

"I am very much impressed with physicist Gerald Schroeder’s comments on Genesis 1. That this biblical account might be scientifically accurate raises the possibility that it is revelation.”

and

“I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. However, I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.”

Websites like secularhumanism.org and infidel.org have been in panic mode since Flew rejected atheism. They saw him as a hero.

Steve

[Guest]

In my case, it's the former.