Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[JudgeRightly]

I don't disagree. My point is that the first days were longer than 24 hours.

Except the way verse 5 was originally worded leaves no room for anything other than a 24 hour period.

The nice thing about the NKJV is that, apart from it being the closest to the Hebrew manuscripts we have today while still using modern language, is that it also provides (usually as a footnote) the literal translation,

Here's Genesis 1:5, along with the footnote:

God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. - Genesis 1:5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:5&version=NKJV

Here's YLT:

and God calleth to the light `Day,' and to the darkness He hath called `Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day one. - Genesis 1:5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:5&version=YLT

Please, if you can, tell me how the context of that word makes it mean anything other than a literal 24-hour day.

My point is that God is not deceptive. He shows us that his creation is billions of years old. He is not bound by an earth day of 24 hours.

Then why wouldn't He just say "billions of years" instead of insisting, multiple times in scripture, that it was a six day creation, that man was created at the beginning, and not the end or the middle.

Radiometric dating
Observation of geology
Observation of the universe
Observation, observation, observation...

Here's the observations that have been made by the young earthers about how young the earth is:

http://kgov.com/RSR-list-shows

 

[Stripe]

Yes

Great. We disagree. The way to examine our competing claims is to look at the evidence. I have provided ideas and evidence. For your assertion, we have your assertion.

Also, the Bible does not uphold your story. You invented it.

He TELLS US 'six days.'

There are two sensible positions:

1. The Bible is right when it says "six days."
2. The Bible is not correct.

There's a multitude of senseless assertions that involve mangling scripture.

If people believe the evidence shows billions of years, they should reject the historicity of the Biblical account.

Unfortunately, people aren't prone to sense.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Idolater]

There are two sensible positions:

1. The Bible is right when it says "six days."
2. The Bible is not correct.

There's a multitude of senseless assertions that involve mangling scripture.

If people believe the evidence shows billions of years, they should reject the historicity of the Biblical account.

Nah. I believe science when it estimates the age of the universe, I just know that it's the same type of estimate that anybody'd have made about the age of Adam and Eve on day eight---they would have thought 'mid-twenties' or 'late teens' or something like that, but nope: they were only two days old.

 

[Stripe]

I believe science when it estimates the age of the universe.

Science isn't about belief; it's about testing ideas and throwing them out when they are showed as impossible. If you believe the evidence shows billions of years, you should reject the historicity of the Biblical account of origins.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Idolater]

Science isn't about belief; it's about testing ideas and throwing them out when they are showed as impossible. If you believe the evidence shows billions of years, you should reject the historicity of the Biblical account of origins.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

:idunno: I disagree. My view has God telling the truth, and science figuring out how much work He did in six days. 'Current estimate: over 13 billion years worth of work in just six days. Amazing!

 

[Stripe]

My view has God telling the truth, and science figuring out how much work He did in six days. 'Current estimate: over 13 billion years worth of work in just six days. Amazing!

It's an entertaining way to describe the situation, but it's not scientifically satisfying. Also, it assumes the veracity of a Big Bang cosmology. I think that paradigm is fallible and would hunt for an idea that is consistent with "six days."

As yet, I haven't read anything that robustly deals with the starlight problem. It remains the greatest challenge I know of to the YEC position.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

It's an entertaining way to describe the situation, but it's not scientifically satisfying. Also, it assumes the veracity of a Big Bang cosmology. I think that paradigm is fallible and would hunt for an idea that is consistent with "six days."

As yet, I haven't read anything that robustly deals with the starlight problem. It remains the greatest challenge I know of to the YEC position.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

You saw the link I posted that dealt with the starlight problem, yes? If not, I'll post it again.

 

[MennoSota]

How that helps your view is beyond me. Science gives us the 13+ billion year age, but it does so through a detailed order of events, and it does not align with the order of events recorded in Genesis, so you still have God as a liar. 'Six days' equaling 13 billion years doesn't help your problem with the order of events.

Certain scientific theories may do what you claim. Science doesn't. The first scientists, using scientific method, were all Christians.
The Bible and science agree on the order of events. Young earthers simply require a 24 hour day, though no one else requires it.

 

[MennoSota]

Except the way verse 5 was originally worded leaves no room for anything other than a 24 hour period.

The nice thing about the NKJV is that, apart from it being the closest to the Hebrew manuscripts we have today while still using modern language, is that it also provides (usually as a footnote) the literal translation,

Here's Genesis 1:5, along with the footnote:

God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. - Genesis 1:5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:5&version=NKJV

Here's YLT:

and God calleth to the light `Day,' and to the darkness He hath called `Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day one. - Genesis 1:5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:5&version=YLT

Please, if you can, tell me how the context of that word makes it mean anything other than a literal 24-hour day.



Then why wouldn't He just say "billions of years" instead of insisting, multiple times in scripture, that it was a six day creation, that man was created at the beginning, and not the end or the middle.



Here's the observations that have been made by the young earthers about how young the earth is:

http://kgov.com/RSR-list-shows

First...the NKJV being closet to the original manuscripts...LOL [emoji23]
Second, length of a day is relative to the object revolving which results in one rotation. There was light in the first "day". What sphere was created on day 1 that we are able to deduce 24 hours?
Day is not meant to be a literal 24 hour earth day. You demand it, but God doesn't demand it. Peter tells us that with God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. God is not constricted by the limitations you are trying to enforce.
The area we both agree on is that God created. From nothing, God created something. Therefore God is eternal because...ex nihilo, nihilo fit.

 

[MennoSota]

Great. We disagree. The way to examine our competing claims is to look at the evidence. I have provided ideas and evidence. For your assertion, we have your assertion.

Also, the Bible does not uphold your story. You invented it.



There are two sensible positions:

1. The Bible is right when it says "six days."
2. The Bible is not correct.

There's a multitude of senseless assertions that involve mangling scripture.

If people believe the evidence shows billions of years, they should reject the historicity of the Biblical account.

Unfortunately, people aren't prone to sense.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

The Bible is correct when it says six days. You are incorrect when you demand those days be 24 hours.

 

[JudgeRightly]

First...the NKJV being closet to the original manuscripts...LOL [emoji23]

Please don't misrepresent what I clearly said.

I DID NOT SAY "original manuscripts."

I SAID "the Hebrew manuscripts we have today."

Tagging [MENTION=1851]john w[/MENTION] RE: "Original Manuscripts"

Second, length of a day is relative to the object revolving which results in one rotation. There was light in the first "day". What sphere was created on day 1 that we are able to deduce 24 hours?

Please explain why "day one" cannot mean a 24-hour period given the context of the verse, which says "a day, one" in Hebrew, which is not how it refers to days 2 through 7 ("second", "third", etc). In other words, you have to explain how billions of years fits into the phrase "day one," and not the phrase "the first day."

Day is not meant to be a literal 24 hour earth day. You demand it,

No. Scripture demands it.

but God doesn't demand it.

Yes, He does. "[a] day[,] one."

Peter tells us that with God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day.

Peter is not talking about how God experiences time. He's talking about longsuffering God is and powerful He is.

"A thousand years is as a day," is describing how patient God is, that He can wait a thousand years for something, and it would only be like He waited one day.

"A day is as a thousand years," is describing how powerful God is, that He can do things in one day that would, in comparison, take man a thousand years (which is to say, that He can do the impossible, because no man has ever lived that long).

If you disagree with that assessment of that passage, before replying, go read the verses that surround that passage, then try to assert it does not mean what it is clearly talking about.

God is not constricted by the limitations you are trying to enforce.

The only one putting limitations on God here is you, by saying that God did not do what He said He did in the amount of time He said He did it in. You're limiting God to billions of years, instead of letting Him say six days.

The area we both agree on is that God created. From nothing, God created something. Therefore God is eternal because...ex nihilo, nihilo fit.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The Bible is correct when it says six days. You are incorrect when you demand those days be 24 hours.

Jesus demanded that it be 24 hours, because He said "At the beginning of creation God made them male and female."

Day 6 is at the beginning of creation if "day" means 24 hours. Day 6 is near the end of creation, or at best the middle of creation, if Day means "billions of years."

 

[Stripe]

You saw the link I posted that dealt with the starlight problem, yes? If not, I'll post it again.

Yeah, I read it. Still not satisfied.

EDIT: Though that might be due to my head getting fuzzed by all the maths.

 

[Idolater]

It's an entertaining way to describe the situation, but it's not scientifically satisfying.

Why not? My view permits science to follow its nose, and to report on its findings freely. It only requires that God performed some sort of miracle in creating everything in six days, what looks to be, for now, at least the majority report is, it looks like over 13 billion years worth of time's elapsed from the beginning.

"Whatever," I say. I know it started within the last 10,000 years. That it looks older is precisely parallel to God creating Adam and Eve as grown adults, which is something we all believe, and that nobody has trouble with.

Also, it assumes the veracity of a Big Bang cosmology. I think that paradigm is fallible and would hunt for an idea that is consistent with "six days."

I think that in order to create everything in six days, God had to reverse engineer from what He wanted the earth to be, to what the universe that's required to support the earth needed to be, and He made all of that, just for the Garden. The farthest stars and galaxies and whatevers, all contribute to this planet, to human life, in immeasurably small, but still definite ways. I don't believe He created anything without purpose.

As yet, I haven't read anything that robustly deals with the starlight problem. It remains the greatest challenge I know of to the YEC position.

Can you sum up that problem? Is it that we gather that star light must have been traveling for all that time, or something like that?

To me, creation must have been a bit like peeling out with a manual transmission automobile. He revved up the motor with the clutch disengaged (speeding through billions of years of activity in a matter of hours), and then popped the clutch, and away everything went. Under His direct power (I'm not deist), but that's the basic idea.

 

[Idolater]

Certain scientific theories may do what you claim. Science doesn't.

The majority views of science do.

The first scientists, using scientific method, were all Christians.

There were some pretty good Muslim scientists too.

The Bible and science agree on the order of events.

No they don't. First of all, light, which God created on the first day, emanates from stars, but God didn't create the sun and the stars until the fourth day. Also on the fourth day, He created plants, though science says that life began in the sea, but God didn't create sea life until day five.

Young earthers simply require a 24 hour day, though no one else requires it.

Even if you want to say that 'a thousand years is as a day,' that's still only six thousand years, not 13 billion plus.

 

[MennoSota]

Please don't misrepresent what I clearly said.

I DID NOT SAY "original manuscripts."

I SAID "the Hebrew manuscripts we have today."

Tagging [MENTION=1851]john w[/MENTION] RE: "Original Manuscripts"



Please explain why "day one" cannot mean a 24-hour period given the context of the verse, which says "a day, one" in Hebrew, which is not how it refers to days 2 through 7 ("second", "third", etc). In other words, you have to explain how billions of years fits into the phrase "day one," and not the phrase "the first day."



No. Scripture demands it.



Yes, He does. "[a] day[,] one."



Peter is not talking about how God experiences time. He's talking about longsuffering God is and powerful He is.

"A thousand years is as a day," is describing how patient God is, that He can wait a thousand years for something, and it would only be like He waited one day.

"A day is as a thousand years," is describing how powerful God is, that He can do things in one day that would, in comparison, take man a thousand years (which is to say, that He can do the impossible, because no man has ever lived that long).

If you disagree with that assessment of that passage, before replying, go read the verses that surround that passage, then try to assert it does not mean what it is clearly talking about.



The only one putting limitations on God here is you, by saying that God did not do what He said He did in the amount of time He said He did it in. You're limiting God to billions of years, instead of letting Him say six days.

First, I already explained. No need to restate what has been said.
Second, it is possible the day was 24 hours. If so, then God purposely wants the earth to look billions of years older than it is. I see no reason why God would do so.
Third, God is not bound by time. Time is one of God's creations. God sees all things in one moment. There is no "day" that binds Him. A day can be any length by God's measurement. There is no requirement to make a day be 24 hours simply because you have adopted a measurement for time.
Fourth, I don't really care. God created. Adam sinned. We are by nature corrupted. We need to be reimaged by God through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. Only by God's grace can we be saved.

 

[MennoSota]

Jesus demanded that it be 24 hours, because He said "At the beginning of creation God made them male and female."

Day 6 is at the beginning of creation if "day" means 24 hours. Day 6 is near the end of creation, or at best the middle of creation, if Day means "billions of years."

Jesus didn't demand it. You demand it from Jesus. You have the hangup.

 

[George Affleck]

Second, it is possible the day was 24 hours. If so, then God purposely wants the earth to look billions of years older than it is. I see no reason why God would do so.

You have no concept of what the earth would look like if it were a billion years old. Your frame of reference does not allow it.

If billions (even millions) of years are true, at present rates, the oceans should be choked with mud, the salt in the seas would kill everything in it, the Great Barrier Reef would be larger than the world, oil and gas deposits would have lost their pressure and the moon's orbit should have already decayed. Carbon 14 has been detected in diamonds and so-called ancient coal deposits. Pine pollen has been found in every layer of the Grand Canyon. Dinosaur bones have blood cells in them (and there is no adequate explanation for this).

Your presuppositions dictate your conclusion. (So do mine by the way!)
You assume long process and, therefore, cannot come to another conclusion.

The question is based on the 'a priori' assumption that millions/billions of years have occurred. 'Evolutionary theory requires long ages – therefore long ages must have taken place – so... this is what an old earth looks like!...yup, seems fine to me.'
But all natural processes can occur quickly given the right conditions. Crude oil can be made in days. Fossilization can happen quickly. Huge canyons can be cut in weeks and deep sediments laid down in decades and turned to rock in very little time. None of these things are dependent solely on time. They are all subject to many other conditions.

I think the world looks young. And, I believe, real science confirms it.

 

[MennoSota]

You have no concept of what the earth would look like if it were a billion years old. Your frame of reference does not allow it.

If billions (even millions) of years are true, at present rates, the oceans should be choked with mud, the salt in the seas would kill everything in it, the Great Barrier Reef would be larger than the world, oil and gas deposits would have lost their pressure and the moon's orbit should have already decayed. Carbon 14 has been detected in diamonds and so-called ancient coal deposits. Pine pollen has been found in every layer of the Grand Canyon. Dinosaur bones have blood cells in them (and there is no adequate explanation for this).

Your presuppositions dictate your conclusion. (So do mine by the way!)
You assume long process and, therefore, cannot come to another conclusion.

The question is based on the 'a priori' assumption that millions/billions of years have occurred. 'Evolutionary theory requires long ages – therefore long ages must have taken place – so... this is what an old earth looks like!...yup, seems fine to me.'
But all natural processes can occur quickly given the right conditions. Crude oil can be made in days. Fossilization can happen quickly. Huge canyons can be cut in weeks and deep sediments laid down in decades and turned to rock in very little time. None of these things are dependent solely on time. They are all subject to many other conditions.

I think the world looks young. And, I believe, real science confirms it.

I am smiling at the irony of your presuppositions.
What do we observe? What do we measure? How do we test?
Where is the presupposition in my questions.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Just a few corrections...

You have no concept of what the earth would look like if it were a billion years old. Your frame of reference does not allow it.

If millions (even billions) of years are true, at present rates, the oceans should be choked with mud, the salt in the seas would kill everything in it, the Great Barrier Reef would be larger than the world, oil and gas deposits would have lost their pressure and the moon's orbit should have already decayed. Carbon 14 has been detected in diamonds and so-called ancient coal deposits. Pine pollen has been found in every layer of the Grand Canyon. Dinosaur bones have blood cells in them (and the only adequate explanation for this is that the fossils are only thousands of years old, not millions).

Your presuppositions dictate your conclusion. (So do mine by the way!)
You assume long process and, therefore, cannot come to another conclusion.

The question is based on the 'a priori' assumption that millions/billions of years have occurred. 'Evolutionary theory requires long ages – therefore long ages must have taken place – so... this is what an old earth looks like!...yup, seems fine to me.'
But all natural processes can (and do) occur quickly given the right conditions. Crude oil can be made in days. Fossilization only happens quickly. Huge canyons are cut in weeks and deep sediments laid down in decades and turned to rock in very little time. None of these things are dependent solely on time. They are all subject to many other conditions.

The world looks young. And, real science confirms it.