Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Does the Bible state this: "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them"?
Does the Bible state this: "In his pride the wicked does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God."?
Was the Bible correct about this: "For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him."?
If the Bible states it, is it true?
There is no dispute about the truth of the bible, but about how it is true.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
Given that the correct answer is really superflous and so as long as I understand that God did create the Universe and the how of it is no great importance ... I'd say I go with #3, YEC.
But not because of any reason of proof, or literal reading or whatever. I understand the whole style of writing thing showing that it might not be a literal story etc ... I just like YEC because to me it's just a poetic and beautiful story
I like to think of it as God created the Universe and all in that short amount of time but even though it was only days old, it possessed an age of billions of years. Same as would be with Adam (if there was a literal Adam), created right then, but with an age of a twenty-something man.
The reason it becomes nicely poetic and comforting is because man is God's greatest creation and he created the Universe and all in it just to be a place for us to live in. To let it all drag on for billions of pointless years before we show up just seems a waste of time for nothing.
Of course, I would never deny many of the other options because they are most likely factually correct, YEC is just ... poetically correct ... that's a nice way to describe it. And I certainly wouldn't disagree with scientific understanding that the universe is billions of years old, I just have a nice way of reconciling that with a YEC view, even if it's likely not factually correct.
Given that the correct answer is really superflous and so as long as I understand that God did create the Universe and the how of it is no great importance ... I'd say I go with #3, YEC.
But not because of any reason of proof, or literal reading or whatever. I understand the whole style of writing thing showing that it might not be a literal story etc ... I just like YEC because to me it's just a poetic and beautiful story
That is a style of YEC that is consistent with TE.
The reason it becomes nicely poetic and comforting is because man is God's greatest creation and he created the Universe and all in it just to be a place for us to live in. To let it all drag on for billions of pointless years before we show up just seems a waste of time for nothing.
But this, to me, seems a tad arrogant. A bit of human hubris. The creation accounts give two reasons for creating humanity:
1. to have dominion over the earth and its creatures
2. to till the ground and care for the garden
Both suggest a duty toward the earth, the vegetation and the other animals for which we are answerable to our Creator.
If we were created to exercise this duty, then maybe we should stop thinking of the universe being created for us, and start thinking of ourselves as created for the universe, or at least for the earth and our fellow-creatures on earth. It is we who were created to serve them, not the other way around.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
I have no reason to doubt the Bible numbers, in terms of people's ages, about the age of the earth from Day 1 until now.
When reverse engineering Creation week, I find some interesting statements as they relate to some of these other views.
1. Prior to Day 4 [Gen. 1:14], there was no sun to orbit, so [then] the universe probably was geocentric. Since the earth is round, "up" would mean 'away from its center' and "down" would mean 'toward its center.' God was under no obligation to keep it in that state.
2. "[v. 2c] ...and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." For how long? An instant, a millennium? We don't know, but we can deduce from the following passages that the conditions of the "heavens and the earth" were not yet able to support life as we presently know it. This has the potential for being Old Earth Creationism but with an abiotic earth.
Prior to the separation of waters in verse 7, there was no separation. That meant that waters went from the surface of the earth to the outer surface of the "heavens" or universe. We know the waters went to this extent because after God separated the upper waters from the lower waters by an expanse He called "sky," "[Gen 1:16] God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them IN the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, ..."
This would imply that the upper waters are beyond the stars and, possibly, explain why some stars seem to triangulate farther out than 10K light-years.
A gap theorist can have a time span filled with inhabitants, but they would have to live in water without any light or vegetation.
Even the Flat-Earth theorists have some grounds (NPI), initially, since it appears that there was only one continent until the time of Peleg.
"Two sons were born to Eber: One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided;... [Gen. 10:25]"
While the earth would have still been spherical, all of its human relevance would have been found in its single, dry land.
Sabertooth
To the moderator: Can anyone really retain the right to the designation "Christian" [per the Nicene Creed] without acknowledging a literal "Adam & Eve" from whose fall they must be redeemed?
Last edited by Sabertooth; 15th November 2006 at 03:23 PM.
Reason: More accurate name for theory
Given that the correct answer is really superflous and so as long as I understand that God did create the Universe and the how of it is no great importance ... I'd say I go with #3, YEC.
But not because of any reason of proof, or literal reading or whatever. I understand the whole style of writing thing showing that it might not be a literal story etc ... I just like YEC because to me it's just a poetic and beautiful story
I like to think of it as God created the Universe and all in that short amount of time but even though it was only days old, it possessed an age of billions of years. Same as would be with Adam (if there was a literal Adam), created right then, but with an age of a twenty-something man.
The reason it becomes nicely poetic and comforting is because man is God's greatest creation and he created the Universe and all in it just to be a place for us to live in. To let it all drag on for billions of pointless years before we show up just seems a waste of time for nothing.
Of course, I would never deny many of the other options because they are most likely factually correct, YEC is just ... poetically correct ... that's a nice way to describe it. And I certainly wouldn't disagree with scientific understanding that the universe is billions of years old, I just have a nice way of reconciling that with a YEC view, even if it's likely not factually correct.
I hope you understand what i'm getting at
If you are into poetic beauty, and human-centrism, I would suggest that you study some "anthropic principle" writings. In a way, the thrust of a form of this argument shows that the vastness of the universe, including its extreme age, is actually necessary for life on earth to be possible. Think about it: if we are made of "stardust" (carbon), then there must be time for stars to form, burnout, and be spread across the reaches of space in order for the elements which compose human life to gather and coelesce. This idea has been helpful for me, a former, hard-core YEC attempting to move on to a more observationally-consistent understanding of the universe.
__________________
Confronting Fundamentalism one day (not a literal 24-hour period) at a time... constant vigilance... “God became human that humans might become God.”- St. Athanasius
The King of All Cosmos compels you!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
If you are into poetic beauty, and human-centrism, I would suggest that you study some "anthropic principle" writings. In a way, the thrust of a form of this argument shows that the vastness of the universe, including its extreme age, is actually necessary for life on earth to be possible. Think about it: if we are made of "stardust" (carbon), then there must be time for stars to form, burnout, and be spread across the reaches of space in order for the elements which compose human life to gather and coelesce. This idea has been helpful for me, a former, hard-core YEC attempting to move on to a more observationally-consistent understanding of the universe.
Thank you dd, I see what you are saying, but I think I might not have been clear enough earlier in what I said. I'll elaborate a bit
And also to gluadys, thanks for giving me a bit extra to think over concerning mankind being the purpose/caretaker of creation. I can certainly see it from that viewpoint also.
Now for a bit of clarification on what I said earlier.
Since I see the exact how of creation to be unimportant, only the fact that it was God that did the creating matters, many of the different views on it are acceptable to me. I only tend to prefer YEC for what I see as an inherent beauty in it. The others all also have beauty in them (such as, that God would have the universe tick away for billions of years to get to the exact perfect state for man to exist in it) it's just that the YEC one appeals to me most aesthetically.
In my way of looking at it, if I take the account of creation to be a literal 6 day work, then asking the age of the universe is really two questions to me. What is the age of the universe and how old is it. The two things are quite different.
For example, if Adam were literally created on the spot by God he was certainly not an infant baby needing the years of care and guidance until adulthood. For simplicities sake, say he was created at an age of 25. In this way, Adam may have only been a few minutes old, but he had an age of 25. In all ways he showed the normal progress and maturity of someone who had experienced 25 years of growth even though he was factually only moments old. See where i'm going with this?
Applying that same idea to the universe, if God did indeed create everything wham-bam-pow in just a few days some 6000 or so years ago, then even though when he created it it could be said to be only moments old, it had the age of a universe that had existed for billions of years and displayed the progress and maturity of a universe that had experienced billions of years of growth. This is why it would not require the actual time necessary for the things you describe DD, it was created as if all that had already occurred.
Now, understand please, i'm not advancing this as truth or even slight likelihood This is, just for me, a way of looking at it all that allows the creation account to be literal, for scientific understanding to remain accurate and gives me a sense of how sublime God's power indeed can be. I would never suggest that anyone even consider this as how things really happened, or that anyone must accept YEC or any other idea about the origin. It's just a silly idea that I happen to like.
it's just that the YEC one appeals to me most aesthetically.
What specific elements of this idea is it that appeals most aestetically?
__________________
Confronting Fundamentalism one day (not a literal 24-hour period) at a time... constant vigilance... “God became human that humans might become God.”- St. Athanasius
The King of All Cosmos compels you!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
...For simplicities sake, say he was created at an age of 25. In this way, Adam may have only been a few minutes old, but he had an age of 25...
Organic maturity did not require age. Inorganic material does not mature. Comparing the two is a bit a bit unfounded.
The following passage elaborates on Day 6: "GE 2:4 ...When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground-- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
Plants were made on Day 3 [see Gen 1:11-13], but by Day 6, "...no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up,..." This means plants were created in an immature state, while man was created with some degree of maturity.
Further, if these were ages, instead of days, either the plants would have broken the soil or you would have some pretty hungry herbivores...!
Sabertooth
Last edited by Sabertooth; 2nd August 2005 at 07:51 PM.
Reason: Details
This is, just for me, a way of looking at it all that allows the creation account to be literal, for scientific understanding to remain accurate and gives me a sense of how sublime God's power indeed can be. I would never suggest that anyone even consider this as how things really happened, or that anyone must accept YEC or any other idea about the origin. It's just a silly idea that I happen to like. 
Linear Mode
