If the Genesis creation is literal

[crawfish]

Alright, for the sake of argument let's say that the Genesis creation is absolutely true. Let's say through scientific discovery that we find that the universe, in fact, is only around 6000 years old, and that the earth was definitively created in six days, in exactly the order specified in the bible.

So, assuming that God doesn't want to give positive proof of His existence to facilitate our faith, has He undone himself? I've got to admit, anybody who had doubts about the existence of God after this information was proven would be incredibly dense. If God created the universe in a way where the supernatural was required, wouldn't He be ensuring that our curiosity would eventually lead to proof that He had to do it?

Could creation be God's babel fish? :o

 

[HypnoToad]

No, "proving" YEC would not be any kind of "babel fish". Skeptics would still find plenty of reason to reject God. Remember what Abraham told the rich man in hell - if they reject Scripture, even someone rising from the dead will not convince them.

 

[laptoppop]

Also, while the creation can provide some data about the nature/character of God, it provides little concerning His identity. Is it the true loving God revealed in Scripture and completely revealed in Christ?..... or is it Q from Star Trek.?

 

[crawfish]

Also, while the creation can provide some data about the nature/character of God, it provides little concerning His identity. Is it the true loving God revealed in Scripture and completely revealed in Christ?..... or is it Q from Star Trek.?

Possibly. However, if it matches scripture exactly, it's pretty darn tough to deny. I'd have to think that the "path of faith" would swing in the direction of those who don't believe.

I'm really just playing here. Throw something out, see what comes up.

 

[busterdog]

Luk 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Not a proof text against what scientists or evolutionists do per se, just one dealing with the question of whether God appears deceptive based upon our observations.

 

[crawfish]

Luk 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Not a proof text against what scientists or evolutionists do per se, just one dealing with the question of whether God appears deceptive based upon our observations.

Or: based upon our understanding of scripture, since in all likelihood he was talking about the religious leaders of the day.

 

[busterdog]

Or: based upon our understanding of scripture, since in all likelihood he was talking about the religious leaders of the day.

Either way.

 

[arunma]

Possibly. However, if it matches scripture exactly, it's pretty darn tough to deny. I'd have to think that the "path of faith" would swing in the direction of those who don't believe.

I'm really just playing here. Throw something out, see what comes up.

I think the problem here would be that there are several other religions which have extremely similar creation accounts. For example, the hypothetical evidence from the OP would also attest to the truth of the Jewish creation account, the Muslim account, and the accounts of several ancient Near Eastern religions. Yet none of these religions confess Jesus as the Christ. The Bible says that anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ is an antichrist (and I personally believe the Bible). Do YECs really want to validate false religions such as Judaism and other Near Eastern religions which do precisely this? This is one of the various theological problems I see with creationism.

 

[juvenissun]

Alright, for the sake of argument let's say that the Genesis creation is absolutely true. Let's say through scientific discovery that we find that the universe, in fact, is only around 6000 years old, and that the earth was definitively created in six days, in exactly the order specified in the bible.

So, assuming that God doesn't want to give positive proof of His existence to facilitate our faith, has He undone himself?

Illogical assumption leads to redundant question.

We could not scientifically prove YEC models. God does not have to undone anything.

YEC is a scientific model based on faith and leads to faith. That is it. Science could be used to support it, not prove it.

 

[theIdi0t]

Luk 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Not a proof text against what scientists or evolutionists do per se, just one dealing with the question of whether God appears deceptive based upon our observations.

This is what I like to call Gospel abuse .

I'm actually quite a Gospel literalist, so I usually take offense to misrepresented verses, from the Gospel.

The verse here is just a rephrasing of what Christ says in other parts of the gospel, and what Isaiah says:

"And he replied: Go and say to this people: Listen carefully, but you shall not understand! Look intently, but you shall know nothing!

You are to make the heart of this people sluggish, to dull their ears and close their eyes; Else their eyes will see, their ears hear, their heart understand, and they will turn and be healed."

I find something terribly sad about using these verses to defend one's position whether it be inerrancy, dispentionalism, or gap theories, etc..

The first question that should be asked when one reads these verses, is it I who is closing my eyes, is it my heart that is sluggish? Is there a message in the gospel that I refuse to believe, refuse to follow? What you will find is that there is. Figure out what are those things, which you refuse to follow, refuse to believe, and then your eyes will be opened. The verse is a return to God after we have lost our way, it is a call to repentance, to follow the will of God. Do not take it, and make it less than that.

But to steal that verse from the Gospels to defend one's position, is a great crime I think.

 

[laptoppop]

I think the problem here would be that there are several other religions which have extremely similar creation accounts. For example, the hypothetical evidence from the OP would also attest to the truth of the Jewish creation account, the Muslim account, and the accounts of several ancient Near Eastern religions. Yet none of these religions confess Jesus as the Christ. The Bible says that anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ is an antichrist (and I personally believe the Bible). Do YECs really want to validate false religions such as Judaism and other Near Eastern religions which do precisely this? This is one of the various theological problems I see with creationism.

Why is the existence of similar accounts a problem? One would expect that the truth would be told in various forms around the world. For example there are over 400 different flood myths that agree in various ways with the flood of Noah. The flood as told in the Christian/Jewish Genesis is the most accurate and detailed -- but the others are to be expected since there really was a flood. Multiple accounts worldwide corroborate Genesis, they do not cause us to say that because they agree, there was no flood.

The flood, of course, is the paramount issue. There *WAS* a global flood and it left evidence all over the world. If one interprets the geologic record properly as representing the global flood, then one loses the prime evidence for evolution -- so the 6 day creation becomes easy after that.

 

[Galle]

No, "proving" YEC would not be any kind of "babel fish". Skeptics would still find plenty of reason to reject God. Remember what Abraham told the rich man in hell - if they reject Scripture, even someone rising from the dead will not convince them.

You make it sound as if the only way that one can find evidence for YEC is to accept YEC first.

 

[HypnoToad]

You make it sound as if the only way that one can find evidence for YEC is to accept YEC first.

I'm saying those with hardened hearts will usually miss what's right in front of their noses.

 

[Scotishfury09]

I'm saying those with hardened hearts will usually miss what's right in front of their noses.

A stubborn spirit is going to miss what's under their nose no matter what view they hold.

 

[Galle]

I'm saying those with hardened hearts will usually miss what's right in front of their noses.

It's clear you have a classic case of projection. Skeptics are the ones who stick to the evidence most thoroughly. Skeptics are the ones who are most willing to alter their beliefs. It's their opponents who reject the evidence right in front of them for ideological reasons. It's their opponents who make up the conclusion first and then cherry-pick evidence to support that.

 

[laptoppop]

It's clear you have a classic case of projection. Skeptics are the ones who stick to the evidence most thoroughly. Skeptics are the ones who are most willing to alter their beliefs. It's their opponents who reject the evidence right in front of them for ideological reasons. It's their opponents who make up the conclusion first and then cherry-pick evidence to support that.

Interestingly, I would say that this kind of accusation could be hurled against the opposing viewpoint from either "side". TEs believe they see it in creationists, and creationists believe they see it in TEs.

The interesting thing is that this does nothing to really discuss the issues. Instead, we should jointly seek truth and specifically try to avoid any negative descriptions of either people or groups. There are great, wonderful people who love the Lord who are TEs, and there are great, wonderful people who love the Lord who are YECs.

Lets stick to the issues, and things can be a lot better around here.

 

[HypnoToad]

It's clear you have a classic case of projection. Skeptics are the ones who stick to the evidence most thoroughly. Skeptics are the ones who are most willing to alter their beliefs. It's their opponents who reject the evidence right in front of them for ideological reasons. It's their opponents who make up the conclusion first and then cherry-pick evidence to support that.

Well, if you want to contend that Jesus' statement was wrong, that's your choice, but I'll have to stick with the position that Jesus was correct when He said that if one rejects Scripture, a miracle won't be enough to convince them.

(I also have a sense that you are trying to make this out into a TE vs. YEC thing, whereas I am talking about believers and non-believers.)

 

[keyarch]

Alright, for the sake of argument let's say that the Genesis creation is absolutely true. Let's say through scientific discovery that we find that the universe, in fact, is only around 6000 years old, and that the earth was definitively created in six days, in exactly the order specified in the bible.

Your premise assumes that the "literal" interpretation of Genesis conveys that of a "young" universe, and that the YEC model is the only creation model that fits a literal Genesis.

How about the "Literal" interpretation that says:

1. The universe and the primitive planet earth were created at the "beginning" of God's works of old. In other words from a time before the "creation week".
2. That the "creation week" started with the command of "Light" and then the rest took place with six 24 hour days.
3. That the evidence should show a metamorphosis of the land masses before there was any biology involved.

I won't get into the Global Flood in this post, because I don't want to get drawn down that path for now.

 

[arunma]

Why is the existence of similar accounts a problem? One would expect that the truth would be told in various forms around the world. For example there are over 400 different flood myths that agree in various ways with the flood of Noah. The flood as told in the Christian/Jewish Genesis is the most accurate and detailed -- but the others are to be expected since there really was a flood. Multiple accounts worldwide corroborate Genesis, they do not cause us to say that because they agree, there was no flood.

As a Christian, by faith I believe in the inerrent Scriptures. But try telling this to an unbeliever, such as a Muslim or an Orthodox Jew (more specifically, the rare variety thereof who believes in creationism). To these people, creationism does nothing to advance the Gospel. Nor does it persuade people of any other religion. As someone who believes that all who die apart from faith in Jesus will go to hell, I don't place much value in theories with no evidence, which do not instill faith in Jesus.

The flood, of course, is the paramount issue. There *WAS* a global flood and it left evidence all over the world. If one interprets the geologic record properly as representing the global flood, then one loses the prime evidence for evolution -- so the 6 day creation becomes easy after that.

Actually, there's no evidence in the geological record for a global flood. There are a lot of things out there (books, AiG seminars, etc.) which purport to be valid evidence. But as a scientist I don't have the luxury of believing in pseudoscience such as this. The problem is that most of the evidences for a global flood are based on misconceptions of scientific models, and have been propagated in spite of being demonstrably false.

It's clear you have a classic case of projection. Skeptics are the ones who stick to the evidence most thoroughly. Skeptics are the ones who are most willing to alter their beliefs. It's their opponents who reject the evidence right in front of them for ideological reasons. It's their opponents who make up the conclusion first and then cherry-pick evidence to support that.

I'm not trying to speak in support of YEC, but if by "skeptics" you mean atheists, my experiences have been very different. Most of them are quite arrogant; if you check out the crevo forum, you'll see that whenever evolution comes up, every nearby atheists believes that he's a professional biologist, despite that most of these guys have no scientific education to speak of.

 

[shernren]

I'm not trying to speak in support of YEC, but if by "skeptics" you mean atheists, my experiences have been very different. Most of them are quite arrogant; if you check out the crevo forum, you'll see that whenever evolution comes up, every nearby atheists believes that he's a professional biologist, despite that most of these guys have no scientific education to speak of. As scientifically illiterate people who worship science as an idol, these individuals are usually inflexible in their beliefs.

I agree partly: some of the atheists over at C&E are worse than most creationists I've ever met.

Having said that, this raises an interesting question. If creationism really doesn't tell us much about God, and if skeptics would find some reason to disbelieve regardless of their views on origins, then why on earth are AiG and the other creationist ministries peddling their work as "evangelism"?