Old earth creationists

[flameingcrouton]

but that is an assumption without proof in the text.
how do you know that the Garden of Eden occurred on the 6th day? or a week later? or 100 years later? or 14.5 billion years later?

it doesn't say, nor does it hint at an answer.
just because everyone has read Gen 1 then Gen 2 as continuous in time, doesn't make it so.

....

The 6000 year age isn't based on the garden of eaden, it's based on the teh ages of people in the bible.

 

[Matthew777]

Young earth creationists, please take the time to read the article I posted. It explains why the Genesis genealogies are not meant to calculate the age of the earth.

 

[Dexx]

The 6000 year age isn't based on the garden of eaden, it's based on the teh ages of people in the bible.

Its based on the calculated years of adding the mentioned generations from Adam to Christ (+2000). It assumes that there arent any gaps, that generations havent been left out.

I agree that its probably around 4000 years from Adam to Christ. But i believe the universe was created long before Adam. I dont see Gen 2 as being immediately consecutive to Gen 1.

 

[Linux98]

"For example, telescoping (leaving out some names for the sake of brevity) is common in Biblical genealogies but is rare in modern genealogies." - http://www.reasons.org/
​

I have heard this explanation before but I have never investigated it. I guess I would consider myself a OEC but I do not have a good answer for the geneology question (unless the quote above is the good answer).

I would be interested to find out if there is a resolution however. I would prefer not to make the Bible say something that it doesn't say. And if the Bible says the earth is actually 6,000 years old....well I'll just have to submit to believing it or else throw out the Bible and my Christianity with it. I'm pretty extreme that way, either the Bible is the word of God or it isn't.

 

[Matthew777]

The universe is ancient, everybody! We are only a flicker of a match in relation to the antiquity of the universe! But guess what, God is everlasting!!! Therefore, no matter how old the universe is, it's nothing while compared to Him. Therefore, YEC is non-sense.

 

[The Seb]

'in the beggining god created the heavens and the earth' this is the first verse in the bible, times, years and stuff like that, its not important. Does it change your beliefs in God? its all about following god and believing the bible. A part from that i personally do believe that when god spoke of 'heavens' he meant the universe. Who knows? Perhaps heaven is in this universe? The bible isn't there to give us the answers, its there to give us god

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The 6000 year age isn't based on the garden of eaden, it's based on the teh ages of people in the bible.

it takes you to Adam in the Garden of Eden. the terminus is the Garden.

 

[Sinai]

That doen't really answer my question. I realize the bible doesn't tell us the age of the earth, but if you add up the ages of people in the bible from adam to christ, and you add 2000 years from christ to now you get about 6000 years. It's simple math. What is you're response to this?

Actually, it's not just "simple math." Although most of the YEC websites appear to have adopted the 6000 year figure, the range tends to be from about 6000 years up to about 46,000 years--depending upon which assumptions made by Ussher and Lightfoot one accepts and which assumptions one rejects. But any of those figures (6-46M years) would cause one to be classified as a young earth creationist.

It's not the genological time line that separates the YECs and the OECs. Rather, its how they interpret the yoms of the first chapter of Genesis.

 

[Phred]

The thing I take away from all this, brilliantly demonstrated by all the folks participating in this thread, is that there is no known correct interpretation. Yet, if there's actually a deity out there who inspired this book, there must be ONE CORRECT interpretation. Shame nobody can agree on what that is.

It seems ridiculous to me that a book must be interpreted before it can make sense. Even more ridiculous that people accept this as inerrent...

.
​

 

[nvxplorer]

It seems ridiculous to me that a book must be interpreted before it can make sense. Even more ridiculous that people accept this as inerrent...

This is my feeling as well. Language itself, though a wonderful tool, is not perfect. Word constructions can be imprecise, can mean different things to different people, and many words simply do not translate well between languages. I haven't used Spanish for decades, but while living in Texas, I used it almost exclusively. I remember trying to explain the meaning of certain words to English speakers, and the difficulty I had in doing so. I knew the exact meaning in my mind, the "feeling" I got when hearing/using the word, but an explanation in English was only an approximation. Spanish and English are two modern languages. I can't imagine the difficulty in translating accurately from ancient Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic.

It would seem to me that a god, if he exists, would be capable of communicating directly with the human mind. I'm sure many claim this does in fact happen, but in other cases, it seems that the object of worship is not a god, but a book.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

It would seem to me that a god, if he exists, would be capable of communicating directly with the human mind. I'm sure many claim this does in fact happen, but in other cases, it seems that the object of worship is not a god, but a book.

It seems to come down to the particular flavor of brainwashing the theist has been exposed to. Some have been told over and over since birth that the bible is the inerrant word of god. The final product of this particular flavor of brainwashing is a YEC.

 

[nvxplorer]

It seems to come down to the particular flavor of brainwashing the theist has been exposed to. Some have been told over and over since birth that the bible is the inerrant word of god. The final product of this particular flavor of brainwashing is a YEC.

It seems exactly like brainwashing. I have no other way to explain it. Most Christians I encounter are perfectly rational, reasonable people, but a few exhibit characteristics that can be explained only by brainwashing - whether by others or themselves.

Some people simply cannot get past childish fallacies about the ToE. After being told over and over that the ToE doesn't claim man came from apes, they will respond by demanding evidence of an orangutan giving birth to a human. Something isn't clicking. I have a sincere concern for such people as well as pity.

 

[Matthew777]

Old earth creationism, as far as I have discovered, is the best balance between what we know from the Scriptures and what we observe in the physical world.

 

[Sinai]

Both the young earth creationists (YECs) and the old earth creationists (OECs) generally believe God created the universe and the earth as set out in the first chapter of Genesis, although you will find some differences of opinion in both groups.

Although the YECs may differ among themselves as to how many of the assumptions made by Ussher and Lightfoot they believe (which causes their estimates of the age of the universe to run from about 6000 years to about 58,000 years), they tend to be united in their belief that the Hebrew word transliterated as yom should only be interpreted to mean a 24-hour day. They reject the other meanings for yom primarily because that is the most common usage of the word and because of the repeated usage of the phrase that concludes each of the six days of creation: (with the Hebrew words reversed to correspond to the English order) wayhi-'erev wayhi-voqer yom 'echadh....yom sheni....yom shelishi...., which is generally translated "and it was evening and it was morning day one....day second....day third," etc. (which they say clearly show a regular 24-hour day).

The OECs also have their divisions, with the major division probably being between the ones who accept a literal reading of Genesis and those who prefer a figurative or nonliteral reading. Both groups tend to remind the YECs that since the sun doesn't show up until the fourth yom and since it is not certain the Earth has been formed until the third yom, a 24-hour day is questionable. Additionally, the group favoring a figurative interpretation generally assert that the Bible's account of creation is intended to be read figuratively instead of literally. They say the Bible is a spiritual guide, not a science book, and the purpose of its creation account is to say that God created the universe and cares about our spiritual needs.

The OEC literalists generally point out that the Hebrew word for “day” (yom) can mean an indefinite period of time. Thus, they generally contend that each “day” of creation was of an indefinite period of time (even millions or billions of years) and we shouldn’t get caught up in insisting that the Bible means something here that it probably does not mean. They also respond to the YECs' "evening and morning" argument by pointing out that the Hebrew usage of the words can (and probably do) indicate during each successive yom, God was bringing greater order out of chaos.

The Bible can support any of these positions--and they are discussed and debated in much greater detail in various threads and polls in this forum.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

The OEC literalists generally point out that the Hebrew word for “day” (yom) can mean an indefinite period of time.

They also respond to the YECs' "evening and morning" argument by pointing out that the Hebrew usage of the words can (and probably do) indicate during each successive yom, God was bringing greater order out of chaos.

The linguistic interpretative acrobatics necessary to get from “And the evening and the morning were the first day.” To “Each successive period of indefinite time was more greatly ordered” is astounding. Why doesn’t it raise any kind of alarm when the inerrant word of god must be so extremely interpreted just to make any sense at all? Why is it that these correct interpretations only rear their heads once science figures it out first?

Theist: Everything was made in six days and the universe is 6000 years old.
Scientist: Actually, here’s proof that it took much longer to make the universe and it’s much older than 6000 years.
Theist: Oh, right. The bible said that, I was just reading it wrong. When it said the evening and morning were the first day that obviously means the universe became more ordered over billions of years. Isn’t god mysterious.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Of course, the possibility is that the Genesis origins myths were pre-existing, and formed over generations of oral tradition, in the mouths of people who probably did think they were generally historical, to the extent such concepts existed. At what point between the origins of these myths and their much later appearance as scripture they became vehicles for inspired theological truth is moot.

Put it another way - take away the assumption that the ultimate origin of the genesis narratives themselves is God and a lot of problems disappear. I see no reason to go with the idea that God sat down with Moses and told him what to write; I think stories like the ones we have in Gen 1-3 had been floating around for millennia before anyone even started to think monotheistically, and the stories evolved with the developing theology. As God progressively revealed Himself to the community holding these myths, they naturally became infused with theological truth. To take them literally is however no more sensible than to take literally Norse, Navajo or any other origin myth.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

It would seem to me that a god, if he exists, would be capable of communicating directly with the human mind. I'm sure many claim this does in fact happen, but in other cases, it seems that the object of worship is not a god, but a book.

Yeah, He could, but we're more interested in what He did do than what He could do. Mainstream Christianity - as opposed to Yeccie fundamentalism - holds that God's only perfect revelation is through the Incarnation of Christ.

 

[nvxplorer]

Yeah, He could, but we're more interested in what He did do than what He could do. Mainstream Christianity - as opposed to Yeccie fundamentalism - holds that God's only perfect revelation is through the Incarnation of Christ.

Okay Karl, but what does this have to do with my point? Mainstream or not, Christianity exists because of a book.

 

[Peris]

Old earth creationism, as far as I have discovered, is the best balance between what we know from the Scriptures and what we observe in the physical world.

either you don't know enough or you ignore stuff to retain your belief in a 100% true scripture

 

[Sinai]

Both the young earth creationists (YECs) and the old earth creationists (OECs) generally believe God created the universe and the earth as set out in the first chapter of Genesis, although you will find some differences of opinion in both groups.

Although the YECs may differ among themselves as to how many of the assumptions made by Ussher and Lightfoot they believe (which causes their estimates of the age of the universe to run from about 6000 years to about 58,000 years), they tend to be united in their belief that the Hebrew word transliterated as yom should only be interpreted to mean a 24-hour day. They reject the other meanings for yom primarily because that is the most common usage of the word and because of the repeated usage of the phrase that concludes each of the six days of creation: (with the Hebrew words reversed to correspond to the English order) wayhi-'erev wayhi-voqer yom 'echadh....yom sheni....yom shelishi...., which is generally translated "and it was evening and it was morning day one....day second....day third," etc. (which they say clearly show a regular 24-hour day).

The OECs also have their divisions, with the major division probably being between the ones who accept a literal reading of Genesis and those who prefer a figurative or nonliteral reading. Both groups tend to remind the YECs that since the sun doesn't show up until the fourth yom and since it is not certain the Earth has been formed until the third yom, a 24-hour day is questionable. Additionally, the group favoring a figurative interpretation generally assert that the Bible's account of creation is intended to be read figuratively instead of literally. They say the Bible is a spiritual guide, not a science book, and the purpose of its creation account is to say that God created the universe and cares about our spiritual needs.

The OEC literalists generally point out that the Hebrew word for “day” (yom) can mean an indefinite period of time. Thus, they generally contend that each “day” of creation was of an indefinite period of time (even millions or billions of years) and we shouldn’t get caught up in insisting that the Bible means something here that it probably does not mean. They also respond to the YECs' "evening and morning" argument by pointing out that the Hebrew usage of the words can (and probably do) indicate during each successive yom, God was bringing greater order out of chaos.

The Bible can support any of these positions--and they are discussed and debated in much greater detail in various threads and polls in this forum.

The linguistic interpretative acrobatics necessary to get from “And the evening and the morning were the first day.” To “Each successive period of indefinite time was more greatly ordered” is astounding. Why doesn’t it raise any kind of alarm when the inerrant word of god must be so extremely interpreted just to make any sense at all? Why is it that these correct interpretations only rear their heads once science figures it out first?

Theist: Everything was made in six days and the universe is 6000 years old.
Scientist: Actually, here’s proof that it took much longer to make the universe and it’s much older than 6000 years.
Theist: Oh, right. The bible said that, I was just reading it wrong. When it said the evening and morning were the first day that obviously means the universe became more ordered over billions of years. Isn’t god mysterious.

Thank you for illustrating that in addition to the YECs, OECs, TEs and other similar groups, there are also those athiests and agnostics who would prefer for the Bible to be interpreted in as unlikely a fashion as possible, as it makes refutation easier.