CHRISTIANS: What do you believe regarding the age of our universe?

How old is the universe? Which option most closely says what you believe? SEE POST #1

  • 1A: @11-20 billion years. I am a Christian. The Bible is a spiritual guide, not a science book, and

  • 1B: @11-20 billion years. I am a Christian, but think it is irrelevant what the Bible says about cre

  • 1C: @11-20 billion years. I am a Christian, but still think it is irrelevant what the Bible says abo

  • 2A: @6000 years. I am a Christian. Creation took 144 hours, and any scientific evidence to the contr

  • 2B: @12,000 years. I am a Christian. Creation took 6000 years, and any scientific evidence to the co

  • 2C. @6,000 years. I am a Christian who believes in the Gap theory (explained in post # 1).

  • 3A. @11-20 billion years. I am a Christian who believes in the Gap theory (explained in post # 1).

  • 3B. @11-20 billion years. I am a Christian. Each biblical "day" of creation is separated by ages or

  • 3C. @11-20 billion years. I am a Christian. Since the Hebrew word for "day" ([i]yom[/i]) can mean an

  • 3D. @11-20 billion years. I am a Christian. Creation could have taken 144 hours measured at the spee


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Serapha

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,133
28
✟6,704.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Vance said:
They are false because they teach something that is not true. Showing that this doctrine is not true involves not a reference to a specific Scripture, but an analysis of both the Scriptural support for the doctrine to see whether it is sound and an analysis of whether that doctrine is sound based on the evidence of God's Creation. His other word to us.



Could you possibly identify another "false doctrine" that would be qualified as "false" based upon God's "other word to us"?


And what is God's "other word to us"? Nature? The created world??? God had a few words to say about man's concept of the creation in Romans chapter 1 and 2... and they are called the invisible qualities of God and not His "other word to us".

Also....


John 7:17
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.


1 Timothy 6:3
If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


~malaka~
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, you have it backwards in this case. What YEC's are doing is teaching something that is simply NOT mandated by the Scripture. It is not that there is a Scripture which explains that what they are teaching is wrong (although there are some Scriptures which indicate the alternative interpretations are correct, as I have cite you to in other threads), but the absence of a clear mandate for their particular viewpoint. They believe that a young earth is MANDATED by Scripture and it is not. They teach it as an absolute truth, and it is not. But you can't prove a negative, it speaks for itself.

If they taught that a young earth was one possible interpretation, and conditioned their conclusions on the idea that it is based on their interpretation being correct, I would not call that a false doctrine. I would just say that their interpretation was wrong and thus their conclusions were wrong. But they preach their message dogmatically, which makes it very different.
 
Upvote 0

Serapha

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,133
28
✟6,704.00
Faith
Non-Denom
You stated,

"It is not that there is a Scripture which explains that what they are teaching is wrong"


That is exactly the truth... there is no Scripture that says early creationsim is wrong... in fact, Scriptures do support early creationism.


When you post that YEC is a false doctrine, that is simply because it is your opinion that it is a false doctrine.

~malaka~
 
Upvote 0

Sinai

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2002
1,127
19
Visit site
✟1,762.00
Faith
Protestant
mountaingoat said:
:confused: You are making it too complicated. What I believe is that time is an illusion to man. Time exist only in understanding space and distance. Since GOD is over time and space, GOD can manipulate it according to HIS will. GOD knows the number of our hairs, and imagine I know I loose like 20 strands a day, thats a lot of counting! That being said, I think it took 6 consecutive days, 144 hours because that's what the bible says... :D

If you believe it was 144 consecutive hours, then either 2A or 3D would probably be your best choices, depending upon whether you think the 144 hours should be measured forward in time with the creative process [3D] or backward in time against the creative process [2A].

The reason I had made the earlier post is that you had mentioned "the verse in Psalms about one day with GOD is as a thousand years with man."

Anyway, hope that helps....
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, of course it is my opinion that it is a false doctrine. That is what I have been saying all along. And, as to the short day teaching, I have explained WHY, scripturally, I think it is a false doctrine. I could do the same for other teachings of theirs, if you like.

If you made a list of false doctrines which are in the world today, it would be made up of doctrines you believe are false, based on your reading of Scripture. THat is exactly the same as my position. Based on my reading of Scripture, there are a wide variety of teachings of YEC's that are false, and thus I believe they are false doctrines. WHat is complicated about that?

Your reading of Scripture leads you to believe that the earth is young, so you believe that teaching an old earth is a false doctrine, do you not?

As for the evidence of God's Creation, let's consider the Geocentrism fiasco for a moment. The Church believed that the Sun and the stars revolved around the earth, and insisted that Scripture mandated this was true, and yes, a plain reading without taking the evidence of God's creation into account would indicate Geocentrism. They believed that to deny geocentrism was to deny the validity of the Scripture. Then we were better able to observe and understand the evidence of God's Creation. Based on that evidence, the Christian community had to finally acknowledge that their reading of Scripture was faulty, even though it WAS based on a plain, literal reading. In short, without taking into consideration BOTH the Scripture and the Creation, it is difficult for us to choose between two or more possible interpretations of a given Scripture. There had always been more than one interpretation and the Scripture had ALWAYS been correct, but it was not until man chose the correct interpretation (even though it was the less "plain" one) that the conflict was resolved.

I am sure that for a long time after the truth became obvious about geocentrism, there were stubborn groups who insisted that the majority of Christians (who had accepted the scientific facts and realized that the alternate interpretation was correct) had just compromised their beliefs to accomodate the World. The clung to their geocentrist interpretation and believed that they were the ones standing firm for God and the Scripture. They were wrong, of course.

I believe the same is happening now. The majority of the Christian community has accepted an old earth, and even the truth of evolution to some degree. They have realized that their human interpretation of Genesis had been faulty. There still is, however, a group which is following in the footsteps of the "geocentrist holdouts", and they are the YEC's.

BTW, there are still some who hold out for Geocentrism to this day.
 
Upvote 0

mountaingoat

Member
Aug 1, 2003
72
3
41
Visit site
✟7,712.00
Faith
Christian
Sinai said:
If you believe it was 144 consecutive hours, then either 2A or 3D would probably be your best choices, depending upon whether you think the 144 hours should be measured forward in time with the creative process [3D] or backward in time against the creative process [2A].

The reason I had made the earlier post is that you had mentioned "the verse in Psalms about one day with GOD is as a thousand years with man."

Anyway, hope that helps....

I hope you didnt take what I said the wrong way. I just hate not communicating effectively. Like I said, I dont think my answer is up there, because essentially, I dont believe in time on a greater scale, just space. SO its just what you realize time to be whether that be 2A, 3D, or any of the other answers that don't imply that the creation story was just a story because I dont believe that. I hope we're cool. :wave:
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Malaka said:

You know because the Word of God teaches you differently from that doctrine. I want to know where the Word of God teaches that YEC-ism is a false doctrine.


1. YEC relies on a violent Flood to form all geology. Yet Genesis 2:10-14 identifies the location of pre-Flood Eden by post-Flood rivers. Since those rivers are sitting on top of sedimentary rock that YECers claim was laid down in the Flood, they cannot possibly have been there pre-Flood. The only way scripture works is for the Flood to have been so gentle that it did not disturb geography.

2. Genesis 2:4b states that the heavens and earth were created in a single day. Yet YECers insist on the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 where it took 4 days to create the heavens and the earth.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Malaka said:
Could you possibly identify another "false doctrine" that would be qualified as "false" based upon God's "other word to us"?

1. Flat earth.
2. Geocentrism.

Both of these were justified by scripture but were disproven based on God's other word.

3. The Appearance of Age doctrine. God made the world to LOOK old, not really be old.
4. The whole world was taxed as in Luke 2:1. Extrabiblical knowledge showed that only the Roman world was taxed.

[QUTOE] And what is God's "other word to us"? Nature? The created world??? God had a few words to say about man's concept of the creation in Romans chapter 1 and 2... and they are called the invisible qualities of God and not His "other word to us". [/QUOTE]

1. GOD did not say anything in Romans. This is PAUL talking.

2. Romans 1:20 "For the invisible things of him from teh creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse."

Notice that the verse clearly states that the universe was created by God and shows us about God.

Now, the chapter continues against those that made gods out of created beasts"
23: "And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."

There were sects in Rome that did worship gods in the shape of humans -- Zeus -- and in the shape of birds -- Horus of the Egyptians.

Now, in a verse that could apply to creationsts: 2:22b "thou that abhor idols, do you commit sacrilege?" I would say that YECers make an idol of the Bible. Even to the point of saying "God had a few words to say ..." when the words are Paul's. Sometimes when Paul is speaking for God, he clearly says so. This is not one of those times.

John 7:17
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

You know, taking the Bible out of context is not really using the Bible, is it?

John 7:16-19 "Jesus answered them, and said, "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall kow of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory; but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keep the law? Why do you go about to kill me?"

This is part of a defense Jesus gives against Jews who don't think he is from God because, in their eyes, Jesus broke the law by healing a man on the sabbath. It is not a blanket statement on what is or isn't "true doctrine".

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

And the two Genesis creation stories ARE useful for instruction and profitable for doctrine. BUT NOT IF they are read literally. If you do that, then all usefulness for instruction disappears because you lose the theological messages.

Tell us, Malaka, what are the theological messages of Genesis 1? What are the theological messages of Genesis 2-3?

That nature is a second book of God has a long tradition within Christianity.

"the great book ... of created things. Look above you; look below you; read it, note it." St. Augustine, Sermon 126 in Corpus Christianorum

"duplex cognito" John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed by John T. McNeil, 1.2.1, 1960.

"Man learns from two books: the universe for the human study of things created by God; and the Bible, for the study of God's superior will and truth. One belongs to reason, the other to faith. Between them there is no clash." Pope Pius Xii, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, Dec. 3, 1939.

"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both." Bacon: Advancement of Learning
 
Upvote 0

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
56
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟20,947.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Malaka said:
You stated,

"It is not that there is a Scripture which explains that what they are teaching is wrong"


That is exactly the truth... there is no Scripture that says early creationsim is wrong... in fact, Scriptures do support early creationism.


When you post that YEC is a false doctrine, that is simply because it is your opinion that it is a false doctrine.

~malaka~

Ask and thou shalt receive:

Malaka - http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=946297&postcount=65
 
Upvote 0

Donny_B

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2003
570
3
North Carolina
✟740.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
I believe in the Genesis account and that this happened about 6,000 years ago. The geneaology of Jesus through Mary in the Gospel according to Luke traces His human descent from Adam.

That said, God is from everlasting to everlasting. He could have created the universe anytime within that time frame, but chose to reveal to us that He created it within the time frame He revealed in scripture.

I am mindful of scripture that suggests strong delusion to believe a lie in the last days and prefer to follow Paul's advice to Timothy, and to avoid profane babblings and oppositions of science falsly so-called.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

nephilimiyr

I've Been Keepin My Eyes Wide Open
Jan 21, 2003
23,432
1,799
60
Wausau Wisconsin
Visit site
✟40,552.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I believe in the gap theory and voted for it here but as others have said this doesn't state the belief I have in it correctly. For instance most people who believe in the gap theory don't profess a time period at all since the Genesis account doesn't convey this to us. The earth could be 11 to 20 billion years old and it may not, it may be older or younger than that.

The whole point in the gap theory is that "In the beginning God created" is separate from what is said in verse 2. Nowhere in there does it suggest where this "In the beginning" is on a time scale. It's true however that most people who believe in the gap theory follow that of what science has learned about how old the earth maybe.
 
Upvote 0

nikolai_42

Well-Known Member
Jan 24, 2003
535
12
50
Visit site
✟8,446.00
Faith
Non-Denom
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned is scriptural support that the bible itself is not crystal clear on length of time. While we see the word 'day' in the KJV and subsequent versions, the original text didn't necessarily mean that.

Many people (myself included until recently) look at the first day and see that God made evening and morning the first day. But there is no expression of time in that verse. Hold out for that until day four. Here, the writer says:

"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."
Genesis 1:14-18

There is no indication before day four (whatever a day was) of the length of anything. That wasn't even done until day 4. While light and darkness were created on day 1, no specification of time is given. So there is great latitude in believing that the bible supports an old earth by our reckoning.
 
Upvote 0

Sinai

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2002
1,127
19
Visit site
✟1,762.00
Faith
Protestant
Well, thus far there appears to be a rather even division among the persons voting in this poll:

Eight said that they think the universe is 11-20 billion years old and that the Bible's creation account is not intended to be an accurate depiction of creation.

Seven have said that their interpretation of the Bible leads them to believe the universe is only 6-12 thousand years old, and any scientific evidence to the contrary should be disregarded and not believed.

And eight have said they believe what the Bible says with regard to creation and also believe mainstream scientific findings and discoveries relating to creation (i.e., the universe is 11-20 billion years old, and that does not conflict with scriptures; both are true).
 
Upvote 0
both can not be true as they are mutually exclusive. I too like science when it is free of bias. the overwhelming force of scientific facts do support the creation theory & the Biblical theme. Evolutionists are the ones who have had to change & create add theories to theri arsenal as theri previous ones fell apart under examination.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
262
58
✟23,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Obadiah, you make these statements as if we have not heard them before and will say, "ah, I see, I wasn't aware of that".

We have progressed FAR beyond a mere statement of conclusory beliefs and are well into *why* we believe the way we do about God's Creation.

A Hovind groupie, to be sure.
 
Upvote 0

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
56
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟20,947.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Vance said:
Obadiah, you make these statements as if we have not heard them before and will say, "ah, I see, I wasn't aware of that".

One of the reasons creation science has so little credibility is that it consistently does this - it suggests flaws in radiometric dating to people who've studied it since they were doing an MSc as if they're going to say "Ooh! I never thought of that! What a twit I've been!" and so on. Criticisms of theory from fellow theorists who understand the material as well as you do are one thing; snipes from the likes of Hovind who frequently demonstrate they know little about it are not going to have much credibility.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
obediah001 said:
both can not be true as they are mutually exclusive. I too like science when it is free of bias. the overwhelming force of scientific facts do support the creation theory & the Biblical theme. Evolutionists are the ones who have had to change & create add theories to theri arsenal as theri previous ones fell apart under examination.

Obediah, just what do you think has changed in evolution and why are the changes bad? Which previous theories do you think "fell apart".

Also, are you aware that "support" is not the essential evidence? What is most important is the evidence that FALSIFIES a theory. It doesn't matter how much support a theory has if there is evidence that falsifies it.

For instance, there is massive support for a flat earth. All our everyday experience supports it. Let's face it, the earth looks flat. Yet there is data -- shadow cast on the moon, how ships disappear over the horizon, the angle cast by shadows at the same longitude at the same time on the same day -- that simply cannot be there if the earth really were flat.

So, no matter how much data supports the earth being flat, what matters is the evidence that falsifies it.

The "Biblical theme" and the "creation theory" was THE accepted scientific theory between 1700 and 1831. It was conclusively and finally falsified by 1831. Nearly 30 years before Darwin wrote Origin of the Species. The "creation theory" (young earth creationism) is wrong.

"There is another way to be a Creationist. One might offer Creationism as a scientific theory: Life did not evolve over millions of years; rather all forms were created at one time by a particular Creator. Although pure versions of Creationism were no longer in vogue among scientists by the end of the eighteenth century, they had flourished earlier (in the writings of Thomas Bumet, William Whiston, and others). Moreover, variants of Creationism were supported by a number of eminent nineteenth-century scientists-William Buckland, Adam Sedgwick, and Louis Agassiz, for example. These Creationists trusted that their theories would accord with the Bible, interpreted in what they saw as a correct way. However, that fact does not affect the scientific status of those theories. Even postulating an unobserved Creator need be no more unscientific than postulating unobservable particles. What matters is the character of the proposals and the ways in which they are articulated and defended. The great scientific Creationists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries offered problem-solving strategies for many of the questions addressed by evolutionary theory. They struggled hard to explain the observed distribution of fossils. Sedgwick, Buckland, and others practiced genuine science. They stuck their necks out and volunteered information about the catastrophes that they invoked to explain biological and geological findings. Because their theories offered definite proposals, those theories were refutable. Indeed, the theories actually achieved refutation. In 1831, in his presidential address to the Geological Society, Adam Sedgwick publicly announced that his own variant of Creationism had been refuted:
Having, been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy ... I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.
We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of a former world entombed in these ancient deposits. In classing together distant unknown formations under one name; in simultaneous origin, and in determining their date, not by the organic remains we have discovered, but by those we expected, hypothetically hereafter to discover, in them; we have given one more example of the passion with which the mind fastens upon general conclusions, and of the readiness with which it leaves the consideration of unconnected truths. (Sedgwick, 1831, 313-314; all but the last sentence quoted in Gillispie 1951, 142-143)" Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism pp125-126
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Serapha

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,133
28
✟6,704.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Karl - Liberal Backslider said:


Hi there, KLB,

:wave:


This is what I said then...

Originally Posted By: Malaka

Anytime that a false doctrine was identified in the Word of God, then there are passages to support the fact.

I simply want the passages that substantiate your claim that "YEC-ism" is a false doctrine.


I don't want to hear "YEC's argue"... or "I think".... that just isn't the way the the Word of God teaches against false doctrines.... Paul was specific when he identified false doctrines. Christ was specific. Peter was specific.... in summary, God was always specific when false doctrine was identified.

~malaka~




and this is what I say now...


"ditto"


~malaka~
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.