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

[SkyWriting]

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.

Jesus produced wine from water.
So, we can see from scripture that the Creation process is not limited by normal time constraints.

At the same time, the analysis of the wine was that it was "the best".
This tells us that the wine was not "Young" by scientific standards.

So, we can have a 7 day Creation week, and we should not expect the earth to look "young". Mostly, it doesn't.

 

[RDKirk]

So, we can see from scripture that the Creation process is not limited by normal time constraints.

Which means that anything is possible in either direction.

 

[SkyWriting]

Which means that anything is possible in either direction.

So says the Word.

Bible Search: all things are possible

 

[RDKirk]

So says the Word.

Bible Search: all things are possible

Here is the thing, though:

It would make Romans 1 a lie if God created a young world that looked old.

Clearly, the judgment of atheists declared in Romans 1 depends explicitly on God as He reveals himself in nature as a reliable and true revelation. God's revelation of Himself in nature is intended to be independent of revelation by scripture.

As Paul stated to the Greeks on Mars' Hill:

For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.

The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.

And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him.

The judgment against atheists that Paul proclaims in Romans 1 is unjust if creation's revelation is not true and reliable. If the world looks old, it must be old...or God is a liar.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

The problem is always the same.

First, few realize that Scientific Naturalism and other successive worldviews are all a product of ancient Babylonian religion masquerading as Secular Impericism. And it all gives an illusion that the foundations of such modern gnosis (science, falsely so called) is actually valid based on its own fallacious declarations.

Second, not attributing ALL creation to God means attempting to explain from an erroneous foundation of Christian perspective, believing the musings of Tertullian and (much later as extensive Orthodoxy) St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas said God is eternity, and eternity is God. But he later refused to finish any of his copious writings, proclaiming all he had written was straw. (Too bad he didn't do that sooner.)

Now we have a layered culture-sculpting of intertwined worldviews that filters out the little scriptural truth that remains; and all of modern society is raised with a false baseline that replaces faith with sight based upon alleged consensus authority of men.

Buy the truth and sell it not... if you can actually find it anywhere in today's diluted and perverted and hybridized Christian settings. Everyone believes all the historical mathematicians and early observers, never considering what the agenda of antichrist is really all about. Now that the basic foundations are laid in textbooks and our low-context society and culture, nothing can be challenged without ridicule when the status quo is what's ridiculous.

The enemy is the Morning Star. Jesus Christ is the Bright Morning Star. We shouldn't be looking for gross deception in obvious areas. We should be looking for the lies that are positioned closest to the truth to counterfeit them.

The core of science... isn't. Or, depending on which way one wants to say it, actually it is. It's gnosis. And it has puffed up. Too bad it's not epignosis shaped by oida, or the Church would know and stand for the truth against silliness.

In all your getting, get understanding, not "get -science". (Con)-science is a soulical attribute. Creation is a spiritual issue, requiring faculties of the spirit to comprehend. Satan has flipped the script and it has exposed the faithlessness of many who profess to believe.

It's not about the answer to this/these question/s. All the wrong questions are being asked.

"None of the above" is the answer, but few will accept the truth while preferring to be either naive Biblical Literalists or deluded Scientific Concordists. There's no such thing as either of those in the context of Cosmogony.

Carry on.

 

[SkyWriting]

Here is the thing, though:

It would make Romans 1 a lie if God created a young world that looked old.

Like wine that seems old, or a healed limb that seems ....well...."healed".
Like trees in the Garden of Eden bearing fruit?
Like Adam walking and talking the first week he was Created?
Like real dirt in the Garden of Eden?
Perhaps all the Garden was just water and Vermiculite.
No, I thing soil or dirt in mentioned.
Have you ever made soil or dirt? It suggests time.
Don't call a lack of understanding a lie. All I know is that there is no
mention of molten lava during creation week. And we all know that's how
new earth creation normally starts out. This would be your Garden of
Eden without the "lies and deception."