>But what I am wondering is the following: Is there any exegesis (preferably
>something scholarly as opposed to assertions about Adam and Eve's
>bellybuttons) of early Genesis that would lend support to the appearance of
>age theory? Or that would argue against it?
I have no knowledge of any scholarly work that supports the appearance of
age view, but the following thought has occurred to me on a number of
Suppose God made nature to look older than it actually is for esthetic
reasons. Is it conceivable that God, like the Japanese artists who
carefully prune miniature trees to look like weathered, full-sized trees,
derives pleasure from making a material model that represents something He
has in mind, and the byproduct of this attention to artistic detail is an
appearance of age?
If this were the case, then one could argue that it was not God's
_intention_ to deceive anyone, and that the correct age of the earth had
been revealed in the Bible.
I'm not persuaded by this line of reasoning, but at least it's a reason
other than deception that nature could look older than it is.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
email@example.com (office) | firstname.lastname@example.org (home)