But the YECs have a extremely convincing rebuttal to your contention that genealogies are not chronologies in general, which is that the Bible in fact gives precise dates for all the generations between Adam and Abraham. For instance Genesis 11 (NKJV) "Shem was one hundred years old, and begot Arphaxad two years after the flood. After he begot Arphaxad, Shem lived five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters."

This is as clear as could be; Shem was 100 years old when Arphaxad was born (how else could you possibly interpret these numbers?) The level of detail is far beyond Matt 1:8 for example, and lends substance to treating these as chronologies.
AR | 08.15.08 - 4:54 pm | #

Good work.

Two typos:

near the beginning, "world day" should be "word day."

Near the end, "two much emphasis" should be "too much emphasis."
Martin LaBar | Homepage | 08.16.08 - 2:42 am | #

I'm always interested in this debate. For much of my Christian life, I never considered the consequences of a "young earth" versus an "old earth" view. My thinking, and subsequently my faith, was radically changed when I settled this issue in my mind. And while my method may not be entirely scientific, I can attribute much of what I believe to men like Dr. Morris, and Ken Ham.

I would like to address two main points of reason that I feel weren't adequately addressed in your article. The first is the Hebrew term "yom" and its significance throughout scripture when combined with a numerical preceding it, or concluding it. Dr. Morris, and others, have concluded that when "day" is used in this context, such as "the first day", "one day" (depending on your translation), it always refers to a literal 24 hour period when used in the Bible. The most significant implication here lay in whether we use the same judgement (interpretation method) on what the word means in other areas of the Bible: How many "days" did it rain while Noah was on the ark?; How many "days" was Jonah in the belly of the great fish?; How many "days" was Jesus in the tomb? Based on a necessity for consistency, I choose to believe a literal interpretation of a 24 hour period.

A second point is that while you state the aim of your article "The goal of this section is not to convince anyone that a 24-hour view is incorrect. The goal is to demonstrate that a 24-hour view (and along with it a young earth view) is not required", you seem to shine a light of exposition favorably on one side of the debate versus the other. While offering a positive, or seemingly acceptable view for a "scientific view", your article appears to offer a far less favorable view of the late Dr. Henry Morris, and Dr. John Morris' assertions (both of whom are highly esteemed amongst their peers).

Thank you for your thought provoking article, and I appreciate the fact that while our opinions may differ and shift, we serve a God that never changes.
Zebedee | 08.16.08 - 6:24 am | #

Martin,

Thanks, typos repaired!
heddle | 08.16.08 - 8:40 am | #

What is the most convincing evidence you have seen for an old earth?

I think the most damning is:

The Grand Canyon is held up as exemplar by uniformitarians and flood geologists. Yet, from the old earth perspective, many layers are missing, and many are just inches thick.

There is a convincing flood model for a single ice age, yet no model from uniformitarians (cold summers lack precipitation, moderate summers stop the advancing ice).

Also, is there an online description of the current stellar model? The last I saw, there was no model for initiating the first stellar fusion without an appeal to dark matter...

Thanks!
nedbrek | Homepage | 08.17.08 - 6:40 pm | #

Hi,
Great job, I always like your Bible study lessons!

One more typo, but this one is in the table, which I know is not yours. For 2 Peter 3, is it supposed to be "This" creation will end?

Also, it seems to me that God was going out of his way to explain to Adam that he meant a normal 24-hour day when he said "And there was evening and there was morning - the first day", and second, and third etc. I always imagined Adam and Eve walking with the Lord in the cool of the day asking him questions. (I would have!) Adam, though intelligent, apparently did not pursue the scientific angle as much as we might have liked. But surely he was the original audience for this earth history lesson, and the professor chose words that his pupil would naturally have associated with the sunsets he witnessed every evening. I'll bet Adam thought he meant 24-hour days.

Carolyn
Carolyn | 08.20.08 - 8:37 pm | #

I think it more likely the original audience was Israel about to go into the Promised Land, with Moses writing to tell them who they are and how they got there.
Larry Thompson | Homepage | 08.22.08 - 1:43 pm | #

Interesting that I had a similar, although much simpler, discussion with my children this AM during family worship.

The idea of the 24 hour day is isagesis. It is injecting current understanding of a word into the meaning of one written long ago.

I would venture to guess that at the writing of Genesis, a "day" was most likely close to 24 hours (plus or minus some number which I am sure David can more accurately define). However, the text does not say definitively what the measurement was for God's "Day Zero".

Literalists always say that the appearance and attributes of the earth were marred by "the fall" and also "the flood" as a refutation of evolution. How are they sure these two factors did not impact the rotation of the earth thousands of years before the writing of Genesis?

As I explained to my children this morning, the text says that God divided the light from the darkness. That cycle of day to night and back again "IS" the measurement. The important thing about Genesis 1:1-5 is to focus on the designer, creator and definer of all; God.
Art | Homepage | 08.25.08 - 1:43 pm | #

Hola Dave. Gensis' collasal wrongitude is one of the major reasons I suspect it's all made up.

It's about the only 'testable' part of the bible.
Rich | 08.25.08 - 11:49 pm | #

Art, we both believe we are properly exegeting Scripture...

Perhaps you can answer my question. Why should I believe in an old earth? What evidence is most convincing, to you?
nedbrek | Homepage | 08.28.08 - 10:30 am | #