What do you think about the "New Earth Creation" view?

[Smilin]

A simple poll (hopefully) for all to learn from.

Please vote and respond as you see fit.  As far as my personal opinion goes, I was never exposed to these teachings as a child.  I came across several books on the topic.  After briefly thumbing through them, I sat them aside as well as the whole notion and never thought much more about it.  Since I choose to dwell here, and since the topic keeps popping up, I wish simply to become more informed on what others believe.

I'll start by simply stating:  The Bible doesn't claim the earth is 6,000 - 10,000 years old. (are those the correct numbers?)

now...shoot at me and prove me wrong.

I'd ask everyone to be polite, but noone listens.  Therefore, please feel free to bash and clash. 

 

[Sky]

That is the Young Earth Creation theory, not new earth.

No I don't believe in the YEC theory.

This really belongs in the science forum.

 

[Sky]

Someone please post here.

 

[Soul_Searcher]

Smilin, people use the lineage of Adam to determine the age of the Earth using the Bible. They count the generations and begats, and try to figure it from there, but what yardstick they use for when someone begat his son I have no idea. It's just another way to try to prove the Bible is inerrant and has no basis in reality. I mean, Noah was 600 years old and had only three sons?

 

[Sky]

The geneaologies do not list EVERY person in Adam's bloodline, it only lists a few prominent people. And they counted their years differently, so Noah didn't really live 600 years using our calendar.

 

[jon1101]

Originally posted by Sky
The geneaologies do not list EVERY person in Adam's bloodline, it only lists a few prominent people. And they counted their years differently, so Noah didn't really live 600 years using our calendar.

How did they count years?

-jon

 

[Sky]

They used the ancient Hebrew calendar (I think).

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Smilin
I'll start by simply stating:  The Bible doesn't claim the earth is 6,000 - 10,000 years old. (are those the correct numbers?)

Yeah, that's the claims of YECs. The 6000 years comes from Bishop Usher's genealogy. However, this would put the flood myth around 2000 BC. However, we have archaeological evidence of civilizations (e.g. Egypt and China) that persist unerupted during this timeframe. Thus to address this, YECs arbitrarily extend the window of creation to 10,000 or so years ago. Of course, I have never seen a biblical literalist explain how Bishop Usher got his genealogy wrong.

 

[TheBear]

I don't believe in the Young Earth Creation teachings.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Yeah, that's the claims of YECs. The 6000 years comes from Bishop Usher's genealogy. However, this would put the flood myth around 2000 BC. However, we have archaeological evidence of civilizations (e.g. Egypt and China) that persist unerupted during this timeframe. Thus to address this, YECs arbitrarily extend the window of creation to 10,000 or so years ago. Of course, I have never seen a biblical literalist explain how Bishop Usher got his genealogy wrong.

I'd add that we also have native american artificats in our own backyard here to dispute the 10,000 year old earth claim.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Thus to address this, YECs arbitrarily extend the window of creation to 10,000 or so years ago. Of course, I have never seen a biblical literalist explain how Bishop Usher got his genealogy wrong.

A Bishop came up with this idea? Is that true...so it's the Catholics fault?....Catholics..please explain yourself and if you defend this belief.  I'm hoping ya'll burnt this guy at the stake for blasphemy against God.  Why would a Bishop want to drive people away from Christianity with such a notion?  Those who would believe this time frame would be quite confused when studying the various areas of science.

The guy I heard wasn't Catholic.  I also noted a book titled "Explaining Starlight in a Young Creation" written by some physicist.  I just grinned and didn't even bother opening it.

I saw some of you claiming the creation was this young in the Age of the earth thread.  Here's your chance to state your belief for all to learn from and back it up with your facts.

I simply believe that those who teach this are teaching false doctrine and should be dealt with accordingly.

 

 

[Sky]

False Doctrine? Blaspheming God? This is a (bad) science issue, not a religion issue.

 

[Smilin]

Ahhhh...sky...
If there using Bad Science with their religious teachings...they're guilty of both.

 

[Smilin]

It's been stated that the Young Earth theory is a result of a Bishop Usher's account of the genealogy from the book of Genisis. Well, the few I've listened to weren't Catholic.

Sooo....

My first question: Where could one find the actually genealogy he formulated.
Secondly: Exactly how did this doctrine spread to the Non-Catholic communities?

I know many of you believe this...I read your claims in another thread. Again, hears your chance to convince me. For now, I believe it's false doctrine and must be challenged.

Anyone up to the task of debating this subject?

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by Smilin
It's been stated that the Young Earth theory is a result of a Bishop Usher's account of the genealogy from the book of Genisis. Well, the few I've listened to weren't Catholic.

Sooo....

My first question: Where could one find the actually genealogy he formulated.
Secondly: Exactly how did this doctrine spread to the Non-Catholic communities?

I know many of you believe this...I read your claims in another thread. Again, hears your chance to convince me. For now, I believe it's false doctrine and must be challenged.

Anyone up to the task of debating this subject?

Although I can't answer for the YECies as to why they are in lock-step with Ussher's commentaries, maybe I can give a few historical details that might help on your questions.

Three decades after the King James Version of the Bible in English was completed, Cambridge University Vice-Chancellor John Lightfoot published his calculation of the exact date for the creation of the universe: September 17, 3928 BC. In 1650, Anglican archbishop James Ussher published a "correction" of Lightfoot's date for creation: October 3, 4004 BC. Ussher's work included his derivation of specific dates for various historical events mentioned in the Bible. Lightfoot then made an adjustment to Ussher's date, concluding that all creation took place during the week of October 19-24, 4004 BC. You might be interested in knowing that Adam was allegedly created at 9:00 a.m. (45th meridian time) on October 23, 4004 BC.

Since the early 1700s, editions of the KJV have incorporated Ussher's chronology as margin notes and sometimes as headings in the text, which may have led some to think that those dates are actually part of God's holy word--when in fact both Ussher and Lightfoot ignored the Hebrew texts and scholarship and merely used a literal reading of the English KJV for their work.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by Smilin
A Bishop came up with this idea? Is that true...so it's the Catholics fault?....Catholics..please explain yourself and if you defend this belief.  I'm hoping ya'll burnt this guy at the stake for blasphemy against God.  Why would a Bishop want to drive people away from Christianity with such a notion?  Those who would believe this time frame would be quite confused when studying the various areas of science.

The guy I heard wasn't Catholic.  I also noted a book titled "Explaining Starlight in a Young Creation" written by some physicist.  I just grinned and didn't even bother opening it.

I saw some of you claiming the creation was this young in the Age of the earth thread.  Here's your chance to state your belief for all to learn from and back it up with your facts.

I simply believe that those who teach this are teaching false doctrine and should be dealt with accordingly.

 

Catholics would view such an exercise as an interesting intellectual puzzle like the date of Jesus' birth or His age at His death but would not see it as an important theological position. Going back to at least Augustine, there has always been the idea that God reveals Himself through the Word of Nature as well as the Word of the Bible, so the idea that science can contradict theology is foreign.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Sinai
You might be interested in knowing that Adam was allegedly created at 9:00 a.m. (45th meridian time) on October 23, 4004 BC.

Since the early 1700s, editions of the KJV have incorporated Ussher's chronology as margin notes and sometimes as headings in the text, which may have led some to think that those dates are actually part of God's holy word--when in fact both Ussher and Lightfoot ignored the Hebrew texts and scholarship and merely used a literal reading of the English KJV for their work.

Sinai,

Thanks for the dates.  I'd be interested if Ussher's chronology pin-pointed a date and time of Jesus's birth.  I wrote a paper once on the facts and myths of Christmas.  I took quite a bashing for stating that Christ wasn't born in December.  I'd be interested in knowing when they placed his birth in their calender.

Regards,

Smilin

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by fragmentsofdreams
Catholics would view such an exercise as an interesting intellectual puzzle like the date of Jesus' birth or His age at His death but would not see it as an important theological position. Going back to at least Augustine, there has always been the idea that God reveals Himself through the Word of Nature as well as the Word of the Bible, so the idea that science can contradict theology is foreign.

Greetings fragment,

1.  Not just Catholics are interested in such intellectual puzzles.

2.  You've digressed from the topic.  I asked for your view of the Young Earth Creation teachings.  We can debate the chronology associated with Jesus in another thread (if there is interest)

3.  I totally agree with your note that the creator reveals himself through nature, or the creation.

The idea that science can contradict theology is foreign to you?

I would suppose this would be true if one had only studied theology without studying the sciences.

To those who have studied both theology and the sciences; the idea is not foreign.  It is the basis that we question and seek answers.

Regards,

Smilin

To refocus, what are your views on the teachings of a 6,000 - 12,000 year old earth?  My intentions are simply to learn...that's all.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by Smilin
Greetings fragment,

1.  Not just Catholics are interested in such intellectual puzzles.

2.  You've digressed from the topic.  I asked for your view of the Young Earth Creation teachings.  We can debate the chronology associated with Jesus in another thread (if there is interest)

3.  I totally agree with your note that the creator reveals himself through nature, or the creation.

The idea that science can contradict theology is foreign to you?

I would suppose this would be true if one had only studied theology without studying the sciences.

To those who have studied both theology and the sciences; the idea is not foreign.  It is the basis that we question and seek answers.

Regards,

Smilin

To refocus, what are your views on the teachings of a 6,000 - 12,000 year old earth?  My intentions are simply to learn...that's all.

You had said that the Catholics were to blame. I responded by saying that Catholics would not and have not considered it a definitive date the way YEC's do. The chronology of Jesus was just an example were the exact dates don't matter.

Contradictions are foreign because I see any contradictions as merely the result of a mistaken understanding of either theology or science. There are no actual contradictions. I've studied science. I've studied theology. I've even studied specifically the interaction between science and theology. I have yet to find a contradiction.



I find the idea that the Bible requires one to believe that the Earth was created 6,000-12,000 years ago ridiculous. What good does it do for God to reveal cosmological history in a book intended to reveal Himself?

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by fragmentsofdreams
You had said that the Catholics were to blame. I responded by saying that Catholics would not and have not considered it a definitive date the way YEC's do. The chronology of Jesus was just an example were the exact dates don't matter.

Ahhh...now I understand.  Catholics reject the chronology in question? Would that be a correct statement then?

So, who is responsible for taking the Catholic generated chronology and interjecting it into Christianity would be my next question?

Originally posted by fragmentsofdreams
Contradictions are foreign because I see any contradictions as merely the result of a mistaken understanding of either theology or science. There are no actual contradictions. I've studied science. I've studied theology. I've even studied specifically the interaction between science and theology. I have yet to find a contradiction.

I concur.

Originally posted by fragmentsofdreams

I find the idea that the Bible requires one to believe that the Earth was created 6,000-12,000 years ago ridiculous. What good does it do for God to reveal cosmological history in a book intended to reveal Himself?

I agree totally with your observations.  The bible is not a calendar.  Yet, there are those who are desperately trying to make it into one.  I know the time frame many believe in...yet I've yet to find someone to debate the YEC's point of view with me.

Many Thanks Fragments for your participation....

I'm still seeking the YEC's point of view.