YECs, why do you do it?

[philadiddle]

I'm wondering why the YEC view is so important to those who believe it. To help me understand better I have two specific questions for you.

What does your view bring to the table that Christians with a figurative understanding are missing?

Do you think that, because of your YEC view, your walk with God is somehow different than those who have a figurative understanding of the creation account? (If so, how?)

 

[Greg1234]

I'm wondering why the YEC view is so important to those who believe it.

Actually this may just another spawning of a thread detracting into a "literal vs allegorical".

[vs]Christians with a figurative understanding

[vs]those who have a figurative understanding

The interpretation is not yours.

 

[philadiddle]

Actually this may just another spawning of a thread detracting into a "literal vs allegorical".
The interpretation is not yours.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you somehow trying to indirectly respond to the questions in the OP or are you just trolling the thread?

Could you please clarify what your answers are to the two questions that I asked?

 

[juvenissun]

I'm wondering why the YEC view is so important to those who believe it. To help me understand better I have two specific questions for you.

What does your view bring to the table that Christians with a figurative understanding are missing?

Do you think that, because of your YEC view, your walk with God is somehow different than those who have a figurative understanding of the creation account? (If so, how?)

To a Christian, the view of YEC is not important. It is simply "a consequence" of faith. The understanding is different. It is not about missing or not missing something.

However, may I conclude that if one does not believe in YEC, then evolution becomes a necessary choice in the faith (unless one does not care to think about it). If so, then the YEC faith becomes critical. Because evolution is wrong. In particular, we are NOT evolved from apes. This is very critical.

 

[philadiddle]

To a Christian, the view of YEC is not important. It is simply "a consequence" of faith. The understanding is different. It is not about missing or not missing something.

However, may I conclude that if one does not believe in YEC, then evolution becomes a necessary choice in the faith (unless one does not care to think about it). If so, then the YEC faith becomes critical. Because evolution is wrong. In particular, we are NOT evolved from apes. This is very critical.

But how does having one view or the other affect our personal walk with God?

 

[Calminian]

I'm wondering why the YEC view is so important to those who believe it. To help me understand better I have two specific questions for you.

What does your view bring to the table that Christians with a figurative understanding are missing?

Do you think that, because of your YEC view, your walk with God is somehow different than those who have a figurative understanding of the creation account? (If so, how?)

Good question. The YEC view is actually a very essential logical component to the gospel. It's not so much about the age of the earth, nor the length of the days, but rather the logical order of sin, suffering and death. Gen. 1:31 clearly states that God created a "very good" world that was marred by sin afterward. Suffering and death followed. God would remedy this by bringing a savior that would restore the world to what it once was, a place where lions don't kill lambs, and vipers don't bite children. Eventually he would completely start over and create a new heavens and earth as good as the first one, for those who place their trust in him.

Problem is, all alternative readings of Genesis distort the logic of this basic message as they require death and suffering to predate and precede sin.

That's it in a nutshell. That's why it's important to evangelicals. The issue of scriptural inerrancy is also important, as these liberties in interpretation can be applied to any other part of the bible just as logically. Those are the two big issues. I think they're worth debating over.

How does that effect my walk? We're to love God with all our heart soul and mind. God gave us a very logical book which explains things clearly. If you settle for an illogical gospel that's going to affect your walk, as you're forced to leave your mind out of it. I want people to enjoy God in every way. That's why I post on this issue.

 

[juvenissun]

But how does having one view or the other affect our personal walk with God?

I don't know. I don't have a chance to try the other view yet. I feel pretty good with my YEC view.

 

[matthewgar]

Good question. The YEC view is actually a very essential logical component to the gospel. It's not so much about the age of the earth, nor the length of the days, but rather the logical order of sin, suffering and death. Gen. 1:31 clearly states that God created a "very good" world that was marred by sin afterward. Suffering and death followed. God would remedy this by bringing a savior that would restore the world to what it once was, a place where lions don't kill lambs, and vipers don't bite children. Eventually he would completely start over and create a new heavens and earth as good as the first one, for those who place their trust in him.

Problem is, all alternative readings of Genesis distort the logic of this basic message as they require death and suffering to predate and precede sin.

That's it in a nutshell. That's why it's important to evangelicals. The issue of scriptural inerrancy is also important, as these liberties in interpretation can be applied to any other part of the bible just as logically. Those are the two big issues. I think they're worth debating over.

How does that effect my walk? We're to love God with all our heart soul and mind. God gave us a very logical book which explains things clearly. If you settle for an illogical gospel that's going to affect your walk, as you're forced to leave your mind out of it. I want people to enjoy God in every way. That's why I post on this issue.

But don't we glorify god more by learning what is real, not what we want to be real? If you get to heaven and find out that evolution was right, and creationism was false and it's caused many people to go to hell, do you think following the belief blindly will get you in? Does the god that many creationists believe in going to be lienent in people that distort the truth of the world to fit their interpetations of the bible? In the end it comes down to where the evidence lies and what it says.

And in the end all creationists have is their intereptations of the bible, science, the real world and everything else doesn't mesh with your ideas. All your left with is adhoc explanations and denials. That may work for us, but I don't think god is going to be stupid enough to buy any excuses you might come up with for why you deny reality for your beliefs. Isn't this becoming arrogance where your ideas of scripture trump gods reality and the world? In the end I think it's important that every creationist take a hard look at where they stand, are they truly following gods reality, or are they forcing everything to fit into what they want.

Remember wether or not evolution is true, is entirely based on wether it's true or not, not our desires. Even if mentioning evolution turned everyone into comunist child killing, raping mass murdering atheists, it wouldn't change the truth of it. The argument that it trumps the idea of original sin, or leads to death and suffering before the fall is meaningless, it doesn't matter in the argument. Because if it's true then it's true, arguments from consequence are the worst kind. Evolution isn't going to stop being true just because you don't like it, something the rest of us realize. We don't accept evolution because we like it, or think it makes for a much better and more caring and comforting belief. We accept it because it's true.

 

[Calminian]

...science, the real world and everything else doesn't mesh with your ideas..

Again, this is part of the delusion that science is the ultimate epistemology. Yet the Bible constantly reminds us the God is not subject to uniform predictable processes. He is the God of miracles (violations of science). He can skip mechanistic processes, or change them, or add to them.

Until people can separate science from logic and reality, they'll never understand the Bible. Science is a limited investigational tool.

Here's an article on Miracles and Science that may help you overcome the science stumbling block.

 

[shernren]

Calminian, do you agree that miracles leave scientifically detectable effects?

 

[matthewgar]

Again, this is part of the delusion that science is the ultimate epistemology. Yet the Bible constantly reminds us the God is not subject to uniform predictable processes. He is the God of miracles (violations of science). He can skip mechanistic processes, or change them, or add to them.

Until people can separate science from logic and reality, they'll never understand the Bible. Science is a limited investigational tool.

Here's an article on Miracles and Science that may help you overcome the science stumbling block.

Except were not just simply got a isue where these are things science can't learn or discover anything about. They have and are learning and discovering things, all thats happening is your ego won't let you accept what science learns. Your making up barriers for science, not because they are there, but because you don't like what they are finding. Your making up stuff here, you don't get to dictate what science and and can't learn, because all your doing is hindering learning. If we listned to people like you we never have discovered how planets go aruond the sun, or that the earth is round, or many other things. The only barriers to science are the ones we can't pass after exausting alll attempts to go beyond it, not because you think, "Oh origins of life, or diversity of life are gods domain and I say you can't ever learn about them so they are off bounds." thats just human arrogance to think that.

I realize science can't learn everything, but I won't make baseless claims on what it can or can't learn untill we find out, not before we even try.

 

[miamited]

Hi Matthew,

You wrote:
But don't we glorify god more by learning what is real, not what we want to be real? If you get to heaven and find out that evolution was right, and creationism was false and it's caused many people to go to hell, do you think following the belief blindly will get you in?

Well, as far as that supposition goes, what if it is the other way around? As Calminian has written, God has given us a very clear, concise and logical explanation of the creation, so it is, as far as I understand the Scriptures, much more likely that the creation account is true and the evolutionary account is false. As he also stated, the evolutionary account places death before sin and the Scriptures are clear, even in the the New Testament, that the wages of sin is 'death'. No, I'm sorry friend, and I understand that you mean well and are completely sincere in what you believe, but I stand opposed to such teaching.

Someone wrote on another thread that there couldn't have been days before the sun was placed in the heavens. That's just not true. What is a day? One full rotation of the earth, which today we measure as approximately 24 hours. Now, friend, consider that even before any other heavenly body was placed in the entire universe, as soon as God created the earth and it made one full rotation, with or without a sun, moon or stars, it was a day as we reconcile days. As far as we know, when God spoke the earth into existence it came on the scene spinning on its axis. It was perfect and it was good and in approximately 24 hours, as we reckon days, it would have made one full rotation and it would have passed the first day. The next full rotation would have been the second day and so on. There is actually nothing in the exact definition of a 'day' that accounts for there being a sun or moon to accord it as a 'day'.

You ask, don't we glorify God by learning the truth? Sure, but science is not the way to the truth. Jesus is! I am the way, the truth and the life. I want to believe exactly what Jesus believed. Nothing more. Nothing less.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

 

[miamited]

Hi Shernren,

You asked of Calminian:
Calminian, do you agree that miracles leave scientifically detectable effects?

I'm sure he'll get around to an answer shortly, but I'd like to just throw my hat in the ring here if that's Ok.

Yes, miracles have scientifically detectable effects. After all, Jesus was born. However, what miracles are missing are scientifically detectable causes. How Jesus was born cannot be answered by science because it is impossible that a woman could have a child without ever having male sperm introduced into her uterus or womb. There is absolutely no scientific explanation for a woman to bear a fertilized ovum without her egg having been entered by a sperm. Yet, Jesus was born.

So, yes the creation has a myriad of scientifically detectable effects that it occurred. After all, I look up at the stars each evening and there they all are. But there is no scientifically detectable cause for the effects.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

 

[food4thought]

Let me ask those who favor a figurative view of Genesis 1 a couple logical questions:

1) Would God, Whom scripture says cannot lie, inspire Moses to write clearly about a seven day creation if that is not what happened? I do not think it is necessary to believe in a young earth/universe view in order to accept the Genesis 1 teaching as being literal since Genesis did not record ALL of history, only that which is relevant to the fall and redemtion of mankind. I could be that Adam and Eve lived for eons in the garden before the fall. I could be that there was a prior history to the earth before God recreated it (the Hebrew of Gen 1:2 could be rendered as "became without form and void" instead of "was without form and void"). Even though Humphry's white hole theory has flaws, perhaps he was/is on to something with some of his points in the book Starlight and Time. Perhaps there are other things that we have not thought of yet... but without question, the evolutionary viewpoint is contradictory to a plain reading of God's word. Consider this, and ask yourself whether you are called to have faith in mankinds knowledge or God's word.

2) How much of what we scientificly KNEW to be true even 40 years ago is no longer true scientificly? I do not deny the value of materialism in science because the tools of science CANNOT measure spiritual causes, only effects in the natural world (as another poster pointed out). Science is an incredibly valuable tool, yet it is constantly growing and changing in it's understanding, and the information we have regarding the early universe and macro- evolution are sketchy at best because we cannot directly view these events, only the EFFECTS. We can see how it MIGHT have been by these processes, yet the hard evidence for cosmic evolution and biological macro-evolution are slim however well the theory may appear to have merit. Ask yourself if you are believing in these theories because you truly believe they are accurate to reality as it exists or because the whole world has become convinced they are true and you do not wish to be seen as foolish in the world's eyes for simply believing what God says.

 

[Calminian]

Hi Shernren,

You asked of Calminian:
Calminian, do you agree that miracles leave scientifically detectable effects?

I'm sure he'll get around to an answer shortly, but I'd like to just throw my hat in the ring here if that's Ok.

Yes, miracles have scientifically detectable effects. After all, Jesus was born. However, what miracles are missing are scientifically detectable causes. How Jesus was born cannot be answered by science because it is impossible that a woman could have a child without ever having male sperm introduced into her uterus or womb. There is absolutely no scientific explanation for a woman to bear a fertilized ovum without her egg having been entered by a sperm. Yet, Jesus was born.

So, yes the creation has a myriad of scientifically detectable effects that it occurred. After all, I look up at the stars each evening and there they all are. But there is no scientifically detectable cause for the effects.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

Thanks Ted, for stating it beautifully and concisely. Science can detect the effects of miracles but not causes. I must have rambled hundreds of words trying to convey that simple message. You did it in just a few. I hope you don't mind, but I'll be borrowing this often.

Shrenren, perhaps that will make clear what I've been trying to say.

 

[philadiddle]

Let me ask those who favor a figurative view of Genesis 1 a couple logical questions:

I will take the time to answer your questions, and I hope that in return you will take the time to answer the questions in the OP, since that is the topic of this thread.

1) Would God, Whom scripture says cannot lie, inspire Moses to write clearly about a seven day creation if that is not what happened?

Would God, whome scripture says cannot lie, clearly tell us that the earth sits on pillars? Sorry for answering a question with a question, but once you explain to me why God can tell us that the earth sits on pillars when it is actually not sitting on pillars without being a liar, then you can apply that same answer to your own question.

but without question, the evolutionary viewpoint is contradictory to a plain reading of God's word. Consider this, and ask yourself whether you are called to have faith in mankinds knowledge or God's word.

Evolution does not contradict the meaning of scripture, it contradicts a very narrow interpretation of it. Your presentation of a necessary choice between man's knowledge through science and Gods word reveals that you don't really understand your fellow Christians who accept evolution as Gods mechanism for creation.

2) How much of what we scientificly KNEW to be true even 40 years ago is no longer true scientificly?

You are misusing the word "true". Science uses explanations to explain facts. Our explanations are sometimes wrong but we continue to tweak those explanations based on the evidence/facts. Some of our scientific understanding 40 years ago was inaccurate, but it's safe to say that our understanding now is more accurate, although not perfect.

the information we have regarding the early universe and macro- evolution are sketchy at best because we cannot directly view these events, only the EFFECTS. We can see how it MIGHT have been by these processes, yet the hard evidence for cosmic evolution and biological macro-evolution are slim however well the theory may appear to have merit.

Just like a forensics investigator we may not be able to see them, but we can study the evidence and evolution really is the best explanation for what we see.

Ask yourself if you are believing in these theories because you truly believe they are accurate to reality as it exists or because the whole world has become convinced they are true and you do not wish to be seen as foolish in the world's eyes for simply believing what God says.

I was a YEC but as I examined the evidence I was objectively led to accept evolution. Believe me, I wanted to remain a YEC and my pride kept me there for a little while after I saw the evidence in favor of evolution, but I had to accept what Gods creation was telling me through science, and now I can appreciate His handiwork for what it is instead of what I wanted it to be.

 

[shernren]

Thanks Ted, for stating it beautifully and concisely. Science can detect the effects of miracles but not causes. I must have rambled hundreds of words trying to convey that simple message. You did it in just a few. I hope you don't mind, but I'll be borrowing this often.

Shrenren, perhaps that will make clear what I've been trying to say.

In which case, isn't it valid for Christians to expect science to be able to detect the effects of a miracle such as Creation or the Flood?

 

[gluadys]

Let me ask those who favor a figurative view of Genesis 1 a couple logical questions:

Most of these questions were answered by philadiddle. But I would like to add a couple of comments.

1) Perhaps there are other things that we have not thought of yet... but without question, the evolutionary viewpoint is contradictory to a plain reading of God's word.

However, it is questionable that we are always called to understand the plain meaning of the text as the intended meaning. After all, there are plenty of places in scripture where the most diehard literalist knows that the literal meaning is either not the important meaning or doesn't even make sense.

An appeal to the plain meaning has to be justified. It is not a default and has no hermeneutical priority over other possible meanings.

2) How much of what we scientificly KNEW to be true even 40 years ago is no longer true scientificly?

Science never claims to KNOW absolutely. What it claims is to present the best explanation available in light of current evidence. As more evidence comes to light, explanations are improved.

the information we have regarding the early universe and macro- evolution are sketchy at best because we cannot directly view these events, only the EFFECTS. We can see how it MIGHT have been by these processes, yet the hard evidence for cosmic evolution and biological macro-evolution are slim however well the theory may appear to have merit.

In fact, we can't see any other possible cause for these effects. The causes science has worked out are predictive of the effects we see with a high degree of accuracy. No one is currently presenting any other theory in which the hypothesized cause so consistently matches the observed effects. If and when an improved theory is presented which fits the evidence more closely, scientists will gravitate to it. But what use can science make of vague suppositions that another theory may exist?

Ask yourself if you are believing in these theories because you truly believe they are accurate to reality as it exists or because the whole world has become convinced they are true and you do not wish to be seen as foolish in the world's eyes for simply believing what God says.

My very first reaction on reading a simple account of evolution was to praise God. "So that's how God did it! Amazing!" I have never seen the contradictions people claim exist between creation and evolution. So, I am certainly accepting evolution because I believe it is accurate to reality as it exists. I don't personally care a fig for the attitudes of non-believers toward my faith.

I do care about the harm done when Christians insist on an interpretation of scripture which creation tells us cannot be true.


That said, I,too, would be interested in your answers to the questions in the OP.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I'm wondering why the YEC view is so important to those who believe it. To help me understand better I have two specific questions for you.

Cool, glad you want to know me.

What does your view bring to the table that Christians with a figurative understanding are missing?

I don't know, exactly. It makes everything seem more 'coherent' for me, I guess. If someone has Christ though, it's not like they really 'need' one understanding or the other.

Do you think that, because of your YEC view, your walk with God is somehow different than those who have a figurative understanding of the creation account? (If so, how?)

Well... I think there is something in particular to do with the statement in Genesis 6, "My spirit will not strive with man forever, his days will be 120 years." But again, if you are in Christ and stay faithful, it's not a big deal.

 

[food4thought]

I'm wondering why the YEC view is so important to those who believe it. To help me understand better I have two specific questions for you.

I am not your tipical YEC... I do not hold to a young earth/universe view as such. I view th age of the earth and th universe as being immaterial to an understanding of the salvavtion of God thru the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

What does your view bring to the table that Christians with a figurative understanding are missing?

I believe my view holds true to what God told us both in a literal way while leaving open the spiritual/figurative understanding of what He would want us to understand.

Do you think that, because of your YEC view, your walk with God is somehow different than those who have a figurative understanding of the creation account? (If so, how?)

As I am not a YEC, I probably should not have posted here, but my heart is troubled by those who hold to only a figurative or only a literal view. I believe God intended both, and the foundation of our salvation is literal while having a number of spiritual and figurative outcomes/understandings as we grow in the Spirit and wisdom. My problem with an evolutionary view is that it brings sin and death into the world long before man ever was, and scripture is pretty clear that sin entered thru man and death thru sin. Also, in Genesis 1, what exactly did God mean when he said he created plants before he ever created the sun, moon, and stars? How do you reconcile this with evolution?