getting dates about a young earth

[Dan_473]

Young earth creationism isn't biblical. It belongs to people who are ignorant of the truth found in the scriptures. Here is what Peter says about how long we should consider one day with God:

2 Peter 3:8 - New King James Version (NKJV)[SUP]8 [/SUP]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.


According to Peter one day with God is as a thousand years meaning one day with God is actually a very long period of time in human terms. So why would we argue that one day with God is 24 hours just like it is for a man? Makes no sense. The Bible doesn't tell us how old the earth actually is, but this verse in 2 Peter makes it clear that each creation day should be viewed as a very long period of time and not as a day is viewed in human terms.

I look at it this way, "with the Lord one day is as a thousand years,
and [with the Lord] a thousand years as one day."

possibly meaning that God doesn't experience time like we do... what seems like a thousand years to God is a day to us.


when the scriptures say that israelites were to work six days, of course that doesn't mean six thousand [human] years.

 

[Dan_473]

More painful twisting of reality and scripture for the YEC.

Not only do you want Adam and Eve to be full grown, capable of speech, and ready to go, when first created…now you want the earth to already be in motion, with the appearance of age, when created?

Anything else you want to go with your theological drive-through to make it more convenient for you?

How about we super-size your fries to go with that, as well?

Stop forcing your wanton worldview upon scripture…

that adam is capable of speech is implied, in my view, in God talking to him, and adam naming things.

but sure, assuming adam is a newborn, he is still formed 'in motion', with a heart ready to beat, lungs ready to work as soon as God blows into his nose.

if adam is formed looking like he has already gestated for nine months, to me it's not a stretch at all to say the sun was made looking like it had been condensing hydrogen for billions of years.

 

[Tintin]

He's actually very correct in how he read the 2 Pet.3:8 verse. It does mean that to God a day is like a thousand years.

But applying that to God's creation is still not going to determine for us how old this earth is, so that's a debate not really worth getting into.

For love of monkeys! Don't they teach you figurative language and context in American schools? While I disagree with PostHuman that the Creation Week days are figurative, he shows that he understands the context of 2nd Peter 3:8 and its use of figurative language. If we question the 'days' used in early Genesis, how can we hope to trust God to any other part of His Word? We can't.

 

[ukok102nak]

:smoke: the interpretation could be written as this . ...
Genesis: 1. 16. And God made two great lights;
*the greater light to rule the day, → Exodus: 13. 21. And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way;
*and the lesser light to rule the night: → and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light;
★ he made the stars also. → to go by day and night
:8) the stars also go by day and night as one of many translation of stars in the bible whether we like it or not

:ty:

godbless us all always

 

[ukok102nak]

and this one
gives a good interpretation of earth
in the beggining . ...
:read:
Proverbs: 8. 30. Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; 31. Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.
* is it really the same earth as our present earth today :rofl:

:ty:

godbless us all always

 

[Bowman]

that adam is capable of speech is implied, in my view, in God talking to him, and adam naming things.

but sure, assuming adam is a newborn, he is still formed 'in motion', with a heart ready to beat, lungs ready to work as soon as God blows into his nose.

if adam is formed looking like he has already gestated for nine months, to me it's not a stretch at all to say the sun was made looking like it had been condensing hydrogen for billions of years.

That ugly head of denial is showing, again.

Adam was made out of the dust of the earth....since when does dust look like a newborn baby?

Adam was created on the cellular-level, from scratch, over a long period of time, same as Eve.

Stand up for your camp, and don't continue to be ignorance of both science and scripture...

 

[ukok102nak]

and another thing my brethrens and my fellows
if anyone would consider this verses . ...
:read:
Genesis: 3. 16. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
~:» GREATLY MULTIPLY THY SORROW AND THY CONCEPTION . . .. MEANING IF WE OBSERVED IT CAREFULLY WITH PRIOR UNTO A PURE CONSCIENCE AND SCIENCE WE COULD SAY FOR NOW THAT IN CHILDBEARING FROM THE TIME BEFORE EVE BRING FORTH CHILDREN UNTO THIS WORLD IS NOT SORROWFUL AS IT WAS UNTIL SHE WAS BEEN CURSED BECAUSED OF DISOBEDIENCE TO GOD
AND BY THE WAY HER NAME IS ALSO ADAM BEFORE SHE WAS NAME EVE
:read:
Genesis: 5. 2. Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

:ty:

godbless us all always

 

[ukok102nak]

:smoke: to make things much comportable to recognize :happy:

and another thing my brethrens and my fellows
if anyone would consider this verses . ...
:read:
Genesis: 3. 16. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
~:» GREATLY MULTIPLY THY SORROW AND THY CONCEPTION . . .. MEANING IF WE OBSERVED IT CAREFULLY WITH PRIOR UNTO A PURE CONSCIENCE AND SCIENCE WE COULD SAY FOR NOW THAT IN CHILDBEARING FROM THE TIME BEFORE EVE BRING FORTH CHILDREN UNTO THIS WORLD IS NOT SORROWFUL AS IT WAS
:read:
Genesis: 2. 4. These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5. And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
~:› well anyone can tell us when things happen for it is written that there was no man to till the ground . ...

:think: UNTIL SHE WAS BEEN CURSED BECAUSED OF DISOBEDIENCE TO GOD
AND BY THE WAY HER NAME IS ALSO ADAM BEFORE SHE WAS NAME EVE :hmm:
:read:
Genesis: 5. 2. Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

:ty:

godbless us all always

 

[Bowman]

1:14-19 ?

esp. in 16:

God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
​

this is on the 4th day. i understand the Hebrew for "made" is not the one used when He "created the heavens and the earth" in verse 1 -- but it's the same used for "made" or "created" throughout, except in the case of initial creation of the universe, and specifically of man, right?

so if Sol isn't created on the 4th day -- how do i understand day 4? just re-arranging, nothing new made? and on the first day, all the stars, and the moon, and all planets fall under the category of "let there be light" ?

'Day' Four: Gen 1.14 – 1.19


And said God, Let be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to divide between the day and the night and let them be for signs, and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens, to give light on the earth; and it was so. And brought forth God, two the luminaries great; the luminary great for the rule of the day, and the luminary small for the rule of the night, and the stars. And appointed them God in the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate between the light and the darkness; and saw God that good (it was). And was the mixing and was the breaking forth time the fourth. (Gen 1.14-19)


The Transformation of the Earth’s atmosphere occurs on 'Day' Four. The Sun, Moon, and Stars begin to mark the Earth’s days, years, and seasons.

Note that the text does not say that these luminaries were 'created' on the fourth day. In Genesis 1.14, the Hebrew verb is Haya (be or exist) not Bara (create). In other words, 'Let the lights in the sky be seen.' From the perspective from an observer on the earth’s surface, the existence of the luminaries could not be known until God transformed earth’s atmosphere from translucent to transparent. Verse 16, a parenthetical note, does use the verb ASA, but the form of the verb employed indicates only that God completed manufacturing the luminaries on or before the fourth 'Day'.

Ref: RTB

 

[ukok102nak]

:smoke: only god who is not created could exist even without time and beyond time
but when somebody speak of something that is existing by the creation of only one creator
then the creation of its existence mark
the beggining of its creation although theres no valid nor specific time such as exact dates just as we have today but when the holy scriptures says it is fourth day it is positively the fourth day but not the day as we expected in our planet
:read:
We can write a paragraph about how long days last on other planets.

On Mercury a day lasts 1,408 hours, and on Venus it lasts 5,832 hours. On Earth and Mars it’s very similar. Earth takes 24 hours to complete one spin, and Mars takes 25 hours. The gas giants rotate really fast. Jupiter takes just 10 hours to complete one rotation. Saturn takes 11 hours, Uranus takes 17 hours, and Neptune takes 16 hours.

Reading that paragraph took a while, and it’s hard to find all the numbers.

Planet


Day Length


Mercury 1,408 hours
Venus 5,832 hours
Earth 24 hours
Mars 25 hours
Jupiter 10 hours
Saturn 11 hours
Uranus 17 hours
Neptune 16 hours

That’s a little bit better. We can look up and down at the numbers and can compare them more easily.

:rofl: looks like we almost forgot to mention what on earth are we speaking or should we say planets :blush:

:8) we've seen how realiaty works in this plane of existence

:ty:

godbless us all always

 

[Dan_473]

That ugly head of denial is showing, again.

Adam was made out of the dust of the earth....since when does dust look like a newborn baby?

Adam was created on the cellular-level, from scratch, over a long period of time, same as Eve.

Stand up for your camp, and don't continue to be ignorance of both science and scripture...

I assumed that you thought adam was formed as a newborn, based on this:

The very Hebrew definition I provided states to 'have children’ . Having a child does not mean they are anything but newborns.

so, taking as a given that adam was formed as a single cell, he is formed ready to start dividing, and taking in nourishment.

if adam is formed looking like a cell that previously was an ovum and a sperm, to me it's not a stretch to say the sun was made looking like a ball of hydrogen that billions of years earlier was a loose cloud.



adam was formed out of dust, yes. what did adam look like when the forming was done?

adam was created on the cellular level, possibly. what did adam look like when the creation was finished?

 

[valiant]

For love of monkeys! Don't they teach you figurative language and context in American schools? While I disagree with PostHuman that the Creation Week days are figurative, he shows that he understands the context of 2nd Peter 3:8 and its use of figurative language. If we question the 'days' used in early Genesis, how can we hope to trust God to any other part of His Word? We can't.

but if they are figurative in 2 Peter why should we dogmatise about their meaning in Genesis 1?

In fact it is the 24 hourers who dogmatise. There is no reason for seeing a 24 hours yom in Genesis at all. That is a view of modern science, yom means 'length of time, epoch, period of light'.

I have no difficulty trusting the word, and take each occurrence as it comes.

 

[posthuman]

'Day' Four: Gen 1.14 – 1.19


And said God, Let be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to divide between the day and the night and let them be for signs, and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens, to give light on the earth; and it was so. And brought forth God, two the luminaries great; the luminary great for the rule of the day, and the luminary small for the rule of the night, and the stars. And appointed them God in the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate between the light and the darkness; and saw God that good (it was). And was the mixing and was the breaking forth time the fourth. (Gen 1.14-19)


The Transformation of the Earth’s atmosphere occurs on 'Day' Four. The Sun, Moon, and Stars begin to mark the Earth’s days, years, and seasons.

Note that the text does not say that these luminaries were 'created' on the fourth day. In Genesis 1.14, the Hebrew verb is Haya (be or exist) not Bara (create). In other words, 'Let the lights in the sky be seen.' From the perspective from an observer on the earth’s surface, the existence of the luminaries could not be known until God transformed earth’s atmosphere from translucent to transparent. Verse 16, a parenthetical note, does use the verb ASA, but the form of the verb employed indicates only that God completed manufacturing the luminaries on or before the fourth 'Day'.

Ref: RTB

same word translated "brought forth" here is the word in 1:7 (He made the expanse), 1:25 (He made the beasts of the earth) and in 3:21 (He made garments of skin)

it's only in the case of the sun & stars that you would argue that these things pre-exist, though, right?

to me, it seems like these things are being created on day 4 - so it challenges my understanding of days 1-3, especially what "evening and morning" could mean in a context where there is no sun.
i understand the alternative is what you're presenting -- but it seems like an inconsistent understanding of that word "haya" -- and i think that insisting that "evening and morning" has to be interpreted in terms of the rising and setting of Sol forces a person into that sort of understanding.
i respect that. i get where you're coming from. you can say that the meaning of 'haya' is determined in part by the context. thanks


"bara" is only used in verse one, where He created the universe itself, and later when the text speaks of Him creating man, right?

 

[posthuman]

whoops that's "asa" not "haya" i was talking about in previous post (in re: Gen. 1:16) -- and used in the exact same verb form in verses 1:7, 1:25, and 3:21 -- but in none of those places would it make sense to say that it means He 'completed the manufacturing of" the expanse, the beasts of the earth, or the garments He made for Adam & Eve before the time that they are mentioned in scripture.

 

[Dan_473]

'Day' Four: Gen 1.14 – 1.19


And said God, Let be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to divide between the day and the night and let them be for signs, and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens, to give light on the earth; and it was so. And brought forth God, two the luminaries great; the luminary great for the rule of the day, and the luminary small for the rule of the night, and the stars. And appointed them God in the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate between the light and the darkness; and saw God that good (it was). And was the mixing and was the breaking forth time the fourth. (Gen 1.14-19)

I see that in the passage you quoted, the english word 'day' is used in every instance (at least every one I found).
I assume this means calendar day.
the one exception is at the end where english 'time' is used.

are there any other passages in the scriptures where the hebrew word for 'day' is used both as calendar and undefined time period? Maybe there are, maybe it's common, maybe not... I don't know.

comments from anyone?

 

[valiant]

I see that in the passage you quoted, the english word 'day' is used in every instance (at least every one I found).
I assume this means calendar day.

In the passage 'day' is defined as a period of light. It is nowhere given any other meaning in Genesis 1. There is no such thing as a 'calendar day' in Hebrew.

I think it is questionable whether day ever means that in pre-exilic OT. It is compared with a night regularly (and therefore means a period of light). The Hebrews went from one period of light to another and ignored darkness when they could do no work. It is therefore. arguable that the night is always ignored. In Exodus 20 it probably means a period of light,

 

[JesusIsAll]

If the earth and creation are so old, why is there only a couple inches of cosmic dust on the moon? Or settled on the seafloor of earth? Why does the earth still have a molten core, which is believed to be the source of the earths magnetic field, by the way, that magnetic field decaying at such a rate we shouldn't have a magnetic field anymore, if the earth is millions or billions of years old?

 

[valiant]

If the earth and creation are so old, why is there only a couple inches of cosmic dust on the moon? Or settled on the seafloor of earth? Why does the earth still have a molten core, which is believed to be the source of the earths magnetic field, by the way, that magnetic field decaying at such a rate we shouldn't have a magnetic field anymore, if the earth is millions or billions of years old?

anyone who tries to be dogmatic about the age of the earth is just fooling themselves, and that goes for both 6000 years and billions of years. But I'm sure there are good answers to your questions,

it is hardly likely they haven't been asked and answered

 

[posthuman]

If the earth and creation are so old, why is there only a couple inches of cosmic dust on the moon? Or settled on the seafloor of earth? Why does the earth still have a molten core, which is believed to be the source of the earths magnetic field, by the way, that magnetic field decaying at such a rate we shouldn't have a magnetic field anymore, if the earth is millions or billions of years old?

the rate of "cosmic dust accumulation" is very very small. the apollo astronauts left a device on the moon to measure it -- and a couple years ago the results of that came in at about 1 mm per thousand years. ((link: http://www.space.com/23694-moon-dust-mystery-apollo-data.html)). keep in mind that that is only a measurement of a single location on the moon and only covering about 40 years of data. everything else is extrapolating, and one of the first rules of statistical inference is that you cannot make reliable predictions outside the range of observation.

when they first went to the moon, there was speculation that the moon might have several feet of dust, enough to engulf the lander completely. that came from estimates of accumulation that had huge variances (because it had never really been accurately measured) and made the critical assumption that the rate of dust accumulation was constant over billions of years. i see no reason to believe that the rate of dust settling is constant. i think it's far more likely that it's not anything near constant, over long time periods. another assumption is that nothing ever blocks the dust, or that nothing ever throws the dust off the surface once it gets there -- but that's not likely either. also, speaking of that magnetic field - it's not hard for dust particles to become ionized, and swept away in the field, so they wouldn't actually accumulate.

accretion of cosmic dust is still an 'unsettled' topic (haha, get it, 'unsettled' ??) -- nothing that i would think either proves or disproves age estimates, because the distribution of it over time, and other factors that may affect it, is pretty much unknown.
it's really interesting though, thanks for bringing it up

the core is molten because of gravitational interaction with the sun and because of heating from radioactive decay of elements that have half lives of billions of years, tens and hundreds of billions of years. over a 4+ billion year time span, the calculated loss of heat is only ~250K out of something currently in the range of 5000K. the core cools at a rate of something like 50 degrees per billion years. you need a whole lot of billions before the core solidifies, and the magnetic field that's directly correlated with it decays.

the derived ages are very big, but the derived rates of decay and dust accumulation are very small. neither one of these topics 'proves' a 6,000 year old universe.

 

[posthuman]

the rate of "cosmic dust accumulation" is very very small. the apollo astronauts left a device on the moon to measure it -- and a couple years ago the results of that came in at about 1 mm per thousand years. ((link: http://www.space.com/23694-moon-dust-mystery-apollo-data.html)).

the lunar regolith is currently thought to be anywhere from 5 to 15 meters thick. that's a lot more than 6mm and a whole lot less than 3 million mm !

but you know, that fact by itself doesn't prove or disprove anything about the age of the universe either. maybe the rate of dust accumulation isn't constant, maybe it's not known what other factors contribute to it, maybe God created a moon that already had a whole lot of regolith on it from the beginning, maybe this, maybe that. we weren't there. we don't know.

what i do know is that the moon belongs to the Lord; He created it, and looked at it and saw that it was very good. it pleases Him for it to be where it is, and as it is.
and i think it's pretty nice up there in the sky too

thanks for the moon, God! beautiful and wonderful!