• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Featured Theological Questions for Day-Age Creationists

Discussion in 'Creationism' started by TurtleHugger, Apr 18, 2017.

  1. TurtleHugger

    TurtleHugger New Member

    12
    +2
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    I'm currently ambiguous on how the interpretation of Gen. 1 ought to be interpreted. My church leans more towards young earth creationism, but I am having trouble believing certain aspects of it as I also do with Old Earth Creationism.
    I'm looking for theological answers not so much scientific ones. This isn't hostile at all, I just want to understand you guys better.
    I just wanted to ask some of my most heavy questions:

    1. I understand with the day age theory, each "day" supposedly represents an age, and that the word "yom" has multiple meanings. My trouble comes when it says "there was evening and there was the morning: the first day/day one." It seems like the author is defining the word yom as some sort of daylight cycle. How would a day age theorist handle this?

    2. Death before sin, and probably disease before sin. How can it be that misery could have existed before Adam and Eve sinned?

    3. What do you believe about the Flood? Do you believe it was a universal Flood? Or do you believe it was a local Flood, and how can you justify it Scripturally?
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +12,994
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    If the "day" is supposed to be figurative, why can't evening and morning be figurative as well? Personally, I don't think there is any doubt that the author(s) of Gen 1 meant ordinary 24-hour days--the purpose of using them being to reflect the six work day plus Sabbath week which had already become customary by the time the story was written.

    No death, just cessation of life. There is no death without an ability to contemplate ones's mortality--it comes with the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

    How universal do you need it to be? There were episodes of widespread regional flooding at the end of the last ice age. Would that do you? Or do you need a big enough catastrophe to account for all of the Earth science evidence which would otherwise indicate an ancient Earth?
     
  3. TurtleHugger

    TurtleHugger New Member

    12
    +2
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    I was kinda wondering how you/a day age theorist would interpret the evening and morning phrasing, how you/he would interpret the nature of death, and what the typical beliefs of a day age theorist in terms of the Flood and the texts.
    I'm really just looking for information before being persuaded either way. Of course, we live in a world where Christianity is under fire quit of often, so it's probably a good idea for me to figure out what interpretation I should adhere to.
    For the most part, I really only began (passively) investigating the day age theories about a month ago, but I still haven't really found an interpretation for #1 (well, I think I remember one, but that's it and I think it could only apply to the earlier days).
    As far as the Flood, it seems from what I read that it is speaking of a quite a universal Flood, but if anyone can supply a sufficient rationale for why it's not/may not be, I'm definitely willing to listen at the very least.
    I do find the day age theory captivating, but I also want to see if it can harmonize with Scripture well. :)

    So yeah, I'm really just looking at different perspectives right now. :)
     
  4. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +12,994
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    Sorry I can't help you more--I think day-age theories are the bunk. In fact, I think that any attempt to reconcile the conclusions of science with the creation account in Gen 1 is misguided. In my opinion, the Gen 1 creation account was cast into a seven day format by its author(s) for literary and theological reasons which had nothing to do with the cosmological discoveries to be made three millennia in the future.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2017
  5. klutedavid

    klutedavid Well-Known Member

    +2,845
    Non-Denom
    Single
    Hello Turtle Hugger.

    The Bible contains accounts written by God Himself (free from error), for example the messianic prophecies are perfect prophecies.

    The Bible also contains accounts written by men inspired by God (not always free of error). An example, the four Gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, differ in their accuracy. These Gospel accounts are powerful evidence for Jesus, but imperfect accounts nevertheless.

    I would lean towards an understanding that the Genesis account, is inspired in places, though not letter perfect. The creation account is a simplistic account, certainly not a scientific explanation, nor was it ever intended to be.

    The world is much older than 6000 years, and this cannot be debated with any integrity.

    When God speaks in the scripture, God tells us so.
     
  6. -57

    -57 Well-Known Member

    +1,459
    Christian
    Private
    You are correct when you say the author was describing a "daylight" cycle. The simple reading suggest just what it says...a day equals 24 hours. To add to that the bible also numbers the days.
    To even prove it more all you need to do is read the ten commandments...
    Gen 20: 11For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.
    Just above that verse we read 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,....It becomes overly obvious we aren't suppose to work for six ages.

    The simple everyday language reading presents a literal 24 hour period of time for a day.

    The day age sect typically changes a day into eons so they can force the bible to say and be what it isn't. In doing so they bring up many issues that contradict scripture.

    Almost all "old earth" believers really don't believe in Adam and eve and the fall in the garden. They suppose Adam and Eve are simply myth's, parables or allegorical.
    When asked to explain mans sin nature they drastically depart from what the word of God teaches and substitute the word of man.
    The bible presents the flood of Noah's time as completely covering the entire planet. Once again the language in the bible presents the flood as world wide. There is no language that suggest a local flood. A local flood can't be justified scripturally.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  7. -57

    -57 Well-Known Member

    +1,459
    Christian
    Private
    Tell that to the dino-bones that contain still soft tissue...that should have rotted away or fossilized if the earth is as old as some scientist claim.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  8. klutedavid

    klutedavid Well-Known Member

    +2,845
    Non-Denom
    Single
    Hello 57.

    You stated in post #6.
    Have you noticed that Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit proclaims.

    Colossians 1
    6 ...which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing.

    Colossians 1
    23 ...which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

    Large areas of the world never even heard the Gospel, Paul was in fact speaking of the Middle East. Paul's statement was not correct.

    The same goes for the flood, was it really a world wide event?
     
  9. klutedavid

    klutedavid Well-Known Member

    +2,845
    Non-Denom
    Single
    Hello 57.

    The age of the earth cannot be established with any degree of certainty.
     
  10. -57

    -57 Well-Known Member

    +1,459
    Christian
    Private
    Well, the dino tiaaue clearly pushes it closer to the 6K years rather than millions of years.

    Then again we can add up the biblical linages...and get a young earth. But you really don't seem to believe what the bible says...so, you may as well chuck out the linages.
     
  11. -57

    -57 Well-Known Member

    +1,459
    Christian
    Private
    It's all about CONTEXT. You seem to be saying world means a local area...that would mean in john 8:12 where the bible says....Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”....Does this mean Jesus was only the light in a local part of the world.
    As you see your arrgument fails on context.

    Now lets look at Genesis in CONTEXT.....Gen 7:19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.
    ...Think about it, if the high mountains were covered, how does that present a localized flood?

    The flood according to the bible wasn't local but rather global.
     
  12. klutedavid

    klutedavid Well-Known Member

    +2,845
    Non-Denom
    Single
    Hello 57.

    You made the following assertion.
    Did Paul proclaim that the Gospel was proclaimed in all creation?

    Colossians 1
    23 ...which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven...

    You need to address this verse. I am not the one saying that the Gospel was proclaimed in all creation, Paul said that. We know the Gospel was only proclaimed in the known world of Paul, vast populations outside of the Roman empire were ignorant of the Gospel.

    Understanding the context of what Paul said in no way changes his statement.
    Negative, it is not the context in this case that matters.
    A generalization, the flood though immense was a local event.

    Even Biblical archaeologists would date ancient cities in the Middle East, beyond six thousand years. Your interpretation is bouncing of the archaeology of the Middle east.
     
  13. -57

    -57 Well-Known Member

    +1,459
    Christian
    Private
    Like you, those Biblical archaeologists are wrong. People like you feel the need to change what the bible says by twisting scripture by making the flood local DESPITE the bible teaches otherwise. The flood is made local so strange doctrine can replace the truth.

    If you give the bible to anyone who is not familiar with the account of the flood as well as this debate...and have them read it...100 out of 100 will say the flood was global.
     
  14. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +12,994
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    Anyone? There's aren't all that many people who read biblical Hebrew. Those who I know don't all think it necessarily says that.
     
  15. -57

    -57 Well-Known Member

    +1,459
    Christian
    Private
    Why is it that learned biblical scholars, many of which who read Hebrew....didn't translate it your way?

    Now, if you want to claim the flood was local...go ahead....but at least admit the bible calls for a world wide flood.
     
  16. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +12,994
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    Some of them do, but I thought you were talking about giving the text to someone we knew.

    It called for a flood of the entire eretz. If you want to translate eretz as "the entire terrestrial globe" go right ahead.
     
  17. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,255
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Yown (יוֹם yowm H3117) is translated, 'day', the vast majority of the time (2,008x), time (64x), chronicles (with H1697) (37x), daily (44x), ever (18x), year (14x), continually (10x), when (10x), as (10x), while (8x), full 8 always (4x), whole (4x), alway (4x), miscellaneous (44x). Defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1, day means day in that passage every single time and there is no serious question about that.

    My point of view, speak where the Scriptures speak and remain silent where the Scriptures are silent. That's a big fat, we just don't know.

    A local flood isn't that much of a stretch but the highest mountain top being submerged strongly indicates the flood is global in it's scope. What's more they were adrift for something like a year. It's also clear from the testimony of Scripture, confirmed in the New Testament that the flood destroyed all life that drew breath with the exception of those in the Ark.

    Grace and peace,
    Mark
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  18. klutedavid

    klutedavid Well-Known Member

    +2,845
    Non-Denom
    Single
    Hello Mark.

    Thanks for your contribution.

    If we date a world wide flood, at say 3000 BC. Then we start with eight people, that in a very short space of time, repopulate the earth. To such an extent, that at the time of Jesus we have a world population of approximately 300 hundred million people.

    Something is wrong here, what's your solution?
     
  19. klutedavid

    klutedavid Well-Known Member

    +2,845
    Non-Denom
    Single
    Hello 57.

    You have an immense problem, with a reconciliation of observable archaeology. In a world inhabited by eight people, after the flood, just say 5000 years ago. There are cities with a continuous habitation over a longer period of time, far beyond five thousand years.

    A settlement of great antiquity, Argos has been continuously inhabited as at least a substantial village for the past 7,000 years. (wikipedia)
     
  20. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +6,511
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    Theology - There is no hint of a young earth in scripture.
    Science - The sun was formed on day 3. So there goes the light-cycle theory.
     
Loading...