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

[Splayd]

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?

 

[KerrMetric]

Seems to me you are asking the wrong question.

 

[Splayd]

Seems to me you've contributed nothing to the discussion.

Perhaps you could
a) answer my question
b) explain why it's the wrong question
c) suggest a better question
d) dig deeper

I'm sure there's all sorts of better ways you could enter the discussion. I really am after some help regarding this matter. I'm basically asking if there is any scriptural reason that many continue to hold the young earth view, apart from the understanding derived from the creation narrative in Genesis.

 

[KerrMetric]

if the earth really proves to be billions of years old,

It is billions of years old. Amend your interpretation accordingly.

 

[Splayd]

You really aren't helpful at all.

If you read the subtext of my post, you'll realise I'm actually moving towards your understanding. Excuse me, if I consider the ramifications and seek clarification of things I should consider. Letting go of long-held, often-fought beliefs is not an easy thing to do and shouldn't be treated lightly.

Maybe I'm a little slower on the uptake than you were, but I'd rather be heading there sincerely than standing there obnoxiously harrassing those on their way.

 

[prophecyistrue]

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'm not sure where you get the notion that the earth was created with brand new material, was Adam created as a baby and nursed into adulthood, or was he created pre-aged adult, the bible is far from any error of its rendering of creation, only thing I see lacking is peoples understanding of what the posibilities were of what was used to create it.......There is no material list that God speaks of, that mentions where or how old the matter was that He used to create the earth. It appears from Adams creation, He uses what he has on hand, who could say what a timeless God grabbed and formed into the earth we now call home

 

[chris4243]

It is billions of years old. Amend your interpretation accordingly.

What he said. The truth won't change no matter how inconvenient you may think it is.

 

[prophecyistrue]

What he said. The truth won't change no matter how inconvenient you may think it is.

I have no problem accepting the material the earth is made with is billions of years old, God has been around forever, not sure what that has to do with contradicting the biblical version of creation

 

[chris4243]

You really aren't helpful at all.

If you read the subtext of my post, you'll realise I'm actually moving towards your understanding. Excuse me, if I consider the ramifications and seek clarification of things I should consider. Letting go of long-held, often-fought beliefs is not an easy thing to do and shouldn't be treated lightly.

Maybe I'm a little slower on the uptake than you were, but I'd rather be heading there sincerely than standing there obnoxiously harrassing those on their way.

The Flood is also not literally a global flood; the genetic evidence and soil sediments confirm that. The genealogies before Abraham and Terah are probably suspect (though the Jews are not the only people to have genealogies with extremely long-lived people tracing their ancestry to one of the gods). Both the Flood and Adam are mentioned in the New Testament, though in my opinion the references work fine with an allegorical rather than true story.

 

[Splayd]

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]?!?!

I'M NOT AFTER PERSONAL OPINIONS OR EXTERNAL EVIDENCE!

Clearly I've already been swayed by evidence and obviously my research would have consisted of a lot more than a few posters throwing away single sentence opinions...

BUT If I hadn't already seen the merit of the research, I wouldn't be in here asking for scriptural beliefs and doctrine that support/depend on a young earth outside of the creation narrative itself.

I don't even need you to believe them. I just want to know if there are any. I figure if i was raised to believe it in the face of contrary evidence, there must be things attached to that belief that we're trying to protect. I just want to know what they are.

 

[KerrMetric]

Which doctrines/theological teachings require a young earth?

None whatsoever.

 

[Splayd]

Sorry chris, I missed this "Both the Flood and Adam are mentioned in the New Testament, though in my opinion the references work fine with an allegorical rather than true story. "

I wonder if there are any YEC here though that might suggest their reasoning as to what else in in dispute.

 

[prophecyistrue]

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]?!?!

I'M NOT AFTER PERSONAL OPINIONS OR EXTERNAL EVIDENCE!

Clearly I've already been swayed by evidence and obviously my research would have consisted of a lot more than a few posters throwing away single sentence opinions...

BUT If I hadn't already seen the merit of the research, I wouldn't be in here asking for scriptural beliefs and doctrine that support/depend on a young earth outside of the creation narrative itself.

I don't even need you to believe them. I just want to know if there are any. I figure if i was raised to believe it in the face of contrary evidence, there must be things attached to that belief that we're trying to protect. I just want to know what they are.

well actually there's alot to lose, If you want to know the truth, take a mental note of your relationship and walk with God today.......and I can almost guarantee in a few years you won't even care!......when you have nothing that is fully true to base your doctrine on, you are a ship without a rudder, and if you don't lose complete faith in God, you will follow all sorts of unbiblical teachings because the slippery slope has no end

 

[Splayd]

None whatsoever.

I can immediately think of at least one myself, so there's bound to be others.

ie: Adam's sin brought death into the world. An acceptance of the fossil records means an acceptance that death occured long before "Adam" sinned.

Of course these are issues you've already resolved for yourself or were never relevant to you anyway. I'm asking what other issues would someone who was YEC have to resolve if they were to let go of their YEC belief.

 

[Splayd]

when you have nothing that is fully true to base your doctrine on, you are a ship without a rudder

I understand exactly what you're saying here and there's all sorts of areas we can get into trouble when we determine not to trust scripture... BUT I don't see that scripture is wrong inasmuch as our understanding of it has been wrong. Even if you were opposed to evolution, for example, you could still believe the Genesis account to be correct AND believe the earth is much older than 6000 years or that creation took more than 6 x 24hr periods... UNLESS there's something else mentioned somewhere else in scripture that insists on that interpretation.

 

[metherion]

A lot of people will tell you that if you give up a young earth, you must therefore also reject the following:
God is all powerful (because rejecting a young earth means God cannot have been powerful enough to do it that way).
Original sin/mankind's inherent sinfulness (no young earth means no literal Genesis, means no literal Adam, means no literal eating of the apple, means no original sin).
God's proclamation that His creation was good (in some way, shape, or form. This usually follows from the claim that if the earth is not young, there must have been death before humans, and a good God would not allow that).

I dispute that these ideas must be rejected.

Just because TEs do not BELIEVE God did not create the universe in 6 days 6000 years ago, it does not follow that TEs believe God COULD NOT create the universe in 6 days 6000 years ago. There is a world of difference between did not and could not.

Original sin may not have been a literal woman eating a literal fruit off of a literal tree. It could easily be that the Tree of Life story is an image for the original first sin that cut humankind off from God. Not being told directly what the first original sin is does not mean that there never was one.

On the last point I brought up, God uses death as a tool in many ways: by empowering the Israelites to kill their enemies, sending the Angel of Death upon the Egyptians, by dying on the cross. Certain things that also can proceed only from death also please God, such as the smell given off when certain parts of certain animals are burned. Death in and of itself is not bad, it is just a part of life. Death is even spoken of as occurring in the new heavens and earth in Isaiah 65.

So, no, I don't think there are any issues besides YECism tied to a young earth, and YECism is not a requisite for Christianity. I don't think I could really go into my thoughts on why some people do cling to YECism in this subforum, and I HOPE that this post is realized as an honest attempt to answer instead of a violation of fellowshipping guidelines for the subforum. (I don't think it should come across as such).

Metherion

 

[Splayd]

Thank you metherion!!!

They're exactly the sort of things I was asking for.

 

[shernren]

Right-wing political approval?

The other thing you lose is entitlement to immediacy of interpretation. By that I mean the idea that not only is every single detail in the Bible there for a reason (which I still believe), but it is there for a reason directly relevant to my modern experience as a Christian.

I grew up as a creationist, and one of the things which impressed me about creationism was the way that bits of verses here and there could be given surprisingly modernized, scientific interpretations. "Stretching out the heavens"? That's God expanding the fabric of the cosmos using general relativity! Years in the genealogies in Genesis? With my trusty calculator I can find the age of the universe!

Abandoning creationism meant having to accept that some parts of the Bible just weren't written for me. The ages of patriarchs weren't meant to satisfy my curiosity about how old everything is, they were written for the obscure needs of ancient Hebrews and not me. The sectioning of creation into six days doesn't go according to my conception of days, but according to whatever a day meant for the first readers. It's a slightly bewildering exercise to force myself to view the Bible text through such lenses first and foremost, and the sharp clarity of "it's all about my perspective" is what you have to give up when you give up on creationism.

 

[Papias]

Splayd wrote:

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?

Very fair question, which deserves a straightforward answer.

Because some people (unlike you), *are* invested in this, your answers will of course vary from panicked to dismissive.

Some will say that everything hangs on it.

I don't think that that's the case, unless one is to think that Billy Graham and Pope Benedict are insincere.

I've answered how theistic evolution supporters answer common doctrinal questions, and so I'll copy it here:

******************
There are many theistic evolution ways to see the core doctrines of Christianity, just as there are many creationist descriptions, depending on the person and denomination. However, these may at least be common, if not exclusive.

The Garden: The Garden of Eden can be a metaphor for the natural world before humans became fully conscious/able to think. It need not have happened as a literal, single location “garden”, just as Ezekiel’s army of bones (37) is a metaphor that never happened as a literal army of zombies.

The Fall: The fall of man can be what happened when man evolved enough mental capacity to make rational decisions, and decided to rebel against God. The consequence was alienation from God.

Adam: Note that many theistic evolution supporters (including apparently the Pope) believe in a literal, real, single human Adam, the father of us all, who was the first transitional ape-human to cross the line to being human, who sinned and brought about original sin (not the first death). This fits with the above mention of the Fall.

The Flood: The flood can be a metaphor describing God’s sovereignty over humans and the earth, and still shows those same messages either way. It need not have happened as a literal flood, just as Ezekiel’s army of bones is a metaphor that never happened as a literal army of zombies.

Jesus: Jesus was a real human who was both God and Man. He often spoke in parables (metaphors) while on earth, just as he did when he, as part of the trinity, inspired Genesis. Because Genesis is the word of the same God who spoke parables while on earth as Jesus, it should come as no surprise that he starts off the Bible speaking the parables of the creation, fall and flood.

Atonement: The Atonement of Jesus is the same in either a literalist or a modern Christian’s view. Jesus needed to atone for the sin of the fall, which was rebellion against God.

The geneologies in Genesis: These can be figurative, like Ezekiel’s army of zombies. They pretty much have to be for a number of reasons – not just the massive evidence of an old earth, but also internal inconsistencies, like growing a handful of people from (coat) Joseph’s time to the ~2 million Jews at the Exodus in a short number of years.

******************

(I don't want to get into discussions of the evidence or any other point about which is more likely, since this is posted in the creationist forum, where arguing in favor of theistic evolution being true is not allowed). Maybe your question would have been better suited to the main forum or to the Theistic Evoluiton forum? Something to consider if you don't feel your question is adequately answered.

Blessings-

Papias

 

[Greg1234]

Sorry chris, I missed this "Both the Flood and Adam are mentioned in the New Testament, though in my opinion the references work fine with an allegorical rather than true story. "

I wonder if there are any YEC here though that might suggest their reasoning as to what else in in dispute.

Any type of allegorical determination of scriptures automatically entails the inclusion of more spiritual elements. So you move from a supernatural creation to, if allegorically, an even more supernatural creation. The supernatural creation as presented in Genesis is already a problem for materialistic attempts at a Darwinian integration. The movement to the recognition of a more spiritual basis of life further confines physical forms to a spiritual basis. Darwinists would accept the classification system from a creationist but fail to accept the rest of the data, or the age of the earth from intelligent design but keep Darwinism. The bible was never in the service of adopting materialistic proclamations and as given elsewhere " "By tracing the debate over Darwinism all the way back to Epicurus (a Greek materialist) we can place the theory in a much larger context. Darwinism was not entirely new, invented out of whole cloth."

The allegorical pathway being carved for materialism is of course a more recent strategy through which the more influential status of materialistic promulgation and naturalistic proclivities can now be utilized. What results is methodological naturalism's rise to an authority on scripture, and theological study now means a bedside wait for a naturalistic scientist to arise from slumber and make a morning declaration. From there we give our thanks then rush to integrate it into scripture where it stands until the process repeats itself the next morning. An enticing and gratifying scenario but one which will not come to pass. There are many theological tools and methods from which information can be obtained and applied and from there, physical data.