For follow-up discussion and general commentary on the topic. Comments are sorted chronologically.
Bruce Lyon
Notice: Gen:1:13: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was - ["was" should be translated "became"] without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
So the earth already existed but became without form and was void and also darkness was upon the face of the deep, probably referring to deep water from a Noahic like flood. All this probably the result of the war that took place when Satan rebelled with his angels....
At any rate what we see in the first chapter of Genesis is a renewal of the earth and clearing of the atmosphere probably completely dark from volcanic eruptions and huge comets, etc, striking the earth surface putting so much smoke and dust in the atmosphere that all would be completely dark as it was in the mines I used to work in when I turned off my head lamp. So dark I could see anything at all.
At any rate we are told the Spirit of God is beginning the process of renewal.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Notice verse 3: 3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
When God speaks it is done, and done by the power of His Holy Spirit. His word never returns to Him empty! So we see that the word was with God and was God the one who renewed this earth and the heavens!
Notice: The curse on Satan and the promise of the coming one, Jesus, born of a woman, who will replace and destroy Satan from his rule as the god of this world, and the prince of the power of the air at this present time.
Gen:3:14-15: And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because you have done this, you are cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon your belly shalt you go, and dust shall you eat all the days of your life: And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; it [the seed of the woman - Jesus] shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.
This is the word that we see coming into being in John 1:14:
And the word [spoken by God in the promise of the coming one given in Gen:3:15] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Truly God's word never returns to Him empty or without fruition.
At the return of the lord Jesus to take his place on the throne of David at Zion will be the start of another renewal on the face of the earth and in the heavens a whole new order of things as pointed out by Isaiah and many other prophets! May that day soon come!
Jim Tumlinson
I'm not sure the earth will be renewed since it is supposed to be destroyed and we will live in heaven in the new Jerusalem after the 1,000 year reign of Christ. You are also one of very few that believe the earth was here before Genesis, good for you.
Jim Tumlinson
Lets look at the character of God first.
God is light-correct
God is life-correct
Since God is those two things then how can light and life create darkness and an earth void of life. Not possible
If you research the word void in the Hebrew it is the word Tohu, which means it got that way from judgement. In addition there are scripture in the bible that indicate that Noah's flood was the second flood not the first.
Also if you look at the book of Job, perhaps you may find indications of the first flood in there, (side note) no one knows the author and no one knows when the book was written yet the great prehistoric fish Leviathan is mentioned, which is very interesting, there is also another prehistoric animal listed in Job as well. You'll have to do the research yourself and find that nugget on your own.
So yes I'm saying that the earth is older than what we think it is and I am also saying that there was a pre-adamic race. Who knows why and when but that is Gods business. Some of you may not agree but just by looking at Gods character should help confirm this. Oh wait all that we believe in the bible is by faith, so yes I believe this all by faith, but I do not make it a doctrine, I mean who really knows if Adam or Eve had a belly button yet churches have split over this issue, how immature.
None the less it is a good topic to discuss and when you get to heaven you will see that Vin and I were right but it won't matter there anyway probably. Sometimes I think God wants to mess with us and see what we will believe, or is He really trying to make us read His word and get some awesome nuggets of info that will change our lives forever.
Vin Smith
I totally see the possibility of a pre-adamic race. On a not so different topic, I have my suspicions about Lilith. Adam's first wife? Hmmm. As a novelist, I can see the subject of Lilith being intertwined with a previous Earth destruction.
The only thing I know for sure about this interesting speculation is that oft quoted verse, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Corinthians 13:12) KJV
What a great and glorious God we have!
Jim Tumlinson
I have never heard of Lilith, interesting. We do see through a glass darkly, but what does that mean, I think we picture a dark glass, for me a beer bottle, LOL but just now I started thinking a glass which we can see through, does darkly mean without knowledge, ignorance, in part? To know as we are known is so multidimensional it is crazy. God is so awesome, like I think I mentioned before, the more I read the word the more nuggets of wisdom I get, its like a treasure hunt. We do have a great and glorious God.
Vin Smith
While Lilith is not mentioned in any of the Bible translations, the name and the myth comes from Hebrew mythology--Rabbinic writing which refers to a type of biblical interpretation found in the Talmudic literature. Some people claim that the name Lilith is found in Isaiah 34:14, mixed in with wild beasts of the desert, but I have not found that mention in the thirty or so Bible versions I have read. It is an interesting myth, for sure.
It is often speculated that Lilith was the first women's libber--that she left Adam because she did not wish to be dominated by him. Others count Lilith as some kind of succubus who inhales the life out of babies; and other such monsters. Did she exist? Incredibly doubtful, but then again, when we get to Heaven (I really do prefer to capitalize the word Heaven) we are going to be absolutely floored by what is in store for us. We will also find that the history of the world as we think we know it is somewhat different. A lot different? A little different? We don't know! But I am on record saying that I wish to spend a great portion of whatever constitutes time studying our Heavenly Father and the entire width and breadth of our existence.
richard porter
I would be open to the theistic evolutionary model except I run into the biblical wall of 'there had to be death present in creation before Adam' in order for that view to hold up. But that would run counter to ...
(Rom 5:12) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
mark wilkinson
Bruce Lyon's answer is a re-statement of the 'ruin-reconstruction theory' which is controversial and flies in the face of true science, Hebrew grammar and Bible hermeneutics.
Evidence for a young earth is plentiful. See Answers in Genesis or Creation Ministries International websites for information (both on the science and on the gap theory).
The idea that there were long ages between Genesis 1:1 and verse 2 is based on the ideas of Thomas Chalmers 200 years ago, developed by others and popularised through the Scofield Study Bible (1917?). Chalmers was responding to atheistic geologists who dated the rocks in millions of years, despite the evidence against them (Hutton and Lyell had an agenda - to rid the Bible of Moses!).
The Hebrew 'wow' (and) links these verses - and just as in English we don't start a sentence with a conjunction, neither does Genesis 1:2.
The word 'tohu' means 'void' or 'empty' or 'unfilled'. It is describing the state of the undeveloped world that God was soon to make into a habitable place for Adam. It is wrong to read back from later in the OT to make it mean that it was 'laid waste' after a judgement. The prophet meant that God would make the land uninhabited, likening it to the beginning of creation week - a pile of raw materials. An analogy may help here: if you saw my computer screen was blank ('tohu') you couldn't know whether is was blank because I had not yet started working on a document or whether I had deleted the text previously typed.
Jim Tumlinson
I understand what you are saying Mark but as I look at the character of God He makes nothing without form or void or life, only because He is light and life. Since He made the universe He had to make it by faith since that is how He operates. It could not have been here waiting for God to show up and do something with it. Also if you read in Psalms, Peter not sure which book anymore and Job they indicate that Noahs flood was the second flood. The bible also does not mention dinosaurs as we see the evidence of them today as well as the carbon dating that has been done. So my thought is that the earth is older than what appears in the bible because there is proof of that, the bible only records mans existence from Adam to now, with one exception, Job, no one knows when it took place and who wrote it.
mark wilkinson
Jim, you need to state where you find the Noah's Flood was the second flood.
Do you believe Mount Everest was built before the creation of Adam? If so, where is all the water that is needed to cover the world to such a depth?
The Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs because the word dinosaur was only invented bt Sir Richard Own in 1841. The creatures Behemoth and Leviathan in Job 40-41 are very good descriptions of giant reptiles that Job knew but are extinct now.
Jesus said that Adam and Eve were made at the beginning of Creation (Mark 10:5) which doesn't allow for billions of years of evolution and accumulation of fossils as atheists believe.
Carbon 14 testing shows that dinosaurs, coal and diamonds are not millions of years old. C14 cannot exist for longer than 100,000 years max, yet it is detectable in coal which is said by secular geology to be 200 million years old.
Robert Shirley
The age of the earth is an issue where good Bible teachers, as well as good scientists differ. Genesis 1:1-2 describes the creation of the physical universe - including the sun, moon, stars, and planets -prior to the beginning of the six days, which begins with verse 3.Verse 2 mentions the Spirit hovering or brooding over the waters, much like a mother hen does over her eggs. This could have either been a brief OR a long time, until the earth was just right fo the creation of life. It is open to disagree on how old the universe and the earth are.Day one records, not the creation of light, but the beginning of light reaching the face of the earth (possibly diffused through a cloud).Day 4 describes how the sun, moon, stars, etc. Became VISIBLE in the earth's sky, not their original creation.The first three days describe the preparation of the earth for life, while the next three days record the creation of the various kinds of life. While I believe the six days were literally 24 hrs. Each, good Bible scholars do not always see it this way. The bigger question is: does the universe, and life on earth show signs of it being created by God? Or did it just come about on it's own? I believe the evidence shows that it must have been created by God. Do not let your limited understanding of either science OR your lack of understanding the Biblical account of creation keep you from coming to faith in Jesus Christ.
**This is NOT the "gap theory", so often proposed. No "pre-Adamic" race or "pre-Adamic" flood.. Neither is this "theistic evolution". It is special creation, without knowing exactly how old or young everything is, seeing an original creation prior to the six days.
mark wilkinson
Exodus 20:11 tells us that God made the heavens and the earth in six days. Robert, you seem to be arguing that Day One was longer than the other 5 days. Hebrew scholars all agree that YOM here means a 24-hour day. You can't decide to make one day longer than another simply in order to make the Bible agree with what secular science decrees and demands us all to follow.
Materialist science has long adopted the mantra that 'present processes are the key to the past'. This means that if, say, a river erodes the land at a certain rate now, it must have done so in the past - and so we extrapolate millions of years of gradual wearing away of ancient hard rock to get where we are now. But suppose the rocks were soft, as would be the case after a worldwide flood. The rapidly uprising land would shed water making channels which become river valleys. What APPEARS to be a process of millions of years, could be only a few decades or even shorter.
Applying this principle to the origin of the earth, yes it would take millions of years to cool down from a molten state if you apply the gradualism principle. But God can do things miraculously, in a moment of time. (As he did with water to wine).He tells us that He created all the raw materials of the universe on Day One, so who are we to deny the Holy Spirit's record of history? The fact that many Bible scholars and Christians in science disagree with this doesn't make them right. There are many of both disciplines who support a young earth
Robert Shirley
Thanks Mark for your comment, but I believe you have misunderstood my point. Please read the entire post again very carefully. My point was that verses 1&2 describe the actual creation of the galaxies, planets, sun, moon, stars, and earth. I do not view it as simply a topical introduction because 1) a topical into usually lacks a verb (Matt. 1:1) and 2) if removed from the rest of the chapter, the chapter makes no sense. I pointed out that this occurs PRIOR to day one. Each day begins with the phrase "then God said". The seven days are each 24 hours, but they occur after the creation recorded in verses 1&2.
This is not meant to convince you that my understanding is necessarily correct, but to say to unbelievers that the age of the universe (whether old or young) is not a block to faith in Christ. As I understand Genesis, it could be either. Again, please read my original post very carefully. I have also read Exodus 20:11, but have understood it differently. I am sure you will respond "how?", but I will not go into that. My basic concern is for unbelievers, some of who think that they must accept the concept of a young universe as necessary for believing that God created it, and to trust in Christ. May our Lord bless you. You are not my enemy just because we understand Genesis differently.
mark wilkinson
Thank you brother for your reply. I still see some problems with your latest points.
You say that God created the 'galaxies, planets, sun, moon, stars, and earth' BEFORE day one (vs 1-2). However, the Word of God tells us in vs14-19 that the sun, moon and stars were formed later, on day four.
Also, vs3-4 describe the creation of light. If the sun and stars existed before the appearance of light is what state were they?
Exodus 20:11 clearly states that God created the universe in six 24-hour days. How do you understand this if you disregard its plain meaning?
I know that the concept of a young earth sounds crazy to the unbeliever and goes against what materialist science tells us. However, there is scientific evidence for a young universe. I know three science professors at British universities who can adequately show such evidence, though they are thwarted from doing so within those universities by the atheist opposition who would love to see them dismissed.
Yes, becoming a Christian does not depend upon believing in a young earth. But is does involve believing that God is living and active and supernaturally raised to life the Lord Jesus after he had been crucified and buried.
Unfortunately some leading evangelical preachers proclaim Christ's resurrection but at the same time teach that Adam was descended from a primate and that the Noachan Flood was local. Does this discrepancy not affect the thinking of thoughtful listeners? They create division in numerous ways.
Robert Shirley
Hi, Mark. Just a couple of more clarifications. I do not believe light was CREATED on day 1, but that God desired the light to reach the earth, which was in total darkness. On day 4 He said "let there be lights IN THE EXPANSE (sky)", so He MADE them (not the same word for 'created') to APPEAR in the expanse.
While life on earth is definitely recent, the physical universe and the earth do not necessarily have to be. They could be old OR recent. Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, and NOT the products of an evolutionary process (as also the animals were directly created by God). By the way, I am not saying that the universe is NOT young - only that it COULD be old. I actually highly respect young earth creation scientists, and see many of their points as being plausible.
Neither scientists NOR Bible believers are infallible in our INTERPRETATIONS of either the physical evidence or of the Bible. Only the Word is inerrant and infallible, not necessarily our understanding of it.
mark wilkinson
Hi Robert. What's your take on Mount Everest? It looks old, but is it younger than Adam or does it pre-date Adam's creation?
If Mount Everest pre-dates Adam by many years, there presents a difficulty with Genesis telling us that God made animals and fish during a period of one normal week - the same week as he created Adam. Now Mount Everest contains millions of fossils of marine life. Therefore Mt Everest must have formed after the week Adam was created.
This now is a challenge to conventional geology. How could such a high mountain have risen in such a short time. At present the 'Alpine era' mountain chains are rising by just a few centimetres a year. For these to have reached their present height within the past few thousand years, the processes must have been somewhat unique. A very rapid uplift: which would fit in well with what God tells us about a universal Flood. It seems geologically impossible but Creation scientists do have a theoretical model for this - and we mustn't discount God's controlling hand in it all.
If The Lord did indeed make things happen during and immediately after the Flood much faster than we experience now, we should have no difficulty believing he set the universe in motion in an even shorter space of time. As Hebrews 11:3 tells us, we accept by faith that God by His Word made all material things from the invisible.
I think the plain reading of Genesis 1:3 is that God created light on Day One, and that He made light-holders on Day 4 (v14).
Robert Shirley
Hi,Mark. Good to hear from you. With the flood of Noah's day came great cataclysmic changes in the earth's physical appearance. Most, if not all, of what we now see is the result of those changes - in the recent past. The flood was worldwide, and altered the face of the earth. Mountains were raised from what was there or not there before the flood. This includes, obviously, our Mt. Everest. My main point is that we as Christians do not need to argue for a recent universe. God created man recently, as well as other life. The flood was universal. The universe, from my possibly faulty and obvious limited understanding of God's Word, could be old or recent. Thank you for our friendly exchange as "iron sharpens iron". I really wish we could carry this on, but ebible is probably tired of our exchange. Thank you for trying to understand my perspective, even though we disagree. I am trying to interpret Scripture in it's plain, literal sense, as you are also. May our Lord and Savior continue to bless you. I wish I could give you my e-mail address, but I don't think they would allow this.
mark wilkinson
Hi Robert. You're probably right about your last point. Try me on Autumngold2 on Flickr. Blessings!
Chris Dibbern
In order to keep it simple:
The Stakes:
First, let's acknowledge that salvation isn't a multiple choice test. What's more, let's acknowledge that many fish are scared away by the idea of science contradicting scripture, and rightly so. Science, at its best, is a tool of discernment. Our own scriptures call us to be discerning, and look at the good fruits of that: science rules out Hindu, and Islam. It rules out Apollo dragging the sun across the sky in his golden chariot each morning. It rules out wiccanism and other forms of pagan nonsense. It also gives us TVs and computers and trips to the moon. Science works. People know this, so this is one debate we have to get right, not for our own sake, or for the sake of some divine multiple choice test, but for the sake of those considering a relationship with Jesus.
So, how do we get it right? With Jesus.
The Image of God:
When Jesus was teaching publicly, he "always taught using parables and figures of speech." Matthew 13:34. Since God (and therefore Jesus, see John 1:3) wrote Genesis through His inspired prophets, we find reason--even before touching Genesis--to believe Genesis could be figurative.
Does this mean Adam isn't real? Eve? The lineage of Jesus Christ? Take a look! Read, for example, Jesus' wedding parable in Matthew 22:1-14. Here, you see many people: A king, his son, his servants and guests, and the bride. The King is God. His Son is Jesus. We are his servants and his guests and his bride. These are all real people you can meet, in Heaven or on Earth, even though the story is figurative!
Conclusion:
We've gone from debating random scientific minutia to talking about Jesus, who He is, and how and what He taught in about 30 seconds, flat. Where are the fish? Have they stumbled over the block of Young Earth Creationism? Have they drowned in the cesspool of scientific "he said she said?" No, they are focusing on what matters, and can make their decision based completely on Who Jesus is.
If Young Earth creationism is so important, let them walk with Jesus, for awhile, and he can walk them to YE Creationism, if it is true.
Plain and simple, I don't think the Bible supports a necessarily-literal interpretation of Genesis (and therefore a Young Earth dogma), and I think it's fruitless to evangelize such a view.
mark wilkinson
It is secular science and theistic evolutionism that has scared off people from the Bible. The testimony of many many scientists is that the Bible is fully supported by empirical science (as opposed to theoretical science). Many others can testify that it was only when they read Genesis as history that the plan of salvation made any sense. Bible scholars see Genesis as literal, not figurative, genre. The Apostle Paul builds his case for Christ being the Last Adam upon there being a real first Adam (Rom 5:12-21).
Bob Wier
There are a lot of opinions on this subject. Therein lies the problem. They are, and always will be nothing more than opinions until the Lord reveals the truth. As for me, I've always asked, "Just how long did it take Adam to name all of the animals on earth?" There is no answer.
The truth is rather simple. Time as we know it didn't start until Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit. They could have easily lived in the garden for literally billions of years, as we understand years that is. Time was irrelevant until they fell. There was no 'when' then.
People are foolish if this is what they are basing their belief on. It should be based on faith, not foolish and vain arguments. It should be based on the finished works of the cross, on our Lords willing sacrifice to die for our sins, on God's unconditional love for each and every one of us.
Yes, it is fun to challenge our imaginations regarding creation and the overall effects of time, but that is all it should be. Our heavenly father gave us imagination, as well as a sense of humor and therefore doesn't mind us exercising either. But it shouldn't affect our walk with Him, or our sharing the gospel (good news) of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Yolanda Stith
It is very possible that the earth was created OLD, just as Adam and Eve were created as adults. There is an explanation for the evidence of an earth that dates back millions of years, and I presume that if God wanted us to know how that is possible, he would have revealed it. There are just some things that we don’t have to know, and the need to know is tied directly to the Knowing Tree; it’s not for us.
mark wilkinson
I can go to a local electrical store and buy a 'retro' radio. It looks old but has actually been made recently. Don't confuse the appearance of the earth with its actual age. God has revealed to us in His Word that he made the universe in six literal days, a few thousand years ago. There is scientific evidence to back this up, such a C14 in 'old' rocks (C14 cannot be older than 100,000 years).
Danny Hickman
It's strange to me how we can discredit scientific evidence and then, in the same trial, call scientific evidence to the witness box and say, 'There is scientific evidence' to back up something.
Evidence is good, but it doesn't always prove what we believe to be true, to be true. It can deceive us if it is misapplied.
The bible doesn't say, pointedly or otherwise, that the universe is around 6,000 years old in existence. We read the narrative and make assumptions about what is said. We do the math and come up with a 6,000 yo universe. And that defies logic and scientific data. That assessment also makes believers look a little strange, and I don't mean only to an unbelieving "world." It makes an atheist teacher's argument more believable to some students. (Nothing against teachers, one of my daughters is a teacher. Somebody knows what I'm talking about!