Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Genesis 1:14 ¶ Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Genesis 1:14 ¶ Then God said, "Let there be light-bearers (sun, moon, stars) in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be useful for signs (tokens) [of God's provident care], and for marking seasons, days, and years; [Gen 8:22] |
Subject: Plants were created, and then stars? |
Bible Note: Not exactly. I concur with Dr. Ross that there is nothing in scripture that refutes our scientific understanding that the earth is very old and indeed, what scripture describes agrees with what nature itself has revealed to us through science. His argument is this: Our scientific understanding of nature is consistent with what the bible teaches, if the Genesis texts are understood from the perspective of an observer on earth at a time after the planet had formed. Ross suggests there is nothing in scripture that precludes this "observer perspective" and "system initial condition". I agree with him that this is a not a "non-biblical imposition" on the text. I say this because I believe this perspective is just as valid as the conventional interpretion unknowingly imposed by modern readers that the text was written from the perspective of a detached observer somewhere in the cosmos at or before the beginning of universal space-time. Nowhere in the text are we given information that refutes or supports either of these positions, so Ross' approach could be valid. A fellow committed Christian and PhD physicist with many years in advanced research once told me this: "If your television works, the earth is old." By this he means that the science that produces such demanding technology is the exactly same science that suggests an ancient earth, for both are derived from the same observations and reasoning. Regarding the many scientific dating methods, I agree that this forum is not an appropriate venue to dispel the fallacious arguments that have been put forth to discredit them. As far as I am concerned, they are as sound as any other scientific technique we use. Any errors in results are due to sample conditions that do not meet the requirements of the technique rather than any flaw in the method. For example, we cannot date a mineral that has melted after its original formation because the process of re-melting re-sets the ratio of isotopes that is used to mark time zero. Hence, we can only date the most recent melting. Peace, Parable |