Anyone who says the world is billions of years old is contradicting God's Word:
…3Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" 4And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
Notice Jesus does NOT say "He who created them billions of years after the beginning." This clearly indicates that Jesus Himself believes in instant creation with humans created at the beginning.
Old Earthers can't weasel out of this one. Either the Earth is billions of years old and Jesus is a liar, or Jesus was telling the truth and the Earth is young.
Oh, so many assumptions within this post. Let me count them.Assumption 1:
That the Bible is literally true. This despite the fact that there is no reason to make this assumption in the first place. Even if you take that verse in 2 Timothy as gospel, all it says is that scripture is God-breathed, and thus suitable for teaching, etc, not that it's literally, 100% true. A good teacher can use many things - a metaphor, a simile, or even a purely fictional story - to make their point. There's simply no reason to make this assumption in the first place, and trying to justify it leads to no end of trouble.Assumption 2:
That Jesus was referring to the beginning of the universe. This is even less justified than the first assumption, hard as it might be to believe. Not even Genesis attempts to pretend that human beings were around when YHWH or the Elohim were doing their work of creation. Indeed, humans came pretty late in the grand scheme of things. Since humans weren't around at the beginning of the universe, there's no reason to assume that Jesus was talking about it here.Assumption 2a:
That the 'days' in Genesis refer to literal days. Simply put, there were no humans around to measure how long it took; all we have is the Hebrew word "yom", which is commonly interpreted as 'day' but has other meanings as well. Even in English, which has a half-million words or so, there are many words which sound and are spelled the same but have different meanings. When I say the word 'bow', do I mean the weapon used to shoot arrows, to bend at the waist or neck, or to submit to someone? You can't tell outside of context. When I say the word 'desert', do I mean a tasty treat eaten after a meal or do I mean a bunch of arid, hot sand? Again, you can't tell outside of context.
If English, with a half-million words, has homonyms that so easily confuse non-English speakers, imagine how much worse it must have been for the ancient Hebrews, who had a mere 8,700? So it is with 'yom'. It can mean a literal 24-hour period of time (from dawn to dawn, essentially), daytime (dawn to dusk), a year, an indeterminate amount of time, a reference to someone's age, or even a reference to such-and-such an age (ala the Stone Age or the Bronze Age), and there's others beyond that. As detailed on this page
, it is nowhere near as simple a matter as young-earth creationists like to claim it is. Indeed, the most common argument, that using 'yom' with a number always refers to literal 24-hour days, isn't recognized by impartial scholars of Hebrew. What matters here is what the author of the words meant, not what young-earth creationists want the words to mean.Assumption 3:
That Jesus knew what he was talking about. Why is this assumption made? Even if you assume that Jesus was the son of YHWH, that's no guarantee that he had any particular knowledge of the time before he was born onto Earth, or indeed that he even existed at all before then. He could easily have been born knowing what YHWH wanted him to know in order to do what he was supposed to do; there's simply no reason to assume that he shared in YHWH's assumed omniscience while he was a human, and thus no reason to claim that his words to those Pharisees were anything other than the repetition of what he learned about Hebrew theology.Assumption 3a:
That YHWH is omniscient, all-knowing. This is more complicated than it sounds at first. Let's take the situation in the garden of Eden as an example. There are a number of possible outcomes of him planting the two trees there:
- Neither Adam nor Eve eats of the fruit of either tree.
- Adam (or Eve) eats of the fruit of knowledge but not of life, counts as two cases.
- Adam (or Eve) eats of the fruit of life but not of knowledge, counts as two cases.
- Adam (or Eve) eat both fruits, counts as two cases.
- Adam and Eve eat of the fruit of knowledge, but not of life.
- Adam and Eve eat of the fruit of life, but not knowledge.
- Adam and Eve eat of the fruit of knowledge, then of life.
- Adam and Eve eat both fruits.
In short, there are eleven
possible cases here. How does YHWH know which one will happen? Assuming he has omniscience, he could predict the consequences of each action, and even assign probabilities to them, but the one thing he could not determine is which of them will happen in advance (unless Adam & Eve are puppets who only act according to his will, which I think we can safely rule out). In short, even omniscience doesn't give you sure foreknowledge of what will happen.
So, that's essentially six assumptions that went into skeptic's statement above (frankly, there's more, but there's a limit to how long I want this post to get), none of which can be safely assumed. Per Occam's razor, this explanation is too badly flawed to stand.