Thread: Scriptural support for an "old earth"

Originally Posted by FunFromOz

But there were no "Jews" around (by name) till 2 Kings 16 or around 750 BC, well after Genesis was put to paper. Israel as a nation didn't exist till say 1300 BC. So does that argument really hold?

We don't really know who formulated the Genesis account the way we have it now. We know that it was passed down orally then written down by Jews in exile in Babylon around 500 BC. We don't know much about to which extent they relied on written records for that. We have no particular reason to disbelieve that "evening then morning" is an idiomatic expression since it fits the Jewish definition of the end of a (full, 24 hour) day.

Hebrew : boqer
1 morning, break of day
..a morning
....1 of end of night
....2 of coming of daylight
....3 of coming of sunrise
....4 of beginning of day
....5 of bright joy after night of distress (fig.)
..b morrow, next day, next morning

evening then dawn, in other words

Originally Posted by Colonel

We don't really know who formulated the Genesis account the way we have it now. We know that it was passed down orally then written down by Jews in exile in Babylon around 500 BC. We don't know much about to which extent they relied on written records for that. We have no particular reason to disbelieve that "evening then morning" is an idiomatic expression since it fits the Jewish definition of the end of a (full, 24 hour) day.

Hebrew : boqer
1 morning, break of day
..a morning
....1 of end of night
....2 of coming of daylight
....3 of coming of sunrise
....4 of beginning of day
....5 of bright joy after night of distress (fig.)
..b morrow, next day, next morning

evening then dawn, in other words

Which is what most believe, that when Genesis 1 says "evening then morning" it means the end of a (full, 24 hour) day.

Hebrew: yowm

Outline of Biblical Usage

day, time, year

day (as opposed to night)
day (24 hour period)

as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
as a division of time

a working day, a day's journey

days, lifetime (pl.)
time, period (general)
year
temporal references

today
yesterday
tomorrow

So, agreeing with what you said above, we have no reason to not believe that "day" refers to, unless qualified by the immediate context, a (full, 24 hour) literal day.

Originally Posted by Colonel

We don't really know who formulated the Genesis account the way we have it now. We know that it was passed down orally then written down by Jews in exile in Babylon around 500 BC.

Google searches say that we know otherwise saying, "Until the last three hundred years, both Jews and Christians were almost unanimous in their belief that Moses was the author (or at least the compiler) of Genesis as well as the author of Exodus through Deuteronomy. Reasons for the rejection of Moses' authorship were not based upon any objective evidence but stemmed from an anti-supernatural bias on behalf of the critics" (emphasis mine). Suggesting otherwise were "first proposed by Jean Astruc in Paris in 1753". (Notice the phrase: "were not based upon any objective evidence")

Jesus used the phrase "Moses and the Prophets" three times. He seemed to believe Moses wrote Genesis.

Paul says: "For Moses writes" and "whenever Moses is read". He also seemed to believe Moses wrote Genesis.

That's where Hebrews 3-4 has something to say since it addresses one of the seven days mentioned in Genesis 1.

My initial question in the OP was "What Scriptures can we use to support the idea of an "old earth"?" I don't think we've really found any yet. Let me explain. And hopefully I can edit this to be short.

Four Scriptures have been supplied as supporting an "old age" earth (Isaiah 45:18, Ezekiel 28:11-13, Matt 10:15, 2 Peter 3:18), so I'll look at each and give my take on how strong that support is. My argument will be that the OT Scriptures do not say anything that is not in Genesis, they add nothing; they change nothing. With the NT Scriptures, we have the phrases "day of judgement" and "day of eternity" but there's no reason to suggest they're talking of an earthly day, the opposite in fact, and there's no reason to relate them to Genesis, so there is no valid reason to work backwards and try apply longevity to the days in Genesis.

But we will start with God's first words to us, a description of the start of His interaction with man, and we see something repeated six times: we have God doing something, then, when we're told what He has done, the text ends with the phrase "And there was evening and there was morning" which Colonel says "means that that particular day has ended" (Post #31) and then that day is numbered from one to the sixth. The next word is "Then".

Edited to show that structure we have:

In the beginning God ... And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Then God said ... And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
Then God said ... ... a third day.
Then God said ... ... a fourth day.
Then God said ... ... a fifth day.
Then God said ... ... the sixth day. Thus ...

To iterate, God does something; the day He does it on ends; that day is numbered; "Then" we go to what happens the next day.

Immediately after that we read this:

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

Thus (as a result or consequence of this; therefore, in the manner now being indicated or exemplified; in this way) the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. (We are told in Genesis 1 what God did at creation, then, to reinforce the message, we're told at that start of Genesis 2 that "in the manner now being indicated", i.e. in Genesis 1, is how He did it). By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. (And then we are told that God rested on the seventh day, and because He rested on it He blessed and sanctified it).

So what do we have? A record of God creating "the heavens and the earth ... and all their hosts" in six days, resting on the seventh day, and nothing to indicate that we should consider the term "day" to mean anything other than a day. In fact we get a double up on that with the phrase "And there was evening and there was morning" which Colonel says "means that that particular day has ended" (Post #31) and then there's Colonel's other statement that "If God said so then it would say that God said so" (Post #42) and as He says nothing else at this stage what can we conclude at this stage?

Having read Genesis 1 and the start of Genesis 2, because there is absolutely nothing to suggest otherwise, the only valid conclusion we can come to at that stage is it not, is that God created the heavens and the earth in six 24 hour days than rested on the seventh 24 hour day.

The Scriptures given to support an "old earth".

First we have Isaiah 45:18 (Post #23). 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.

The suggestion here is this:
"This also is a basis for some for a pre-adamite race since it was formed to be inhabited and then we find it without form and void then he creates Adam and Eve during the re-creation".

What does the Bible say elsewhere?

(1) "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done" (Gen 2:1-2),
(2) "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day" (Ex 20:11) and
(3) "It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed" (Ex 31:17).

The Bible tells us three times that Creation was a work of six days followed by a day of rest. As Isaiah says, God formed the world to be inhabited, and so He did. That it was void and without form at some point in the first day doesn't conflict with Isaiah, and nothing in Isaiah that contradicts what's said in Genesis 1:1; there's nothing in Isaiah that overrides Genesis. Creation was a six day event.

Secondly, Ezekiel 28:11-13 (Post #8)

11 Again the word of the Lord came to me saying,
12 "Son of man, take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre and say to him, 'Thus says the Lord God,

"You had the seal of perfection,
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 "You were in Eden, the garden of God;
Every precious stone was your covering:
The ruby, the topaz and the diamond;
The beryl, the onyx and the jasper;
The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald;
And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets, Was in you.

The suggestion here is that:
"in Ezekiel God is referencing I believe king Cyrus, but yet it's obvious he's not speaking about him but about Lucifer/Satan. He talks about him walking in the garden of Eden and every precious stone being his covering. This obviously would've had to been before Adam and Eve were created and before he fell.

Yes, Satan walked in the Garden of Eden. We read about that in Genesis 3. Genesis 2:7-8 says "7 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8 The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed." i.e. man was created before the garden. The Bible contradicts the idea that Satan "had to (have) been (in the garden) before Adam and Eve were created" but, yes, it tells us that he did walk there. So again, there's nothing in Ezekiel that contradicts or overrides what we read in Genesis 1.

Thirdly, Mat 10:15 (Post #19) Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!

The concern is:
The expression "day of judgment" is used ten times in the New Testament and it's always singular and not plural. That's the day when men will be judged according to the deeds that they have done, good or bad. How long will that day last ? 24 hours ? From morning until evening ? I don't think so. Judging 10+ billion people for all their deeds so that all the other people will be satisfied with the justice pronounced will take quite some time. I don't know how long but easily years. So that's yet another "day" that lasts much longer than 24 hours.

To us it seems that it will take a long time to judge everyone. 10,000,000,000+ is a lot of people. But "science" suggests that there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars (ref) (that's our 10,000,000,000 people multiplied by another 10,000,000,000 then multiplied by another 10,000), and the Bible says that God created all these stars in Day 4. If God can create that many stars in a day could he judge 1/100,000,000,000,000 that number of people in a day? Probably).

Anyway we're talking here about something happening at the end of time, Jesus has come back, the millennium is ended, we're transitioning to something new that we don't know much about. Can we really say then that this expression "day of Judgement" casts doubt on a straightforward reading of Genesis 1? I can see no references to creation where the expression is used, so on what grounds can we relate the two?

And Fourthly, 2 Peter 3:18 (Post #11) but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. (NASB)

2Peter 3 speaks of creation in verse 5 but in verse 11 starts to speak of the new heaven and earth which will exist after the current heaven and earth are destroyed by fire. In v 18 Peter uses the phrase "the day of eternity" which half the Bible translators translate word for word, and the other half translate the sense of the phrase and write "forever". This is speaking of something still yet in our future, and there's nothing to link it to the book of Genesis. So there's nothing in 2Peter that contradicts or overrides what we read in Genesis 1.

Personally, based on Scripture, I can't see any reason to believe in an "old earth".



This link appeared in my FB feed while I was writing this.

From 2006, appeared on my FB feed today https://creation.com/davis-young-why...day-age-theory

Just saw this video linked in FB. Listened to the first half so far. This is one image from it showing how the Bible tells us when Creation happened:

Originally Posted by Cardinal TT

God is very old

God is not "old." God exists outside of time. For God to "age," He'd have to be subject to the passing of time. He is not.

Originally Posted by Bookman

God is not "old." God exists outside of time. For God to "age," He'd have to be subject to the passing of time. He is not.

I think he exists in his own time even though he is situated outside our time. We tend to think of all of existence revolving around us but it doesn't.

Originally Posted by Colonel

We don't really know who formulated the Genesis account the way we have it now. We know that it was passed down orally then written down by Jews in exile in Babylon around 500 BC. We don't know much about to which extent they relied on written records for that. We have no particular reason to disbelieve that "evening then morning" is an idiomatic expression since it fits the Jewish definition of the end of a (full, 24 hour) day.

Hebrew : boqer
1 morning, break of day
..a morning
....1 of end of night
....2 of coming of daylight
....3 of coming of sunrise
....4 of beginning of day
....5 of bright joy after night of distress (fig.)
..b morrow, next day, next morning

evening then dawn, in other words

The same expression is used in Daniel 8, one of the later works in the Old Testament, written during the exile in Babylon in the 500s BC.

Daniel 8:14 And he said to me, "For two thousand three hundred [a]days; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed."

The footnote says :

a. Daniel 8:14 Lit. evening-mornings

Which is how my Norwegian Bible translates it, as "evenings and mornings". 2300 fully completed days.

The creation account ends the first day using the same expression :

Gen 1:5b So the evening and the morning were the first day.

Originally Posted by Bookman

God is not "old." God exists outside of time. For God to "age," He'd have to be subject to the passing of time. He is not.

Daniel 7:22 until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom.

Whether or not he exists in his own time apart from ours, he has interacted with us since the beginning of our time, which makes him "the ancient of days" or "old one" even by our reckoning. God doesn't "age" though, he remains the same.

Originally Posted by fuego

I am on my phone and don't have time to do the scripture references but I will do them later. But I will throw a few things out there with scripture reference is coming later.

1. Genesis 1:1, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:2 and the earth was without form and void. And in Isaiah states that he formed the earth to be in habitable. So there is a gap between verse one and verse two where all of this was destroyed.

2. It is either in Ezekiel or Isaiah or God is referencing I believe king Cyrus, but yet it's obvious he's not speaking about him but about Lucifer/Satan. He talks about him walking in the garden of Eden and every precious stone being his covering. This obviously would've had to been before Adam and Eve were created and before he fell.

3. Obviously this isn't scripture, but the carbon dating puts the earth at millions of years old. I'm using this one like a lawyer would throw out something at a trial and the other lawyer would object and the judge would sustain it, and then tell the jury to disregard the last remark.

But that is a couple off the top of my head without being on my laptop and being able to research it and post the Scriptures, etc.

Actually, I would not mention carbon dating for anything over about 50,000 years since that is the end of its ability to measure with any accuracy. Secondly, the best science says that the earth is 4.5 Billion years old with much of that time being uninhabitable. On the science end of things, we find at least 3 different major cataclysms that caused a major extinction event with the last one being 64 million years ago with the meteor strike in the southern Gulf of Mexico that coincided with the major basaltic eruption in India that covered the region with miles deep in magma. These extinction events point to an old earth and a lack of time for evolution since soon after each extinction event, large animals suddenly appeared without transitional animals.