Young earth creationism

[Nick316]

I'm leaning towards YEC, but I'm not really sure. Anyway, I wanted to share an article that I found- Who Wrote the Book of Genesis?

For any other YEC's, is there any other convincing evidence for a literal Genesis account?

EDIT: wrong section...

 

[Luvtosew]

Nick, I see your working hard at it. Its a lot to take in. I was born and raised so I never questioned till a few years ago. I firmly believe in God, so what Church do you go to an what do they teach? I don't know if the earth is new or not. The Egyptians also have the Adam and Eve story, (something like it) but to me its not imp. as God created everything , when he did I don't know. I don't think the Bible was meant to be a history book, or to be all taken literally. God guides, so as Jesus say listen and he will tell you, and our beliefs do not have to be put in stone, as we are humans and evolve also. I know in my years my thoughts have changed a lot , so we have to love God and love our fellow humans, and take care of the earth and animals.

 

[Nick316]

Nick, I see your working hard at it. Its a lot to take in. I was born and raised so I never questioned till a few years ago. I firmly believe in God, so what Church do you go to an what do they teach? I don't know if the earth is new or not. The Egyptians also have the Adam and Eve story, (something like it) but to me its not imp. as God created everything , when he did I don't know. I don't think the Bible was meant to be a history book, or to be all taken literally. God guides, so as Jesus say listen and he will tell you, and our beliefs do not have to be put in stone, as we are humans and evolve also. I know in my years my thoughts have changed a lot , so we have to love God and love our fellow humans, and take care of the earth and animals.

I suppose the egyptian story is here- Egyptian Deities in the Garden of Eden

...but, I have also seen an article that says it is more likely that the Egyptian story was taken from Genesis. Can't really confirm though. -http://rodric29.hubpages.com/hub/Adam-and-Eve-The-True-Story

 

[hedrick]

The closer parallel is probably Mesopotamian, not Egyptian.

Here's a good summary of current scholarly opinion: Genesis 1 and a Babylonian Creation Story | The BioLogos Forum

I note again, as I have in the past, that while there are similarities, the point of Genesis 1 is that God alone is responsible for everything, unlike the other creation stories. Hence many people see Gen 1 as actually an attack on the pagan creation accounts.

The claim that other accounts are based on the OT involves chronologies that I can only say are "non-standard." If you want the conservative view, I'd encourage you to stick with places like bible.org and Tekton Education and Apologetics Ministries. James Patrick Holding. Tektonitron apologetics Encyclopedia. answering Bible difficulties and Bible contradictions. Bible.org has the best conservative scholarship on the Bible that I've seen online. (Best in the sense that it agrees with what you'd get from faculty in the best conservative seminaries. Of course no YEC site will agree with mainstream scholarship, by definition.)

Wikipedia will generally give you concensus mainstream scholarship (i.e. what you'd learn in a major university that isn't committed to conservative Christianity). However in this case I think the Biologos article is better than the Wikipedia treatment of this particular question.

I'm very queasy about using information on a site dedicated to British Israelitism, as your link was.

 

[St_Worm2]

I'm leaning towards YEC, but I'm not really sure. Anyway, I wanted to share an article that I found- Who Wrote the Book of Genesis?

For any other YEC's, is there any other convincing evidence for a literal Genesis account?

EDIT: wrong section...

Hi Nick, of course, anything is possible I suppose, but the Lord credits Moses with writing specific parts of the Torah and, also, with writing it in general (IOW, the Torah in its entirety) multiple times in the Gospels. Perhaps our modern scholars are correct in this case and the Lord was simply mistaken ..

(kidding, of course)

As for articles concerning YEC, there is much to check out HERE.

--David

 

[hedrick]

Jesus credits Moses with various laws. He doesn't say that Moses is the author of any book of the Bible or credit him with any historical information.

 

[Nick316]

Jesus credits Moses with various laws. He doesn't say that Moses is the author of any book of the Bible or credit him with any historical information.

I have now fully gone over to YEC. There is another site about the Genesis authorship, the tablet theory. The site, trueorigin, does a good job of refuting evolution.

The Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship

 

[LST 1154]

Check out The Institute for Creation Research they have thousands of articles that not only blow the stupid theory of "evilution" completely out of the water it then sinks whatever was left.

LST

 

[Nick316]

Check out The Institute for Creation Research they have thousands of articles that not only blow the stupid theory of "evilution" completely out of the water it then sinks whatever was left.

LST

I enjoy that site. I've also been to creation.com and, probably my personal favorite, evolutionisstupid.com

 

[REPHAIAHPEDAHEL]

I am all for young earth creationism! Evolution is just a theory.

 

[Nick316]

I am all for young earth creationism! Evolution is just a theory.

Well, a theory in science has a different meaning. That doesn't mean it is true though (evolution isn't).

 

[Polymatheia]

Here is my problem with YEC:

Science can't "prove" anything, only self-consistent axiomatic systems can contain proofs. Everything else is requires applications of Occam's razor. Science finds the best description of things.

Systems of epistemology shouldn't be ranked on how "true" the answers they produce are based solely on utility, but one must admit that, as a means of describing the world, science is very useful. The abstract idea of an electron, and how it behaves, is lent credence by the fact that the application of this knowledge powers our homes.

If God is good, and the Bible is very clear that he is, and if God loves us and wants us to be saved, which again, the Bible is very clear on, I don't see why he would create a world where all the empirical evidence suggests on picture of the universe, and would then want us to turn our backs on that.

Large parts of the Bible are clearly meant to be taken allegorically, and I don't see why early parts of Genesis can't as well. The points drawn from it on the origin and character of sin, the character of the world and material, and the purpose of man seem far more valuable to me than the actual creation story anyhow. That's just me though.

 

[St_Worm2]

If God is good, and the Bible is very clear that he is, and if God loves us and wants us to be saved, which again, the Bible is very clear on, I don't see why he would create a world where all the empirical evidence suggests one picture of the universe, and would then want us to turn our backs on that.

Large parts of the Bible are clearly meant to be taken allegorically, and I don't see why early parts of Genesis can't as well. The points drawn from it on the origin and character of sin, the character of the world and material, and the purpose of man seem far more valuable to me than the actual creation story anyhow. That's just me though.

Hi Polymatheia, first off, I see you are pretty new here, so WELCOME TO CF ..

There are a number of things I'd like to discuss with you, so I'll start off with a couple of questions, if that's ok.

Assuming that you believe the universe is old, and that macro evolution is true, what do you believe the Adam/Eve narrative is capable of revealing to us about "the origin and character of sin"?

Also, as long as we are trying to reason why God would do this or that, why do you think God would present us with such a wild fable about our origins and the origin of the universe, when simply telling us the truth (especially if in its most simplistic form) would have been so much easier? Also, why do you believe that Jesus, when He was here among us, would perpetuate what amounts to little more than a lie in His many references to the first 11 Chapters of Genesis? It would have been so easy for Him to clear things up, like who the 'real' author(s) of the Torah was/were or, at least, that is was not Moses.

Thanks!

--David
p.s. - which "large parts" of the Bible do you believe are meant to be taken allegorically?

 

[Polymatheia]

Hi Polymatheia, first off, I see you are pretty new here, so WELCOME TO CF ..

Thanks, hello to you too.

Assuming that you believe the universe is old, and that macro evolution is true, what do you believe the Adam/Eve narrative is capable of revealing to us about "the origin and character of sin"?

IMO, the narrative at the beginning of Genesis shows a sin as a falling away from God. A separation from him. It also lays out a number of other important theological concepts which underpin all of Judaism and Christianity.

1. That God created the world and that His creation in inherently good. This counters the Platonic view of many early Christians that God created the world, but from material which was eternal and had always existed. They attempted to explain the presence of evil in the world through the imperfect nature of material, which even God could not correct. Genesis lays out clearly though that God's creation is good, and that sin is the result of human rebellion from God, not inherit flaws in material.

2. It lays out that man holds a special place with God. That he was created in the image of God and posses a will and character which is in ways like his. This is important because it affirms that man is not just animal, but has a higher, spiritual purpose. Just because man is the result of billions of years of evolution does not take away this spiritual element, indeed, that we find it in ourselves proves that this is not the case. Most notably, the fact that man was created in the image of God shows that our senses are like his in kind, and that our intellect is like his in kind, I think this is the best argument against YEC, and I'll expand on that in a moment.

3. It shows that sin is a fall away from God, a spiritual rebellion which keeps us from Him. Sin is not sin because it violates some sort of ephemeral, immortal code, it is sin because it violates God's will.

Also, as long as we are trying to reason why God would do this or that, why do you think God would present us with such a wild fable about our origins and the origin of the universe, when simply telling us the truth (especially if in its most simplistic form) would have been so much easier? Also, why do you believe that Jesus, when He was here among us, would perpetuate what amounts to little more than a lie in His many references to the first 11 Chapters of Genesis? It would have been so easy for Him to clear things up, like who the 'real' author(s) of the Torah was/were or, at least, that is was not Moses.

Let me ask the corollary of that: why would God create a universe that runs on logic, obeys the laws of mathematics, and one which unfolds its secrets to us under the lens of the scientific method, but then have this whole universe, in all its beauty and grander, really be a giant hoax foisted upon humanity? The evidence of the age of the universe, and the planet itself, sit on observations about the basic building blocks of the universe. Atomic radioactivity is used measure the age of the Earth, the speed of light vis-a-vis background microwave radiation in space is used to measure to age of the universe. These are not complex processes like evolution, they are the basic units that we've found in the universe, and the way they behave leads us to the conclusions of "science," did God create these as a hoax?

You're either forced to conclude that God meant the Bible to be allegory, or that our senses and reason are profoundly flawed. However, according to Genesis we are created in the likeness of God, so I don't see how you could assert that our senses are fundamentally flawed.

Why wouldn't God just explain it all? I don't know, perhaps he wanted us to figure it out on our own. What I think is that the spiritual message contained in the Bible is in a form we can actually digest easily and take guidance from. I've read Brian Greene's the Elegant Universe and Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, and I don't think they are the most easily digestible texts in the world. The fact is humanity is far far from understanding the basic physics which underpin the universe, and it takes a life time of study to even understand a lot of the theories that are in vogue now (and many forms of string or super gravity theory will be out in 10 years!). Clearly explaining it all is not all that simple. That's not even getting into complex systems like the brain or eco-systems.

As to the idea that the authors of given books of the Bible are not the authors who are put forth in said books, I don't see how this affects the nature of the scripture itself. Inspired works are inspired works, and it may have served God's purpose for letter, perhaps not inked by the physical hands of Moses or Paul, to still take on their name. That's a question of study which is difficult, but I don't think you just ignore, or reject outright all the historical analysis of those works just because it challenges your old views. You take that information and see what it means to you. I don't think it has to change how you read scripture, but it might actually add to your ability to find meaning in it.

--David
p.s. - which "large parts" of the Bible do you believe are meant to be taken allegorically?

The idea that the creation story is meant to be allegory is not a new one. One of the claims YEC tries to make is that this take on Genesis is a new one, foisted on faith by the science of the Enlightenment, but the allegorical reading of the Tanakh pre-dates Christianity. Not that an appeal to antiquity is measure of truth, but even the earliest recorded Christian theologians like Origen and St. Augustine put forth the idea that the creation story is allegory.

 

[shturt678]

I am all for young earth creationism! Evolution is just a theory.

The best think tank with this is the grammatcial and contextual interpretation of Gen.1:1, etc. ie, "days" and "nights," ie, 24 hour periods, ie, not scholarly "seasons." Just another non-scholarly opinion.

 

[KWCrazy]

I was raised as an old earth creationist; in part because that's what my mother believed and what she taught, but also because none of the churches I attended ever delved much into the subject. I did, however, learn to trust the word of God over the word of man. The more I read the Bible, the more I became convinced that God did in fact create the Heavens and the Earth in six days and rested on the seventh. This was to be the model for mankind. The day of rest is very important; as much now as it ever was. By losing sight of that and driving ourselves seven days a week, we've shortened our life spans with obesity, high blood pressure and poor diet. Moreover, there are no passages of the Bible to support an old earth and many to support a young earth. When you consider that Jesus spoke about the first man and woman, that He mentioned Noah and Jonah by name; and that He believed that the Scriptures were the literal word of God, how could I believe otherwise?

Where people go wrong is when they attempt to use the study of the natural (science) to explain the supernatural. Science can tell us much about the world around us, but only the Bible can tell us how it came to be. God created a mature world. Everything He created including man was in its mature form. How could the rocks in the earth then be anything but in their mature form? It all makes sense if you study the Word and trust in the Creator.

 

[shturt678]

I was raised as an old earth creationist; in part because that's what my mother believed and what she taught, but also because none of the churches I attended ever delved much into the subject. I did, however, learn to trust the word of God over the word of man. The more I read the Bible, the more I became convinced that God did in fact create the Heavens and the Earth in six days and rested on the seventh. This was to be the model for mankind. The day of rest is very important; as much now as it ever was. By losing sight of that and driving ourselves seven days a week, we've shortened our life spans with obesity, high blood pressure and poor diet. Moreover, there are no passages of the Bible to support an old earth and many to support a young earth. When you consider that Jesus spoke about the first man and woman, that He mentioned Noah and Jonah by name; and that He believed that the Scriptures were the literal word of God, how could I believe otherwise?

Where people go wrong is when they attempt to use the study of the natural (science) to explain the supernatural. Science can tell us much about the world around us, but only the Bible can tell us how it came to be. God created a mature world. Everything He created including man was in its mature form. How could the rocks in the earth then be anything but in their mature form? It all makes sense if you study the Word and trust in the Creator.

 

[johenah1633]

Hey guys, I used to be a yec (young earth creationist) too! After reading Genesis in my niv bible what other conclusion would i have come to...however, i ran into scientific testable problems w/the theory. There were too many dating methods, including dendrachronology, that made it implausible that the earth was created 6-10 thousand years ago. I needed answers, ang guess what? Thats right you guessed it, God was faithful AGAIN! I came across old earth creationism. Once i learned about it, I found out that an old earth is supported by the book of Genesis! One way this is shown to be true has to do with the hebrew word "yom". Yom has several different meanings, such a the word "spur" does in America. Yom as applied to the context of Genesis means a unspecified amount of time not a day such as most english translated bibles will read. This opens up the possibility of the earth being old, confirming modern day science. I would strongly suggest to you my brothers and sisters, that you look into websites reasonstobelieve.org and godandscience.com Have a good day, God bless!

 

[KWCrazy]

Hey guys, I used to be a yec (young earth creationist) too! After reading Genesis in my niv bible what other conclusion would i have come to...however, i ran into scientific testable problems w/the theory.

The first probem with this is that YEC is NOT a theory. It is what is taught in Genesis and affirmed throughout the Bible including the Fourth Commandment as written in Exodus 20:11.

There were too many dating methods, including dendrachronology, that made it implausible that the earth was created 6-10 thousand years ago.

The problem with this is that everything was created in its mature state. Adam was a full grown man and there were trees bearing fruit (not just fruit bearing trees beginning to grow) on day four. Presumably, these mature trees would have rings because they were, in fact, created in the mature state. Beyond that, Currently, the maximum for fully anchored chronologies is a little over 11,000 years from present.

i learned about it, I found out that an old earth is supported by the book of Genesis!

Please share with us which passages ion the Bible buoy this.

One way this is shown to be true has to do with the hebrew word "yom". Yom has several different meanings, such a the word "spur" does in America.

However, when used with a qualifier such as a numerical designation or with the term for evening, "Bokah," it means a single callendar day 100% of the time in the Bible. Moreover, where it is not intended to mean a single callendar day, it is so designated. For example, "In the day..." not "On the day."

Yom as applied to the context of Genesis means a unspecified amount of time not a day such as most english translated bibles will read.

Your statement is unequiivicalobly false. The verbiage of Genesis cannot even be distorted to mean more than a single rotation of the earth. Beyond that, if you pretend that the days were a thousand years long, then so were the nights. Nothing can survive 1,000 years of darkness. This is why we use passages and those who teach falsely seek to take a work or two out of context. "The evening and the morning were the third day." This means exactly what it says 100% of the time.

This opens up the possibility of the earth being old, confirming modern day science.

No it doesn't. If the earth were created over billions of years it would have been just as much a miracle, but then God would not have personally inscribed on a stone tablet "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

I've asked old earth believers to provide any PASSAGES to support their position. Too date, nobody has ever been able to do it. When Jesus spoke of the first man and women He didn't refer to the offspring of chimps, and when He called Noah by name He was not re-telling a myth.

The Bible deals with the supernatural and science deals with the physical. Science neither buoys nor disproves the actions of God because those actions fall outside of the realm of science. Sorry. Look to your science books to discover how the world around you functions, and to your Bible to learn why.

 

[classicalhero]

The idea that the creation story is meant to be allegory is not a new one. One of the claims YEC tries to make is that this take on Genesis is a new one, foisted on faith by the science of the Enlightenment, but the allegorical reading of the Tanakh pre-dates Christianity. Not that an appeal to antiquity is measure of truth, but even the earliest recorded Christian theologians like Origen and St. Augustine put forth the idea that the creation story is allegory.

It is only in the 150 or so years has it been even thought like that. For the rest of church history they believe that the universe was young.

Hey guys, I used to be a yec (young earth creationist) too! After reading Genesis in my niv bible what other conclusion would i have come to...however, i ran into scientific testable problems w/the theory. There were too many dating methods, including dendrachronology, that made it implausible that the earth was created 6-10 thousand years ago. I needed answers, ang guess what? Thats right you guessed it, God was faithful AGAIN! I came across old earth creationism. Once i learned about it, I found out that an old earth is supported by the book of Genesis! One way this is shown to be true has to do with the hebrew word "yom". Yom has several different meanings, such a the word "spur" does in America. Yom as applied to the context of Genesis means a unspecified amount of time not a day such as most english translated bibles will read. This opens up the possibility of the earth being old, confirming modern day science. I would strongly suggest to you my brothers and sisters, that you look into websites reasonstobelieve.org and godandscience.com Have a good day, God bless!

The dating methods you put so much faith in are a result of an interpretation. They don't directly count the age by assumptions. one of the problems with C14 dating is the fact that they get measurable ages for things that are millions of years old. At first when they thought that the instrument was being affected by outside forces, but now with greater technology that eliminates any outside bias, they are still getting results when they shouldn't have. There is a reason why we go by eyewitness accounts for our birthdays, because the scientific methods of testing for age are not reliable enough. Why should we trust them when they can't get known ages right?
Yom can never mean anything other than a 24 hour time period. We also have the phrase, "evening and morning were..." That is clearly indicating a 24 hour period and it is done in the Jewish method of describing a day, whereas we go "morning and evening" to describe a day. You would then have to say that the 10 commandments are wrong, since it clearly states that we are to work six day and rst one like God did in the creation week.