Paula

Michael,

I am not saying that individual days are equal lengths, only that they are unspecified lengths of time but distinct periods.

I didn’t say they were equal in length, but that the days would be equal to ages, that is, they would stand for ages.

The length of time between Adam and Eve’s creation was in the sixth day (period) but when Eve was created the sixth day (period) ended. Apparently nearly all of Adams 930 years were in the seventh day (period).

How do you know Adam was created near the end of the sixth day, just because he was created 2nd last? Or that the 6th day ended right after Eve’s creation? According to the day-age view, measuring time is pretty much impossible and extremely arbitrary.

We see in Genesis that God spoke and something colossal happened. There is no hint of how long it took. Each creation day could have been started with a creative act at the very beginning, with the majority of the day having no activity. So even on the 6th day, we have no idea how long it was or how much of it was left after humans were made. I have to conclude that your statement here is a baseless assertion.

Again, you have lost me. The Hebrew yom is the word translated day. Hebrew has a thousand times fewer words than English. Many words in Hebrew carry many meanings that can only determined by context. Yom can be the period between sun-up and sun-down. It can be a 24-hour period. It can be an endless era.

My point was that there is no objective way to measure time if day-age is true. But as I already stated, yom with an ordinal always means a literal solar day, especially accompanied by “evening and morning”. I don’t see where you have addressed this yet.

My dad is retired Ph.D….I have a long time friend … I have a MA… I have spent the last 25 years…I have been around scientists all my life and I have read …

This is an appeal to credentials, and as I’m sure you know, is only logically valid if all people with similar credentials agree on a given subject. That is not the case at all, so this is an irrelevant point.

I did peruse the speakers lists at AIG and found maybe four with Ph.Ds in relevant fields. Of those, it was unclear whether they believed in a young earth or were simply opposing evolution. The young earth folks at AIG are in an exceedingly small minority of even Evangelical Christians. I have been around Evangelical Ph.D scientists all my life and don’t recall ever meeting one although clearly some exist.

Here we have an attempt to “poison the well”, along with an appeal to majority view. Both logically irrelevant.

First, how did evolution get into the picture? I don’t recall saying anything about evolution.

Evolution is the only reason day-age was concocted. It is the reason, as has been documented, that so many people have rejected Christianity because they see the futility of trying to make Genesis fit with an old earth. Without it, there would be no justification for day-age.

The evidence for an ancient earth has been consistent and overwhelming and it has been so more at least 300-400 years…

Not true at all. But what good would it do for me to list the proof? If PhDs at AIG, ICR, and a host of other groups don’t mean as much as your MA etc., then what credentials are required?

I see no age tags on any rocks, or transitional forms etc. Instead, I see evidence for the Flood. I see polonium halos in granite that prove near-instantaneous creation instead of millions of years of cooling. Old earth theory is full of gaping holes. If that were not true, then there wouldn’t be discussions about whether to allow unfavorable scientific facts to be allowed in science classrooms. (That happend in my state. They debated whether to only present those facts that seem to support long ages. This is not science!) I also see non-old earth scientists routinely censored from publication and funding. I could go on.

So the reason for the my question back was that if all of these witnesses from the beginning of the church to the present have seen no issue with it why are those militantly insisting on a 24-hr day doing so?

Who is militant, if not the OECs? They are every bit as narrow, every bit as biased, every bit as dogmatic about their view. For them to insist that yom cannot mean 24 hours in spite of “evening and morning, the nth day” is most militant and narrow. YECs simply take scripture as the context dictates.

(For an excellent definition of the literal/historical hermeneutic, I recommend http://cyber.wmis.net/~ixthys/gpdd-mill-3.htm . It is part of a debate on Preterism but does a very thorough yet concise job.)

But again, you appeal to credentials and majority. I don’t determine truth by those criteria, but by investigation and prayer. YECs and OECs both have the same facts, the same science, the same credentials. The difference is over interpretation, which is wholly philosophical.