ZOT! Does Fossil Record Discredit Literal Biblical Interpretation?

War On Terror ^ | Today | xxkoguxx

[ReasonedThought]

The poster on the link says that since the fossil record and carbon-dating says the earth is millions of years old but the biblical record shows an earth roughly 6000 years old. The proof for that is here http://home1.gte.net/bridavis/timeline.htm. Anyway the question is, how can Christians like myself reconcile this? Has science discredited a literal interpretation of the Bible of our Lord?

[Hajman]

Jeremiah 4:23-2 ... Jeremiah looked into the ages before Adam and described the destruction of the earth.

Actually, Jeremiah 4 isn't describing a pre-Adam civilization (there's no context for that interpretation, and one can only get that type of interpretation if one takes such passages as Jeremiah 4:23 out of their context within the rest of the passage). It's a warning to Judah of judgement, describing what'll happen to them if they continue on their path (basically, everything they've known will be destroyed).

As for the term 'earth', the word used is erets [Strong's 0776], which can mean either the planet earth (how you're interpreting it), or as land/country/territory/etc. (how it'd be interpreted in the context to the rest of Jeremiah). There's nothing to suggest this verse means anything but the utter destruction of a land (it's discriptive, not historical, in the provided context). That there will be no man in that land is referenced earlier by Jeremiah 4:7 - The lion is come up from his thicket, and the destroyer of the Gentiles is on his way; he is gone forth from his place to make thy land desolate; [and] thy cities shall be laid waste, without an inhabitant. Note: It stated without an inhabitant. This doesn't mean that all life on planet earth perished, but that the land would be so completely laid to waist that no one would be left alive there. This passage doesn't hold your interpretation, because your interpretation holds no true context to the passage.

-The Hajman-

[Hajman]

Sumerian text pre-dates Biblical events by thousands of years.
Who were they talking about?

If the Sumerian text describes prior events which contradict the Bible, then one of them is wrong, and it would be invalid to try to use one to augment the other in the context of the contradiction. However, if one is to attempt this, one should have at least contextual-valid passages from the book being augmented (in this case the Bible) that would agree with the other book (Sumerian text in this case). However, the passages you have provided so far have been out of context, or the translation assumed upon the validity of the conclusion (which you did with the argument you gave in the earth was without form. Your interpretation could only be valid if the conclusion that there was something before Genesis 1:1 was valid). This is Circular Reasoning, and not a good method of argumentation to rely on.

-The Hajman-

[Safrguns]

Ya'll wanna jump in here? Hiya CB... would love to jump in... but this guy's been zotted. He cannot reply. Right now, i'm trying to locate the post that would justify this action considering I debate with evolutionists and atheists on this forum all the time. Can someone enlighten me?

[Hajman]

The exact words of Genesis 1:2 "and the earth was (became) formless and void", are recorded in chapter 4 verse 26 of Jeremiah.

One, the term became can also be easily interpreted as become in Genesis 1:2, and two, the term earth in Jeremiah 4:26 is talking about land/country, not the planet Earth. These two passages simply don't match (apples and oranges), and neither provide context that would validate your particular interpretation that something existed before Genesis 1:1. Aside from that, Genesis 1:1 states that God created the heaven and the earth. It does not say God reformed the heaven and the earth.

-The Hajman-

[Safrguns]

Nothing existed before Gen 1:1. It existed between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. More time passes between these two verses than throughout the rest of the bible. Creation (as in the 6 day creation) occurs AFTER Genesis 1:2, and is the starting point of the 6000 year old creation. (The 6 day creation does NOT include formation of the earth.)

[DocRock]

"ARRRRRGGGHHHH I hate math...especially negative numbers.."

The study of the 70 weeks in Daniel is deep. I can't begin to type my notes on the subject and hope to make any sense to anyone, so I found a decent commentary you can listen to with Real Player. It is about an hour long and this guy does run some numbers for you, so you don't have to. I don't agree 100% with everything he says, but he does a good job. Have fun!

Link to Real Player Commentary on Daniel 9:25-27

[Hajman]

The Bible clearly states in Genesis that on the sixth day God created "all races"

No, actually, the Bible states in Genesis 1:27 - So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 'Man' can be interpreted as either mankind (in which case, it doesn't specify how many humans God created at first. Could have been 2, could have been 1000. It would refer to the start of the being called 'man'). Or it can be interpreted as the first man, Adam, a distinct human. Is there any context further on to provide a more accurate distinction of what, or who, God created? There is, in Genesis 2:7-8 - 7: And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8: And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. Note verse 7 provides the event of man's creation. It can be taken as general mankind, or specific man. Verse 8 however provides us with the clue we need to intrepret it correctly: .. and there he put the man. It tells us that 'man' is a very specific being, literally Adam. So what, or who, did God create when He created man? The answer would be a single man, Adam.

think of "day" as a time period

We could do that, but each 'time period' in Genesis is augmented by a very specific time span, and each 'time period' recieves the same time span: And the evening and the morning were the first day. In the passage, evening is `ereb [Strong's 0615], which means a literal evening/night/sunset (as in, after the sun's gone down), and has no other stated meaning. Day is boqer [Strong's 01242], and means the end of night, comming of daylight, etc., which is a literal day (when the sun is up), and has no other stated meaning (except for of bright joy after night of distress, which has no context here).

So we have 7 time periods, with 6 distinct seperations, all of which have the same seperation (evening and morning), which terms specifically, and explicitly, denote a time period of no sun, and sun (24 hour days). How do you get your interpretation of anything different (which the passages leave little (or no) space to work around)?

-The Hajman-

[Future Snake Eater]

I consider myself to be a heaven-bound Christian, but sometimes I get frustrated by fundamentalists who are certain, absolutely certain, that THEIR version of Biblical passages must be taken the way they say, or else.

Does it even matter? A person's salvation is not dependent on how old he/she believes the universe to be, but whether he/she believes in Christ as Lord and Savior.

[Hajman]

Nothing existed before Gen 1:1. It existed between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. More time passes between these two verses than throughout the rest of the bible. Creation (as in the 6 day creation) occurs AFTER Genesis 1:2, and is the starting point of the 6000 year old creation. (The 6 day creation does NOT include formation of the earth.)

I'd be interested in knowing how you come up with that interpretation, since neither Genesis 1:1, nor Genesis 1:2, seems to give any context which would allow the two verses to be broken into two distinctly seperate events.

-The Hajman-

[Safrguns]

I don't see how the bible could be taken any other way than literally. If God is truly the author, then it would not fit within His character to be playing mind games with His written Word. He has nothing to hide. He wrote the bible for us to understand... not to argue over... nor to form the basis of division within the body of Christ.

The fault is ours in our laziness and complacency to allow someone else to do the interpreting rather than ourselves in prayer and supplication to the Lord.

[Safrguns]

That question takes us back to the scriptures Concretebob was referencing.
The point is that the 6000 year old earth teaching is not correct, because the creation of the earth takes place before the first day.

[Hajman]

That question takes us back to the scriptures Concretebob was referencing.

As I stated above, the passages he refered to don't have the context to validate the argument that Genesis 1:2 describes the remaking of the Earth.

The point is that the 6000 year old earth teaching is not correct, because the creation of the earth takes place before the first day.

This statement could only be valid if you assumed the aforementioned statements in previous posts were valid. However, if this were the case, the point given is being applied to the same as what the point is (the statement that the earth gets remade in Genesis 1:2 is the conclusion that we're trying to reach, and the validity of it is what we're trying to determine. However, you used that conclusion to try to validate your point. Problem is, your point is supposed to validate the conclusion, as there is no other premise given, nor other conclusion attempting to be reached, that I'm aware of). Your point is flawed due to Circular Reasoning, and therefore your point in invalid.

If you have anything substantial to bring forth, I'll be happy to look at it.

-The Hajman-

[Safrguns]

Oh how easy it is to argue in the negative.
I personally don't think that any civilization that MIGHT have existed before Adam is that important, otherwise there would be far more scriptures on the subject. The issue at hand concerns the 6000 vs ??? billion year old earth argument. My point was that the bible does NOT limit the age of the earth itself to 6000 years... That point does NOT depend upon anything CB said. It's right there in Genesis.

You seem to be the one speaking in circles.

[Hajman]

Oh how easy it is to argue in the negative.

What negative? I haven't made any claims that something does not exist, nor have I asked you to back any such claims. I'm simply wishing to see what evidence you have for your positive claim (that something existed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2) since the context of the said passage doesn't offer any assistance.

The issue at hand concerns the 6000 vs ??? billion year old earth argument. My point was that the bible does NOT limit the age of the earth itself to 6000 years... That point does NOT depend upon anything CB said. It's right there in Genesis.

No, it's not. Not without going beyond the passage itself. There's no context that gives the claim that it's anything but a direct creation story. The first event is Genesis 1:1. The first discription is Genesis 1:2. Genesis 1:2 contextually follows Genesis 1:1 without pause or interruption. Event, description. Now there may be external references to this event, and a more detailed description may present itself, but within Genesis 1 itself, there's nothing to suggest anything but a 6 day creation. What does that have to do with CB? He's the one (as are you and any who make the positive claim that there's something extra there) who needs to provide evidence for such, either by explaining in the context of Genesis 1, or by bringing up a external passage that validates the argument (though to do so, the external passage would need to do such in it's own context).

You seem to be the one speaking in circles.

If you mean going over some of the same arguments, then that doesn't hurt my argument, for doing so doesn't invalidate such. However, if you mean circular reasoning, then please point it out, and I shall mend it to the best of my ability.

-The Hajman-

[LiteKeeper]

No!

[LiteKeeper]

No it doesn't

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post, concretebob!

However, I cannot help your argument as I do not have your understanding of either Genesis or of Rahab.

Rahab appears both as the name of the harlot and as a word for pride or strength and is a metaphor for Egypt. (Isaiah, Psalms, etc.) The Spirit does not lead me to any further understanding of the word or the existence of other planets, etc.

With regard to Genesis, my understanding is also very much different from years - however it is consistent with the ancient Hebrew translations. For comparison:

Gerald Schroeder: Age of the Universe

A great article which explains why 6 days at the inception space/time coordinates are equal to roughly 14 billion years at our earthy space/time coordinates. The words in Genesis 1 are analyzed in context of Jewish understanding over the years. Here are a few excerpts:

The idea of having to dig deeper is not a rationalization. The Talmud (Chagiga, ch. 2) tells us that from the opening sentence of the Bible, through the beginning of Chapter Two, the entire text is given in parable form, a poem with a text and a subtext. Now, again, put yourself into the mindset of 1500 years ago, the time of the Talmud. Why would the Talmud think it was parable? You think that 1500 years ago they thought that G-d couldn't make it all in 6 days? It was a problem for them? We have a problem today with cosmology and scientific data. But 1500 years ago, what's the problem with 6 days? No problem.

... The Talmud (Chagiga, ch. 2), in trying to understand the subtleties of Torah, analyzes the word "choshech." When the word "choshech" appears in Genesis 1:2, the Talmud explains that it means black fire, black energy, a kind of energy that is so powerful you can't even see it. Two verses later, in Genesis 1:4, the Talmud explains that the same word - "choshech" - means darkness, i.e. the absence of light.

Other words as well are not to be understood by their common definitions. For example, "mayim" typically means water. But Maimonides says that in the original statements of creation, the word "mayim" may also mean the building blocks of the universe. Another example is Genesis 1:5, which says, "There is evening and morning, Day One." That is the first time that a day is quantified: evening and morning. Nachmanides discusses the meaning of evening and morning. Does it mean sunset and sunrise? It would certainly seem to.

But Nachmanides points out a problem with that. The text says "there was evening and morning Day One... evening and morning a second day... evening and morning a third day." Then on the fourth day, the sun is mentioned. Nachmanides says that any intelligent reader can see an obvious problem. How do we have a concept of evening and morning for the first three days if the sun is only mentioned on Day Four? We know that the author of the Bible - even if you think it was a bunch of Bedouins sitting around a campfire at night - one thing we know is that the author was smart. He or she or it produced a best-seller. For thousands of years! So you can't attribute the sun appearing only on Day Four to foolishness. There's a purpose for it on Day Four. And the purpose is that as time goes by and people understand more about the universe, you can dig deeper into the text.

Nachmanides says the text uses the words "Vayehi Erev" - but it doesn't mean "there was evening." He explains that the Hebrew letters Ayin, Resh, Bet - the root of "erev" - is chaos. Mixture, disorder. That's why evening is called "erev", because when the sun goes down, vision becomes blurry. The literal meaning is "there was disorder." The Torah's word for "morning" - "boker" - is the absolute opposite. When the sun rises, the world becomes "bikoret", orderly, able to be discerned. That's why the sun needn't be mentioned until Day Four. Because from erev to boker is a flow from disorder to order, from chaos to cosmos. That's something any scientist will testify never happens in an unguided system. Order never arises from disorder spontaneously. There must be a guide to the system. That's an unequivocal statement.

Ancient Hebrew Research Center (includes the mechanical, literal and poetic translations of Genesis 1)

Scriptures and Origins - an article I wrote about Genesis through the Patriarchs, including a few references to Enoch

[Thinkin' Gal]

He explains that the Hebrew letters Ayin, Resh, Bet - the root of "erev" - is chaos. Mixture, disorder. That's why evening is called "erev", because when the sun goes down, vision becomes blurry. The literal meaning is "there was disorder."

This goes a long way in explaining the "Arab". When the same letters are crossed over - ordered properly - the letters become eber, the father/root of the Hebrews.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply but I'm not getting your point!

Eber was an ancestor to Abraham. Abraham was Hebrew but neither Jewish nor Arab. Arabs descend from Ishmael. Israelites descend from Jacob. Jews descend from Judah.

What am I missing?

[Thinkin' Gal]

What am I missing?

The same root letters in the same "order" that you quoted in reference to chaos (darkness, mixture, etc.), are the same for "Arab": ayin, resh, bet. How appropriate!

To get order from chaos, you've gotta switch the letter order to ayin, bet, resh: Hebrews.

Boker tov!