Creation Science Fellowship IncCreation Science Fellowship, Inc

One Year Creation Program (Session 3)

Robert Walsh

November 4, 2010

THE BIBLICAL AGETHE BIBLICAL AGEOF THE EARTH

Agenda

Hermeneutics and the Doctrine of ScriptureScriptureThe Importance of the Age IssueThe Geneo ChronologiesThe Geneo-ChronologiesThe Day-Age TheoryThe Gap TheoryThe Gap TheoryAdditional Arguments for the Young-Earth ModelModelConclusionsReferencesReferences

Hermeneutics and the Doctrine of Scriptureof Scripture

One’s Biblical ViewAt the heart of the “Age Issue” is one’s view of Scripture.p

Do I bring a priori assumptions to the Biblical Text that I shouldn’t?Do I need Empirical Science to understand the Genesis Text?Do I allow “what Scientists say” trump the Normative reading of the Biblical Text?Do I misunderstand the meanings of andDo I misunderstand the meanings of and distinction between Inerrancy and Infallibility?

Doctrine of Scripture

G l D fi itiGeneral DefinitionIn their original autographs the Scriptures are the inspired word of God accurate andthe inspired word of God, accurate and inerrant in all that they affirm, both in the whole and in the part. The Scriptures p pconstitute the necessary and sufficient rules for doctrine and practice.

Doctrine of Scripture

U d t di th S i tUnderstanding the ScripturesThe Scriptures can only be properly read, interpreted understood and applied wheninterpreted, understood, and applied when using the same rules of accidence, syntax, and grammar that the writers used when gwriting the original autographs.

This set of rules is called the Normative Hermeneutic

Doctrine of Scripture

Th I d I f llibilit f S i tThe Inerrancy and Infallibility of ScriptureThe Scriptures are inerrant/infallible in all that they affirm both in the whole and in the part ifthey affirm, both in the whole and in the part, if and only if, they are consistently understood by the Normative Hermeneuticy

(e g the same rules by which they were(e.g., the same rules by which they were written).

The Proper Hermeneutic

Scientists sayEarth is Old

The Earth Must be Old

Perverted Meaning

Old

Meaning

Hermeneutical ConclusionsHermeneutical Conclusions

W h ll tt t t i t tl l thWe shall attempt to consistently apply the Normative Hermeneutic as it relates to the “Age of the Earth”Age of the Earth .

In so doing, we shall find that the Normative understanding of the Biblical T t i (i d d ) th ll dText requires (i.e., demands) the so-called “Young-Earth” Model.

The Importancepof the

Age of the Earth IssueAge of the Earth Issue

The Importance of a “Young E th” (1 OF 2)Earth” (1 OF 2)

It is the result of the consistent application ppof the Normative Hermeneutic upon the Biblical text and therefore the only view of Earth History that “preserves” the text.

Provides the chronological boundary conditions with which creation researchers ought to construct their models (ex. Robert Whitelaw, circa 1970).

The Importance of a “Young E th” (2 f 2)Earth” (2 of 2)

Provides “real” meaning to Earth and gHuman History (Rushdoony, 1976)

Least empirical aspect of any origins modelmodel

The Geneo-Chronologiesof

Genesis 5 and 11Genesis 5 and 11

Geneo-Chronolgy

A Genealogy is a listing of “Family Members” in a relative chronological orderin a relative chronological order.

Another name for Genealogy is “Family Tree”

A Chronology is a listing with absolute dates

Thus, a Geneo-Chronology is a Family Tree with absolute dates, otherwise known as an…

Absolute Family TreeAbsolute Family TreeAs opposed to a relative Family Tree

Geneo-Chronologies – Genesis 5

G 5 1 Thi i th b k [ i h ] fGen 5:1 This is the book [cipher] of the generations [toledoth] of Adam.

[1] Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his y , g ,image; and called his name Seth:[2] 4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and g y gdaughters:[3] 5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died…y y

Reading the Genesis 5 ChronologiesChronologies

Part 1 = Age of Patriarch at birth of MessianicPart 1 Age of Patriarch at birth of Messianic Lineal SonPart 2 = Remaining Life after Part 1Part 2 Remaining Life after Part 1Part 3 = Entire life span (Sum of Parts 1 & 2)

Antediluvian Patriarch Data

1200

The Antediluvian Patricarchs0 2 5 0 5 2 9 0

600

800

1000

1200

ears

Life SpanGenerationAverage Life Span

930

912

905

910

895 96

365

96

777 95

0

0

200

400

am eth sh an lel

ed ch ah ch ah

Ye Average Life SpanAverage Generation

Ada Se

Enos

Ken

a

Mah

ala

Jare

Enoc

Met

huse

la

Lam

ec

Noa

Name of Patriarch

Average Lifespan = 908 (filtering Enoch and Noah)Average Messianic Lineal Generation (filteringAverage Messianic Lineal Generation (filtering Noah) = 117

The Antediluvian Patriarchs

PATRIARCH / AGE 25

0

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

656

Adam

Seth

Enos

AGE 1 1 1 1

FLO

OD

1

0 930

130

235

1042

1140

930

912

905Enos

Cainan

Mahalaleel

235

325

395

1140

1235

1290

905

910

895

Zared

Enoch 987

460

622

1422962

365

Methuselah

Lamech

Noah

687

874

1056

1656

1651

2006

969

950

Geneo-Chronologies – Genesis 11

Gen 11:10 These are the generations [toledoth] of Shem…

[1] 12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:[2] 13 And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.g[1] 14 And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber:[2] 15 And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years and begat sons and daughtersand three years, and begat sons and daughters.

Reading the Genesis 11 ChronologiesChronologies

Son

Line

al S

Part 1 = Age of Patriarch at birth of MessianicPart 1 Age of Patriarch at birth of Messianic Lineal SonPart 2 = Remaining Life after Part 1Part 2 Remaining Life after Part 1Part 3 = Entire life span (Not Explicit in Text)

Post-diluvian Patriarch Data

600

Post Diluvian Fathers

300

400

500

of D

eath

Age

Avg. Age

459 Years

236 Years176 Years

0

100

200

m ad ah er eg eu ug or ah m

Age

176 Years

Shem

Arp

haxa

Sala

Ebe

Pele Re

Seru

Nah

o

Tera

Abr

aham

Patriarch

Average Lifespan = Three Distinct Values (459 236 176)(459, 236, 176)Average Messianic Lineal Generation = 40

The Post-diluvian Patriarchs

Noah

PATRIARCH / AGE 15

00

1750

1656

1056 2006 950

2000

2250

2500

2750

3000

3250

Shem

Arphaxad

1558

1658

2158

2096

600

438

Salah

Eber

Peleg

1693

1723

1757

2126

2187

1996

433

464

239

Reu

Serug

D

1787

1819

239

2079

2026

230

Nahor

Terah

Abraham

FLO

OD 1849

1878

2183

1997

2083 205

148

2008 175

A General ChronologyA General Chronology

eth

Cre

atio

n

Floo

d

Abr

aham

Dav

id

Jesu

s of

Naz

are

Noa

h B

orn

0

1656

2008

3000

4000

1056

1000

1996

2344

2944

4000

+ ~0

The Day-Age Theory

The Day-Age Theory - DefinitionThe Day Age Theory Definition

“ th D i G i O l“…the Days in Genesis One are long periods of geologic time…”

The Day-Age Theory (1 of 11)The Day Age Theory (1 of 11)

G 1 5 A d th i d th iGen 1: 5 And the evening and the morning were the first day.G 1 8 A d th i d th iGen 1:8 And the evening and the morning were the second day.Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.And so on…

The Day-Age Theory (2 of 11)The Day Age Theory (2 of 11)Our goal is to ascertain the original intent and meaning of the word “Day” as penned by the original writer (Moses)We ascertain Moses’ original intent by applying the same rules of grammar and syntax that he used when penning the text.We have called this set of rules the Normative Hermeneutic

The Day-Age Theory (3 of 11)The Day Age Theory (3 of 11)Typically, in our English Bibles the Hebrew word translated “day” is “YOM”.

YOM occurs more than 1000 times in theYOM occurs more than 1000 times in the Hebrew Old Testament and translated into English in a variety of ways.g y y

The Day-Age Theory (4 of 11)The Day Age Theory (4 of 11)Twenty-Four (24) Hour Period

Gen 7:11 “In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day (YOM) f th th ”(YOM) of the month…”Dan 6:10 “Daniel …kneeled upon his knees three times a day (YOM) and prayed ”three times a day (YOM), and prayed…Hag 1:1 “In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, in the first day (YOM) of the , y ( )month…”And so on…

The Day-Age Theory (5 of 11)The Day Age Theory (5 of 11)The “light” portion of a 24 Hour Period

Gen 1:5 “And God called the light Day (YOM), and the darkness he called Night …”Gen 1:16 “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day (YOM)…”N 9 21 “ h th it b d (YOM)Num 9:21 “…whether it was by day (YOM) or by night that the cloud was taken up, they journeyed.”j yAnd so on…

The Day-Age Theory (6 of 11)The Day Age Theory (6 of 11)A well defined period of time

Joel 1:15 “15 Alas for the day (YOM)! for the day (YOM) of the LORD is at hand…”Zeph 1:7 “…for the day (YOM) of the LORD is at hand: …”Z h 14 1 “B h ld th d (YOM) f thZech 14:1 “Behold, the day (YOM) of the LORD cometh…”And so onAnd so on…

The Day-Age Theory (7 of 11)

The overwhelming usage of YOM is for a well defined period of time 24 ho r period (> 90%)defined period of time – 24 hour period (> 90%).

Thus the burden of proof is square on theThus, the burden of proof is square on the shoulders of those who would argue that YOM means an indefinite period of geologic time.

With this in mind, let us examine the grammatical context of Genesis Onegrammatical context of Genesis One.

The Day-Age Theory (8 of 11)Numeric Modifiers

When modified by a number “YOM” alwaysWhen modified by a number YOM alwaysrefers to a 24 hour period (a solar day).There are two types of numeric modifiers

Cardinal Number – indicates “amount” or “quantity” (e.g., one, two, three, four, etc.)O di l N b i di t “ d ” (fi tOrdinal Number – indicates “order” (first, second, third, fourth, etc)

Gen 1:5 “Evening and morning were DAYGen 1:5 Evening and morning were DAY ONE (Cardinal Modifier [Echad])Gen 1:8 “Evening and morning were the SECOND DAY [Ordinal Modifier [Sheniy]

The Day-Age Theory (9 of 11)Context Limiter

Recall our word usage rules… (#3)Recall our word usage rules… (#3)A word otherwise fixed in meaning shapes the context of and hence the meaning of a word th i i bl i iotherwise variable in meaning.

The Set of Usages of YOM

When modified by “Evening and y gMorning”

The Day-Age Theory (10 of 11)The Day Age Theory (10 of 11)Context Limiter

Thus…

(“Evening and Morning”) * YOM= Solar Day

See Gen 1:5 8 13 19 23 31; Ex 18:13 14; 27:21;See Gen 1:5,8,13,19,23,31; Ex 18:13,14; 27:21; Lev 24:3; Num 9:21; 2 Chron 2:4; 13:11; 31:3; Ezra 3:3; Job 4:20; Psm 55:17; 65:8; Dan 8:26

The Day-Age Theory (11 of 11)The Day Age Theory (11 of 11)Conclusions

The normative usage (> 90% usages) of YOM is that of a Solar Day (24 hours)y ( )

When modified by a numeral it always means “Solar Day”

When modified by “Evening and Morning” YOM alwaysmeans “Solar Day” (Word Usage Rule #3)

Thus, the Normative Hermeneutic demandswe understand the “days” of Genesis as 24 yhour Solar Periods.

The Gap Theory

The Gap Theory - Definition

To accommodate the vast amount Gen 1:1

In the beginning God created the heavens and thethe vast amount

of time needed for currently

b d t l

heavens and the earth

observed natural processes, an indeterminate VAST AMOUNTS OF NEEDED TIME

amount of time exists between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2

The earth was with form, and

void; and darkness was

th f fGen 1:1 and Gen 1:2

Gen 1:2 upon the face of the deep. And

the Spirit of God moved upon the

face of the waters

The Modern Origin of the Gap ThTheory

s Age

s

e B

ible

s C

halm

ers

7) empe

rs

Earli

est A

d R

efer

ence

Thom

as(d

. 184

7

G.H

. Pe

(Ear

th’s

1884

)

Scof

ield

(190

9)

The Gap Theory (1 of 5)

G 1 1 I th b i i G d t d thGen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 (waw) And the earth was (Hayeta) without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit f G d d th f f thof God moved upon the face of the

waters.

The Gap Theory (2 of 5)

Our examination of the Gap Theory shall focus on three pieces of the grammarfocus on three pieces of the grammar

The clausal identification of Gen 1:2aThe clausal identification of Gen 1:2a

The conjunction “waw” translated “and” in verse 2 (“And the earth”)

The verb “hayeta” translated “was” in verse 2The verb hayeta translated was in verse 2 (“And the earth was without form…”)

The Gap Theory (3 of 5)Th l i G 1 2The clause in Gen 1:2a

“And the earth [ #rahw ] (subject) was without formAnd the earth [ #r,a'h'w > ] (subject) was without form (tohu=formless) [ Wht ]”

Gen 1:2a is a noun clause constructed by theGen 1:2a is a noun clause constructed by the subject “earth” and its substantive “formless”

A noun clause describes the “state” of the subjectA noun clause describes the state of the subject (the earth). Whereas verbal clauses indicate action, progress, or movement.

Thus, as a noun clause Gen 1:2a is describing the condition of the “earth-stuff” just as it was created in Gen 1:1in Gen 1:1.

The Gap Theory (4 of 5)The conjunction “waw” in Gen 1:2a

“And [ w ] the earth [ #r,a'h'w > ] (subject) was without form (formless) [ Wht ]” (tohu)

The “waw” is connected to a noun (“the” Erets#rah) and therefore must be a “disjunctive” in # , ' ) jthe sense that its purpose is to stop the discussion and provide “explanatory details” to Gen 1:1Gen 1:1.

The Gap Theory (5 of 5)The translation of “hayeta” in Gen 1:2a

“A d th th (h t ) ith t f ”“And the earth was (hayeta) without form”

Here the normative rendering of hayetha isHere the normative rendering of hayetha is “was” and not a change of state.

This linked with the disjunctive “waw” and the fact that Gen 1:2 is a noun clause forces the verb “hayeta” to be translated in its normativeverb hayeta to be translated in its normative sense of “was” not “became”.

Additional Arguments Lending g gThemselves to the Young-Earth

ViewView

Additional Arguments (1 of 2)Th t l t f th LXX d t d “h t ”The translators of the LXX understood “hayeta” to mean “was” (h=n) [It was]. Indicating the current state of Gen 1:1 at its conception. This fit f tl ith th T i it i C ti Thfits perfectly with the Trinity in Creation – The Son creates and the Spirit forms

Old Earth models require that Adam walk on fossils in contradiction to the normative sense of Gen 1 and Rom 5:12; 8:20aGen 1 and Rom 5:12; 8:20a

Rom 5:12 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin; and so death passed uponthe world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned”

Rom 8:20a “For the creation was made subject toRom 8:20a For the creation was made subject to vanity”

Additional Arguments (2 of 2)If the days of Genesis One are long periods of geologic time, how can vegetation created on day three survive for untold millions of years until the sun is

t d d f ?created on day four?

If the days of Genesis One are long periods of geologic time, then shouldn’t h S bb h f (E 20 11 ) b lthe Sabbath of (Ex 20:11 ) be a long period of rest?

ConclusionsImposing “other” hermeneutics onto the text does significant damage to the text

The normative understanding of the Bibli l T t i Y E th M d lBiblical Text requires a Young-Earth Model

Th Y E h M d l i b d fThe Young-Earth Model is to be used for generating “empirical” models for Earth history and creation science (geologicalhistory and creation science (geological, biological, etc.)

? QUESTIONS ?

ReferencesArcher, Gleason, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Moody Press, Chicago, IL, 1974 [Old Earth]Brenton, L.I., The Septuagint Version: Greek and English, Zondervan Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI, 1970Fields, Weston, Unformed and Unfilled, Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, Phillipsburg, NJ, 1976 [Excellent refutation of the Gap Theory and Day Age Theory]Ginsberg, C.D., Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, Trinitarian Bible Society, London, UK, 1897Kautzsch and Cowley, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, Oxford Press, Oxford, UK, 1909Leupold, H.C., Exposition of Genesis, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 2 Volumes, 1942Morris, Henry, The Genesis Record, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1976Osborne, Grant, The Hermeneutical Spiral, IVP, Downer’s Grove, IL, 1991Rushdoony, R.J., A Biblical Philosophy of History, Thoburn Press, 1976Walsh, R.E., Biblical Hermeneutics and Creation, Proceedings of the First international Conference on Creationism, Walsh & Brooks (Editors), Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., ( ) pPittsburgh, PA, 1986, pp. 121-129. [Refutation of the Day Age Theory]Yates, K.M., The Essentials of Biblical Hebrew, Harper Brothers, New York, NY, 1938