"Curse tablet" found on Mount Ebal...

Tablet with God’s Name, Biblical Curse, Discovered on ‘Curse Mount’ Ebal in Samaria
by David Israel
THE JEWISH PRESS
25 March 2022

https://www.jewishpress.com/news/israel/tablet-with-gods-name-biblical-curse-discovered-on-curse-mount-ebal-in-samaria/2022/03/25/

A small, folded 3,200-year-old lead tablet that was unveiled on Thursday may shed new light on Biblical study as we know it. The tablet, which was discovered on Mount Ebal in Samaria, known as the biblical "Curse Mountain,” includes the explicit name of God and the text of a curse, both in the ancient Hebrew script.

Mount Ebal is one of the two mountains near the city of Shechem in Samaria and forms the northern side of the valley in which the city is situated. Shechem’s southern side is bordered by Mount Gerizim. The event at Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal or the event of blessing and cursing occurred near the entry of the people of Israel into the Land of Israel at the beginning of the settlement period, after the forty years of wandering in the desert. The commandment to hold the event appears in the book of Deuteronomy and the report on how it was carried out appears in the book of Joshua.

The event included the construction of an altar on Mount Ebal and the offering of Olah and Shlamim sacrifices on it; writing parts of the Torah on stones: the blessing of the Levites on the keepers of the commandments of God and their curse on the transgressors; and at the end of the event, Joshua bin Nun recited to the people the blessings and curses written in the parsha of Ki Tavo.

The small lead tablet that was discovered on Mount Ebal was dated to the 13th century BCE, bears this curse (transliterated, Arur means cursed, and Ye’ho is part of the explicit name of God):

Arur Arur Arur
Arur la’El Ye’ho
Tamut ”“ Arur
Arur ”“ Mot Tamut
Arur l’Ye’ho
Arur Arur Arur

Prof. Gershon Galil from the University of Haifa calls the discovery an "earthquake in Biblical studies,” since "the new find unearthed today is the earliest Hebrew inscription found so far.” Before the latest discovery, the oldest inscription in Hebrew was dated to the tenth century BCE. "It was an inscription found at the Kiafa ruin, near the Ella Valley, by Prof. Yossi Garfinkel from the Hebrew University, which I deciphered,” he says.

But wait, there’s more: "The new finding is a death blow to all biblical deniers,” Prof. Galil stresses. "Many Bible critics have claimed that in the 13th century BCE (the traditional Jewish timeline places the exodus at 1248 BCE ”“ DI), the people of Israel did not read and write, and therefore could not have written the Bible. This is why Bible critics have claimed the Bible was written very late, in the Persian or Hellenistic period (fourth and thirds centuries BCE ”“ DI).

According to Prof. Galil, the tablet’s text represents great proficiency: "Anyone who knows how to write a text with a chiastic pattern can write anything,” he says.

A chiastic pattern or structure is a literary technique in narrative motifs and other textual passages, with at least two ideas that are intertwined.

"At this point, unfortunately, it is not yet possible to reveal all the information that has been unveiled, as it is awaiting peer review and academic publication,” Prof. Galil says. But we should say She’hechyanu over finding the explicit name of God in Hebrew.”

The correlation between the 3,200-year-old lead tablet and the event described in Deuteronomy 27 is obvious:

Thereupon Moses charged the people, saying: After you have crossed the Jordan, the following shall stand on Mount Gerizim when the blessing for the people is spoken: Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and Benjamin. And for the curse, the following shall stand on Mount Ebal: Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali. The Levites shall then proclaim in a loud voice to all the people of Israel: Cursed be any party who makes a sculptured or molten image, abhorred by Hashem, a craftsman’s handiwork, and sets it up in secret. ”” And all the people shall respond, Amen.

The text proceeds with a list of "cursed be,” or "Arur,” as in our lead tablet. Which Prof. Galil believes makes the fact that it was discovered on the very mountain where the ceremony of reading the curses took place yet another proof of its authenticity.

"These are not curses per se,” Prof. Galil stresses. Rather, "the meaning of the expression ‘cursed’ is ‘would be cursed.’ It is a legal text that warns that whoever does not keep the commandment would be cursed. In the relationship between Israel and God, there is an informal relationship in which God declares that He loves the people, and there is also a formal and legal component. In other nations as well, in every contract, there are blessings as well as curses that would apply to whoever breaks the agreement.”

https://www.jewishpress.com/news/israel/tablet-with-gods-name-biblical-curse-discovered-on-curse-mount-ebal-in-samaria/2022/03/25/

I saw this yesterday here:

https://www.worthynews.com/67549-archaeologist-claims-to-find-oldest-hebrew-text-in-israel-including-the-name-of-god

Is the age of the tablet around the same date as Deuteronomy 27? Is that what they are implying?

How was the tablet dated? I hope not some carbon-14 or other radiometric manner that many Christians deny the accuracy of when dating ancient sites like Gobekli Tepe, etc.

I'm assuming you don't believe in a young earth?

Hi TMK,

How was the tablet dated?

"If the Late Bronze Age (circa 1200 BCE) date is verified, this tiny, 2-centimeter x 2 centimeter folded-lead "curse tablet” may be one of the greatest archaeological discoveries ever. It would be the first attested use of the name of God in the Land of Israel and would set the clock back on proven Israelite literacy by several centuries ”” showing that the Israelites were literate when they entered the Holy Land, and therefore could have written the Bible as some of the events it documents took place.

"This is a text you find only every 1,000 years,” Haifa University Prof. Gershon Galil told The Times of Israel on Thursday. Galil helped decipher the hidden internal text of the folded lead tablet based on high-tech scans carried out in Prague at the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.

BASED ON EPIGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SCANS and LEAD ANALYSIS of the artifact, Stripling and his team date the curse tablet (or defixio) to the late Bronze Age, before or around 1200 BCE. If this dating is verified, it would make the text centuries older than the previous recordholder for oldest Hebrew text in Israel and 500 years older than the previously attested use of the tetragrammaton YHWH, according to Galil. Writing in a similar alphabet was discovered in the Sinai Peninsula dating to the beginning of the 16th century BCE."

https://www.timesofisrael.com/archaeologist-claims-to-find-oldest-hebrew-text-in-israel-including-the-name-of-god/

In other words, they used epigraphical analysis and lead analysis. An epigraphical analysis is based upon the inscriptions. It is similar to how archeologists can date (or use a range of dates) when analyzing Egyptian hieroglyphs.

As the Times of Israel article states, the earliest known Hebrew inscriptions go back to about the 10th century B.C. (roughly 3,000 years ago). This would date to centuries prior to that. And, as it points out, this is 500 years earlier than the earliest known inscription of the divine tetragrammaton -- the "YHWH" Name.

However, the findings haven't been published yet to ascertain just how this was deduced. It was part of an archeological dig on Mount Ebal; so, it could be based upon the epigraphical analysis coupled with dating based upon the dig layer.

We know the importance of Mount Ebal due to the instructions by Moses to build altars on Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal. For the blessing, Mount Gerizim was to be attended by six tribes (Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and Benjamin); and, for the curses, Mount Ebal was to be attended by the other six tribes (Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali). This is found in Deuteronomy chapter 27.

Mount Gerizim was the choice of blessing. Interestingly, Mount Gerizim later came to be the mountain held as sacred by the Samaritans. This was the "mountain" referred to by the Samaritan woman who met Jesus by Jacob's well in John 4:20-26. This area was part of the Northern Kingdom of Israel which quickly fell into idolatry during the era of the divided kingdoms.

Mount Ebal, on the other hand, was the choice of cursing. This was the other option that the people of Israel could choose (i.e., "choose you this day whom you will serve"). It is explained well in Deuteronomy 11:26-32:

26 "See, I am placing before you today a blessing and a curse:
27 the blessing, if you listen to the commandments of the Lord your God, which I am commanding you today;
28 and the curse, if you do not listen to the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside from the way which I am commanding you today, by following other gods which you have not known.

29 "And it shall come about, when the Lord your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, that you shall place the blessing on Mount Gerizim and the curse on Mount Ebal.
30 Are they not across the Jordan, west of the road toward the sunset, in the land of the Canaanites who live in the Arabah, opposite Gilgal, beside the oaks of Moreh?
31 For you are about to cross the Jordan to go in to take possession of the land which the Lord your God is giving you, and you shall possess it and live in it,
32 and you shall be careful to do all the statutes and the judgments which I am placing before you today.

It is also part of the idea of "life and death" that accompanies this. In Deuteronomy 30:19-20:

19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have placed before you LIFE and DEATH, the BLESSING and the CURSE. So CHOOSE LIFE IN ORDER THAT YOU MAY LIVE, you and your descendants,
20 by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding close to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, so that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.”

Personally, I think that this has the potential to be a tremendously important archeological find. Of course, I will wait to read the paper once it's published in a peer-reviewed journal.

It is all very interesting. But when Christians rely on radiometric dating methods to support biblical archaeology they should not say it stinks when dating objects that do not fit into a biblical narrative, or a young earth narrative.

Not saying that is what is happening here- particularly if they are relying on other methods.

Which narrative do you believe? Do you believe in evolution?

Nope. But I do believe (know) the earth is way yonder older than 6000 years.

Had to rule out evolution.

Mark 10:6 - But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Man is as old as the earth (minus five literal 24 hour days).

Ok Platy if you say so!

What else can I say? I can't do anything else with the text.

Jesus giving his interpretation of the time period in relation to man and creation:

Mark 10:6 - But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Man was there from the beginning of the creation as per above verse and then we subtract five literal 24 hour days as per Genesis 1.

Genesis 1 states that each day had an evening and a morning which then makes each day a 24 hour day.

Genesis 1:5 - And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Genesis 1:8 - And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Genesis 1:13 - And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Genesis 1:19 - And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Genesis 1:23 - And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

So whatever the age of the earth is subtract five literal 24 hour days and you have the age of man according to scripture.

I have no issue with Adam and Eve being relatively recent. The issue is the age of the earth/universe.

Literal "creationists” are actually only selective literalists (or, perhaps "inconsistent literalists”). If one was truly consistent in interpreting the creation description in Genesis 1 at face value (along with other creation descriptions in both testaments), you’d come out with a round, flat earth, complete with solid dome over the earth, and earth supported by pillars, with Sheol underneath, etc. But creationists who claim the literal mantle won’t do that, since the results are clearly non-scientific. We should simply let the text say what it says, and let it be what it is. It was God’s choice to prompt people living 1000s of years ago to produce this thing we call the Bible, and so we dishonor it when we impose our own interpretive context on it. Our modern evangelical contexts are alien to the Bible. Any context other than the context in which the biblical writers were moved to write is foreign to the Bible.

Hi all
For the Jesus to be true in my opinion the Earth as we know it ie with plants and animals has to be young.
Important Point No 1
Why?
Romans says that by one man sin entered the world and death by sin.
Who is the one man?Adam
We can number the days of Adam as the bible has numbered his days.
Adam was created on the SIXTH day of Creation.
"So all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died"
The bible clearly says "All" from the very beginning of life to the very end.
So from the beginning of Sixth day to the end of Adams life is 930 years,no if or no buts its 930 years.
Now that means that the SIXTH day can either be a literal 24 hr day or it can be a full year.If the SIXTH day is a literal 24hr day or a full year then so are days 1 to 5 and day 7
IMPORTANT POINT No 2
Evolution teaches that their has to be a continouse life-death-life-death-life-death cycle for evolution to happen over millions of years.If that cycle of life death life death was in existance before Adam then their is no need of Jesus to undo the curse of death as it was in existance before Adam.
We can be assured that the Earth as we know it with plants and animals and living things is "young" because we know the age of Adam from the 6th day of creation until his death.God has defined a day as either a literal 24hr day or a literal full calendar year.We can be assured that Sin and Death entered the world by Adam as the bible says as much.
IMPORTANT POINT NO 3
No Human or Missing Link Human or any life could have died before Adam and Eve as the bible says their was no death before Adam

We cant have our cake and eat it if death didnt enter the world through Adam but was evolutionary then their is no need for Jesus,
urs staff

This is why I used the interpretation of Jesus on the time relation of man and creation:

Mark 10:6 - But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

That is not my interpretation. Jesus stated that man was created in the beginning of creation. That would be a problem for you if you believe the earth is old and man is recent.

If your interpretation of that verse is correct, then either scripture is not inerrant or Jesus is fallible. Which do you choose?

In context, Jesus is talking about the beginning of creation of humans. You think that occurred 6 days after the creation of the universe, I think it occurred later. But from the day they were created they were male and female.

Hi Staff,

We can number the days of Adam as the bible has numbered his days.
Adam was created on the SIXTH day of Creation.
"So all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died"
The bible clearly says "All" from the very beginning of life to the very end.
So from the beginning of Sixth day to the end of Adams life is 930 years,no if or no buts its 930 years.
Now that means that the SIXTH day can either be a literal 24 hr day or it can be a full year.If the SIXTH day is a literal 24hr day or a full year then so are days 1 to 5 and day 7

Some thoughts:

(1)
24-hour days and 365-day years are regulated by the physical sun.

(2)
The first 3 days preceded the physical sun’s creation on the 4th day. Therefore, the first 3 days cannot be 24-hour physical days or physical years.

(3)
We know today that plants cannot exist without the physical sun. Yet plants were created on the 3rd day, before the sun was created on the 4th day. There is surely more to the creation account than meets the eye.

(4)
There is no mention of an evening and a morning regarding the 7th day. Therefore, the 7th day cannot be a 24-hour physical day. I would say that the 7th day is an eternal day.

(5)
After Adam was created on the 6th day, he entered into the eternal 7th day. Therefore, there was a period after Adam’s creation in which he lived outside physical time because that which is eternal is outside time.

(6)
When Adam sinned, he lost his place in the eternal 7th day of God’s rest and only believers in Christ can re-enter this day of eternal rest (Heb. 4:3-7).

(7)
The countdown to Adam’s death started from the day he sinned because it was only after he ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that he would surely die. I would say that the 930 years that Adam lived were the years after his eternal rest in the 7th day ended and his mortal physical life began. These were the countable years of his mortal life.

Your thoughts?

Blessings

Hi BranchinVINE,

1
So "ALL" of his days are 930 yrs.It doesnt distinguish between heavenly days or Earthly days they according to this scripture are the same.All in the bible always means All.

2
If as you suppose the 7th day is "eternal" and thats why it doesnt mention evening or morning then any days like day 6 which do mention evening and morning cannot be eternal or outside of physical time.This is a contradiction in what is convoluted explanation of a simple creation.
Also
3
Plants if they are in the form of seeds can stay in the ground until germinated and so their is no problem having no Sun until the next day or year.
4
According to even your own intrepretation any day that has an evening and morning is a literal day within physical time.
5
The usual reason Christians argue against a literal day of creation is that they have one foot in both camps .They want to believe Jesus came to save the world from the sin and death of Adam but they also want to believe in some kind of evolution.
Both Evolution and Jesus the sacrificial lamb cannot exist one has to be totally incorrect.
6
If evolution is deemed dead in the water as a belief which I think it totally is then it doesnt matter whether the Earth is old or young and is just merely a trivia argument.
7
God is all powerful and could create everything in 7 seconds or 7 minutes if he chose so to create so much in only 7days is totally within his ability .

urs staff

Hi Platy,
The seven days were the beginning and so its not contradictiong what Jesus said.Genesis is a full book for instance but it isnt contradictory to say that Noahs Ark is in Genesis or the beginning.
Day six is still part of the beginning of creation,
urs staff

Hi Staff,

So "ALL" of his days are 930 yrs.It doesnt distinguish between heavenly days or Earthly days they according to this scripture are the same.All in the bible always means All.

Are heavenly days governed by earthly sun?

If as you suppose the 7th day is "eternal" and thats why it doesnt mention evening or morning then any days like day 6 which do mention evening and morning cannot be eternal or outside of physical time.

I would say that the first 6 days are not physical days but creation days with a beginning and an end. The 7th day is God’s eternal rest day with no beginning and end.

Plants if they are in the form of seeds can stay in the ground until germinated and so their is no problem having no Sun until the next day or year.

Trees were bearing fruit before the physical sun appeared.

Gen. 1:12-13 ”“
The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

According to even your own intrepretation any day that has an evening and morning is a literal day within physical time.

I did not say that. On the contrary, I was challenging your interpretation that every creation day is a literal day within physical time.

The usual reason Christians argue against a literal day of creation is that they have one foot in both camps .They want to believe Jesus came to save the world from the sin and death of Adam but they also want to believe in some kind of evolution.
Both Evolution and Jesus the sacrificial lamb cannot exist one has to be totally incorrect.

I do not believe in evolution.

God is all powerful and could create everything in 7 seconds or 7 minutes if he chose so to create so much in only 7days is totally within his ability .

But what doe the Bible say?

I'm sure grateful I don't have to know how old the earth is to get into Heaven, Praise Jesus!

We just have to be sure that we are not eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil to get into heaven and stay in heaven.

Amen to that Bill!

Hi BranchinVine
1
When the bible says "ALL" you are saying its not.
2
You brought in the relevance of the Sun and then you are saying it has no relevance
3
You said that Day 7 was different because it had no morning or evening .I said if thats the case then Day 6 had morning or evening then it wasnt outside of time
4
You didnt show anywhere that the days were outside of time and that was just a big assumption
5
Are you saying that God if he chose too couldnt create the Heavens and Earth in 7 24hr days???If he chose too that is.

6 The only importance of whether the Earth is Old or Young is in relation to Evolution.When you take away the subject of Evolution then its easy to take the bible literally.
7
Without a cycle of life death life death life their is no evolution.

If you really dont believe in some kinda of evolution then what is the debate over ,its an irrelevant debate,
urs staff

Hi Bill,
We have to give a logical defence of our faith to those who dont believe and who say that because of evolution they dont believe in God.It is also important to counter the "survival of the fittest" arguement,
urs staff

I understand that, but who on this thread are you/we giving this logical defense of our faith to? It also matters how we make that case for Christ. We must present it with gentleness and respect. Christians are not called on to condemn those who are curious about our hopefulness. Nor are we to be vindictive, vengeful, or insulting to those who disagree. Rather, we should explain our faith without harshness or dismissiveness.

TMK wrote:

"In context, Jesus is talking about the beginning of creation of humans. You think that occurred 6 days after the creation of the universe, I think it occurred later. But from the day they were created they were male and female."

Most commentaries I've looked at don't make mention of the issue we are talking about but here is Gill's commentary on Mark 10:6 (the note is found in Matthew 19:4):

"This may be read in Ge 1:27 and from thence this sense of things collected; that God, who in the beginning of time, or of the creation, as Mark expresses it, made all things, the heavens, and the earth, and all that is therein, and particularly "man"..."

The word "creation" (ktisis) used in other passages when it is coupled with the word beginning:

Mark 13:19 - For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

II Peter 3:4 - And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Revelation of John 3:14 - And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

All three verses refer to the beginning of creation. Of particular note is verse Mark 13:19 since its the same writer using the same words.

Source:
https://biblehub.com/greek/2937.htm

TMK wrote:

"If your interpretation of that verse is correct, then either scripture is not inerrant or Jesus is fallible. Which do you choose?"

You left out a choice for me in your question and that is is man fallible? God is the author of the bible and creation. So man is fallible in his observation of creation and his interpretation of scripture. The issue here is not the age of the earth the issue here is what is your final authority? Is it the bible or man's dating methods? My final authority is the bible as I believe I have the correct interpretation of Mark 10:6 as per other commentators and other verses in the bible. A plain reading of Genesis 1 indicates 24/7 hour days. Have a child read it and ask them what they think it means.

Bill the issue here is not the age of the earth this is a defense of the bible.

Look what happened recently (listen from 9:30 to 10:35):

https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=31722453166854

Do you want that man as your pastor? Who was his father? What happened there?

Compromise on the bible leads to apostasy. This is a significant issue.

George Whitefield on the authority of scripture:

"If we once get above our Bibles, and cease making the written word of God our sole rule both as to faith and practice, we shall soon lie open to all manner of delusion, and be in great danger of making shipwreck of faith and a good conscience."

Shipwreck of faith just like in the audio clip in my last post.

Quote source:
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/myalbum/photo.php?lid=54

Staff wrote:

"It is also important to counter the "survival of the fittest" arguement”

Survival of the fittest is a known and observed fact and is only logical. However, that does not mean that macro evolution is true.

I believe Charles Spurgeon said it best: "The Gospel is like a caged lion. It does not need to be defended. It just needs to be let out of its cage.”

The reason many "not all" Christians defend their faith is the same. They are not defending God. They are defending themselves. It is their own honor at stake, their own pride and security, their reputation, not God’s.

And when our only motivation for defending God is a concern for ourselves, we end up looking ridiculous to outsiders.

What if Christians actually laid down their honor, their pride, their instincts to get defensive? What if we beat our swords into plowshares and answered every attack with love, with a still small voice that never wavered, but never raised?

It would mean that we are finally imitators of Jesus, and every last one of the accusations leveled against us, that we are hateful, hypocrites, selfish, narrow-minded and backward, would no longer be true.

I agree the Holy Spirit is the one that changes hearts but we need to defend against error as well.

Jude 1:3 - Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Hi Platy
I agree with you their is no reason to suggest or even think that the days are not literal.Why should we?We are told plainly that they are.
It isnt a case of me "thinking" its what the bible literally says.
I take the bible literally and I take the bible as the final authority.
It says 7 days and its 7 days their is no reason to question whether the days are literal.Some may think that they are not literal but the bible says differently.Everytime the bible names a person its a literal person.
If I transfer this exegesis onto other topics then I dont have to take anything literal,
urs staff

Hi Bill
I agree we should all aim for those qualities but that doesnt mean that just because we are going to Heaven we dont give a logical reasoned defence against the foolishness of Evolution based on the belief that the Earth is millions of years old.We have to call out a lie when we see a lie as Jesus did.
As of yet no one has commented on the fact that the arguement about a young or old earth is irrelevant unless it to prove that Evolution is fake.
I find it very hard to believe that Christians would believe in an old Earth unless they want defend Evolution in some way.
What would the point be if not that??
urs staff

Hi TMK
Survival of the fittest has been used by evolutionist since Darwin as an evolutionary tool .No evolution is true not micro or macro .None of it,its all garbage,
urs staff

Staff, regarding literalism, perhaps you missed my earlier post, copied below:

"Literal "creationists” are actually only selective literalists (or, perhaps "inconsistent literalists”). If one was truly consistent in interpreting the creation description in Genesis 1 at face value (along with other creation descriptions in both testaments), you’d come out with a round, flat earth, complete with solid dome over the earth, and earth supported by pillars, with Sheol underneath, etc. But creationists who claim the literal mantle won’t do that, since the results are clearly non-scientific. We should simply let the text say what it says, and let it be what it is. It was God’s choice to prompt people living 1000s of years ago to produce this thing we call the Bible, and so we dishonor it when we impose our own interpretive context on it. Our modern evangelical contexts are alien to the Bible. Any context other than the context in which the biblical writers were moved to write is foreign to the Bible."

So, how do you address this?

Hi TMK
You are skirting around the issue.
My guess is that you do have a belief in Evolution whether you say it or not or you think its ok for others to have a belief in Evolution.
Anytime a persons name is used in the Bible its historic and literal.Their is not a time used that it isnt.
There are different literary styles in the bible such as poetic and Historic and clearly Genesis is dealing with History ,literal History,
What really dishoners God is when we dont read something that is literal literally so we can promote another narrative.
If I intrepret the bible the way you are I could say Jesus was not a literal person which would be wrong,
urs staff

edit :deleted post

Edit - deleted post as well.

I deleted my previous post, getting off-topic anyway

Staff-

I do not believe humans evolved from apes. Nor do I believe birds evolved from dinosaurs. However, I do believe dinosaurs lived many millions of years ago and not 6000 years ago. I can believe the Bible and still use my God-given brain.

"We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be ”“ certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God."~~ Charles Spurgeon

"I do not believe humans evolved from apes. Nor do I believe birds evolved from dinosaurs. However, I do believe dinosaurs lived many millions of years ago and not 6000 years ago. I can believe the Bible and still use my God-given brain."

The issue with evolution is that death came before man. The bible teaches that death came as result of man's disobedience which then would make a new testament writer like Paul a false teacher.

If you believe that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago do you also believe there was death before man and if so how do you maintain your belief in the bible?

Also would you be able to provide a link to that Spurgeon quote. I'm assuming that is from one of his sermons. It would be helpful to see it in its context if it is.

Spiritual death, man, spiritual death.

I Corinthians 15:21-26 - [21] For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. [22] For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. [23] But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. [24] Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. [25] For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. [26] The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

You insist that animal death did not precede human death. I obviously disagree ( as do many many other evangelicals) but I don’t want to get into a huge discussion about it. Adam died spiritually immediately but he did not die physically for hundreds of years. Adam could have physically lived forever in his spiritually dead condition if he had maintained access to the tree of life, but he was kicked out of the garden. Gen 3:22-23.

Platy- here’s the link to the Spurgeon sermon. He seemed to have believed in the gap theory which I think is certainly possible.

https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/the-power-of-the-holy-ghost/

Hi Sister Jade. This is what the Bible clearly say.

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.

Hi
Back to the topic.
Another discussion on Biblical archeology that was quite interesting-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqTjpCrsGFE

Hi TMK,
I am interested then on how you use your brain to come to the conclusion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago?
Leaving out scripture how to you believe that?
urs staff

Because I don’t believe The Flintstones was a true story.

Bottom line, life has been on the earth for many millions of years. Lions have been eating flesh, birds have been dying, dinosaurs have been eating other dinosaurs, fish have been dying, saber-tooth tigers have been eating mastadons etc. for a very long time”“long before Adam and Eve lived. It is as unreasonable to deny this as it is to deny the resurrection of Jesus or the inspiration of the Bible.

Hi TMK
But I asked whats the process that lead you to believe that the earth is millions of years old? not what your bottom line was.?
urs staff

JB wrote:

"Hi Sister Jade. This is what the Bible clearly say.

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.”
””””””””””-

Moses wrote both passages. Why would he say something different in Exodus?

Genesis 1 is not a scientific treatise on the creation of the universe. It is a poetic statement that could be taught Mt to generations regarding one over arching truth: God did it.

Thanks for the link. I'm going to read through it tomorrow when I get some time.

Exodus 20:11 is the best verse on this thread to make the case for the 24 hour days in Genesis 1. God is speaking to the Israelites and they obviously understood it as 24 hour days because the preceding verses are:

Exodus 20:9-10 - [9] Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: [10] But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

In Exodus 20:9-10 the days are obviously 24 hour days and they are then compared to the creation days in Exodus 20:11. No person would interpret this any other way if you read it plainly without any influences/bias.

Man cannot work for long epochs of time and then rest for a long epoch of time. Man indeed benefits from a more reasonable 6 day work cycle and one day of rest.

Again, Genesis 1 is poetic description. The Exodus passage references the poetic Genesis passage to set a reasonable work/rest cycle for humans.

Hi TMK,
Genesis 1 is not at all poetic,its completely historic and their is no evidence and you have produced no evidence to show that it is nothing other than history.

You believe in millions of years without any logic or explanation of logic .
The scripture has to be twisted and contorted in every direction to accomadate the view of millions of years so that evolution can be also accomodated.Their is no reason to argue for millions of years if not to accomodate evolution or to accomodate the world,
urs staff

Todd I'm going to ask you a question.

Going back to Exodus 20, God is speaking audibly and directly to the Israelites:

Exodus 20:1 - And God spake all these words, saying,

Exodus 20:18-19 - [18] ¶ And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. [19] And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.

There is more than likely a young Israelite man present in the Exodus 20 event who is not married yet. Later on he gets married and has kids. One of his kids asks him how long it took God to create everything. What would his answer have been based on what he heard God say from the Exodus 20 event (and also the writings of Moses)?

Hi Sister Jade. This is what the Bible clearly say.

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.

Hi jochbaptist,

(1)

I am not contradicting what the Bible says at all.

God certainly made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them in six days.

But the Bible clearly does NOT say that these were made in six *** 24-hour *** days.

(2)

Perhaps Gen. 1:3-5 gives the best food for thought of what the creation day in Genesis 1 is.

Gen. 1:3-5 ”“
Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Note: God called the light day.

This is not the light of the physical sun as it was not yet created.

Our earthly day begins with a morning and closes in the evening. But the six creation days came out of an evening into a new morning, out of darkness into light. There is no closing of the day.

Just food for thought.

(3)

Heb. 10:1 says that the Law is only shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things.

Col. 2:16-17 says that the Sabbath day is a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath and is the true Sabbath rest.

The Lord Jesus says, "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest (Matt. 11:28).”

Heb. 4:1-11 connects the seventh day (Gen. 2:2-3) with the believer’s rest in Christ.

And everything that is of Christ is eternal, not bounded by any time.

Ps. 90:2 -- Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.

Blessings

Jade read my last post and I would like you to answer that question as well.

Platy -- He should tell them EXACTLY what God said, that God made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, in six days. He would be wise not to alter God's word and add "24-hour" to each of the six days.

Now the follow up question. How would the kids have understood the six days to be?

Do you add a lot of your own reasoning to teach your kids God's truths?

Going back to the scenario the man tells his kids exactly what God said with no reasoning added. How would the kids have understood the six days to be?

I guess this is your approach in trying to convince non-believers.

It is not human reasoning but the Holy Spirit who will lead us into all truth.

There are non believers on this thread? Hopefully not.

Acts 17:1-2 - [1] Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: [2] And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Platy wrote

There are non believers on this thread? Hopefully not.

2 Timothy 2:23-26

23 Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. 24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25 Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

Edit - Deleted post.

Edit - Deleted post.

//Their is no reason to argue for millions of years if not to accomodate evolution//

This is baloney. If the earth/universe is billions of years old it is because it is. It has nothing to do with evolution. There is evidence upon evidence upon evidence of a very ancient earth and universe. You certainly can reject this evidence if you are so inclined. But there was evidence for old earth way earlier than The Origin of the Species was published.

This is the issue at stake here:

https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B150218

I also stated this earlier in this thread.

Also look through the below link (particularly the last sermon on the page):

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/viewcat.php?cid=625

John MacArthur’s assertion is based on a false premise- namely that a 6000 year old universe is "a clear teaching of scripture.”

The verbiage is clear, but it’s interpretation and import, especially in light of established science, is not.

Tree ring evidence alone pushes the date back to 20,000 years.

Man fell into sin after Satan argued that God does not mean what he said.

Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

B.H. Clendenen once said:
The bible says, a great fish swallowed Jonah, and I believe it.
If the bible said, Jonah swallowed a big fish, I would believe it, too!

Just another voice that doesn't want to argue. I do not believe in a young earth either.

Nor do I believe in evolution.

Thank God that being born again does not include believing in a young earth!! :)

God bless us all!
Lisa

I think it is amazing

Edit - Deleted post.

You wrote ; " John MacArthur’s assertion is based on a false premise- namely that a 6000 year old universe is "a clear teaching of scripture.”

The verbiage is clear, but it’s interpretation and import, especially in light of established science, is not.

Tree ring evidence alone pushes the date back to 20,000 years.”

So when you use the term "established science” ,... could you clarify/define that term?? as you’re using it in a somewhat subjective and otherwise ambiguous way...
Ie; established by whom, based on what ?... by the Holy Spirit based on Gods written word??
because by any other source that I’m aware of, being itself subject to the fall and yet to be reborn, every "established science” would openly claim that resurrection from the dead after 3 days would not be in the realm of possibility 🤷🏽”â™‚️

That’s not to mention; Jonah, the firey furnace, multiplication of food, the flood, Red Sea, ground swallowing 25k people, or the 800 lb gorilla in the room .... the geocentric nature of Gods creation as recorded not only in the context of the creation story by Moses, but affirmed additionally much later, multiple times by actual recorded historical events with witnesses and records- not least notably by Isaiah in dealing with the anxieties of King Hezekiah and the moving of the Sun backwards, which being aware of the heliocentric models problems with this you can see there is quite a conundrum which leads to the point of this discussion...
either you believe what the Bible plainly says or you don’t 🤷🏽”â™‚️

The whole idea of an "old earth” was introduced by who again...🤔 ohhh yeah that trustworthy source, a well intended albeit fallen, deceived and unregenerate persons whom, like the Pharisees of their day- parade themselves in their vanity, ever increasing in knowledge yet never coming to the knowledge of the truth. Now we know that the Lord is faithful to give wisdom to those whom love the truth and seek it, but those whom love a lie and use it to take others captive ..... well I’d guess one would have to believe what the Bible plainly says about hell to get bothered by any eternal consequence of those endeavors...

hi Tmk
Your Qoute

"This is baloney. If the earth/universe is billions of years old it is because it is. It has nothing to do with evolution."

Of course it is to accomodate evolution in some manner either to accomodate it for yourself or for non Christians to make it easier not to be mocked.

Why was their not a debate in the early church regarding the age of the earth?Because they went with the literal text and because modern society says their is evidence for an old Earth when their is not.
What is this evidence that you say exists of an old Earth??
urs staff

Staff-

How can you say it is to accommodate evolution when science of an old earth predated Darwin’s theory of evolution? The Spurgeon quoted I posted earlier was made *prior* to Origin of the Species.

Do you really want me to list out the 1000s upon 1000s of evidences for an ancient universe? I just said below that tree rings push it back 20,000 years, which is three times older than 6000.

Regardless, any evidence I post you will say is unreliable per Ken Ham or such persons or part of some conspiracy to favor evolution. So it would be an exercise in futility.

As I’ve said before, the science may not be perfect but it’s not millions or billions of years wrong. We trust the same science to put men on the moon and rovers on mars and telescopes that can look back to the earliest stages of creation. And by the way they are looking back further than 6000 years. Stars in different stages of development and that have gone supernova prove beyond doubt that the universe is older than 6000 years old.

" And by the way they are looking back further than 6000 years. Stars in different stages of development and that have gone supernova prove beyond doubt that the universe is older than 6000 years old.”

According to whom,... God?

//According to whom,... God?//

Absolutely! God does not lie nor does He deceive.

Hi Tmk
How do you know science is not perfect?How do you date the Earth?other than circular reasoning "we know the fossils are millions of years old by the rock we find them in and we know that the rock is millions of years by the fossils we find in them"

Tree rings do not point to an old Earth and God said he stretched out the stars.
Its interesting that you would rather believe "scientists of the world " than brothers in Christ like Ken Ham.
Belief in an old Earth is just a belief system their is no proof for it and no evidence other than evidence made by scientists who believe in evolution,
So even if you dont believe in Evolution ,you do believe what scientists say that believe in evolution,
urs staff

So I should believe Ken Ham because he is a Christian? He also has a business to maintain and a vested interest in ignoring the overwhelming weight of science.

Also- I said I was not going to list out all the evidences for an old earth and universe. Anyone can google search that in .2 seconds.

For any who may be interested, a book that was published 20 years ago (2002) written by Kurt P. Wise entitled,

"Faith, Form, and Time: What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms about Creation and the Age of the Universe",

is an excellent book which presents much compelling evidence. Having said that, it may not present enough compelling evidence for those who have researched the matter and would yet find the arguments presented in this book wanting. But so be it!

Unfortunately, the book is not easily obtained, unless you are willing to pay the price. Like I said, that is unfortunate.

Here is a brief summary of the book;

Darwinian theories of the universe, although mostly rejected by evangelical Christians, have still found their way into creation theology. A concept such as evolutionist creation has watered down much of the Bible's teaching in order to reconcile with popular tenants of science. The whole controversy swirls around the age of the universe.Dr. Kurt Wise, an associate professor of science and director of the Center for Origins Research and Education at Bryan College, shows from solid biblical teachings and scientific confirmation why young universe creation is correct. Beginning with God and His Word as the standard, Wise demonstrates how the biblical witness teaches that the age of the universe is not as old as Darwinian theory would contend. He also demonstrates how all issues raised by evolutionists can be answered not only by the Bible, but also by scientific data and research, nailing shut macroevolution's coffin.

Hi TMK
I would put more weight in what Christians have to say who are interested in the salvation of souls rather than scientists who are interested in a narrative.Again you have refused to show how you can date the earth and to produce any evidence.You are believing a religion ,its a belief system not based on any facts other than "the experts say so " so it must be true,
urs staff

Hi Savannah,
The reasons a Christian debates the age of the Earth as being old is because they believe in Evolution a lie peddled over and over,they think its harmless or they think they will sound foolish to their friends,neighbours etc
They cant actually measure the age of the Earth and rely on the "trust me Im a doctor" arguement,the scientists cant be wrong.
When asked wheres the evidence ,they cant produce it or say they dont have time or its so long we would be here forver.
The early Christians never questioned the age of the earth or the Genesis account as anything but factual History.
Also some Christians really dont believe that God is all powerful and he could create the Earth and heavens in 6 days,
urs staff

Listen, it’s really pointless to continue on and on and on. It’s starting to sound like an echo chamber. You simply cannot accept that a person (like me) who rejects YEC can also reject evolution, like I do. So does Hugh Ross.

I have no ax to grind- I just hate seeing Christians made to look foolish and I think it keeps people from the kingdom. Many people reject a faith where they are told to leave their brains at the door.

If men like Spurgeon could accept an ages old earth based on overwhelming evidence, it certainly is not heretical or really even controversial.

It’s not worth getting one’s nose all out of joint.

/According to whom,... God?//

"Absolutely! God does not lie nor does He deceive.”

Yes so considering all the words authored by the Holy Spirit, how could He not correct what was obviously a fundamental misunderstanding pertaining to the very basis of His creation?
especially when, it is written "all scripture is God breathed”

The point being, that to rely on the supposed sciences of fallen man to interpret the world around us much less bend and contort the scriptures to fit their vain imaginings is on its best day, in its best efforts,... feeding on the "good” side of the wrong tree. Even if one were to be "successful”, they would have only been successful at the wrong thing and not only not receive a reward. but in fact suffer great loss 😳

The scriptures are quite clear on this :
((((Every)))) good gift and every perfect gift is ((((from above)))), and ((((cometh down from the Father of lights)))), with whom is ((((no variableness, neither shadow of turning))))

From this passage alone it would be impossible to seek an indictment against God for misleading/misinforming His children and wether it’s realized or not, that’s exactly what this type of endeavor is according to the scripture;
But the Comforter, which is the ((((Holy Ghost)))), whom the ((((Father will send in my name)))), ((((he shall teach you all things))))

The Holy Spirit did. not teach these things to ANYONE in or through the scriptures , full stop -

So the only place they could conceivably be sourced is from the "science” of a depraved and unregenerate mind 🤷🏽”â™‚️

Just one thought I add on this thread:
Platy quoted Acts 17:1-2
"When they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. 2As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,"
but here is v3
explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead.
"This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ,” he declared.…

Paul reasoned from Scripture with unbelievers (Jews) that Jesus is the Christ.I don't think he ever reasoned with anyone how we should interpret how old the world is
For Paul it was all about Christ and the Gospel

"In Christ alone..."

deogloria would you be able to explain why Paul disputed with Peter over a silly thing like circumcision in Galatians 2?

……………a silly thing like circumcision?

Col. 2:11 ”“
and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;

Phil. 3:3 ”“
for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,

Gal. 6:13-16 ”“
For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh.
But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.
And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

Jade what I was aiming at was that things that seem silly can actually be serious and can cause great damage. So in this case what people understood about circumcision was endangering the message of the gospel. Compromising on Genesis 1 affects the integrity of the scripture as a whole (which contain the gospels).

Anyway I'm exiting this thread although its a good one. One of the problems is that multiple people got involved which is OK with me but it tends to be disorderly when you have many people talking and the subject matter gets criticized instead.

//Compromising on Genesis 1 affects the integrity of the scripture as a whole (which contain the gospels).//

This statement borders on hysteria and is ridiculous on its face.

Would you be able to answer the question I asked you earlier about Exodus 20:11?

Also it would be helpful to speak in a more non hostile tone that goes for others as well. I think that is what got me mixed up with some others yesterday.

Dear Sister

But the Bible clearly does NOT say that these were made in six *** 24-hour *** days.

God could not have communicated that it was literal days any clearer. If Exodus 20:11, and "evening & morning" is not clear enough for you ....
Light was created on the first day, and we will be resurrected on the last.

Our earthly day begins with a morning and closes in the evening. But the six creation days came out of an evening into a new morning, out of darkness into light. There is no closing of the day.

I remember, when I lived in Israel for a while, after a long hard day's work on Fridays, everyone would prepare for Sabbath that would start at sunset.

I will respond to your other point later.

Platy said:

Also it would be helpful to speak in a more non hostile tone that goes for others as well.

Platy- in regard to Exodus 20, I did previously respond as follows:

"Moses wrote both passages. Why would he say something different in Exodus?

Genesis 1 is not a scientific treatise on the creation of the universe. It is a poetic statement that could be taught to generations regarding one over arching truth: God did it.”

As far as tone goes, I can’t apologize because saying that an old earth interpretation undermines the gospel is hysterical and ridiculous. No need to take it personally.

What you are saying is that if an ancient age of the earth was proven to your satisfaction, your faith would be lost. Well, it has been overwhelmingly proven to me and other believers and we have not lost our faith.

Young Christians who are taught that the gospel message hinges on a young earth are the ones in danger of defecting as they get older and wiser and learn all the evidences for an ancient earth and universe. Because then it seems they had been lied to by their spiritual mentors.

There is no need for this. What one’s view is of the age of earth has zero to do with the gospel. If you don’t believe me please reference the earlier Spurgeon quote, which you have ignored by the way.

ADD: when is say "hysterical” I don’t mean "funny” but rather "tending to cause hysteria.”

I haven't ignored the Spurgeon quote. Let me read it and I'll get back to you. I didn't get a chance yesterday.

Hi Tmk,
I think your qoute below encaptulates your motivation for your view on an old Earth and thats ok but I wish you said it much earlier instead of going round in circles.

1
You think a Christians look foolish when they say the Earth is young because the world and all its "experts"says the Earth is old (this is not foolish obviously).
2
Also its very hard to accept that you dont believe in Evolution if you think Christians who dont believe in evolution look foolish to the world.
3
A third point is that if believing a young Earth is foolishness to the world then surely believing in an old Earth but not evolution must look even more foolish to the world (which is your view.)
4
Basically you are saying that you dont believe in Evolution but dont admit to it in case you,or you witness or your message comes accross as foolish to the non Christian.

Your Qoute

"I just hate seeing Christians made to look foolish and I think it keeps people from the kingdom."

yours staff

P.s the problem is that if you transport that motivation to alot of other subjects in the bible then we will not have any witness as it all appears foolish

If you can’t understand how a Christian can legitimately believe in a billions of years old universe and still reject evolution, please visit Hugh Ross’s reasons.org.

I learned all about evolution in college. I was a biology major. Still never bought it. My cell biology class convinced me that living cells could not have arisen by mere chance, even with billions of years to work with.

I realize there are true believers that believe in theistic evolution. I think CS Lewis believed this. I, however, do not.

Hi TMK,
I made 4 points and you didnt address any of them but changed the subject.
You basically said that you didnt want to embarrassed or look foolish when talking to non Christians about the age of the Earth.
You said its foolishness to believe in a young Earth but thats its not foolishness to believe in an old Earth and not Evolution at the same time.If you told that to a non believer they would one think its foolish and two be confused.
urs staff

I don’t really care if people think I am foolish. But I hate evangelicals looking foolish in general over the age of the earth issue. It is 100% foolish to believe the earth is only 6000 years old. I know you don’t mind looking foolish just like I don’t.

Why don’t you take the other parts of the biblical descriptions of the earth literally- like the columns and the expanse and the firmament? You realize the ancients thought the earth was flat and that stars were stuck into the firmament? They got it from the Bible. Or maybe you are a flat earther too. At least that would be consistent with YEC. Both are as equally probable.

How can you honestly believe the earth is only 6000 years old when we have mountain ranges some eroded down (Appalachians) and some craggy(Rockies and Himalayas). We have stars in different stages of development/decline. We know about supernovas.

And don’t forget other planets like Mars. Was there a great flood on Mars to account for the things Ken Ham attributes to things on earth? What about the millions of other planets? What about the tree rings and ice core samples and sea bed layers? I know I know- the flood caused it all or God created them that way. Once again, did floods occur on every other planet in the universe that show signs of erosion?

I don't want to change the subject, so I will ask something and move on.

Question:

Anyone here know of THE BEST site to disprove a flat earth?

I've got a couple of friends who believe that the earth is flat rather than round.

Thanks

flat earthers claim they have groups all over the globe ;)

I have an acre of flat earth over here in Houston, maybe your friends would like to start their journey here. :-)

To bring this back on topic...

The discovery of this amulet is huge. It's probably been in their possession for many years, only they now have the technology to be able to read it without trying to unfold and damage it.

This makes the Hebrew alphabet unmistakably older than any critic would have allowed as much as a week ago. It also lends more weight to the growing thought among Hebrew scholars that the Hebrew language was the basis of the Semitic alphabet and the Phonecians got their alphabet from them and not the other way around. There are a few cave inscriptions in lower Israel and the upper Sinai that may be even older than the amulet but they don't get much press.

I would love for them to find something with the name of God that has the appropriate Vowel pointings. Even so, this is a fantastic discovery!

Unfortunately, vowel pointings are not original to the text, it was consonants only. Vowel pointings were added to the Aramaic Hebrew script that looks familiar to us today. Proto-Hebrew looks even more different and was probably engineered from Egyptian hieroglyphs, many think by Joseph.

They're sure the first part of the name is pronounced "YAH" because of its common use as a post-script to many Hebrew names. It's the last half they're not completely sure of.

Hi TMK,
Which is it you dont mind looking foolish or you do mind????

Your qoutes contradict each other and in the same brief paragraph,,,

"But I hate evangelicals looking foolish in general over the age of the earth issue"

"I know you don’t mind looking foolish just like I don’t."

So again no evidence just vague ideas you obviously heard some evolutionist spout out......red herring stuff and you still refuse to answer anybodies points and keep changing the subject to get out of answering anything,its unfortunate you treat people this way i have to say
urs staff

Hi Havok,
I looked up wiki for a meaning of vowel pointing as i never heard the term before

This is what it says
Vowel Pointing

Vowel pointing is the inserting of signs used to indicate vowels in certain alphabets

urs staff

Hi
Interesting Section from the link

.....But wait, there’s more: "The new finding is a death blow to all biblical deniers,” Prof. Galil stresses. "Many Bible critics have claimed that in the 13th century BCE (the traditional Jewish timeline places the exodus at 1248 BCE ”“ DI), the people of Israel did not read and write, and therefore could not have written the Bible. This is why Bible critics have claimed the Bible was written very late, in the Persian or Hellenistic period (fourth and thirds centuries BCE ”“ DI).....

Urs staff

Compromising on Genesis 1 affects the integrity of the scripture as a whole (which contain the gospels).

I assume you are saying the integrity of scripture as a whole hinges on your belief in the young earth.

Platy, this statement is just so absurd to me.

As I see it, it is not the integrity of scripture but your reasoning against evolution that hinges on it.

The theory of evolution is the wisdom of man.

All that I will say against the wisdom of man is what the Bible says:

1 Cor. 3:19 ”“
……the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.

1 Cor. 1:19 (Young’s Literal Translation) ”“
for it hath been written, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the intelligence of the intelligent I will bring to nought;'

God Himself will bring the evolution theory to nought.

There is no need for us to do that.

This is all we need to preach:

1 Cor. 1:23-24 ”“
but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Faith comes by hearing the word of Christ (Rom. 10:17).

Bible archaeology is certainly very interesting.

But only the Holy Spirit can convict the world of sin.

1 Cor. 2:5 ”“ that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

jochbaptist,

I am aware that Jewish people begin their day in the evening, just like the days in Gen. 1.

I re-quote this scripture:

Heb. 10:1(Berean Literal Bible) ”“
For the Law, having a shadow of the good things coming, not the form of the things themselves…………

The days in Ex. 20:11 are only shadows of the creation days, not the substance.

The Lord Jesus said that Moses wrote about Him (John 5:46).

That is, in the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, Moses wrote about realities in Christ.

The Law was given by Moses but grace and TRUTH came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17).

I do not fully understand all the truths in the first 6 days.

But the seventh day rest is the believer’s rest in Christ that Adam lost.

I do believe that the seven days in Gen. 1 and 2 are real days.

I just do not think that they are earthly 24-hour days.

God’s day can be very different from our own idea.

For example, Peter wrote in 2 Pet. 3:8 that "with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day.”

In Gen. 1:5, God called the light day.

So, we can also say:

And there was evening and there was morning, one light.
And there was evening and there was morning, a second light.
Etc.

Just some thoughts.

May God give us the full knowledge of the mystery of God, that is, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Col. 2:2-3).

We have digressed from the OP so I will leave this discussion here.

BranchinVINE

quote: "In Gen. 1:5, God called the light day.

So, we can also say:

And there was evening and there was morning, one light.
And there was evening and there was morning, a second light.
Etc."

I can read Hebrew and I promise you, it doesn't say that. It translates directly as "evening and morning."

Another observation in verse five is the number used to identify the day. It's "ECHAD" which is a cardinal number as opposed to an ordinal number. The NASB95 and the Legacy Standard both translate it correctly as "One day", not "First day" as many other translations do. Every other number in CH 1 is an ordinal number, "2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc." Also, Yom Echad י֥וֹם אֶחָֽד can be translated variously as "One Day, Day One, or even A Day where the number "One" can act as an indefinite marker - however it follows after 'Yom' and
is followed by a numbered list so this last one is very unlikely."

This makes the first day totally unique in that, not only did God create the material for the heavens and the earth, but He also created a day that every other day was identical to. In other words, on the first day, He created what a day is. Looking honestly at the Hebrew grammar you have to say that the first six days according to Moses were six normal days.

BranchinVINE

We have digressed from the OP so I will leave this discussion here.

In Gen. 1:5, God called the light day.

So, we can also say:

And there was evening and there was morning, one light.
And there was evening and there was morning, a second light.

2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
New King James Version

Blessings

You wrote:
"I assume you are saying the integrity of scripture as a whole hinges on your belief in the young earth.

Platy, this statement is just so absurd to me.

As I see it, it is not the integrity of scripture but your reasoning against evolution that hinges on it."

Jade I know you really like the concept of scripture interpreting scripture (although I disagree with the way you use it often). When I questioned you on Exodus 20:11 you were unable to give a clear answer. The scriptures are all connected wonderfully and I think this thread shows that to some degree. Since they are all connected they cannot contradict each other. A contradiction between clear verses negates the entire bible.

One can believe in old earth and not believe in evolution. In this I am in agreement with Todd. There is the mature creationism position which falls under young earth. God created the world recently but made everything mature but to say that there were animals and death millions of year before man goes against the clear and plain meaning of the bible.

You also wrote:
"Faith comes by hearing the word of Christ (Rom. 10:17).

Bible archaeology is certainly very interesting.

But only the Holy Spirit can convict the world of sin.

1 Cor. 2:5 ”“ that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God."

Its true the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin but he uses the truth to do it. Going back to Acts 17 Paul uses the scriptures to reason with the Jews and he uses creation (God's other book) to reason with the gentiles (Acts 17:24). Our job is to speak and make the truth known and the Holy Spirit's job is to convict. God cooperates with man (because God is a partnering God).

God can also use bible archaeology to lead people to salvation while its not the primary thing it can be a means to an end.

I read through the Spurgeon sermon and looks like your right. Although its one paragraph and I can't come to any certain conclusions (I don't judge a man by one sermon) I have to say its disappointing because the quote indicates he believed there were animals and life forms way before man. Apparently there are many other evangelicals as well (Wayne Grudem, J.I. Packer, etc.) who lean toward this way. But at the end of the day I'm not here to defend men.

I'm also not saying your not saved if you believe in old earth but you have opened the door for compromise and apostasy whether its for yourself, family, or church (depending on what position you hold in the church).

You did not give me a clear answer on Exodus 20:11. You wrote that Moses wrote it in a poetic form but Exodus 20 is a historic event that took place where God was speaking audibly to the people. So it was an actual event before Moses recorded it and I want you to answer the questions I asked Jade in regards to the historic event where God is speaking audibly to the people. Was God speaking poetically or literally?

Hi Platy-

In Ex 20 Moses is relaying to the people what God revealed to him on the mountain.

In Genesis 1 Moses is writing what God revealed to him via inspiration.

I do not see a difference, and the problem of interpretation still remains.

Spurgeon seems to have believed in the gap theory which is the idea there was an interminable gap of time between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2. This is when dinosaurs etc lived. This creation was subjected to ruin, and vs 2 picks up before this ruined earth is refashioned. This interpretation solves many problems for me. It allows for a billions of years old earth and universe, but also allows for a literal 6 day re-creation. I have not studied gap theory extensively but I might have to look into it further.

Hi Todd,

"Spurgeon seems to have believed in the gap theory which is the idea there was an interminable gap of time between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2"

The problem with this theory, one I used to hold to also, is that Verse two is a dependent clause in the Hebrew text. It's connected to verse 1 by a 'vav conjunctive.' This is a common practice at the beginning of a Hebrew narrative portion of Scripture.

Verse two is an interpolation; it's introducing into the storyline the condition in which creation existed as a result of verse 1. Some people want to translate the verb 'ha-yah' as became in verse 2: 'it became formless and void', but the verb would have to be in the imperfect tense to support that. However, it's in the perfect tense stating an already existing condition 'was'.

Verse 2 is modifying verse 1 and so the best understanding of verse 2 is that initially God created everything 'formless and void' and then followed through with shaping and forming all creation in the rest of the chapter.

It says in the following verses:

Exodus 20:18-21 - [18] ¶ And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. [19] And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die. [20] And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not. [21] And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.

So I'm assuming they heard God speak Exodus 20:11 audibly.

But lets say they didn't and Moses went up and heard the words and wrote them down. There is still a problem because of the following verse:

Exodus 20:1 - And God spake all these words, saying,

Moses wrote that these are all the words that God spoke to him and he wrote it down. The question comes back did God speak to Moses literally or poetically and if literally then Moses would be a liar if he did not write down the words exactly because he wrote in verse 1 that God spake all these words. Your thoughts?

Edit: Actually you may be right I didn't look at the preceding chapter and final verse of that chapter:

Exodus 19:25 - So Moses went down unto the people, and spake unto them.

Also the plain reading of Mark 10:6 would take care of the gap theory. Exodus 20 would take care of non literal days.

Actually now I'm confused. I think they did hear from God from heaven:

Exodus 20:22 - ¶ And the LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.

Here is Gill's commentary:

"ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven;

descending from heaven on Mount Sinai in a cloud and fire, he talked with them out of the cloud and fire, and delivered to them with an audible voice the above ten commands; the cloud and fire they saw with their eyes, and the words expressed from thence they heard with their ears; or heaven may mean the air on the top of Sinai, from whence Jehovah spoke."

I don’t know Platy. They did hear the trumpet blasts and rumblings etc which scared them half to death. My point was that God told Moses what to say/write which would have been the same if He did speak to all Israel directly.

And no, I don’t think either God or Moses lied. I have never said I disputed the words in Gen. 1 or Exodus 20.

The question is how to square them with the fact that the universe and earth is far older than 6000 years.

I just wonder if in your heart of hearts, just looking around and up at the sky, that you think the universe is really only 6000 years old, or is a matter of faith through gritted teeth?

One thing Hugh Ross said that always stuck with me is that the Bible and science are in perfect agreement; where there seems to be conflict it it because one or the other is misinterpreted. YECs believe it is the science that is misinterpreted. I grant that this is possible. But what I cannot grant is that science is THAT wrong. Look at how much scientific progress there has been in all walks of life over the past 100 years. Science works. The idea that science has mis-dated something with many available means of dating to be billions of years old when it is truly only 6000 years is something I cannot accept. The only way this is possible is if God has set up nature to deliberately deceive men. And, as I stated above, God does not lie.

hulsey

"there was evening and there was morning” vs. "evening and morning."

It is the NASB vs. the Hebrew as you read it.

What is the difference?

This makes the first day totally unique in that, not only did God create the material for the heavens and the earth, but He also created a day that every other day was identical to. In other words, on the first day, He created what a day is. Looking honestly at the Hebrew grammar you have to say that the first six days according to Moses were six normal days.

You said: "In other words, on the first day, He created what a day is.”

The main feature of the first day is *light*.

Therefore, in line with what you say, *light* is what a day is.

You also said: "………He also created a day that every other day was identical to.”

So, in line with what you say, every other day would also be a manifestation of this *light*.

What is this light?

It certainly is not the light of the sun in our solar system which was created on the fourth day.

I would say it is the Creator’s own eternal light. The Lord Jesus said in John 8:12 that He is the Light of the world.

There are 6 days of creation and the 7th day of God’s rest.

In the midst of the 6 days of creation other days came into being when the sun was created on the 4th day (Gen. 1:14). And many (not just 7) of these days have come and gone since the sun was created. These are our 24-hour days ruled by the sun.

The 6 days of creation are not governed by the created sun and cannot be 24-hour days.

Here is a quote straight from the NCSE Website (National Center for Science Education)
"Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."

1 Peter 1:24For, "All flesh is like grass, and all its glory like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, 25but the word of the Lord stands forever.” And this is the word that was proclaimed to you.

Again, choose this day... what kind of "truth" do you want to believe.

Just adding:
Hulsey, I found it amazing what you shared,using a deeper knowledge of the Hebrew language

BranchinVINE

The main feature of day one is not light. The first day begins in verse 1 and goes to verse 3. It doesn't just consist of light, everything is created on day one, including day one. Just to throw this out there, darkness was also created on day one. In the days following day one, everything that God created is formed and fashioned.

Even in Moses' day, they used the term "day" to communicate that it was light outside as opposed to night, and they also used the same term to identify an entire day consisting of light and dark, daytime and nightime.

You're also reading God's rest on day 7 proleptically (in the wrong direction). The seventh day looks forward to the eternal Sabbath, but it is not the eternal Sabbath.

Todd I looked at Exodus more carefully this morning. I never realized that the 10 commandments were given three times.

1. Exodus 20 - Audiby to the whole congregation.
2. Exodus 31:18 - ¶ And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
3. Exodus 34:1 - And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

I think your confusing Exodus 20 with Exodus 31 and 34 just like I ended up doing last night. And also maybe the visual scenes from 10 commandments movie if your like me which is based on Exodus 31 and 34.

So Exodus 20 is audible for sure and its to the whole congregation. So according to you when God told the people he created everything in six days he was not speaking literally. Then he is misleading the people and therefore a liar. I come back to the question I asked Jade. If someone was present at the Exodus 20 event what would his understanding have been a literal six days or non literal?

You wrote:
"But what I cannot grant is that science is THAT wrong. Look at how much scientific progress there has been in all walks of life over the past 100 years. Science works."

Science is not nature. Its a study of nature done by man. Man is fallible and does not have all knowledge. Man is also prone to corruption (politics, biases, greed, pride, etc.)

And here is the heart of the issue here. Your starting point is science and you adjust the bible based on science which then makes your final authority science. You need to start with the bible and adjust all other outside influences (including science) to what the bible says which would then make the bible your final authority.

The article in this thread is proof that the experts are not always right. The bible has already demolished old earth and other scientific theories we just need to believe what God has said in his word.

"One last illustration. When your toddler comes to you and asks you where babies come from, it would seem you have a choice. You can give him or her a scientifically precise answer, or you can put it into terms they understand, skipping details and casting precision to the wind. Have you answered the latter way because you want to deceive your child””to misdirect them to error””or because you know what they can handle and still get a real answer? If you answer the former, then you can say the Bible has a problem with accuracy (and you might have a problem with parenting). If you say the latter, then you understand the accommodation principle, articulated in much the same manner as John Calvin argued centuries ago, seemingly way ahead of his time." From, "Creation, Evolution, Intelligent Design, and the Replicating Universe: What Does the Hebrew Text of Genesis 1 Allow?" Michael S. Heiser, PhD, Hebrew Bible and Semitic Languages; https://silo.tips/download/creation-evolution-intelligent-design-and-the-replicating-universe-what-does-the

Dr. Heiser is a well-respected expert in Hebrew (and other languages). I highly recommend this article, which gives a fair reading to three different possibilities. He rejects Gap Theory for the reason noted by Hulsey. The article is a tad technical but not overly so and it is not overly long. I read it in about 10-15 minutes.

I don't have access to that site right now. I'll read it when I have access and comment on it later.

I wrote:

"So Exodus 20 is audible for sure and its to the whole congregation. So according to you when God told the people he created everything in six days he was not speaking literally. Then he is misleading the people and therefore a liar. I come back to the question I asked Jade. If someone was present at the Exodus 20 event what would his understanding have been a literal six days or non literal?"

I would like to know how you would deal with this clear/plain text first?

Wow, this thread certainly took a turn! Still, I am reading through many of the posts.

I just want to offer something an alternate perspective (which I have mentioned in previous "age of the universe" posts): It doesn't have to be either "young v. old." The Earth (and universe) can be simultaneously BOTH "young AND old."

Physicists will agree that time is relative. An issue with the "day" mentioned in Genesis is that we don't know the perspective for that "day." Was it from the first-person perspective of eyes on the Earth itself? Was it the perspective from eyes looking at the Earth (but not on it)? Was it from the other side of this "glass darkly?"

A "day" on Earth is measured by a single rotation of the Earth around the Sun. It comes out to approximately 24 hours (relative to our position in space-time). We have approximately 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of darkness. A "day" differs on most other planets because the rotation is either faster or slower.

Interestingly, a 24 hour day is just about perfect for life. If this planet rotated faster, our biological clocks would be off and plants wouldn't have enough light for photosynthesis (needed to sustain life on Earth). If it was slower, the Earth would likely be much warmer and inhabitable.

As for Genesis, the "evening" and the "morning" or the "day" were measured before the creation of the Sun and the Moon. So, the initial measurement of "evening" and "morning" may not have been based upon the establishment of the Sun and 24-hour rotation.

Still, the perspective in terms of relativity is very important. We know that time behaves different based upon gravity. As difficult as this is to comprehend, time can move more slowly or rapidly based upon relativity. At the initial moments prior to and after the "Big Bang" (according to physicists), all of the matter of the universe was contained with a "singularity" before something caused it to "bang" and expand.

As the initial seconds (or fractions of seconds), time would have behaved differently relative to perspective because it was influenced by gravity. That influence of gravity changed with the expansion -- as the distance between objects (like points on a balloon) grows through expansion. Gravitational influence is still there, but no where nearly as influential as it was at the "beginning."

By the way, physicists believe in the "Big Bang" because they recognize and measure the expansion of the universe (and even the rate of that expansion). They trace it back and realize that it would have eventually reached a point where it was an "initial singularity" -- all matter of the universe in one tiny point. This is when the "known universe" (according to physics) becomes something else (sometimes referred to as the "unknown universe").

So, when we look at creation, we know that the Scriptures record each "day" of creation. Some argue that each "day" is measured by the 24 hours (despite having no Sun) and others argue that each "day" could have been "eras" or incredibly long "periods." I think that the "gap theory" is used to try and bring harmony to the Biblical account of a "day" and the physical records relied upon by scientists.

However, I would point out that it doesn't have to be "either/or." I would argue that, according to relativity (even if one discounts the notion of gravitational influence on the shifting variances in time in the first moments and days of creation), we can all recognize that God is not confined to the limits of time.

When God called out to John on the Isle of Patmos and said, "Come up here..." (Revelation 4:1a), John was able to see things that "...must take place after these things" (Revelation 4:1b). How? He was "immediately in the Spirit" (Revelation 4:2). He was no longer bound by the Earthly constraints of time. This isn't particularly surprising because we know that God is spirit (John 4:24) and he declares the "end from the beginning" (Isaiah 46:10).

Thus, the question is what perspective for "day" might exist. We know that God sometimes affected time on Earth. Remember Joshua's battle found in Joshua 10:12-14? This was literally a "day" that the Earth stood still. The Earth even reversed course in Isaiah 38:8!

My point? The LORD was not confined to time as we know it. Even physicists must take into account gravity when it comes to the relativity of time. So, it doesn't have to be either/or. It can be both.

Chris you still would have to do deal with issue presented in Exodus 20. When God spoke to the people audibly that he created everything in six days was he speaking literally? And if so how would they have understood it? I don't see anyway of getting around that.

////I would like to know how you would deal with this clear/plain text first?//

See the quote from Dr. Heiser I posted. God had reasons for stating things in the way he did.

When you get a chance to read the whole article it will provide more detail.

He also describes how the Bible jibes with earlier or contemporary ideas about the cosmos. What follows is quoted from the article:

"As a Semitist, it is very obvious to me that the cosmology of the Old Testament follows ancient Near Eastern pre-scientific cosmologies, albeit with Yahweh at the helm and a polemic purpose in the rhetoric of Genesis to smack the other gods around a few times. There are just too many (an abundance, actually) examples where there are tight linguistic parallels between the language of the description of the Genesis cosmology and that of other ancient Near Eastern cultures ”“ things like:
1.Firmament or fixed dome covering the earth (Gen 1:6ff.) 2.Waters above the firmament
3.Chambers of winds
4.windows of heaven
5.Pillars of the sky
6.Pillars of the earth
7.Fountain of the deep
8.Waters under the earth

The following quotation from the Anchor Bible Dictionary (from the entry on "Cosmogony” by Robert A. Oden, Jr.) hits the main points (but do not assume I agree with everything in this article:

"The variety in date, origin, and scope of the Hebrew Bible’s cosmological materials means that achieving a single, uniform picture of the physical universe is hardly possible. Still, sufficient overlap does obtain between the many accounts of the universe, however these may vary in their details, to allow for a few generalizations. The earth on which humanity dwells is seen as a round, solid object, perhaps a disk, floating upon a limitless expanse of water. Paralleling this lower body of water is a second, similarly limitless, above, from which water descends in the form of rain through holes and channels piercing the heavenly reservoir. The moon, sun, and other luminaries are fixed in a curved structure which arches over the earth. This structure is the familiar "firmament” (rāqı̂aË“) of the priestly account, perhaps envisioned as a solid but very thin substance on the analogy of beaten and stretched metal. Though some texts appear to convey a picture of a four-storied universe (Job 11:8”“9 or Ps 139:8”“9), the great majority of biblical texts assume the three-storied universe so clearly assumed in other, ancient traditions. Thus, the Decalog’s prohibition of images specifies "heaven above,” "earth below,” and "water under the earth” as the possible models for any such forbidden images (Exod 20:4). If we understand the common term "earth” (Ë’ereá¹£) as designating at times the "underworld,” then the combined references in Ps 77:19 to heaven, the "world” (tÄ“bÄ“l), and the "earth” (Ë’ereá¹£) are another appeal to the universe as a three-storied structure (for other texts where Ë’ereá¹£may refer to the underworld, see Stadelmann 1970: 128, n. 678). Clearer reference still to the same structure is to be found in Ps 115:15”“17, where we find grouped together "the heaven of heavens,” "the earth,” and the realm of "the dead” (cf. Ps 33:6”“8 and Prov 8:27”“29). The curving, solid structure which arches over the realm of humanity is sometimes called a "disk” or "vault” (ḥûg; Isa 40:22; Prov 8:27). That which allows the heavenly abyss to water the earth are occasional interruptions in this solid structure, openings called variously windows, doors, or channels. In some texts, that which suspends the habitable earth above the underworld’s waters (see 1 Sam 2:8 for another reference to these rivers) are pillars or some such foundational structures. These seem envisioned in Job 38:4”“6; Pss 24:2; 104:5; Prov 8:29, and elsewhere. Finally, the realm beneath the arena of human activity is not only imagined as one of watery chaos but also given the specific designation "Sheol” (šĕ˒ôl), usually translated "the underworld.” In the different elaborations upon just what one should imagine Sheol as including, again there is little consistency. At times, Sheol is personified, with a belly or womb and a mouth (Jonah 2:3””Eng 2:2); Prov 1:23; 30:16; and Ps 141:7), while at others Sheol is rather more architecturally portrayed (Isa 38:10; Job 7:9”“10; 14:20”“22; 17:13; 18:17”“18), as a dark and forgetful land or city (Stadelmann 1970: 166”“76).""

Todd,

There are a lot of "Bones to spit out" with Heiser. I would recommend Meredith Kline who wrote and taught along the same lines but was orthodox. Heiser slips into Henotheism too much and even more so in recent years.

Kline is like taking all the useful things Heiser teaches and throwing out all the junk. I think you'd find him beneficial.

On a side note it may be possible that James White is following this thread and may have a message for you Todd.

Posted on sermonaudio yesterday see starting at 9:55 regarding Pluto and young earth:

https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=331221928296190

I'll get back to you once I read the article.

Hulsey if you are referencing His book The Unseen Realm I just began it a week or so ago. Definitely not speed reading it but so far it has raised my eyebrows some but I haven’t got to the meat of his arguments in regard to the divine council.

Hi Platy,

Chris you still would have to do deal with issue presented in Exodus 20. When God spoke to the people audibly that he created everything in six days was he speaking literally? And if so how would they have understood it? I don't see anyway of getting around that.

Hey Chris-

I find your idea regarding relativity interesting but what I am not sure about is how this theory would effect the age of rocks on earth, for example. As you know various radiometric methods date rocks as very old. I don’t think you are saying that this time dilation or whatever you call it would artificially give rocks an old radiometric age, but I’m not sure. I think you are saying that this time effect would strrrretttccchhh out the days so that they were actually really long epochs.

Just trying to understand the practical effects of this idea.

Hi all,

I decided I'm going to leave the discussion here (to avoid any lengthy/complex posts) with a simple point I brought up earlier. We should make sure our starting point is in the bible and not science or anything else. The starting point should be what God has stated in his word and not something else otherwise it opens the door for shipwreck. I leave that up to everyone person reading this if they are actually putting their faith in God's word or something else. Anyway thanks for the discussion lots of scriptures were opened up (for me anyways).

A quote I used several times by Whitefield:

"If we once get above our Bibles, and cease making the written word of God our sole rule both as to faith and practice, we shall soon lie open to all manner of delusion, and be in great danger of making shipwreck of faith and a good conscience."

hulsey

The main feature of day one is not light. The first day begins in verse 1 and goes to verse 3. It doesn't just consist of light, everything is created on day one, including day one. Just to throw this out there, darkness was also created on day one. In the days following day one, everything that God created is formed and fashioned.

I will re-word my statement and say: "The glory of God in day one is Light, the Creator’s own Light, the Light of Life.”

You said: "……darkness was also created on day one.”

Agree.
But the darkness was overcome by the light.
Light and darkness both existed but the darkness was hidden in the light.
Or as John 1:5 says: "The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.”

You said: "………everything is created on day one, including day one………In the days following day one, everything that God created is formed and fashioned.”

Can you elaborate?
Also, what is the difference between being "created” and being "formed and fashioned”? If everything is created but not yet formed and fashioned, how were they existing?

You're also reading God's rest on day 7 proleptically (in the wrong direction). The seventh day looks forward to the eternal Sabbath, but it is not the eternal Sabbath.

Are you referring to the seventh day in Gen. 2:2-3?

If so, are you saying that this seventh day in Gen. 2:2-3 is not the eternal Sabbath and that it is looking forward to the eternal Sabbath?

If so, what is this eternal sabbath that it is looking forward to?

I am saying that the seventh day in Gen. 2:2-3 is the eternal sabbath.

Hi Chriss
God measured the day without the Sun or the rotation of the Earth around the Sun is another way to look at it.
Its a bit like the bible ,its originally sentences without numbered verses ,we then added numbers to make it quicker to find a verse and measurable to a certain extent.God added the Sun to make time measurable among other things.
The bible verses still existed before numbering and time still existed before the Sun.
Or Mount Everest was still the highest mountain before Mount Everest was discovered,time was still time before it was measurable
urs staff

A "day" on Earth is measured by a single rotation of the Earth around the Sun. It comes out to approximately 24 hours (relative to our position in space-time). We have approximately 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of darkness. A "day" differs on most other planets because the rotation is either faster or slower.

Most of not all of the methods of "science” you depend on (cite in posts) to prop up this construct are themselves of the same schools of science that readily confess evolution- and no, you’re not being grouped in with the lot of evolutionists, however it is a curious thing that you do often and without hesitation utilize their very pillars to found your position....

Here is a reasonable response to the claims of radio metric dating if you would be interested-

https://www.evolutionisamyth.com/dating-methods/radiometric-dating-flaws-of-presumption/

Again I am not saying the dating methods are perfect but that they are not SO imperfect that 6000 years is dated as billions of years. All one would need to disprove Ham’s version of YEC is to show the earth is 7000 years old.

And yes I readily agree I am a fan of science. My phone I am typing on is a result of science and so is practically everything we use on a daily basis.

I think YECs forget that there is more to the universe than the earth. There is Mars for example. Is Mars only 6000 years old? What about all its erosion? Did Noah’s flood reach there to weather and layer everything as Ham claims happened on earth? What about Saturn and it’s rings? And the nebulae and novas and black holes and neutron stars and red giants and white dwarfs and pulsars and quasars? Eons of years of stellar evolution, in plain sight.

Hi TMK
Why are you saying "dating methods" are not perfect????
How do you know that they are not "SO imperfect" that 6000 years is dated as billions of years?????

Your Qoute:
"Again I am not saying the dating methods are perfect but that they are not SO imperfect that 6000 years is dated as billions of years"

urs staff

//How do you know that they are not "SO imperfect" that 6000 years is dated as billions of years?????//

Because every time I look at a clear night sky, God tells me. Ps 19:1-3.

Hi TMK,
So God tells you that scientists cant date the Earth perfectly???
Why do you believe Scientists then ????
Isnt your belief in scientists just a religion???
urs staff

Hi JFW,
Its the motivation behind the idea that the Earth is old that I think is key.
Why would any Christian defend the idea that the Earth is Old only either to
1 Promote Evolution in some way or to allow others to promote evolution
2 Or because they are embarrased by the truth and would rather believe in a lie than look foolish.

The Motivation behind defending a young Earth is logical and straighforward,
urs staff

Hi TMK,

I find your idea regarding relativity interesting but what I am not sure about is how this theory would effect the age of rocks on earth, for example. As you know various radiometric methods date rocks as very old. I don’t think you are saying that this time dilation or whatever you call it would artificially give rocks an old radiometric age, but I’m not sure. I think you are saying that this time effect would strrrretttccchhh out the days so that they were actually really long epochs.

Just trying to understand the practical effects of this idea.

Thus, when I say that the Earth (and universe) can be simultaneously "young" and "old," it isn't a stated time frame apart from that which is localized perspective (i.e., measurements of seconds, minutes, hours, days, etc.). Of course, Earth is the only planet in our solar system in which a "day" is measured as 24 hours (although Mars has a day that is just slightly longer).

However, in the Genesis account, a "day" is not measured by hours. It is measured by "the evening and the morning." Yet, this happened without the presence of a Sun to determine that measurement. The Sun wasn't created until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). In fact, Genesis states that "darkness covered the face of the deep" (Genesis 1:2).

As staff pointed out, one could rationalize that God (in the Book of Genesis) measured time the same way that we do on Earth -- even before the creation of the Sun to measure "evening" or "morning."

Another option is to compare the difference in time (as a relative rate) from the perspective of the very point of creation itself (what physicists call the "initial singularity") as compared to Earth as it fled from that point once expansion commenced.

Similarly, one could measure the perspective of the view of the Genesis account as contrasted with a secondary perspective on the Earth (or vice versa -- dependent upon the position of the account itself).

And, of course, another possibility is that the measurement was taken from the other side of eternity itself -- with measurements of time determined similar to how it will be in the "new heavens and new earth" where the "glory of God" and the Lamb provide the light (Revelation 22:23).

In the physical sense (all except the last possibility for measuring "time"), the relativity of time is generally agreed upon by physicists. The measurement of "time" is neither static nor universal. Rather, it varies by position (i.e., the "perspective" I referred to).

I think that it is important to note that there are seemingly legitimate reasons why scientists perceive things the way that they do. They derive theories based upon quantifiably measured observation of a "known universe."

Before I became a believer, I was always troubled by the distances of the universe. This was something of a stumbling block for me -- as I understood how distances in the universe are measured.

The universe is so vast that distance is measured in LIGHT YEARS. A light year is the amount of time that it takes for light to travel through the near-vacuum of space in a single year (nearly 300 Million meters per second -- or 186,000 miles per second).

So, a universe in which light from stars which are measured to be MILLIONS of light years away from the Earth would seemingly indicate that the physical universe is at least as old as the millions of years that it took that light (from those distant stars) to arrive to where we could see it on Earth. Thus, simple observation (and measurement of that light) seems to make the age of the universe to be incredibly old. This distance is also impacted through simple mathematical triangulation.

Likewise, geologists look at the Earth as being very old because of what they observe about layers on the Earth. The assumption of an ancient "old" Earth is not a grand conspiracy theory (at least not to them). It's simply basing an age using what they know (or think that they know) from observation or other methods. One method is carbon dating in which age of organic material can measure scientifically and chemically the half-life of Carbon 14 -- approximately 5,730 years (give or take about 40).

So, I completely understand the perspectives and rational thinking of those who view the Earth (and universe) as very ancient. In fact, when I was in college and grad school, I answered questions on exams in courses such as Inorganic Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, University Physics, Astrophysics, etc. with that perspective in mind. Those courses are math-heavy (and we used to joke that we deserved upper level math credits for having successfully completed those courses).

However, my faith in Christ is the truest thing in my life. I would doubt the "observations" (i.e., science) of this world (and anything/everything I learned in much schooling) before I would doubt the reality that I found in Christ Jesus. My faith in Christ will not -- and cannot -- be moved.

So, with this in mind, the thoughts of the age of the universe or Earth is inconsequential to actually knowing Christ Jesus.

At the same time, I am still curious and enjoy research. I have never been challenged or threatened by education (or "science" itself). I suppose that this is because I have no wavering doubt in my Creator. I also understand those who might have a differing opinion from my own shared by unbelievers regarding "science v. faith" -- because I both understand the observations that they adhere to as well as the fact that I once held such an "either/or" binary position.

This is why I am interested in pointing out the inconsistencies in the universe itself. In this regard, the very thought of "time" in this universe is not a "constant." So, time is measured different by perspective. More importantly, it behaves differently based upon influences (such as gravity, velocity, etc.) for multiple positions in space. This concept of "spacetime" -- the joining of three-dimensional space with a one-dimensional timeline.

I'm writing all of this to point out that physicists accept the notion that "time is relative." That is, they accept that the rate at which time passes depends upon your specific frame of reference in space. Einstein made this popular; however, this is now accepted "observed" science because many, many experiments have been conducted to "prove" it via observations.

So, in the sense of "age" and "time" when it comes to the Genesis account of creation, I can approach it apart from an "either/or" stance of "young Earth" versus "old Earth." According to perspective, it can be both.

This is also impacted by the notion of early universe gravity. According to Big Bang physicists, early gravity was confined to an "initial singularity" that suddenly expanded -- and is still expanding -- to the point where we are now. We also know that gravity affects time itself. Gravity is, of course, measured accordingly by mass. The greater the mass, the greater the gravity (and gravitational waves).

Physicists will point out that, in that early universe, all of the matter (and corresponding gravity) of the universe was confined into an infinitely small space before expanding. That gravity -- given the proximity of matter to all other matter -- was influenced by gravity itself.

Consider a "black hole." A black hole is not really a hole -- but a MASSIVE (yet dense) area where mass is so incredibly dense that its gravitational pull is so strong that light itself cannot escape (once it crosses the event horizon). As such, objects that approach a black hole will experience a different rate of time from an object located just a bit further away from it as well as objects much further away.

If time is so affected by the mass of ONE black hole (in a universe that scientists believe contains TRILLIONS of them), then how did time behave in the early moments of creation -- when the universe just began expanding?

This is really the crux of my point. It is related to the earlier points I mentioned about relativity, perspective and time as covered in the Genesis account.

Thanks Chris”” interesting read as always.

//So God tells you that scientists cant date the Earth perfectly???//

No, God tells me the universe is ancient when I look in the night sky, and when I see Saturns rings with my telescope and the Andromeda galaxy with binocs. Ps. 19. He *confirms* the vast age of the cosmos.

Your posts seem to have a tone of desperation. No need to get so excited. No matter how old the universe is,God is still God and Jesus is still Lord and the Holy Spirit still indwells and enables.

Hi TMK,
After looking at your posts my opinion is that you probably believe in evolution but wont admit so you dont look foolish to Christians and to Non Christians you are saying you believe the Earth is millions of years old so you dont look foolish to them while leaving out your evolution view.
Added to this it appears you dont think God has the ability to create everything in 7 actual 24 hr days.
I come to this conclusion because of the way you always refuse to answer straight questions with straight answers and because "not looking foolish" was high on your list of priorities from the earlier posts.
Added to this I would say you dont believe in literal intrepretation of the bible which is always a worry because at what bible passage do you apply or not apply when similar passages are written literally,
urs staff
p.s
If Einstein is curved space theory is correct and space is curved then light could travel billions of light years in just a few thousand years.

Believing in a creator God is the first thing God reveals. It is primarily a matter of revelation, the doctrine will be understood later.

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

and likewise Romans 1

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Evolution is a lie created by those who deny against all evidence that God is creator, so that they can continue in sin and are not answerable to God.

The created world around us is enough evidence that there is a creator. Even the unbeliever will be held accountable to this standard.

Christians who believe in millions of years are in effect saying, God had to try things out and did not quite know how this would work out. As if God was overwhelmed by the complexity of his task to create a world.

Hi narrowpath,

Although I shared my thoughts on the relativity of time and how it could correspond to a simultaneously old and young universe, I would like to make it very clear that I do NOT believe in or embrace the theories of Darwinism.

I'm also cautious about conjecting the method by which God created the Earth and the universe. To be very clear: I don't know how the Creator created all things. I simply know that He is the Creator.

In my previous post, I simply wanted to point out scientific views about time (in the realm of physics) and how time is not deemed to be any sort of universal constant (and differs at various points in space by relativity). I don't believe that this conflicts with Scripture at all.

Despite the notion that the Earth could be both young and old (depending upon the frame of reference viewing the six days of creation), this does NOT equate to any sort of belief that God could was incapable of creating the universe in six literal days. It certainly doesn't equate to a belief in Darwin's (or anyone's) ideas about evolution.

In fact, I fully understand that the one true living God -- in his omnipotence -- could easily have included billions of years of creation (including the billions of lightyears measure of distance between the stars -- with light having already reached across the expanse of the heavens) within those six entirely literal days.

I simply find it fascinating that there are certain accepted concepts from physics that would acknowledge the variance in time itself based upon the observer's frame of reference.

When I read the account of creation in Genesis chapter 1, the frame of reference of the observation is not entirely clear. Is that observation from the surface of the Earth? Is that observational frame of reference from the realm of eternity? Is that frame of reference from the epicenter of creation where God spoke "Let there be light" (and the point where physicists might refer to as the "initial singularity")?

Either way, I am not going to meander from simple study and research of these things to the point of attributing absolutely just how God created the universe. Otherwise, I would deserve the same admonition that Job received when God asked him, "Where were you when I laid the Earth's foundations" (Job 38:4)?

I simply believe that He is.

When He created the world (and the understood laws or limits of the universe), He could have done so within the understood principles of physics. Or, He could have created the universe in defiance to the principles of physics that he established.

At the same time, I am fully aware of the reasons why scientists believe in an ancient universe itself. It isn't motivated by conspiracy but by "observation" within the limits of what they assume to be the principles of physics in this universe. The notion of time (and relativity derived from time dilation or other affects upon time variation due to frames of reference and impacts from gravity at creation) can seemingly account for a simultaneously young and old universe.

As weighty and lengthy as my previous post (and this one) have been, I hope that I've been clear in this. This is not any sort of belief in Darwinian evolution or the preposterous idea that God is limited by the very laws of physics that God himself established.

Well Staff, I don’t know how many times I have to say I don’t believe in Darwinian evolution. So it won’t matter to you how many more times I say it. I don’t believe men evolved from apes and I don’t believe that whales evolved from land dwelling animals. You are essentially accusing me of outright lying before you and God because you cannot accept that I can believe in an ancient universe and not believe in evolution. That is rather uncharitable of you to say the least.

In fact, you seem to believe that the ONLY reason one would believe in an ancient universe is to accommodate enough time for evolution.

Such a view is quite frankly absurd. If the universe is ancient, that is the end of the matter. It has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever. The former can be true and the latter can be false. What is so hard to understand about that?

If the universe is ancient, there are planets capable of sustaining life where no life has sprung, because God did not put it there. If there is life elsewhere than on the planet earth it is because God put it there. I suspect He has, but it doesn’t bother me in the least if people think He hasn’t. My wife sure doesn’t.

You keep saying you have asked me questions that I haven’t addressed. I’m too lazy to go back and find them, but if you want to ask them one at a time I will do my best to answer. But whatever I answer, I suspect you will use your Ken Ham talking points to attempt to rebut what I say, so I suspect we will just go around in circles.

Hi TMK,
You said this which was clearly wrong as I did highlight two reasons

"In fact, you seem to believe that the ONLY reason one would believe in an ancient universe is to accommodate enough time for evolution."

Because I also said this which you did say on earlier posts

and because "not looking foolish" was high on your list of priorities from the earlier posts.

I also notice now that you are highlighting "Darwinian Evolution".Does that mean you believe in other kinds of evolution??or are open to other types of evolution that require millions of years??

urs staff

I am not aware of other types of evolution. If there are I am not aware of them. I am talking about evolution as I assume you mean it. I am not trying to play word games.