YEC: Fairy tale or Biblical truth?

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Jeremiah 32:27 Behold, I [am] the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

Judges 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

 

[MAC]

but could: Not because the iron chariots were too strong for Omnipotence, or because he refused to help them; but because their courage and faith failed when they saw them. Jdg_1:27-32; Jos_7:12; Mat_14:30, Mat_14:31, Mat_17:19, Mat_17:20; Phi_4:13

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Usually they just blame God for not being with them when they fail. This one is a bit different and I think it relates to Bronze age people endowing iron with magical properties. You can twist around all you like the verse says could not even though God was with them. I thnk this is just one example showing that the books of the old Testament are origin stories handed down and eventually recorded and are not to be taken literally.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Sinai]

The way the poll is worded, I had to vote for "other," since none of the choices correctly say what I think would be correct. I believe the Bible to be true and correct, and think it is consistent with what science is telling us.

Current scientific evidence points to the earth as being approximately 4.5 billion years old, but I am certainly willing to change my opinion if better evidence of a different figure is presented. You don't allow that choice in this poll.

Your choice that allows such flexibility is coupled with the statement that the universe is 4.5 billion years old--and the universe is much older than that (using Earth years looking back toward toward creation).

Thus, the only viable choice for a person who accepts modern scientific evidence but is willing to examine any new evidence would probably be "other."

 

[franklin]

I believe in the old world. But I believe the world we live in now is 13,970 years old, so we believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Do you believe the earth is flat ? If you believe the bible as literal then you must believe the earth is flat. You also have to believe the earth does not revolve around the sun too JR7.

I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

Why would an omnipotent being tell the humans who he inspired to write down his inerrent word that the earth was flat and not moving around the sun ?

I would say, it wasn't a god talking to them at all.

 

[T.R.D.]

That 'universe' thing is a typo, it should read earth.

 

[lucaspa]

But would change my view in light of new evidence, especially the elusive transitional stuff, and I mean some iron clad transitional specimens of men, there is still the missing link, correct?

No. The "missing link" is a fantasy of creationists and newspapers. There aer so many fill-ins that we have a series of transitional INDIVIDUALS linking A. afarensis to H. sapiens thru H. habilis and H. erectus. Considering the difficulties of finding transistional series, it is as if God is shouting "I did it by evolution!"

Now, I don't have all the transitional individuals by any means. They were known in the 1970s so well that I had to go back to books written then to get the descriptions.

F. Clark Howell, Early Man Time Life Library, 1980

Afarensis to habilis: OH 24 is in between A. afarensis and habilis

Habilis to erectus:
Oldovai: Bed I has Habilis at bottom, then fossils with perfect mixture of characteristics of habilis and erectus, and erectus at top. At bottom of Bed II (top of Bed I) have fossils resemble H. erectus but brain case smaller than later H. erectus that lies immediately above them. pg 81
OH 13, 14 was classified by some anthropologists as H. habilis but others as early H. erectus. 650 cc
D2700 from Dmasi has features of both hablis and erectus. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html

Koobi Fora: Another succession with several habilis up to 2 Mya, then transitionals, and then erectus at 1.5 Mya.

Erectus to sapiens: Omo valley. Omo-2 "remarkable mixture of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens characteristics" pg. 70.
Omo-1: another mix of erectus and sapiens
Skhul and Jebel Qafza caves: "robust" H. sapiens at 120 Kya that have brow ridges like erectus but brain case like sapiens.
Tautavel, 200Kya: large brow ridges and small cranium but rest of face looks like H. sapiens.
"We shall see the problem of drawing up a dividing line between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens is not easy." pg 65.
Ngaloba Beds of Laetoli, 120 Kya: ~1200 cc and suite of archaic (erectus) features.
Guamde in Turkana Basin, 180 Kya: more modern features than Ngaloba but in-between erectus and sapiens.
Skhul, Israel "posed a puzzle to paleoanthropologists, appearing to be almost but not quite modern humans"

Erectus to neandertalis:
Stenheim and Swanscombe, 250 Kya: called H. heidelbergensis but have characteristics of both erectus and neandertalis. Large brows and small cranium ( ~1200cc) but otherwise looks like neandertalis
Petroloma skull (complete): brow ridges and low forehead like erectus but not quite as primitive but not as derived as sapiens or neandertalis. Back of head resembles sapiens. 250 Kya
Vertesszollos, 400 Kya. Teeth like H. erectus but occipital bone like H. sapiens. brain ~ 1300 cc

Francis M Clapham, Our Human Ancestors, 1976
Omo Valley, Ethiopia: ~ 500,000 ya. mixture erectus and sapiens features
Sale in Morrocco: skull discovered in 1971, ~300,000 ya. also shows erectus and sapiens features.
Broken Hill skull: another skull with mixtures of erectus and sapiens features

 

[lucaspa]

No, I am not telling God anything! He is telling us! That there is neither beginning nor end in Him.

I respectfully disagree. You are telling God how He created. After all, there are TWO contradictory creation stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Yet you obviously have combined them and are telling God they are one story.

And you aren't listening to God in His Creation! You are listening only to YOUR literal interpretation of Genesis. God wrote two books. You are reading only one. And insisting on reading that one as history and not theology.

 

[lucaspa]

Interesting graph here - about half way down, headed "Does the fossil record document the origin of new species?" - http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/perspectives/kennethmiller.shtml. It may interest you on the subject of human origins.

Badfish, don't look just at the graph. Look at the THEOLOGICAL problems the various forms of creationism bring. Miller discusses the problems FOR GOD that creationism makes. Make sure you read those, too.

Now, if you want transitional fossils in the hominid lineage, a couple of guides:

1. Go to books written in 1980 and earlier. Many of the transitionals were described by then. Since then the transitionals are only mentioned when they are spectacular, as the recent ones that are ALMOST H. sapiens.
2. Look at fossils where there was controversy about which species or genus to put the individual in. The classification system has no way to classify a transitional. It must be either one species or another, never halfway between. But, you can see that a particular fossil IS halfway when anthropologists argue about just which group it is in. You argue about transitionals, since they don't fit cleanly into a group.

 

[lucaspa]

I have a question?

If the words of God were not sufficient unto man to believe that in six day He made the heavens and the earth, what it would be?

Think about this for a while. IF God created in 6 days, what would the earth look like?

1. Wouldn't all species be mixed together in the fossil record since all species are contemporaries?

You can think of others. After you think about what the earth SHOULD look like IF God really created in 6 days, then you can look around you and see if the earth and heavens really look like that.

Is not God out side of all He have created or He is subject to times and seasons?

Yes. Which is one of the real problems with YEC. It makes God a necessary member of the universe instead of being outside of it.

 

[MAC]

I respectfully disagree. You are telling God how He created. After all, there are TWO contradictory creation stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Yet you obviously have combined them and are telling God they are one story.

And you aren't listening to God in His Creation! You are listening only to YOUR literal interpretation of Genesis. God wrote two books. You are reading only one. And insisting on reading that one as history and not theology.

You are saying that I have my own literal interpretation, in what way do I? If this events are not literals they can only be spiritual, wich one is it?

 

[lucaspa]

You are saying that I have my own literal interpretation, in what way do I? If this events are not literals they can only be spiritual, wich one is it?

You originally said "poetic". Not spiritual.

There is also looking for the THEOLOGICAL messages that the two creation stories are meant to convey. By being literalist you completely miss those.

Let's take this out of religion for a minute and test it outside of religion.

Let's look at Shakespeare's Macbeth. Is it literal Scottish history? Absolutely not! Is Macbeth therefore false? Well, does Macbeth talk about truths of the human condition: greed, lust for power, honor, justice? I say YES! Is MacBeth therefore true?

Is MacBeth BOTH true and false? Isn't MacBeth truths set in a fictional history? But hasn't similar events really taken place other times in human history?

Now, back to the Bible.

Genesis 1 was written at the end of or shortly after the Babylonian Captivity. Israel was under severe social pressure to abandon Yahweh and worship the Babylonian gods. In those days for those people, the reality of a deity was determined by the political fortunes of the nation worshipping the deity. Since the Babylonians had beaten Israel so badly, the conclusion for Hebrews was 1) the Babylonian gods were a lot more powerful than Yahweh or 2) that Yahweh didn't exist.

So, compare Genesis 1 to the Enuma Elish, the creation story of Babylon. You can see that Genesis 1 now becomes a magnificent monograph for monotheism and Yahweh. The order of creation follows the Enuma Elish and takes each of the Babylonian gods IN TURN and destroys them by making them created creatures of Yahweh. It is difficult for Marduk, the god of agriculture and agricultural plants, to remain a god when those plants are made by Yahweh in Genesis 1:12. Marduk's younger sister is the sun goddess. Well, she can't be a real goddess when the sun is not a goddess but created by Yahweh in Genesis 1:16. Now the "scientific" puzzle of having plants created before the sun is solved. It has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with theology.

Now, the shape of the universe -- cosmology -- of Genesis 1 is that of the Babylonians. Flat earth, crystal dome over the earth with waters above the dome giving rain, a single continent below (waters divided), and subterranean caverns. But like Macbeth, setting the theological messages in this cosmology doesn't change the truth of the theology. The theology works just as well in modern science as it does there.

Genesis 2 addresses two other theological problems: 1) the relation of humans to God and 2) the relationship of men to women. Genesis 2 uses archetypes of Adam and Eve to explain that humans are cut off from God. Cut off by their disobedience. It also highlights the interdependence of men and women, despite the obvious differences in psyche. Again, like Macbeth, these theological truths are set in a fictional history, but the truths are independent of the history.

So, we are not dealing with the dichotomy of Genesis 1 and 2 are either true or not. They are both. They are not true as literal history. They are true as theology and the human condition.

 

[lucaspa]

I believe in the old world. But I believe the world we live in now is 13,970 years old, so we believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

As far as I have been able to determine, this is a unique theory of creation. So who are the "we" in your sentence?

Also, can you start a thread and list the evidence that led you to this theory? And the testing both Biblical and in the physical universe you have done of this theory?

IOW, how did you manage to come up with a theory that does not correspond to any other Christian view?

 

[Michali]

Here's a thought: It is written that God is light and another verse states that he fills the universe. What if God actually set his Spirit into motion at the speed of light and became infinitely grand. Everything is in him and he is in everything. Light and darkness were the second things God created. They could not have been unless there was some medium through which they existed. Detectable light (or what we know as light, and other light waves) is only an energy "disturbance" made in the I AM.

This gives a new meaning to darkness. Not really darkness as in blackness, but absence of the medium. The absence of God's presence because sin is in the vicinity. Perhaps even gravity may be explained through this. Evil is described as being under the surface of Earth. What if the forces of spiritual darkness are bound in the core's of galactic bodies? It creates this vaccum in existence because there is no presence there.

I'm just rambling, but its worth thinking about. I am not saying that God's presence is apart from all sinners. Or maybe that's why sin is so attractive. *joking*

 

[MAC]

You originally said "poetic". Not spiritual.

There is also looking for the THEOLOGICAL messages that the two creation stories are meant to convey. By being literalist you completely miss those.

Let's take this out of religion for a minute and test it outside of religion.

Let's look at Shakespeare's Macbeth. Is it literal Scottish history? Absolutely not! Is Macbeth therefore false? Well, does Macbeth talk about truths of the human condition: greed, lust for power, honor, justice? I say YES! Is MacBeth therefore true?

Is MacBeth BOTH true and false? Isn't MacBeth truths set in a fictional history? But hasn't similar events really taken place other times in human history?

Now, back to the Bible.

Genesis 1 was written at the end of or shortly after the Babylonian Captivity. Israel was under severe social pressure to abandon Yahweh and worship the Babylonian gods. In those days for those people, the reality of a deity was determined by the political fortunes of the nation worshipping the deity. Since the Babylonians had beaten Israel so badly, the conclusion for Hebrews was 1) the Babylonian gods were a lot more powerful than Yahweh or 2) that Yahweh didn't exist.

So, compare Genesis 1 to the Enuma Elish, the creation story of Babylon. You can see that Genesis 1 now becomes a magnificent monograph for monotheism and Yahweh. The order of creation follows the Enuma Elish and takes each of the Babylonian gods IN TURN and destroys them by making them created creatures of Yahweh. It is difficult for Marduk, the god of agriculture and agricultural plants, to remain a god when those plants are made by Yahweh in Genesis 1:12. Marduk's younger sister is the sun goddess. Well, she can't be a real goddess when the sun is not a goddess but created by Yahweh in Genesis 1:16. Now the "scientific" puzzle of having plants created before the sun is solved. It has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with theology.

Now, the shape of the universe -- cosmology -- of Genesis 1 is that of the Babylonians. Flat earth, crystal dome over the earth with waters above the dome giving rain, a single continent below (waters divided), and subterranean caverns. But like Macbeth, setting the theological messages in this cosmology doesn't change the truth of the theology. The theology works just as well in modern science as it does there.

Genesis 2 addresses two other theological problems: 1) the relation of humans to God and 2) the relationship of men to women. Genesis 2 uses archetypes of Adam and Eve to explain that humans are cut off from God. Cut off by their disobedience. It also highlights the interdependence of men and women, despite the obvious differences in psyche. Again, like Macbeth, these theological truths are set in a fictional history, but the truths are independent of the history.

So, we are not dealing with the dichotomy of Genesis 1 and 2 are either true or not. They are both. They are not true as literal history. They are true as theology and the human condition.

OK, let me see if I get this correct.

You are saying that Genesis is not a true literal history account “right”.
Know did not God give these accounts through holy men full of the Holy Spirit of these events in the first place. Been given and establish by God the Creator wont they be perfect in account for it was not made by man but by God giving them information from the past and the present? Can man provide such a great and vast information in how the earth was form and how man was made in the image of God! can man do this?

 

[lucaspa]

OK, let me see if I get this correct.

You are saying that Genesis is not a true literal history account “right”.
Know did not God give these accounts through holy men full of the Holy Spirit of these events in the first place. Been given and establish by God the Creator wont they be perfect in account for it was not made by man but by God giving them information from the past and the present?

Again, are we talking the theological message? Christians believe the theological message was inspired and is therefore true. That's what I meant by theological truths: Yahweh is the only god, the Babylonian gods don't exist, humans are disobey God, men and women are interdependent. Any argument with any of these?

Can man provide such a great and vast information in how the earth was form and how man was made in the image of God! can man do this?

Yes, man can do this. By reading God's second book: CREATION! All the evidence on HOW the earth was formed is in the earth. AND, if you truly believe that God created, then that evidence was put there by God! Who else? As we read the Bible for theological truths, we get to read Creation for HOW God created the earth and man.

Now, that "in the image of God" creates more problems in a literal interpretation (are you sure that AT THE TIME the Bible was written the phrase was meant literally?). Does God have a form? If man is in God's image, what about women? If man is in God's image, WHICH men? White men? Black men? Asian men? Blue-eyed, black-eyed, epicanthic fold? Blond hair, black hair, red hair?

Now, I always thought God was spirit and had NO form. Or rather, had whatever form It chose. A burning bush, for instance.

Let me submit that you are worshipping the Bible and not God. The Bible is not all of God.

 

[lucaspa]

Here's a thought: It is written that God is light and another verse states that he fills the universe. What if God actually set his Spirit into motion at the speed of light and became infinitely grand. Everything is in him and he is in everything.

OK, let's test this both in the universe and theologically. If God is limited to the speed of light, then God can't be omnipresent or even close.

That "everything is in him and he is in everything" makes God a creature of the universe. It sounds a lot like pantheism or panetheism.

Light and darkness were the second things God created. They could not have been unless there was some medium through which they existed.

Ever hear of Michelson and Morely? They showed that light does not have a medium.

Detectable light (or what we know as light, and other light waves) is only an energy "disturbance" made in the I AM.

Since light waves have specific sources (such as atoms), does that make the atoms God?

This gives a new meaning to darkness. Not really darkness as in blackness, but absence of the medium.

No medium. If you mean space (thru which light passes), then space is ALWAYS present and there is no place for sin to be.

I am not saying that God's presence is apart from all sinners. Or maybe that's why sin is so attractive.

Consider sin is attractive because it is selfish. It is what WE want. Not what God wants. Isn't the selfish choice always going to be attractive?

 

[MAC]

Let me submit that you are worshipping the Bible and not God. The Bible is not all of God.

No! I am not worshipping the bible I am reading what God have place in.

PS, when Jesus came to the apostles did not Simon touch Him in His glorified body?

John 20:24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

John 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

John 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: [then] came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace [be] unto you.

John 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.

 

[MAC]

qt

Man seems to possess an untiring preoccupation regarding the globe on which he resides. Some of this interest is beneficial to man, enhancing his lifestyle. However, some of the preoccupation is indicative of arrogance on man's part. Those who are obsessed with teaching that the earth, man, and every living thing on earth naturally began and through natural selection evolved are engaging in the zenith of gall (Gen. 1; 2). There is particular interest today relative to the age of the earth. Some geophysicists tell us the earth is 4.7 billions years old. Some theologians say the earth is only 6, 000 years old. Beloved, the simple answer regarding the age of the earth is, no man knows the exact age.

The earth is 6,000 years old position. The date 4004 B.C. is found in the marginal notes (Genesis one) of many King James Versions. This date was first placed in the King James Version by James Ussher in 1701. He arrived at this date by adding the lengths of the lives of the patriarchs as given in Genesis 5 and 11. In reality, this dating method is not infallible for a number of possible reasons. As far as the Bible is concerned, we can not date the earth with accuracy. It must be remembered that Genesis presents the earth as being created mature or aged (Gen. 1: 20 ff.).

The earth is 4.7 billions years old view. Scientists have employed a number of methods in trying to arrive at the age of the earth. The rate of erosion, rate of salt accumulation in the ocean, and the rate of decay of certain elements such as uranium, thorium, potassium, and rubidium. All of these methods including the "ore method," "meteorite method," and the dating of fossil remains are unreliable and contain many attendant variables.

There are a growing number of scientists who are concluding the earth is actually relatively young. They have studied population growth, the amount of meteoric dust on the earth's surface, the quantity of nickel in the oceans, and carbon-14 build up. Many of these scientists believe the earth is more in the range of 7, 000 years old. Beloved, one thing we do know is life begets life and creation implies a Creator: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1: 1). In all honesty, there are matters scientists and theologians do not definitively know as to the age of the earth. True science and the Bible, though, do not conflict.

 

[Sundragon2012]

The universe is 15-20 billion years old, and I would change my position in light of new scientific evidence.

This seems to be in line with current scientific data. The earth is believed to be approx. 4.5 billion years old.

That was the option I went with (Other).


Namaste,

Chris