Biblical Evidence for Long Creation Days

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.”

It's still that, based on archaeological, cultural and anthropological evidence, against mythology. Why should the latter deserve to be kept at a higher pedestal, especially when it is filled to the brim with unbelievable and grossly exaggerated details? Magic, miracles and things like that, which no scientist of repute can take as fact. Even in medicine, which is where most modern "miracles" tend to occur, no amputee has ever gotten a whole limb to grow back.

BTW - I asked what YOU believe: do YOU really think animals operate under the Golden Rule?

Yes, they do, otherwise they wouldn't be able to build social structures.

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.

But some of their morality aspects are similar, a la the Golden Rule.

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?

This would purely be based on aspects involving past experience, individual judgments of pleasure, and a bit of chance.

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?”

Almost always a matter of balancing priorities. One weighs the benefits against the drawbacks, mentally. Not merely physical or tangible ones, but also the intangible. One weighs short-term gains vs. long-term consequences. This is why morality becomes flexible, in a way, depending on circumstances, and not robotic or rigid:

WATCH: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_on_our_buggy_moral_code.html

So how can you “freely” respond to a post? Or “love” to post?

By balancing priorities. If I had another task at hand that demanded my attention, then no, I wouldn't be posting. If I gauge that discussing here would help me and you better understand the world we are in, which would be among my priorities, then yes, I'd be compelled to continue the discussion.

Are machines free? Do machines love?

Can machines think? If no, can they ever acquire the ability to think, in future? If you say no again, and if they do acquire, would it shatter all religions?

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html

A few big problems with the reasoning presented above, based on a quick perusal:

1. If a ziggurat is what the Tower of Babylon was, then what about all the other ziggurats lying around?

2. Is there evidence for one single, massive ziggurat reaching for the heavens?

3. Was this ziggurat the tallest thing ever built by humans? Would it have eclipsed the heights of Burj or Petronas Towers, that exist today? If yes, how did they accomplish it with merely stone, brick and wood? It is an engineering impossibility, to be able to do so without steel.

4. If the Tower of Babel's destruction was for a particular reason, does the same reason hold today, with the English language being a universal one, and towers still constructed to celebrate human achievement? Why aren't these struck down?

5. The Tower of Babel description reinforces the primitive beliefs of the ancients that the gods live "above" the sky. This also emphasises their understanding of the Earth being flat, and occupying the lower-mid stratas of their understanding of the universe.

Yes.

More accurately, it would be that I do not see enough evidence for the existence of any supernatural beings as detailed by any known religion today. One way or another, they nullify themselves, by their own scriptures, by philosophical arguments, or by science.

You are not the first “boy” I have met who desires to be Pinnochio, though it is usually the other way around.

Like “Data” aspiring to human emotions.

Or R2D2 and C3PIO being given personality traits.

Hopefully your regress into/embrace of naturalism will be rewarded with survival (if you happen to be one of the fittest).

You still haven’t begun to address in any way, shape, or form the freedom and choice of humanity from a scientific “physics” perspective — and I’m not sure you even understand what I’m getting at, but I tried.

Happy machinedom!

Thanks, I guess, but I’d rather “regress” into the depths of science, philosophy and knowledge, than desert nomad mythology. Free will is not free, if one is blackmailed into belief by eternal torture, the very concept of which is rather reflective of Man’s primitive urge to control others by way of substitution and / or of malevolence of the said, created “divine” entity all Semitic religions speak of.

I can only hope that you, and others, continue to challenge and question your beliefs every moment you can. So will I.

If you are speaking of Jesus of Nazareth, you have not advanced one truth, scientific or otherwise, that disproves what you call “desert nomad mythology.”

For one who takes a refuge in what you call “science,” you have only advanced your own subjective mythology, leaving me wondering “where’s the beef?”

Also, your understanding of “free will” and “blackmail” are rather childish.

If I tell you not to play in the street so you don’t get run over by cars, you could see me as limiting your freedon or saving your life — your choice.

If I tell you not to be immoral, because there is justice in the universe, and moral judgment, or rewards and punishments, you could see me as threatening you or offering you wisdom — again, your choice.

Why do people have so much trouble accepting moral realities — they live with the physical ones everyday.

I did, but your choosing to stick with mythology and your continual refusal to adopt the same standards for evaluating it, as you seem to do so, while arguing against science, is something I cannot help you with.

For the inconsistency in the “moral message”, let me just take an example from the Bible: 1 Samuel 15:3. Children and infants are ordered to be slaughtered here. What’s the beef, as you would say?

Also, your understanding of “free will” and “blackmail” are rather childish. If I tell you not to be immoral, because there is justice in the universe, and moral judgment, or rewards and punishments, you could see me as threatening you or offering you wisdom — again, your choice.

Problem is, the Golden Rule perfectly works with things relating to morality, and the "eternal torture" is not pertaining to anything even close to the issue of pure morality, but rather, of forced, blackmailed belief in supernatural and superstitious entities.

God is passing the sentence of death on a culture or people, the Amalekites, for their personal and collective “sin,” just as he told Adam and Eve when they sinned they would die. Moral consequences of their own behavior.

Thankfully, beyond the grave, God is able to absolve or recompense the “innocent” children and infants among the Amalekites, something that will no doubt NOT compute in your mentality — but nevertheless true.

IOW, there is no ultimate justice this side of eternity, only human approximations of it, based on God’s unchanging moral standards.

Perhaps one reason people have so much trouble accepting moral realities, is because they are individuals and their lives, situations and decisions differ, which directly affects their moral realities. The physical realities are usually similar for everyone or at least larger groups of people.

And who hasn’t wondered why “good” people suffer while “bad” people prosper.

Nevertheless, there are moral realities and a moral “ecosystem” which we ignore to our own peril.

And the average person knows it.

Perhaps the average Muslim has a greater respect and appreciation for the justice of God than you.

“essence” ... is that an immaterial thing, I thought you were totally materialistic (pun intended).

I will leave you with Jesus’ words:

Luke 13:1-5 There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

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.