I think we Christians will know the facts soon enough.
As big as our world is, even judged against this finite universe it is next to nothing. In an infinite universe it would not even exist without being created. The time effect is just our perception of existence within the infinite.
So as mankind there is the issue how we came into existence. God has mysterys for a purpose, some answers are never going to be solved in our lifetime. man wants to be like god. when you were dating, did you have to know everything about your spouse. there were some mysterys about your spouse you have found out after marriage, honeymoon, children and so forth. God is in charge, and why do we have to go into the endless debate new creation or old creation. We here now, and learn to live with it and when you get to heaven, ask God how and when he created heaven and earth.
Early Genesis has always been a major point of disagreement, and probably always will be.
Wow, a lot of work. As I go through this I find I must comment on the logic for Adam naming animals.
We could say that Adam knew Hebrew and then applied Hebrew names to animals as they seemed appropriate based on their behavior or we could say that Adam simply made up sounds that pleased him and that as he taught his children these sounds, the children developed a language which used the names of animals to describe certain observed behaviors which developed into the Hebrew of the bible.
Adam naming the animals shows me a lot about work-life balance. Adam was given work before the fall. He had 3 activities to keep him busy. He named the animals, he kept the garden and he walked with God. His life encompassed mental work, physical work and a spiritual relationship with God.
I don’t know of another short story that has has much theological information jammed into it as the creation myths (and before someone slams me on the use of the term myth, please look it up).
How was Eve created?
Did Adam have to wait 16+ years before he had a companion or did God make Eve in an “aged” state?
If God can do that with Eve, why couldn’t he do that with the Universe, or the Earth, or trees, or...
Personally, I side with the Young Earthers, but in the big picture of important issues, Old Earth vs. Young Earth, to me really isn’t that big of a deal any more.
I am fascinated by the young vs. old earth debate. I started as an old earth who is being less sure of his position each year. There are three areas which need to be reconciled in order for me to be a firm believer of a young earth. These are a literal interpretation of the scripture, the theological consistency with other major themes and finally the evidence of the world.
I am convinced that its not possible to reconcile the biblical text to an old earth on a literal basis. Too many problems arise for either interpretation to be the final word. I would say that if the scientific evidence of old earth was not present that an old earth would never be considered.
On a theological basis, the old earth theory sets the stage for a theology that is an anathema. The creation story describes that eating the fruit of the garden would make Adam and Eve “like gods”. The evolution promise could be used to bring about that desire. Over time mankind will evolve to become gods. The young earth theology removes this prospect. Mankind is reduced to an impossibly small period of time that its impossible for us to evolve and that our only hope is in turning to God. Young earth makes other theological struggles of understanding almost irrelevant. It almost doesn’t matter how God has redeemed us through his son because we have no other options to choose from if this world is finite in time and space. Theologically, I am an agnostic as to whether an old earth or young earth is required to be consistent.
On the evidence of the world most scientists today seem to be in agreement of an old earth. Personally, I am beginning to see flaws in their reasoning.
I was teethed on Discover magazines about “the Great Expansion” and “Primordial Hyperinflation.” I could never let go of the FACT that the Earth and the universe do truly APPEAR old. Forget about plate techtonics, think of light travelling towards us from star systems billions of years away. Was the light created mid-journey?
At the same time, I am a biblical literalist (except where the bible gives indications of a figurative tone).
Then it occurred to me, however: Humans have all sorts of remnants and effects of development and aging, not only the wierd-but-famous example of the belly button, but long-bone striation, cell hyper-differentiation, a pituitary gland and other developmental endocrine-system elements, brown-cell fat tissue, and so forth. In toto, Adam would hardly seem human without these traits, but with them, Adam would seem “aged,” or “developed,” even though he had been created “in situ” as an adult.
Why not so for the Earth? And the universe and the stars? At first what seemed like an absurd notion — that light would be created “on its way” to Earth from distant galaxies — made sense. How else to permit us to wonder at the universe, than to allow light to reach us despite being from galaxies far further from us than 7,000 light years? How else to let us be amazed at pulsars, quasars, black holes, galaxies, superclusters, supernovae? Should God have created a static universe it would be by definition a simpler, smaller one. Instead, he presents us with a universe of such mind-boggling complexity that we can only stand agape at it. And to do so, he presents one that appears older than 7,000 years.
Is the universe old or young? I can only know that the bible is truth, that God blesses wisdom, and that the universe appears old. How evil it is that self-styled “scientists” use the wonders of God’s creation to deny the Creator to our children. How evil, also, is it that “Christians” declare that science has no place in Christianity.
Time is short here. I don’t really care about the two sides of the argument, but this article has holes.
One of the big errors is that Adam did not come up with Hebrew names for the animals and birds mentioned. Hebrew didn’t arise as a language for many many generations after Adam. We don’t know what language and meaning he used for the critters.
This is just Freshman level stuff pulled from someone’s fanny. Sorry I can’t stay for the conversation.
The author writes this under the subtitle of Romans 5:12, and yet if one bothers to read merely three chapters further in the very same book of Romans, one finds this:
18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
The founder of the Methodist Church, John Wesley, preached a very well-known sermon in the 18th century, that went on at length on this topic, entitled The General Deliverance.
The author fails on this point, and doesn't do so well on others. He's not arguing science from a Christian point of view, he's arguing Christianity from a scientific point of view, and that tells the tale.
I'll grant that the world appears old. I'll not contradict the Bible, though. Throw out the Genesis account of Creation or even attempt to rationalize it and accomodate current scientific thinking as this author has, and you're left with big problems, theologically, that reverberate all the way through to Revelation, from beginning to end.