"Day" in Genesis vs. "Day" in the NT...an Old Earth Creationist dilemma-

Fine....they were "millions of years".....then I could easily claim Jonah was in the fish for "millions of years", right? If Old Testament "yoms" mean whatever an interpreter wants them to mean.

 

The reason why the data was off a bit when using Carbon-14...is because of all the Above Ground Nuclear Testing done in the 40's through the 60's and early 70's.

Now this effect to the Carbon-14 readings caused us to underestimate the age of a fossil....so if we calculated a fossil to be 15,000 years old...it was more like 16,000 years old.

Now this only had to do with Carbon-14 dating....the other forms of dating such as Potassium-argon....which is used to date geochronology and archaeology.....was not effected.

AboveAlpha

 

Of course I have an opinion, but I see both sides of the issue, and both sides have merit.

 

There is ZERO MERIT in any attempt to assign a specific associative meaning, value or definition of individual words in the Bible or Genesis as a DAY as written in Genesis means...A DAY.

Ancient Man just did not understand or have the knowledge to know that it took Billions of Years for the Earth to develop oceans and Life.

So....ancient man made up a STORY.

AboveAlpha

 

really??? My memory fails me......but that wouldn't be the first time. Maybe you have a point. But then again, it is YOU...so.....

- - - Updated - - -

That's not the question. Don't we get our data from atmospheric conditions?

 

But ancient man didn't have to understand it all did they? If it was supposedly written at the behest of the Holy Spirit, then their should be some parts that ancient man wouldn't understand right?

What is your evidence that ancient man "made up the story"?

 

What data are you referring to?

We use Carbon-14 to data Organic Material.

We use Potassium-40 to date Rocks and Fossils.

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.[4]
The oldest such minerals analyzed to date – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – are at least 4.404 billion years old.[5][6][7] Comparing the mass and luminosity of the Sun to those of other stars, it appears that the solar system cannot be much older than those rocks. Calcium-aluminium-rich inclusions – the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the solar system – are 4.567 billion years old,[8][9] giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of Earth.

We use Ice Core and Earth Core samples to determine what our atmosphere was comprised of in the past.

So there are many different ways to determine ages of different things.

But as far as when we use Radioactive Isotopes...this is calculating a materials age based upon the Neutron Decay of an Isotopes of an Element and such Neutron Decay is a part of the Universal Physical Laws.

AboveAlpha

 

Wouldn't changes in the atmosphere affect any of the results?

 

Show me ONCE where you have argued that the side that says Genesis is NOT literally true has merit?

 

The "ancient man" to whom this would refer is the same one inside us all even today.

The Unconscious mind which is born again into the world with every new baby adds to those Collective Unconscious minds already among the generation that is living.

Like a good shepherd, the Collective immortal Unconscious mind, like a Third Eye, has always watched over our species.
It this facet of our psyche which we call the Soul.

Though individually our own Unconscious mind is subtracted from Collective Unconscious mind of those that sum from everyone living, new born babies replace our own inputs.
This the immortal Son-of-God which is the source of the voices men have heard as one book of the Bible has been added after another, yet still maintaining the exact same pathos of the message being sent us.

 

What positive people ought want is for the Bible to correspond with the fact and be true in what says.
If one wants to choose the option to make every day" mean 24 hours, and, by such a decision, make Genesis ridiculously in error, then so be it.

What I am showing you is the argument for making a wise choice that corresponds with the facts of knowledge today.

 

That's what apologetics attempts to do, and the unbelievable flights of logic that are erected to support the bible's accuracy are amazing works of imagination and obfuscation of the obvious.

 

Yeah,..

That is open mindedness.

That is what people need do, consider whether it makes sense to recognize that read one way, Genesis is actually confirmed by Science, while reading it differently, one must argue with scientists and question everything the science tells.
What I predict is that in the next generation, Bible people will use their own words of science to confound disbelievers as the congregation grows and grows with those who will understand Genesis in the light of Theistic Evolution.

 

But that is no different than what we do in science.

When the way we HAD looked things wears thin, in regard to our earlier ideas of what the Bible or Science has assumed to be correct, we change us, but not the Bible nor the Scientific Method.

 

Thanks, Nostradamus!

 

Science regularly reevaluates its findings and adjusts them to the newfound information.
Apologetics finds reasons to maintain the original findings at all costs. It exists to support an existing narrative.

Bing Dictionary
a·pol·o·get·ics [ ə pòllə jéttiks ] 1.branch of Christian theology: a branch of theology that is concerned with proving the truth of Christianity

Apologetics fights with irrational fervor to defend the existing beliefs regarding Christianity.
Science is in a constant state of revision as new information forces the intellectually honest to reevaluate previously held understandings.

 

Hmmm,...

You forget that Copernicus was a Roman Catholic Priest who was actually correcting the scientist of his own day, not religion.

It was the establishment of Science that opposed the things Copernicus said.
The Ptolemy View of the Universe had been accepted as correct for centuries, and it was that science which had convinced the Bible people agree that the Earth was the center of the Universe and the focus of God's attention.


Nevertheless, the church people are slow to accept new ideas that show their interpretations had been wrong, too, but that never has removed or altered one word in the same book they read and people after read.
It merely changed the way people understood what they had read.
Remember that history does not tell us the science people rose up and agreed with Galileo, defending him before the church authorities.

 

They also had no concept of modern scientific theory or practice.
Total fail.

 

You need review history without the propaganda you have acquired in a pre-educational psychologically set .

Your point of view to bias on the side of what you erroneously believe was some form real science.
The science you believe religious people opposed was NOT this Empirical Science of today.

Plato's teachings were what fueled secular thinking of the Middle Ages, and it was actually religious people who developed a Scientific Method of Inquiry which change those very people who you refer to as the Scientists.
Devout Christians were actually the Truth seeks then.

 

Can you figure out why your post is self-contradictory?

 

Its not.

 

That would be a "no".

 

It says there was evening and there was morning marking the x day.

The Jewish day was from sunset to sunset, so how can anyone assume this is a 24 hour period?

 

Genesis 2:4

Day is used to describe all of the creation days......

 

If you side with science, I believe that you would see merit in Genesis not being literal. However as that is the majority opinion, I wouldn't argue that position on here, because I haven't been tasked to do so. Have I not said that yom can mean anywhere from a short to long time period? If day in Genesis creation account means "years", would that not be taken as "not literal"?