Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Young Earth or Old Earth?
You guys on here seem as bright as one can get. Most of my studies of the Bible have been focused on texts and the written work. However lately creation vs. evolution has been getting to me. I'm taking an astronomy class, and the teacher himself who is Christian believes the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. The Bible gives a different testimony at about 6, 000 years old through its genealogies. What do you think? I want to believe the world is 6,000 years old, but I guess evidence cant be ignored. Or is the "evidence" not even evidence to begin with?

(Im taking advantage of the word "General") <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: -->
Dear Akhi Rungold,

I've not thought a lot about this subject since I used to live out West, in New Mexico (in the mid 1980's).

In the East of the USA it's easier to think that a 6 or 7 thousand year old Earth is more feasible, but when you get to see geologic time up close, like in New Mexico, it seems that the Earth might indeed be MILLIONS of years old.

I've been in canyons (out in New Mexico) where clearly, it seems that many millions of years of time were taken to form them.

I'm not sure that the Bible, in this case the Tanakh, gives us a CLEAR understanding of where we are in in time, since the Creation of our small blue planet.

I find this to be a very interesting question though, and would like to hear more feed back about it from other board members.

Shlama, Albion
I sympathize, brother. I was a Bio. major at Rutgers for 2 & 1/2 years (Pre Med) before I transferred to Seminary and studied for the ministry. I kept Biology as a minor in a Christian University. What a contrast and an eye opener I received after transferring. The evidence is not presented in secular school Evolution courses;the evidence is covered up, because it supports scriptural creationism!(And I studied Evolution in depth in a course on Evolution, another in Genetics, advanced Bio. courses,Physiology, Cell Physiology, etc.).

The problem with modern evangelicalism is that Christians have surrendered interpretation of Genesis to scientists and have allowed the foundation of the veracity of scripture to be undermined. "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" Psalms 11:3

I can heartily recommend the books of Jonathan Sarfati, (PhD in Physical Chemistry)- especially Refuting Compromise. He addresses the age of earth issue, Big Bang, etc.. He has presented the best evidence for a young earth (his position has earth created 4178 BC) I have seen to date. Most evolutionists will never even consider reading a book like his, let alone actually reading it.

Don't be intimidated by the evolutionary position, which includes cosmological evolution as well as biological. The actual evidence is all on your side. The other side is based entirely on unproved assumptions.Those who argue for evolutionary theory cannot win against an informed and confident Creationist.

Sarfati's book I mentioned is a refutation of Hugh Ross' cosmology throughout. Ross is a Christian Astronomer who is a notorious proponent of Big Bang cosmology, a 15 billion year old universe, etc.. Sarfati's arguments are unanswerable, in my view. Christians especially need to read this book to arm them against the onslaught against the literal interpetation of Genesis and simple faith in the word of God.

I also highly recommend for its resources. Jonathan's book should be available there and there is a lot of free media material available.

I can't wait for the attacks against me on this forum for taking this position. I can hear it now: "Flat earth society", "Living in the Dark Ages", "Brain dead", etc.

Perhaps we can start a Creationism forum. We'll see. I would gladly field questions, as long as they are civil.

Blessings in our Lord,

well, i know many Young Earther's state that carbon dating is inaccurate. This is sort of a hypocritical take on it, though, because most biblical facts come from carbon dating, dont they? For instance, how do we know Exodus occured in 1400BC, or that Yeshua walked the planet around 2000 years ago? We use the same methods for dating the Earth and dating Biblical events, so how does that argument work?
We know that Yeshua was walking the Earth about 2000 years ago, because the Word of God clearly says when that time frame was and it lines up with the historical documents where they show when those various characters who became a part of His-story lived out their lives.... no carbon dating needed there.... In fact all one need do is look into the Scriptures to find the timeframes of this and the other events mentioned therein...
And to add.... it says: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...and the earth was un-furnished and empty and darkness was upon the face of the deep....

Now that was the state of things in the beginning...The Universe and the earth therein being present.... but no man, no plants, and no animals.... no life

It was as mars is now.... void of life

But something happened when God started to speak and to furnish the place He created beforehand....

The six days of "Creation" is really, the time when God put the furniture in the house so to speak....

And lets not forget what is said in the Scriptures about one day with God is as a Thousand years and a Thousand years is as one day...could that give us a clue...

You see.... It does not say just how long a time passed "In the beginning" before God said: Let there be...

It could have been a very long time indeed.
Shlama RunGold,

Boy, just in passing here I feel bad for not having gotten back to some other folks yet, as life is not kind, but ....

For you, since you're in class, I want to take at least a spinning moment to finally post something on this forum again, hopefully to help a fellow believer be readily equipped for the defense of his Faith through a defense of truth in general. So here I go. Dave is absolutely right, as he should be with his credentials. Mr. Ross seems to have some loose screws indeed, and don't even get me started on Dawkins. Ross' view has only profited me in particular to consider the Hebrew "bara" in Gen. 1:1 in its fuller meaning, which does include 're'-creating. This would make sense considering that our God is a God of order and not chaos, meaning, why on earth would He have started out with a 'formless and void' "soup" to initiate Divine kinetic transformation with, rather than simply keeping things "cut-n-dry" ex nihilo? What if there was pre-Adamic colonization upon a pre-Adamic earth, upon which a grievous travesty of cosmic proportions once took place, wherein a part of another membership of YHWH's Family (Divine Council) warranted Divine retribution for their Rebellion?

Thus another perspective dawns upon us, which may or may not give scientific credence to an old-earth or even old-universe dating. However, what dating methods are employed, and are they reliable? The shortest answer for this is NO, they are not reliable. Carbon dating alone appears to have an extremely narrow window for retracting time, and though this point has been contentious even between leading Creationist ministries, it was easily obfuscated in the dating of the Shroud of Turin, and altogether humiliated by the eruption of Mount St. Helen in the early 1980's, whereupon one year later the hardened lava rock was "carbon-dated" to well over a million years old! (guess all that carbon threw off the "carbon-date"?) Besides, whether "In the Beginning" refers strictly to the beginning of ALL outside of YHWH, or more specifically to the beginning of OUR and OUR WORLD's existence (through 're'-creation, as in 're'demption, of our planet's mass), it really bears nothing upon our own personal existence which is blaringly clear right there in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Then it's all a matter of historical chronology really, and I don't suppose that Elohim had any 'intelligent design' in mind with all His 'boring' genealogies, now do you? Besides, the Bible is truly the story of God's relationship with mankind, and thus begins from the start, appropriately finishing with the prophesied end.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... gory_id/62</a><!-- m -->

One thing which Dave could be hinting at, when saying that evolutionists do not present the evidence, might be something like fossilized trans-stratum debris, particularly when rigs are drilling for oil on the ocean???s floor. Gotta remember that chaotic Flood! Of course, we have to be careful when we declare something so that we don???t fall flat on our faces like Darwin, when for instance certain second-hand ???knowledge??? has been disseminated through eager evangelistic ears only in the end to be proven wrong by even more discriminatingly scientific purveyors of truth.

(see <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->)

While perhaps a single example of a not-quite-so ???vertical??? baleen whale NOT penetrating every sedimentary layer an evolutionist would otherwise try and have us to believe takes millions of years to accrue, as we thought it did, this does not leave us without ammunition in the slightest. The evolutionist would have us feel so ashamed of ourselves that we???d forget not only about examples of this very occurrence elsewhere, but also the evidence within the selfsame situation staring them in the face requiring the protocol of interval in relation to preservation of the subject. Or again Mount St. Helen, carving a new canyon in a single day! I suppose this also puts a permanent dingy in Darwin???s original though embarrassingly retracted sketch of bears swimming into their occupation as whales, since their own refined protocols disallow transient metamorphosis within a supernatural and illogically conducive environment, which merely exudes the complete lack of transient fossil record!

(see again <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> for their proud and mighty quote from that spiritualist Bacon, ???Argumentation cannot suffice for the discovery of new work, since the subtlety of Nature is greater many times than the subtlety of argument.???)

Huh? Something that???s not arguable for willfully godless kin? Why don???t they try fossilized dinosaur tracks in good 'ol TEXAS U.S.A. with fossilized HUMANOID footprints right next to them, on for size?

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

Yes, it is all documented. Sad to see though, considering the webpage I chose to post, rather than a nice and fuzzy Creationist???s vantage point. Guess who runs this society? YHWH???s integral people? Hah! That???s like accusing Dawkins of being the reincarnation of C.S. Lewis. But I posted it on purpose because the ???rest??? of the ???discovery of new work??? also exists and even made a ???mistaken??? one-time appearance on NBC. If I???ve raised some eyebrows, and anyone likes that guy who portrayed Moses in that famous movie that one time ???.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... 528&sr=8-1</a><!-- m -->

The mind-control element behind it all is the breakdown of the human conscience into its primitive mammalian mode of malleability. Need I peak a fresher look into a Public School classroom? You know what happens in this state? Fear. Then, submission.

So anyway, my point in cutting in here quickly (ugh) was specifically to try and cipher through the LOADS of information, books, vid's, etc. out there and get you the "quick-n-dirty" that's available. We could choose from thousands upon thousands of resources, but here's the magna carta, I believe, to hold in your hands:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... roduct=275</a><!-- m -->

It's bloated, it's culled, it's distilled, it's deadly. But of course, my mishpacha, it's cheaper than dirt!

I noticed while just at their site, since it's been a while, that they now carry a 2-DVD set as well ("From Evolutionist to Creationist"). Since I haven't seen it, I can't recommend it specifically, but I'm willing to bet it'd be a keeper! Also if you plan on browsing the site, note that the former title to the above handbook was "The Evolution Cruncher" but now is "The Evolution Handbook". This is no different from the hardcover, except that this punier paperback is even cheaper still (especially in bulk)! Actually, I think the paperback I have must've been revised, because now it has the same amount of pages as the hardcover. Whatever. Other than that, you're in Seventh Day Adventist territory ??? took me a while to figure that out.

Otherwise, the cream of the crop must surely be young-earth Kent Hovind (Dr. Dino)???s Creation Seminar, and university Debate series. Many videos, one workbook, endless jaw-dropping. Here it is you can see dino/man tracks, highlighted lies within evolution textbooks, and from every angle on collective science. Granted ??? due to a recent hiatus over this "Dr. Dino's" financial onus, Dave's commendation toward Kenneth Ham's material might be more politically correct in the onlooking eyes of your professors, though personally, Kent's humor alone is worth the price.

Besides, I've seen this exact type of Internal Rapacious Satanism fleece the public dignity of other well-established and credible believers, with one particularly in mind who's been released recently, all [fabricated] charges dropped, and without compensation for damages lost. Though it shouldn't surprise believers when this does happen, considering the agenda that truly was and still is behind Evolution. Really we're not struggling against flesh and blood arguments here, but rather spiritual strongholds thelemically cast upon our collective societal eyes by those who DO know what they are doing.

Otherwise, ever since the Scopes Monkey 'trial', evolution should not be an issue at all ??? only to a society infected not with intellectual freedom but with spiritual competition. If one is to effectively cast down the arguments of mind, then true and effective Authority must be engaged when in this arena of battle. To this end, no information on Creationism is useful, other than for personal edification and truly having those rebuttals on hand to engage our opponents' logical appeal ??? which is entirely dependent upon them.

So if everyone???s mind IS open, then these are a great launching pad into the overall, and a great foundation for building up. Then from there, perhaps one can even plainly see when Oxford brats are intentionally breaking intellectual breeze!

Shlama w'burkate,


P.S. In the tradition of Nikola Tesla, whose voice had been quashed from 20th century ears by his greatest bigot Thomas Alva Edison, yet mentored answers effortlessly to his oft stupefied colleague genius Albert Einstein, I???d suggest that we listen, if we can, to the growing numbers of Eminents in their fields (and especially the crossovers) such as Drs. Michael Behe, Guillermo Gonzalez, William Dembski, John Polkinghorne, Paul Davies, Lewis Thomas, Keith Ward, Stan Deyo, Donald Mackay. If I remember correctly, even the founder of the Human Genome Project now believes, which does not surprise me considering even Stephen Hawking???s First-Cause[r] (shhhh!) -tilt recently. Since your teacher is already Christian, I???m sure you???ll have to plumb much deeper into the philosophy of science in order to determine just which sides of the coins you choose to find yourself on in your scientific philosophy. I???m personally fond of ???Pascal???s Fire??? by Keith Ward, myself. I???ll note something for you that I feel comes from a hypocrite???s mouth, but pretty darned interesting nonetheless: ???Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.???~ Albert Einstein

P.P.S. I suppose in light of that statement, I cannot help but to recalcitrate with ???I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.??? ~ Albert Einstein, again

Rather, a more honest and dignified approach:
???When any astronomer writes about God, his colleagues assume he is either over the hill or going bonkers. In my case it should be understood from the start that I am an agnostic in religious matters. However, I am fascinated by some strange developments going on in astronomy ??? partly because of their religious implications and partly because of the peculiar reactions of my colleagues.???
???Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the Universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind ??? supposedly a very objective mind ??? when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases.???
And finally, that timeless breath of fresh air ???.
???For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.??? God and the Astronomers, W.W. Norton 1978, pp.11, 16, 116
~ Robert Jastrow, founder and director of NASA???s Goddard Institute for Space Studies; internationally preeminent professor on astronomy, geology, and earth sciences; and many other kudos that make him for a great reference to our classroom teachers!
Shlama all,

Way to go,Ryan! You are certainly well read on the subject; that's great to see.

It seems that the day-age theory is at the bottom of the Christian old earth argument for most. For others, it is the Gap Theory (a large gap in time between Genesis 1:1 and verse 2).

I have a challenge for our brother Chuck (Thirdwoe) who refers to both theories. Chuck, You wrote:
Quote:And lets not forget what is said in the Scriptures about one day with God is as a Thousand years and a Thousand years is as one day...could that give us a clue...

You see.... It does not say just how long a time passed "In the beginning" before God said: Let there be...
It could have been a very long time indeed.

FInd a place in scripture outside of Genesis chapter one in which a day which is numbered ("first day"-"day one", "day two", "day three", etc.) is anything but a 24 hour day. FInd also a day with an "evening and morning" in scripture which is not a 24 hour day.

Another point: You say a long time could have passed between "In the beginning" and when God said, "Let there be..."
What beginning is referred to in v.1? V.1 says, "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth." How can a long time elapse before the universe begins, especially considering that time is as much an essential part of the created universe as space and matter? But if there was a universe before "God said, Let there be...", from whence and how did it come? But if God created in the beginning, then He did not create "after a long time indeed" had elapsed, else it was not "In the beginning", was it?

Many blessings,

Well, I am going to say that since I am not God (thank God) and since I wasn't there in the beginning to see all this take place (as far as I can remember) that I cannot be dogmatic about these things....

Though it seems to me very curious that in Genesis Chapter 1:3??? The Word of God through Moses reveals that Light was created on the 1st Day....

But there is a problem here with the teaching that this 1st Day and the other Day???s there after must be a 24-hour period (as we here on earth now recon time)

You see, it goes on to reveal that God called this ???Light??? that He created ???Day??? and the subsequent darkness that was separated from this Light he called ???Night??? and when this work of God was accomplished it says??? ???And there was evening and there was morning the 1st Day (or Day One???.)

It is quite odd and a real pickle we find ourselves in if we hold to the teaching that this must be a real 24-hour period with the Sun setting and the Sun rising as we seem to view taking place on earth???. when really it is our globe that is turning on it???s axis that gives this effect of the Sun rising and setting, giving us a time frame count out???. this is all that time really is a counting of the revolutions of the earth turning on it???s axis???.

If you break free of this earth and travel to space far enough away from this planet??? You find that this effect ceases to be. It is Always Day and never Night???the Sun always shines bright???. If you didn???t have a watch you would lose all since of time???

Here is the problem with the 24-hour teaching???. The Sun was not created until the 4th Day according to the Scripture in Genesis 1:14-19???. So, this ???Light??? that was created on the 1st Day can???t be the Sun, but something other???. and since the Sun & moon and the Stars were not created until the 4th Day???How can we teach that this 1st Day, 2nd Day, and 3rd Day, are 24-hour periods of the Sun setting and the Sun rising beginning a day and night as we know it today, with the Sun coming up and going down so to speak???. since there was no such thing that the Earth was revolving around during those 3 Day???s.

It would seem clear that these ???Days??? and these ???Nights??? these Evenings & Mornings are not solace days & nights???. but something other.

Could it be God???s Days and not mans days????
For the other point....

In the beginning God created The Heavens and The Earth....

If you notice, it is not revealed how long this took.... It just makes the statement that it took place ???in the beginning??? or ???at the origin??? if you like....

The ???Heavens??? or ???Heaven??? mentioned here could be just referring to our atmosphere around our planet Earth and not the wider space around us...

It would seem so, since the Stars (our galaxy and such) were not created until the 4th Day along with the Sun & Moon.... and perhaps the other planets and everything else out there we see today....

This would mean that God created the Earth and it's atmosphere BEFORE anything else existed in the galaxy, and perhaps in the whole Universe of Galaxies...

This of course flies in the face of mankind???s science and knowledge???. but then again God calls that ???wisdom??? foolishness???. so???

So again, before this Day One, Day Two, and Day Three is over???. you have No Sun, No Moon, No Stars (Galaxy)???Just the Earth and Heaven???.hummmm Heaven

I just said above that this Heaven that was created in the beginning by God might be refering to the Earth???s atmosphere???. but on second thought, this can???t be since the Earth???s atmosphere was not fashioned until after God brought forth Light during the 1st Day or Day One???
Shlama Akhi Chuck,

Nice try, but you have ignored every one of the questions I asked you and responded with more questions of your own. Why should I answer yours if you will not answer mine? I quote them again here:

Quote:FInd a place in scripture outside of Genesis chapter one in which a day which is numbered ("first day"-"day one", "day two", "day three", etc.) is anything but a 24 hour day. FInd also a day with an "evening and morning" in scripture which is not a 24 hour day.

Another point: You say a long time could have passed between "In the beginning" and when God said, "Let there be..."
What beginning is referred to in v.1? V.1 says, "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth." How can a long time elapse before the universe begins, especially considering that time is as much an essential part of the created universe as space and matter? But if there was a universe before "God said, Let there be...", from whence and how did it come? But if God created in the beginning, then He did not create "after a long time indeed" had elapsed, else it was not "In the beginning", was it?
We cannot base interpretation of the word "day" on the passage whose meaning is in question. We need to see how the word "day" is used with the same phrases used elsewhere where we can find a pattern of word usage.

Personally, I see the word being used consistently for and after the fourth day and before the fourth day. There is no indication of any drastic change in "a day" in the first week of time (creation week) mentioned, so it is perfectly natural to undertand the word in its usual sense, since there is no explanation given for taking it in any other sense.

Blessings in our Lord,

A few other observations....


"And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:" Gen 1:14 (KJV)

We see here that God creates the Clock in the sky on the 4th 'Day' to keep time on the Earth....The Clock in the sky was not there on Day One, Day Two, and Day can we consider these 1st 3 "Day's" to be 24-hour periods....when it was on the 4th of these 'Days' that the Clock in the sky began ticking off it's time....


And God said, ???Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.???
Gen 1:3-5 (KJV)

We see here that God calls this 'Light' 'DAY' which He brings forth BEFORE the 24-hour time clock in the sky starts ticking on the 4th ???Day??????..

And the darkness (absence of Light), which was there before this Light, came on the scene and which dispelled the darkness which God calls 'NIGHT'....

And all this takes place BEFORE God creates the Sun on the 4th 'Day'!

We here have DAY and NIGHT established before the Sun, Moon, and the Stars are created and thus appear in the galaxy and begin to shine their light upon the Earth on the 4th ???Day??? beginning the 24-hour clock in the sky to tick out it???s time frames???.

So??? if these 7 Days are all 24-hour periods, then DAY & NIGHT was taking place 72 hours BEFORE there were any Sun or Moon or Stars to light the galaxy/universe???.

This LIGHT is something other???.

Perhaps someone can explain how we can have 72 hours of 24- hour periods when the clock in the sky was yet to tick off it???s time???.

And please understand that I meant it when I said that I am not dogmatic on this issue... And because I'm not, I have nothing to prove either way.... Anyone may hold onto their respective positions they have on this issue as long as God allows them to hold onto it.
Shlama Akhi Chuck,

I must conclude that you cannot answer my questions, since you have ignored them so far. That's OK. You raise some good points, which I will address.

I think I can assume we both believe in the Divine inspiration of scripture and in its supreme authority and infallibility in its original text. There are no textual problems of any consequence in Genesis 1 that I am aware of. The Hebrew mss. all seem to agree as to what was written. The question of "days" -"Yom" is a matter of interpretation, or definition of the Hebrew "Yom" as used in chapter 1.

Scripture was written for people of all times approximately 3500 years ago, when writing was first invented and used. The Bible was also meant to be understood by common people. It was not written for priests only; it was not written only for 21st century astrophysicists. It was written for men and women, boys and girls who lived 1000 BC as well as all who have lived from then till now, from all nations,languages and peoples, of all walks of life. It is very logical to reason that the general import of the written word would be in language that is easy for its audience to understand. If God had meant to say that He took a very long time to create the world, He could certainly have said so in plain language. He could have said "Bra [b]b'Owlam Rav Ha Shamiym v'eth ha Erets" -"He created the heavens and the earth in long ages" [/b] But He said "Shishath yomim eshah Yehovah ha shamim v'eth haerets"- "In six days Jehovah made the Heavens and the earth."
Genesis was one of the first, if not the first written document in Hebrew known to man. The terminology used would have had practically no literary development behind it, certainly not a long history of nuance and varied definitions for simple words like "day" and "night", "sky", "sun', "stars", "sea", etc. The words had been spoken for centuries, but reading and writing were new to them, so there was not a rich history of poetical language at the time. Genesis was the primer of the written Hebrew language, and as a primer, there is not sophisticated and esoteric language to be studied as a scholar would study classical literature and poetry. Genesis is meat and potatos for the mind and soul. It is History of Civ. 101. It is not allegories, parables or poetry. It is simple narrative of simple history from the beginning of creation to Jacob and Joseph in Egypt, 400 years before Moses. Sure, there are some metaphors in Joseph's dreams, but they are explained in the narrative as God explained them to him. We are not left in the dark, wondering what the "seven skinny cows eating the seven fat cows" means.

As to "Yom", There are five possible lexicon definitions:
1. A period of light in a day/night cycle;
2. A period of 24 hours;
3. A general or indefinite concept of time
4. A specific point of time;
5. A period of a year

The normal sense is a 24 hour period. In order to determine which is meant in a passage, we must see how the word occurs when it is used in the various contexts when its meaning is known to fit a particular definition. We cannot simply pick one of the five meanings to suit our opinions and say that we have authority for our position because the word can have that meaning.

"Yom"-"Day" , used in conjunction with a cardinal or ordinal number always refers to a 24 hour day. "Yom" used with "erev" ("evening") & or "boqer" ("morning") always refers to a 24 hour day. Each of the six days of creation is used with both a cardinal or ordinal number and "erev w'boqer" [b]("evening and morning") ! This is a triple shut out! There is simply no way Genesis chapter one is using the word "Yom" to refer to billions or millions, or even thousands of years.
The idea that days one, two and three are billions of years each (cosmological evolutionists, which includes essentially,all old earth proponents, would make six days equal 15 billion years) and that days four, five, six and seven are 24 hours each, is simply nonsense. Each numbered day must be the same as the others. If days 4-7 are determined to be 24 hours each, then we can infer that the others are of the same duration. Surely God could measure time before He made the Sun,Moon and stars.

Another important point: Evolutionists teach and say they believe the earth and planets evolved from the Sun and that the stars in general existed long before the earth, 14 billion years ago, and that the earth evolved about 4.5 billion years ago. Genesis 1 states that the earth was made first and that the Sun, Moon and stars were made on the fourth day, as you rightly pointed out. This is not a minor difference. It is an insurmountable contradiction and clash between two world views: That of The Word of God and that of the world and word of Satan, who continually challenges and disputes the Word of God. "Hath God said?", was his question to Eve in Paradise. "If you are the Son of God...", was his challenge to Yehovah Yeshua immediately after God The Father had spoken from Heaven-"This is My Beloved Son in Whom I am well pleased."

To Hell with Satan and to Hell with his lies!

(And I do not mean to imply that anyone adhering to the old earth theory is of Satan. There are many good Christian people who hold to that view.)

Vive L'ecole de Dieu! (Long live The Word of God)

In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth...

So says the Word of God.

In the beginning of what?

Of the creation of the Heavens and the Earth it would seem a likely answer....

God spoke and they were created, the Heavens and the Earth....

But when God created the Heavens and the Earth they were not as they are now.... they were created unfurnished and empty and the Earth void of any living Mars is today for instance...the Earth also being covered in water and the land submerged under it...

It was in that state when it is revealed that the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.... and for how long was this so... It does not reveal.... it could have been a very long time.... it does not say...

And all of this creation of the Heavens and the Earth and God moving upon the surface of a planet void of living organisms...all taking place BEFORE the 1st 'Day' of an Evening and a Morning ever started and ended....

Now, the six 'Days' that comes after this beginning is not the creation of the Heaven and the Earth.... but the furnishing of them with living organisms and heavenly bodies like Stars, moons, planetoids, galaxies, nebulae and such...these all were created and placed into the Heaven to bring light upon the Earth...Gen 1:15

Very Earth centric.... everything was created after the Earth and for the Earth and it's coming inhabitants.... God's plan from the beginning was to have the focus of the entire creation to be here on Earth.

So the Earth was here BEFORE there was time as we know it.... the 24-hour revolutions of the planet spinning on it's axis kind of time...that gives the effect of the big clock in the sky, whereby we mark off our days.... The Earth was created BEFORE this clock was put in place...

How long was the Earth here before the 1st 'Day'?

It does not say.... it could have been a very long time indeed.

I don't say that these six 'Days' are not literal days of time frames???. they are indeed???. but we know that the 1st three 'Days' of creation took place BEFORE the creation of the clock in the sky that ticks off time for us here on earth???. the whole thing set up the way it is for that very reason???. Before this took place on the 4th 'Day' there was no such time frames ticking off as it does now???.

Perhaps God used a 24-hour time frame for those three 'Days' in anticipation of the clock that He was going to create for that pourpose on the 4th Day???. it's possible. But we can't be certain???just speculate.

Or was it that God's 'Days' may be just like the Word of God reveals???. That God's 'Days' are 1000 years long???something that the Scriptures tell us to make sure that we are not ignorant of???.

The term Evening and Morning does not have to mean a 24-hour period???. it simply means a start and end of a period of time???. it could refer to a 24-hour in a 'Day' time frame, or it could refer to a thousand year 'Day' time frame???. both are possible???God's Day is revealed to be of a much longer duration than our day here on earth as we count the revolutions of the Earth around the Sun???

The days on Mars are much shorter than ours here on Earth for example because the planet mars takes less time to revolve on it's axis than the Earth does???. so the term 'Day' does not have to always be interpreted as meaning a 24-hour time frame???.
#15 is something that is often missed.

Genesis 1:1 reveals...."In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.

Exodus 20:11 reveals.... "For in six days YaHWeH made Heaven and Earth, the Sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:....

Created then Made...these are NOT the same word in Hebrew and make a very important distinction.... that in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth and then during a six day period of time God Made them. That is furnished them...

The Heaven and the Earth were Created out of nothing and the Heaven and the Earth were Made/furnished from the materials that were Created before....formed the dust of the Earth into man, the rib into woman.....and such. This is often missed.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)