Wild claims about only SDAs being young Earth Creationists in the 1800's and early 1900's.

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
for context:
From Science and Faith - Young-Earth Creationism

"The Bible clearly teaches the young-earth creationist view of Genesis 1–11. That was the almost universal belief of the church for 1800 years. Progressive Creationism and Theistic Evolutionism in all their various forms (day-age view, gap theory, framework hypothesis, analogical days view, local flood view, etc.) are recent and novel interpretations that will not stand up to scrutiny with an open Bible. A growing body of overwhelming scientific evidence also shows that evolution and millions of years are religiously motivated myths masquerading as scientific fact."

====================== now for the claims in the video below

The following video makes some pretty wild claims -- about there being few to no young Earth Creationists - before the 1960's -- other than Seventh-day Adventists.


by contrast:
From: Old-Earth (Progressive) Creationism: History and Beliefs - Article - BioLogos
"The literal creation week and the instantaneous creation were the two major alternatives for most of Christian history, "

Yes I am SDA and yes I do believe Ellen White was a real Bible prophet - but even I would not make such a wild non-historic claim about limiting the origin of acceptance of the young earth creation doctrine to "those who read and accept what Ellen White wrote". How in the world does such an idea even come about?

The video appears to debunk it's own self-conflicted claim that the creationist movement was not based on Ex 20:11 and Gen 2:1-3 but rather was based on Seventh-day Adventist doctrine and not Christians studying the Bible and observations in nature etc that do not fit blind faith evolutionism's doctrines on origins and ages.

At 16:29 the video introduces an author of a number of books on Geology "George McReady Price". The video says "He wrote several papers and books arguing that the geological column was a result of Noah's flood" ( an observation that comes as no surprise to Christians today - familiar with Gen 2:1-3 and Ex 20:11). The video claims that the "arguments" that creationists use today - date back to Price when it comes to geology and what he called "flood geology". The video does not claim that anyone is/was claiming that they got their ideas from Ellen White. (Sadly for the wild claim in your post).

Price (as do many Christians today) noted that the so-called geological-column was based on circular reasoning where fossils date the rocks and rocks date the fossils. (A complaint that many observers make about the whole thing).

At 17:30 in the video Price is said to have quoted Ex 20:11 (which is a direct quote of Gen 2:1-3) for the 7 day week of creation being the same as the 7 day week at Sinai. And scripture of course is something for which at least some Christians have a I value. Instead of claiming Price was appealing to Ellen White - your own video claims he was affirming Ex 20:11. (I am guessing you do not consider Ellen White to be the author of Ex 20:11 or Gen 2:1-3).

At 18:20 the video correctly states that Price did not claim the entire universe is only 6000 years old --- he only claims that life on Earth is no more than 6000 years old.

At 20:09 the video says that after not getting much popular story-telling support behind Price's findings about the flood - Dr. Henry Morris (a scientist with a Ph.D in hydraulic engineering) published a book for literal 7 day creationism. This is how the whole thing gained more popular acceptance and the video admits Morris was definitely not a follower of Ellen White (as if anyone had been using that claim for Ex 20:11 or Gen 2:1-3 regarding the literal week -- in the first place for creationism). 1961 the book 'the Genesis Flood" by Morris and Whitcomb was published and became very popular.

At 21:53 about 200,000 copies of that book were sold and so Morris and Whitcomb became 'celebrities' - neither of which followed Ellen White and neither of which were SDA - sadly for the wild claims made in the post above. At 22:20 we see a lot of Creationist scientific groups forming due to support from Dr. Morris. At 22:45 the wild claim was made that in the 1920 there were only a TINY number of folks in the "anti-evolutionist community" and they were almost all SDA. (Note that Ellen White was not still alive in 1920). This is shocking since a lot of the evangelical churches today that reject blind faith evolutionism today - were also opposed to it in the 1920's.

The video keeps saying that "SOME believed that the Earth was older than 10,000 years old" when referencing ancient groups. But the problem with "SOME" or "A FEW exceptions" etc - is that is far from saying "nobody believed the actual text stating that it is a literal 7 day creation week on Ex 20:11 and in Gen 2:1-3" --

The video even admits that most people accept that this is what everyone believed (except for SOME) about the 7 day creation week of Gen 2:1-3 and Ex 20:11

Near the end of the video we have this Mea Culpa - 23:14 "I am not saying there were NO young Earth creationists before the Seventh-day Adventists" He adds "in centuries past MANY believed that the Earth was relatively young"
 
Last edited:

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,302
76
✟363,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
For example, the creationism presented at the Scopes Trial was Old-Earth creationism. It wasn't until the Seventh-Day Adventists won over some evangelicals that we see a change in their thinking.

Praised by both creationists and evolutionists for its comprehensiveness, the book meticulously traces the dramatic shift among Christian fundamentalists from acceptance of the earth’s antiquity to the insistence of present-day scientific creationists that most fossils date back to Noah’s flood and its aftermath. Focusing especially on the rise of this “flood geology,” Ronald L. Numbers chronicles the remarkable resurgence of antievolutionism since the 1960s, as well as the creationist movement’s tangled religious roots in the theologies of late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Adventists, among others. His book offers valuable insight into the origins of various “creation science” think tanks and the people behind them. It also goes a long way toward explaining how creationism, until recently viewed as a “peculiarly American” phenomenon, has quietly but dynamically spread internationally—and found its expression outside Christianity in Judaism and Islam.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
For example, the creationism presented at the Scopes Trial was Old-Earth creationism. It wasn't until the Seventh-Day Adventists won over some evangelicals that we see a change in their thinking.
Even the author of the video admits to his mistake... as noted in the OP
"Near the end of the video we have this Mea Culpa - 23:14 "I am not saying there were NO young Earth creationists before the Seventh-day Adventists" He adds "in centuries past MANY believed that the Earth was relatively young"​
From Science and Faith - Young-Earth Creationism
"The Bible clearly teaches the young-earth creationist view of Genesis 1–11. That was the almost universal belief of the church for 1800 years. Progressive Creationism and Theistic Evolutionism in all their various forms (day-age view, gap theory, framework hypothesis, analogical days view, local flood view, etc.) are recent and novel interpretations that will not stand up to scrutiny with an open Bible. A growing body of overwhelming scientific evidence also shows that evolution and millions of years are religiously motivated myths masquerading as scientific fact."​
The idea that darwinism or evolutionism or ancient non-biblical age of the Earth was "Christian standard" before the 18th century is not supported by actual history

"From the 18th century on, various views aimed at reconciling the Abrahamic religions and Genesis with geology, biology and other sciences developed in Western culture.[4][5]
=======================================================​
And of course for almost all of Christian history we have total refutation of the wild notion that Christians did not affirm young Earth, young Life - creation as per the genesis 1-2 account and Ex 20:11

example take the following document from 1215 AD

from The Firmiter of Lateran IV in Its Historical Context Defines the Fiat Creation of All Things – Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation
The most important dogmatic statement on creation in the history of the Catholic Church was the Firmiter decree of Lateran Council IV in 1215. According to this decree:


Deus…creator omnium visibilium et invisibilium, spiritualium et corporalium: qui sua omnipotenti virtute simul ab initio temporis utramque de nihilo condidit creaturam, spiritualem et corporalem, angelicam videlicet et mundanam: ac deinde humanam, quasi communem ex spiritu et corpore constitutam.


God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body (Denz 428).


Eyewitness accounts of the proceedings of the Fourth Lateran Council confirm that the crusade against the Albigensian-Catharist heresy and its supporters in Languedoc[4] stood at or near the top of the list of priorities for the Pope and the Council Fathers. In his opening sermon to the assembled Patriarchs, Bishops, and Abbots at the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome, at the commencement of the largest Ecumenical Council in the history of the Church up until that time, Pope Innocent III reminded the Council Fathers that “on the sixth day God completed [the creation] of heaven and earth and all their beauties.”[5]


The Meaning of the Firmiter Decree on Creation


It is important to establish the original meaning intended by the Lateran IV Council Fathers regarding their dogmatic statement on creation. The argument that the Council wording does not exclude long ages, and therefore allows time for evolution or progressive creation to take place, is based principally on two words in the text, simul and utramque. These two terms will now be examined.


Recent research has demonstrated that simul in this dogmatic decree was understood to mean “at once” from the time of the Fourth Lateran Council until the rise of Lyellian geology in the nineteenth century. Only then did some theologians begin to try to find another meaning for simul in Lateran IV so as to reconcile the traditional doctrine of creation with long ages of geologic time.[6]
That quote Ends with this​
"Recent research has demonstrated that simul in this dogmatic decree was understood to mean “at once” from the time of the Fourth Lateran Council until the rise of Lyellian geology in the nineteenth century. Only then did some theologians begin to try to find another meaning for simul in Lateran IV so as to reconcile the traditional doctrine of creation with long ages of geologic time"​
"God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body (Denz 428)."​
which comes as a surprise to no one.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,302
76
✟363,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Even the author of the video admits to his mistake... as noted in the OP
"Near the end of the video we have this Mea Culpa - 23:14 "I am not saying there were NO young Earth creationists before the Seventh-day Adventists" He adds "in centuries past MANY believed that the Earth was relatively young"​
Yes, a small minority of Christians always thought the Earth was young. YE creationism, as we see it today, was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the last century.
From Science and Faith - Young-Earth Creationism
"The Bible clearly teaches the young-earth creationist view of Genesis 1–11. T
That's a common error. In fact, the Bible nowhere says how old the Earth is. That is man's addition to God's word.
 
Upvote 0

reddogs

Contributor
Supporter
Dec 29, 2006
9,086
462
✟418,416.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
for context:
From Science and Faith - Young-Earth Creationism

"The Bible clearly teaches the young-earth creationist view of Genesis 1–11. That was the almost universal belief of the church for 1800 years. Progressive Creationism and Theistic Evolutionism in all their various forms (day-age view, gap theory, framework hypothesis, analogical days view, local flood view, etc.) are recent and novel interpretations that will not stand up to scrutiny with an open Bible. A growing body of overwhelming scientific evidence also shows that evolution and millions of years are religiously motivated myths masquerading as scientific fact."

====================== now for the claims in the video below

The following video makes some pretty wild claims -- about there being few to no young Earth Creationists - before the 1960's -- other than Seventh-day Adventists.


by contrast:
From: Old-Earth (Progressive) Creationism: History and Beliefs - Article - BioLogos
"The literal creation week and the instantaneous creation were the two major alternatives for most of Christian history, "

Yes I am SDA and yes I do believe Ellen White was a real Bible prophet - but even I would not make such a wild non-historic claim about limiting the origin of acceptance of the young earth creation doctrine to "those who read and accept what Ellen White wrote". How in the world does such an idea even come about?

The video appears to debunk it's own self-conflicted claim that the creationist movement was not based on Ex 20:11 and Gen 2:1-3 but rather was based on Seventh-day Adventist doctrine and not Christians studying the Bible and observations in nature etc that do not fit blind faith evolutionism's doctrines on origins and ages.

At 16:29 the video introduces an author of a number of books on Geology "George McReady Price". The video says "He wrote several papers and books arguing that the geological column was a result of Noah's flood" ( an observation that comes as no surprise to Christians today - familiar with Gen 2:1-3 and Ex 20:11). The video claims that the "arguments" that creationists use today - date back to Price when it comes to geology and what he called "flood geology". The video does not claim that anyone is/was claiming that they got their ideas from Ellen White. (Sadly for the wild claim in your post).

Price (as do many Christians today) noted that the so-called geological-column was based on circular reasoning where fossils date the rocks and rocks date the fossils. (A complaint that many observers make about the whole thing).

At 17:30 in the video Price is said to have quoted Ex 20:11 (which is a direct quote of Gen 2:1-3) for the 7 day week of creation being the same as the 7 day week at Sinai. And scripture of course is something for which at least some Christians have a I value. Instead of claiming Price was appealing to Ellen White - your own video claims he was affirming Ex 20:11. (I am guessing you do not consider Ellen White to be the author of Ex 20:11 or Gen 2:1-3).

At 18:20 the video correctly states that Price did not claim the entire universe is only 6000 years old --- he only claims that life on Earth is no more than 6000 years old.

At 20:09 the video says that after not getting much popular story-telling support behind Price's findings about the flood - Dr. Henry Morris (a scientist with a Ph.D in hydraulic engineering) published a book for literal 7 day creationism. This is how the whole thing gained more popular acceptance and the video admits Morris was definitely not a follower of Ellen White (as if anyone had been using that claim for Ex 20:11 or Gen 2:1-3 regarding the literal week -- in the first place for creationism). 1961 the book 'the Genesis Flood" by Morris and Whitcomb was published and became very popular.

At 21:53 about 200,000 copies of that book were sold and so Morris and Whitcomb became 'celebrities' - neither of which followed Ellen White and neither of which were SDA - sadly for the wild claims made in the post above. At 22:20 we see a lot of Creationist scientific groups forming due to support from Dr. Morris. At 22:45 the wild claim was made that in the 1920 there were only a TINY number of folks in the "anti-evolutionist community" and they were almost all SDA. (Note that Ellen White was not still alive in 1920). This is shocking since a lot of the evangelical churches today that reject blind faith evolutionism today - were also opposed to it in the 1920's.

The video keeps saying that "SOME believed that the Earth was older than 10,000 years old" when referencing ancient groups. But the problem with "SOME" or "A FEW exceptions" etc - is that is far from saying "nobody believed the actual text stating that it is a literal 7 day creation week on Ex 20:11 and in Gen 2:1-3" --

The video even admits that most people accept that this is what everyone believed (except for SOME) about the 7 day creation week of Gen 2:1-3 and Ex 20:11

Near the end of the video we have this Mea Culpa - 23:14 "I am not saying there were NO young Earth creationists before the Seventh-day Adventists" He adds "in centuries past MANY believed that the Earth was relatively young"
Price seems to be in the middle of this issue from what I am seeing at.many of the sites.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I'm SDA, I don't believe that scripture describes a 6,000 year old planet or human life starting at that time.
SDA doctrine does state that all life on Earth began in a literal 7 day week in Genesis 1-2 and it does not allow for 10's of thousands or 10's of millions of years of evolutionism.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Aaron112
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Yes, a small minority of Christians always thought the Earth was young. YE creationism, as we see it today, was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the last century.
Not true. As it turns out - the 7 day week is in Genesis 1 and 2. It is a text that predates the 1900's as it turns out and almost all Christians are aware of that fact. Ex 20:11 hardwires that Gen 2:1-3 literal 7 day week into the legal code of Ex 20:8-11.


from: Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia
"Young Earth creationists have claimed that their view has its earliest roots in ancient Judaism, citing, for example, the commentary on Genesis by Ibn Ezra (c. 1089–1164).[5]
"The Protestant reformation hermeneutic inclined some of the Reformers, including John Calvin[26][27] and Martin Luther,[28] and later Protestants toward a literal reading of the Bible as translated. This means they believed that the "days" referred to in Genesis correspond to ordinary days, in contrast to reading the "days" as standing in for a longer period of time.[29]
"Famous poets and playwrights of the Early Modern Period (1500–1800) referenced an Earth that was thousands of years old​
"Beginning in the 18th century, support for a young Earth declined among scientists and philosophers as new knowledge including discoveries of the Scientific Revolution and philosophies of the Age of Enlightenment."​
...​
"The genealogies of Genesis record the line of descent from Adam through Noah to Abraham. Young Earth creationists interpret these genealogies literally, including the old ages of the men. For example, Methuselah lived 969 years according to the genealogy. Differences of opinion exist regarding whether the genealogies should be taken as complete or abbreviated, hence the 6,000 to 10,000 year range usually quoted for the Earth's age.​

"Young Earth creationists believe that the flood described in Genesis 6–9 did occur, was global in extent, and submerged all dry land on Earth. Some young Earth creationists go further and advocate a kind of flood geology which relies on the appropriation of late eighteenth and early nineteenth century arguments in favor of catastrophism made by such scientists as Georges Cuvier and Richard Kirwan.​
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BroRoyVa79
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,302
76
✟363,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Not true. As it turns out - the 7 day week is in Genesis 1 and 2. It is a text that predates the 1900's as it turns out and almost all Christians are aware of that fact.
Nope. For example St. Augustine was aware that the "days" of Genesis were not literal ones. In the 1800s, the great Baptist Evangelist Charles Spurgeon admitted that the Earth could be millions of years old. At the Scopes trial in the 1920s, William Jennings Bryan, the lawyer against evolution, admitted that the Earth could be millions of years old.

YE creationism is a modern revision, invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the last century.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,302
76
✟363,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Price seems to be in the middle of this issue from what I am seeing at.many of the sites.
Price effectively evangelized the new doctrine of YE to many evangelicals. By the 1970s, most evangelicals had been won over to YE.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jamsie
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,215
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
for context:
From Science and Faith - Young-Earth Creationism

"The Bible clearly teaches the young-earth creationist view of Genesis 1–11. That was the almost universal belief of the church for 1800 years. Progressive Creationism and Theistic Evolutionism in all their various forms (day-age view, gap theory, framework hypothesis, analogical days view, local flood view, etc.) are recent and novel interpretations that will not stand up to scrutiny with an open Bible. A growing body of overwhelming scientific evidence also shows that evolution and millions of years are religiously motivated myths masquerading as scientific fact."

====================== now for the claims in the video below

The following video makes some pretty wild claims -- about there being few to no young Earth Creationists - before the 1960's -- other than Seventh-day Adventists.


by contrast:
From: Old-Earth (Progressive) Creationism: History and Beliefs - Article - BioLogos
"The literal creation week and the instantaneous creation were the two major alternatives for most of Christian history, "

Yes I am SDA and yes I do believe Ellen White was a real Bible prophet - but even I would not make such a wild non-historic claim about limiting the origin of acceptance of the young earth creation doctrine to "those who read and accept what Ellen White wrote". How in the world does such an idea even come about?

The video appears to debunk it's own self-conflicted claim that the creationist movement was not based on Ex 20:11 and Gen 2:1-3 but rather was based on Seventh-day Adventist doctrine and not Christians studying the Bible and observations in nature etc that do not fit blind faith evolutionism's doctrines on origins and ages.

At 16:29 the video introduces an author of a number of books on Geology "George McReady Price". The video says "He wrote several papers and books arguing that the geological column was a result of Noah's flood" ( an observation that comes as no surprise to Christians today - familiar with Gen 2:1-3 and Ex 20:11). The video claims that the "arguments" that creationists use today - date back to Price when it comes to geology and what he called "flood geology". The video does not claim that anyone is/was claiming that they got their ideas from Ellen White. (Sadly for the wild claim in your post).

Price (as do many Christians today) noted that the so-called geological-column was based on circular reasoning where fossils date the rocks and rocks date the fossils. (A complaint that many observers make about the whole thing).

At 17:30 in the video Price is said to have quoted Ex 20:11 (which is a direct quote of Gen 2:1-3) for the 7 day week of creation being the same as the 7 day week at Sinai. And scripture of course is something for which at least some Christians have a I value. Instead of claiming Price was appealing to Ellen White - your own video claims he was affirming Ex 20:11. (I am guessing you do not consider Ellen White to be the author of Ex 20:11 or Gen 2:1-3).

At 18:20 the video correctly states that Price did not claim the entire universe is only 6000 years old --- he only claims that life on Earth is no more than 6000 years old.

At 20:09 the video says that after not getting much popular story-telling support behind Price's findings about the flood - Dr. Henry Morris (a scientist with a Ph.D in hydraulic engineering) published a book for literal 7 day creationism. This is how the whole thing gained more popular acceptance and the video admits Morris was definitely not a follower of Ellen White (as if anyone had been using that claim for Ex 20:11 or Gen 2:1-3 regarding the literal week -- in the first place for creationism). 1961 the book 'the Genesis Flood" by Morris and Whitcomb was published and became very popular.

At 21:53 about 200,000 copies of that book were sold and so Morris and Whitcomb became 'celebrities' - neither of which followed Ellen White and neither of which were SDA - sadly for the wild claims made in the post above. At 22:20 we see a lot of Creationist scientific groups forming due to support from Dr. Morris. At 22:45 the wild claim was made that in the 1920 there were only a TINY number of folks in the "anti-evolutionist community" and they were almost all SDA. (Note that Ellen White was not still alive in 1920). This is shocking since a lot of the evangelical churches today that reject blind faith evolutionism today - were also opposed to it in the 1920's.

The video keeps saying that "SOME believed that the Earth was older than 10,000 years old" when referencing ancient groups. But the problem with "SOME" or "A FEW exceptions" etc - is that is far from saying "nobody believed the actual text stating that it is a literal 7 day creation week on Ex 20:11 and in Gen 2:1-3" --

The video even admits that most people accept that this is what everyone believed (except for SOME) about the 7 day creation week of Gen 2:1-3 and Ex 20:11

Near the end of the video we have this Mea Culpa - 23:14 "I am not saying there were NO young Earth creationists before the Seventh-day Adventists" He adds "in centuries past MANY believed that the Earth was relatively young"

Young earth creationism as it's known today, is a very modern movement. They back things like catastrophic plate tectonics and young earth hyper evolution off the ark. Things like the exploding vapor canopy in deep space. Dinosaurs in the Bible. A worldwide flood carving out the grand canyon etc.

Things like this are modern scientific concepts that never existed earlier than the 1800s.

In ancient times, people held to ancient near east cosmology, which was abandoned over the past 2000 years.

Early church fathers such as st Augustine, John Chrysostom, Diodorus, Mar Aba the Great, Severian of Gabala, among many others, held to cosmological perspectives that were typically geocentric and included flat earth perspectives with an ocean in the sky that cooled the temperatures of the stars. And as science advanced, many abandoned flat earth interpretations of scripture, passages such as Isaiah 40:22 and in Job describing the circle resting on the face of the waters. Then by the age of Galileo, heliocentrism was replacing geocentric views and Biblical interpretations of those passages in the Bible about earth resting on pillars and not moving etc.

And so by the 1800s, the theological framework was available for the church to embrace scientific advances. And so it did. And YECs largely died out.

But this modern YEC movement has attempted to fuse modern science with the Bible, in addition to eliminating literal views of the early church fathers regarding the sky ocean, flat earth or geocentrism, into its own new modern YEC movement. That is nothing like what the early church fathers believed. It is philosophically, a new manmade way of interpreting scripture.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,302
76
✟363,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Young earth creationism as it's known today, is a very modern movement. They back things like catastrophic plate tectonics and young earth hyper evolution off the ark. Things like the exploding vapor canopy in deep space. Dinosaurs in the Bible. A worldwide flood carving out the grand canyon etc.

Things like this are modern scientific concepts that never existed earlier than the 1800s.

In ancient times, people held to ancient near east cosmology, which was abandoned over the past 2000 years.

Early church fathers such as st Augustine, John Chrysostom, Diodorus, Mar Aba the Great, Severian of Gabala, among many others, held to cosmological perspectives that were typically geocentric and included flat earth perspectives with an ocean in the sky that cooled the temperatures of the stars. And as science advanced, many abandoned flat earth interpretations of scripture, passages such as Isaiah 40:22 and in Job describing the circle resting on the face of the waters. Then by the age of Galileo, heliocentrism was replacing geocentric views and Biblical interpretations of those passages in the Bible about earth resting on pillars and not moving etc.

And so by the 1800s, the theological framework was available for the church to embrace scientific advances. And so it did. And YECs largely died out.

But this modern YEC movement has attempted to fuse modern science with the Bible, in addition to eliminating literal views of the early church fathers regarding the sky ocean, flat earth or geocentrism, into its own new modern YEC movement. That is nothing like what the early church fathers believed. It is philosophically, a new manmade way of interpreting scripture.
Today's winner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Young earth creationism as it's known today, is a very modern movement. They back things like catastrophic plate tectonics and young earth hyper evolution off the ark. Things like the exploding vapor canopy in deep space. Dinosaurs in the Bible. A worldwide flood carving out the grand canyon etc.

Things like this are modern scientific concepts that never existed earlier than the 1800s.
Young Earth creationists are as old as the Bible (in fact older).

But modern attempt to address the event through the passage of time with scientific observation is the new part.

Young Earth creation is stated in Gen 1-2 and Ex 20:11. But explaining it in scientific terms is more recent.

noted in my comments on the video in the OP -

The video keeps saying that "SOME believed that the Earth was older than 10,000 years old" when referencing ancient groups. But the problem with "SOME" or "A FEW exceptions" etc - is that is far from saying "nobody believed the actual text stating that it is a literal 7 day creation week on Ex 20:11 and in Gen 2:1-3" --


Nope. For example St. Augustine was aware that the "days" of Genesis were not literal ones.
Not entirely true.

Augustine argued that though the text is very clear on the literal 7 day week for the event - in his own humble mind and imagination seven days was just TOO LONG a period of time so God surely must have done it "instantly" rather than over 7 days (which would make Augustine happier) and then figuring out why God said it took as long as 7 days was the only "problem" left according to Augustine.

Obviously Augustine's solution is far from the evolutionist-uotpia that some have hoped it would be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BroRoyVa79
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I'm SDA, I don't believe that scripture describes a 6,000 year old planet or human life starting at that time.
I have met some people claiming to be SDA that say they don't believe in the Trinity. Their views do not agree with the SDA doctrinal position but they claim to be SDAs anyway.

Everyone has free will. They can choose as they wish.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Yes, a small minority of Christians always thought the Earth was young.
Not according to the video we see in the OP where they clearly show that old Earth ideas are recent -- dating to about the 1700's for any kind of generalized support among Christians.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,302
76
✟363,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Yes, a small minority of Christians always thought the Earth was young.
Not according to the video we see in the OP
The Earth is flat and the Sasquatch is an alien monitoring us in YouTube. So I'm not inclined to see them as a source on Church history. Sorry.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,302
76
✟363,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Nope. For example St. Augustine was aware that the "days" of Genesis were not literal ones.

Not entirely true.
Well, let's take a look...

When we reflect upon the first establishment of creatures in the works of God from which he rested on the seventh day, we should not think either of those days as being like these ones governed by the sun, nor of that working as resembling the way God now works in time; but we should reflect rather upon the work from which times began, the work of making all things at once, simultaneously.
St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram

Looks like "entirely true."
Obviously Augustine's solution is far from the evolutionist-uotpia that some have hoped it would be.
He knew nothing about biology. He merely understood that the text itself rules out a sequence of six 24-hour days.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Nope. For example St. Augustine was aware that the "days" of Genesis were not literal ones.


Well, let's take a look...

When we reflect upon the first establishment of creatures in the works of God from which he rested on the seventh day, we should not think either of those days as being like these ones governed by the sun, nor of that working as resembling the way God now works in time; but we should reflect rather upon the work from which times began, the work of making all things at once, simultaneously.
St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram

Looks like "entirely true."

He knew nothing about biology. He merely understood that the text itself rules out a sequence of six 24-hour days.
not true.

1. Augustine makes no argument at all that the text declares anything but a literal 6 days of creation

What the text does not say is " making all things at once, simultaneously" -- which was Augustine's belief.

A belief that cannot be wrenched into Gen 2:1-3 or Exodus 20:11 as it turns out.

Still - more obvious - Augustine was no Darwinist

Augustine:

“we now see in creatures, measured by the lapse of time, as each one fulfills its proper function, comes to creatures from those causal reasons implanted in them, which God scattered as seeds at the moment of creation when He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created. Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at plodding pace at which they now pass. Time brings about the development of these creatures according to the laws of their numbers, but there was no passage of time when they received these laws at creation”.2
2 - Augustine. The Literal Meaning of Genesis, translated by John Hammond Taylor (1982), Vol. 1, Book 4, Chapter 33, paragraph 51–52, p. 141, italics in the original. New York: Newman Press.​

Augustine clearly affirmed a real, or “literal” Adam. He also affirms the literal rather than symbolic view - in speaking of the early chapters of Genesis, Augustine writes:

“All these things stood for something other than what they were, but all the same they were themselves bodily entities. And when the narrator mentioned them he was not employing figurative language, but giving an explicit account of things which had a forward reference that was figurative.” (On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis VIII.4.8)​


=== literal days of Genesis

What of the actual days of creation in Augustine’s thought? Augustine adopted a cautious attitude: “What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!”

He reads Sirach 18:1 to teach that God creates everything all at once. Hence the puzzle: why does Genesis then portray creation as taking place over six days? Unlike some moderns, he is not trying to account for an older earth scenario, nor is he trying to square Genesis with evolutionary scenarios. He has his own questions which interest him.”



“Augustine argues that “the world was made, not in time, but simultaneously with time.” City of God XI.6

I.e. instantaneous

=== literal years of Genesis and not even 6000 years of life on planet Earth

“It is important to realize that Augustine quite happily affirmed the importance, even primacy, of the historical or literal sense of Scripture. And it was the literal sense of Scripture which he sought to understand—especially in his two commentaries on Genesis (do not miss the key word in his two Genesis commentaries—literal). .Augustine takes the genealogies of Scriptures as factual, believes in the long lives of the pre-flood persons of the Old Testament, and can even suggest how long man has been on the earth. Thus, in City of God (12.11 [10]) Augustine can write: “On the basis of Sacred Scripture, however, we calculate that not even six thousand years have passed since the origin of mankind.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums