The Long Ager Dichotomy!

Musicmaster

Musicmaster

Ok, all you Cosmology fans out there, one of the long ages problems that Theistic Evolutionists have is really quite simple to identify:

It's the belief among the long ages crowd that God allegedly spent billions of years (postulated by the atheistic, evolutionary camp that they follow) to bring the universe to the point in the timeline we are currently now sitting here reading this post. One of the main problems I have with this is that I don't believe God is so simple-minded that He would sit there, with autistic fascination, blankly watching a universe spawning new stars and swirling galaxies all about, watching them explode, and then reform, and then swirl about in seemingly random fashion, until finally deciding to form this earth, Adam, and then the rest of man in the midst of sickness, suffering, disease and death as is seen in the fossil record and as we peer out into space!

Inevitably, someone is bound to point out that a day to the Lord is as a thousand years here on earth. That would mean that God sat there for 24 billion earth years, or rather 2,778 eternity years, watching it all swirling about, and moving toward some (unknown to us) point of Adam being formed. That would be about 2,778 years of blank fascination on the part of God.

Do you see the problem here?

They seem to believe that God is somehow plagued by some unnamed malady to be so deeply immersed in boring fascination with process that span such a massive amount of time, that one must ask...what was He doing and thinking during all that span of time that even has a very long measure in eternity...if we misapply that scripture the way so many do about the day and thousand years thingy? Did it take Him that long to formulate His plan for man's whisp of mist timeline in the span of atheistic long ages?

Hmm. Quite a problem, huh? No?

What other alternatives are there? Maybe Genesis says what it means...and maybe not? I realize this debate has been ongoing for some time now, so what other beliefs are there that can make sense along this line of thought? No reason for anyone to argue angrily. Let's have some thoughtful input to this just see what makes sense, and what doesn't.

As you likely have seen, I enjoy shifting perspective on many things to see what other ways there are of looking at a given topic.

MM
 
Personally, I believe that the statement 1,000 years is as a day to God is simply saying that time is irrelevant to God. God is eternal and outside of space, time, matter and energy that make up His creation. By His words He is beginning and end. It is a mistake to assign time to God. How can there be an evening and a morning for days 1 through 3 if the sun was not created until day 4? This (to me) seems to indicate a beginning and an end of a creation event, and not a literal 24 hr period.
 
Dave F. said:
Personally, I believe that the statement 1,000 years is as a day to God is simply saying that time is irrelevant to God. God is eternal and outside of space, time, matter and energy that make up His creation. By His words He is beginning and end. It is a mistake to assign time to God. How can there be an evening and a morning for days 1 through 3 if the sun was not created until day 4? This (to me) seems to indicate a beginning and an end of a creation event, and not a literal 24 hr period.
Click to expand...

Good point. So, we're still left with the assumptions out there that have no foundation upon which to stand. Those on the long ages bandwagon don't ever explain, so far as I have seen, WHY the Lord would take such long, long ages of time in this realm to bring things about as they are now? I think we can all agree that He doesn't do anything that's without purpose? Did the ages slip by without His notice, given, as you said, He is outside of time? Was He that unaware, or indifferent?

So, given your take on it all, the likely, logical conclusion is that He was either not capable of creating everything fully functional to the maturity it was at for Adam to be formed from the dust 6000+ years ago, or He was/is capable of doing just that, but chose the long ages thingy. Why?

It has to be based upon some purpose that He would certainly have revealed to us at some point as a rebuttal to what the scriptures say to us now when we read them. Instead, He said nothing else other than to tell us it was six literal days for creation (mornings and evenings). Why would the Lord say one thing, and yet the reality be something opposite? That's what I'm trying to explore here. Purpose. Is there something sinister one way or the other?

I don't care how He REALLY did it all, and I'm not trying to argue any of that; other than to say that if He did it in some other way than what He states in Genesis, then He HAD to have had a purpose, and without that as a foundation, the long ages thingy is groundless.

Does that make sense?

MM
 
I understand your meaning and I don't pretend to know the mind of God. Consider when Jesus said He was the bread of life and his followers would have to eat His body, many took it to be literal and walked away from Him. It is possible that God designed His creation with added time for certain things to occur. Just because God could create everything at once doesn't mean He did. Why not just everything in 1 day. The word translated as day does not always mean 24 hours (i.e. The day of the Lord, or how about at the end of the creation story where it says in the day that HE made it.) In Job, God says He covered the Earth with a thick cloud, why would He need to do that except to protect the plant life from a young stars behavior?
Thoughts?
 
Dave F. said:
I understand your meaning and I don't pretend to know the mind of God. Consider when Jesus said He was the bread of life and his followers would have to eat His body, many took it to be literal and walked away from Him. It is possible that God designed His creation with added time for certain things to occur. Just because God could create everything at once doesn't mean He did. Why not just everything in 1 day. The word translated as day does not always mean 24 hours (i.e. The day of the Lord, or how about at the end of the creation story where it says in the day that HE made it.) In Job, God says He covered the Earth with a thick cloud, why would He need to do that except to protect the plant life from a young stars behavior?
Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah. I agree that the Hebrew word YOM can be translated either way...a literal day, or an indeterminant span of time without there being a qualifier to place constraints upon that span so that it has dimension and measure. The scriptures give us no reason to believe that word indicates a long age of time without there being book ends for it to become grammatically correct for usage. Without those identifiers, it becomes a nonsensical construct of language and expression.

The crux of it, however, is the "evening and morning" identifiers. They remain a pesky thorn in the sides of those riding the long ages bandwagon, and is what I am trying to explore...which is only the purpose behind the Lord's chosen method for bringing it all about in whatever way that He did. I'm simply exploring assumptions...and boy howdy, there is a boat load of them out there. I've found that if and when we can ascertain the Lord's purpose behind something, the realities become glaringly obvious. The long ages bandwagoneers must assume the earth changed its rotational speed, and that the plant life survived without our sun for ages and ages.

In other words, if there is purpose to the Lord utilizing long ages of time, we are left with far more problems and questions than if we accept the literal days that is indicated in the text.

You did, however, bring up another good question...why not do it ALL in one day? Good one.

Hmm.

Well, given that we have no purpose statement for that, it would have to sit on the back shelf along with the long ages thingy. Even though it can also be said that He spoke no express purpose for taking six literal days, other than to legitimize the seventh day of rest, we are also offered almost nothing for that as well...other than to say that the literal days is the only scenario that has wording for its backing, and it creates the least number of difficulties for us to try and explain away with magical indifference to reality as we know it today.

Thanks, Dave.

MM
 
Musicmaster said:
Realistically, the earth should be covered in bones had there been millions of years worth of bones accumulating through such a vast amount of time.

MM
Click to expand...
I disagree. There aren't any bones of the many people that died in the flood, why you expect there to be any from before. I have not heard anyone suggest that man has been around for millions of years. As I understand it even old earthers believe God created man within the last 10,000 years or so. There are, however, many fossils of plants and animals that are that old. These fossils show that plant life was created first (as the bible says) and then ocean life (again showing the bible true) then the land animals and birds (more proof) then man came on the scene. Old earthers believe that God created in long periods of time, they do not believe in evolution. The debate of young versus old pre-dates the theory of evolution. My question remains unanswered...How can you have an evening and a morning without the sun? These terms must then suggest a beginning and an ending of a particular event.
 
Dave F. said:
Personally, I believe that the statement 1,000 years is as a day to God is simply saying that time is irrelevant to God. God is eternal and outside of space, time, matter and energy that make up His creation. By His words He is beginning and end. It is a mistake to assign time to God. How can there be an evening and a morning for days 1 through 3 if the sun was not created until day 4? This (to me) seems to indicate a beginning and an end of a creation event, and not a literal 24 hr period.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

That in effect means the statement by MM of...............
" That would mean that God sat there for 24 billion earth years, or rather 2,778 eternity years, watching it all swirling about, and moving toward some (unknown to us) point of Adam being formed. That would be about 2,778 years of blank fascination on the part of God."
Is irrelevant! ...........NO disrespect intended MM!

It just means that your comment does not apply.

Since God exists outside of time, 24 billion or 1000 trillion has No meaning here.
 
Dave F. said:
I disagree. There aren't any bones of the many people that died in the flood, why you expect there to be any from before. I have not heard anyone suggest that man has been around for millions of years. As I understand it even old earthers believe God created man within the last 10,000 years or so. There are, however, many fossils of plants and animals that are that old. These fossils show that plant life was created first (as the bible says) and then ocean life (again showing the bible true) then the land animals and birds (more proof) then man came on the scene. Old earthers believe that God created in long periods of time, they do not believe in evolution. The debate of young versus old pre-dates the theory of evolution. My question remains unanswered...How can you have an evening and a morning without the sun? These terms must then suggest a beginning and an ending of a particular event.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

“What was the light source on days 1–3 if not the sun?”

The Bible is silent about the source. Nevertheless, this is a question which has been debated and speculated upon among scholars and theologians for nearly two millennia and I certainly do not have the answer.

Some of the answers are.........
1. Tertullian (155–220 AD) of Carthage was an early Christian apologist and theologian. He believed that the light was a physical manifestation of Christ’s glory early in creation week. As the Creator agent He created all things for Himself and everything created was by Him and for Him (Col. 1:16).

2. Ephrem the Syrian (306–373 AD) was an apologist, a hymnographer, and a theologian in Edessa, Syria. Ephrem speculated that the first light was like a huge bright mist or a pillar of fire and that after day 3 ended, God repurposed that light (and its heat) into the sun, moon, and stars.

3. Basil of Caesarea (329–379 AD) was the Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia and an ardent apologist and theologian. Basil used a unique argument for what the light of the first three days was. He concluded that God created the essence of the sun the first three days, without creating its substance until day 4 of creation week. Using the analogy of fire and a lamp, Basil concluded that God took the “fire” from days 1–3 and put it in the “lamp” of the sun on day 4. This is likened to the burning bush where the light of the fire existed, but the fire was not really burning from the bush.

4. ugustine (354–430 AD) of Hippo was the bishop of Hippo, a prolific author, and a theologian. Augustine believed that the light on days 1–3 was specifically created (not a manifested essence of God), not something which was later repurposed. He believed that God created angels on day 1 and that they were the light which shone on the earth for three days (likely based on scriptural references such as Psalm 104:4, Ezekiel 1:13–14, Matthew 28:3, Acts 12:7 and Revelation 18:1).

5. Matthew Poole (1624–1679 AD) was an English Puritan, a theologian, and a Bible commentator. Poole believed that the light on the first three days of creation week was some type of bright cloud, which moved across the earth. It was later repurposed as the sun on the fourth day.

6. The late Dr. John Whitcomb (1924–2020) was a theologian and author/coauthor of several young-earth creation works, including The Genesis Flood, which is often credited with igniting the modern creationist movement. Dr. Whitcomb believed that the light on the first three days was some type of proto-sun, which was done away with once God created the sun on day 4.

As shown above, there are many different thoughts on this subject. But ultimately, we are simply not told. Throughout history people have speculated and continue to do so, but always test these proposals against the Scriptures.

Not having a sun before day 4 of creation is not a problem for biblical creationists. The temporary light source—whatever it was—by God’s design and purpose served to function as light and heat for the earth for three days.
Source: https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/days-without-sun-what-was-source-light/
 
Major said:
Agreed.

“What was the light source on days 1–3 if not the sun?”

The Bible is silent about the source. Nevertheless, this is a question which has been debated and speculated upon among scholars and theologians for nearly two millennia and I certainly do not have the answer.

Some of the answers are.........
1. Tertullian (155–220 AD) of Carthage was an early Christian apologist and theologian. He believed that the light was a physical manifestation of Christ’s glory early in creation week. As the Creator agent He created all things for Himself and everything created was by Him and for Him (Col. 1:16).

2. Ephrem the Syrian (306–373 AD) was an apologist, a hymnographer, and a theologian in Edessa, Syria. Ephrem speculated that the first light was like a huge bright mist or a pillar of fire and that after day 3 ended, God repurposed that light (and its heat) into the sun, moon, and stars.

3. Basil of Caesarea (329–379 AD) was the Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia and an ardent apologist and theologian. Basil used a unique argument for what the light of the first three days was. He concluded that God created the essence of the sun the first three days, without creating its substance until day 4 of creation week. Using the analogy of fire and a lamp, Basil concluded that God took the “fire” from days 1–3 and put it in the “lamp” of the sun on day 4. This is likened to the burning bush where the light of the fire existed, but the fire was not really burning from the bush.

4. ugustine (354–430 AD) of Hippo was the bishop of Hippo, a prolific author, and a theologian. Augustine believed that the light on days 1–3 was specifically created (not a manifested essence of God), not something which was later repurposed. He believed that God created angels on day 1 and that they were the light which shone on the earth for three days (likely based on scriptural references such as Psalm 104:4, Ezekiel 1:13–14, Matthew 28:3, Acts 12:7 and Revelation 18:1).

5. Matthew Poole (1624–1679 AD) was an English Puritan, a theologian, and a Bible commentator. Poole believed that the light on the first three days of creation week was some type of bright cloud, which moved across the earth. It was later repurposed as the sun on the fourth day.

6. The late Dr. John Whitcomb (1924–2020) was a theologian and author/coauthor of several young-earth creation works, including The Genesis Flood, which is often credited with igniting the modern creationist movement. Dr. Whitcomb believed that the light on the first three days was some type of proto-sun, which was done away with once God created the sun on day 4.

As shown above, there are many different thoughts on this subject. But ultimately, we are simply not told. Throughout history people have speculated and continue to do so, but always test these proposals against the Scriptures.

Not having a sun before day 4 of creation is not a problem for biblical creationists. The temporary light source—whatever it was—by God’s design and purpose served to function as light and heat for the earth for three days.
Source: https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/days-without-sun-what-was-source-light/
Click to expand...
One thing is certain. The light in 1:3 is not the sun because the sun is not created until verse 16.
 
BibleLover said:
One thing is certain. The light in 1:3 is not the sun because the sun is not created until verse 16.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've seen some outlandish nonsense speculated about in relation to the plants allegedly being able to do without light for millions of years until the sun was created...

MM
 
Musicmaster said:
Oh, yeah. I agree that the Hebrew word YOM can be translated either way...a literal day, or an indeterminant span of time without there being a qualifier to place constraints upon that span so that it has dimension and measure. The scriptures give us no reason to believe that word indicates a long age of time without there being book ends for it to become grammatically correct for usage. Without those identifiers, it becomes a nonsensical construct of language and expression.

The crux of it, however, is the "evening and morning" identifiers. They remain a pesky thorn in the sides of those riding the long ages bandwagon, and is what I am trying to explore...which is only the purpose behind the Lord's chosen method for bringing it all about in whatever way that He did. I'm simply exploring assumptions...and boy howdy, there is a boat load of them out there. I've found that if and when we can ascertain the Lord's purpose behind something, the realities become glaringly obvious. The long ages bandwagoneers must assume the earth changed its rotational speed, and that the plant life survived without our sun for ages and ages.

In other words, if there is purpose to the Lord utilizing long ages of time, we are left with far more problems and questions than if we accept the literal days that is indicated in the text.

You did, however, bring up another good question...why not do it ALL in one day? Good one.

Hmm.

Well, given that we have no purpose statement for that, it would have to sit on the back shelf along with the long ages thingy. Even though it can also be said that He spoke no express purpose for taking six literal days, other than to legitimize the seventh day of rest, we are also offered almost nothing for that as well...other than to say that the literal days is the only scenario that has wording for its backing, and it creates the least number of difficulties for us to try and explain away with magical indifference to reality as we know it today.

Thanks, Dave.

MM
Click to expand...
My I bring up a couple of things for you to consider.

#1.....Ancient writers didn’t have a clear way to convey the idea of a “billion”, so we shouldn’t expect the expressions 13.7 billion or 4.6 billion to show up in Genesis. Now please understand that this statement is true regardless of how old you believe the earth is. So then, even if the authors of the Old Test. texts believed the events described had an extremely long duration, they wouldn’t have been able to assign a number to it.

#2.....Ancient timekeepers didn’t measure days by machine; they used the sun. So we shouldn’t expect expressions like 24 hours or 1,440 minutes to show up in Genesis either. If the text is referring to literal days, they would be solar days, not 24-hour days.

#3.....When ancient writers sought to describe something they didn’t have the tools to explain, they often used metaphor. An example would be Abraham’s seed would be as the sand of the sea, or John’s scorpions, Nehemiah’s chariots, etc.
And it’s not because they were unintelligent; you and I would do the same thing if we saw the technology thousands of years from now. It is exactly how John wrote the Revelation when we was shown things he could not describe in his own tongue.

The 7 days of creation are explicitly a metaphor for the Jewish week, ending on the Sabbath. Should the temporal markers in this metaphor be taken literally? Perhaps not...because it's a metaphor. It says the creation took place in 6 steps.

So what am I saying???????? I am saying that maybe we’re left trying to squeeze chronological information out when perhaps none was put there to begin with. There’s a risk of doing the same thing with Genesis. Kind of like trying to get blood out of a turnip!!!!
 
Musicmaster said:
Yeah, I've seen some outlandish nonsense speculated about in relation to the plants allegedly being able to do without light for millions of years until the sun was created...

MM
Click to expand...
So then...what does the Bible actually say then?

Genesis 1:5......
"God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day".

The sun, it seems, was not created until the fourth day.

Genesis 1:4..........
"Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years".

Were plants and vegetation created on the third day done so without the existence of the sun?


John Whitcomb writes..........in John Whitcomb, The Early Earth, Revised Edition, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1986, p. 31).........."God created a fixed and localized light source in the heaven in reference to which the rotating earth passed through the same kind of day/night cycle as it has since the creation of the sun".

"If the text forces us to understand that light came before the sun, then it would demonstrate the writer did not copy from other creation stories, for all others had the sun as the source of all light. This would make the Hebrew story unique, for only the Hebrews believed light came before the sun."
Source: (Donald Chittick, The Controversy, Portland, Oregon: Multnomah Press, 1984, p. 151).

Also, do you think that it is possible that when Moses wrote Genesis 1:1 and said .....
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", the phrase heaven and earth included the sun.
 
Major said:
Agreed. But maybe there is another answer to consider!
Click to expand...
Maybe we're looking at the creation of light itself ex nihilo. Prior to the creation of light, God created matter ex nihilo. After the introduction of matter, it would be reasonable to introduce wavelengths and particles. God is creating the elements of physics in these early verses.
 
Major said:
So then...what does the Bible actually say then?

Genesis 1:5......
"God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day".

The sun, it seems, was not created until the fourth day.

Genesis 1:4..........
"Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years".

Were plants and vegetation created on the third day done so without the existence of the sun?


John Whitcomb writes..........in John Whitcomb, The Early Earth, Revised Edition, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1986, p. 31).........."God created a fixed and localized light source in the heaven in reference to which the rotating earth passed through the same kind of day/night cycle as it has since the creation of the sun".

"If the text forces us to understand that light came before the sun, then it would demonstrate the writer did not copy from other creation stories, for all others had the sun as the source of all light. This would make the Hebrew story unique, for only the Hebrews believed light came before the sun."
Source: (Donald Chittick, The Controversy, Portland, Oregon: Multnomah Press, 1984, p. 151).

Also, do you think that it is possible that when Moses wrote Genesis 1:1 and said .....
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", the phrase heaven and earth included the sun.
Click to expand...

When I wrote that, I was speaking of what others have said in the past when I engaged this topic more deeply on other sites.

I'm content to say that we don't know all the facts as to how it all happened. What matters most is that Jesus is Lord, and we will know as we are known at the moment the veil of our humanity drops away.

MM
 
Musicmaster said:
The crux of it, however, is the "evening and morning" identifiers. They remain a pesky thorn in the sides of those riding the long ages bandwagon, and is what I am trying to explore
Click to expand...
That pesky 'evening and morning' are my favorite deterrent to OE advocates. What are they going to do, start 'spiritualizing' what they stand for, or are an allegory of?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top