Sight of the Lord Creation

.

Sight of the Lord Creation   

Option: Click Here to go to the Main Menu

 

The Evidence of the Age of the Earth Effects the Defense of Our Faith

 

In this message those who believe the word of God and believe that it can be found in the bible are called believers, and those who doubt or do not believe the word of God are called nonbelievers. If the nonbeliever hears a believer explain why one should believe the word of God, then the nonbeliever becomes a listening nonbeliever. This message speaks to believers, but it is also intended to enable understanding by nonbelievers who become listening nonbelievers if they read this message.

 

If a listening nonbeliever engages in a conversation by giving a defense for his or her nonbelief, then one of the most common sorts of response that the nonbeliever may give may be summarized by the following statement. “Scientific evidence proves that the earth is a few billion years old, but the bible says that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Therefore, the bible is not the word of a god that we should believe.” Note that that is a three part statement.

Part 1: Scientific evidence proves that the earth is a few billion years old,

Part 2: but the bible says that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

Part 3: Therefore, the bible is not the word of a god that we should believe.

 

Admittedly, if part 1 and part 2 were both true, then part 3 would be a logical conclusion. So, we must choose to dispute part 1 or part 2 or both or just give up on the defense of our faith, but we should not give up (1 Peter 3:15, Mat 10:33). This message will examine the choice of which one of those two parts is untrue and worthy of dispute.

 

When a nonbeliever says that scientific evidence proves that the earth is a few billion years old, it may be the first choice for dispute by the believer because it is the latest item on the previously identified three part statement, and it has appeared at the same time as many other new lies that are leading men and women away from the word of God. Furthermore, the age of the earth is one of the key parts of evidence which is used to support the theory of evolution which is a powerful cause of the nonbeliever’s ignorance about the fact that the existence of life on earth is evidence of God’s work. Furthermore, according to the understanding of our ancestors, it is contrary to the word of God which should be enough to disprove it.

 

However, if the believer disputes the scientific evidence of the age of the earth, then he or she is entering a subject about which men claim to have physical evidence to prove their point. So, if the believer cannot explain why the physical evidence is incorrect, then that lack of explanation is a lack of defense, and if the believer does present an explanation for why the physical evidence is incorrect, then the nonbeliever has reason to doubt the word of the believer who knows very little about the subject of the evidence, especially in comparison to the many other men who have devoted their careers to efforts related to that subject.

 

It is possible for a large group of men to devote their careers to supporting lies or mistakes. This happens quite often among leaders in politics and religion. However, lies and mistakes in politics and religion are based on opinions and things that very few men have ever seen or heard, and their statements cannot be proven over and over. On the other hand, scientific evidence is something that can be proven over and over. That makes it much more difficult to support lies, although it is still possible if it is supported by politics.

 

For example, evolution is a subject about which its experts claim to have their conclusion proven by scientific evidence which is not true. Their ultimate conclusion is that the existence of life on earth is due to processes that do not require the intervention of God. However, proof of that conclusion would require proof of the following three essential pieces of scientific evidence which are not all present.

 

The first essential piece of evidence of evolution is that the earth is old. If it were not old, then there would not be enough time for it to take effect. The second essential piece of evidence of evolution is that life forms slowly change from generation to generation due to the more likely death of creatures that have genes that are less effective for supporting life. The third essential piece of evidence of evolution is that life can evolve from dead matter.

 

The ultimate conclusion depends on all three of those essential pieces of scientific evidence, but the third piece of scientific evidence is missing. The experts in the field of evolution are able to discuss the third piece of evidence, but their discussions about it are not a presentation of scientific proof, and for that reason, they usually avoid the subject. They provide an impression that their evidence is complete by focusing our attention on the first two pieces of evidence, and by providing that impression, they are providing a deception.

 

In spite of the fact that it is impossible, they require that life must have evolved from dead matter because they have no other explanation for how it could have happened because they have assumed that there is no God, and they cast out all who say that there is a God. The requirement that life must have evolved from dead matter supports the ultimate conclusion (that the existence of life on earth is due to processes that do not require the intervention of God) which supports the initial assumption (that there is no God), but that is not scientific proof. It is a self-supporting assumption that requires us to accept that the impossible must be true (that life evolved from dead matter), and it is a distraction from the fact that the existence of life on earth is evidence of God’s work.

 

Furthermore, the second piece of evidence is scientifically weak because the evidence of gradual change does not include evidence of the large steps of progress that are manifested by the large differences between the various sorts of life that are now living on the earth, and there are many experts who know about the weakness of the second piece of evidence and the lack of the third piece of evidence, and it is easy to find their work on the internet, but their message is not heard by the majority of listeners because their message is politically suppressed. This link leads to more information about The Trouble with Evolution.

 

Furthermore, if a believer devotes attention to a dispute about the first piece of evidence (the age of the earth), then he or she may be accidentally supporting the evil deception by distracting the listening nonbeliever away from the missing third piece of evidence of evolution (the missing evidence that life evolved from dead matter) which is the fatal evidence against the ultimate conclusion of evolution. The leaders of the nonbelievers know about this weakness of the believers, and for that reason, they prefer to dispute with believers about the age of the earth, and they portray all believers as young earth believers because doing so helps to support their distraction away from their missing third piece of evidence.

 

However, the scientific evidence of the age of the earth is not as weak as the evidence of evolution. It is a body of knowledge that is founded on careful measurements of the properties of materials that fill the earth and the heavens, and the measurements are made using tools that are based on the same scientific principles that support the design and production of numerous tools and products that we depend upon in this modern age. It is difficult to conceal a lie based on physical evidence, especially when the evidence is abundant.

 

For example, if a man wishes to know how long it will take to drive to another city, then he need only know what is the distance to that city and what is the speed at which he may travel and then calculate the travel time equals the distance to that city divided by the speed of travel. Likewise, if a scientist wishes to know how long ago did a certain star generate light, then he need only know what is the distance to the star and what is the speed of light and then calculate the travel time equals the distance to that star divided by the speed of light. The results of such measurements and calculations indicate that the stars began radiating light billions of years ago.

 

It is relatively easy to measure the speed of light on earth and in outer space near the earth, and the knowledge of that information is essential for the design and production of high speed electronic communications equipment all over the world. Regarding the distance to the stars, the evidence is too complex for exploration in this message, and yet there is no significant amount of dispute about the distance of the stars among scientists including those who proclaim their belief in the word of God. It is not like the subject of evolution where there are two different types of interpretation of scientific evidence, and one of them is politically suppressed.

 

Admittedly, the stars are out of reach, and one could argue that the earth is young, even if the stars are old. So, the evidence of the age of the earth ultimately depends on the evidence of things that are on the earth. That evidence is present in something with which we have abundant contact, and we cannot deny its presence. Fossil fuel is the most widely used raw material that is used to make fuel for automobiles and other sorts of transportation and heating and electrical power generation throughout the world. The raw material is taken from deep within the earth in the form of oil, gas and coal. Next, it is transported to refineries where it is converted into useful fuel.

 

Fossil fuel is not dinosaur bones. It appears to be the decomposed residue of plants and trees which God created on the third day - the oldest evidence of anything that has ever lived on the earth, hundreds of millions of years ago. It is evidence of the age of the earth, but it is not evidence of life appearing on earth without the intervention of God. More information about this subject is provided in this message in the discussion about the belief that the earth appears to be older than it really is.

 

When geologists look for evidence of where to find fossil fuel and precious metals, the evidence of the age of the content of the earth in which they dig is a valuable piece of evidence that enables judgment of the prospects for finding the material for which they search. They are financed by corporations that pursue honest profit. Lying about the age of the earth would damage the value of the results of their work when they direct the performance of tests and analyze the test results. Their reports of the test results are required to support the pursuit of honest profit.

 

That sort of profit does not depend on religion or antireligion or politics. It depends on the sale of goods that are taken from the earth in places that were selected with the help of knowledge about the age of the earth. Lying about the evidence would interfere with the pursuit of profit, and for that reason, we have reason to believe that the knowledge is true. It is not like the knowledge about evolution for which the only profit that the workers receive comes from the sale of the information to those who wish to see evidence that supports the conclusion that they have already chosen which supports their battle against the word of God.

 

Due to the strength of the evidence of the age of the earth and universe, it is worthy of reexamining the issue that led to the dispute of the evidence. The issue is that one of the most common sorts of defense that a nonbeliever may give for his or her nonbelief is one that may be summarized by the following three part statement, and part 3 would be a logical conclusion only if part 1 and part 2 were both true.

Part 1: Scientific evidence proves that the earth is a few billion years old,

Part 2: but the bible says that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

Part 3: Therefore, the bible is not the word of a god that we should believe.

 

The evidence of part 1 of that statement is based upon the information that comes from tools that can measure the properties of God’s creation, but it also depends on the way men interpret that information, and this message has already disputed the interpretation of that information regarding evolution, but the evidence of the age of the earth is a different subject.

 

The evidence of part 2 of that statement is based upon the word of God, and there is no doubt that the word of God is true, but that evidence also depends on the way men interpret the bible, and men are not without error regarding how they interpret the bible, for if they were without error, then they would all agree. Due to the strength of the evidence of the age of the earth and universe, it is worthy of carefully examining the way men interpret the bible when they proclaim what it means regarding the age of the earth.

 

Believers know that the word of God is without error. If a believer would accept that any part of the word of God is an error, then he or she would also have to question the more essential parts which are the foundation of faith. In that sense, the physical evidence of the age of the earth is just as much of an issue for the believer as it is for the nonbeliever, and yet the question remains. What is the truthful interpretation of the bible?

 

That question is not the same as asking whether there is an error in the word of God. It is asking whether men are in error in the way that they interpret the word of God. Furthermore, if a believer is in error regarding the interpretation of the word of God regarding the age of the earth, then will that believer be cast into the lake of fire for such a mistake (Rev 20:15)? Certainly not, and this message will not waste words to defend against any other answer to the question.

 

However, the listening nonbelievers are in danger of the lake of fire due to a mistake about this subject. Therefore, the motive for examining the issue of the age of the earth is not for the sake of the believers. It is for the sake of the listening nonbelievers. Examining the question does not endanger the salvation of a believer, but it is essential for the salvation of listening nonbelievers who have been taught and who understand the evidence of the age of the earth, and they have also been taught that the evidence supports the conclusion that the bible is not the word of God. It is also for the sake of the children and grandchildren of believers who are being taught these things.

 

The motive for examining the issue of the age of the earth is not a justification for adjusting the interpretation of the bible as required to appease the nonbelievers or the believers. It is a motive for a believer to review the details of a doctrine about which he or she may have already chosen a position and where he or she may feel comfortable to remain. The salvation of nonbelievers and the children of believers are worthy of an effort on the part of believers to do such a review.

 

Comparing the Evidence with the Word of God

 

Of course, no other evidence can outweigh the word of God. So now that the subject is defined and the importance of its effect is identified, let us examine the word of God and what do men say about the word of God.

 

This message is approaching a point where it will provide new answers to old questions, but the importance of a new answer would not be apparent unless it can be compared to the well known answers. For that reason, it is necessary to first examine the well known questions and answers that come from both sides of the discussion about the age of the earth.

 

This message comes from a single source, and the same is true for most messages about this subject because it is the only way for either side to express the message in a stable format. When presenting a message from a single source about a subject about which many men disagree, it is common practice to avoid providing a good explanation of the best well known reasons for believing a conclusion that is contrary to the one that is presented as the proper choice. However, this section of this message explains the best well known questions and answers that come from both sides of the discussion about the age of the earth because failure to do so would diminish the value of any other answer that is not well known in the next section.

 

Furthermore, the new answers are not a complete replacement for all of the other well-known answers. So, it would be incomplete if it did not include some of the well-known answers. The reader is invited to judge whether this message fulfills the promise and goal to provide a good explanation of the well known questions and answers that come from both sides of the discussion. The pursuit of that promise and goal is one of the reasons for the length of this section of the message.

 

Among those who believe that God created the earth, there are two sorts of belief about the age of the earth. Those who believe that the earth is young are commonly known as young earth believers, and their belief is called young earth creationism, but those who believe that the earth is old are commonly called old earth believers. To describe the reasons that are commonly presented by one sort of believer or the other, this message identifies them with those names. More information about these identities will be provided later.

 

Chapter 1 of the book of Genesis describes what happened when God created the earth. It says that He created it in six days, and on the seventh day He rested. For each one of the first six days, it says “there was evening, and there was morning, the first day” and again except replacing the word “first” with “second” and “third” and so on.

 

The simplest interpretation of those words is that each of the six days were only 24 hours long. After that, the bible adds a few more thousand years to the age of the earth by providing the genealogy of a few men who lived on the earth. Based upon that evidence, we may say that the earth is only a few thousand years old, which is very young in comparison to the other belief. Those who believe that each of the six days in which God created the earth were only 24 hours long are the young earth believers.

 

Before the discovery of the physical evidence of the age of the earth and universe, there was no reason to question the simplest interpretation of the word of God regarding the amount of time that He spent creating all things. For that reason, before the discovery of the physical evidence, all of the believers were young earth believers, and they didn’t even have that name because they had no question about the age of the earth.

 

However, in this age, the question about the age of the earth is well known, and the believers must have an answer to the question. The answer to the question depends on what sort of evidence is included in the process that leads to the answer of choice.

 

In Romans 1:20-21, the word of God tells us “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”

 

So, the nonbelievers are accountable for having ignored the evidence that God has provided to them to make known His power and divine nature which have been clearly seen since the creation of the world. So, because the nonbelievers are accountable for having ignored the evidence, the believers also should not ignore that evidence, especially when presenting a reason for faith to a nonbeliever who is confused by Satan’s deception about that evidence.

 

Now if we do not ignore the physical evidence and we also do not ignore the word of God, then we must search for a way to understand the word of God in a way that does not contradict the physical evidence which He has also provided. Fortunately, it is not difficult to find a way to understand the word of God in a way that does not contradict the physical evidence. It is called day age creationism, and it is usually the first defense that is offered by an old earth believer. It explains why in the record of creation, the word day may be understood to mean age.

 

The book of Genesis was first written in Hebrew at a time when there were very few words in that language. The English language has about 250,000 words, but Hebrew had only about 25,000 words which is why those fewer words had many more possible meanings. The Hebrew word “yom” was used to identify a period of 24 hours beginning at sunset or a day not including the night or an age or a period of time while certain events happened or a time when a certain event happened or other possible meanings.

 

The word “yom” was originally translated to other languages at a time when evidence about the age of the earth was not known, and at that time, it was translated to the sort of word which specifies a period of 24 hours, and at this time, the translation is stuck while men debate about translation, but it should have been translated to age.

 

However, in response to an explanation about day age creationism, a young earth believer may object by pointing out that the creation record states that for each day of creation, there was also an evening and morning, but the translation of a “yom” as an age does not account for the words evening and morning.

 

That is a powerful defense for believing that the earth is young, and the old earth believers usually ignore this issue. For that reason, the evenings and mornings of creation would be a good enough reason to believe that the earth is young, if only there was no physical evidence or if only it were not so abundant.

 

However, the previous section of this message explained how and why much of the evidence of the age of the earth was produced by work that was not motivated by religious or antireligious or political purposes. It was motivated by the pursuit of knowledge to support the pursuit of honest profit. Those who paid for the pursuit of that knowledge required truth to support the production of material products for sale to the public. How is it possible for the earth to be a few thousand years old, regardless of the evidence of its age which has been produced by that sort of work?

 

One possible answer to the question is to say that no other evidence can outweigh the word of God. The word of God is without error. Therefore, any evidence to the contrary is in error. Actually, that is a good answer in favor of believing that the earth is young when a believer searches inward for peace of mind regarding this troublesome topic, and it is a good answer in favor of believing that the earth is young when the discussion is between two believers or when a sermon message is given by a preacher to a congregation of believers.

 

However, for the nonbelievers who ask why does the word of God contradict the physical evidence of the age of the earth, that answer is an effective failure because its effect is that it fails to close the issue of the age of the earth and enable proceeding with discussion about the more important issues about our reason for faith and why we need salvation and how God offers it to us, or it fails to enable discussion about the biggest error in the theory of evolution which is its lack of evidence that life can evolve from dead matter.

 

On the other hand, in response to the same question, an old earth believer may say to the nonbeliever “God created the earth in 6 days, but those days were not 24 hours long, and the bible does not say that they were 24 hours long, and so it does not contradict the evidence that the earth is very old. If you would like, I can explain why that is true, but I believe that it would be better for you if we discuss the more important matters which are your need for salvation and God’s offer to provide it.”

 

In response to the question “Why does the word of God contradict the physical evidence?”, an old earth believer may say that each day was an age, and the evenings and mornings are figures of speech. The word of God has many figures of speech, and the physical evidence is enough to prove that the evenings and mornings are a figure of speech for the beginning and ending of each of the days that mean ages.

 

In response to that answer, a young earth believer may object by presenting a rhetorical question such as the following. If the evenings and mornings are figures of speech, then what do the figures of speech mean, and where is the evidence that such meaning is true? Indeed, we should not declare that a scripture is a figure of speech for no reason other than to enable the interpretation of our choice, and a good well-known answer to that question is not available, although it is worthy of investigation.

 

To continue the objection, a young earth believer may point out that men should not change the meaning of the word of God to make it say whatever they please, and yet that is what the old earth believers have done. Young earth believers and old earth believers have a good reason to reject a change of belief about the meaning of the word of God because changes of belief about the meaning of His word are one of the primary means of developing new sorts of belief which may impair or prevent the salvation of those who believe.

 

In response to the objection, an old earth believer may point out that forbidding a change to the belief about the meaning of the word of God is based on the assumption that its meaning was understood properly in the first place, and that is what the young earth believers have assumed, and they have no proof that the assumption is true. Many years ago, men believed the literal meaning of the record of creation because they had no reason to believe otherwise, but that does not prove that they were right, and it does not prove that we must not change from what men believed in the past after we learn more.

 

In response to the question “Why does the word of God contradict the physical evidence?”, a young earth believer may answer by saying that God created the earth with an appearance of age that is greater than its true age. The physical evidence appears to show that the earth is old due to the appearance of age that God has created within His work. That sort of answer is provided by an appearance of age believer who is one of the sorts of young earth believers.

 

That is a smart and powerful defense of the word of God because it enables the believer to avoid disputing about scientific evidence of the age of the earth and stars while continuing to support the belief that the word of God is without error. It also does not ignore the evenings and mornings.

 

However, one may object because it requires that God has made false evidence of things that never happened. One could say that creating false evidence is a lie, but God does not lie, and for that reason, it must not be true that God created false evidence, and it must not be true that God made the earth with an appearance of age.

 

However, man has no power to judge God who can do all things. No matter how God created the earth, there must have been some sort of miracle involved, and every miracle is false evidence because it shows that what is impossible is possible. So, the objection to false evidence is requiring God to do all things without any miracles which is ridiculous.

 

However, God created the evidence which appears to show that the earth is very old, and yet His word tells us that it took only a few days. So, there must be some reason why He made evidence that appears to contradict His own word and leave us confused by the contradiction which is helping Satan deceive the nonbelievers.

 

Why did God create evidence that appears to show that the earth and stars are much older than they really are? The answer to this question must be a good one, or else it is unacceptable due to the issue of helping Satan deceive the nonbelievers. In response to that question, an appearance of age believer would say that it was necessary to support life on earth.

 

If an appearance of age believer has an opportunity or need to explain more about the subject, then the believer may say that when God created Adam and Eve, He must have made them in a mature state, because there was no woman's womb in which they could have been conceived, and if God had not created them in a mature state, then they would not have been able to survive while they were immature.

 

To continue the explanation of an appearance of age, a believer may say that when God created the earth, he must have created it in a mature state, because if God had not created the earth in a mature state, then the plants and animals and Adam and Eve would not have been able to survive on a planet covered with molten rock and an atmosphere without oxygen. So, God created the earth in a mature state because it was necessary to do so when creating the earth and life on earth in only six days.

 

To continue the explanation of an appearance of age, a believer may say that the scientific evidence of age that is revealed by man-made tools exists because God created the earth and life on earth in six days in a mature state that would have required millions of years if He had not created it in a mature state. So, the scientific evidence of age is evidence of creation in a mature state.

 

The fact that God created evidence of age because it was necessary to support life on earth is good enough for the earth if the evidence is not studied too deeply. However, the stars are a different sort of evidence of age because they are not necessary to support life on earth. The question is “Why did God create evidence that appears to show that the earth and stars are much older than they really are?” The question remains regarding the stars.

 

In response to the question “Why did God make the stars with an appearance of being millions of years old?”, an appearance of age believer might not have a carefully planned answer, or an appearance of age believer may say that it was necessary for God to make signs for seasons which God did on the fourth day as it says in the record of creation.

 

That is a good answer because it is based on information in the word of God, except that it does not explain why God made the other galaxies with an appearance of being billions of years old.

 

God made the stars by making our galaxy with billions of stars which present light that has (or appears to have) traveled to us for not more than 100,000 years, and that was enough for the purpose of being signs for seasons, but God also made other galaxies which present light that has (or appears to have) traveled to us for billions of years, and most of them are not visible to the human eye. So, they are useless for telling signs for seasons, and yet they are the most powerful evidence of the age of His work.

 

“Why did God make the other galaxies with an appearance of being billions of years old?”. Not every rhetorical question requires an answer, but this one is presented for the sake of showing one of the weaknesses of the answer regarding the stars. Another trouble with the belief in appearance of age is much more important because it is back at home on earth.

 

Why did God give fossil fuel an appearance of age? In response to this question, if an appearance of age believer says that it was necessary to support life on earth, then the believer might not know how long ago men began using fossil fuel, or the believer may have not previously considered the significance and possible answers to the question.

 

In this modern age, men have become dependent on fossil fuel to provide power for equipment which supports an economy which supports the lives of men, but 200 years ago, fossil fuel was used at a rate that was far less than today, and very few if any depended on it for life. After God created life on earth, it worked fine without fossil fuel for thousands or millions of years, and it could go back to that way if men redesign their equipment to run on other sources of power. Therefore, it would be incorrect to say that life on earth depends on fossil fuel.

 

Fossil fuel is not necessary to support life on earth, and God did not need to create it to support life on earth in six 24-hour days, but it appears to be hundreds of millions of years old. Some say that fossil fuel is evidence of evolution, but that is not true. It is not dinosaur bones. It is so decomposed that it is not possible to tell if evolution happened while God made fossil fuel.

 

We cannot deny the existence of fossil fuel because we have abundant contact with it, and we often purchase it or pay others to purchase it. We purchase it at a gas station whenever we need more fuel to empower our automobiles, or we pay others to purchase it when we pay for transportation by means of automobiles or buses or aircraft that are empowered by fossil fuel.

 

We purchase it or pay others to purchase it to heat our homes and water heaters and stoves. We purchase it indirectly when we pay for electricity which is produced by generators which are driven by motors which are empowered by fossil fuel. The recent efforts to begin generating electricity by other means do not eliminate the significance of what has happened in the most recent century of generating electricity.

 

Appearance of age believers defend their faith regarding the scientific evidence of the age of the earth by saying that the scientific evidence appears to show that the earth is old due to the appearance of age that God has created within His work, and He did it because it was necessary to support life on earth. That defense enables them to avoid disputing about the appearance of the age of the earth. That is a smart and powerful defense, except that fossil fuel breaks down the answer regarding why it was necessary for God to give it an appearance of age.

 

To overcome that exception regarding fossil fuel, one could claim that fossil fuel was created during Noah’s flood. That would explain the existence of fossil fuel without requiring an explanation for why God gave it an appearance of age. However, that would require moving the age of fossil fuel from a few hundred million years old (source = search the internet for “carboniferous period how long ago”) down to a few thousand years old (Noah’s flood).

 

That would be an enormous dispute about the scientific evidence of the age of the earth. That would ruin the smart and powerful defense of belief in the appearance of age which avoids disputing about the age of the earth by saying that God gave it an appearance of age. That would require returning to a position that is disputing the evidence of the age of the earth by demanding that it would have shown that the earth is (or appears to be) young if only the evidence had been scientifically and technically evaluated properly.

 

That would not be disputing all of the evidence of the age of the earth, but it would be disputing the oldest evidence of all of the living things that have ever lived on the earth. Fossil fuel appears to be the decomposed residue of plants and trees which God created on the third day. It appears to be older than the dinosaur bones (source = search the internet for “Triassic period how long ago” and compare it with “carboniferous period how long ago”). So, disputing the age of fossil fuel would be hardly any better than disputing all of the evidence of the age of the earth in general.

 

The latest popular scientific theory about the origin of oxygen in the earth’s atmosphere is that it began without any oxygen, and then the plants and trees and sea dwelling sorts of plants converted carbon dioxide and water into oxygen and plant material (mostly complex hydrocarbon material) which became fossil fuel (mostly simple hydrocarbon material) beneath the surface of the earth and left oxygen remaining in the atmosphere, and then the living creatures that require large amounts of oxygen appeared. The bible also specifies the same order of events by telling us that God created the plants and trees on the third day (Gen 1:11-12), and then He created sea creatures and birds on the fifth day (Gen 1:20-21) and land dwelling creatures on the sixth day (Gen 1:24-25). The ancient authors could not have known that plants and trees appeared before animals unless they were guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

Before departing from the subject of the appearance of age, this message will review the trouble with belief in appearance of age. It requires accepting that God made false evidence about His creation in a way that confuses the believers and makes it easy for Satan to deceive the nonbelievers. The explanation for why He did it is weak if we look at the evidence of age in detail.

 

This message explored some detail regarding one of the issues that can expose why the appearance of age is not necessary to support life on earth or fulfill any other well-known scripturally based need that is related to the subject. The issue is fossil fuel. It was chosen because it is a well-known subject, and its existence cannot be denied because we often purchase it or pay others to purchase it.

 

This message is approaching a point where it will provide new answers to old questions. The new answers will share some features with a belief in appearance of age. It will avoid disputing about the appearance of the age of the earth, and it will not ignore evenings and mornings. It will explain the appearance of age based on scriptural evidence rather than depending on information that is lacking scriptural or physical evidence. It will not require believing that God created evidence of things that did not happen.

 

An old earth believer may point out that 2 Peter 3:8 tells us "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" (NIV). And that proves that the definition for the word day should not be applied so strictly regarding the Lord’s reckoning of time in His word.

 

However, a young earth believer may object by saying that 2 Peter 3:8 is in a context that is not related to the subject of creation, which makes it irrelevant for the subject of creation.

 

A young earth believer may also point out that even if a day with the Lord is like a thousand years, then the six days are like six thousand years, which are far too few to reach the billions of years that are required for the old earth believer to show how the six days of God’s creation could be equal to the physical evidence of the age of the earth.

 

Six Days in the Sight of the Lord

 

So far, this message has explained why day age believers and young earth believers are in a dead lock, and the listening nonbelievers are a hung jury. Now let us consider new answers to old questions which can upset the dead lock and save some of the jurors. The plan is to provide good answers to the tough questions while staying on the topic of those questions rather than avoiding the questions by outweighing them with non sequiturs.

 

The earth and the universe appear to be very old. How is it possible for God to create the universe and the earth with an appearance of age that is far greater than what He said and yet, let there be no deception at all? 2 Peter 3:8 tells us "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" (NIV), and the context of those words is not related to the creation, but that is not the end of it.

 

When Peter wrote those words, he said “but do not forget this one thing, dear friends” because he was telling them about something that was already known before he wrote it. He was referring to Psalm 90:1-6 which provides a much better foundation for answers to the tough questions that are commonly presented by the believers of young earth creation. Psalm 90 is a record of the prayer of a man to the Lord. The book of Psalm was collected by the Israelites who say that Moses was the author of Psalm 90, and he is also the author of Genesis. Following is a quotation of the first six versus of Psalm 90.

 

(NIV Psalm 90:1) Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations. (2) Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. (3) You turn people back to dust, saying, “Return to dust, you mortals.” (4) A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. (5) Yet you sweep people away in the sleep of death— they are like the new grass of the morning: (6) In the morning it springs up new, but by evening it is dry and withered.

 

The main subject of Psalm 90 is mourning the wrath of God which He pours out upon us by destroying us and our work as the penalty for our sins according to Genesis 3:17-19, and it includes a request for wisdom to enable us to make the best of our few years. The book of Psalm is a book of hymns, and Psalm 90 is a sad one.

 

The main subject of Psalm 90 is introduced by making a comparison between how long is the amount of time that the Lord can see to how short is the time for a man. The comparison begins in verses 1 and 2 which lists three periods of time which the Lord has seen or will see and which no man has seen more than a small fraction. They are “all generations” and the creation and “from everlasting to everlasting”. The creation is identified by “the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world”.

 

The first and last items on that list are certainly long periods of time, and the creation happened a long time ago, although these verses do not say that the creation took a long time or short. Verse 3 switches to the opposite side of the comparison by describing the destruction of man according to Genesis 3:19 as evidence of the short lifetime of man.

 

Therefore, Psalm 90:1-3 makes a comparison between how long is the amount of time that the Lord can see to how short is the time for a man, and the creation is within the comparison, even if men dispute about how it fits into the comparison.

 

After comparing how long is the amount of time that the Lord can see to how short is the time for a man in verses 1-3, verse 4 makes another comparison of the same contrast by comparing a thousand years to a day or a watch in the night. Therefore, the creation is in the context of Psalm 90:4 because Psalm 90:1-3 and verse 4 are both making a comparison between how long is the amount of time that the Lord can see to how short is the time for a man, and the creation is within the comparison that is made in verses 1-3.

 

A picture containing text

Description automatically generated

 

 

After comparing how long is the amount of time that the Lord can see to how short is the time for a man in Psalm 90:1-3, verse 4 makes another comparison of the same contrast, and then verses 5-6 make another comparison of the same contrast by comparing the life span of a man to the time span from morning to evening. Therefore, the creation is in the context of Psalm 90:5-6 because Psalm 90:1-3 and verse 4 and verses 5-6 are all comparing the same thing which is how long is the amount of time that the Lord can see to how short is the time for a man, and the creation is within the comparison that is made in verses 1-3.

 

Also, verses 5-6 use evening and morning rather than a day or watch in the night. Therefore, the creation is in the context of the evening and morning that are described in Psalm 90:5-6. Also, Psalm 90:10 quantifies that life span by saying that “our days may come to seventy years, or eighty, if our strength endures.” So, from morning to evening are like seventy or eighty years. Of course, seventy years and a thousand years and a sixth of the age of the creation are three different numbers, and those numbers will be compared later on in this message.

 

Now after examining inner content and context, consider what these verses can tell us about the creation. The Lord God saw the formation of His own creation. The Genesis record of creation is His record of His own work according to His own sight, and men did not see it. So, all of the days and nights and evenings and mornings of creation were all in His sight, and that is the sort of sight that Psalm 90:4 is talking about when it says “A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.”

 

Now recall the question which led to the examination of Psalm 90:1-6. How is it possible for God to create the universe and the earth with an appearance of age that is far greater than what He said and yet, let there be no deception at all? The answer is that according to Psalm 90:1-6, a thousand years in His sight are like a day that has just gone by, and like a watch in the night. So according to the way He saw it, it took only 6 days, and He recorded it according to the way He saw it, but according to the way we see it, it took much longer, and the physical evidence shows more detail about what we can see with our eyes. So, the appearance of age is due to the difference between His perception of time and ours.

 

The difference of appearance is not a deception because He told us about the difference between His perception of time and ours. He told us about it in Psalm 90:1-6. This should be an acceptable answer to the question for those who can accept that creation is part of the subject of Psalm 90:1-6.

 

Psalm 90:2 says “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.” This makes it clear that the description of the Lord’s perception of time applied to the past as well as the future. Depending on the version, the choice of words in verse 4 to describe a day are “a day that has just gone by” or “yesterday when it is past” or something like that. It describes a day in the past, and verse 2 also mentions the creation in the past, but the words “from everlasting to everlasting” identify both past and future. Therefore, according to Psalm 90:4, a thousand years are like a day in the past or the future. Peter confirmed that fact when (in 2 Peter 3:8) he quoted from Psalm 90:4 by saying that “a day is like a thousand years” regarding our waiting for the second coming of Christ in the future.

 

 

This answer is much more acceptable than an answer which requires those who listen to accept that God has deceived us by presenting false evidence to us about the age of His creation, and it is much more acceptable than an answer that ignores the physical evidence, and it is much more credible than an answer that requires those who listen to trust the credibility of an unknown self-proclaimed scientific source which claims to have proof that the earth is young.

 

Psalm 90:1 says, “Lord, You have been our dwelling place in all generations”, which makes it clear that the writer has recorded a prayer to the Lord. Therefore, if we speak to each other about the Lord rather than pray to Him, then in Psalm 90:4, we may replace “in Your sight” with “in the sight of the Lord”, and in that case, it tells us that “A thousand years in the sight of the Lord are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.” Peter confirmed that fact when (in 2 Peter 3:8) he identified the Lord when he quoted from Psalm 90:4 by saying that “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years”.

 

If we say that the evenings and mornings don’t matter because Psalm 90:4 says that a day is like a thousand years, and its context includes creation, then that would be sweeping the evenings and mornings off the list of concerns without completely addressing the issue, and it would probably not be sufficient for one who depends on the evenings and mornings to explain why the earth is young. So let us consider the issue more carefully. How do the evenings and mornings fit into the fact that a day is like a thousand years? This message will answer that question by explaining why each evening and each morning was like a thousand years.

 

The explanation begins by acknowledging that each day of creation had an evening and a morning. If they don’t matter or if they may be ignored, then there is no well-known scriptural reason why we may not conclude that each day was an age, and in that case, there is no need to explain how evenings and mornings fit into the fact that a day is like a thousand years, but the explanation assumes that the explanation is necessary, and the assumption is expressed by the words “If they matter, then they are not ignored”. After establishing that the evenings and mornings do matter and are not ignored, the explanation proceeds to show how they fit into a day is like a thousand years.

 

Next, the figure calls upon 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4 as sources for the knowledge that a day is like a thousand years, and it points out that creation is in the context of Psalm 90:4 for reasons that were explained earlier. Next, the figure states that “a day is like a thousand years.” This is the well-known meaning of 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4. Next, it says that “a watch in the night is like a thousand years” because Psalm 90:4 lists “a watch in the night” as well as “a day that has just gone by” for the two different things that are like a thousand years.

 

A watch in the night is that part of the night while one keeps watch while others rest or sleep. The standard definition of a watch in the night is a fourth of a night, and in that case, a night is 4 watches in the night, and each one of those watches in the night are like a thousand years. So, a night is like 4000 years, but the number 4 is not a hard factor of conversion. In this context, the significance of the number 4 is that a night is more than a watch in the night, and in that case, a night is like more than a thousand years, and the figure presents those words.

 

Next, the figure states that “1000 years are enough to express the fact” because the meaning of “like more than 1000 years” is not significantly different from the meaning of “like 1000 years” or “like 4000 years” in this context, and the words “more than” would clutter the statements of fact and upset the assumption that a day and a night have an equal length of time. “The Trouble with Numbers” section of this message shows an example of a night that is more than a watch in the night which makes it like more than 1000 years but not more than 4000 years.

 

Timeline

Description automatically generated

 

Next, the figure states “Collect the facts by including an evening before each night that was like 1000 years and including a morning before each day that was like 1000 years.” This is collecting the requirement that “Each day of creation had an evening and a morning” with the other information about 1000 years. The collection of facts is presented in the figure by showing 6 evenings before each of the 6 nights and showing 6 mornings before each of the 6 days of creation.

 

If not for the statements that say “was like 1000 years”, this figure which shows the 6 days of creation with 6 evenings and 6 mornings would be a good explanation for why each day was 24 hours long, and how evenings and mornings require nights, and why one must choose that definition of a day that includes a night. However, the inclusion of the fact that each night and each day was like 1000 years ruins the requirement that each day was 24 hours long, and those facts are derived from scripture where the context includes creation.

 

Next, the figure states the conclusion which is that “each evening and each morning had a night and a day which were each like 1000 years.” That conclusion and the explanation that feeds it are the answer to the question “How do the evenings and mornings fit into the fact that a day is like a thousand years?” which introduced the subject that led through the explanation that led to the conclusion.

 

In case there is any cause for doubt that each night was like a thousand years, the figure includes the statement that “If the nights were a few hours long, then each morning had a day which was like 1000 years.” So, the evenings and mornings fit into a day is like a thousand years regardless of whether the nights were like a long time or short.

 

Regarding the objection that may claim that a thousand years are not enough to reach the billions of years that are specified by the physical evidence that the creation is billions of years old, the discussion about that subject may be found in this message in the section under the title of “The Trouble with Numbers”.

 

The preceding evidence that each evening and each morning was like a thousand years starts with the scriptural evidence that each night and each day was like a thousand years and connects that property to the evening and morning because each night and day of creation had an evening and a morning, and yet whenever two scriptural facts are connected to support a scriptural conclusion, those who disagree with the conclusion may object by saying that those two facts should not have been connected.

 

However, that objection would be futile regarding the collection of “a day is like a thousand years” with “each day had an evening and a morning” because immediately after Psalm 90:4 states that a thousand years (a long time in the sight of man) are like a day or a watch in the night (a comparatively short time in the sight of the Lord), Psalm 90:5-6 repeats the same statement in another form by stating that the life span of a man (a relatively long time in the sight of man) is like the period from morning to evening (a comparatively short time in the sight of the Lord).

 

In the case of Psalm 90:5-6, the scriptural statement connects the morning and evening directly to the great difference between time in the sight of man and time in the sight of the Lord. So, in that case, there is no need to involve nights and days with the fact that the period from morning to evening is far more than 24 hours long, and an objection to the connection to “a day is like a thousand years” would be futile. The section of this message under the title of the trouble with numbers deals with comparing numbers derived from Psalm 90:5-6 to the numbers in the physical evidence.

 

If one objects by stating that Psalm 90:4-6 does not apply to the creation, then it is necessary to review Psalm 90:1-3 which makes the same statement in another form that includes the creation. In that case, it lists “all generations” and “everlasting to everlasting” (a very long time in the sight of man), and it lists the creation (the subject of the question), and then it lists the death of man which is the end of the life span of a man (a comparatively short time in the sight of the Lord).

 

Regardless of whether one starts by assuming that creation took a long time or short, it is still on the list in Psalm 90:1-3, and for that reason, it is in the context of Psalm 90:1-3, and it is also in the context of Psalm 90:4-6 because they are all making the same sort of contrasting comparison between time in the sight of the Lord and time in the sight of man. Earlier in this message, the subject of creation in the context of Psalm 90 was reviewed in greater detail.

 

The fact that each evening and each morning was like a thousand years or 70 years is one of the most important points in this whole message. Unlike the belief in day age creation, this message does not avoid the evenings and mornings. The evenings and mornings were in the sight of the Lord. They were events that the Lord saw with His own perception of time, and He recorded them according to the way He saw them.

 

A believer of young earth creation may object to the use of Psalm 90:1-6 by pointing out that it is only one scripture and saying that we should not use one scripture to support such an important doctrine. However, the believer of young earth creation also uses only one scripture to support the opposite doctrine about the same important subject. The words “evening and morning” appear six times in the Genesis record of creation, but they all describe the same sort of event within the same scriptural message, and the only reason why the words appear six times is because the events happened six times.

 

The words “evening and morning” in the Genesis record of creation are the foundation of the best defense of young earth creation, but those words are in only one scripture, and Psalm 90:1-6 is only one scripture which supports the conclusion that each evening and each morning was like a thousand years. So, if we must count the number of scriptures about “evening and morning”, then they are one for one.

 

Also, according to the record of creation, the sun was not formed until the fourth day, and for that reason, there is no need to require that all six of the days must have been 24 hours long including those that did not have the sun. More information about this subject is provided in this message in the section under the title of “Stars on the Fourth Day”.

 

According to Psalm 90:2, the subject of Psalm 90:1-6 includes creation. Psalm 90:4 states that a thousand years are like a day or a watch in the night in the sight of the Lord, and the evenings and mornings of creation were the transitions between the days and nights in the sight of the Lord which were each like a thousand years. Psalm 90:5-6 supports the same point about evenings and mornings without need for connections to days and nights. Therefore, there is no need to ignore or dispute the physical evidence.

 

Of course, this theological reasoning based on Psalm 90:1-6 does not prove that the earth and universe are old, but it proves that they could be old in the sight of man without contradicting the word of God. That should enable us to consider the physical evidence of age which is embedded in the evidence of God’s creation which He has provided to us as evidence of His existence and power (Romans 1:20-21). The combination of those two facts is good enough to prove that the earth is old in the sight of man.

 

The summery of this theological reasoning is that each evening and morning or day of creation was an evening and morning or day in the sight of the Lord which was far more than 24 hours long in the sight of man. The earth is young in the sight of the Lord, and it is old in the sight of man. Genesis 1 is the Lord’s record of His work according to the way He saw it. The physical evidence is the evidence in the sight of man. The difference of appearance between the physical evidence and the record in Genesis 1 is due to the difference of perception of time between man and the Lord which is identified in Psalm 90:1-6 and 2 Peter 3:8.

 

Note that the method of reasoning that is presented by this message which leads to a belief that the earth is old does not depend on accepting the physical evidence of age as though it were some sort of infallible word like the word of God. It only depends on accepting that the evidence is strong enough to be worthy of searching for a way to understand the word of God in a way that is not contradicted by our understanding of the evidence of God’s work which He has provided to us, and the ultimate motive for the effort is to enable the salvation of the listening nonbelievers who would otherwise be discouraged by our ignorance of the evidence.

 

What shall we say about this to a listening nonbeliever? The answer is that the doctrine of day age creationism is best for the listening nonbeliever because it is less complicated than this doctrine of sight of the Lord creationism and because it is sufficient to navigate around the stumbling block regarding a perception of conflict between the word of God and the scientific evidence about the creation. That explanation is sufficient to enable proceeding to the more important subjects about salvation.

 

If a believer asks how could each of the six days have been an age while considering the fact that each day had an evening and a morning, then the believer has asked for a deeper level of understanding the word of God than what was necessary for the nonbeliever to begin a discussion about salvation. In that case, it is necessary to point out that the evenings and mornings are figures of speech. It was pointed out earlier in this message and it is pointed out here again that the word of God has many figures of speech, and the physical evidence is enough to prove that the evenings and mornings are a figure of speech for the beginning and ending of each of the days that mean ages.

 

That answer is true and simple, and it should be good enough unless the believer wishes to acquire a deeper understanding of the word of God, or unless the believer has enough knowledge about false doctrines to recognize that the same sort of explanation may be used to defend all sorts of false doctrines by eliminating inconvenient scriptures by declaring that the inconvenient scripture is a figure of speech. Such believers know that scriptural or historical evidence is required to explain why those words are a figure of speech and what the figure of speech actually means.

 

In that case, the believer has requested or demanded an explanation that requires a deeper understanding of the word of God regarding the subject of the age of the creation, and the believer has taken the position of a mature believer who is able to judge an interpretation of the scripture to see if the conclusion is supported by the word of God. In that case, this doctrine of sight of the Lord creationism provides the complete answer. A good answer to a tough question may be a tough answer. That is the position where this message fits.

 

Sight of the Lord creationism is similar to day age creationism, except that the ages are expressed as periods that are “like a thousand years”, and it includes evenings and mornings around each of those ages (periods that are like a thousand years).

 

Sight of the Lord creationism is similar to saying that the evenings and mornings are figures of speech, except that it provides an explanation for what the figures of speech mean and what is the scriptural evidence for why they are figures of speech.

 

Sight of the Lord creationism is similar to appearance of age creationism, except that the appearance of age is due to the way we see time which is different from the way God sees time, and it explains the appearance of age based on scriptural evidence rather than depending on information that is lacking scriptural or physical evidence. Also, it does not require believing that God made evidence of things that never happened, and it does not avoid details in the evidence of age such as fossil fuel which contradict the explanation for why God made evidence of things that never happened.

 

For those reasons, sight of the Lord creationism shares features of the other sorts of belief that conclude that the earth is old.  They are various forms of explanation of the same reason and conclusion, except that they support different levels of understanding the word of God, depending on the needs of the one who asks.

 

 

The Trouble with Numbers

 

The statements that “a day is like a thousand years” and “a thousand years are like a day or a watch in the night” are apparently figurative. They state that there is a very big difference between the two sorts of perception of time that were identified in the surrounding verses which make a comparison between time in the sight of the Lord and time in the sight of man. For that reason, we should not expect matching numbers when comparing those expressions of numbers to the latest scientific estimate of the age of the creation.

 

If there is any doubt that the words “a thousand years” may mean more than the literal value, then consider the words “from everlasting to everlasting” in Psalm 90:2. These words certainly mean far more than a thousand years, and they are in the same sentence with a brief description of the creation, and two verses later without changing the subject, in Psalm 90:4, it explains the same principle by using “a thousand years” for a tangible measure of time.

 

Nevertheless, if it would help to satisfy the conscience of anyone who seeks assurance that these words of God are powerful enough to explain the age of His creation, this message includes an analysis that compares the scientific evidence with the record of creation while assuming that the literal interpretation is an exact number. After all, if it is way off, then one could worry that the interpretation of the word of God has been stretched to an unreasonable extent.

 

If a young earth believer requires a literal interpretation of a thousand years for each day regarding the subject of creation, then he or she could use that requirement to support the claim that the scriptural evidence of a thousand years for each day is not enough to reach the billions of years that are required to support the belief that the earth is old.

 

However, in that case, the young earth believer has challenged the believers to judge truth based upon a comparison between the literal numbers in the word of God and the numbers that are discussed by old earth believers, and the old earth believers are entitled to accept the challenge. Let those who hear the message judge whether the numbers are too far apart or close enough, and don’t make the judgment before examining the comparison. This message does not ignore tough questions about numbers, even if a literal interpretation is required.

 

If an answer is required, then the answer is that the Lord need only speak His literal word twice to reach man’s latest scientific estimate of the age of the creation. A believer may judge whether this answer stretches the meaning of the word of God to an unreasonable extent. Following is a short explanation of the calculation.

 

The Lord’s time factor of growth is: 1 day is like 1000 years.

The relevant conversion of units is: 1 year = 365 days.

Apply the conversion of units to the factor of growth.

1 day is like 365000 days (the same as 1000 years).

Express the Lord’s time factor of growth without units.

365000 days ÷ 1 day = 365000

If the Lord speaks or applies His time factor of growth twice,

then its effect is 365000 x 365000 = 133 billion.

If the Lord works for 6 days with this factor of growth, then

6 days are like 365000 x 365000 x 6 days = 799 billion days.

A complete explanation is in The Trouble With Numbers.

 

The complete explanation also deals with the subject of what happens if Psalm 90:5-6 is the basis for comparison of evenings and mornings rather than a thousand years. It’s not a big impact. It also deals with the subject of a night that is like more than 1000 years but not more than 4000 years. If it is necessary to judge the numbers, then it is necessary to judge the calculation.

 

Now those who cannot allow an old earth may require a literal interpretation of “a thousand years”, and they may not allow a belief that the Lord can speak more than once unless the scripture specifically says so, even when they speak to those listening nonbelievers who are the subject of Romans 1:20-21 because they understand the physical evidence of God’s creation including its age, but those who wish to defend their faith to all may allow a figurative interpretation of “a thousand years” so that their defense does not minimize the power of the word of God, and if they have any doubt about a figurative interpretation, then they may consider the effect of letting God speak once more which is explained in this message or the one at the link above.

 

 

Stars on the Fourth Day

 

Genesis 1:16 states that on the fourth day, “God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.” Note that it does not say that God created all of the stars on the fourth day. He could have made some of the stars at an earlier time, and the presence of the word “also” in verse 16 implies some liberty regarding the order of events as though it were saying “By the way, He also made the stars.” Verse 16 is the first verse that lists all the objects that are currently visible in outer space. For that reason, the stars are listed along with the sun and the moon, but it does not necessarily require that the stars were all created on the fourth day.

 

Genesis 1:1 tells us that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (time, space and mass), and He said “Let there be light” (electromagnetic energy and other forms of energy that can be exchanged with it). The currently available scientific evidence indicates that the combination of all those ingredients of His creation (described in parentheses) initiated the early formation of stars in a manner that is currently called the big bang.

 

However, the stars did not all appear immediately after that event. The formation of stars is a very long process, and it is still going on today. So, the stars were being formed on the first day and the fourth day and between and beyond. The sun is one of those stars. This interpretation accounts for the formation of the sun and stars on the fourth day without contradicting the currently available evidence of the age of God’s creation including the stars.

 

This interpretation also explains why there was no definition of a day based upon the rotation of the earth with respect to the sun or greater light which did not exist until the fourth day, and for that reason, there is no need to require that all six of the days must have been 24 hours long.

 

The explanation that follows involves a concept that is here called the theory of a dusty third day. This concept is not intended to be doctrinal belief, and it is not necessary to support the preceding explanation about stars on the fourth day. It is only a suggestion for understanding a scriptural mystery.

 

Note that the record of creation does not say that God made the sun on the fourth day. It says that He made a greater light and a lesser light, and we assume that it means that He created the sun and the moon on the fourth day, but on the third day, God must have provided some source of light for the plants and trees. It may have been some other source of light, or it may have been the sun surrounded by an interplanetary cloud of dust which reflected light from the sun on all sides of the earth. The second case is the theory of a dusty third day.

 

To continue the theory of a dusty third day, on the fourth day, God finished forming the sun by cleaning up the dust so that the day was separated from the night. Note that the latest scientific evidence indicates that stars are surrounded by dust in the early days of their formation.

 

To continue the theory of a dusty third day, we may say that from the perspective of one who stands on the earth and looks at the heavens, the sun and the moon and the stars became clearly visible on the fourth day after God cleaned up the dust. So, they became meaningful as signs of seasons. This explains why the creation of the greater light and lesser light and stars are described as events that happened on the fourth day.

 

A bright orange and yellow ring

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

 

 

Evidence by Testimony of the Witness 

 

The listening nonbeliever may be satisfied that the bible record of creation could be interpreted in a way that is compatible with the currently available evidence about the age of the earth, but that alone may not be enough to convince the listening nonbeliever that there is a God or that He created the earth.

 

In a court of law, the judge or jury may consider the testimony of a witness as well as the physical evidence and the evidence in the record. Perhaps, if God would take the witness stand in our court of law and defend His words and prove His mighty power, then the listening nonbeliever would have no reason to doubt the word of God, including His record of how He created the universe and the earth and life.

 

Actually, God did take the witness stand by sending His son to earth for a few years. The son of God lived on earth among men (John 1:1-5, John 1:14, Matt 3:13-17, Matt 17:1-5), and He told men who He is (Matt 16:13-17, Mark 14:57-64, John 8:12-59), and He proved it by performing miracles (Matt 4:23-25, Matt 9:27-34, Matt 12:22-23, Matt 15:29-31, Mark 1:40-42, Mark 10-46-52, John 9:1-41, John 11:1-44), and He defended His father’s word, but they gave Him an unfair trial and killed Him (Luke 23:1-46). The greatest miracle of all that He performed was that he rose from the dead (Matt 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20).

 

He did not talk about the age of the earth because there was no need for Him to talk about the age of the earth at that time, but He said that He is the son of God, and He made many references to that part of the word of God which is now known as the Old Testament and includes the record of creation. That made it pointless for men to ask Him “Is there a God?” or “Did God create the earth?”, and it would also be pointless for us to ask Him the same questions today. Therefore, the one who came to earth and performed miracles has testified about the creation by testifying about Himself.

 

In the future, He will return, but men will not be able to put Him on trial again, and He will eventually put us all on trial (Matt 13:24-43, Matt 25:31-46, Rev 20:11-15). In the meantime, our path depends on whether we choose to believe Him or not (John 12:46-48). A careful review of the whole testimony would probably be enough to convince the listening nonbeliever to believe.

 

Our security depends on more than just a belief that there is a God and that He created all things. If our knowledge about the age of the earth and stars does not obstruct our path, then there is still another obstruction which is far greater than all the others. Our sins are the primary reason why we are separated from God, and His mercy is not an automatic consequence of our belief in Him (Isaiah 59:1-3, Romans 6, James 2:19).

 

God has offered to show mercy to those who accept His offer, and He explained what that means in His word. Because this message is about creation, it will not dive into detail about how to be saved, but a few words are provided here before closure.

 

There is more confusion in this world about how to be saved than there is about the creation. Therefore, it is necessary to seek help from a teacher to understand how to find salvation, but it is also dangerous because a teacher may be deceived or may be a deceiver. Therefore, it is necessary to test the teacher.

 

First, ask the teacher what source of information is the word of God or infallible truth. If anyone teaches that the word of any man or any book other than the bible is the word of God or infallible truth, then that message is a deception.

 

Next, ask the teacher who is Jesus Christ. If any teacher presents a special interpretation of the bible as evidence to support a certain message, then caution is necessary when listening to such a message, and if that message depresses the glory of Jesus Christ below that which is evident in the bible without that special interpretation, then that message is a deception.

 

If the previous questions produce deceptive or non-informative answers, then look for another teacher. Otherwise, beware of deception from those who claim that the bible is the word of God and teach something else. Compare the message to the word of God to see if that is really what it says.

 

Ask what is necessary to be saved, and don’t follow teachers who don’t answer that question with clear instructions. Following is the advice about that question that is offered in this message. Hopefully the link still works.

 

What Must I Do To Be Saved?

 

Grace and peace to all of you in the search for truth.

From your brother in Christ, Ralph Griffin, Jan 22, 2024

.

 

Pages