Look at the usage of "yom" in Genesis 2:4 -
This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens...
Is this usage of "yom" referring to a 24-hour day, or a much longer period of time? Why should each use of "yom" in Genesis 1 be 24 hours, when in Genesis 2, it obviously isn't?
Peace.
the context of the word yom is obviously different in Genesis 1 and 2 so thats why they dont mean the same.
St. Basil continues:
Evening, then, is a common boundary line of day and night; and similarly, morning is the part of night bordering on day. In order, therefore, to give the prerogative of prior generation to the day, Moses mentioned first the limit of the day and then that of the night, as night followed the day. The condition in the world before the creation of light was not night, but darkness; that which was opposed to the day was named night; wherefore it received its name later than the day did.... Why did he say "one" and not "first"? It is more consistent for him who intends to introduce a second and a third and a fourth day, to call the one which begins the series "first." But he said "one" because he was defining the measure of day and night.
If i were to write "It was John's turn to hit so he picked up a bat. After the game he went to a haunted house and a bat came flying at his head" you cant try to make the first "bat" mean the animal bc the second "bat" does. Different contexts show differnet meanings.
Psalm 90:4
For a thousand ayears in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.
2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
"Thousand," in this case, is symbolic for an indefinite period of time, much like the "thousand year reign" of Revelation. One can assume that God's creative work was limited to a 144 hours, less than 10,000 years ago, but that is not required by Scripture and Tradition.
The Bible even states that the earth is old:
Genesis 49:26
The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren.
Deuteronomy 33:15
And for the chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting hills
Habakkuk 3:6
He stood, and measured the earth: he beheld, and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow: his ways [are] everlasting.
"Moses, the author of Genesis 1, also wrote Psalms 90.7 In this Psalm, Moses compares 1000 years to a single day or a watch in the night.8 In the next verse, he compares human lives to grass. He says that the grass sprouts in the morning and withers in the evening. Realistically, grasses live at least several days or weeks before dying. Evening and morning in this example do not refer to a 24-hour period of time:
You have swept them away like a flood, they fall asleep; In the morning [boqer] they are like grass which sprouts anew. In the morning [boqer] it flourishes and sprouts anew; Toward evening [ereb] it fades and withers away. (Psalms 90:5-6)
Later, in the same Psalm, Moses includes a plea that God satisfy us with His love in the morning (boqer) that we may sing all our days (a lifetime of days, again, is usually longer than 24 hours):
O satisfy us in the morning [boqer] with Your lovingkindness, That we may sing for joy and be glad all our days [yom]. (Psalms 90:14)
Another verse, from Daniel, refers to a period of prophecy:
He said to me, "For 2,300 evenings [ereb] and mornings [boqer]; then the holy place will be properly restored." (Daniel 8:14)
Some interpret the period of 2,300 evenings and mornings as 2,300 days, while other calculate it as 1,150 days (2,300 divided by 2).9 Still others interpret the 2,300 evenings and mornings as 2,300 years.10 It is not absolutely clear that the reference is to 24-hour days.
Outside Genesis 1, yom occurs only 4 times in combination with both Hebrew words for "evening" and "morning." The actual word order of "evening" followed by "morning" in combination with yom (as seen in Genesis 1) occurs only once outside Genesis 1. It is ironic that this one verse comes from Daniel 8:26, which defines yom as a period of time at least 3000 years long:
"The vision of the evenings [ereb] and mornings [boqer] Which has been told is true; But keep the vision secret, For it pertains to many days [yom] in the future." (Daniel 8:26)
Obviously, the claim that "All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day-why would Genesis 1 be the exception" is false, just from this verse - the only verse that perfectly matches the usage found in Genesis 1.
"Evening" has the additional meaning of "ending" and "morning" has the meaning of "dawning" or "beginning".11 The order of "evening morning" is not insignificant. Each day described in Genesis 1 is completed by "evening" (ending) juxtaposed with "morning" (beginning). So, the usage fits the interpretation of the ending of one day and the beginning of the next..."
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/sixdays.html
Pensees wrote:"Evening" has the additional meaning of "ending" and "morning" has the meaning of "dawning" or "beginning".
I will only speak on this point, even though there are many I could argue from what you posted, but I do not have the time. The above makes no sense whatsoever, because when did the day begin according to Genesis, to the Hebrews, and to Orthodox Christians? At evening after the sun set. If we listened to the above argument from that protestant site, it would mean that the day began with the end and ended with the beginning.
As for the fathers, yes there are a few who were wrong on certain things, but the consensus of the Church is what we follow, and that is why today on the Church Calendar is 15 October 7515, and after Vespers when the sun has gone down it will be 16 October 7515.
Please go read "Genesis, Creation, and Early Man" by Father Seraphim Rose and he will explain all these things you ask that I do not have time to reply to.
Pensees wrote:Myrrh wrote:They didn't fall, they rose - they became "God like us" knowing good and evil
The serpent, who is Satan, promised that the forbidden fruit would make Adam and Eve godlike. This was one of his many deceptions.
Peace.
What's the problem here? He was right. If we're being really pedantic here, God lied...
Myrrh
Deacon Nikolai wrote:The above makes no sense whatsoever, because when did the day begin according to Genesis, to the Hebrews, and to Orthodox Christians?
The words "evening" and "morning," when used in other parts of Scripture, mean "beginning" and "ending." Why should it be different in Genesis 1? According to the Orthodox Christian theologians and saints which I've provided, the days of Genesis were not 24-hours each:
Justin Martyr
"For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years [Gen. 5:5]. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression ‘The day of the Lord is a thousand years’ [Ps. 90:4] is connected with this subject" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 81 [A.D. 155]).
Irenaeus
"And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since ‘a day of the Lord is a thousand years,’ he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin" (Against Heresies 5:23:2 [A.D. 189]).
Clement of Alexandria
"And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression ‘in the day that God made them,’ that is, in and by which God made ‘all things,’ and ‘without which not even one thing was made,’ points out the activity exerted by the Son" (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]).
Origen
"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).
"The text said that ‘there was evening and there was morning’; it did not say ‘the first day,’ but said ‘one day.’ It is because there was not yet time before the world existed. But time begins to exist with the following days" (Homilies on Genesis [A.D. 234]).
Cyprian
"The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years" (Treatises 11:11 [A.D. 250]).
Augustine
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).
"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation" (ibid., 2:9).
Selectively using evidence to create a false consensus is not good form.
When one looks at the church fathers as a whole, one could see that such a consensus never existed. What Church Council can you cite which proclaimed the earth to be less than 10,000 years old?
Deacon Nikolai wrote:As for the fathers, yes there are a few who were wrong on certain things, but the consensus of the Church is what we follow, and that is why today on the Church Calendar is 15 October 7515, and after Vespers when the sun has gone down it will be 16 October 7515.
My point is that there never was a consensus, given that the fathers disagreed as to the length of the creation days. If young earthism were important to the Orthodox faith, there would have been a real consensus among the fathers.
Deacon Nikolai wrote:Please go read "Genesis, Creation, and Early Man" by Father Seraphim Rose and he will explain all these things you ask that I do not have time to reply to.
I've read Genesis, Creation and Early Man several times. Father Seraphim concedes in the book that each "day" in Genesis need not refer to a literal 24-hour day. If he had been less reliant upon creation science, perhaps he would have been more open to an old earth.
What say you of the Scripture verses I've provided, showing the earth to be ancient?
Orthodoxy does not require young earth belief, and there is nothing within the Scriptures that explicitly points to a young earth. An old earth would not prove evolution, nor would it negate the historicity of the Bible. If you actually believe that humans and dinosaurs lived amongst each other, you might be taking the Flintstones too seriously.
The antiquity of the earth was discovered before Darwin was even born, it's a seperate issue from evolution, and only young earthers conflate the two from misunderstanding history. The age of the earth is not a mere assumption from uniformitionism. Every possible dating method points to an old earth and old universe. Nuclear half-life, for example, isn't something one can easily fake.
Peace.
Myrrh wrote:If we're being really pedantic here, God lied...
No, God did not lie.
Justin Martyr
"For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years [Gen. 5:5]. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression ‘The day of the Lord is a thousand years’ [Ps. 90:4] is connected with this subject" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 81 [A.D. 155]).
Peace.
