-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Young earth creationism
- Thread starter Nick316
- Start date
johenah1633
Transformed, not conformed (Rom 12:2)
hey kw crazy, i'll get back to ya, give me some time. thanks! Peace be with you.
Upvote
0
Standing_Ultraviolet
Dunkleosteus
- Jul 29, 2010
- 2,798
- 132
- 34
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I think it's an important thing to remember, during your search for answers to this question, that Young Earth Creationism in its present form is a relatively new entity.
While the concept of the Universe as young has been the dominant view throughout Christian history, that doesn't mean that a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis has been the sole view throughout much of history. Prior to the 18th century, there was no real reason to suspect an old age for the Earth. However, allegorical interpretations of the days in Genesis did exist as early as the fifth century, which is stronger evidence for such an interpretation than if such explanations had only begun to exist after scientific ideas suggesting an Earth much older than 6,000 years were formulated.
Through the Middle Ages, allegorical interpretations of Genesis were fairly common. While I understand that you are Protestant and do not want to turn this into a debate over theological issues, it was with the Protestant Reformation and the advent of a sola scriptura rule of faith that literal interpretations of Genesis became dominant in Germanic and English-speaking parts of Europe.
With advances in science during the scientific revolution, a non-literal interpretation of Genesis was again suggested, although it took some time for the strength of scientific ideas to filter through to clergy and theologians. Early Young Earth Creationist groups, like the Scriptural Geologists, were the first to suggest that sedimentary layers were put down by the Great Flood, having the peak of their support in the 19th century. At the time, they were still largely regarded as a fringe group. By the early 20th century, several different interpretations of Genesis had developed among all branches of Christianity to explain away the discrepancy found between science and a literal reading of the text. Evolutionary biology also existed as a field of research by that point, experiencing limited acceptance among conservative Protestants, some (gradually increasing) support among Catholics, and largely universal acceptance among more liberal Protestants. Despite this, however, Young Earth Creationism had almost no support among any group.
The authors of The Fundamentals, the essential document of conservative Protestantism in the early 20th century, were able to confidently assert that virtually no one accepted a recent creation. A form of Young Earth Creationism may have been more common among smaller, more localized religious communities, but among those who left records discussing the subject, the assessment of the authors of The Fundamentals seems accurate. Even during the so-called "Scopes Monkey Trial", William Jennings Bryan expressed a belief that the Earth was not created recently, despite his opposition to evolution, suggesting that the belief was not common among educated creationists at the time (I make reference to educated creationists not to be offensive; "un-educated" at the time often meant having no scientific literacy and very little actual literacy, so the opinions of non-educated creationists at the time are difficult to discern).
Seventh-Day Adventists, due to a perceived requirement for a belief in a literal seven day creation in their unique belief system, attempted to resurrect the beliefs of the 19th century scriptural geologists. A man named George McReady Price wrote on the subject, and is pretty much the grandfather of modern Flood Geology. His work was filtered through two men named Whitcomb and Morris in the middle of the 20th century, and reached a broader Evangelical Protestant audience. By this point, acceptance of an old Earth was essentially universal among Catholics, and acceptance of evolution had been explicitly permitted by the papal encyclical Humani Generis, so reception of the book The Genesis Flood was likely much less warm among Catholics.
The conservative Protestant view of science in general began to diverge substantially from mainline Protestants and Catholics at this point. Whereas before the publication of The Genesis Flood an old Earth had been widely accepted and even theistic evolution was beginning to gain ground, this particular text spread widely among Protestants outside of academia, and started the acceptance of Young Earth Creationism essentially from the ground up. Basically every YEC ministry currently in existence has come into being since the time of its publication, and acceptance of its position has increased even among conservative Protestant theologians.
In my view, the fact that the modern movement started in the middle of the 20th century, propagated by two people who had very limited competence in fields related to the age of the Earth or evolution, should cause caution in accepting it as the only orthodox view on the issue. I would strongly suggest looking into the scientific problems with Young Earth Creationism from a serious perspective, and investigating alternative explanations for the discrepancies between a literal interpretation of Genesis and science (I personally hold to the literary framework view). I think you'll find that Young Earth Creationism is neither a necessary nor a particularly ideal position to hold.
While the concept of the Universe as young has been the dominant view throughout Christian history, that doesn't mean that a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis has been the sole view throughout much of history. Prior to the 18th century, there was no real reason to suspect an old age for the Earth. However, allegorical interpretations of the days in Genesis did exist as early as the fifth century, which is stronger evidence for such an interpretation than if such explanations had only begun to exist after scientific ideas suggesting an Earth much older than 6,000 years were formulated.
Through the Middle Ages, allegorical interpretations of Genesis were fairly common. While I understand that you are Protestant and do not want to turn this into a debate over theological issues, it was with the Protestant Reformation and the advent of a sola scriptura rule of faith that literal interpretations of Genesis became dominant in Germanic and English-speaking parts of Europe.
With advances in science during the scientific revolution, a non-literal interpretation of Genesis was again suggested, although it took some time for the strength of scientific ideas to filter through to clergy and theologians. Early Young Earth Creationist groups, like the Scriptural Geologists, were the first to suggest that sedimentary layers were put down by the Great Flood, having the peak of their support in the 19th century. At the time, they were still largely regarded as a fringe group. By the early 20th century, several different interpretations of Genesis had developed among all branches of Christianity to explain away the discrepancy found between science and a literal reading of the text. Evolutionary biology also existed as a field of research by that point, experiencing limited acceptance among conservative Protestants, some (gradually increasing) support among Catholics, and largely universal acceptance among more liberal Protestants. Despite this, however, Young Earth Creationism had almost no support among any group.
The authors of The Fundamentals, the essential document of conservative Protestantism in the early 20th century, were able to confidently assert that virtually no one accepted a recent creation. A form of Young Earth Creationism may have been more common among smaller, more localized religious communities, but among those who left records discussing the subject, the assessment of the authors of The Fundamentals seems accurate. Even during the so-called "Scopes Monkey Trial", William Jennings Bryan expressed a belief that the Earth was not created recently, despite his opposition to evolution, suggesting that the belief was not common among educated creationists at the time (I make reference to educated creationists not to be offensive; "un-educated" at the time often meant having no scientific literacy and very little actual literacy, so the opinions of non-educated creationists at the time are difficult to discern).
Seventh-Day Adventists, due to a perceived requirement for a belief in a literal seven day creation in their unique belief system, attempted to resurrect the beliefs of the 19th century scriptural geologists. A man named George McReady Price wrote on the subject, and is pretty much the grandfather of modern Flood Geology. His work was filtered through two men named Whitcomb and Morris in the middle of the 20th century, and reached a broader Evangelical Protestant audience. By this point, acceptance of an old Earth was essentially universal among Catholics, and acceptance of evolution had been explicitly permitted by the papal encyclical Humani Generis, so reception of the book The Genesis Flood was likely much less warm among Catholics.
The conservative Protestant view of science in general began to diverge substantially from mainline Protestants and Catholics at this point. Whereas before the publication of The Genesis Flood an old Earth had been widely accepted and even theistic evolution was beginning to gain ground, this particular text spread widely among Protestants outside of academia, and started the acceptance of Young Earth Creationism essentially from the ground up. Basically every YEC ministry currently in existence has come into being since the time of its publication, and acceptance of its position has increased even among conservative Protestant theologians.
In my view, the fact that the modern movement started in the middle of the 20th century, propagated by two people who had very limited competence in fields related to the age of the Earth or evolution, should cause caution in accepting it as the only orthodox view on the issue. I would strongly suggest looking into the scientific problems with Young Earth Creationism from a serious perspective, and investigating alternative explanations for the discrepancies between a literal interpretation of Genesis and science (I personally hold to the literary framework view). I think you'll find that Young Earth Creationism is neither a necessary nor a particularly ideal position to hold.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
K-dub... I would like to suggest you look at the article on 
KWCrazy
Newbie
- Apr 13, 2009
- 7,229
- 1,993
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Moses was a YEC, as was Jesus. As you might recall, Jesus spoke of Noah by name. A global flood dating back 4,500 years pretty much rules out an old earth. Also, Jesus taught that the Scriptures were 100% accurate. I've heard this presentation before. It was a lie then, and it's a lie now.
Upvote
0
KWCrazy
Newbie
- Apr 13, 2009
- 7,229
- 1,993
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
"The evening and the morning" indicate a single calendar day 100% of the time in the context of the Bible, and numerically designated days are also single rotations of the earth; one callendar day. This is true without exception. "In the day" does not mean the same as "On the sixth day."
The distortion you are trying to put forward is explained here.
Those who argue that the word "day" means "long age," point out that the Hebrew word, yom, can have a number of meanings, only one of which is "day of 24 hours."1 They further seek to strengthen their position with the use of Psalm 90:4 and II Peter 3:8, comparing a day to a thousand years. Both of these verses, however, are simply using figures of speech (similes) to show that God is not constrained by the same time parameters as are humans. These verses are really irrelevant to the discussion of the meaning of "day," in Genesis 1.
It is recognized, of course, that the word "day" can be used with a number of variations. It can have any of five meanings: 1) a period of light; 2) a period of 24 hours; 3) a general, vague time; 4) a point of time; 5) a year.2 The context determines which of these is intended by the writer. The English language also can have up to 14 definitions for the word "day."3 The reader should be reminded that the purpose of language is to communicate. Moses wrote in a language that was meant to communicate to his readers. Words must be defined by their relationship to one another.4 Word meaning must be determined from within its context. It will be shown how the context defines the word in Genesis 1.
The use of a number with the word "day" is very illuminating. This combination occurs 357 times outside of Genesis 1. The combination is used in four different ways, but each time it is used, it must mean 24-hour periods of time. If the combinations had been intended to mean long periods of time, both the texts and contexts then become meaningless.
This is why when discussing the Bible I always insist upon passages, not words or sentances taken out of context. A clear reading of the entire passages in question points out the distortion that is trying to be passed off as truth.
Surprisingly, I have seen this false teaching many times, posted by many people. You might recall that in Exodus 20:11 the words "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" were carved into stone tablets by God himself and then given to Moses.
I think what is important is the salvation that Jesus offers to mankind. I was raised to believe in an old earth, but over the yeaars in studying the word of God I could never find a single concept in the Scriptures to corraborate it. Moreover, if Jesus spoke of the great flood destroying all but those in the ark, then that's exactly what happened. God's word is truth. The truth does not lie with those who distort it to support their false claims of evolution and great age.
Agreed.
No, read Genesis 1. Let me assist.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
No confusion there. No long periods of time. Everything was created in its mature state in six days. The verbiage leaves no doubt as to what was being told.
Upvote
0
ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 40,131
- 29,892
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
I could just as easily claim that Moses and Jesus were rocket scientists, but it doesn't make it true.
Mentioning creation, mentioning Adam, mentioning Noah doesn't make one a YEC--OECs, Gap Theorists, and Theistic Evolutionists mention all these things too.
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
KWCrazy
Newbie
- Apr 13, 2009
- 7,229
- 1,993
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Did Moses believe that God created Adam from the dust of the earth on the sixth day?
Did Job, Moses, Jesus?
Did the prophets mentioned int he Bible believe in the Great Flood? How many of them preached molecules-to-man?
Did Jesus talk about man evolving from the slime over millions of years, or did He speak of the first man and woman as Created by the Father? He was, after all, there.
Maybe the lable you want to call us is new, but the knowledge of how God created the universe has been around a long, long time. The genealogies of the Bible tell us how old the earth is. If God had not intended us to know, there would have been no reason to include it in His book.
Upvote
0
Standing_Ultraviolet
Dunkleosteus
- Jul 29, 2010
- 2,798
- 132
- 34
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
The idea of a global flood 4,500 years ago might rule out an old Earth, mostly because no record of it has ever been found. However, what we do find from geology is more consistent with the idea of generally gradual geological processes shaping and reshaping the planet than with a recent global cataclysm. It's actually difficult to express how much more consistent it is with the former. Across the planet, we find geological features (varves, glaciers, fossilized coral reefs, etc.) that take a very long time to form, often longer than Young Earth Creationism allows for the age of the Earth. We also find evidence, within those formations, that suggests very strongly that they were formed through modern processes. Layers in a fossil lake bed, for instance, will look roughly the same from year to year, with alternating layers representing spring and winter foliage conditions both before and after the date proposed for the flood by Young Earth ministries.
The language of the Bible is not clear that the flood was necessarily global. Although an easy reading of the text would suggest that, it's important to consider whether that reading is appropriate when all evidence points against it.
Jesus never outright states that the Earth is 6,000 years old. The closest he comes to saying something of the sort is in the statement that marriage existed "from the beginning", but even in this case, it's stretching to say that the statement is referring to the beginning of the world (since by any standard, Adam and Eve didn't exist from the beginning of the world).
None of the issues that you pointed out, in your later post, affect the idea that the days may have been literal days used in a non-literal context, so I will probably just leave them for other people to answer. I know that there are issues with the idea that a yom must be a day if it has an evening and morning, given the term being used to represent a longer time frame with a poetic "evening and morning" later in the Old Testament, and there are issues with the idea that it must be a literal day when it occurs with an ordinal, largely because the first chapter of Genesis is the only location we know of in ancient Hebrew literature where this arrangement occurs. Still, there are issues with the day/age interpretation, largely stemming from the fact that it has its own set of scientific issues (flowering plants are found earlier in the Genesis account than they are in the fossil record, for instance).
The language of the first chapter of Genesis, while not poetic, is also not standard Hebrew prose. It has characteristics of both styles of writing, and, given that it's the only text we know of with this format, presents a unique hermeneutic challenge. Like I said, I accept that the text is a literary framework, using "days" to represent the ordering of the cosmos.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
johenah1633
Transformed, not conformed (Rom 12:2)
Kw my friend, you appear to have studied this topic quite extensively. I, on the other hand am still learning and am taking in all you have said. I hope you continue to keep an open mind as well. I do not have the time or resources to continue this particular conversation. Being more unbiased than most christians about this topic, I believe there is a strong claim for an old earth, it just"fits." Either way, lets keep our eye on the prize at the end of the race... Jesus. Talk to ya later brother.
Upvote
0
shturt678
Senior Veteran
Before one can actually have a heartful "fear" to "terror" of God and heartfully realize before God can be known as Savior, He must be understood as the creator of humankind and of the world in Truth. KWCrazy somehow bumped into this Truth and did his part by building a coherent framework around a solid core base in Truth. The other camp did equally well except for the grammatical and contextual part hence resulted in an older earth than 7,000 years which is in error of course. btw the lack of a Biblical "fear" of God one sees around them today actually began with pulling and tugging of the Word, including a little twisting, at Genesis. Also a young earth puts the brakes on all that grant money handed out, ie, economics. You get the idea. Don't be that concerned, ie, just another opinion. 
Upvote
0
I hold to a young earth myself...but I won't quibble about it. One thing we know is as Creator God can create with the appearance of age.
Unless someone can prove that otherwise why should this be an issue?
It's the work of God...and mankind cannot find it out...
Ecclesiastes 8:16, 17:
16 When I gave my heart to know wisdom and to see the task which has been done on the earth (even though one should never sleep day or night),
17 and I saw every work of God, I concluded that man cannot discover the work which has been done under the sun. Even though man should seek laboriously, he will not discover; and though the wise man should say, “I know,” he cannot discover.
That's it in a nutshell!!! Whatever we learn of creation, is what God allows mankind to know. He gives knowledge, therefore...it's "an exercise in futility", and we should be thankful for what God has revealed!!!
Unless someone can prove that otherwise why should this be an issue?
It's the work of God...and mankind cannot find it out...
Ecclesiastes 8:16, 17:
16 When I gave my heart to know wisdom and to see the task which has been done on the earth (even though one should never sleep day or night),
17 and I saw every work of God, I concluded that man cannot discover the work which has been done under the sun. Even though man should seek laboriously, he will not discover; and though the wise man should say, “I know,” he cannot discover.
That's it in a nutshell!!! Whatever we learn of creation, is what God allows mankind to know. He gives knowledge, therefore...it's "an exercise in futility", and we should be thankful for what God has revealed!!!
Upvote
0
shturt678
Senior Veteran
I hold to a young earth myself...but I won't quibble about it. One thing we know is as Creator God can create with the appearance of age.
Unless someone can prove that otherwise why should this be an issue?
It's the work of God...and mankind cannot find it out...
Ecclesiastes 8:16, 17:
16 When I gave my heart to know wisdom and to see the task which has been done on the earth (even though one should never sleep day or night),
17 and I saw every work of God, I concluded that man cannot discover the work which has been done under the sun. Even though man should seek laboriously, he will not discover; and though the wise man should say, I know, he cannot discover.
That's it in a nutshell!!! Whatever we learn of creation, is what God allows mankind to know. He gives knowledge, therefore...it's "an exercise in futility", and we should be thankful for what God has revealed!!!
I'm thankful also, ie, "big time." I just don't have one tooth left to grind those nuts, ie, agape those nuts, and is due to not brushing my teeth, ie, my point: Hoping the Lord will give me a new set of choppers whether I end in hell or heaven - tired of 'gumming' - oh, sorry, got carried away again. Was also just thinking about 1,000,000s of flora and fauna created in days, ie, pretty powerful and smart Savior I would say. The Lord must have used a little humor when he made the Flagellum, ie, I'm still trying to figure the make up of this critter. it would even be more humorous if He made the Flagellum in nano-nano-seconds?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
