You are hereHow Long Since the Creation of Adam and Eve?

How Long Since the Creation of Adam and Eve?


By Virgil - Posted on 19 January 2004

Last year after reading an e-mail concerning the age of the earth I became interested in discovering if I could obtain a approximate age. Even if the days of creation are not literal 24 hour days it was still interesting to learn approximately when other certain events took place. I was also quite surprised to discover how this may effect my view of our history textbooks. My work and its results are listed below. If you discover any mistakes please let me know.In the genealogies in Genesis chapters 5 and 11 it first mentions the age of the father when they had their son and then it says how long the father lived. I just listed the former because this is what we need.

Gen 5: 3And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. 130

Gen 5: 6 Seth lived one hundred and five years, and begot Enosh. 105

Gen 5:9 Enosh lived ninety years, and begot Cainan. 90

Gen 5:12Cainan lived seventy years, and begot Mahalalel. 70

Gen 5:15 Mahalalel lived sixty-five years, and begot Jared. 65

Gen 5:18 Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two years, and begot Enoch. 162

Gen 5:21 Enoch lived sixty-five years, and begot Methuselah. 65

Gen 5:25 Methuselah lived one hundred and eighty-seven years, and begot Lamech. 187

Gen 5:28 Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and had a son. 29And he called his name Noah, saying, "This one will comfort us concerning our work and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord has cursed." 182

Gen 7:6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters were on the earth. 600
(Genesis 7:12 The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.) (Gen 7:24 And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.)

From the creation of Adam until the local flood would be 130+105+90+70+65+162+65+187+182+600=1656 years

Gen 11:10 This is the genealogy of Shem: Shem was one hundred years old, and begot Arphaxad two years after the flood. 2

Gen 11:12 Arphaxad lived thirty-five years, and begot Salah. 35

Gen 11:14 Salah lived thirty years, and begot Eber. 30

Gen 11:16 Eber lived thirty-four years, and begot Peleg. 34

Gen 11:18 Peleg lived thirty years, and begot Reu. 30

Gen 11:20 Reu lived thirty-two years, and begot Serug. 32

Gen 11:22 Serug lived thirty years, and begot Nahor. 30

Gen 11:24 Nahor lived twenty-nine years, and begot Terah. 29

Gen 11:26 Now Terah lived seventy years, and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran. 70

From the flood to the birth of Abram was 292 years.
2+35+30+34+30+32+30+29+70= 292 years

Gen 17:1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless. 2"And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly." 3Then Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying: 4"As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations. 5"No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations. 99

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ. 17And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. 430

From the birth of Abram to the Exodus was 529 years (the giving of the law happened only 3 months after the Israelites left Egypt (Exo 19:1)).
99+430=529 years

1 Kings 6:1 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel had come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord. 480

It was 480 years from the Exodus to the building of the first temple. (Solomon began building during the 4th year of his reign.)

1 Kings 11:42 And the period that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years. 43Then Solomon rested with his fathers, and was buried in the City of David his father. And Rehoboam his son reigned in his place. 36 (I subtracted 4 because he began building during his 4th year)

1 Kings 14:21 And Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty-one years old when he became king. He reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which the Lord had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, to put His name there. His mother's name was Naamah, an Ammonitess....1 Kings 14:31 So Rehoboam rested with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the City of David. His mother's name was Naamah, an Ammonitess. Then Abijam his son reigned in his place.17

1 Kings 15:1 In the eighteenth year of King Jeroboam the son of Nebat, Abijam became king over Judah. 2He reigned three years in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Maachah the granddaughter of Abishalom...8So Abijam rested with his fathers, and they buried him in the City of David. Then Asa his son reigned in his place. 3

1 Kings 15:9 In the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel, Asa became king over Judah. 10And he reigned forty-one years in Jerusalem. His grandmother's name was Maachah the granddaughter of Abishalom.... 24So Asa rested with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the City of David his father. Then Jehoshaphat his son reigned in his place. 41

2 Chr 20:31 So Jehoshaphat was king over Judah. He was thirty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned twenty-five years in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Azubah the daughter of Shilhi....2 Chr 21:1 And Jehoshaphat rested with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the City of David. Then Jehoram his son reigned in his place. 25

2 Chr 21:16 Moreover the LORD stirred up against Jehoram the spirit of the Philistines and the Arabians who were near the Ethiopians....20He was thirty-two years old when he became king. He reigned in Jerusalem eight years and, to no one's sorrow, departed. However they buried him in the City of David, but not in the tombs of the kings. 8

2 Chr 22:1 Then the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his place, for the raiders who came with the Arabians into the camp had killed all the older sons. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram, king of Judah, reigned. 2Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. 1

2 Chr 22:10 Now when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she arose and destroyed all the royal heirs of the house of Judah. 11But Jehoshabeath, the daughter of the king, took Joash the son of Ahaziah, and stole him away from among the king's sons who were being murdered, and put him and his nurse in a bedroom. So Jehoshabeath, the daughter of King Jehoram, the wife of Jehoiada the priest (for she was the sister of Ahaziah), hid him from Athaliah so that she did not kill him. 12And he was hidden with them in the house of God for six years, while Athaliah reigned over the land. 6

2 Chr 23:21So all the people of the land rejoiced; and the city was quiet, for they had slain Athaliah with the sword...24:1 Joash was seven years old when he became king, and he reigned forty years in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Zibiah of Beersheba. Joash was seven years old when he became king, and he reigned forty years in Jerusalem. 40

2 Chr 24:24For the army of the Syrians came with a small company of men; but the LORD delivered a very great army into their hand, because they had forsaken the LORD God of their fathers. So they executed judgment against Joash....27Now concerning his sons, and the many oracles about him, and the repairing of the house of God, indeed they are written in the annals of the book of the kings. Then Amaziah his son reigned in his place....25:1 Amaziah was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. 29

2 Chr 26:1 Now all the people of Judah took Uzziah, who was sixteen years old, and made him king instead of his father Amaziah. 2He built Elath and restored it to Judah, after the king rested with his fathers. 3Uzziah was sixteen years old when he became king, and he reigned fifty-two years in Jerusalem. 52

2 Chr 26:23So Uzziah rested with his fathers, and they buried him with his fathers in the field of burial which belonged to the kings, for they said, "He is a leper." Then Jotham his son reigned in his place....27:1 1 Jotham was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. 16

2 Chr 27:9So Jotham rested with his fathers, and they buried him in the City of David. Then Ahaz his son reigned in his place....28:1 1 Ahaz was twenty years old when he became king, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem; and he did not do what was right in the sight of the LORD, as his father David had done. 16

2 Chr 28:27So Ahaz rested with his fathers, and they buried him in the city, in Jerusalem; but they did not bring him into the tombs of the kings of Israel. Then Hezekiah his son reigned in his place....29:1 Hezekiah became king when he was twenty-five years old, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. 29

2 Chr 32:33So Hezekiah rested with his fathers, and they buried him in the upper tombs of the sons of David; and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem honored him at his death. Then Manasseh his son reigned in his place....Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned fifty-five years in Jerusalem. 55

2 Chr 33:20So Manasseh rested with his fathers, and they buried him in his own house. Then his son Amon reigned in his place.
21 Amon was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned two years in Jerusalem. 2

2 Chr 33:25But the people of the land executed all those who had conspired against King Amon. Then the people of the land made his son Josiah king in his place....34:1 Josiah was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned thirty-one years in Jerusalem. 31

2 Chr 36:1 Then the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and made him king in his father's place in Jerusalem. 2Jehoahaz was twenty-three years old when he became king, and he reigned three months in Jerusalem. (I will disregard adding these 3 months because of the 3 months we had to subtract between the Israelites leaving Egypt and the giving of the law.)

2 Chr 36:3Now the king of Egypt deposed him at Jerusalem; and he imposed on the land a tribute of one hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold. 4Then the king of Egypt made Jehoahaz's brother Eliakim king over Judah and Jerusalem, and changed his name to Jehoiakim. And Necho took Jehoahaz his brother and carried him off to Egypt. 5 Jehoiakim was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem....Jeremiah 25:1 The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah (which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon), 2which Jeremiah the prophet spoke to all the people of Judah and to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying....Jer 25:11 11And this whole land shall be a desolation and an astonishment, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 4

The time from the building of Solomon's temple to the beginning of the captivity is 411 years.
36+17+3+41+25+8+1+6+40+29+52+16+16+29+55+2+31+4=411

The captivity lasted 70 years and ended with Cyrus' decree to rebuild the city. (2 Chr 36:20 And those who escaped from the sword he carried away to Babylon, where they became servants to him and his sons until the rule of the kingdom of Persia, 21to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her Sabbaths. As long as she lay desolate she kept Sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.22Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and also put it in writing, saying, 23Thus says Cyrus king of Persia: All the kingdoms of the earth the Lord God of heaven has given me. And He has commanded me to build Him a house at Jerusalem which is in Judah. Who is among you of all His people? May the Lord his God be with him, and let him go up!) 70 years of captivity

Cyrus' decree is not the decree mentioned in Daniel 9:25 (see below). The order of the kings of Persia was Cyrus, then Darius, and then Artaxerxes (Ezra 6:14). Cyrus' and Darius' decrees did not call for the rebuilding of the city, but only from the rebuilding of the temple (Ezra 6:3-12). The decree in Daniel mentions the rebuilding the the city and the wall (Dan 9:25). Artaxerxes' decree mentions the rebuilding of the temple (Ezra 7:16) and the rest of the city (Ezra 7:18). Artzxerxes gave the decree during the 7th year of his reign (Ezra 7:7-9). We need to find out the amount of time between Cyrus' decree and Artaxerxes' decree. Cyrus gave his decree during his first year as king (2 Chr 36:22). The longest amount of time mentioned for Cyrus' reign is 3 years (Dan 10:1). We can make a good assumption that this was Cyrus' last year of reigning because it was during this year that a message was revealed to Daniel, and at the end of that message the angel mentions that he is going to return to fight with the prince of Persia (Dan 10:20). 3

The sixth year is the last year we have mentioned for Darius' reign. Ezra 6:15 says "Now the temple was finished on the third day of the month of Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius." Then the rest of the chapter mentions the Jews offering sacrifices at the dedication of the temple, keeping the Passover, and having the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Ezra 6:16-22). Ezra chapter seven, verse one starts out by saying "Now after these things, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia". So Darius probably only reigned six years. 6

Artaxerxes gave the decree during his 7th year (Ezra 7:7 Some of the children of Israel, the priests, the Levites, the singers, the gatekeepers, and the Nethinim came up to Jerusalem in the seventh year of King Artaxerxes. 8And Ezra came to Jerusalem in the fifth month, which was in the seventh year of the king. 9On the first day of the first month he began his journey from Babylon, and on the first day of the fifth month he came to Jerusalem, according to the good hand of his God upon him.) 7

From the end of the captivity until Artaxerxes decree (mentioned in Daniel 9:25) is 16 years.
3+6+7=16

Daniel 9:24 "Seventy weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy.
25"Know therefore and understand,
That from the going forth of the command
To restore and build Jerusalem
Until Messiah the Prince,
There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;
The street shall be built again, and the wall,
Even in troublesome times.
26"And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
27Then He shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate."

We know that the seventy weeks refers to seventy weeks of years determined for the Jews (Dan 9:24). This would come to 490 years (70X7=490). The first seven weeks were the 49 years that the Jews rebuilt Jerusalem. Then began the 62 weeks (434 years) which brings us to the baptism of Jesus in 27AD (Dan 9:25). After the sixty-two weeks (in other words it is after the set of 62 weeks and thus after the 69th week (7+62=69) He was cut off (crucified) (Dan 9:26). Both futurists and preterists agree that the 69th week leads up to a time between 27-30AD. Most preterists believe that "after the sixty-two weeks" (69th week) would refer to the 70th week where as futurists believe it refers to a certain point during an gap which is of an unspecified length of time yet before the 70th week. I believe that Christ's baptism began the last 7 years (the 70th week and the covenant confirmed with many for one week(I don't believe this is the same as the New Covenant)) and He was crucified in the middle of that week (30AD) and thus brought an end to God accepting the sacrifices and offerings being made in the temple (Dan 9:27) because of Christ's perfect sacrifice on the cross (Heb 10:10-18). The latter half of the 70th week was when the gospel went out to the Jews alone. In 33AD when the 70th week was finished, the gospel began going out to the Gentiles (Acts 10:34-48). Many believe that Jesus was born in 4BC and was crucified in 30AD so 30AD would be 487 years after Artaxerxes' decree. Let's subtract 30 years from 487 to bring us to 1BC (remember there is no year zero).

487-30=457
There are 457 years from Artaxerxes decree to 1BC and there are 2004 years from 1BC to the present.

Conclusion:
There are 2004 years from 1BC to the present, 457 years from Artaxerxes decree to 1BC, 16 years between the end of the captivity and Artaxerxes decree, 70 years of captivity, 411 years from the building of Solomon's temple to the beginning of captivity, 480 years from the Exodus to the building of Solomon's temple, from the birth of Abram to the Exodus was 529 years, from the flood to the birth of Abram was 292 years, and from the creation of Adam and Eve until the flood was 1656 years.

2004+457+16+70+411+480+529+292+1656=5915 years ago

I believe this is an extremely close number. From the creation of the Adam and Eve until now I only see the possiblity for small gaps which would include situations like: the time of the year that the father had his son in the genealogies, the length of the flood, and the time of the year that each king began reigning, etc.

This means the captivity ended around 473BC, the captivity began around 543BC, Solomon's temple was built around 954BC, the Exodus and giving of the law occured around 1434BC, Abram was born around 1963 BC, the flood occured around 2255BC, and Adam and Eve were created around 3911BC.

Because the Bible is true we have many serious problems with our ancient history textbooks (secular and Christian). One example of this is the teaching that the Egyptian and Chinese dynasties occured between 3000-5000BC. Either these ancient history events never occured or the dating for them is wrong. It looks like their is a lot of research to be done!

PreteristAD70's picture

Preterist Dave:

Have you performed calculations using the LXX? The numbers vary quite a bit and will extend your chronology further into the past.

Best,

Mike Beidler

psychopreterist's picture

I'm sorry call me non traditional but I just cannot accept the young age of the earth theory. I believe it makes chriatians look foolish and it often fails miserably when put to the test in formal debates. When I held the theory (and I was well informed on it) and using most of the argumentation presented in Reason and Revelation a church of Christ publication by Wayne Jackson and Bert Thompson I had a very embarassing debate with the ever famous atheist Farrel Till. I do believe that the alternatives presented by such brethren as Hugh Ross and John Clayton that accepts that the earth is more than 6000 years old is very convincing and effective and yet still a very consevative christian view. For instance there is an argument as per Clayton on the age of the universe. The argument is that many stars are located at a distance of many more than 6000 lightyears away from the earth. For their light to have reached the earth it would have taken more than 6000 years. If the cosmos is no more than 6000 years old than it seems that God is being decieving as to it's age for the laws of science governing the travel of light must (which were also set in place by God) are either being broken in this case, or simply the light is just a deception and the stars are really not there at all just a decoration. I'm not sure that I got the argument completley right, but you get the picture. I believe that for Christianity to be truly relevant in intellectual scientific circles we must abandon this ridiculous young earth and universe theory. As per Preteristdave, how can we be taken seriously by saying that the ming dynasty never happened? Bryan Forgy P.S. I am by no means an expert on this subject just a layman. But I can find many other arguments that the young earth theory cannot properly deal with.

Praeterbro's picture

Science, just like theological theories, is constantly in flux. A few examples.

It used to be that the accepted dating of the extinction of two species of homo (erectus and neandertalensis) were separated by over 1 million years. (erectus 1.5 million years, neandertalensis 30,000 years.) However, recent finds in Asia seem to indicate that both erectus and neandertalensis coexisted; which would bring the extinction of erectus much closer than suspected.

After the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, there were many feet of ash. during some of the excavation, some eleven years later, they found pieces of wood that had already begun to petrify. It kind of blew their theory of millions of years to create fossils.

Another example (I believe it was in "Fusion" Magazine in the mid nineties) reflected the argument of some astronomers that our Sun was little more than 10,000 years old!

Your brother,
Tim.

PreteristAD70's picture

Bryan:

There's nothing wrong with what Dave's doing. Notice that he is attempting to date the creation of Adam and Eve, not Creation itself.

There are some who claim that Adam and Eve were the first covenant humans created ex nihilo with no direct link to pre-Adamic races. If so, the chronologies are fairly accurate and, according to my understanding, do not allow for very many gaps.

Best,

Mike Beidler

preteristdave's picture

"There's nothing wrong with what Dave's doing. Notice that he is attempting to date the creation of Adam and Eve, not Creation itself."

Mike, thank you for pointing that out. Whether the days of creation were literal 24 hour days or long periods of time I haven't decided but I'm currently studying the subject. I'm currently leaning towards non-literal and believe that they refer to the covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus. Please see my article "Salvation, the Covenants, and the Days of Creation" for my views on this.

God Bless,

David Timm

JL's picture

Dave,

There's a lot of questionable assumptions you've made in the interpretations. When the Bible says that a man had 3 sons at a given age, what does that mean? They were triplets? I doubt it.

In the case of Terah and Abraham, by the standard rules of interpretation, Terah has Abraham at age 70, died one 135 years later, yet Abraham is only 75 years old at Terah's death. To get around this, Abraham leaves before Terah dies and Abraham dies before Terah. This interpretation begs the question of how Abraham knew how old Terah was when he died.

How long were the Israelites actually in Egypt? You have 3 generations requiring some 400 years.

You also need to consider the possibility that Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 are accounts of two seperate sets of events. Gen. 1, THE CREATION including man (hin) and Gen. 2, THE GARDEN including Adam (hadamah).

This allows the possibility of peoples and civilizations before 4000 BC. I don't believe anthropology shows any civilizations (tribal groups and villages are not civilizations) before the time of Adam, but it shows people before that time and continuous civilization from well before the time of the Flood.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

preteristdave's picture

"When the Bible says that a man had 3 sons at a given age, what does that mean? They were triplets? I doubt it."

I agree with you on this. But first of all this was a rare occurance and in Abraham's situation it doesn't effect the result greatly. I was only curious on finding an approximate age.

"How long were the Israelites actually in Egypt? You have 3 generations requiring some 400 years."

I don't see a problem with this but I do need to research it. How long approximately do you believe they were there?

"You also need to consider the possibility that Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 are accounts of two seperate sets of events. Gen. 1, THE CREATION including man (hin) and Gen. 2, THE GARDEN including Adam (hadamah)."

My main objective was to discover the approximate date for the creation of Adam and Eve, not the creation of the world. A few of the reasons I don't consider the possibility of man before Adam was because death passed unto all men through him and Eve is called the mother of all the living.

David

JL's picture

David,

For an approximate age then just use "about 4000 BC." It's been used for 2000 years now for good reason.

All these little things can cause the result to vary a few hundred years. If a few hundred years is close enough, then why bother and why be so careful with your addition?

You made comments about other ancient civilizations and their history. You believe their history to be a total lie based on your naive interpretation of Genesis.

It doesn't do Christianity any credit to call Asians liars because we've taken one poor interpretation of Genesis and called it truth.

Paul said Jesus was the last Adam. Therefore, you are not of Adam and I am not of Adam. We are both "hin." Neither of us are "hadamah."

Adam needed the Tree of Life to avoid physical death. Adam was created subject to physical death. He was just created to avoid it a little longer by natural means than we were (900+ years instead of 70+ years). But without the Tree of Life, sin or not, Adam would have eventually died a physical death.

Adam died the day he sinned. As our representative, sin/death passed to previously created "hin" (us).

Did Eve give birth to monkeys? Chickens? You read too much into a name.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

preteristdave's picture

"If a few hundred years is close enough, then why bother and why be so careful with your addition?"

JL,the reason for the addition was so I, step by step, could discover the answer by myself. I knew 4000BC is a popular belief but so is futurism. My reason for listing this article was not to promote the young earth view, but to share approximately when other biblical events took place. Even with the Hebrew text and small gaps which I could not have corrected I believe my article shows that it is foolish to date the creation of Adam before 6000BC unless you want to change the common understanding of the word "year". I'm currently studying the days of creation and I do believe the evidence for an old earth is stronger then the young earth view. I agree with you that main driving force of AiG is dispensationalism....one of the areas this is clearly seen is with their false belief in a global flood. If the earth is millions of years old why does this require humans to be on earth 6000+ years ago? I'm one of the 99% of Christians who believe that Adam and Eve were the first people. I know majority doesn't make it true but I don't see any evidence in scripture for your view. When it comes to scripture vs science I'll always go with scripture.

"Adam needed the Tree of Life to avoid physical death. Adam was created subject to physical death. He was just created to avoid it a little longer by natural means than we were (900+ years instead of 70+ years). But without the Tree of Life, sin or not, Adam would have eventually died a physical death."

I agree completely.

"Did Eve give birth to monkeys? Chickens? You read too much into a name."

I can't believe you responded with this. As a preterist I understand how important context is.

David

JL's picture

David,

4000 BC give or take a few hundred years is all you can get for when Adam was created.

Yet modern man has been on earth for 60,000 years plus.

You can't make Adam's creation in the Bible match man's creation from historic and anthropological data.

So was Adam the first man? Or was he "merely" the first Adam, a specially created representative of Man before God?

Take a concordance and look up the word man. In your Bible, mark every time "hadamah" is translated man so that you can read it as Adam. Now read them all. You've been told your whole life that Adam means Man. Does it? Why does it have to?

My comment about Eve has a point. Eve was the mother of Adam's children. She was not the mother of Cain's wife nor of the men who Cain feared. You stretched the context behind "mother of all living" way out of shape.

Adam was created and placed among Man.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

preteristdave's picture

"4000 BC give or take a few hundred years is all you can get for when Adam was created."

I'm glad to see you agree with this. As my article shows the old earth creationists are clearly in error with their belief that Adam was the first man.

Or was he "merely" the first Adam, a specially created representative of Man before God?

How does this effect your beliefs of sin and/or disobedience towards God before Adam?

"Take a concordance and look up the word man. In your Bible, mark every time "hadamah" is translated man so that you can read it as Adam. Now read them all. You've been told your whole life that Adam means Man. Does it? Why does it have to?"

I'll look into this.

Unlike most full preterists do you believe the earth will pass away someday?

David

JL's picture

David,

The Bible doesn't speak about the sin of men before Adam. At this point I have no opinion on it, only a couple of half-baked conjectures. I believe that they were a nasty, murderous lot. Cain knew they would kill him.

"Unlike most full preterists do you believe the earth will pass away someday?"

Yes, eventually.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

BigD's picture

Good take on this in "Creation and Time:" the earth's rotational speed is imperceptibly and gradually slowing. When it was created around 4.5 BB years ago, the rotation was much faster, causing very high winds in the lower atmosphere. As the earth slows it will become like the moon, with huge temperature differentials between day and night, unable to support life. Astronomists can easily prove this common phenomenon in the life of planetary bodies. But those evil, right-wing capitalist extremeists will kill all life off with nuclear war long before then, or so the story goes.

Dave

BigD

Seeker's picture

"But those evil, right-wing capitalist extremeists will kill all life off with nuclear war long before then, or so the story goes."

I hope this was a joke if you want to be taken seriously.

Seeker

BigD's picture

Isn't that what the left tells us? They expected Reagan to start a global nuclear war and wipe us all out, Algore thinks the internal combustion engine will destroy the habital environment in short order. After this week I'd worry more about Howard Dean's finger on the button...

BigD

psychopreterist's picture

I'm sorry call me non traditional but I just cannot accept the young age of the earth theory. I believe it makes chriatians look foolish and it often fails miserably when put to the test in formal debates. When I held the theory (and I was well informed on it) and using most of the argumentation presented in Reason and Revelation a church of Christ publication by Wayne Jackson and Bert Thompson I had a very embarassing debate with the ever famous atheist Farrel Till. I do believe that the alternatives presented by such brethren as Hugh Ross and John Clayton that accepts that the earth is more than 6000 years old is very convincing and effective and yet still a very consevative christian view. For instance there is an argument as per Clayton on the age of the universe. The argument is that many stars are located at a distance of many more than 6000 lightyears away from the earth. For their light to have reached the earth it would have taken more than 6000 years. If the cosmos is no more than 6000 years old than it seems that God is being decieving as to it's age for the laws of science governing the travel of light must (which were also set in place by God) are either being broken in this case, or simply the light is just a deception and the stars are really not there at all just a decoration. I'm not sure that I got the argument completley right, but you get the picture. I believe that for Christianity to be truly relevant in intellectual scientific circles we must abandon this ridiculous young earth and universe theory. As per Preteristdave, how can we be taken seriously by saying that the ming dynasty never happened? Bryan Forgy P.S. I am by no means an expert on this subject just a layman. But I can find many other arguments that the young earth theory cannot properly deal with.

Imjustanant's picture

I've heard Chuck Missler via radio pointing out that the speed of light has been measurably slowing down since we've been able to measure it accurately (120 years or so??). Chuck took the reducing # and applied it backward which provides for a much faster travel speed for light the farther you go back. I think Chuck had earth at around 13-15k years. No matter. Ya'll get the point/theory :)

Psycho, if you don't mind, what were some of the others they gave for the young earth theory being a bust?

I'm assuming (eek!) this speculative 13k years fits the young earth parameters. What is the break-off point, 10k, 15k, 20k??

Thanks for your time. Enjoyed the story and your reply.

JL's picture

Missler uncritically repeats any crackpot tale he hears, just so long as it "proves" that Jesus will return soon. He especially likes things loaded with numerology.

Hugh Ross and others have demonstrated that the "study" that Missler quotes from is naive, if not worse.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/younguniverse.shtml?main

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

demario's picture

The argument about light is an old one. When Jesus turned water into wine, it happened a lot faster than it does naturally. That's because it's a miracle. Adam and Eve were created as mature adults. It was a creational miracle. Someone seeing them for the first time without any knowledge of an act of special creation would assume that they had been alive for at least 20 years. Is this deception? Not at all. If God told you that they were created as adults (which He did), then it isn't deception. Since God wanted the greater and lesser lights to be seen at creation, He naturally created them with the light already in place. How could they have been for "signs" otherwise? How is this different from creating Adam and Eve as adults and turning water into wine? Till, who's presuppositions do not allow for miracles, dismisses these arguments out of hand because he is an evolutionist. No amount of evidence will convince him. No one knows exactly how old the earth is, but the light coming from the stars does nothing to dispel a young earth. The idea that light traveled faster at creation is not necessary and a bit foolish to argue.

JL's picture

Gary,

Part of the young-earth doctrine is a zero-entropy, no scar universe. Adam didn't look like a 20+-year old. He looked the size and build of a 20+-year-old, but had no scars, no acne, no callouses, no signs of his future blood pressure or hardening of the arteries problems, no thining of the hair. Adam looked newly created.

Starlight does not look newly created. It looks millions and billions of years old. It has high entropy and shows "scars" from it's source. It clearly spells out a creation event. But that creation event was several billion years ago, not 6000 years ago.

God did not tell us the universe was young. He told Job that the mountains are old. He said the creation took 6 days in Gen. 1, then said in Gen. 2, that those 6 days were 1 day and were many generations of the heavens. This leaves us with considerable latitude.

The so-called Young-Earth Creation Scientists who invent various arguments are more interested in "proving" dispensationalism than they are about proving a young earth or getting to the truth. (Look at how many of their arguments end with why the earth can't last much more than another 1000 years. This "demonstrates" that the millenium must start soon.)

In Hebrew, two words are used for man (hin and hadamah). Do they both refer to the same people? Or to different people? Two creation stories are given. Do they refer to the same event or different events? We know what "orthodoxy" says. But orthodoxy is often wrong.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

demario's picture

JL,

I was only responding to the starlight question as an argument against a young earth. You write: "Part of the young-earth doctrine is a zero-entropy, no scar universe. Adam didn't look like a 20+-year old. He looked the size and build of a 20+-year-old, but had no scars, no acne, no callouses, no signs of his future blood pressure or hardening of the arteries problems, no thining of the hair. Adam looked newly created." Adam did not look like 99.999999999 percent of the rest of us look in terms of size and maturity. He could walk and talk the moment he was created. He and Eve could procreate. Persons just born could not do any such thing. Light could have been in place from a distance star in the same way Adam and Eve were mature, whether scarred or not. You write: "Starlight does not look newly created." Light looks like light. The prefall instantaneous light may have looked like the scarless, acneless Adam when it showed distant stars. I think your argument is truly begging the question. If you want to argue for an ancient earth and universe, you need to do it a different way.

BigD's picture

Demario,

You're going to need a much, much better understanding of the science of astronomy to understand the point JL is making. It isn't as simple as you're making it out to be.

Dave

BigD

Imjustanant's picture

IF, this understanding you speak of is a law of God set in place (this scarring of light), (which you haven't, but I am curious?), are we to conclude from your post that God is not capable of setting the stars in the sky with their light in place as observed on Earth, scarring and all? 1 Corinthians 1:27-29? If science differs from the Bible on a topic, I'm biased towards the Word. Science has a long history of being disproved/renewed/enlightened.

Two of the reasons Geological scientist conclude the Grand Canyon to be of old age are, one, the strata, and how long it'd take to form each layer, and two, how an iceberge and the river would take to form the canyon. Yet, Mt. St. Helens catastrophic disaster proved many multiples of strata (60+ ft) could be formed in a very short period of time (something like 10 years). A river of catastrophic proportions would create that Grand Canyon in short order, along with the flood of Noah and the bursting of the daysprings being how the strata got there in a short period of time.

Doesn't seem strong enough of an argument against the "scars" of starlight? Were there rocks existing on Earth at creation that (by our knowledge) take hundreds of years to create, but for God, took a day? Could he have created anything that would have telltale signs of age to the learned man but for God only a day?

The 1 Corinthians quote above (to me) shows that a man of high learning will tend to dismiss those things which are weak, beggerly and especially, simple...your thoughts??

JL's picture

Ant,

You make the claim, "If science differs from the Bible..." This is a false choice. What differs is man's interpretation of creation vs. man's interpretation of the Bible. We are all here because we reject man's interpretation of the Bible on the issue of the 2nd Coming.

Young earth creation science is first and foremost a "scientific proof" of dispensationalism. It is a fraudulent interpretation of creation and a fraudulent interpretation of the Bible.

I'm not a geologist. My work is more fundamental. So instead of worrying about complex things like Mt. St. Helens and the Grand Canyon, let's look at simple things that only require one "law" of physics at a time.

Morris claims that the second law of Thermodynamics is a consequence of the Fall. It is the Curse.

Entropy, the "thing" measured by the 2nd law is the quantity or measure of "physical death."

All starlight shows that the 2nd law was in place when that light was created. Most of that light was created before the Fall.

Starlight proves that physical death existed before the Fall.

Gary North (Is Time Running Down www.freebooks.com), a big fan of Morris', gives a whole list of absurdities that are a consequence of Morris' teaching. (They don't prove Morris wrong, they just make Morris look ridiculous. The starlight problem proves Morris wrong.)

Young earth creationism of the type Morris and ICR push is fraudulent. It is false. It is a lie.

Most young earth creation science groups repeat these lies. The truth is not in them. The few that don't repeat these lies (AiG for example) have no solution to the problem (but they repeat Morris' lies about what the Bible says, look at the "evening and morning" thread on the science forum).

Please propose another scenario for starlight. How is it that it shows physical death that occurred 2 million years ago? Look at AiG's website first. They have a list of fraudulent arguments that you should avoid. But they don't have a solution.

When you trust what a young earth creation scientist says about the Bible, you are trusting a dispensationalist. When you trust what he says about science, you are trusting a dispensationalist. I don't trust dispensationalists.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Imjustanant's picture

JL,

Thanks for your thoughts. Your research and even more so, your humble demeanor regarding your conviction encourages me to research this further.

Imjustanant's picture

JL,

Putting aside length of time of the whole of creation, how long do you view man as walking the Earth? Do you see him walking with dinosaurs and the original animals that dwelt on the Earth or at a much later time?

Thanks.

JL's picture

Ant,

You are too kind.

The Hebrew "hin" means man. The Hebrew "hadamah" means Adam and his descendants.

Man was created at least 60,000 years ago. The Bible gives no clue as to how long ago it was. We have history that indicates non-Adamic civiliztion started to form from about 6000 to 4000 BC and anthropology to indicate that man had covered the globe before 10,000 BC

Adam was created 6000 years ago. The Bible says so. We have seperate history that indicates Adamic civilization starting to form from about 6000 BC to about 4000 BC.

The apparent dating problem is no real problem. Both Biblical dating and historic dating have problems. It is interesting that two seperate civilizations grew up in Mesopotamia side-by-side at the same time. One "Semitic," the other not.

The various things invented by the Adamites in Gen. were all invented in Mesopotamia between about 4000 BC and 3000 BC.

Dinosaurs were long dead when man was created.

Ross, Clayton, and Stone push Adam back before 60,000 BC so they can have Adam the father of all men and so the Flood could wipe out all men. This does serious damage to the Biblical geneologies and to the anthropology of the inventions of the Adamites.

Enoch who was quoted by Jude claimed 70 generations until the end. Luke listed 70 generations from Enoch to Jesus. The end came in AD 70, so Luke's geneology is complete from Enoch to Christ and probably so before Enoch. We can not push Adam back much before 4000 BC. A few hundred years maybe, but not a few thousand or tens of thousands.

The Hebrew Bible allows two "races" of men. The sudden advance of civilization that started about the time of Adam's creation and the parallel development of two civilizations shows that anthropology agrees.

Science and the modern church disagree. The Bible can be read to agree with either science or with the modern church.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Paige's picture

JL,

You have given me much to ponder. I have deliberately stayed away from science because I am admittedly lousy at it. You said the Bible can be read to agree with either science or with the modern church. 1. What are the ramifications of theology if it is read to agree with science? 2. Who are we descendants of (hin or hadamah)today? 3. If there are descendants of hin alive today, does God care about them and want a relationship with them?

I hope you don't mind answering these questions.
In Christ, Paige

JL's picture

Paige,

1) Dispensationalism is dead. Preterism is alive. God cares for his creation. He lovingly and carefully fashioned it over a long period of time and expects his creation to last a long time. We've only begun to explore the ramifications.

2) We are all "hin." There are no hadamah today.

There were two distingiushing differences between hin and hadamah in the Bible. Hin matures in about 20 years and lives about 70. Hadamah matures in about 50 years and lives to be about 900.

The purpose of the Flood was to wipe out hadamah. The few hadamah surviors intermarried with hin and diluted the genepool. (From the record, it's a safe guess that Noah and his sons all had "hin" wives.) The patriarchs from Gen. 12 on had astonishing long lives of over 100 years. This is a clue that they were different from the rest of mankind.

Today, a few people of truly Semitic origin might be part hadamah, but it is so little as to be of no consequence. They don't live any longer than the rest of us and we have no other distinguishing characteristics.

Besides Paul said Jesus was the last Adam.

3) Yes.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Paige's picture

JL,

Thanks for the reply. Maybe you mentioned this already, but could you recommend a good book that gives more details about this? Like I said, science is not my forte, but if there is something out there on a laymen level, I'd be interested in picking it up.

Thanks, Paige

JL's picture

Paige,

I really like Don Stoner's book, "A New Look at an Old Earth."

Hugh Ross', "Creation and Time" and his website www.reasons.org

Clayton has a website. I've not read any of his books.

Unfortunately, these guys are traditional old-earthers. They put Adam back too far.

Dick Fischer, "The Origins Solution" http://www.orisol.com/ is good but very long and requires the ability to put up with Gary North's style and to ignore Fischer's unquestioned but unsupported support for evolution.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

preteristdave's picture

"The purpose of the Flood was to wipe out hadamah."

If this statement is true the local flood makes a lot more sense.

"There were two distingiushing differences between hin and hadamah in the Bible. Hin matures in about 20 years and lives about 70. Hadamah matures in about 50 years and lives to be about 900."

Kent Hovind believes that Adam (early humans, pre global flood) were 11+ feet tall. If the height is true do you believe this may have been the hadamah only?

David

JL's picture

David,

I doubt that. I suspect hadamah grew slowly and were of nominally the same stature. Nothing in the Bible suggests that they were significantly taller. However, giants are mentioned in the Bible.

What happened if a hadamah took a hin wife? The offspring might have the hadamah slow growth and the hin fast maturity producing a midget or the hin fast growth and the hadamah slow maturity producing a giant. The giants of Deut. 2 were of old (pre-flood?) and might be the Nephilim.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

demario's picture

Dave,

Yes it is that simple. Saying "it isn't as simple" sounds like a dispensational argument. I haven't heard a scientific argument only an argument made by some scientists based on presuppositions devoid of supernatural presuppositions. Since no one was present at the creation, we can only speculate as to how things happened. What we do know is what the text of Scripture says: "He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and night, and to separate light from darkness" (Gen. 1:16-17).

JL's picture

Gary,

I am not a cosmologist, a historian, a philospher, nor a theologian. In my narrow field, I make the arguments and other people listen. Then they try to shoot them down.

In these fields I've listed, I have no original thoughts. However, my science background is good enough that I can wade through most arguments people give in the physical sciences.

At one time, I had read just about everything put out by the various young earth creation science organizations. I consistently found a particular type of error, a type of error that a PhD engineer or scientist should never make. When you see it often enough, by a variety of people, it screams out collusion and fraud.

I could spend a lot of time demonstrating this, but it wouldn't convince you of anything. I have no reason to believe you would ever understand the science, just as I don't understand what you mean by "I haven't heard a scientific argument only an argument ... based on presuppositions ..."

In "Is the Earth Runing Down?," Gary North praises Morris of ICR while rightly blasting him for his faulty science. Was North using a "scientific argument" or "an argument ... based on presuppositions?"

Frankly, I don't believe the science matters to you or most everyone else on this forum. That is why I go to the Bible. That is why I like to point out Hugh Ross' argument about the phrase "evening and morning." Not one of the young earth creationist websites has answered it. You've not answered it. Gary North has not answered it.

AiG and ICR claim to have answered it. Van Bebber and Taylor claim to have answered it. But their answers are fraudulent. They ignore Ross' example of Dan. 8:26 and claim that "Whenever the phrase ‘evening and morning’ is used outside of Genesis 1 without the word day (38 times) it always means an ordinary day—no exception."

Dan. 8:26 is an obvious exception. So is Psalm 55:17.

So what kind of presuppositions do I need to make this argument? AiG, ICR, Van Bebber, and Taylor must believe their own lie. We see what their presuppositions are.

I've demonstrated plainly that no one can trust their bible arguments. Why would you trust anything they say?

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

BigD's picture

This is a common argument by Ken Hamm, the Morris Sr. and Jr., G.M. Price, and other new earth/dispensationalists. They tell the professional astronomers that all they have is the present to look at, not the past. They have it backwards, all they have is the past. Some constellations are 4000 light years away, some are several billion light years away. This "scarring" of light, or shifts in the frequency/color tells a story. It tell of catastrophic events that happened thousands to billions of years ago, but the reports of such events are only reaching our telescopes now. You have to be saying that God is deliberately deceiving us by creating false physical phenomena to give the impression that the universe is much, much older than it really is. Maybe the world was just created 2 years ago, and God created our memories, old family photo albums, old books in libraries, '69 Chevy's, etc. just to give the appearance that the world is much older than two years. Why isn't that possible?

Dave

BigD

jfsaa's picture

Please read my comment above. Hugh Ross is specifically mentioned in the article. Several links can be found at the bottom of the following page, including an open letter challenging Hugh Ross:

http://www.icr.org/starlightandtime/

JL's picture

JF,

You have no comments physically above this one. What would you like for me to do with this stuff?

I am not a cosmologist, so I can't guess what Humphreys has done. I've not seen Humphreys' math or a detailed account of his assumptions nor Ross' detail critique. If I could get it without putting money into Humphreys' pocket, I could be persuaded to spend some time with it.

In the meantime, it is sufficient for me to remember Humphreys' and ICR's past performance on issues relating to Relativity and Cosmology. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." They don't have a good track record.

I've been through Ross' claims about what the Bible says. I've been through Ross' opponents rebuttals. They lie as to what Ross claimed. They obviously believe that most of there audience have not and will not read Ross. You haven't responded to that yet.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Imjustanant's picture

demario, I thoroughly agree with your conclusion. God is not forced into creating something out of nothing with the principles of that something constraining him before its creation!! :)

"The idea that light traveled faster at creation is not necessary and a bit foolish to argue."

In light of your post, I agree, not necessary. "Foolish", well, as foolish as considering the effects sin may or may not have on the created world ;)

vento's picture

To quote Dr. Bahnsen: "If your trying to get science to dance with the Bible, you've got a fickle partner."

If atheists are making Christians look foolish in debate, it's only because we are buying into their presuppositions. Atheism can't account for doing science in the first place. If they actually held to what they profess, they wouldn't do science. Why should we trust their conclusions anyway, they have no reason to be honest about them.

JL's picture

Vento,

To correct Bahnsen's quote: "If you're trying to get science to dance with people's interpretations of the Bible, you've got two fickle (and often nasty) partners."

I'm not an atheist. I don't buy into atheist presuppositions. I am a Christian and I am a scientist. I am busy seeking and exercising dominion over creation. I trust God and I assume that he's not lying to me. I assume that he made my eyes into generally trustworthy witnesses of what's going on around me. I don't worship a God of chaos, I worship a God of order. And I work to bring understanding and order to His creation.

Morris and Brown have constructed numerous scientific arguments that are really carefully designed frauds. Young earth creationists naively repeat these lies. To anyone who knows better, the naive look like fools.

When you talk like a fool, why should an educated "atheist" trust your conclusions anyway? You have no reason to be honest about them.

Scientifically, undirected evolution is a fraud. So is a young earth. Young earth creation science tells one truth and two lies. (Young earth creationism also claims the earth won't last much longer.) Likewise, evolution tells one truth and two lies.

You won't convince anyone to trade one lie for another. And why would you want to? You want them to abandon the lies and embrace the truth. The earth looks old because it is old, not because God is trying to trick those who haven't read his Word yet. It and everything in it was created, it didn't create itself. And it was made to last for billions of years, not just a few more years or another millenium at most.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

vento's picture

JL,

Sorry, wasn't meant as an attack against you. I was trying to reaffirm what Gary Demar pointed out earlier regarding evidence and the worldview of the atheist. One point being that the atheist, educated or not, doesn't have a foundation to trust any conclusions. We do have a reason to be honest about them. We have a God with moral standards. The atheist has no basis for morality. He can't account for why he should be honest.

Obviously, you've done much study on the issue. God bless you in that. Is it too simplistic to say the earth would have the appearance of age, being created complete?

BTW. Can you explain what you mean by "one truth, two lies." I didn't follow that.

Thank you for your time.

Scott Vento

JL's picture

Scott,

The earth looks old by every measure. The young earth creation scientists deny this. They develop arguments to "prove" that the earth looks young. These arguments are carefully designed to look reasonable and to fool people with a standard engineering background in math and science.

My favorite example is one in Walt Brown's award winning science book. He develops a model that requires a little bit of college level calculus and physics to develop. He then makes a simplifying assumption that he must know is grossly in error, looks up a friction coefficient in a table, and "proves" that subduction can not occur. (Subduction is the process which drives plate techtonics, continental drift, and earthquakes and motion along the San Adreas Fault.)

The reality is, subduction does occur. What's wrong with Walt Brown's model? That friction coefficient. Rock under goes a phase change at about 450 C. Above that temp, rock is viscous and the coefficient Brown called constant becomes zero. A simple fix to Brown's assumptions and you can quickly show that subduction occurs everytime the earths crust gets less than 7 miles thick.

This agrees with what you were told in school, but which Brown denies.

Brown and Morris have made a lot of money on this sophisticated type of fraud.

The second lie comes from the same analysis. They've "proven" that the earth can't be old. Extrapolating the same equations into the future always comes up with the earth lasting only another 1200-1500 years.

The truth I referred to is their stand against unguided evolution. (I don't want to get into theistic "guided" evolution. I know nothing about the subject.) Things left to themselves devolve not evolve.

However, I need to add a caveat. The young earth creation scientists believe in evolution after Noah's Flood.

The evolutionists have the age of the earth right but deny basic biology. And like the young earth creationists, they talk a lot about the soon end of the world, though for different reasons.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

vento's picture

JL,

Thanks for your response.

Please excuse my ignorance, but when you speak of the "young earth creationists" and ICR, is this the Institute for Creation Research, the folks with the museum down here in San Diego? Guys like Duane Gish and Henry Morris?

Thanks again.

Scott

JL's picture

Scott,

Yes, along with Walt Brown and his organization, Answers in Genesis, Dr. Dino, and a few other organizations and people who write books espousing the view.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

jfsaa's picture

It is interesting to see that you refer to yourself as a scientist and, in the same paragraph, call attention to your eyes as "trustworthy witnesses". History shows that scientific development skyrocketed when man realized his senses were not very trustworthy, and this just putting aside today's common 'true' scientific practice. Was that a new discovery? For most it was, but the Bible shows that along with death came also radical corruption.

What is there of scientific about looking into the past with today's instruments and thinking we can 'prove' something about how it happened? Do not all the theories (hypothesis I would say) about it, rely at least on the presupposition that things used to behave the same way the do now? Would you be able to say for how long a person has been peeling potatoes based on his current rate? Did the person stop? Is now in a hurry? Went to the bathroom? This works only if we ignore catastrophic events, for which the Bible has a lot to say about.

Where are the objective unquestionable indicators for an old earth? Is it the starlight? Einstein's theory of relativity is another example of how good our senses are to understand the universe.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0929cosmology.asp

From a scientist, I would expect less rhetoric and more hard evidence, which I have yet to see (because this is not a scientific field). Science is but merely a servant's tool in God's creation, very useful to interpret current data to make us better stewards.

This is why we need revelation from God and the human trail in historical record, otherwise we would 'know' nothing about the past.

God bless.

JL's picture

JF,

Words and therefore rhetoric are all I can post on a website.

I gave you evidence that the AiG people have purposefully misrepresented Ross' Biblical arguments. You've ignored it.

You want me to answer some science question that is outside of my field (and I have no reason to believe it is even within your ability to understand, how many years of calculus have you had and do you remember any of it?) when I can't trust the source and you won't tell me why I should.

ICR spent 20 years passing out bogus tales about how relativity didn't work. Then Humphreys invents some equations that are consistant with relativity and suddenly ICR loves relativity. Sorry. Humphreys spent a lot of late nights trying to make this trick work. I've seen some of Humphreys other ICR work. It is all ad hoc. And it all requires the earth to end in 1200 to 1500 years. (Just enough time for Jesus' dispy reign.)

Neither he nor the organizations that support him have any credibility until they come clean on their lies about what the Bible says, their ever changing and more sophisticated fraudulent science, and their misrepresentations of Ross' biblical arguments.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

jfsaa's picture

The reason why you should consider the arguments by their weight is part of what you learn from any course in logic or critical thinking. By calling yourself a scientist, I do have a reason to believe you will be able to identify the logical fallacies derived from your argumentation:

Comments about me, Ross, ICR, Humphreys and AiG are "ad hominem arguments, abusive and circumstantial". The discussion is not about people or organizations.

Comments about how many people agree or disagree with them are "ad populum" arguments. Is invalid preterism because most Christians don't agree with it?

Now to the relevant matter:

None of the verses you mentioned have anything to do with the 'chronological' duration of 'a' day in the sense defined in Gen 1:5. By confronting them you are making an appeal to another type of fallacy: "equivocation".

If these verses affect the meaning of the passage, please explain how. I would agree that the days didn't have to be exactly 24 hours in length if relativity and other astronomical factors are considered but, let's suppose that you are a Jew back then, trying to communicate the idea of 'a day' that corresponds to what we see today as a '24 hour day'; how would you do it in a more explicit way?

I have been persuaded of the preterist view of eschatology, first by the force of the context of the term "this generation" used by our Lord. By using the verses you mentioned trying to redefine the meaning of the terms in Gen 1:5, you are performing the same kind of gymnastics required by dispensationalists to make a 'generation' mean whatever fits their presuppositions. On the other hand, at least in my perception, an 'old earth' (i.e. millions of years) view would be more helpful for dispensationalists because the sense of immediacy of the events that Jesus refers to, would allow for 2000 years to be considered still 'at hand'. 2000 years is not allowed as a valid interpretation of 'at hand' in a 'young earth' view, because it would be close to half of the earth's age by the time of the prophecy.

Passion is a good thing in our quest for truth, but it becomes an enemy if it takes over in the argumentation process, causing us to drift away from the rational realm.

Still waiting for the persuasive evidence.

JL's picture

JF,

I'm not the person who invented the argument that "evening and morning" always refers to a 24-hour day. I'm not one of the people who keeps repeating it as if it were the truth. I'm not one of the people who has ignored the counter-examples and continues to make a claim that they know to be false.

AiG and ICR are well aware of Dan. 8:26 and Psalm 55:17. They have lied on there websites. This is not ad hominem. I've demonstrated it. No one has bothered to come to their defense. (Except you, but you won't directly address the issue either.) If they knowingly make false arguments about the Bible, why should I trust their science?

You claim that Gen. 1:5 defines "day." Very well.

Paul said, "I work night and day." I Thess 2:9. So Paul worked 24 hours straight once and never worked again? NO. Paul used a figure of speech that indicates he worked continuously and tirelessly for an indefinite period of time. This is the plain meaning of the verse.

In Psalm 55, David prayed 3 times then never again? NO. David prayed continuously and tirelessly everyday for an indefinite period of time. This is the plain meaning of the verse.

In Gen. 1:5, God worked tirelessly and continuously for an indefinite period of time until the task was completed. This is the plain meaning of the verse.

That is the plain meaning of the phrase "evening and morning." That is the way the Bible uses it.

Gen. 2:4 says that those 6 days were several generations of the heavens. It all fits together nicely. No gymnastics required.

The gymnastics used to make generations in Gen. 2:4 fit the young earth creationist view is more akin to the gymnastics dispies use to make generation in Matt. 24 mean 2000 years.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

BigD's picture

You won't find any dispensationalists of note that prefer an old-earth view. Their psuedo-scientists are busy trying trying to prove that all fossils in strata hundreds of feet thick in some areas of the world were all laid down via a global flood 5000 years ago, that dinosaurs and men co-existed, even in Noah's day, etc., etc. They want a finite package of the earth being created and destroyed in less than a 10,000 year span. A multi-billion year history of the earth makes the rtionality and probability of the "end is near" philosophy look suspect.

Dave

BigD

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
24%
No only registered users should comment
76%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 41