Young Earth Creation. Does it matter what you believe?

[atwhatcost]

one day for sure! amen!

one day at the north pole or one day at the equator?

Sorry? There is only no light at the north pole maybe one day a year, if that. (Or no dark for roughly the same amount of time.) The equator gets day and night too. So, umm, isn't it the same 24 hour cycle no matter where you are? Or do you honestly think there was a time when the 24 hour cycle was different depending on where you are on earth? (Whoa! Sounds like a good sci-fi story right there. lol)

one day on earth or one day on the moon?

God could have told the creation story of the moon if he wanted to. Apparently, he didn't.

or one day in the heavens?

Which heavens? lol

one day as God observes it or one day as men do?

Since God really didn't need a record, doncha think the one he produced was for Man? I'm pretty sure porcupines and porpoises really don't care to comprehend "day."

 

[GodIsSalvation]

God could have told the creation story of the moon if he wanted to. Apparently, he didn't.

And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.

 

[dcontroversal]

how do you measure morning and evening before the sun and moon are made and set in place (day four -- Genesis 1:14-19) ?
because that's how we measure them now and come up with 24 human hours.

IMO valiant has a valid point.

No doubt.....I always thought about how God by request of Joshua held the earth/sun in place for almost a day while Joshua cut down the enemy.....you know...God could have caused the rotation of the earth to slow down to the point that one evening and one morning could have been as long as he wanted it to be....when you look at all that Adam did on the 6th day after being created and then Eve was made it seems to indicate a longer period of time....if God had slowed the rotation down it would still be biblical and true to say evening and morning even though they could have been 1000 years (perceived) in length and or time.....just a thought.....not that I stand on this, but with God....all things are possible

 

[Bowman]

I see alot of talk about Dr. Kent Hovind. I have noticed that the people who say he's a fraud say it because of his stand on Creation not because he stood up to the IRS. I am set to defend the gospel. I truly believe that the world is less then 6,000 years old and that is what the Bible clearly teaches, imo. Comments?

This has already been discussed at length in a plethora of other threads.

Yes.

It matters.

Anything that keeps seekers from investigating the truth claims of Christianity definitely matters to Salvation.

The ones that already know that the earth is billions of years old will ridicule any and all Christians who think that the world is a mere few thousand years old.

 

[Tankman131]

it doesn't.

the only thing about any of this that bothers me is that believers today are sometimes pressured to believe in a 6,000 year old universe or told they're not really believers if they don't. so that conversations like this turn into accusations instead of conversations.

which is why i out that link on the other page, about how the dogmatism over this came from a cult, and wasn't reflected in the early church, or among the Jews before Christ, or even after.

do you mind if put my views too, so anyone who also believes like i do doesn't feel like they're "not a Christian" on account of accepting some of the evidence of their own eyes?
'cause i don't think modern cosmology conflicts with the Bible. i think it confirms it in astonishing ways.

Absolutely. Part of why i eventually started leaning OEC was because of how i saw every debate between OEC and YEC going.
OEC would say "i believe... And this goes along with science this way... But in the end it doesn't really matter because i can ask God in heaven."
YEC would say "i know... Science is full of crap... It matters to your salvation and you arent a christian if you arent YEC."

that attitude pushed me towards OEC, because it has an arrogance and anger in it as well as an anti-evangelical bent to it. The belief of an old Earth or young Earth does not affect someone's salvation in the least bit, especially since the arguments are understandable on both sides both biblically (and leaning more towards OEC) scientifically. In the end most YECs ive spoken to make it into a wall that unbelievers have to unnecessarily cross in order to believe in God.

 

[posthuman]

Sorry? There is only no light at the north pole maybe one day a year, if that. (Or no dark for roughly the same amount of time.)

no, at the poles there is dark for about 6 months, and light for about 6 months at a time.
there's actually twilight for months, because the sun is just below the horizon, so not absolute dark, but still, it's quite literally dark at the north pole from early october to early march, so if you measure "night and day" by the sun, on some parts of the earth you get something quite different than a 24-hour period.

do you honestly think there was a time when the 24 hour cycle was different depending on where you are on earth? (Whoa! Sounds like a good sci-fi story right there. lol)

as far as how much light vs. how much dark you get, it's always depended on the season and where you are on earth, as long as the earth's axis has been tilted relative to its orbital plane. here's a handy chart!

​
​

and actually, the moon's been slowing down the earth's rotation since it's been there, measurably. the period from one day to the next gets about 2 milliseconds longer every 100 years because of tidal friction, and other inertial changes on the earth make a rotational period vary from "day" to "day" -- all this has been measured and can be demonstrated -- check out this wiki-page for a semi-technical overview of that phenomenon

ΔT​

so days aren't constant as we think they are, not even in the Bible - remember how the day was lengthened when Joshua asked? so that Israel's enemies could be destroyed? not 24 earth-hours there, not that "day"
and the first time in the Bible we hear God Himself say the word "day" to a human -- He tells Adam & Eve that if they eat of the forbidden fruit, they will die "in the day they eat of it" -- but Adam lived for hundreds of years after he ate. of course God cannot lie, so we immediately start wondering what the right definition of "die" and of "day" is here -- we're not strangers to words having allegorical meanings in the scripture.
i just don't see the need for "yom" to mean a 24-hour cycle in Genesis 1 in the first place, especially if i'm not going to accept it as one in Genesis 2 ! and if i stick to 24-hours in Genesis 2, then i have to change my definition of "die" -- so either way, we're not being as literal as we make ourselves out to be, haha.

 

[JackH]

Another HUGE problem I see with believing the earth is millions of years old aside from the plant thing (a very good point too in my opinion) is you would have to have death before the fall, a clear heresy from my point of view.

I also don't think it should be made a divisive issue by any means

First you call it a heresy if you believe that death occurred before the Fall.

Then you say this shouldn't be a divisive issue.

C'mon man.

If you YECs call other Christians heretics you are going to get a divisive issue.

Here is a Christian who doesn't agree with you and explains why:

Reasons To Believe : Animal Death Before the Fall: What Does the Bible Say?

 

[JackH]

what do you think of the notion that YEC as a popular dogmatic belief came directly from Ellen G. White?

here's about 6 pages of reading explaining the connection:

Adventist Origins of Young Earth Creationism


​

not that the idea completely originated with her, because both literal and allegorical interpretations of the Genesis "days" can be found in church writings going all the way back to 1st century AD. but as a dogma that should separate believers from "imposters" -- that's a relatively new thing that can be traced to Adventism and in particular to Mme White's visions.

That's not a notion.

It's a fact.

Many YECs don't even know that they have Seventh-Day Adventists to thank for much of their science and those YECs who do know it deny it, unconvincingly.

 

[Agricola]

Well, actually it is, since Adam lived to be something like 950 years old. Days are still days. Pregnancy still takes roughly nine months. They had a LOT of kids. lol

The only reason I'm not so sure about how old the earth is is because the NT account of Jesus' genealogy skipped some generations, so why can't the same thing be said of Adam's?

I think that the 950 years are those spent outside of Eden, when they were thrown out they become bound to this earth as humans are today, the concept of age in an environment which lasts for eternity has no meaning. we only age things as we are mortal and die, age will have no meaning and be irrelevant when we all live for eternity.

 

[posthuman]

So, what's the other choice? Millennium of light? And then what? A millennium of dark? If so, when did a day change? 2nd day, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th?

Honestly, a basic concept of writing -- the first time you use a new word define it. He did. So, if he changed the definition, then he changed.

So simple a child can understand it. So sublime it can only be God.

i'm sure there are more than two ways to comprehend it.
here's a second - that before the mean-free-path of an electron was greater than a planck length, there could be no such thing as light. this was evening. then He said "let there be light" and the universe inflated - and there was light. this was the first morning. then He separated the light from the darkness, space where there were photons and space where there was not, and called one Day and the other Night. this happened on the first yom.

on the second yom He cooled and expanded the superpressurized, superenergetic, superheated superfluid substance of the universe some more, which was as "waters" for lack of any better Aramaic word, to the point that it could exist as what we call 'ordinary matter' like atoms, and then further like gas and liquid. He separated these according to their kinds, into "waters above" called the heavens, and "waters below" and set gravity to work, so that there began to be such a thing called "up" and "down" and "above" and "below" -- and photons continued on their paths, and there was light and dark, evening and morning according to His cosmic measure, the second yom.

then he coalesced the planets, making solid things. He called this "Earth" - especially our planet. He put plant life on it and pooled up some of the gasses around it into liquid seas. He set it spinning so the photons hitting it weren't constant - so there was evening and morning. there was the third yom.

then we finally started to feel at home, when He placed us in our place with a sun and a moon, that we've been using together with our relative position to them ever since to measure a wibbly-wobbly thing called "time" -- and we had a thing to call evening on the earth, and a thing to call morning on the earth, and we finally had something proper to call a "day" -- that was the 4th yom.

the simplicity is that you can understand it from your place on your planet in this universe, wherever you find yourself.
the sublime thing is that even as your knowledge increases, it's still true.

JMHO.

 

[Angela53510]

I am a young earth creationist. I think the Bible needs to take precedence over science. That being said, I believe the science better fits a young earth model. Lots of evidence, I just don't want to get into another fight with JackH over his baby!

However, I do not believe that adhering to one of the other paradigms of origins will exclude one from the Kingdom of God. I know God will straighten out those who are wrong when he returns.

The Bible says really nothing about being saved because of what we believe about Genesis, although there are some who will disagree. Salvation is totally about believing in Jesus Christ. And following Jesus.

 

[posthuman]

I am a young earth creationist. I think the Bible needs to take precedence over science. That being said, I believe the science better fits a young earth model. Lots of evidence, I just don't want to get into another fight with JackH over his baby!

i don't want to get in any fights either.
i only started posting in here because the old-earth paradigm doesn't get aired much in Christian circles, and i don't want people to doubt their faith because they doubt a young earth.
i'm not dogmatic about it - i got opinions and musings, that's all, and i have too much respect for the faith of sisters like you, Angela, to let this become something that divides us.

maybe i should stop; it's probably just stirring up a pot that would be better off being left to itself!

 

[posthuman]

i have too much respect for the faith of sisters like you, Angela, to let this become something that divides us.

maybe i should stop; it's probably just stirring up a pot that would be better off being left to itself!

not just Angela of course! atwhatcost & Jimbone and all y'all.

just wanted to say and show how an allegorical understanding can still be faithful to the text, and how it doesn't have to conflict with observational science. the only reason i do science is because i believe God has made the universe; otherwise, it should be chaos, and science would not be possible. but being His creation, i want to put my fingers in the grooves of His fingerprints ♥

ima stop pushing this before i offend you, unless you want me to answer some question. good "night" for now - it's getting dark here.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

I have noticed that the people who say he's a fraud say it because of his stand on Creation not because he stood up to the IRS.

i consider hovind to be a fraud...and not because of his stand on often shaky arguments that smart biblical creationists avoid...

hovind is a fraud because he is a convicted and unrepentant tax criminal...his doctorate comes from an unaccredited mail order diploma mill...and he teaches false doctrine such as setting the date for christ's return as during the feast of tabernacles in 2028...

and for the record...hovind did not 'stand up to the IRS'...hovind carried out his financial transactions in a way that served no conceivable practical purpose other than to deceive the IRS and mislead them about how much taxable money was flowing through his organization...

 

[Bowman]

how do you measure morning and evening before the sun and moon are made and set in place (day four -- Genesis 1:14-19) ?
because that's how we measure them now and come up with 24 human hours.

IMO valiant has a valid point.

The Hebrew never states that the sun and moon were made on 'Day Four'.

As we both know, that would be quite impossible to have our sun created after the earth.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

The Hebrew never states that the sun and moon were made on 'Day Four'.

As we both know, that would be quite impossible to have our sun created after the earth.

Nay, nothing is impossible for God.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Although i dont care to argue and convince others one way or the other on this, my own reading has brought me to a progressive creationist view for the most part. il post some websites because in the websites ive read, there is a lot of strawmaning of the old earth view as well as sadly quite a bit of character attacks.

Old Earth Creation Science, Progressive Creationism
Progressive Creation: An Overview
Creation Science Rebuttals, Technical Journal, Biblical Genealogies

here are my criticisms of the various old earth creationist theories...copied and pasted from a post i made in another thread...

and before i am accused of 'straw manning'...i want to point out that there are variations within each of the old earth creationist schools...so i am not misrepresenting anyone's view...my criticisms are of real and widely held variants of old earth paradigms...but i have not attempted to critique every possible variant...

as the years have gone by old earth creationism has become a more and more untenable approach to both science and scripture...

a perfect example of this is the 'day age interpretation'...at one time the sparseness of geological data did make it possible for a scientifically informed christian to claim that all that was necessary to accommodate genesis 1 to the prevailing geological opinions on the age of the earth was to 'stretch out' the chronology... this was the approach taken for example by jamieson and faussett and brown in their bible commentary...which -at that time- was a well reasoned and plausible model...

of course the geological and paleontological discoveries of the intervening years have effectively demolished the plausibility of this day age interpretation...because it has become clear that genesis 1 and the geologic record do not present the same -sequence- of events...so it is not sufficient just to stretch out the days of genesis 1 into long ages...

this is not an isolated case...it is the story of old earth creationist models in general...since most old earth creationist models attach themselves in varying degrees and with near dogmatic insistence to whatever the prevailing secular origins models may be on an -as is- basis...they suffer greatly when new facts produce a change in those prevailing secular views...

nor is this a thing of the past...as recently as the last decade hugh ross of reasons to believe hitched his creation model to a certain viewpoint on the humanness of neanderthals...which he viewed as soulless animals possessing only humanoid form and abilities... unfortunately for ross his ideas about neanderthals have been refuted in leaps and bounds by new data...it is now known that neanderthals possessed the 'symbolic capability' that ross denied them...and ross and his cohorts appear to be some of the few 'scientists' left who deny that neanderthals interbred with modern type humans...even the young earth creationists have accepted that new discovery with eagerness because it was a testable prediction of -their- creation model...but ross' model simply cannot accommodate this new data because he has tied the theological aspect of his model to a prior state of a shifting field of science...

old earth creationists certainly -have- invented new mythologies that contradict both the scripture and the secular science they are supposed to reconcile... a perfect example is the 'gap theory'...which claims that there was a time gap between genesis 1:1 and genesis 1:2 in which a 'pre adamic world' ruled by lucifer existed and then 'became' formless and desolate when satan fell... of course it is a major stretch to obtain this from scripture and it requires a great deal of dubious exegesis of passages from which 'gap' interpretations do not readily follow...so it is absolutely fair to call this a 'new mythology'... similarly no current scientific view of the earth includes anything like the -100% extinction event- that is required by the gap theory...so it is absolutely fair to argue that this new mythology also contradicts the very science it was supposed to reconcile with scripture...

a more nuanced instance of old earth creationism as 'new mythology' is found in some models of progressive creationism... for example at some point in hugh ross' slick presentation of his progressive creation model you might simply step back and ask yourself...'is any of this actually derived from scripture?'...and the answer will be an obvious 'no!'... no credible hermeneutic could derive from genesis 1 anything like ross' scenario of continual extinctions of species and then new divine creations of similar but slightly more -ahem- 'evolved' species to replace them...right up to ross' already discredited neanderthal 'pre humans' who were supposedly replaced with modern humans made in the image of God...the text simply doesn't even -hint- at -any- of that... and so it quickly becomes clear that ross' model is -not- a real attempt at exegeting the genesis 1 text...but actually an attempt at 'exegesis' of the geologic record in his '67th book of the bible' in order to create a kind of 'God of the artificial gaps' scenario that is basically the orthodox evolutionist timescale only without the evolution...

 

[Tintin]

what do you think of the notion that YEC as a popular dogmatic belief came directly from Ellen G. White?

here's about 6 pages of reading explaining the connection:

Adventist Origins of Young Earth Creationism


​

not that the idea completely originated with her, because both literal and allegorical interpretations of the Genesis "days" can be found in church writings going all the way back to 1st century AD. but as a dogma that should separate believers from "imposters" -- that's a relatively new thing that can be traced to Adventism and in particular to Mme White's visions.

She misappropriated it to drive her cause, but she didn't begin the modern biblical creation movement at all. It didn't have anything to do with the SDA.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

I am curious though what it is that has convinced yec believers.

if you guys could post a website or two?

well the big thing that even before i became a christian caused me to recognize that the old earth timescale has -serious- problems...in two words...

'polystrate fossils'

 

[Joshua_Generation]

At the end of the day it does not matter and or affect my eternal salvation in Christ.....there are some things in scripture that are alluded to.....but not necessarily needing to be understood........and at the end of the day they do not affect ones walk one way or the other......IMV

DC, I am not directing this towards you, just so you know. It would seem you have a strong opinion on everything, but not this?

What you do believe about creation does affect your eternal salvation in Christ.

I believe many Christians who support the GAP Theory and Theistic Evolution are taking the broad road and if they believe these things are not really saved.

The modern day false prophets wear lab coats.