Posted on 12/22/2011 6:33:49 AM PST by truthfinder9
Have you ever been to a church that claimed that the earth is young? Have you ever felt pressured into believing in a young earth, even though you felt the scientific evidence was contrary to a young earth? Have you ever thought that in order to be a Christian, you had to deny science, and believe in young earth creation science? You are not alone. Many churches teach that the earth is young, and many require you to profess this belief through their statement of faith, which includes a world that was created in six 24-hour days. No, you are definitely not alone...millions have been driven away from the church, and Christ, because of this very topic.
However, there is no need for this to happen. You can believe in an old earth and be a Christian. The doctrine of salvation has nothing to do with the age of the earth. The Bible does not say, “Believe in a young earth, or be condemned to hell.” You can become a Christian and believe in an old earth.
Want to learn more? This website is here to help you. Let's start with a basic explanation of old earth theology. There are several major positions one can take with regards to belief in an old earth and universe. Using a simplistic view of old earth creationist beliefs, they can basically be split into two groups, those who hold to a Day-Age Interpretation, and those who believe in the Gap Theory
(Excerpt) Read more at answersincreation.org ...
It is really up to you and your faith. I am just giving my take. If I knew, I wouldn’t be human.
It is really up to you and your faith. I am just giving my take. If I knew, I wouldn’t be human.
So, there's no such thing as billions of years? The entire universal expanse of space-time just came into being 6000 years ago, all for the convenience of us, centered here on Earth?
How old is God then? Did God come into being just before 6000 years ago, or has God "always been" so to speak, meaning God has been in existence forever which is WAY more than 6000 years ago. What about before that? Why would God erase all evidence of the history of the universe prior to 6000 years ago, making the concept of "billions of years" in the past "wrong?"
“In the beginning, the Earth was a formless void, and darkness shown on the waters of the deep.”
A void means an absence of anything. Formless means without form. The “Earth” and “waters of the deep” are things. Either the Earth was a void in the beginning in which case there could be no waters of the deep. Or there were waters of the deep in which case the Earth was not a formless void.
Then there is the problem of two different versions of the creation of Earth. In one the oceans come about by a deluge from the sky and the other tells that the oceans sprung from the land.
Then there is the problem of Cain’s wife. Where did she come from.
Then there is the fact that God punishes every man for the actions of Adam and Eve which would fly in the face of justice.
Then there is the fact that the Earth was created before the sun.
I could go on. In order to take the book of Genesis literally you must suspend your consciousness. You must abandon reason. Now I don’t mean to start a fight, but I can’t let the argument that the Earth is only thousands of years old go by without challenging it. If faith means ignoring reality to believe something written over two thousand years ago that flies in the face of reason, then I want no part of faith. Our assumptions about the past are based on reason, not arbitrary whim. They are based on real evidence. I don’t begrudge anyone their right to believe what every they want, and I don’t think that I have all the answers by far, but I don’t think it is arguable that Genesis is not full of contradictions and to accept them as true “somehow” is to abandon my one tool to perceive reality.
Now I don’t mean to run away on you but I really have to get to work. Also I have said all I have to say. I’ll probably get banned for this but that’s o.k.
Our understanding of science needs to catch up to Scripture, not the other way around. The events recorded in Genesis don't defy reason and evidence, but our understanding of science hasn't caught up yet with the record of what happened. We're getting there though, as someone above mentioned. Relativity is dependent upon the point of reference. To us, things may look billions of years old but to the one who created it, it's only a little under 6,000 years old. So which is correct? Are we right, because we can look and say "looks billions of years old" or is God right because He said "I created it a little less than 6,000 years ago"?
Reference THIS SITE for the answer to this, as well as many additional sound arguments against young earth creationism - including a non-scientific, scripture-based-only refutation of the literal interpretation of a "day" as being 24 hours in Genesis Clearly Teaches that the Days Were Not 24 Hours, as measured by our planet's rotation period.
I am saying that Genesis was written so that MAN could have HIS concept of Creation which he did not and does not yet understand. Darkness covered the earth. The earth was hot from volcanic activity and high methane content, much like Venus is NOW. The gases, ash, and vapor created a cloud cover that prevented sunlight as we now see it.
The earth did finally cool and the sun was then able to burn off the outer shield that had surrounded us, but who knows how long THAT took?
Here is a concept for you. Mars IS as we WILL be and Venus WILL be as we ARE now. We are being pushed slowly, slowly away from the sun. So is Venus. So is Mars. Light doesn’t move anything but SOUND does. Listen to the sound of the sun sometime. Without our limited hearing capacity, if we could actually hear the noise all around us, we would go mad.
We can’t hear the sounds our solar system makes, but it moves things. There is a balance which is why I MUST believe that Creation was no mere accident. Imagine this throughout the entire universe.
And then there is Archaea. Which means the entire universe is thriving and teeming with life.
How anyone can say there is no G-d is mind boggling to me, let alone DARE try to set limits for the limitless.
And here is one last question for ya. Where do you suppose the very IDEA of G-d actually came from?
“A void means an absence of anything. Formless means without form”
“Void” Strongs 922: “bohuw” - an undistinguishable ruin.
“Without form” Strongs 8414: “tohuw” - to lie waste, a desolation.
No, you are definitely not alone...millions have been driven away from the church, and Christ, because of this very topic.
No, millions have been driven away from the church because their refusal to submit themselves to the authority of Scripture.
These people are reprobates and have no business corrupting the church with damnable heresy
Church is not where someone goes to find affirmation of their personal feelings and beliefs.
“Then there is the problem of Cain’s wife. Where did she come from.”
His wife would have been a sister. The forbidding of incest only comes much later after sin had had its cumulative effects on humanity.
Given that time is relative there is no reason one necessarily has to choose between young earth/old earth. Both could be true.
"Both could be true": James writes that the double-minded man is unstable in all of his ways (1:8), and Paul writes (Ro 8:6) that to be carnally minded leads to death.
The narrative in Genesis is not "time relative" for it specifically says "evening and morning" in defining the boundaries of each "day". Evening and morning are both events, not relative terms in that the event can take place over the span of "billions of years".
The six day Creation is embedded in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:11) and to say that the Ten Commandments are "relative" shows a profound disregard for the things of God.
So would that make scripture in error as to the age of Adam at his death?
There is no such thing.
How so?
It would probably help if you could get the verses right. Let's start with the very first problem. You stated that “In the beginning, the Earth was a formless void, and darkness shown on the waters of the deep.” but that's not what the verse actually says. It actually states that "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
Now, the difference is that the words we translate as "without form" actually mean formlessness, confusion, unreality or emptiness in Hebrew. Looking again with this understanding, we see that the Earth was without form (formlessness, confusion, unreality or emptiness), and void (emptiness, void or waste); and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep (deep, depths, deep places, abyss, the deep, sea). And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
In other words, the Earth was not yet formed into something but it was there because it was void, or empty. It was covered by water, hence why the Spirit of God could be said to move over the face of the water.
Now, on to your next point. There's not two different accounts of the creation. You need to provide proof of your claim, otherwise it just falls flat.
Next claim: Cain's wife. That's easy, she was his sister. At this time, the Law against incest had not been given due to the fact that the genetic pool had not been polluted enough yet to cause genetic problems.
Next claim: God unfairly judges all men according to one man's sins. Correct in that we're all fallen due to Adam's sin, but incorrect in that we don't have a way of setting that account right (Christ died so that all men could be reconciled back to God in the same manner that all men fell due to the actions of one man, Adam) and furthermore the idea that this is unjust is false in that our views of justice are inconsequential as we are a created being. Justice and righteousness is established by the creator, not the created.
Next Claim: Earth Created before Sun. And? This provides a problem how? We know that there was a light source before this time, we just don't know what it was or where it went once the Sun was created.
You seem to be trapped into thinking that just because we can't comprehend how something was formed, that it must not have been formed according to how it's Creator recorded it. Well, that and you don't have a good grasp of the actual text involved either. All in all, I'd say you've evidenced a marked bias against Genesis being correct without even giving it the benefit of actual study on your part. That's remarkably similar to the same attitude that is evidenced by Global Warming advocates.
The narrative in Genesis is not "time relative" for it specifically says "evening and morning" in defining the boundaries of each "day". Evening and morning are both events, not relative terms in that the event can take place over the span of "billions of years".
The six day Creation is embedded in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:11) and to say that the Ten Commandments are "relative" shows a profound disregard for the things of God.
This is not a case where someone is being double minded. This is literally a case where time, as we see it, is not the same as time as God see's it. God recorded the first day as evening and morning, or one yowm, from His vantage outside of time and being clearly able to see the End from the Beginning, but how long does that evening and morning appear to us now, at this point in time? Scripture states that we view reality as through a dim glass, I suspect that this is one of those instances where what we see appears to be at odds with what God has recorded but it really isn't at odds because our understanding of the situation is limited.
In short, God's view of Time versus our view of Time is relative to who is viewing it.
There are. The title of the second chapter is “An alternative view of creation” or something like that. I don’t have a bible handy but there most certainly are two different creation stories and in both of them events happen differently. In the first the waters come down from the sky and in the other the water springs from the Earth. How is that not different? Am I to believe it happened both ways. Many people are willing to tie themselves into pretzels to believe this story but the one thing they will never do is question the story. They will deny the evidence and denounce man’s mind before they will ever question their beliefs that they take on faith. For me personally I am not willing to do it. Don’t try to tell me that Genesis doesn’t say what it says. Why does the bible not just say how it happened instead of confusing us. Yes the two alternatives are similar but they are most definitely not the same. The standard response is that we are not to question. Well we were made to question. It is in our nature to question. I believe that the Creator made us exactly as we are. He gave us our reasoning minds. I don’t accept the premise that we are evil by nature and I don’t believe the Earth is only 5 thousand years old.
This is obviously going over your head. All that's relative is time. This means that from the perspective of someone who was present at the time, creation literally took 7 days. From the perspective of someone much, much later, under different enviornmental conditions, the event would appear to have taken much, much longer. Both are equally true. That's what the relativity of time means. A GPS satellite travelling at a high velocity experiences time differently than we do here on earth. What takes it X amount of time to do would last twice as long here on earth during the VERY SAME temporal period. That's why time adjustments must be made to make GPS work. Essentially, a minute goes by much more quickly for the satellite than it does for us here on earth. People going different velocities experience a different amount of time going by during the same temporal period.
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but you really need to provide proof of your accusations before most here will listen to what you have to say. Just because you claim something doesn’t make it so and, frankly, when two people who know the Bible as well as CB and I know it don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, that’s a pretty clear indication that you’ve got part of the story wrong. Are you sure you’re not confusing the Genesis account in the Bible with the Epic of Gilgamesh?
There are. The title of the second chapter is “An alternative view of creation” or something like that. I don’t have a bible handy but there most certainly are two different creation stories and in both of them events happen differently. In the first the waters come down from the sky and in the other the water springs from the Earth. How is that not different? Am I to believe it happened both ways. Many people are willing to tie themselves into pretzels to believe this story but the one thing they will never do is question the story. They denounce man’s mind before they will ever question their beliefs that they take on faith. For me personally I am not willing to do it. Don’t try to tell me that Genesis doesn’t say what it says. Why does the bible not just say how it happened instead of confusing us. Yes the two alternatives are similar but they are most definitely not the same. The standard response is that we are not to question. Well we were made to question. It is in our nature to question. I believe that the Creator made us exactly as we are. He gave us our reasoning minds. I don’t accept the premise that we are evil by nature and I don’t believe the Earth is only 5 thousand years old.
I was responding to the notion that science needs to catch up to faith. I don’t have faith but only convictions based on reason. Now I know I have outed myself so let the condemnation and zotting begin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.