does the phrase 'in the beginning...'

[archaeologist]

allow people to construct a young earth or old earth model? why?

i do not side with either camp as i feel that if God had wanted us to worry about the age of the earth, He would have been clearer about when He did create all things.

i do not feel that true believers can hold to either camp as it would distort the truth, the message and the purpose of creating in 6 days. many people are bent on roving thier side as the most 'scientific' but as i have shown in another thread, creation is beyond science and is solely a spiritual or theological issue.

so science really has no say in this thread as this thread is not out to provide evidence for either argument but to keep this as a theological/spiritual discussion.

 

[Deamiter]

I think you're quite right about the phrase. "In the beginning" does not, by definition, say anything about when the beginning actually was.

 

[theFijian]

allow people to construct a young earth or old earth model? why?

Yes because it tells us there is a model to construct, though it doesn't not tell us which model is correct.

 

[shernren]

The meaning of creation, and why there is a creation at all, is indeed very much a theological and spiritual discussion. But its age is very much amenable to scientific investigation.

 

[archaeologist]

stick to topic. age is not part of this thread.

 

[Mallon]

The phrase "In the beginning..." has no inherent concept of age, no.

Most creationists will argue that Matthew's genealogies "allow people to construct a young earth", though. And in that sense, they feel God was quite clear about the age of the earth.

 

[crawfish]

You want us to discuss whether or not a scientific model can be made of the creation story without including science?

Ok.

If you take the story literally, there is no way you can justify an old-earth model because you'd have to take the days as a literal six days. So yes, with that reading a YEC model of age would be justified.

I do believe that to tie the creation story to a particular scientific theory takes away from its meaning, and to try to use science to explain its events is a misuse of scripture.

The core meaning doesn't change with a literal or non-literal reading, however. You do realize that TE's do NOT try to tie science into the creation story, I assume; we're not trying to explain its events through science. We believe that both are mutually exclusive, to be used for different purposes and read in different ways. We simply accept that there are no conflicts between science (the whats and hows) and the bible (the whys).

 

[theFijian]

stick to topic. age is not part of this thread.

You introduced age as soon as you started talking about young earth versus old earth models!

 

[eolculnamo2]

allow people to construct a young earth or old earth model? why?

i do not side with either camp as i feel that if God had wanted us to worry about the age of the earth, He would have been clearer about when He did create all things.

i do not feel that true believers can hold to either camp as it would distort the truth, the message and the purpose of creating in 6 days. many people are bent on roving thier side as the most 'scientific' but as i have shown in another thread, creation is beyond science and is solely a spiritual or theological issue.

so science really has no say in this thread as this thread is not out to provide evidence for either argument but to keep this as a theological/spiritual discussion.

I agree completely. It doesn't matter and is a stupid controversy that doesn't help the Church.

Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.

 

[gluadys]

allow people to construct a young earth or old earth model? why?

I think we have consensus that the phrase "in the beginning" is insufficient to establish an old or young earth model.

I am more interested in this concept:

i do not feel that true believers can hold to either camp as it would distort the truth, the message and the purpose of creating in 6 days.

What do you believe the "purpose of creating in 6 days" is?

I understand that you may wish to begin a different thread to discuss this.

 

[Iosias]

He would have been clearer about when He did create all things.

Just look at the genealogies

 

[Mallon]

Just look at the genealogies

Yes. Look veeerryyy carefully.

 

[crawfish]

Just look at the genealogies

Yes. Put them on a big board and compare them to each other.

 

[crawfish]

I agree completely. It doesn't matter and is a stupid controversy that doesn't help the Church.

Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.

Problem is, as long as YEC's insist on literally interpreting Genesis and trying to fit existing data into that model, then abstaining from arguing HURTS the Church.

The reason we need this debate is because creationism is getting pushed as the only true Christian way to the public. Ham's creation museum, the push to have YEC/OEC/ID introduced in science classes at school, the endless fight against evolution; it hurts us when we stand firmly against science and reason and insist that things are different that they are.

 

[archaeologist]

glaudys:

I understand that you may wish to begin a different thread to discuss this.

be my guest.

fijian:

You introduced age as soon as you started talking about young earth versus old earth models!

but i didn't do that, i stated 'would it allow for' age has nothing to do with this question. it is a looking at what is within the scope of of the phrase.

crawfish:

You do realize that TE's do NOT try to tie science into the creation story

oh, please. that is all i am hearing in your arguments. not one of you have accepted a literal 6 day creation and have opted for a scientific interpretation. that is tying science into creation.

We simply accept that there are no conflicts between science (the whats and hows) and the bible (the whys).

yet you never provide a constructive criticism of the cientific models while changing gen. to allegorical. you do accept that they don't agree, you just do some manipulating to make it seem like you don't./

be honest, science does not agree with a 6 day creation so you have changed creation to fit science.

the question is, why would you do that?

Problem is, as long as YEC's insist on literally interpreting Genesis and trying to fit existing data into that model, then abstaining from arguing HURTS the Church

cop out. this is the 'pulling the matchstick and the beam' scenario. you blame YEC's for hurting the church because christians look foolish for disagreeing with science YET you fail to realize how theistic evolution and other alternatives hurt the church because you doubt, disbelieve God and change His words to fit science in hopes of gaining credibility from those who do not believe.

you do not want to look foolish but holding to science is not the responsibility of the believer. believers are to follow God no matter how foolish they look. I believe it is 1 cor. 1 that paul makes this case.

The reason we need this debate is because creationism is getting pushed as the only true Christian way to the public.

because it is the only true way--'in the beginning God CREATED...' it is quite clear that no secular adopted & adapted model was used.

Ham's creation museum, the push to have YEC/OEC/ID introduced in science classes at school, the endless fight against evolution; it hurts us when we stand firmly against science and reason and insist that things are different that they are.

no it doesn't hurt us when we stand up for the truth and reject secular science models and theories. it hurts the church more when we deny God's word and seek 'christianized' alternatives.

we are commanded to preach the truth, in and out of season, there is no permission to change the truth to look good to the unsaved.

now i may disagree with spending $27 million for a museum, as that is not what God wants us to do either and i may disagree with i.d. but creationism is the truth.


av1611:

Just look at the genealogies

what is your point?

 

[crawfish]

oh, please. that is all i am hearing in your arguments. not one of you have accepted a literal 6 day creation and have opted for a scientific interpretation. that is tying science into creation.

There is a difference between "creation" and "the creation story". Science belongs in the former but not the latter.

I'm not afraid to look foolish. I'm afraid of BEING foolish. There's a big difference.

 

[archaeologist]

how are you being foolish if the only person you have to please is God and one of His requirements in pleasing Him is using faith not secular science?

again i will use hebrews 11:1 - 3:

1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2This is what the ancients were commended for.
3By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible

you are not being foolish if you stand on what God says. you are being foolish if you change everything to fit or christianize a secular origin model and disobey or displease God.

 

[archaeologist]

but to get this back on track--

i do not see where 'in the beginning' is allowing for origin models to arise. it is a very concise, to the point statement which clearly states when it was done.

there is no opening for origin models other than this one.

 

[Mallon]

i do not see where 'in the beginning' is allowing for origin models to arise.

So far as I can tell, nobody uses the phrase "In the beginning" as the basis for their creation models. Whether you're YEC or TE, we agree the universe had a beginning.
What's the rationale for the OP anyways?

 

[archaeologist]

the rationale is that God has already presented believers with a model of origin. there is no date though a starting point is obvious.

so the meaning is, that believers should not be doing as the secular world does, trying to pinpoint exactly when creation took place or create origin models, but to preach the truth which states that God created in the time frame mentioned in the account (6 days) and that when is not the issue,{ its investigation is a waste of time as God has hidden that from mankind}, but that God did it as He said with no adaption of secular theories added.