Young Earth... Changed my view

[Gregged]

Until recently, I also believed in "Young Earth" and all that goes with that.

Well let me start by saying that I believe the Bible literally - as written - and nothing will change my view on that. Bring me science and I'll tell you I believe God more than science - all of which we don't know and much of which is theoretical.

Some people would say that creation didn't happen as in the Biblical way but I do... I believe that God would have told the writer of Genesis (Moses) exactly how "creation" happened. After all, God was there! We weren't!

I believe in 6 days as we know them. After all, God said "there was morning and there was evening... The Xth day"

Yet I am talking about "creation" (regeneration) taking 6 days. That does not include creation of the earth!

We read in the very first verse of the Bible that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was formless and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters...

Gen 1:3 And God said "Let there be light"...

What I overlooked for a long time is that God never in the beginning of the Bible account of 6000 years ago said "Let there be an earth..."

What I'm saying is that the earth was already there at the time when God started the 6 days of creation. The earth wasn't included in those six days.

Now, whether there was a pre-Adamic race with that world being destroyed by a flood is another question.

So I suppose I am more gap theorist now!

I do believe that Adam was the first man and that was around 6000 years ago. I know he sinned and because of that, we have all still sinned and need Jesus!

God bless

 

[Calminian]

Until recently, I also believed in "Young Earth" and all that goes with that.

Well let me start by saying that I believe the Bible literally - as written - and nothing will change my view on that. Bring me science and I'll tell you I believe God more than science - all of which we don't know and much of which is theoretical.

Some people would say that creation didn't happen as in the Biblical way but I do... I believe that God would have told the writer of Genesis (Moses) exactly how "creation" happened. After all, God was there! We weren't!

I believe in 6 days as we know them. After all, God said "there was morning and there was evening... The Xth day"

Yet I am talking about "creation" (regeneration) taking 6 days. That does not include creation of the earth!

We read in the very first verse of the Bible that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was formless and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters...

Gen 1:3 And God said "Let there be light"...

What I overlooked for a long time is that God never in the beginning of the Bible account of 6000 years ago said "Let there be an earth..."

What I'm saying is that the earth was already there at the time when God started the 6 days of creation. The earth wasn't included in those six days.

Now, whether there was a pre-Adamic race with that world being destroyed by a flood is another question.

So I suppose I am more gap theorist now!

I do believe that Adam was the first man and that was around 6000 years ago. I know he sinned and because of that, we have all still sinned and need Jesus!

God bless

What do you do with Exodus 20:9-11? I was a gapper for a while myself. I'm back to YEC.

 

[Gregged]

What do you do with Exodus 20:9-11? I was a gapper for a while myself. I'm back to YEC.

Yep - it's a good verse. So this says that creation of the earth was included in the six days then! So this was on the first day.

Well, either way I'm not tooooo worried! I'll never be an evolutionist, I believe Adam was the first man, created by God and in His image - and that was around 6000 years ago.

In the past I've felt that I have had to know the answers between YEC / old earth / evolution etc etc. And I've debated some of these issues to the point of frustration. What did I learn?

1. That (sadly) not everyone is going to believe whatever I say or do...

2. That I can argue until I'm blue in the face and achieve nothing. Yet prayer, and one touch from God can change a person's heart 180 degrees. Doesn't matter if they're the hardest ever atheist / agnostic.

3. I take the Bible literally - in this instance it appears then that all was on day one of creation.

4. I don't have to defend the Bible. The Word has it's own power to save for those who will hear (and listen). God saves... I don't! I can tell people the truth and tell them to seek and study themselves and not just "go with the flow" or just believe everyone else... I can plant the seed... but it's only the Holy Spirit who will make it grow

God bless - thanks for your input

 

[Calminian]

Yep - it's a good verse. So this says that creation of the earth was included in the six days then! So this was on the first day.

Well, either way I'm not tooooo worried! I'll never be an evolutionist, I believe Adam was the first man, created by God and in His image - and that was around 6000 years ago.

In the past I've felt that I have had to know the answers between YEC / old earth / evolution etc etc. And I've debated some of these issues to the point of frustration. What did I learn?

1. That (sadly) not everyone is going to believe whatever I say or do...

2. That I can argue until I'm blue in the face and achieve nothing. Yet prayer, and one touch from God can change a person's heart 180 degrees. Doesn't matter if they're the hardest ever atheist / agnostic.

3. I take the Bible literally - in this instance it appears then that all was on day one of creation.

4. I don't have to defend the Bible. The Word has it's own power to save for those who will hear (and listen). God saves... I don't! I can tell people the truth and tell them to seek and study themselves and not just "go with the flow" or just believe everyone else... I can plant the seed... but it's only the Holy Spirit who will make it grow

God bless - thanks for your input

There's one guy here that holds to a soft gap theory. This is the idea that the heavens and earth are old, but life only began on earth 6,000 years ago. Instead of a gap between verses 1 and 2, he sees it between 2 and 3. By this he avoids the death before sin problem (Romans 8). Don't get me wrong, I disagree with him, but since the main issue of sin preceding death is upheld, I really feel no need to argue the issue. Maybe he'll weigh in.

I agree with your four points. No amount of science is ever going to get me to doubt God's word nor do eisegetical backflips to make it fit with science. I have serious doubts about science's ability to inform us about origins. Naturalism is a necessary presupposition of science, therefore I expect conflicts to arise between it and the Bible. I don't know if my role as a christian is merely planting seeds. There is cultivation, watering, etc. But I do firmly believe God is the only true evangelist. We are merely tools (disposable ones at that) in His hand.

 

[Gregged]

Thanks Calminian... I'll have to look around the forum a bit more too... but like you, I trust the Word more than science any day! But I've seen lots of times people trying to make the Bible fit in with science by distorting it or saying "oh that part is poetry / not to be taken like that" etc etc. I suppose the point I'm saying is that I've learned how much to "debate" before I stop and give it to God in prayer because we're going round in endless circles.

You gave a good point too about "merely planting" - I didn't make clear that yes, there is watering too... but God makes it grow (1Cor 3:6) I think I made it sound like "well I tell 'em and if they don't listen the first time, then that's it!"

Anyway, Good night - thanks again

 

[Calminian]

Thanks Calminian... I'll have to look around the forum a bit more too... but like you, I trust the Word more than science any day! But I've seen lots of times people trying to make the Bible fit in with science by distorting it or saying "oh that part is poetry / not to be taken like that" etc etc. I suppose the point I'm saying is that I've learned how much to "debate" before I stop and give it to God in prayer because we're going round in endless circles.

You gave a good point too about "merely planting" - I didn't make clear that yes, there is watering too... but God makes it grow (1Cor 3:6) I think I made it sound like "well I tell 'em and if they don't listen the first time, then that's it!"

Anyway, Good night - thanks again

 

[seanHayden]

Has it ever occured to anyone to ask a Rabbi about the Genesis account? These guys have a notch or two on their belt concerning these scriptures.

 

[Sabertooth]

Until recently, I also believed in "Young Earth" and all that goes with that.

Well let me start by saying that I believe the Bible literally - as written - and nothing will change my view on that. Bring me science and I'll tell you I believe God more than science - all of which we don't know and much of which is theoretical.

Some people would say that creation didn't happen as in the Biblical way but I do... I believe that God would have told the writer of Genesis (Moses) exactly how "creation" happened. After all, God was there! We weren't!

I believe in 6 days as we know them. After all, God said "there was morning and there was evening... The Xth day"

Yet I am talking about "creation" (regeneration) taking 6 days. That does not include creation of the earth!

We read in the very first verse of the Bible that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was formless and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters...

Gen 1:3 And God said "Let there be light"...

What I overlooked for a long time is that God never in the beginning of the Bible account of 6000 years ago said "Let there be an earth..."

What I'm saying is that the earth was already there at the time when God started the 6 days of creation. The earth wasn't included in those six days.

Now, whether there was a pre-Adamic race with that world being destroyed by a flood is another question.

So I suppose I am more gap theorist now!

I do believe that Adam was the first man and that was around 6000 years ago. I know he sinned and because of that, we have all still sinned and need Jesus!

God bless

That unspecified amount of time is accounted for in "...[while] the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters," though there doesn't seem to be anything significant happening on the earth at that time.

I have heard a very elegant theory, by a member on this forum, that says the stars were already made in Gen. 1:1, giving them a chance to be scattered before Day 1, but the connection to my Bible, while not impossible, seems a bit tenuous.

 

[Sabertooth]

The Exodus passage does not conflict with the notion of "hover" time/Day 0. Sitting there going, "Hmmm, let me see, now...," whether a millisecond or a millenium, does not constitute work.

 

[Dannager]

I have heard a very elegant theory, by a member on this forum, that says the stars were already made in Gen. 1:1, giving them a chance to be scattered before Day 1, but the connection to my Bible, while not impossible, seems a bit tenuous.

That still doesn't get you an explanation as to why we are able to see as many stars as we do.

 

[keyarch]

Until recently, I also believed in "Young Earth" and all that goes with that.

Well let me start by saying that I believe the Bible literally - as written - and nothing will change my view on that. Bring me science and I'll tell you I believe God more than science - all of which we don't know and much of which is theoretical.

Some people would say that creation didn't happen as in the Biblical way but I do... I believe that God would have told the writer of Genesis (Moses) exactly how "creation" happened. After all, God was there! We weren't!

I believe in 6 days as we know them. After all, God said "there was morning and there was evening... The Xth day"

Yet I am talking about "creation" (regeneration) taking 6 days. That does not include creation of the earth!

We read in the very first verse of the Bible that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was formless and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters...

Gen 1:3 And God said "Let there be light"...

What I overlooked for a long time is that God never in the beginning of the Bible account of 6000 years ago said "Let there be an earth..."

What I'm saying is that the earth was already there at the time when God started the 6 days of creation. The earth wasn't included in those six days.

Now, whether there was a pre-Adamic race with that world being destroyed by a flood is another question.

So I suppose I am more gap theorist now!

I do believe that Adam was the first man and that was around 6000 years ago. I know he sinned and because of that, we have all still sinned and need Jesus!

God bless

Ahh, a person after my own heart! I would say your creation model is closer to mine, in what has been coined ‘YBC’ (Young Biological Creation). Rather than go into all the fine points here, let me just refer you to a couple of pages that I’ve written to explain the model and take it for what you wish. Basically its ‘Old Universe and Old non-organic Earth with a Young finished Planet and Young (6kya) creation of all biological kinds in 6 literal days.’ This is not the Gap Theory.

http://www.genesistruth.org/documents/Young%20Biological%20Creation.pdf

http://www.genesistruth.org/Genesisday1_4.htm

 

[keyarch]

What do you do with Exodus 20:9-11? I was a gapper for a while myself. I'm back to YEC.

Exodus 20:11, which properly translated says: “For six days the Lord made (`aasaah -worked on, fashioned) heaven (the upper firmament including the sun and moon) and earth, the sea and all that in them and rested the seventh day……” This translation is merely a reminder to the people of what God “created” and “did” as stated in Genesis. It does not say that the Lord created the whole universe within a six day period as the YEC model postulates. He DID work on the uppper heaven by setting the boundary and placing the sun and moon; and it DID work on the earth and the biology.​

 

[jereth]

Gap theory (or "YBC") appears to be a fairly straightforward way to ease the tension between Scripture (or a literal interpretation thereof, at any rate) and science. You get to keep the literal 6 days, while also accepting the billion-year age of the earth and universe. Like having your cake and eating it -- wonderful!

Yet from the YEC point of view, gap theory is the first compromise on the way to atheism.

YEC = the truth
Gap theory = compromise #1
OEC/progressive creation = compromise #2
TE = the ultimately evil compromise

If you believe Genesis 1 is a literal eyewitness report of history (as YECs do), there's no reason to believe in a gap. The gap comes because of "man's science". But why believe "man's science" about the age of the earth, if you cannot believe what it says about the history of life on this planet? Is it legitimate to pick and choose like this?

If a rock is radiometrically dated at 65 million years of age, I presume a gap theorist would be happy with that. But what if we find a fossil within that rock layer? How does a 6000-year old life form become fossilised within a rock layer that may be millions of years old??

 

[keyarch]

Gap theory (or "YBC") appears to be a fairly straightforward way to ease the tension between Scripture (or a literal interpretation thereof, at any rate) and science. You get to keep the literal 6 days, while also accepting the billion-year age of the earth and universe. Like having your cake and eating it -- wonderful! Yet from the YEC point of view, gap theory is the first compromise on the way to atheism.

YEC = the truth
Gap theory = compromise #1
OEC/progressive creation = compromise #2
TE = the ultimately evil compromise

If you believe Genesis 1 is a literal eyewitness report of history (as YECs do), there's no reason to believe in a gap. The gap comes because of "man's science". But why believe "man's science" about the age of the earth, if you cannot believe what it says about the history of life on this planet? Is it legitimate to pick and choose like this?

If a rock is radiometrically dated at 65 million years of age, I presume a gap theorist would be happy with that. But what if we find a fossil within that rock layer? How does a 6000-year old life form become fossilised within a rock layer that may be millions of years old??

I’m going to reply from my YBC viewpoint, but first want to recap the basics of the ‘GT’:

. The Gap Theory. This theory proposes that there was a ‘gap’ of time, of billions of years, between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. This theory claims that the earth of old somehow became ruined (some blame Satan and his fallen angels), and was later repaired by God as described during the six 24-hour days of creation. Most versions of the ‘GT’ include billions of fossil animals in between these two first verses of Genesis.

I agree with your assessment above. However, you list YEC as the truth probably because you believe it is, right? I happen to believe that a critical part of the YEC model is wrong. I base this not only on the general revelation that God has given us that science can address regarding things such as “starlight and time”, but on a literal reading of “scripture”. Please don’t confuse this with a literal reading of an English translation such as the KJV. I say this because words have been “added” to the KJV which change the meaning, and for which the YEC model hangs its hat.

For the YEC model to work, you have to accept the following in scripture. (these are just a few things that if proven to be wrong should cause one to rethink their model):

1. You must conclude that Genesis 1:1 is a heading or overview statement and not an actual account of something that God did at some point in the past.
2. To account for the creation of ‘stars’, you would have to point to Genesis 1:16, where the KJV says “he made the stars also.” You would have to ignore the fact that “he made the” has been added, and that all it really says is “and with” stars. This explains that when you see the moon ruling the night you will see it with stars.
3. To conclude that the ‘universe’ is also young, you would have to point to Exodus 20:11 as meaning that EVERYTHING was “created” “within” six days. However, the word “in” has been added and the word “made” has been used synonymous with “created” to come up with this view. If you look at the actual words in the Hebrew and translate it for what is says, without interjecting any “doctrine”, you will find that a correct translation states: “For six days the Lord made(`aasaah -worked on, fashioned) heaven(the upper firmament including the sun and moon) and earth, the sea and all that in them and rested the seventh day……” This is said in the context of a work week and showing that even God worked for six days and rested on the seventh. It does not say that God never worked before.

In response to geology from a YBC model (referenced in my other post), I would say that if the minerals of the earth are “old” and mixed in with fossils, it doesn’t say anything about how old the fossil is. Even if you try to date the fossil thru some kind of scientific means, it’s going to be contaminated by the surrounding rock or minerals to give false results. If there was a landslide today that buried one of us, and they dated the dirt above (or around) us to be 1 myo., that doesn’t mean that because we were covered by that layer we must be at least that old. I think the R.A.T.E. project by ICR has taken the wrong approach in trying to prove that all elements of the earth are young, along with all elements of astronomy. Their heart is in the right place, but they have become so dogmatic in the interpretation of the above passages that they can’t seem to see anything else and defend that model to a fault. I can hardly listen to the ICR broadcast anymore because they “slip in” the concept of the whole universe being created in six days so much that it turns me off. The sad part is that they do talk about some great subjects and I have a lot of respect for them.

 

[jereth]

I agree with your assessment above. However, you list YEC as the truth probably because you believe it is, right?

No, actually I am a Theistic Evolutionist. I was just responding from the point of view of a YECist.

In response to geology from a YBC model (referenced in my other post), I would say that if the minerals of the earth are “old” and mixed in with fossils, it doesn’t say anything about how old the fossil is. Even if you try to date the fossil thru some kind of scientific means, it’s going to be contaminated by the surrounding rock or minerals to give false results. If there was a landslide today that buried one of us, and they dated the dirt above (or around) us to be 1 myo., that doesn’t mean that because we were covered by that layer we must be at least that old.

But what about the fact that rock layers grow consistently older with depth (allowing for intrusive processes where relevant), and the observation that the fossil record exhibits a corresponding development (or "evolution") from simpler life forms to more complex ones? Why don't we, for instance, find dinosaur fossils in rock layers younger than 65 M.Y.?

 

[Jig]

That still doesn't get you an explanation as to why we are able to see as many stars as we do.

Concept: An all-powerful God can create light in transit.

 

[Jase]

Concept: An all-powerful God can create light in transit.

Which doesn't remove the deception. We can see light from stars 14 billion light years away. If light were created in transit so that we could so those stars in only 6,000 years, it will still take 14 billion years for any further light to reach us. In other words, we have another 13, 999,994,000 years to go before we see those stars. This becomes an ever bigger issue when looking at exploding supernovae.

 

[Dannager]

Concept: An all-powerful God can create light in transit.

Concept: An all-powerful God could have created the world last Thursday with the appearance of age.

That doesn't mean that such an idea is theologically tenable or even rational to accept.

 

[Jig]

Which doesn't remove the deception. We can see light from stars 14 billion light years away. If light were created in transit so that we could so those stars in only 6,000 years, it will still take 14 billion years for any further light to reach us. In other words, we have another 13, 999,994,000 years to go before we see those stars. This becomes an ever bigger issue when looking at exploding supernovae.

Deception? Maybe God created light in transit, so Adam and Eve could enjoy the stars. Also, the stars have a major use for humans here on Earth. (Gen. 1:14)

Also, your logic makes little sense if the light God created also was in continuity with the light giver. As for supernovae, this too could be part of the created light. I was looking at a book with pictures of such light and felt the power and beauty in God's handiwork. (Romans 1:20) I was indeed, without excuse.

 

[Jig]

Concept: An all-powerful God could have created the world last Thursday with the appearance of age.

That doesn't mean that such an idea is theologically tenable or even rational to accept.

I don't think the Earth was created with the appears of age, I think the Flood made the world appear that way.

But here's an idea. Let's say there was a time machine. You placed all the scientists within and send them to the day AFTER Adam was created. They would see this fully develped human and after all the tests they would come to the conclusion Adam is 18 years old or so, even though in reality he would be only one day old. This proves my thoery was indeed theologically tenable.