Posted on 05/09/2010 8:03:40 AM PDT by truthfinder9
The age of the earth and the universe is no longer disputed among most scientists. Science tells us the earth is ~4.5 x 10^9 years old. The universe is ~14 x 10^9 years old. There have been several Christian scientists who have attempted to propose theories and find "scientific" evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old. All "evidence" for a recent creation of the earth is flawed in some way.
Hebrew Words
Literal translations of the Hebrew word, yom, like our English word "day," can refer to a 24 hour day, sunrise to sunset (12 hours), or a long, unspecified period of time (as in "the day of the dinosaurs"). The Hebrew word ereb, translated evening also means "sunset," "night" or "ending of the day." The Hebrew word boqer, translated morning, also means "sunrise," "coming of light," "beginning of the day," or "dawning," with possible metaphoric usage (1). Our English expression: "The dawning of an age" serves to illustrate this point. This expression in Hebrew could use the word, boqer, for dawning, which, in Genesis 1, is often translated morning.
Do all the instances of "morning" and evening" refer to a literal period of time? Here is an example from Moses:
In the morning it [grass] flourishes, and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades, and withers away. (Psalm 90:6)
This verse refers to the life cycle of grass (compared to the short life span of humans). Obviously, the grass does not grow up in one morning and die by the same evening. The period of time refers to its birth (morning) and its death (evening) at least several weeks (if not months) later.
The first thing one notices when looking at Genesis 1 is the unusual construction surrounding the words morning and evening together with day. This combination is very rare, occurring only ten times in the Old Testament, six of which, of course, are in the Genesis creation account. The remaining four verses (NASB) are listed below:
1."This is the offering which Aaron and his sons are to present to the LORD on the day when he is anointed; the tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a regular grain offering, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening." (Leviticus 6:20) 2.Now on the day that the tabernacle was erected the cloud covered the tabernacle, the tent of the testimony, and in the evening it was like the appearance of fire over the tabernacle, until morning. (Numbers 9:15) 3."For seven days no leaven shall be seen with you in all your territory, and none of the flesh which you sacrifice on the evening of the first day shall remain overnight until morning." (Deuteronomy 16:4) 4."And the vision of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true; but keep the vision secret, for it pertains to many days in the future." (Daniel 8:26) The first three verses obviously refer to 24 hour days, since this is readily apparent from the context. The fourth one refers to many evenings and mornings, which "pertains to many days in the future." This verse actually refers to events that are yet to happen, which is 3000 years of days from when it was originally written. One could easily say that these mornings and evenings represent thousands of years.
However, none of these verses have the form which is seen in the Genesis account. Let's look at the form of these "evenings and mornings:"
•And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. (Genesis 1:5) •And God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. (Genesis 1:8) •And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. (Genesis 1:13) •And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. (Genesis 1:19) •And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. (Genesis 1:23) •And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31) The actual number of words in Hebrew is much fewer than that of the English translations. The words "and there was" are not in the Hebrew, but added to make the English flow better. The actual translation is "evening and morning 'n' day." There is no way to discern from the context that the text is referring to 24 hour days.
How would God have changed the text if He intended it to indicate 24 hour days? If God were to have created in 24 hour days, I would have expected the Genesis text to have begun with a statement to the effect that "God did 'x' in the morning" and "God did 'y' in the evening," as opposed to the very unusual construction of telling all God did and then ending with both evening and morning side by side at the end of the "day." So, the order indicates the end (evening) of one day is followed by the dawning (morning) of the next day. In addition, one would expect that if God chose to create the world in a few days He would have indicated it was all created in a few days instead of one day (Genesis 2:4) (2). This verse indicates to me that the Genesis days are other than 12 or 24 hour periods of time.
Scripture Declares the Days to be Long
Specific biblical examples of evidence for long creation days include:
1.The "Day of the Lord" refers to a seven year period of time. 2.Genesis 2:4 refers to all 6 days of creation as one day, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." 3.The seventh day of Genesis is not closed. In all other days, "there is the evening and the morning, the n day." 4.In the book of Hebrews, the author tells us to labor to enter into God's seventh day of rest. By any calculation, God's seventh day of rest has been at least 6,000 years long: For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works"... Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:4-11) 5.The psalmist (Moses, the author of Genesis) says "For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night." (Psalm 90:4). 6.The apostle Peter tells us with God "A thousand years is as one day" (2 Peter 3:8). 7.The third day must have been longer than 24-hours, since the text indicates a process that would take a year or longer. On this day, God allowed the land to produce vegetation, tress and fruit. The text specifically states that the land produced trees that bore fruit with seed in it (3). Any horticulturist knows that fruit-bearing trees requires several years to grow to produce fruit. However, the text states that the land produced these trees (indicating a natural process) and that it all occurred on the third day. Obviously, such a "day" could not have been only 24 hours long. 8.The events of the sixth day of creation require time beyond 24 hours. On this day, God created the mammals and mankind. He also planted a garden, watered it, let it grow, and put man in it, with instruction on its care and maintenance. Then God brought all the animals to Adam to be named. This job, in itself would take many days or weeks. Next, God put Adam to sleep and created Eve. It is very unlikely all of this could take place in 24 hours, since much of it was dependent upon Adam, who did not have the abilities of God. 9.The Bible itself states that the covenant and laws of God have been proclaimed to a "thousand generations" (Deuteronomy 7:9, 1 Chronicles 16:15, Psalm 105:8). Even if a generation is considered to be 20 years, this adds up to at least 20,000 years. A biblical generation is often described as being 40 years, which would represent at least 40,000 years. However, since the first dozen or more generations were nearly 1,000 years, this would make humans nearly 50,000 years old, which agrees very well with dates from paleontology and molecular biology (see Descent of Mankind Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology).
Appearance of Age
If God had created the universe in an instant, there would be no evidence from nature that He created it. The Bible states God has shown himself to all men through His creation so that men are without excuse in rejecting God (6). In addition, the universe declares God's glory, which is a sum of God's innate and unchangeable character (7). The Bible also states the universe declares God's righteousness (8). God's righteousness prevents Him from sinning. The scriptures say God cannot lie (9).
Therefore, from the Bible, we conclude that God does not lie or deceive, either from His word or from His record of nature. The heavens declare the universe to be at least 10 billion years old. In addition, we have the ability to see galaxies in the universe which are billions of light years away. If one claims the universe is 6,000 years old, he must state that God created the light from these distant galaxies in transit less than 6,000 light years from the earth. There are signs that the light has indeed been in transit for very long periods of time and was not somehow created in space relatively recently. Frequencies of known spectral lines show spreading or broadening which would occur after long travel times through space containing dust and debris. Since this light appears to be very old and to have originated from a point billions of light years away, if the universe is actually 6,000 years old, the heavens must be declaring a lie, an apparently old universe which is actually very young.
Let me give one example. For now let us assume the universe is 6 to 10 thousand years old and God created the light-beams already in place. Say we are watching a star in our telescope which is two million light years away, and we notice that it explodes (yes, supernova explosions have been observed). That means the light reaching us now is carrying the information recording this distant happening. Now trace this part of the light beam backwards in time along the path of the light beam. By the time you get back to the time of creation (6 to 10 thousand years ago) you have reached a point which is less than 1 percent of the distance to the star. This would mean that the "explosion" part of the light-beam began its journey from here - and not from the star! Thus, the information recording this explosion had to be "built-in" to the light beam, so what we see as having happened to that star may never have happened at all. The idea that observation of things further than around 10,000 light-years away is not necessarily linked to physical reality would be unsettling from both a scientific and theological viewpoint. I cannot accept a God who lies by creating deceptions.
Appearance of Age Rebuttals
Many have asked the following question: Since God probably created Adam full grown and mature why couldn't God have done the same thing with the universe? First, note that God had a choice of creating Adam adult sized, or as a baby. Obviously if Adam was created as a baby, God would have to provide a means of nurturing him. This would require some special agency or being, or God could have made Adam a very special baby who did not require special care. Although God could have done any of these things, we believe God operates according to the principle of simplicity. Thus, He simply created the first man full-sized. However, Adam's body did not necessarily have signs of age. Size by itself is not an indication of age except perhaps to tell that the person is not a child. If a doctor examines an adult to determine age he might look at skin condition, liver spot progression, hair, teeth, cholesterol level, metabolism, scars, etc. I believe that Adam's body had none of these signs of age. God created Adam sinless, with no spiritual deterioration, and I believe He also created Adam with a perfect body, with no physical deterioration. Thus I do not believe Adam had an "apparent age."
Other arguments often used to support the appearance of age argument is the wine that Jesus made from water. It was the best wine, implying that it was aged. However, the wine may or may not have had the chemical components of aged wine.
Ultimately, the downfall of the appearance of age argument is that the Bible never supports this idea with regard to the creation. The Bible explains the miracles of God and tells us when things were made as if they were old (like the wine that Jesus made from water). In contrast, there is not one verse in the Bible that suggests that God made the Earth look older than it actually is.
So you think man is purely mechanical?
If so, then how can the Golden Rule apply to anyone?
Your statements contradict one another.
If man makes free moral choices he is not a machine.
If man is a machine then he doesn’t make free noral choices.
If you consider religion, there can only be one “correct” one. Now if the Golden Rule is present in a religion older than that “correct one”, it automatically implies that the “correct one” no longer holds, or that the Golden Rule itself isn’t dependent on any “correct” religion.
I don’t see the contradiction. Would you mind explicitly indicating it?
What is “free” choice? How do you define, “free”?
Why do you say there can only be one ‘correct’ religion?
Free is whether or not you respond to this post, and if you have to ability to actually make that decision.
— If you consider religion, there can only be one “correct” one. —
I prefer to say there is only one truth.
— Now if the Golden Rule is present in a religion older than that “correct one”, it automatically implies that the “correct one” no longer holds, or that the Golden Rule itself isn’t dependent on any “correct” religion. —
I disagree. You merely make the “Golden Rule” your religion (from the latin religio...”to bind”) binding yourself to it rather than something else.
The appealing aspect to non-believers appears to be that they can claim some sense of “morality” without being indebted to any deity as the source of their belief.
Actually, “things” come from somewhere, as did the “Golden Rule.” Would you care to try again to identify, historically, the origin of the Golden Rule, or to demonstrate, historically, that it had no origin or existed, as you stated, prior to any “organized” religious belief system?
Can there be more than one god? If yes, then there can probably be more than one “true” religion.
Can there be only one god, but multiple doctrines of the same? If yes, then there can be more than one “true” religion.
Any other formulations you can think of, for multiple religions to be “true”?
In this case, yes. There is no coercion, or a threat of harm, for choosing, or not choosing an answer. Are all other choices like that?
I prefer to say there is only one truth.
Well, that was what I'd implied.
I disagree. You merely make the “Golden Rule” your religion (from the latin religio...”to bind”) binding yourself to it rather than something else.
This needs a little bit more elaboration, if you don't mind.
The appealing aspect to non-believers appears to be that they can claim some sense of “morality” without being indebted to any deity as the source of their belief.
I can't disagree.
Actually, “things” come from somewhere, as did the “Golden Rule.” Would you care to try again to identify, historically, the origin of the Golden Rule, or to demonstrate, historically, that it had no origin or existed, as you stated, prior to any “organized” religious belief system?
Let me put it this way, if you find the Golden Rule available, in say, the message of a Chinese philosopher, would you ascribe the source of it to a divine entity? If yes, could you consider the option of multiple divine entities and one of them being the source?
I will have to look into the history of the Golden Rule to see how old it actually is, but I can deduce from the fact that:
1. Human society still exists, and existed a long time before any religion was codified
2. Society-maintaining species besides humans still exist, and existed before humans,
both of the above, which requires the Golden Rule to be applicable at least in some major stage of the lives of the individuals involved in each, that the Golden Rule does not have divine origins. If it does, then the division between humans and social animals get blurred, because both are then operating under a common ethical system. Since it is more logical to say that both entities either developed the Golden Rule ethics independently, or, if you accept the theory of evolution, that the transition between animal and man allowed for the transmission of the same ethical system from animal to man. Now why I eliminate a divine source for the Golden Rule is simple: None of the Semitic religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) ascribe such a character of special identity to animals, for operating under the Golden Rule (the religion detailed by the Gita does hint at it, if not mention directly, about this shared ethical rule). Animals are generally considered inferior automatons by the major religions of the world (barring the Gita, again), without souls or morals. Eliminate each religion for its inherent flaws, and the conclusion arrived at would be the elimination of the chance of the presence of any "divine" aspect to the source itself.
If there is a divine origin to men and animals, your false dichotomies fall completely apart.
An intelligent Creator could easily organize both the functioning of men and animals with similar but different “social” structures, or, to use “old” words, morality and instinct.
Why should God have to “re-invent the wheel” biologically or “socially” when He separated men from animals by creating male and female in His image? (Men and women function biologically in some ways similar to animals as animals function is some vastly inferior ways similar to humans.)
Human societies (separated at the tower of Babel) have ALWAYS had a relationship with God (submissive/good or rebellious/bad) from the garden of Eden.
Organized, or codified, religions that have developed since reflect this submissive or rebellious relationship.
BTW, do you REALLY think animals operate under the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you)?
I believe religions to be man-made, by direction of the One God.
And if there isn't? Why should God have to “re-invent the wheel” biologically or “socially” when He separated men from animals by creating male and female in His image?
So, are you agreeing that humans and animals have similar morals?
Human societies (separated at the tower of Babel) have ALWAYS had a relationship with God (submissive/good or rebellious/bad) from the garden of Eden.
Isn't this shaping a mythology to fit reality? What physical evidence is there for the Tower of Babel incident? There are towers probably several times larger, today, almost all of them dedicated to acts of men, rather than anything divine. Why isn't there a repercussion of the same? Th English language is now a de-facto international tongue, or is poised to rapidly accomplish that, in a short span. What purpose then did the "original" destruction of the said "tower" achieve?
BTW, do you REALLY think animals operate under the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you)?
All of them?
Yes, I believe all religions are man-made.
But are they all divinely inspired?
From your article: “Because this social organization closely resembles that of early humans (as anthropologists and other experts believe it existed), studying canid play may offer a glimpse of the moral code that allowed our ancestral societies to grow and flourish.”
The “social organization” of early humans is pure conjecture based on the religion (beliefs) of anthropologists and other “experts” who. apparently, are trying their hardest to make humans into mere animals.
What? You call this “science.”
BTW - I asked what YOU believe: do YOU really think animals operate under the Golden Rule?
And no, I don’t think humans and animals have similar morals. I merely assert that the same God created them both, and any apparent similarities reflect His divine intent/purpose, as do their obvious differences.
BTW, we have gotten far afield from my “original” question for you.
What makes your brain function, e.g., make the decision to eat a peach instead of a strawberry, or rob a bank instead of getting a job?
I decide, and YOU decide. Do you think the decisions of men (and animals, if you choose to include them in your deliberations) are completely and totally material/corporeal/comprised of matter (however you want to say/understand it) and involve nothing apart from “matter?”
I would imagine they are.
So how can you “freely” respond to a post?
Or “love” to post?
Are machines free?
Do machines love?
What physical evidence is there for the Tower of Babel incident?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html
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.