Theological Question for Young Earth.

[Jamsie]

You mean if you ignore all that about the thirds day, the fourth day etc?
And if you ignore Exodus 20:11, transcribed by the finger of God?
Science cannot answer questions of origination. Origination of anything from nothing is precluded by natural law. Science cannot account for supernatural activity. God has allowed the devil to lie to the minds of many to see who will follow Him in faith and who will not.

I haven't ignored anything so no it is not what I mean but thanks for attempting to put words in my mou..hand. So in 6 days by fiat God set in motion all of the "laws" for the incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced. Essentially the created matter/elements responded to the bidding/Commands of God, thus "Let the..." is a command of mediate creation.

Did I suggest that science could answer questions of origin or account for "supernatural activity"? It is not necessary to argue points on things that were never said.

 

[KWCrazy]

Why?

Because mature trees have rings.

I don't reject the Scriptures, just a literal interpretation of them that contradicts the evidence God left behind.

True wisdom rejects any interpretation of evidence that disagrees with Scripture.

No, I just think that all meteor crater impacts were created by, you know, meteor impacts.

Who decides whether they are impact craters? Who decides what impacted them?

The same amount as you.

I'm not the one contradicting the Creator.

I certainly hope so. I want to bring doubting souls to Christ...

You're not doing that. You're here telling Christians that the Bible, which Christ referred to as the breathed word of God, is incorrect because your science teach says so.

Right because God couldn't have explained creation in terms men already understood, could he?

Do you think the Creator of the universe would have a difficult time describing long periods of time had it happened that way? Would Jesus, who was there in the beginning, have quoted extensively from Genesis if it were not true? Jesus said God created Adam and Eve from the beginning, as Moses recorded. What did He say about those writings? He said if you didn't believe Moses you wouldn't believe Him.

You don't believe Moses, do you?

 

[KWCrazy]

So in 6 days by fiat God set in motion all of the "laws" for the incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced..

You are flat out lying. That is NOT what the text says. The text says there were trees bearing fruit by the end of the third day. The sun, moon and stars existed by the end of the fourth day. The creation was complete by the end of the sixth day. It is not possible to reconcile the lie of evolution with the truth of creation.

 

[Jamsie]

You are flat out lying. That is NOT what the text says. The text says there were trees bearing fruit by the end of the third day. The sun, moon and stars existed by the end of the fourth day. The creation was complete by the end of the sixth day. It is not possible to reconcile the lie of evolution with the truth of creation.

A bit harsh isn't it, calling me a liar? Try to look at it with fresh eyes ... "And God said, Let the land produce vegetation: seed bearing..., - And it was so. - The land produced vegetation..." Are you denying that God's spoken command was insufficient? What was "so"? What produced the vegetation?

 

[KWCrazy]

A bit harsh isn't it, calling me a liar? Try to look at it with fresh eyes ... "And God said, Let the land produce vegetation: seed bearing..., - And it was so. - The land produced vegetation..." Are you denying that God's spoken command was insufficient? What was "so"? What produced the vegetation?

I didn't call you anything. I said you were lying.
You were intentionally leaving out the fact that each of the commands were completed on that day, with the results being adult trees BEARING FRUIT, waters teeming with fish and the air filled with birds. All were done immediately at the command of God.

I've seen this before, from supposed "Biblical scholars" who took fractions of verses out of context to try and make it sound like they were saying something they were not. The truth lies in the passage, not in a few words snatched out and shown in a different context to twist the meaning.

 

[Jamsie]

I didn't call you anything. I said you were lying.

If I was lying then that makes me a ...candlestick maker?

You were intentionally leaving out the fact that each of the commands were completed on that day, with the results being adult trees BEARING FRUIT, waters teeming with fish and the air filled with birds. All were done immediately at the command of God.

You are intentionally reading your rigid interpretation into the verses. "The land produced vegetation" and we do know how that happens do we not? Yes, the command was completed on the given day, and the command to the land, water, etc. was in its time producing as God knew it would from his fiat.

Further day six gives further support to indefinite timelines involved in each day.

The truth lies in the passage, not in a few words snatched out and shown in a different context to twist the meaning.

Can you please elaborate where I have relied on a "few words snatched out" or "show a different context to twist the meaning". The Bible says "Let the Land produce...", perhaps you might elaborate on how you would "twist" to fit your interpretation?

 

[KWCrazy]

If I was lying then that makes me a ...candlestick maker?

I don't know how you make your living. My post referenced your post.

You are intentionally reading your rigid interpretation into the verses.

BY READING THE ENTIRE VERSE??????

"The land produced vegetation" and we do know how that happens do we not? Yes, the command was completed on the given day, and the command to the land, water, etc. was in its time producing as God knew it would from his fiat.

Genesis 20 Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. 31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

It is not possible to claim "indefinite timelines" without ignoring the very specific references to individual days. It is intentional misrepresentation to ignore the very specific references to singular solar days.

Can you please elaborate where I have relied on a "few words snatched out" or "show a different context to twist the meaning".

I just did. The Bible gives God, not the land, not the sea, GOD for creating all living things. In Genesis 21:11, God personally carved into stone tablets that HE created everything in 6 days.

No room for long ages.

 

[Jamsie]

I don't know how you make your living. My post referenced your post.

Your wrote in post #43 - "You are flat out lying." You disagreed with me, and therefore I was lying... seems pretty straight forward.

BY READING THE ENTIRE VERSE??????

In other words one needs to agree with the YEC interpretation of Genesis or else... It is telling that you won't answer my questions which actually involve the ENTIRE VERSE(s).

Gen. 1:11-13 "And God said, Let the land produce vegetation: seed bearing..., - And it was so. - The land produced vegetation..." Are you denying that God's spoken command was insufficient? What was "so"? What produced the vegetation?

 

[dmmesdale]

The current scientific theory

Subject to an endless number of revisions.

for the origin of the moon is that another proto planet struck the earth and blasted loose a large amount of debris that collected and became the moon.

Sounds proximate to a guess as opposed to conclusive.

And when God's fingerprints He left behind in the world contradict the literal interpretation of the Bible, how do you resolve the situation?

Well, you would have to analyze their arguments in a detached manner. Also, provide evidence from the New which would validate any old Earth assumptions or humans have a common ancestor with modern apes. Most of human history assumes a young Earth so why are they all wrong, including Jesus and the modern right?

 

[2tim_215]

 

[dmmesdale]

The problem with this idea, also known as embedded age or appearance of age, is that it makes God a deceiver.

Yawn. The fault is not with the stars.

The earth does not only have an appearance of age, it has an appearance of history.

Yeah so? The two go hand in hand. Age and history that is.

Just as one example, if all the meteor craters that we have found were created by meteor impacts within the last 4,000 years, the earth would be a molten ball of lava. So why do those craters exist if not to record a history of the planet?

Craters are effects left behind by an impact of some sort in the past. They reason from effect to cause and infer a meteor impact as the past cause. Your example is nothing more than an assertion. It is a technical argument designed not for a general audience which would have to take it all on trust. We do not know how many craters impacts, how severe, over what period, etc. would cause the Earth to go molten as you propose. There are no objective criteria to determine how many craters impacts would have that effect of a molten Earth. It is not reasonably convincing by any means.

To put this into perspective, imagine if God had created Adam with not only the appearance of a say, 25 year-old man, but with a scar on his knee. Why would God give Adam a scar from an injury that never happened?

Am not seeing how that puts it into perspective. You are saying crater impacts in such a short period would cause the Earth to be molten but have not provided an objective criteria which would validate your assumption in any conclusive manner. You have not proved cause and effect.

 

[Queller]

Because mature trees have rings.

The only reason that mature trees have rings is because they grew that way over the span of years. They don't need them to be fully functional. Tree rings are a sign of history; a history that, according to you, did not exist.

True wisdom rejects any interpretation of evidence that disagrees with Scripture.

So where is the mountain from which can be seen all the kingdoms of the earth? Scripture says it is a real, literal, physical mountain.

Who decides whether they are impact craters? Who decides what impacted them?

People who have devoted their careers to studying these types of things.

I'm not the one contradicting the Creator.

I'm not either. I'm just contradicting a literalist interpretation of Scripture, an interpretation not supported by the evidence God left behind.

You're not doing that. You're here telling Christians that the Bible, which Christ referred to as the breathed word of God, is incorrect because your science teach says so.

No, I'm saying a literalist interpretation of Scripture is incorrect because it contradicts the evidence God left behind in the real world.

Do you think the Creator of the universe would have a difficult time describing long periods of time had it happened that way?

Of course not. The people He was talking to however, probably would have had difficulty understanding Him though.

Would Jesus, who was there in the beginning, have quoted extensively from Genesis if it were not true?

Of course He would have. He knew that the account of Genesis was understood by the people of the time to be literal so He would have spoken to them in terms they would have understood.

Jesus said God created Adam and Eve from the beginning, as Moses recorded. What did He say about those writings? He said if you didn't believe Moses you wouldn't believe Him.

You don't believe Moses, do you?

See above.

 

[Queller]

Subject to an endless number of revisions.

Yep. That's the way science works. If you don't like it, oh well.

Sounds proximate to a guess as opposed to conclusive.

It is the theory that best fits the evidence we have so far.

Well, you would have to analyze their arguments in a detached manner.

Are you capable of doing that? Or are you like Answers in Genesis, who immediately reject any evidence that does not agree with their interpretation of the Bible?

Also, provide evidence from the New which would validate any old Earth assumptions or humans have a common ancestor with modern apes.

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble parsing this. Can you rephrase?

Most of human history assumes a young Earth so why are they all wrong, including Jesus and the modern right?

Most of human history didn't have access to the knowledge we have today. Jesus spoke to the people in terms they would understand. Can you give an example of the "modern right" that aren't also Young Earth Creationists?

 

[Queller]

Yawn. The fault is not with the stars.

You're right. The fault is in man's interpretation of the Bible that goes against God's own fingerprints.

Yeah so? The two go hand in hand. Age and history that is.

Um, no, they don't. When Adam was created he looked like an adult (age) but he would not have had worn teeth from a lifetime of chewing (history).

Craters are effects left behind by an impact of some sort in the past. They reason from effect to cause and infer a meteor impact as the past cause.

What other events create something that looks (scientifically) like the crater left behind from a meteor impact?

Your example is nothing more than an assertion. It is a technical argument designed not for a general audience which would have to take it all on trust. We do not know how many craters impacts, how severe, over what period, etc. would cause the Earth to go molten as you propose.

Yes, we do.

Meteor craters

There are no objective criteria to determine how many craters impacts would have that effect of a molten Earth.

Of course there is. See above.

It is not reasonably convincing by any means.

To those with a closed mind to the evidence of God's fingerprints in the real world perhaps.

Am not seeing how that puts it into perspective. You are saying crater impacts in such a short period would cause the Earth to be molten but have not provided an objective criteria which would validate your assumption in any conclusive manner. You have not proved cause and effect.

See above.

 

[dmmesdale]

Yep. That's the way science works. If you don't like it, oh well.

It is unreliable and if that suits you. Oh well. Let's settle on mediocrity. If it is subject to an endless amount of revisions then your use ot the term theory really means conjecture. Guesses. Quote.

Although it is stated that science is self-correcting, which it is, it is also evident that the theory of evolution, almost exclusively among theories, is massively tarnished by both fraud and mistakes. It isn't wise to present students with confusing information that is quite likely inaccurate or is liable to be so readily overturned by further research.

They keep muffing it up and apologists keep looking the other way saying Oh well, no big deal and they expect us all to accept that sort of justification?

It is the theory that best fits the evidence we have so far.

Yawn. See above.

Are you capable of doing that? Or are you like Answers in Genesis, who immediately reject any evidence that does not agree with their interpretation of the Bible?

They are qualified and approach things differently. It does not mean they are wrong. Evos need an old Earth; we don't.

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble parsing this. Can you rephrase?

Provide evidence from the New Testament which would validate any old Earth assumptions, or humans have a common ancestor with modern apes.

Most of human history didn't have access to the knowledge we have today.

And we do not have access to all their knowledge or their sources. So it is now one set of standards for your home team and another for the visitors? Most of human history assumes a young Earth. Right up to the kings of Europe tracing their ancestry back to Adam. So again, why are they all wrong and the moderns right? Adam & Eve

Jesus spoke to the people in terms they would understand.

Agree. Are you saying Jesus was an old Earth creationist? What do you mean here? What about Paul? Was he also old earth? Didn't they both treat Adam, Noah, Moses as historical persons? These are all associated with YEC. If you wish to prove them all wrong and the moderns right then, you need to make an evidence-based case. Cause I can tell ya, no matter how you spin it or how you may tap dance, shuck and jive, and overstate; Jesus was a YEC. If the moderns are right, then you are saying Jesus was wrong. The two cannot be amalgamated.

 

[dmmesdale]

You're right. The fault is in man's interpretation

Except yours?

of the Bible that goes against God's own fingerprints.

Overstating. Testimony from Scripture assumes a young Earth. Adam was the first man who did not have 190 K years of ghost ancestors. There is no point in hurling useless indictments against God as supposed deciever, a term depicted for Satan.

Dude, if the cave paintings are 50 K years old they would have faded. They keep the original Declaration Of Independence in a case to slow down fading, to preserve and even that only goes so far. Same with paintings on chapel walls. They have to be redone after so many years because they fade with time.

 

[KWCrazy]

The only reason that mature trees have rings is because they grew that way over the span of years.

The question is not what is, but what was. Neither of us know the answer because it's unknowable. We know that everything was created mature and mature trees have rings. We don't know if there was an exception made because they were not seasoned.

So where is the mountain from which can be seen all the kingdoms of the earth? Scripture says it is a real, literal, physical mountain.

No it doesn't.
What does your pastor say about Luke 4?
Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. Do you think they packed up and scaled a mountain in a moment? People who have understanding know that the devil was showing him visions. How is it that a Christian doesn't know this? Also, how did Jesus defeat the devil? He quoted Scripture. The word of God is very powerful. How is it that you lack an understanding of it?

Luka also adds, “All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish." The devil claims to have authority over the earth, and yet it is the interpretations of the earth that you and others use to discredit the word of God. Why is that?

I'm not either. I'm just contradicting a literalist interpretation of Scripture, an interpretation not supported by the evidence God left behind.

Exactly. You're using the domain of Satan to show authority over the word of God. You take excuse by attacking a literal interpretation of things which are written as a literal historical narrative. God specifically carved into a stone tablet the fact of the six day creation. You reject that because of what the devil shows in the rocks over which he has dominion. Ever think of that?
You are deceived.

No, I'm saying a literalist interpretation of Scripture is incorrect because it contradicts the evidence God left behind in the real world.

Jesus confirmed that the events were real, not made up stories. You prefer to ignore that because you wish to conform your beliefs to what your science teacher told you is real.

Of course not. The people He was talking to however, probably would have had difficulty understanding Him though.

Jesus was the master of parables. Could He not have said "All the world is old and all share a common birth from the Father; whose days of creation are as numerous as the stars?" I'm not a master of parables and I just did it in a sentence. Instead He confirmed the creation of Adam and Eve from the beginning. Who will you believe; your Lord or your teacher?

 

[NobleMouse]

Hello fellow believers! I am always interested in reading the different views and opinions on this highly debated topic. Just to share, and not looking to sway others who believe differently, I believe the OT is largely a historical text (telling us of events and people that really happened and really lived at one time), and that a plain interpretation of the creation account found in Genesis is reasonable. If, likewise, you believe in a young earth there is no reason to be intimidated by opposing views. I've not yet seen this mentioned here in this discussion thread (though could have overlooked) so I thought it worth consideration.

Matthew 19:4-5
He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

While this was in response to pharisees trying to test Jesus on the topic of divorce. A few items of interest are worth pointing out:

1) Jesus here is restating what is already written elsewhere in scripture, so it was inspired by God and written down, then repeated by the word made flesh Himself - it happened. Jesus and the Father are one, and here Jesus is quoting scripture as the basis for His teaching (rebuking) the pharisees. But then comes the big question: when?

2) As is stated in Genesis and repeated by Jesus himself, in the beginning (and we can reasonably assume, according to the order as presented in the creation account). But, is a plain interpretation of the creation account in Genesis rational/reasonable?

3) The first four words of what Jesus said: "Have you not read..." When interpreting scripture, when Jesus says things like, "have you not read", or "it is written", or "you have heard it said" these are all indicators that a plain (take it at face value) interpretation is reasonable.

For example, Matthew 4:7
Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

Passage from the OT (Deuteronomy 6:16)
You shall not put the Lord your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah.

Would a plain interpretation of Deteronomy 6:16 be appropriate? Yes, and it is also reasonably so with the creation account in Genesis.

The passage above and many others are found throughout scripture. The following article written by Rich Robinson with Jews for Jesus does a great job of pulling together different references Jesus made to scripture, both showing what Jesus said as well as the original passage, should that be of interest:
Jesus' References to Old Testament Scriptures - Jews for Jesus

So in summary, whether we believe in a young or an old creation, the good news is that this topic is not central to our salvation... what a relief, right? If you believe in a young creation on the basis of the creation account and various lineages from scripture in support of your belief, which I do too, take courage!

 

[Hieronymus]

This is a theological, not a scientific, question for Christians only about the age of the earth only. The question relates only to the book of Genesis with no mind to scientific discoveries.

I think you mean scientific models.
The scientific community uses a naturalistic model for our reality, which needs billions and billions of years.
What they do with discoveries, is try to match it with those models.
But young earth creationists try to match discoveries with a young earth model.
The difference is mainly that there is huge funding and platform for naturalistic ideas and hardly any for 'supernaturalistic' ideas.

For those that believe in a young earth is this a theological interpretation, among many, for Genesis, or is this belief held to be the only real/valid interpretation of Genesis? When I read Genesis I don't see a creation point for the earth assigned to a day. I understand the backcounting of the decedents to Adam, and then through the 6 days but where is the earth given a day in which to end the counting?

Genesis gives 6 days of creation, on the 6th day God created man in his image.
Adam was 0 years old on that 6th day, he died when he was old.
You can calculate using the genealogies and make a time line, and then you get the 6000 years.

Do you see those that do not place an age to the earth as scripturally in error (and please explain) or do you see them as simply holding a different, but scripturally valid, interpretation.

It's not certain there are no gaps in the genealogies, so we can't be sure about the exact age. But i think the margin of error is not more than 1000 years, but that's just my opinion / wild guess.

(I think the meaning of Yom can be avoided given that we need a day assigned to the earth to get an age for it. However Yom can be invoked if needed)

"And it was evening, and it was morning" strongly suggests the creation week took 6 days and God rested from his work on the 7th day.
Throughout the Bible it is referred to as such.
No millions upon millions of years in the Bible.

Personally, i'm not sure what to think.
But i'm inclined to take the Bible's word for it.
But this is only after i learned that the modern view is just as religious as the Biblical view.
Besides that, there's a good case to be made for a young earth based on scientific data / discoveries.
But both sides have a lot of questions and problems remaining.

 

[Hieronymus]

Quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read. And I've had debates with dad, 57, and AV1611VET.

Or maybe I'm being uncharitable.

Quite...