Young Earth Vs. Old Earth

[WingsOfEagles07]

What are your views on the age of the earth? Are you a(n) "young-earth" or an "old-earth" believer and state the rationality for your beliefs.

I am a "Young-Earth" for many different reasons.

1. Starlight travel - Same constant but different methods for it to reach earth faster.

2. Earths magnetic Forces

3. Rock Layers - (Dark_Lite - The Flood of Noah is to be denied by the grand canyon layers because of the "age." Well, Mt. Saint Helen's whenever it exploded these same type of layers were formed within three hours of the catastrophic event.)

4. Seafloor Sediments

5. Salt in the ocean

6. And Many more.

( Note to everyone who is reading, this is not to attack the person for their beliefs but rather a simple discussion of reasoning in between competing views. )

 

[metherion]

Okay. Sounds good, no attacking, just a listing. I can do that.

Reasons I am a TE who accepts and old earth and evolution both:

1. Fossil record.
2. Starlight from more than 6-10k light years away.
3. ERVs and other genetic evidences.
4. Ancient cultures going uninterrupted thru the time the flood supposedly happened.
5. Well, the greeks and the romans and the babylonians and the egyptians all had creation myths, why do those of the jews have to be 100% literally correct?
6. Two versions of the creation story with different chronologies just in the creation story, not to mention 2 of every animal versus 7 clean and 2 unclean, etc.
7. The general dishonesty of most 'professional' creationist organizations.
8. The fact that people make predictions and base money-making decisions on evolution and an old earth and they WORK.

EDIT: I realized that this was in the creationist sub-forum, not the origins theology one. FACEPALM. If you request it, I will remove my post. I apologize, i didn't look at the subforum before posting.

Metherion

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Note to everyone, this thread it not to attack the "person." This thread is just to have "reasoning" between views. Like we have in the post, of "What makes a Creationist, a Creationist." But about this topic. I will show my answers in the morning. Or later tomorrow in the evening.

 

[marktheblake]

I am a "Young-Earth" for many different reasons.

because the bible makes too much sense to me when viewed through that perspective.

Before I doubted the truth of God/Jesus Christ - a lot. Now I no longer doubt, because I know can see that there is evidence that supports the veracity of the scripture, showing that there is an alternative to what most of us are lead to believe as young people.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

because the bible makes too much sense to me when viewed through that perspective.

Before I doubted the truth of God/Jesus Christ - a lot. Now I no longer doubt, because I know can see that there is evidence that supports the veracity of the scripture, showing that there is an alternative to what most of us are lead to believe as young people.

Amen! =] You know, I am surprised that "Christians" accept evolution that was started by Darwin who was a willing atheist due to the death of family members that were not saved. So he tried to find an explanation for the meaning of 'life' and how it has came about without the thought of the supernatural. Then Christians in today's world, View Genesis as illiterate just so they can unlock that door and "add" the evolutionary theory to the Bible only at the account of Genesis. If God's word was not literal then why does Proverbs 30:5-6 be true?

5Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.



If Genesis was not literal then God's words are falsified and the death of Christ cannot be justified. Let me purpose a questions to "theistic evolutionists."


Why do you believe Christ died on the Cross for our sins, and was resurrected the third day?


--Matthew--

 

[metherion]

I would like to propose a counter-question.

If Proverbs 30:5-6 is true, why do so many creationist organizations feel compelled to add such things as:
Miraculous cleanup of the Flood
only animal death inside Eden

and so on?

Also, to your question

Why do you believe Christ died on the Cross for our sins, and was resurrected the third day?

Because mankind sinned against God and Christ came to redeem us and conquer death. Why else?

Metherion

 

[Willtor]

Amen! =] You know, I am surprised that "Christians" accept evolution that was started by Darwin who was a willing atheist due to the death of family members that were not saved. So he tried to find an explanation for the meaning of 'life' and how it has came about without the thought of the supernatural. Then Christians in today's world, View Genesis as illiterate just so they can unlock that door and "add" the evolutionary theory to the Bible only at the account of Genesis. If God's word was not literal then why does Proverbs 30:5-6 be true?

5Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.


If Genesis was not literal then God's words are falsified and the death of Christ cannot be justified. Let me purpose a questions to "theistic evolutionists."

Literal != true

You must know that because you don't take the whole Bible literally, even if you do think that the whole thing is true.

Why do you believe Christ died on the Cross for our sins, and was resurrected the third day?


--Matthew--

I believe he died on the cross for our sins because the Father asked him to do so. I believe he was raised on the third day because as creation's author, he had power over death.

 

[Smidlee]

The scriptures does not come out and claim the "Planet Earth" is only a few thousand years old. Notice I wrote "Planet Earth" since most of time in scripture the word "earth" is referring to land or continent.
In Revelation there are references to a "New Earth and New Heaven" which could referring to the surface of the planet or a totally new planet as the same with the heavens.

Thus I believe it is very possible the Planet Earth itself could be extremely old as we do not know what God was doing before man. The same as it very possible God could have other creatures on different planets in many galaxies in our universe. Since these issues has nothing to do with man there would be no reason to include them in scripture.
There is a hint something happen to the planet before man even though it does not stand out unless you are looking for it. The description used In Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form and void; and the darkness upon the face of the deep..." is also found in Jeremiah 4:23-27 where it's very obvious Jeremiah was referring to judgment. Thus was there a judgment on earth before man? If true then death would have visited earth at least twice.
I do believe the earth (land) as we now know it is around 6-10 thousand years.

 

[marlowe007]

I'm an OEC. I believe the presence of extremely long-lived isotopes in the Earth's crust, and the apparent lack of naturally occurring isotopes of shorter life (Technetium, for example) proves that the Earth is billions of years old.

And I don't think the Earth being 4.5 billion y/o necessarily contradicts the Bible. Most historical theologians (Aristobulus, Philo, Origen, Augustine, Justin, etc.) would probably agree since they did not subscribe to the idea that the earth was made in six literal days.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

I would like to propose a counter-question.

If Proverbs 30:5-6 is true, why do so many creationist organizations feel compelled to add such things as:
Miraculous cleanup of the Flood
only animal death inside Eden

and so on?

Also, to your question


Because mankind sinned against God and Christ came to redeem us and conquer death. Why else?

Metherion

Most do not "add" things.

How to explain Romans 5:12 - 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 ? You said man-kind, well, for death to occur there has to be sin. If we are nothing but evolved "creatures" what creature sinned "first" to make it enter the world? Who was the first human for sin to come into the world? If "mankind" did it, prove this biblically.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Literal != true

You must know that because you don't take the whole Bible literally, even if you do think that the whole thing is true.



I believe he died on the cross for our sins because the Father asked him to do so. I believe he was raised on the third day because as creation's author, he had power over death.

What is the "origination" of death?

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

I'm an OEC. I believe the presence of extremely long-lived isotopes in the Earth's crust, and the apparent lack of naturally occurring isotopes of shorter life (Technetium, for example) proves that the earth is billions of years old.

And I don't think the earth being 4.5 billion y/o necessarily contradicts the Bible. Most historical theologians (Aristobulus, Philo, Origen, Augustine, Justin, etc.) would probably agree since they did not subscribe to the idea that the earth was made in six literal days.

What about all the other 'dating methods' that people dismiss that tell us the earth is "Young?" Mostly evolutionists only rely on "one - five" methods for an old earth, whenever the majority of the methods used provide information for a young earth. If 6 days were not literal, then why is it in Genesis the word for "Day" in Hebrew = "yom" = Literal 24 hour days, long periods of time, (and one more I can't remember). But in the case of Genesis it means Literal 24 hour days because it uses the phrase; evening and morning and the number of a day.

 

[Darkness27]

I would say physical death was around as long as there was life. We (humans) are responsible for spiritual death that is in the world, and that is what I see Genesis conveying; spiritual, not physical, death.

But lets see some of that evidence for a young Earth.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

I would say physical death was around as long as there was life. We (humans) are responsible for spiritual death that is in the world, and that is what I see Genesis conveying; spiritual, not physical, death.

But lets see some of that evidence for a young Earth.

Then why did JESUS die on the Cross "Physically" for our sins if humans are only responsible for the "spiritual" death? Spiritual death = Hell. Why do we have physical death?

I will show some of that tomorrow(Today), I am very sleepy right now, it is 12:47 A.m. and I halfway cannot think, LOL!

 

[Darkness27]

Then why did JESUS die on the Cross "Physically" for our sins if humans are only responsible for the "spiritual" death? Spiritual death = Hell. Why do we have physical death?

I will show some of that tomorrow(Today), I am very sleepy right now, it is 12:47 A.m. and I halfway cannot think, LOL!

I admit that there are a lot of parallels between Jesus' physical death and what is known about the Hebrews. For example their theology of atonement, which involved animal sacrificing, and the idea that the physical and the spiritual are one as represented in Genesis. I could list several reasons why it makes sense to me that Jesus' death is about spiritual death and rebirth instead of the physical, however I haven't studied this so pretty much all of my answers would be somewhat conjectural, and this isn't the main reason for this thread. If you want to make a new thread of this I'll be happy to attempt to articulate my thoughts.

 

[marlowe007]

If 6 days were not literal, then why is it in Genesis the word for "Day" in Hebrew = "yom" = Literal 24 hour days, long periods of time, (and one more I can't remember). But in the case of Genesis it means Literal 24 hour days because it uses the phrase; evening and morning and the number of a day.

IMHO the first eleven chapters of Genesis are metaphorical only, so I'm not concerned with the Hebrew language or the meaning of the word "day". The creation story in Genesis was originally penned as a cosmogony, which was a type of ancient literary genre used to explain the "who" and the "why" of creation. Cosmogonies weren't written to tell scientific or historical facts.

 

[Biblewriter]

The scriptures does not come out and claim the "Planet Earth" is only a few thousand years old. Notice I wrote "Planet Earth" since most of time in scripture the word "earth" is referring to land or continent.
In Revelation there are references to a "New Earth and New Heaven" which could referring to the surface of the planet or a totally new planet as the same with the heavens.

Thus I believe it is very possible the Planet Earth itself could be extremely old as we do not know what God was doing before man. The same as it very possible God could have other creatures on different planets in many galaxies in our universe. Since these issues has nothing to do with man there would be no reason to include them in scripture.
There is a hint something happen to the planet before man even though it does not stand out unless you are looking for it. The description used In Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form and void; and the darkness upon the face of the deep..." is also found in Jeremiah 4:23-27 where it's very obvious Jeremiah was referring to judgment. Thus was there a judgment on earth before man? If true then death would have visited earth at least twice.
I do believe the earth (land) as we now know it is around 6-10 thousand years.

There is a problem with citing Jeremiah 4:23-27 in this context. That problem is that this passage is unquestionably speaking of the future, not the past.

But there is another passage that does not have this problem in Isaiah 45:18 God very explicitly says He did not create the earth in the state described in Genesis 1:2. We read in that place, "God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited:"

The Hebrew word translated "in vain" her is exactly the same Hebrew word as the one used to describe the state of the earth in Genesis 1:2. it is not just the same root word, but the same form of the same word. Also, the Hrbrew word rendered "was" in Genesis 1:2 is often translated "became." in the Old Testament.

So I am an OEC, not because I think that we have to allwo for the discoveries of science, but because I am satisified that a true understanding of the Hebrew text not only allows for a time period between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, but requires it.

But to imagine that the "days" of the creation account were actually long periods of time is to inject interpretation into their meanings. This interpretation does not work, for the plants were made a day before the sun appeared. How could plant life have flourished for millenia without the sun? So even though such an interpretation may actually be possible (even though I consider it unreasonable) when we consider only what the Bible says, when we combine this interpretation with simple reasoning, we see that this is an impossible solution to the supposed delimma.

This interpretation is advanced to reconcile scripture with supposed scientific knowledge. but it conflicts with much knowledge that does not even require science. Every common farmer knows that plants cannot flourish if they never have sunlight.

 

[Biblewriter]

How to explain Romans 5:12 - 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 ? You said man-kind, well, for death to occur there has to be sin. If we are nothing but evolved "creatures" what creature sinned "first" to make it enter the world? Who was the first human for sin to come into the world? If "mankind" did it, prove this biblically.

Both of these scriptures indeed say that death entered the world through man's sin. But what "world" is being referred to here? is it the planet? You seem to be interpreting it this way. Or is it the current creation on the planet? That is another possible meaning. Or does it mean the world of mankind?

We have to remember that in interpretation, context is everything. Until we can resolve the actual meaning of the word "world" as used in this context, we do not know if this argument is applicable or not.

 

[Biblewriter]

IMHO the first eleven chapters of Genesis are metaphorical only, so I'm not concerned with the Hebrew language or the meaning of the word "day". The creation story in Genesis was originally penned as a cosmogony, which was a type of ancient literary genre used to explain the "who" and the "why" of creation. Cosmogonies weren't written to tell scientific or historical facts.

If the words were only metaphorical, then they are not true. For they very explicitly say that certain things happened. If these things did not indeed happen, then the statements that these things happened are not true.

If there is even one factual statement in the Bible (as it was originally written) that is not absolutely accurate, then the Bible is not completely reliable. And if the Bible is not completely reliable, then we have no basis for determining which part is reliable and which part is not reliable. And if we have no basis for this, we have no basis for accepting anything it says as reliable. And if we have no basis for accepting anything in the Bible as reliable, we have no basis for out faith.

My point here is that this concept destroys the very foundations of Christianity. That is why I say that theistic evolution is destructive to the very foundations of the Christian faith.

We cannot have it both ways. Either the Bible is completely reliable in all of its details, or we have no foundation whatsoever for our faith.

 

[Dark_Lite]

If the words were only metaphorical, then they are not true.

This conclusion does not follow from its premise. Therefore, the rest of your post does not follow either.