Thanks, lol! When I come up with some new thoughts that may be helpful I’ll pop in again 
I know this thread has kind of blown up, but I did answer your questions here if you are still interested.
1 Like
You complained to @Casper_Hesp that he was “…essentially asking [you] to ignore something that’s in the text for something that’s not in the text.”
Indeed, this is the crux of virtually the entire discussion. The Genesis Creation details (what’s in the text) invalidates its own credibility on many levels and in many places … which warrants a conscientious reader to replace error with scientifically supported correct descriptions (what is not in the texts!).
Otherwise, a great number of the new generation of Christians will be compelled to question even the spiritual truths of the Bible because of your claim that everything is inextricably linked together!
Let me offer my soul up to you in a one time only demonstration!
You say that you cannot reject the appearance of error (The figurative use of days) because to do so would lead you to greater error (we need the literal meaning ‘days’ to justify the Sabbath, and that God created the Sabbath to show he “completed” creation).
And yet the point of the objections you have been hearing here is that the linkage doesn’t save the 6 days of creation if the entire scriptural chain is not defensible for other reasons.
For example, this linkage also incorporates capital punishment for not honoring the Sabbath - an eternal covenant!
Not only do YECs, for the most part, reject Saturday as the Sabbath, even if Sunday can be justified as the new Sabbath, nobody is put to death for working on that day.
The rationalization usually proffered is that the O.T. wording of the Sabbath being an eternal covenant was incorrectly worded. It really wasn’t intended to be eternal… it just needed to run until Jesus, which was a good deal short of eternity!
This is pretty much the same point we have been making all along!: the O.T. wording is not inerrant.
So, @Mike_Gantt, if you can convince me that the O.T. text - asserting the eternal covenant of the Sabbath - is being mis-translated, I will fly to your church on any Sunday of your choosing and accept the faith and baptism of your congregation for all time!
In other words, you are trying to use the alleged integrity of scriptural corpus on the Sabbath as the reason why we must accept 6 literal days of creation! But the only way to preserve the corpus is to explain why God allowed the Sabbath to change … and why the death penalty was allowed to lapse for any reason.
2 Likes
I feel a sense of fascination when I revisit this thread. So much emphasis has been placed on scripture, that the only conclusion that may be drawn is we believe what scripture says - which is ok. This has become the bedrock of an argument, so we can say:
- scripture talks of six days of creation - ok
- scripture gives us the ten commandments’, and one of these is to keep the Sabbath - ok
- scripture now gives an age for the earth -not so.
If the basis is what is found in the scripture, than there is no scriptural basis for any age of the earth - and this is the very argument you claim to make. Yet the Sabbath is one of the ten most important statements in the bible.
go figure 
2 Likes
I understand the reasoning adopted, but my point is that this is added to biblical teaching, and is not literally what we find in scripture. It takes little imagination for the writer to state that we should believe that we now can know the age of the earth, by adding given periods expressed as years. Since so much praise and comment is found in the bible on various aspects of the creation, it makes good sense to me that the age of the earth would be placed centre to this, especially as it would have given Moses a bedrock certainty when he and Israel prepared the calendar - this was used in deciding when to keep the Sabbath and holy days, which is central to how Israel worshipped (no small matter).
The absence of a clear date, and unambiguous data on an age for the earth, is significant to my way of thinking. It certainly removes this from important teaching in the bible.
2 Likes
For the record, I believe that is not an appropriate way of reading the Bible, @gbrooks9 . We want to save the texts from our scientific thinking, not “replace” them with our own modern ideas, God forbid. I think what you are suggesting here sounds wildly heretical for anyone with reverence for the Scriptures, like @Mike_Gantt, me, and the majority of those who support BioLogos.
4 Likes
Ok, I can work with this.
As I understand it then, you and I agree that Ex 20:8-11; Ex 31:17; Gen 1-2 are all the word of God.
Ok, so I see them all saying that God created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. Surely, you agree with me that that’s what the passages say, but differ with me about what those words mean. Please tell me (or remind me if I’ve forgotten) how you interpret those words.
That is my main curiosity about your position at the present time, but let me go ahead and address the examples you gave in case it helps you in formulating your answer.
Agreed.
I want to respond to this, but also want to make sure we stick as closely to the Scripture as possible. Could you give me the verse you are thinking of when you say, “The earth does not move”?
I don’t know how to interpret this sentence. Can you paraphrase it or elaborate?
In addition to what @Casper_Hesp said to you, let me comment on a few other points.
You and I, and others on this board, are in complete agreement that the individuals most important with regard to this discussion are not the participants in it. That is, it is the well-being - spiritual and otherwise - of the rising generation that is most important. We participants may not agree - at least not yet - on what is important in this discussion, but we do agree on who is most important in it.
George, I do not have a congregation, so there’s nothing for you or anyone else to join. Nor do I baptize people. That said, why are you making an offer like this? Have you serious thought this through and girded yourself for all it would require if you were to become convinced? If so, why? Why do you think this would be the kind of response the Lord would have you give to the truth? Is the Lord interested in us hiving ourselves off from others…or does He not want us to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with Him?
I find you hard to read. Much of the time, your posts appear to be the work of someone who is very intelligent and very educated, but who participates in this discussion board as a parlor game. Other times, I can take you more seriously.
I have tried to answer you appealing to your serious side, but your frivolous side has colored your responses, preventing a productive exchange between us. This explains why I only respond to your comments selectively.
If I shared your assumption (“The absence of a clear date, and unambiguous data on an age of the earth, is significant”), I would share your conclusion (that the age of the earth cannot be an “important teaching”).
Is fair to say that your assumption is as follows?
If something is important - that is, if the Lord wants us to be concerned about an issue - then He will have made it explicit in the Scriptures.
If you’re uncomfortable with the wording, please re-phrase.
I am concerned with what we are taught by scripture. Your reference in Gen and Exodus deal with the six days of creation and the Sabbath. On these matters, we have a clear understanding from scripture.
I cannot understand why you would deal with this on the basis of what the Lord wants us to be concerned with - He wants us to obey His commandments and to live according to the Gospel. Issues such as dates of the earth, and similar matters, seem to arise from our own arguments.
I see the commandment to keep the Sabbath as central - from this, like you, I ponder on how we can obey that command. My reasoning is along these lines - if we are to keep a specific period of time that God sanctified as His Sabbath, than the bible would have provided clear data that would enable us to do that. If not, than the Sabbath is the day after our six days of work, and we would create a calendar that was faithful in those terms.
The exact period of time that corresponds to the Sabbath in Genesis (to follow your reasoning) MUST be calculated by having an exact chronology commencing with day 1 of creation, followed by 2, 3, etc., until we have the exact period that is the Sabbath. Once we have that, we would create a calendar to ensure these periods were known to Israel and nowadays, to Jew and Christian. In this way we would keep the exact period for the Sabbath, and know the years that have passed since Adam. No ambiguity, no interpretation, would be needed.
I give these details because keeping the Sabbath is one of the ten commandments. I cannot think of anything more important then the 10 commandments - Christ came to fulfil the Law and the prophets. If a chronology commencing with Adam were required than I am certain the bible would provide this and we would not be having these lengthy discussions on an age for the earth.
From my school days, I seem to remember that the Jewish calendar revolves about the sun and moon, and the Sabbath and other Sabbaths (holy days) were calculated in this manner. Correct me if I am mistaken, but this calendar varies considerably, and I cannot recall a biblical passage that enabled Moses to make an exact beginning (from the first day of creation), or the first Sabbath, or any other point of reference.
As a result there have been a number of attempts (if I recall this correctly) at devising calendars, and none can clearly start from day 1 of creation. Thus I conclude we do not have a clear biblical method, or some dating, or command, that enables us to determine the age of the earth.
As a result, some may turn to science (and associated controversies), others to history (and errors as we go back further) and others to inferences from biblical sources. All indicate some personal preference - none are based on a clear biblical teaching.
I did get the reason, all the way back in post #41 …
… And the reason you rejected this is because it is not explicitly stated, while the actual words “six days” appear in your proof texts. But, again, it is clear that the primary function of the verses in question is to establish the principle that Israel is to imitate (reflect, “image”) God, which is an ethical concern (hence, the placement in the Decalogue). Moses had bigger fish to fry than how many days it took God to create. Fixating on the “six days” is straining out a gnat to swallow a camel.
1 Like
One aspect of this discussion that hasn’t been mentioned (probably because it’s tangential) is the fact that all of the commands of the Decalogue are repeated and supported by NT authors, with the exception of one – Sabbath observance.
2 Likes
I thought I was coming closer to understanding your position. I may be getting farther away. Please bear with me until I get to the end of this post.
I thought you were saying something like this:
If something is important - that is, if the Lord wants us to be concerned about an issue - then He will have made it explicit in the Scriptures.
Now, it sounds like you may be saying something like this:
The only reason that the age of the earth could be important is if it was necessary for us to keep one of the Ten Commandments…and it’s not.
Have I got one or both of these right? If one, which one? If neither, then could you generalize the principle or assumption you are following that leads you to say that the age of the earth is unimportant?
If I’ve exhausted your patience on this point, just tell me so and I’ll stop asking you about it. I don’t want to be an annoyance if I can avoid it.
Did God make explicit the computation of the age of the earth? Consider the following from Primeval Chronology by William Green, 1890:
But do not the chronological statements introduced
into these genealogies oblige us to regard them as neces-
sarily continuous? Why should the author be so partic-
ular to state, in every case, with unfailing regularity, the
age of each patriarch at the birth of his son, unless it
was his design thus to construct a chronology of this
entire period, and to afford his readers the necessary ele-
ments for a computation of the interval from the creation
to the deluge and from the deluge to Abraham? And if
this was his design, he must of course have aimed to make
his list complete. The omission of even a single name
would create an error.
But are we really justified in supposing that the author
of these genealogies entertained such a purpose? It is a
noticeable fact that he never puts them to such a use him-
self. He nowhere sums these numbers, nor suggests
their summation. No chronological statement is deduced
from these genealogies, either by him or by any inspired
writer. There is no computation anywhere in Scripture
of the time that elapsed from the creation or from the
deluge, as there is from the descent into Egypt to the
Exodus (Ex. xii. 40), or from the Exodus to the building
of the temple (I Kings vi. 1). And if the numbers in these
genealogies are for the sake of constructing a chronology,
why are numbers introduced which have no possible rela-
tion to such a purpose? Why are we told how long each
patriarch lived after the birth of his son, and what was
the entire length of his life? …
3.The abode of the children of Israel in Egypt affords
for our present purpose the best Scripture parallel to the
periods now under consideration. The greater part of
this term of 430 years is left blank in the sacred history.
A few incidents are mentioned at the beginning connected
with the descent of Jacob and his family into Egypt and
their settlement there. And at its close mention is made
of some incidents in the life of Moses and the events lead-
ing to the Exodus. But with these exceptions no account
is given of this long period. The interval is only bridged
by a genealogy extending from Levi to Moses and Aaron
and their contemporaries among their immediate relatives
(Ex. vi. 16-26). This genealogy records the length of
each man’s life in the principal line of descent, viz., Levi
(ver. 16), Kohath (ver. 18), Amram (ver. 20). The corre-
spondence in the points just indicated with the genealogies
of Gen. v. and xi., and the periods which they cover, is
certainly remarkable. And as they proceeded from the
same pen, we may fairly infer from the similarity of con-
struction a similarity of design. Now it has been shown
already that the genealogy from Levi to Moses cannot
have recorded all the links in that line of descent, and
that it could not, therefore, have been intended to be used
as a basis of chronological computation. This is rendered
absolutely certain by the explicit statement in Ex. xii. 40.
It further appears from the fact that the numbers given
in this genealogy exhibit the longevity of the patriarchs
named, but cannot be so concatenated as to sum up the
entire period; thus suggesting the inference that the
numbers in the other genealogies, with which we are now
concerned, were given with a like design, and not with
the view of enabling the reader to construct the chronology. …
5.The structure of the genealogies in Gen. v. and xi.
also favors the belief that they do not register all the
names in these respective lines of descent. Their regu-
larity seems to indicate intentional arrangement. Each
genealogy includes ten names, Noah being the tenth from
Adam, and Terah the tenth from Noah. And each ends
with a father having three sons, as is likewise the case
with the Cainite genealogy (iv. 17-22). The Sethite gene-
alogy (chap. v.) culminates in its seventh member, Enoch,
who “walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.”
The Cainite genealogy also culminates in its seventh
member, Lamech, with his polygamy, bloody revenge, and
boastful arrogance. The genealogy descending from
Shem divides evenly at its fifth member, Peleg; and “in
his days was the earth divided.” Now as the adjustment
of the genealogy in Matt. i. into three periods of fourteen
generations each is brought about by dropping the requi-
site number of names, it seems in the highest degree prob-
able that the symmetry of these primitive genealogies is
artificial rather than natural. It is much more likely that
this definite number of names fitting into a regular
scheme has been selected as sufficiently representing the
periods to which they belong, than that all these striking
numerical coincidences should have happened to occur in
these successive instances.
It may further be added that if the genealogy in chap.
xi. is complete, Peleg, who marks the entrance of a new
period, died while all his ancestors from Noah onward
were still living. Indeed Shem, Arphaxad, Selah, and
Eber must all have outlived not only Peleg, but all the
generations following as far as and including Terah. The
whole impression of the narrative in Abraham’s days is
that the Flood was an event long since past, and that the
actors in it had passed away ages before. And yet if a
chronology is to be constructed out of this genealogy,
Noah was for fifty-eight years the contemporary of Abra-
ham, and Shem actually survived him thirty-five years,
provided xi. 26 is to be taken in its natural sense, that
Abraham was born in Terah’s seventieth year. This con-
clusion is well-nigh incredible. The calculation which
leads to such a result, must proceed upon a wrong as-
sumption.
On these various grounds we conclude that the Scrip-
tures furnish no data for a chronological computation
prior to the life of Abraham; and that the Mosaic records
do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date
either of the Flood or of the creation of the world.
2 Likes
What the passages meant to the original audience was God created the universe in six days. They believed this to be true. What the passages mean to us given the additional revelation from God’s creation is that God created the universe. To me this makes the passages true to the original audience in their understanding and true to us in our understanding. The Word of God is always true, but not always in the same way.
Sure.
Psalm 104:5 He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever. NASB
Psalm 93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved. KJV
And many others of course. And remember what is important is what those verses meant to the original audience.
Just my poor attempt at humor coupled with one of the ways I learned to answer test questions in my school days. After seeing how I answered the first two questions you should be able to guess what my answer would be to the third.
And let me add another thought here. I was thinking yesterday about our exchanges which raised a question. What Biblical authority do we have for changing anything in the Word of God? Muslims believe that the Quran is only inspired when read in Arabic. So I dug up my copy of “The Hermeneutical Spiral” to see what it had to say and in the skimming I did last night couldn’t come up with anything. Lots of words on why and how but nothing on if it is allowed or to what degree. This seems to be an unstated assumption of everyone. Osborne did say as we move from text to interpretation to contextualization the level of authority goes down so we need to make sure of our understanding of what the text meant to the original audience. A common phrase seems to be “going from what it meant to what it means.” BTW that is a great book if you want to get into the nitty gritty of interpretation.
The epistles always talk of Paul going to the synagogue on the Sabbath to preach the Gospel. When the Jews rejected him, he and others met elsewhere. The four Gospels all show that Christ went to the synagogue and often spoke to the congregation.
The early Church began to meet on Sunday to commemorate the resurrection - this became the Christian Sabbath.
It is this aspect, that we observe a day of rest and worship God that is central, not the ability to identify a specific period that is referenced directly with the creation week.
Indeed, you did - to which I responded in post #53, which I won’t reproduce here, though anyone who’s interested can go back to post #41 and find it among the replies. There, they will also find some additional back and forth between you and me on this point. Since people can find all that there, I won’t repeat all of it here.
It is disappointing to read this, as you seem to have lost sight of how I began my response to you on this point in post #53:
I recall being quite happy with your emphasis on the image of God and ethically imitating Him, particularly through Christ. It was the exclusion of all other meaning from the text to which I objected - hence my concern about the “mutual exclusivity” you were employing. I went on to say in post #70:
I wasn’t the one who chose to position “six days plus one” - first by God, then to be imitated by man - as the explicit verbal centerpiece of Ex 20:11 and Ex 31:17 as well as the chronological frame of Gen 1-2. That was Moses (God). I’m just searching for the faithful way to react to that positioning.
I don’t think I am, for the reason I just stated…and more. However, even if I am straining out a gnat, let us consider Jesus’ warning in context (italics added):
Matt 23:23 ¶ "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.
Matt 23:24 "You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
Notice that Jesus is discouraging the application of mutual exclusivity where it is not warranted.
As for ascertaining just how important or unimportant is the issue of “six days plus one,” I’ve spoken of that before and will probably do so again, so I won’t do so now.
In closing, I remind you that I love your emphasis on our imitation of God through Christ - which by means of the scriptures you listed and other like them gives us even richer and more rewarding meditation than Thomas a Kempis does - and wholeheartedly welcome your bringing it into the discussion. Let nothing I am saying about the Lord’s “six days plus one” take away from it.
1 Like
Perhaps I cannot make myself clear, so I will try this:
Each statement of the ten commandments is clear - thou shall not steal thou shall observe the Sabbath, thou shall not worship idols, and so on.
I cannot find a similar phrase of sentence that would read in this way, such as, this is the age of the earth, or the beginning of creation was x thousand and y hundred years before Abraham, and so on.
2 Likes
Oh, I quite agree. I don’t see a sentence like that in the Bible either. What I’m asking is if you think the mere absence of a sentence like in the Bible that makes the issue unimportant for people who revere the Bible.
Jay,
This man’s argument is with Archbishop Ussher - not me. Thus it is a straw man in this thread.
My interest in what the Bible has to say about the age of the earth is strictly binary: thousands of years or billions of years. I need no answer more precise than that.