The Origins of Young Earth Creationism

[Frank Robert]

Here is a video explaining the origins of Young Earth Creationists. It is also being discussed at Biologos and Peaceful Science.

Perhaps the biggest surprise is that modern day YEC can be traced back to not the early church fathers but to 19th century Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) founder Ellen G. White. White inspired George McCready Price to form the foundation of scientific creationism, and that torch was passed on to Henry J. Morris who introduced the concepts to the larger Protestant population in the 1950’s. Organizations like AiG can trace their heritage straight back to White, Price, and SDA. Whitcomb and Morris repackaged Price's work and presented it to the larger Protestant church. Modern YEC can be directly tied to White, Price, and the SDA church.​

Well worth the 25 minutes.
(The video doesn't embed so here is a direct link)
The Origins of Young Earth Creationism

 

[AV1611VET]

For the record, Frank, I'm not a YEC per se, as I don't subscribe to everything they teach.

But let me ask you this:

Why are you presenting these guys (White, Price, and Morris) as if they invented this doctrine?

Why can't they just be stellar apologists for what [they say] the Bible says?

It's like Dispensation Theology.

I subscribe to C. I. Scofield's teachings, but the doctrine itself can be compiled from within the pages of Scripture.

 

[SkyWriting]

While I was YEC for a few years I also learned bible study methods from Morris that led me out from YEC. He explained that the scriptures are best read naturally first with the idea that additional meanings could be added later. I read Genesis looking for young earth clues and found only old earth descriptions. It makes sense that I would leave YEC behind since they were not his conclusions in the first place.

 

[Torah Keeper]

YEC waa the status quo of Judaism and Christianity for thousands of years. These 19th century Protestants didn't invent it.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

While I was YEC for a few years I also learned bible study methods from Morris that led me out from YEC. He explained that the scriptures are best read naturally first with the idea that additional meanings could be added later. I read Genesis looking for young earth clues and found only old earth descriptions. It makes sense that I would leave YEC behind since they were not his conclusions in the first place.

well that explains a lot of your other posts

 

[Frank Robert]

For the record, Frank, I'm not a YEC per se, as I don't subscribe to everything they teach.

But let me ask you this:

Why are you presenting these guys (White, Price, and Morris) as if they invented this doctrine?

Please view the video or read the transcript from it. I presented a very quick and short summery of the video. No one is saying you need to agree with it. It is there for discussion whether you agree or not you are free to discuss your thoughts.

Why can't they just be stellar apologists for what [they say] the Bible says?

That is an excellent question and I mean it. What does the Bible say to you? Do you agree that the Bible may say something different to Christians brought up in other denominations? Are their beliefs any less correct they your beliefs?

It's like Dispensation Theology.

I subscribe to C. I. Scofield's teachings, but the doctrine itself can be compiled from within the pages of Scripture.

How does his teachings differ from Catholic and mainstream Protestant teachings? Do you agree that Catholics and Protestants believe that their respective teachings of scriptures are correct?

 

[Frank Robert]

YEC waa the status quo of Judaism and Christianity for thousands of years. These 19th century Protestants didn't invent it.

The video set forth a much different interpretation and progression of thought. That is not to say you need to agree with it.

 

[Frank Robert]

While I was YEC for a few years I also learned bible study methods from Morris that led me out from YEC. He explained that the scriptures are best read naturally first with the idea that additional meanings could be added later. I read Genesis looking for young earth clues and found only old earth descriptions. It makes sense that I would leave YEC behind since they were not his conclusions in the first place.

The video makes the same exact point that the bible describes an old earth.

 

[SkyWriting]

YEC waa the status quo of Judaism and Christianity for thousands of years. These 19th century Protestants didn't invent it.

Any papers written from then to support that? I could check with Henry's website....but I don't recall him making that claim.

{edit}OK I checked the website. Creationism began in 1961. There are no supporting documents for a young earth before that. This is based on all the research done since 1961.

https://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.icr.org+History+of+Creationism

 

[SkyWriting]

well that explains a lot of your other posts

I am honored at your interest.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Here is a video explaining the origins of Young Earth Creationists. It is also being discussed at Biologos and Peaceful Science.

Perhaps the biggest surprise is that modern day YEC can be traced back to not the early church fathers but to 19th century Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) founder Ellen G. White. White inspired George McCready Price to form the foundation of scientific creationism, and that torch was passed on to Henry J. Morris who introduced the concepts to the larger Protestant population in the 1950’s. Organizations like AiG can trace their heritage straight back to White, Price, and SDA. Whitcomb and Morris repackaged Price's work and presented it to the larger Protestant church. Modern YEC can be directly tied to White, Price, and the SDA church.​

Well worth the 25 minutes.
(The video doesn't embed so here is a direct link)
The Origins of Young Earth Creationism

The status quo from ancients was based on their understanding. Our knowledge today opens us up to a more logical view without causing confusion with scripture.
Blessings

 

[AV1611VET]

Please view the video or read the transcript from it.

Done.

I presented a very quick and short summery of the video. No one is saying you need to agree with it. It is there for discussion whether you agree or not you are free to discuss your thoughts.

I'm going to agree with its historical content (i.e., these guys existed, they thought what they thought, they taught what they taught, and so on), but that's as far as I go.

The video doesn't address another type of creation: Apparent Age Creation.

And while I'm not that either, I do believe God created the universe with age embedded into it some six thousand years ago.

(For ease of discussion, I use Usher's dates.)

That is an excellent question and I mean it. What does the Bible say to you?

It says to me that Adam & Eve were created as mature adults in a single day, apart from any natural processes whatsoever.

Do you agree that the Bible may say something different to Christians brought up in other denominations?

What the Bible says to me, It says to everyone just the same.

Are their beliefs any less correct than your beliefs?

No comment.

To give you my complete perspective, I believe God created the universe in six literal days, with age embedded into it as necessary, in the year 4004 BC.

For lack of a better term, I call this "Embedded Age Creation" to distinguish it from Apparent Age Creation; and I define it as: "maturity without history."

Thus Adam was created 20 or 30 years old, completely mature, but without a history.

He could walk, talk, read, write, spell, name the animals, work the Garden, marry, and have children.

But he had no past.

 

[Frank Robert]

The status quo from ancients was based on their understanding. Our knowledge today opens us up to a more logical view without causing confusion with scripture.
Blessings

There are many Christian denominations, some of which have a logical view some don't. The reality there are also many disagreements on what is a logical view.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are many Christian denominations, some of which have a logical view some don't. The reality there are also many disagreements on what is a logical view.

These are the standards I go by:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

 

[partinobodycular]

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

And you fail to see the problem with that?

It's one thing to accept the possibility...at least in principle...that the bible could be wrong...and still find no instance in which it is. But it's quite another thing to begin with biblical inerrancy as a foregone conclusion, because that automatically places the objectivity, and therefore the veracity of your arguments in doubt.

Plus there's a huge difference between biblical inerrancy, and the inerrancy of your interpretation of it. One should try very diligently not to conflate the two.

 

[AV1611VET]

And you fail to see the problem with that?

Shouldn't God get mad (or at least grieve) if the Bible is, on principle, regularly contradicted?

One should try very diligently not to conflate the two.

And here is my very diligent attempt:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

There are many Christian denominations, some of which have a logical view some don't. The reality there are also many disagreements on what is a logical view.

Common sense ?

 

[partinobodycular]

Shouldn't God get mad (or at least grieve) if the Bible is, on principle, regularly contradicted?

No, I think that God understands that we're human. That we make mistakes. That we misinterpret and misunderstand.

If Christ had wanted people who could expound upon the letter of the law then He would've loved the Pharisees, but He didn't...not then, and not now.

As Micah 6:8 says, "He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."

If there's something that you don't know, then simply admit that you don't know it, but don't be self-righteous and contend that you do. That...I think...is what God doesn't like.

 

[Frank Robert]

These are the standards I go by:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

I know what you go by and that is fine by me.

I and many others here go by
6. Bible says ø about science = go with the evidence.

 

[Frank Robert]

Common sense ?

Religious common sense comes mainly from the denomination of religion you were raised in. Some people do change or give up their religion or denomination but the vast majority that remain stay with what the have been brought up with.