[Biblemat] A) THE EARTH -- YOUNG OR OLD?

[J5827Sasser at wmconnect.com]

Brethren and Friends, Jim Sasser here.  A very good Thursday
morning to each and everyone.  May God bless you and yours.
Here is an article from my recent files:

THE EARTH -- YOUNG OR OLD?

     From the time Moses penned the book of Genesis people
who believe the Bible to be inspired of God have considered
the earth relatively young, within the time frame of a few thou-
sand years, not billions or even millions of years.

     However, within the last two centuries another idea of the
earth's age has emerged. This new concept has come about
due to a growing belief in the theory of evolution, a theory
which requires multiplied millions of years for the develop-
ment of life on earth.  Belief in the theory has been promoted
as a science and has gradually come to dominate scientific
circles, although there is no scientific evidence supporting it.

     The influence of the evolutionary theory has been so clev-
erly advanced that many Bible believing people have fallen
under its influence and, consequently, have been convinced
to accept an "old earth" theology.

     But the obvious question is raised:  How can an old earth
theology be harmonized with the Biblical account of creation?
In an attempt to harmonize this contradiction two views have
been advanced. 

THE "DAY AGE" THEORY: -- This theory teaches that each
of the six days of creation were not ordinary days, but were long periods of 
time, extremely long eons of time.  Hence, the
word "day" is said to be figurative or symbolic.  However, that 
the word  "day"  in Gen. 1 is a normal, twenty-four hour day
is shown by the following:

     1) One principle of Biblical interpretation is that words are
to be understood in their normal, literal sense unless there is
something in the context that demands otherwise.  However,
there is nothing in Gen. 1 that even hints at the "days" being
anything other than regular, twenty-four hour days.

     2) The days are addressed as "first day," "second day,"
"third day," and so on.  Note that throughout the rest of the
Old Testament when the word "day" (yom) is joined with a 
numeral, it consistently refers to a normal day.

     3) Each day has a morning and evening, which is simply a
Jewish idiom for expressing the two halves of a normal day,
much as we would say night and day.

     Additionally, if the days were long eons of time, there are
a number of unexplainable problems.  For example:

     1) How did insect-cross-pollinated vegetation (created on
day three) exist for millions of years without insects (created
on day six) to cross-pollinate them?

     2) How did vegetation (created on day three) exist for mill-
ions of years without mist (created on day six) to water them?

     The fact is, the only reason some regard the days of Gen.
1, as long periods of time is because of the preconceived idea
of an old earth.

THE "GAP" THEORY: -- This theory teaches there are two 
separate creations divided by a gap.  It is said there was an
initial creation in Gen. 1:1 and another creation involving six
days.  Presumably, there was a gap between the two involv-
ing possibly billions of years.  However, there is a very serious problem 
with this view as well.

     Moses, the writer of Genesis, also penned the book of Ex-
odus.  In that book he also addresses creation.  From the Genesis account it 
can be logically concluded that the total
of creation took place within the six days.  However, the Exodus account is 
more precise, specifying a time frame.
Exo. 20:11 reads, "For in six days the Lord made heaven and
earth, the sea, and all that in them is..."  So, the creation of
heaven and earth mentioned in Gen. 1:1 is placed within the
six days.  Also, in Exo. 31:17 Moses reaffirmed this truth.  "...
for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth..."  Therefore,
gap theorists are forced to give an unnatural meaning to the
days in Gen. 1.

     The Scriptures could not be clearer.  There are not two
creations divided by a so-called gap, but only one creation of
the six days, which included Gen. 1:1.  So the question we ask is this: Do we 
take the gap theorist's view of Gen. 1 or do
we take the testimony of the inspired writer?  The answer is
obvious.

     Trying to harmonize an old earth theology with the Script-
ures is a futile effort.  The Word of God is simply too plain on
this vital truth.   ------ Jon Gary Williams in Bulletin Briefs, Vol.
10, No. 8, Aug. 2007.   </HTML>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.biblematters.net/pipermail/biblemat/attachments/20070809/59301b22/attachment-0001.html