Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

There’s no getting around Jesus’ teaching on the age of the earth
Creation Ministries International ^ | 11-25-2014 | Keaton Halley

Posted on 11/25/2014 7:41:28 AM PST by fishtank

‘From the beginning of creation’—what did Jesus mean?

There’s no getting around Jesus’ teaching on the age of the earth

by Keaton Halley

Published: 25 November 2014 (GMT+10)

Not everyone welcomes this news, but some of Jesus’ statements imply, of necessity, that the world is young. This is something I regularly point out when I speak in churches about creation, and it is a theme on which we have written previously, in articles such as Jesus on the age of the earth and in chapter 9 of Refuting Compromise. To reiterate the argument briefly, Jesus claimed that human history began at approximately the same time as all of creation came into existence, not billions of years later. This is evident from Jesus’ statements like: “from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female’” (Mark 10:6). The obvious implication from these words is that Adam and Eve were on the scene shortly after the heavens and earth were created; they were not latecomers to a cosmos that had already endured for billions of years, as old-earth proponents insist. Thus, for those who take Jesus’ words seriously, there is no way to fit billions of years into Genesis 1 prior to Adam and Eve.

(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...


TOPICS: Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; History; Religion & Science
KEYWORDS: creation; geology; jesus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-103 next last
To: what's up
God that much more unknowable and in so doing have elevated an elite class to what was before God's domain.

We come to Him as children. Each as a young child. Not many are of the rich and not many are the most-educated elitist snobs who believe they are almost as well-qualified as God regarding how to do things.

Matter of fact, if He didn't give us proper attire, we would be naked before Him. Don't want to go to the Wedding naked.
81 posted on 11/25/2014 1:35:15 PM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

An answer to the starlight issue is in this book.

82 posted on 11/25/2014 1:37:11 PM PST by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
Alternative translations of κτίσεως "creation" are "creature" and "institution." At least according to the Internet.

I don't know Greek and we don't know what the spoken original (Aramaic?) words were, but one can't rely exclusively on the details of English translations.

83 posted on 11/25/2014 1:39:46 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
Already addressed back in post 56. In short, Humphries has refused to do any proper peer review and has continued to sell his book mostly to people who don't know enough to check his math. And I'm not saying that as someone who hasn't bothered to read the book--I have, and while I liked it back in the day, there were always problems with it even from a lay perspective.

Shalom

84 posted on 11/25/2014 1:48:30 PM PST by Buggman (returnofbenjamin.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Gideon7
Ussher did a basic misreading of Peter. What he did was simple. God created the world in 6 days, a day to God is a 1000 years, so 6 times 1000 years = 6000 years, QED. But don't you see? That's not what Peter wrote! He wrote a thousand years is like a day to Him, not that it literally was.

Sorry, but this is a significant misrepresentation of how Ussher came up with the dates he did.  He may (or may not) have had an overall sense of where he would end up, but the actual work of calculation was painstakingly detailed, grounded in marker days and built on a pretty good assumption that the so-called Julian year (365 days plus one added every few years) is much older than the famous Roman after who it was named.  See the following article for details:

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/the-world-born-in-4004-bc/

To which I would add that most modern young earth creationists give much more latitude to the genealogies, allowing that multiple generations may have been skipped for their relative unimportance.  So you will be hard-pressed to find a young earther who holds rigidly to Ussher.  

As to whether Ussher was confused by the passage in Peter, I doubt it.  He was a man of high intelligence and significant accomplishments.  If you have direct evidence, as in a primary source, that shows him correlating the days of creation to thousand year epochs based on this alleged misunderstanding of Peter, I'd like to see it.  I don't think there is such a thing.  But who knows?  I could be wrong.

As for the "unknowability theorem," i.e., "we can't know because God didn't actually tell us," that's not really true.  God did tell us.  In any ordinary discussion in Hebrew, to the best of my knowledge, any occurrence of "day" ("yom") accompanied by an ordinal number ("first, second, third, etc.") is always a solar day. OK, granted, in this one instance, it could, hypothetically, be a metaphor for a larger period of time.  But that would be a break of the pattern. To break that pattern, i.e., to unambiguously signal metaphor, there would have to be clues in the text suggesting that "solar day" was not a good fit to the plain meaning of the text.  But the only "difficulties" accepting those days as just being ordinary days arise from our modern, preconceived notions of how long the events described must have taken, based on what the "high priests of scientism" have told us.  But God is able to do in a moment what we cannot conceive of happening in a million years.  We're talking miracles here.  

So what in the text would suggest to Moses or any of his readers that God was unable to perform those creative tasks in ordinary solar days?  Not a blessed thing.  Indeed, God, as Augustine suggests, could have done the whole thing in a moment.  The fact He did it in six days was probably for our convenience, so we would have a seven day pattern around which to build the routine of our lives, not to mention how it figures into Hebrews, as a teaching tool to lead us to our resting from our works in the heavenly Sabbath provided by the death and resurrection of Jesus.

So while yes, God does many things above our heads, that are at some level inscrutable, many things He tells us plain and simple, and yet we have sin-hardened hearts, and are slow to believe the obvious, even when God delivers it to us like a lazy softball pitch.  

Peace,

SR


85 posted on 11/25/2014 2:06:52 PM PST by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: what's up
"Some people see this as the injection of Christ ("let there be light"...the light of God) before any thing else was created."

Interesting take. Do you agree with this perspective?

86 posted on 11/25/2014 2:22:15 PM PST by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Gideon7; Arkansas Toothpick
The problem is that a 6000 year timeline is not Biblical. It is based mainly on a misreading of 2 Peter 3:8 (which is quoting Ps 90:4), where Peter states with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Swing and a miss.

The evidence for the age of the earth comes from the genealogies found in the Bible. Ussher is interesting because his observation fits what the genealogy evidences.

87 posted on 11/25/2014 2:28:05 PM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

LOL, not at all.

My degree is CS with an emphasis numerical analysis and modeling, and I have a fairly deep physics background. I’ve rubbed elbows with a lot of and astronomers and cosmologists, and almost every one of them was at least a deist. (Stephen Hawking is the rare exception).

During my devotional time I sometimes like to close my eyes and give glory to Him as I marvel at His creation, at how sublime and elegant it all is. The Lagrangian of the Standard Model is so beautiful, how the motions of everything in all of physical creation from the largest galactic superclusters down to the smallest elementary particle are all controlled by just 4 simple forces based on 5 basic supersymmetries that can be expressed as a single set of coupled PD equations that can all fit on just a single sheet of paper. That is so amazing. Gloria in excelsis Deo!

What is particularly cool is that God created a creation that we can actually *see*. That is so wildly improbable in a randomly created universe. It is a big knock against the atheists. The Hubble UDF is a dead giveaway that the universe was definitely designed and not random. (In a random universe the UDF photo would be all black or a gray fog. The matter density gradient has to be absolutely perfect to see large structures like galaxies at cosmological distances. That is more improbable than hitting the Powerball Jackpot lottery several times in a row.)

God designed the universe very carefully because I think that He wants us to marvel at the sheer majesty of His creation and see what He hath wrought. He *wants* us to see it. And in doing so we cannot help but be forever humbled by it. Hence God’s admonishment to Job in Job 38.

So I don’t think our own private speculations of this type are wrong at all. After all Paul exhorts us to think of heavenly things. We just need to be cautious in that we should not depend on our own understanding where Scripture is concerned.

So in answer to your question about the creation of time, if I put physics hat on I’d say that space and time are deeply coupled due to Lagrangian supersymmetry, and that the first ‘moment’ (in the quantum mechanical sense) started at the speed of light divided by the Planck length. But as far as how He actually created them, or in what order, I have no idea beyond what Scripture says.

So anyway, I definitely don’t want to pick any fights with you or any other believer. As long as we are careful about pushing our own personal musings past where Scripture allows us to go, I think that such speculations are fine. The white-theory us an interesting little mathematical exercise. (Then there is the holographic principle, with is *really* bizarre and yet also works mathematically.) I have no idea which of these theories is true or not, and the Bible says we should not quarrel about such things. So let us be one in Christ Jesus as we revel in the coolness of God’s Plan and the amazing lengths He went to make it happen in order to reconcile us with Him. Hosannah!


88 posted on 11/25/2014 2:40:39 PM PST by Gideon7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
Swing and a miss.

The evidence for the age of the earth comes from the genealogies found in the Bible. Ussher is interesting because his observation fits what the genealogy evidences.

"Pay no attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith." 1 Ti 1:4.

89 posted on 11/25/2014 2:44:15 PM PST by Gideon7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Gideon7

Well, okay then.


90 posted on 11/25/2014 2:45:18 PM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. Titus 3:9
91 posted on 11/25/2014 2:48:08 PM PST by Gideon7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Gideon7

Ahh, so it is your position that Torah is the ‘myths and endless genealogies’ referred to?


92 posted on 11/25/2014 2:54:43 PM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

you know, i don’t know much yet about this “young earth” creationism. i suppose i’ll learn more as time goes by :). anyway, i don’t think this scripture says much about the “age” of the earth. age is usually a concept based on time. for the idolater and athiest, time == causality == God. God is clearly not dependent on time. so none of what they argue presents the slightest difficulty for me. i guess i should read the article to see how they define “age.”

i think the scripture says loads about the nature of God’s Supernatural, and personal creation of the universe (it restates clearly that He and He alone is the first cause) and, of course, describes the nature of the first marriage and by implication His definition of all future marriage, Thank Jesus.

Simply put: God is Eternal, He is the potter, and time is, of course, His clay. We live before we are saved blind and hopelessly stuck in that mirey clay. Praise Jesus and the Father for His lifting us out of the true muck where we worm around blindly stuck in the dark forever without Him. Enough said.


93 posted on 11/25/2014 3:26:29 PM PST by dadfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88
I first started thinking about it when I was studying John and saw his emphasis that Jesus is the light of the world. John begins to mention this when he emphasizes the presence of Christ at creation in the first few verses of his gospel.

When I studied the account of the creation in Genesis, I realized that there was light in the world before the creation of the sun or moon. Couldn't this be the influence of Christ even before physical light was created?

I read more about the topic and found I wasn't the only one who had considered this.

94 posted on 11/25/2014 4:05:32 PM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
“Thus, those Christians who try to limit Jesus' statements to human origins are caught in a dilemma.”

There are three main maneuvers to escape from a dilemma:

1) create a hierarchy
2) create a distinction
3) change a definition or definitions.

When using maneuver #3, formulate three steps:

Step one:
define the single word “creation” as an object consisting of all of the heavens and earth or all of this world reality, and not as the creation of humanity.

Step two:
define the phrases “beginning of creation,” “beginning of the creation,” “beginning of the world,” “creation of the world,” “from the beginning,” and “in the beginning” as the whole disputed length of time from the start of the act of “let there be light” to the instant where God made Adam and Eve in his image.

Step three:
Let the phrases “from the foundation of the world” and “since the foundation of the world” refer to the period of time after the formation of man.

Thus:

Mark 10:6 “from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.”
Mark 13:19 “from the beginning of creation”
Mathew 19:4 “from the beginning”
Mathew 19:8 “from the beginning”
Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning”
Romans 1:20 “since the creation of the world”

all refer to the time in step two.And

Luke 11:50–51 “Prophets’ blood was “shed from the foundation of the world” “
Hebrews 9:25–26 “People have been sinning and in need of atonement “since the foundation of the world”

refers to the time in step 3.

When this is done one can accept the preponderance of the evidence in favor of an old creation and still believe the words of Jesus.

95 posted on 11/25/2014 4:40:56 PM PST by mjp ((pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, natural rights, limited government, capitalism}))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

“Taking Jer 4 23-28 out of it’s context”

Explain.


96 posted on 11/25/2014 6:44:19 PM PST by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: ScottfromNJ
Explain.

Read it in it's context. Read the whole thing - It is speaking to Israel and to Jerusalem. What, do you think that mid-narrative he suddenly stops and starts talking about something that happened before time? No. He is talking about what WILL come - What SHALL come to pass. The whole passage is pointing to future, not past.

97 posted on 11/25/2014 7:19:19 PM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

**The universe, on the other hand, exhibits many evidences of being billions of years old. Just to begin with, we’re seeing light coming from far more than 6000 light-years away, and we know from over a dozen ways of testing it, as well as the ramifications of E=MC^2, that it’s speed hasn’t changed.**

Well, I don’t know about the universe’s speed being constant, but, I do know that the earth and the moon stopped spinning for most of a day just so a man could lead his army to victory. (Joshua 10:12-14)

Now, I’m no scientist, but it seems to me that for that event to have taken place, someone was holding a WHOLE LOT of stuff together on this planet that should have come unglued (to put it in simplest terms. And at the very least, the people would have gotten some serious sunburn on exposed skin.).

Or, how about water pots full of water that suddenly have sugars, proteins, acids, etc? (I’ll allow for some minerals to be in the water from the start, since I doubt that Cana’s water supply was distilled.)

God can make ANY THING happen. That’s why he’s God.


98 posted on 11/25/2014 9:44:33 PM PST by Zuriel (Acts 2:38,39....Do you believe it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

“The whole passage is pointing to future, not past.”

In the passage Jeremiah is pointing to the future by making reference to a past event. “without for an void” sound familiar? read Genesis 1:2.

Which is not the way God initially created the Earth: Creating the Earth and then saying the creation is without form and void is a contradiction:

Isaiah 45:18 -

For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.


99 posted on 11/26/2014 6:00:41 AM PST by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: ScottfromNJ
In the passage Jeremiah is pointing to the future by making reference to a past event.

No, he is speaking to a future event, when the Sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give her light, when the mountains and hills will tremble.

“without for an void” sound familiar? read Genesis 1:2.

I think you may find more information in studying the words tohu and bohu in Hebrew.

I find 'gap theory' to be a tired extrapolation with very little evidence, whose sole purpose is to shoehorn evolution into Christianity.

If you care to believe that the Earth was fully formed and functional for billions of years before the creation of the heavens and the hanging of the stars, before the sun and the moon, that is your business. But to my mind, that is a huge amount of history to pack into one verse, especially with nothing more to back it up.

Sooner or later, if you would choose to study the Prophecy and the the mechanisms of prophecy (particularly in this case, The Grand Jubilee and the genealogy from Adam to Messiah), and the way that these things foretell prophecy, you will find that your position does damage. EVERY word of YHWH is true, and every man a liar.

100 posted on 11/26/2014 2:14:03 PM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-103 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson