What else do I lose if I give up on a young earth?

[Nick316]

Thank you for those links

Just wondering, have you ever used these links and others, that support a young earth, and compared them to sources that show some evidence for their being an old earth?

Have you done any research dealing with the other side of the debate (how much do you know about what your arguing against)?

I've seen a lot of rebuttals to the old-earth views, and trueorigin does a very good job of that. I know a good bit about both sides.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I wasn't putting science over God (that is stupid), i was merely giving him an article about that finding of red blood cells in a T-Rex, if he wanted more info about it.

Well... God inhabiteth eternity. He created it. It had an inception.

Cosmogony starts there, not with the cosmos. So Cosmography and Cosmology must reflect this prevailing truth that has been unrepresented in even the Christian faith.

 

[jackmt]

I grew up believing in a 6 day creation, 6000 years ago.
I never really doubted it, but I was never overly invested in it either. From my reading of Genesis, I could see lots of ways to interpret it that allowed for an old earth.

My thinking has always been that if the earth really proves to be billions of years old, it doesn't mean that scripture was wrong. It just means our interpretation of it was wrong. I also figured that while I could see the possibility for an old earth, it was better to stick to a literal understanding of a young earth.

My thinking on these things has changed considerably over the last few years and I'm now at the point where I'm thinking I'm doing my children a diservice by teaching them young earth creation.

Here's my question though...

Which doctrines/theological teachings require a young earth?
ie: If I tug at this thread, is there a whole heap of other theological issues that must arise as a result?

I grew up being indoctrinated into believing in theistic evolution and believing that anyone who believed the Genesis account was an idiot. After I was saved my thinking was changed. I no longer believed in evolution, but really didn't know what to believe about the age of the earth or how to understand Genesis. I read many theories, and one in particular made sense. It allowed for man to have been on earth for 200,000 years. After 35 years as a Christian, I have recently come to believe in a (near) literal understanding of the Genesis account.

If we doubt Scripture in this, we have cause to doubt much else of Scripture and ultimately the whole of Scripture; if you cannot trust some of it, all of it comes into doubt and we become judges of Christ's words. But He says His words will judge us.

Do you believe Christ rose from the dead? That He raised Lazarus from the dead? That He performed all manner of miracles demonstating the validity of His claims to be God? How then can you believe that He erred in quoting from and citing the Genesis account?

 

[AmericanChristian91]

I don't think all scripture was meant to be literal (though of course some are, such as the resurrection). That is not to say that the bible is false, its not wrong, but sometimes our interpretations of it can be.

Besides, even if parts of Genesis are/intended to be allegorical, that doesn't mean those allegorical parts lack truth/meaning (such as showing the nature of God, etc).

 

[AmericanChristian91]

ignore this post

 

[Smidlee]

While it better than starting a new thread over this topic I wouldn't waste my time responding directly to Splayd who hasn't log on since Sept '11.

 

[Messy]

I grew up believing in a 6 day creation, 6000 years ago.
I never really doubted it, but I was never overly invested in it either. From my reading of Genesis, I could see lots of ways to interpret it that allowed for an old earth.

My thinking has always been that if the earth really proves to be billions of years old, it doesn't mean that scripture was wrong. It just means our interpretation of it was wrong. I also figured that while I could see the possibility for an old earth, it was better to stick to a literal understanding of a young earth.

My thinking on these things has changed considerably over the last few years and I'm now at the point where I'm thinking I'm doing my children a diservice by teaching them young earth creation.

Here's my question though...

Which doctrines/theological teachings require a young earth?
ie: If I tug at this thread, is there a whole heap of other theological issues that must arise as a result?

You can take everything in the Bible literal with the gaptheory.

 

[blueberrymuffin]

I've seen a lot of rebuttals to the old-earth views, and trueorigin does a very good job of that. I know a good bit about both sides.

So have you or haven't you read some things from pro-old earth organizations? I'm curious like about it same as American Solider is and your post seemed a bit too vague for me to tell if you said you had or not.

just wonderin'

 

[Nick316]

So have you or haven't you read some things from pro-old earth organizations? I'm curious like about it same as American Solider is and your post seemed a bit too vague for me to tell if you said you had or not.

just wonderin'

If you count school textbooks and mainstream, secular websites (such as wikipedia), then sure.

 

[lismore]

I don't think all scripture was meant to be literal (though of course some are, such as the resurrection). That is not to say that the bible is false, its not wrong, but sometimes our interpretations of it can be.

Besides, even if parts of Genesis are/intended to be allegorical, that doesn't mean those allegorical parts lack truth/meaning (such as showing the nature of God, etc).

The problem will arise when you try to decide which parts of the bible are to be taken literally and which parts allegorically, that will be based only on opinion and perception. For example there are some 'Christians' about who say the resurrection is an allegory. You can't tell them they're wrong about that if you too have labelled some parts of the bible as allegories based solely on your whim.

But I can.

God Bless

 

[thesunisout]

God created the world in 6 days to give us the model for our 7 day week.

 

[Messy]

GAP is also literal:
The Bible, Genesis & Geology

 

[SayaOtonashi]

The fact is this 6 days is not 6 days for the grass was still growing has seedlings. Yom is used with a hebrew word this has nothing to do with literal days.

 

[SayaOtonashi]

Does the Bible Say God Created the Universe in Six 24-Hour Days?

 

[SayaOtonashi]

The claim has been made that when yom is used with a number, it always refers to a 24-hour day:

"Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 410 times, and each time it means an ordinary day—why would Genesis 1 be the exception?"1

Let's look at some notable exceptions to this "rule," just using the first day as an example. The number used for "first day" is the Hebrew word echad,12 which means "one." The first exception to the "rule" is found in Genesis 29:20, where echad yom refers to a period of seven years that Jacob served Laban to obtain Rachel.13

In the book of 1 Samuel, David says that he "will perish one day [echad yom] by the hand of Saul."14 Obviously, David was not expecting to die in exactly 24 hours. In fact, David was never killed by Saul, but died of old age many decades later.

A prophecy from the book of Daniel describes the demise of the ruler of the Syrian kingdom, Seleucus Philopator, the Son of Antiochus the Great. According to Daniel 11:20, "within a few days [echad yom] he will be shattered."15 The reign of Seleucus actually lasted 12 years16 - a relatively short period of time, but certainly not 24 hours!

There are several examples where echad yom refers to the Day of the Lord - a period usually interpreted as being seven years in length.17 Specific examples that specify a period of time longer than 24 hours include the following:

'For behold, the stone that I have set before Joshua; on one stone are seven eyes. Behold, I will engrave an inscription on it,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day [echad yom]. 'In that day,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'every one of you will invite his neighbor to sit under his vine and under his fig tree.'" (Zechariah 3:9-10)

For it will be a unique day [echad yom] which is known to the LORD, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at evening time there will be light. And it will come about in that day that living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea; it will be in summer as well as in winter. (Zechariah 14:7-8)

"He [the Lord] will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day, That we may live before Him. (Hosea 6:2)

If we are to interpret echad yom as referring only to a 24 hour day, then people will only be able to invite their neighbors over during one 24 hour period of time. Obviously, Zechariah 3:9-10 refers to an extended period of time. Later in his book, Zechariah describes this "one day" as being "in summer as well as in winter." This verse clearly indicates that this "one day" must be at least six months in length. The third example above is somewhat difficult to interpret, but is often interpreted as representing long periods of time. Gill's commentary says,"...these two and three days may be expressive of a long and short time, as interpreters differently explain them; of a long time, as the third day is a long time for a man to lie dead..."18 These six examples clearly establish that when yom is used with a number it does not

 

[SayaOtonashi]

On the third day, God formed the land out of the seas. There is no time frame given for the formation of the land and seas. Some time after the land was formed, God created the plants:

Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth"; and it was so. (Genesis 1:11)
And the earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:12)

The text clearly states that the earth "sprouted" the plants (the Hebrew word deshe,5 Strong's #H1877, usually refers to grasses). The Hebrew word dasha,6 (Strong's #H1876) indicates that the plants grew from either seeds or small seedlings in order to have "sprouted." In addition, these plants produced seeds. The Hebrew word here is zera (Strong's #H2233), which is most often translated "descendants." This makes matters very difficult for the 24-hour interpretation. Not only do the plants sprout and grow to maturity, but produce seed or descendants. There are no plants capable of doing this within a 24-hour period of time. Things actually get worse for this interpretation. Genesis 1:12 clearly states that God allowed the earth to bring forth trees that bore fruit. The process by which the earth brings forth trees to the point of bearing fruit takes several years, at minimum. God did not create the trees already bearing fruit. The text states clearly that He allowed the earth to accomplish the process of fruit bearing through natural means. Because the process of the third day requires a minimum period of time of more than 24 hours, the Genesis text for the third day clearly falsifies the interpretation that the days of Genesis one are 24-hour periods of time.

 

[SayaOtonashi]

Young-earth creationists say that the Day-Age interpretation assumes the Earth was dark because of clouds and gases only from what scientists have said, because Genesis doesn't say why the surface of the oceans was dark. However, one of the first rules of interpretation of scripture is that no scripture is interpreted independently of the rest of scripture. God's own words to Job tell us why the Earth was dark:

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding... Or who enclosed the sea with doors, When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb; when I made a cloud its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band, (Job 38:4-9)

The Bible not only tells us that the Earth was dark during its infancy, but it tells us why the Earth was dark - it was covered with thick clouds - something that science confirms.

 

[Messy]

If a day was millions of years, that was 1/2 million years for the morning and 1/2 million years without sun and the plants died again. It was a recreation, they still wonder why everything got destroyed so suddenly and a dark nebula after the fall of satan explains the iceage. They explain it in my link. The Bible speaks about worlds (people etc.) and one earth.

 

[SayaOtonashi]

GOd had stated 1,000 people generations were under his commands. Which was 40 years. So 40,000. The sun was alright created. It was life that started on earth. Yom does not mean day is how the hebrew words used it.

Deuteronomy 7:9

1 Chronicles 16:15

Psalms 105:8

1,000 gen x 40 yr/gen = 40,000 yr

He has remembered His covenant forever, The word which He commanded to a thousand generations, (Psalm 105:8)

 

[SayaOtonashi]

NOt only that but early father of the church did not think the earth was early