To be honest, I do not know how we got on the age of the earth? My argument is that 2 Peter 3:8 is being misapplied. It is not a creation verse. It is a second coming of Christ, in which the passage is entiltled, “The Day of the Lord Will Come” The verse applies moreso to us and not God. ‘Time’ is in man’s realm.
People will always misapply scripture to suit their own beliefs and traditions.
Jammy,
I must say that I am proud of your answer. What you say is theologically correct. I can quote a fellow theologian if I wish. That does not make my exegesis of scripture wrong. Fellow Scottish American Charles Edward Miller. I am not bragging, but my father, great-grandfather and I are named after Prince Charles Edward Stewart, the Young Pretender. As you can see, I like history. May God bless you and that Celtic wisdom.
It applies to all time, not just to the Second Coming. God bless.
Ok…let’s go with your interpretation. It says, God sees that a day as one thousand years. There are six days of creation. So by my math, that’s 6,000 years. You are still billions of years short.
The day represents an indefinite period of time. It does not mean a literal six-day period. You should reconsider the words of James McKay as well as my own. The Bible can be taken literally in some places, and scripture can be compared to older scripture. One sees that in the Book of Isaiah. who is the Wonderful Counselor. It was Jesus centuries before he was born by the Virgin Mary. Peter is telling us that a “day” to God is different than our concept. Some scripture cannot be taken literally. Our Lord Jesus himself called King Herod “that old sly fox.” Does this mean that Herod was a little dog-like creature? Perhaps King Herod evolved. God bless you in your pursuit of truth.
Wookin, again you’re completely missing the point. The point isn’t “one day equals one thousand years exactly,” the point is, there is not a direct mapping between God’s time and our time.
The Bible is not written in languages with context-free grammars. If God had wanted us to read 2 Peter 3:8 in the kind of way that you’re suggesting, He would have written it in C or Python, not in colloquial first-century Greek.
Again, I am not dogmatic on the age of the earth, but no where in scripture when we see “morning then evening 1st day”, does not mean long period of time. I am sorry, but it just isn’t there. I must be consistent in my scriptural interpretation. If you can find me , “evening then morning” indicating a longer period of time then one day, then I am willing to change my mind of Genesis.
I disagree.
Good wisdom, James.
My friend, scriptural truth is not continent on whether you agree or disagree. You lack consistency. You only apply that to Genesis 1-11 but not the rest of scripture, with nothing in scripture to tell you to do so but your own inclination.
…for the second coming.
I didn’t miss the point. I was being jest, to demonstrate that you run into many problems with using 2 Peter to show that a day in Genesis means a longer period of time. It is bad hermeneutics.
I must say again that I disagree. Remember, that is why there are so many different colors of Christianity. However, we must remember to respect each other with charity. And you are my brother in Jesus. I believe Jammy would agree with that.
I respect you as a brother in Christ. I have not been rude nor snarky. But I will not sacrifice truth for the sake of peace. I would say that you are wrong, because I have scripture to support me.
That may be so, but at least 2 Peter 3:8 gives us something to go on as far as long ages are concerned. The only alternative is God creating detailed evidence for 4.5 billion years of events that never happened, and in support of that, the Bible gives us nothing.
I feel I have scripture to support my view. I know you mean nothing bad by your statements. God gave us free minds to think.
That is because you don’t want to see what is obviously there. I see it.
thousand years is long ages? O…wow…that is bad.
And God gave us men to interpret the scripture rightly, which is why they created hermeutical principles in helping us understand scripture. 2 Peter is a stretch in the least for creation, especially when there is nothing there indicating creation except for your assumption. The bible time and time again, is misapplied or just downright twisted. by many.
I must again disagree. Herod is therefore an old sly fox.
And God is a mother hen…what does this have to do with Genesis stating, “evening then morning, the 2nd day”?
I am going to retire after this. The point is that the Bible cannot always be taken literally. It is a book of salvation and not modern science. II Peter 3:8 in its very statement implies that. “Yom” can be an indefinite period of time.
Good night, Gentlemen
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.