Do You Believe in Young Earth or Old Earth?

Rel · Jun 7, 2015

I, myself, am struggling heavily with my Faith because of many barriers: this is one of them. I find that believing in any of the two poses problems in my logic I fail to reconcile properly with Christianity. I would like your opinions.

My message to old Earth Christian believers is this:
How can you reconcile this with the Word Christians claim to be irrefutable? I've tried to read articles about the computation of the Earth's age from the Bible, there are some difficulties and errors yes- but none that can possibly reach millions. The way I understand it, old Earth Christians selectively ignore parts of their God's word. Correct me if I am wrong.

My message to young Earth Christian believers is this:
There are countless creationist attacks with constant new discoveries, new fossils being dated. I've heard people shrug off dating from earth layers because "The Great Flood" has rendered this method inaccurate, or shrug off other dating methods that countless scientists confirm. Do you, to put in bluntly, believe that ALL discoveries and dating methods pointing to an older Earth is False? If Christianity is the Truth, shouldn't evidence support it?

OldWiseGuy · Jun 7, 2015

Rel, welcome to the spiritual 'mosh pit'! You'll have fun here, and we'll learn from each other as well.

I'm an OEC (Gap theory), and both geology and scripture supports this. No problem.

That said Christianity doesn't deal with geology, although both Jesus and Peter affirmed the historicity of the great flood. Since no one can agree on the nature of the flood the effects can hardly be calculated.

True Scotsman · Jun 7, 2015

If you think you have arrived at a contradiction, check your premises. You'll find that at least one of them is wrong. In any contest between logic and faith, go with logic.

AV1611VET · Jun 8, 2015

Hi, Rel! Welcome to CF! :wave:

Rel said:
I, myself, am struggling heavily with my Faith because of many barriers:

Stop struggling and accept both.

I believe God embedded age into His creation, so that the earth was created ex nihilo, with age.

My definition of embedded age creation is: maturity without history.

Adam is a prime example.

Created as a mature adult of some 20 or 30 years.

The earth then is 4.47 billion years old physically, but only 6018 years old existentially.

As Peter put it:

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

And to quote Adam Clarke:

It appears that God created every thing, not only perfect as it respects its nature, but also in a state of maturity, so that every vegetable production appeared at once in full growth; and this was necessary that man, when he came into being, might find every thing ready for his use.

eclipsenow · Jun 8, 2015

Rel said:
My message to old Earth Christian believers is this:
How can you reconcile this with the Word Christians claim to be irrefutable? I've tried to read articles about the computation of the Earth's age from the Bible, there are some difficulties and errors yes- but none that can possibly reach millions. The way I understand it, old Earth Christians selectively ignore parts of their God's word. Correct me if I am wrong.

Ignore? No! Every word of the bible is true. But not every word of the bible is literal! There's many different genres of writing in the bible, such as more creative narratives like poetry, metaphor, symbolism, narrative, apocalyptic, parable and song; and there's more literal genres like biography, history, legislative.
If the bible doesn't literally make any claims about the age of the earth, then aren't you in a crisis about nothing?
It's about understanding what Genesis actually means.

This is my friend Dr John Dickson's paper on the ancient understanding of Genesis 1. It's theological gold! Genesis 1 has nothing to do with HOW God made the world, and everything to do with WHY! That is, an over-reaction to Darwin's theories has distorted the modern reading of Genesis and made people read it as some kind of dry, boring, arbitrary list of what-God-did when, when it's actually closer to a highly structured poem taking us on a tour of why God knit the world together in the particular *relationships* He has put together. It's theological, not scientific. And I personally feel sorry for modern day Creationists, not just because they have to live in such terrible fear of everything 'sciencey' that indicates an old earth, but because they're missing out on the theological GOLD that is in Gensis 1 because of their literalistic reading of it!
http://www.iscast.org/journal/articlespage/Dickson_J_2008-03_Genesis_Of_Everything

DogmaHunter · Jun 8, 2015

Rel said:
I, myself, am struggling heavily with my Faith because of many barriers: this is one of them. I find that believing in any of the two poses problems in my logic I fail to reconcile properly with Christianity. I would like your opinions.

My message to old Earth Christian believers is this:
How can you reconcile this with the Word Christians claim to be irrefutable? I've tried to read articles about the computation of the Earth's age from the Bible, there are some difficulties and errors yes- but none that can possibly reach millions. The way I understand it, old Earth Christians selectively ignore parts of their God's word. Correct me if I am wrong.

My message to young Earth Christian believers is this:
There are countless creationist attacks with constant new discoveries, new fossils being dated. I've heard people shrug off dating from earth layers because "The Great Flood" has rendered this method inaccurate, or shrug off other dating methods that countless scientists confirm. Do you, to put in bluntly, believe that ALL discoveries and dating methods pointing to an older Earth is False? If Christianity is the Truth, shouldn't evidence support it?

When real world data is in conflict with one of your beliefs - rejoice. Because you have just found out that you believed wrong things. Now you can correct those false beliefs and you will have learned something.

Finding out that you were wrong is one of the best things that can happen to you.

Rel · Jun 8, 2015

Thank you for the warm welcome people. My Christian education teacher back in high school is unable to answer my questions, and my email to my Church is also ignored.. I find myself in grave need of a community to help satisfy my journey of thoughts. I can't understand people who find one possibility and suddenly believe in it, because there are various possibilities - I just wish to find the existence of these possibilities.

OldWiseGuy said:
I'm an OEC (Gap theory), and both geology and scripture supports this. No problem.

That said Christianity doesn't deal with geology, although both Jesus and Peter affirmed the historicity of the great flood. Since no one can agree on the nature of the flood the effects can hardly be calculated.

The way I understood this theory, is there was a gap and by the time "second" day came, the Earth was in ruin. Why would there be ruin and destruction if this was before the fall of man where there is only supposed to be "good"?

To me, it seems like a lot has been assumed just because a "gap" between verses didn't mention this colossal event with species and events didn't happen - but if you look at the whole Bible - more things can be assumed between any verse just because the Bible didn't specifically say it didn't happen. I say assume because, for such a large event, I find there is a disproportionate lack of clear references to this point. I know some people refer to the verse in 2 Peter, which seems to more likely refer to the Flood.

But, I admit I do not know enough of this theory, these are my conclusions based on what I do know. Feel free to correct me.

True Scotsman said:
If you think you have arrived at a contradiction, check your premises. You'll find that at least one of them is wrong. In any contest between logic and faith, go with logic.

A lot of people I met say the opposite, "just have faith". I personally can't do that. But, I also don't think my logic is flawless, neither do I think I have enough to knowledge - I want to give both contestants as much a chance as they can get.

AV1611VET said:
Hi, Rel! Welcome to CF!

Stop struggling and accept both.

I believe God embedded age into His creation, so that the earth was created ex nihilo, with age.

My definition of embedded age creation is: maturity without history.

Adam is a prime example.

Created as a mature adult of some 20 or 30 years.

The earth then is 4.47 billion years old physically, but only 6018 years old existentially.

As Peter put it:

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

And to quote Adam Clarke:

That is an interesting way of thinking, this is the one that gives me the most sense right now. This seems to be a possibility. I still have some problem. Let me ask, how can this account for the diversity of species that long periods of evolution claim? And those dated fossils - do you believe that the "mature" Earth contained all these extinct species already?

eclipsenow said:
Ignore? No! Every word of the bible is true. But not every word of the bible is literal! There's many different genres of writing in the bible, such as more creative narratives like poetry, metaphor, symbolism, narrative, apocalyptic, parable and song; and there's more literal genres like biography, history, legislative.
If the bible doesn't literally make any claims about the age of the earth, then aren't you in a crisis about nothing?
It's about understanding what Genesis actually means.

Hello, I gave the paper a read. It is quite interesting, I remember class lessons about artistry of the Bible during our high school lessons, especially "7". The most interesting part I read is the interpretation of parallels in the Mesopotamia creation myth. I feel a bit insecure about it though, because interpretations of literature largely depend on the interpreter - and you can interpret it into anything. The other metaphors in the Bible, have a clearer context in them - but I find no context in Genesis to take it out of its meaning. I think the scripture was written also for people during its time period, where this is literal to them because the physics of creation was still not questioned as now.

DogmaHunter said:
When real world data is in conflict with one of your beliefs - rejoice. Because you have just found out that you believed wrong things. Now you can correct those false beliefs and you will have learned something.

Finding out that you were wrong is one of the best things that can happen to you.

Haha, maybe my beliefs are false, maybe they are not. I am careful not to desperately accept something senseless just so what I believe in can be painlessly "Truth" - hence I want to explore as much ideas as I can, I won't give up without a fight.

Ada Lovelace · Jun 8, 2015

Welcome to CF!

It's 3:30 in the morning and I have to be up at 6:15 so rather than writing an original response I'm going to share a few chapters from the user-friendly book Making Sense of the Bible by the Adam Hilton that pertain to this discussion and reflect some of my own beliefs. I took the iPad screenshots last summer for a friend who was also struggling. I usually keep the album password protected, but I'm making it publicly viewable long enough for you to read it. The screenshots are in the correct page order, but for whatever reason the album will sometimes get scrambled up. I did title the order of the pictures.

http://s1318.photobucket.com/user/arabesque1997/library/Making Sense of the Bible

DogmaHunter · Jun 8, 2015

Rel said:
Haha, maybe my beliefs are false, maybe they are not. I am careful not to desperately accept something senseless just so what I believe in can be painlessly "Truth" - hence I want to explore as much ideas as I can, I won't give up without a fight.

You don't have to give up without a fight. However, it depends on what we mean by "fight".

In case it means that "we'll desperatly seek to accept the new data - while continuing to believe what we believe", then I'll have to disagree that it is the right fight to engage in.

Your beliefs should be conclusions. They should form after being exposed to data, not before.

AV1611VET · Jun 8, 2015

I'll get back with you, Rel, on Post 7.

I have some errands to run right now.

TTYL

Rel · Jun 8, 2015

Artemis97 said:
Welcome to CF!

It's 3:30 in the morning and I have to be up at 6:15 so rather than writing an original response I'm going to share a few chapters from the user-friendly book Making Sense of the Bible by the Adam Hilton that pertain to this discussion and reflect some of my own beliefs. I took the iPad screenshots last summer for a friend who was also struggling. I usually keep the album password protected, but I'm making it publicly viewable long enough for you to read it. The screenshots are in the correct page order, but for whatever reason the album will sometimes get scrambled up. I did title the order of the pictures.

http://s1318.photobucket.com/user/arabesque1997/library/Making Sense of the Bible

I can't see anything in the link you posted, it is just a white space to me. I can find the book though, since you gave the author and title.

DogmaHunter said:
You don't have to give up without a fight. However, it depends on what we mean by "fight".

In case it means that "we'll desperatly seek to accept the new data - while continuing to believe what we believe", then I'll have to disagree that it is the right fight to engage in.

Your beliefs should be conclusions. They should form after being exposed to data, not before.

Of course, that is what I meant in my previous post when I said I don't want to desperately accept. I know what conclusions are supposed to be, that's why I'm not making any for this topic and doing a lot of exploration for now. When I see people blindingly believing for desperate comfort who can't properly defend themselves, I think I cannot do that. When I was still a strong Christian, I also did my best to read atheist and other world view articles. I want to constantly challenge ideas and see which one comes out with more sense. For me, there are still a lot of things in Christianity that make sense, based on the actual world. I am not desperately seeking to accept new data to fit "what I believe in must be True" because I am in deep doubt - I doubt my beliefs, I doubt other's beliefs. I think there are as many questions in theistic and atheistic views.

eclipsenow · Jun 8, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
You don't have to give up without a fight. However, it depends on what we mean by "fight".

In case it means that "we'll desperatly seek to accept the new data - while continuing to believe what we believe", then I'll have to disagree that it is the right fight to engage in.

Your beliefs should be conclusions. They should form after being exposed to data, not before.

What if the pertinent lack of data here is about how the original audience would have read it, and perceived the claims of the text? What if there is no conflict between Christianity and an old earth at all? To Sydney Anglicans, this is just not a problem. Try historian and theologian Dr John Dickson (with a Phd in history). In short, Genesis 1 is more like a poem about why God made the world, not how God made the world.
http://www.iscast.org/journal/articlespage/Dickson_J_2008-03_Genesis_Of_Everything

Even Noah's flood is seen as a large regional event, and that poor interpretation of the Hebrew, and poor understanding of the Ancient Middle Eastern cosmology is to blame. EG: Read up on Sargon's geography and cosmology. Sargon was the first king of the Akkad empire, the first empire on the earth. His empire crossed
the Mesopotamian plain and the Tigris river, and was largely bordered by mountains they thought of as Cosmic Mountains. This is important, because Cosmic Mountains were different to normal mountains. They went down into the underworld and rose up to support the heavens! Nothing in the Genesis account says Heaven itself was barraged with water, so it was probably unthinkable to suggest that such a Cosmic Mountain could have been flooded (the Cosmic Mountains that bordered the known world!) In other words, the mountains that were covered may have only been hills. Indeed, the word itself in the Hebrew can mean hills.

Here's another problem to clear understanding. If you're reading the story of Noah in English, then it's a mistranslation, and perceived differences to what's possible with science are not worth getting upset about. This is just one example of the sort of misreading that occurs.

"7:20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits."
Clear enough, isn't it! The whole earth is covered, and even the mountains to a DEPTH of more than fifteen cubits! But hang on, what is meant by mountains here? Mountains, or Cosmic Mountains? And now it gets worse!
When one reads the footnotes to the NIV, it puts in the actual Hebrew sense of the words...

Genesis 7:20 Or rose more than fifteen cubits, and the mountains were covered

That's a little unclear, as the water rose fifteen cubits... but mountains are far more than 15 cubits high! And covered? What is covered about? Yes, the most common use means submerging. But there is also Job38:34, Jeremiah 46:8, and Malachi 2:13. In these verses it's more like a kid coming in from the rain and the mother declaring, "You're covered in water!" It's more like drenched. It's the same word. It's an interesting idea, hey? The water rose up fifteen cubits and the mountains were drenched by all that rain! Then there's the business about the mountains 'becoming visible', and I think that's possibly because the Ark was resting against a Cosmic Mountain, the other lesser mountains gradually became visible.

What I am saying is that there are many possibilities for us to drown the text in our own ignorant assumptions and modern worldviews and modern questions which the original audience did not have. Young Earth Creationist literal readings of the text would probably have been lost on the original audience, or even made them laugh. Nor does Noah demand that we read the whole world as covered, with even the mountains submerged under water! That's not necessarily the right interpretation and hermeneutic, given Ancient Middle Eastern cosmology.

In other words, there's definitely a clash between science and Young Earth Creationism, and Science and a global flood. But is the BIBLE itself YEC or global flood? That is, is the 'missing data' on the scientific side or the hermeneutical side? My position is clear. It's hermeneutic.

DogmaHunter · Jun 8, 2015

eclipsenow said:
What if the pertinent lack of data here is about how the original audience would have read it, and perceived the claims of the text?

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here.

Focusing on the part "lack of data", I'ld say that if you don't have enough data, you should not be forming any conclusions either way.

What if there is no conflict between Christianity and an old earth at all?

What if one wouldn't assume that christianity, or indeed any other religion, has any authority on telling us the history of this planet? Old OR young?

To Sydney Anglicans, this is just not a problem. Try historian and theologian Dr John Dickson (with a Phd in history).

Why? What can he tell me that any other secular geologist, physicist, cosmologist, astro-physicist, chemist, biologist, etc... can not tell me?

In short, Genesis 1 is more like a poem about why God made the world, not how God made the world.

Great. The same can be said about every single creation myth from any religion.
And the added value to the actual science is below zero.

Even Noah's flood is seen as a large regional event, and that poor interpretation of the Hebrew, and poor understanding of the Ancient Middle Eastern cosmology is to blame. EG: Read up on Sargon's geography and cosmology. Sargon was the first king of the Akkad empire, the first empire on the earth. His empire crossed
the Mesopotamian plain and the Tigris river, and was largely bordered by mountains they thought of as Cosmic Mountains. This is important, because Cosmic Mountains were different to normal mountains. They went down into the underworld and rose up to support the heavens!
Nothing in the Genesis account says Heaven itself was barraged with water, so it was probably unthinkable to suggest that such a Cosmic Mountain could have been flooded (the Cosmic Mountains that bordered the known world!) In other words, the mountains that were covered may have only been hills. Indeed, the word itself in the Hebrew can mean hills.

When people start to argue that there was nothing special / supernatural / global about the Noah flood, then there is no difference between this flood and just about any other flood. The entire idea of Noah's Ark becomes obsolete and senseless.

It's ironic to me that by removing the physically impossible and obvious ridiculous components of the story... the entire story becomes even more non-sensical then it already was.

Here's an idea: instead of twisting yourself in turns to explain why the book is correct even while being obviously wrong... maybe just go straight to the science instead of desperatly trying to reverse match the science to the book.

Just skip the book altogether. What you are doing seems like a waste of energy.

AV1611VET · Jun 8, 2015

Rel said:
That is an interesting way of thinking, this is the one that gives me the most sense right now.

This seems to be a possibility. I still have some problem. Let me ask, how can this account for the diversity of species that long periods of evolution claim?

It can't.

What appears to be a long history of evolution-in-progress is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots that only works on paper.

For example, all these "hominids" that supposedly come from our common ancestor are nothing more than human beings whose bones were altered by some "wonderful plague" that God sent on mankind as a judgment for sins.

Deuteronomy 28:59 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

These disfiguring plagues are responsible for what evolutionists call Neanderthals & Cro-magnons today.

And as far as the animal kingdom goes, if you were to photograph every fossil in existence and put them into a FPS (frames per second) flip book ... then flip through it ... the flip book would testify of instant creation -- not evolution.

And those dated fossils - do you believe that the "mature" Earth contained all these extinct species already?

No, I don't.

When a fossil is dated, all that can be dated is its age, not the year it lived.

OldWiseGuy · Jun 8, 2015

Rel said:
The way I understood this theory, is there was a gap and by the time "second" day came, the Earth was in ruin. Why would there be ruin and destruction if this was before the fall of man where there is only supposed to be "good"?

To me, it seems like a lot has been assumed just because a "gap" between verses didn't mention this colossal event with species and events didn't happen - but if you look at the whole Bible - more things can be assumed between any verse just because the Bible didn't specifically say it didn't happen. I say assume because, for such a large event, I find there is a disproportionate lack of clear references to this point. I know some people refer to the verse in 2 Peter, which seems to more likely refer to the Flood.

But, I admit I do not know enough of this theory, these are my conclusions based on what I do know. Feel free to correct me.

The geologic record reveals the pattern of ruin/restoration that precedes Adam by millions of years and many cataclysmic events. Genesis 1 is the last of a series of such ruin/restoration events. God was starting over....again. The so-called "rainbow covenant" intimates previous floods as well. Gen 1:2 finds the earth in a flooded condition, shrouded by darkness; in a state of ruin. It is noteworthy that God only restored the surface of the earth to be fit for life. He did not restore the ruined topography (mountains are cataclysmic upheavals).

Rel · Jun 8, 2015

AV1611VET said:
It can't.

What appears to be a long history of evolution-in-progress is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots that only works on paper.

For example, all these "hominids" that supposedly come from our common ancestor are nothing more than human beings whose bones were altered by some "wonderful plague" that God sent on mankind as a judgment for sins.

Deuteronomy 28:59 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

These disfiguring plagues are responsible for what evolutionists call Neanderthals & Cro-magnons today.

And as far as the animal kingdom goes, if you were to photograph every fossil in existence and put them into a FPS (frames per second) flip book ... then flip through it ... the flip book would testify of instant creation -- not evolution.

No, I don't.

When a fossil is dated, all that can be dated is its age, not the year it lived.

I see.. although I can't imagine any plague that disfigures bones to that extent, because there would be an extremely orderly and perfectly timed 'bone destruction and creation, and organ and tissue destruction and creation (to fit the changing skeletal structures)'... when the other plagues in a Bible are nothing so ordered, medically miraculous and such. These old fossils also show nothing even close to the civilized life of the first peoples in the Bible. I think I am left more confused.

On a random note, the term FPS flip book make me chuckle a bit, FPS is a measurement. Can you explain why the flip book would testify of instant creation? Because my anthropology class "flip book" of fossils shows me gradual changing.

OldWiseGuy said:
The geologic record reveals the pattern of ruin/restoration that precedes Adam by millions of years and many cataclysmic events. Genesis 1 is the last of a series of such ruin/restoration events. God was starting over....again. The so-called "rainbow covenant" intimates previous floods as well. Gen 1:2 finds the earth in a flooded condition, shrouded by darkness; in a state of ruin. It is noteworthy that God only restored the surface of the earth to be fit for life. He did not restore the ruined topography (mountains are cataclysmic upheavals).

Hello, I cannot accept something I fail to understand - these questions are my best attempt to understand, and they are formulated with errors I find in logic. Please help me understand your stand.

You leave me with more questions, and you are not able to answer my previous: Ruin and destruction are not associated with "good". "Bad" is widely accepted only to enter after the Fall of Man. Corinthians clearly state that death came BECAUSE of man - but this destruction and death you claim is pre-Adam. This is undermining so many different passages from multiple books in the Bible.

I don't understand how the rainbow covenant intimates a flood before Noah. To me it clearly intimates Noah's Flood, because right after the Flood, God was speaking to Noah about never bringing upon a Flood that 'destroys the earth', which is how He described it in the previous chapters. And Noah's flood is mentioned in other chapters too, so where is any Bible verse pertaining to the "previous flood"?

Also this poses a huge problem about Noah's Earth-destroying flood - which was supposed to be a worldwide catastrophe to account for quite a number of fossil records.. it's unscientific to fit into the gap timeline. It's quite a dilemma that there's even a gap theorist paper about Noah's flood just being "local" (quite a few Gap theorists lean on this too when questioned about this dilemma.)

Second, no, the geological record does not support very much this theory, which explains why there are no geologists who actually study this, who support this theory. Scientifically, leaving topography like mountains and such orderly fossil records is disproportionate to the magnitude of global destruction required for the Earth to revert to become "formless and void". The gap theorists refer to a specific system of geological ages based on the important principle of uniformitarianism- which contradicts the sudden timeline intrusion of the recreation process.

Winepress777 · Jun 8, 2015

Rel said:
I, myself, am struggling heavily with my Faith because of many barriers: this is one of them. I find that believing in any of the two poses problems in my logic I fail to reconcile properly with Christianity. I would like your opinions.

My message to old Earth Christian believers is this:
How can you reconcile this with the Word Christians claim to be irrefutable? I've tried to read articles about the computation of the Earth's age from the Bible, there are some difficulties and errors yes- but none that can possibly reach millions. The way I understand it, old Earth Christians selectively ignore parts of their God's word. Correct me if I am wrong.

My message to young Earth Christian believers is this:
There are countless creationist attacks with constant new discoveries, new fossils being dated. I've heard people shrug off dating from earth layers because "The Great Flood" has rendered this method inaccurate, or shrug off other dating methods that countless scientists confirm. Do you, to put in bluntly, believe that ALL discoveries and dating methods pointing to an older Earth is False? If Christianity is the Truth, shouldn't evidence support it?

Of course the universe has been around billions of years, stars, planets, moons form over countless eons. You must remember that it is only a few who stumble over this religiously, it isn't all of us who agree that the creation days were 24 hours each or that God fictitiously faked up the fossil record. It is as absurd to most of us as it is to the "other" arguers including atheists, unfortunately. It throws a bad light on Christians when they stand firm on their flimsy theology in the face of irrefutable evidence. It's a bad argument for a Christian to participate in I believe.
Thank you and blessings

Strathos · Jun 8, 2015

Rel said:
I, myself, am struggling heavily with my Faith because of many barriers: this is one of them. I find that believing in any of the two poses problems in my logic I fail to reconcile properly with Christianity. I would like your opinions.

My message to old Earth Christian believers is this:
How can you reconcile this with the Word Christians claim to be irrefutable? I've tried to read articles about the computation of the Earth's age from the Bible, there are some difficulties and errors yes- but none that can possibly reach millions. The way I understand it, old Earth Christians selectively ignore parts of their God's word. Correct me if I am wrong.

The Bible never actually says anything about the age of the earth. The Bible was also never intended a history book. It deals with spiritual and moral matters, not scientific claims. Those who take everything in Genesis as literal history are missing the point.

DogmaHunter · Jun 9, 2015

Rel said:
Of course, that is what I meant in my previous post when I said I don't want to desperately accept. I know what conclusions are supposed to be, that's why I'm not making any for this topic and doing a lot of exploration for now. When I see people blindingly believing for desperate comfort who can't properly defend themselves, I think I cannot do that. When I was still a strong Christian, I also did my best to read atheist and other world view articles. I want to constantly challenge ideas and see which one comes out with more sense. For me, there are still a lot of things in Christianity that make sense, based on the actual world. I am not desperately seeking to accept new data to fit "what I believe in must be True" because I am in deep doubt - I doubt my beliefs, I doubt other's beliefs. I think there are as many questions in theistic and atheistic views.

Great.

I think you'll do just fine.

OldWiseGuy · Jun 9, 2015

Rel said:
.

Hello, I cannot accept something I fail to understand - these questions are my best attempt to understand, and they are formulated with errors I find in logic. Please help me understand your stand.

You leave me with more questions, and you are not able to answer my previous: Ruin and destruction are not associated with "good". "Bad" is widely accepted only to enter after the Fall of Man. Corinthians clearly state that death came BECAUSE of man - but this destruction and death you claim is pre-Adam. This is undermining so many different passages from multiple books in the Bible.

Adam and Eve were created mortal; flesh and blood. They were destined to die physically before their actual fall.

I don't understand how the rainbow covenant intimates a flood before Noah. To me it clearly intimates Noah's Flood, because right after the Flood, God was speaking to Noah about never bringing upon a Flood that 'destroys the earth', which is how He described it in the previous chapters. And Noah's flood is mentioned in other chapters too, so where is any Bible verse pertaining to the "previous flood"?

Geology reveals that the surface of the earth has been inundated many times, killing and burying prehistoric life forms. The rainbow covenant refers to a global flood. God still reserves the right to cause local floods.

Also this poses a huge problem about Noah's Earth-destroying flood - which was supposed to be a worldwide catastrophe to account for quite a number of fossil records.. it's unscientific to fit into the gap timeline.

As we cannot agree on the exact nature of the great flood we cannot confirm or deny a timeline for it.

Second, no, the geological record does not support very much this theory, which explains why there are no geologists who actually study this, who support this theory. Scientifically, leaving topography like mountains and such orderly fossil records is disproportionate to the magnitude of global destruction required for the Earth to revert to become "formless and void". The gap theorists refer to a specific system of geological ages based on the important principle of uniformitarianism- which contradicts the sudden timeline intrusion of the recreation process.

The flood would not have left the earth in the same condition described in Genesis 1:2. Nor would it have dramatically upset previous geological features i.e. previous flood layers. Most of the evidence of Noah's flood has been washed or weathered away, or is not recognized as evidence at all.

Do You Believe in Young Earth or Old Earth?

New Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Objectivist

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Code Monkey

New Member

Grateful to scientists and all health care workers

Code Monkey

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

New Member

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Code Monkey

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Wake me when it's soup.

New Member

Well-Known Member

No one important

Code Monkey

Wake me when it's soup.

Similar threads