Young Earth creationism

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
[SUP]If God didn't make the age of the earth an issue then why do we?


[/SUP]
[SUP]Interesting thought. It begins with "If". Well, it appears to me that the care God took in defining the timing of creation, and recording the subsequent time in the genealogies, makes it look a lot like God DID make the age of the earth an issue.

If the age of the earth is actually billions of years, then God's Word is not reliable on the matter. And if not on that, then on what else is it not reliable? You see, the age of the earth IS an issue.
[/SUP]
 
Do you believe that man walked on the moon?

Yes, of course, you do.

The science that put man there says that the Universe is billions of years old.

This is another logical fallacy called reification, the attribution of speech to an entity which has no capacity to speak. Science says nothing at all. Scientists might speak on the subject. The age of the earth, universe, etc. has nothing directly to do with rocket science, calculus, physics, etc. They are different realms.

The same scientists who worked for NASA may have opinions about the age of the universe, but they have no science on the matter. The problem is that science is the process of making assertions based on available evidence, then testing them repeatedly to see if the assertions are correct, or changing them and re-testing. Scientists cannot test the big bang theory or creation because it is non-repeatable and untestable and therefore outside the realm of "science".

Even when scientists try to delve into the study of origins, they must make untestable assumptions, which puts their study outside science. It is those assumptions which often lead to the conclusion that the earth is old. With the right assumptions, this pseudo-science can come up with any conclusion the 'scientist' desires.
 
I agree, but this isn't a foolish dispute. The age of the earth is linked to evolution. And if you go with theistic evolution then you immediately realize that sin & death were an integral part the big bang theory. How so?

From it's beginning the principle of "the survival of the fittest" was at play and therefore death to the weaker. That would mean God was the author of sin & death. Also any Sabbath rest would be rendered meaningless for nothing was perfect.

So all these heresies attack God. They attack His rest and these make Him the author of sin & death instead of Satan, the deceiver.

The young Earth Theory was put foreward by some Bishop called Usher. He added up the ages of people mentioned in the Bible and came up with a figure based on the calculations. He also claimed to know the day and hour Adam was created.
Problem is that not every Geneology is complete Matthews being one of them. Also if God wanted to tell us how old the earth is he would have made it plain. Evolution has nothing to do with it. It says the Earth was without form and void it could have been that way for millions of years.
 
The young Earth Theory was put foreward by some Bishop called Usher. He added up the ages of people mentioned in the Bible and came up with a figure based on the calculations. He also claimed to know the day and hour Adam was created.
Problem is that not every Geneology is complete Matthews being one of them. Also if God wanted to tell us how old the earth is he would have made it plain. Evolution has nothing to do with it. It says the Earth was without form and void it could have been that way for millions of years.

it could have been that way, but that would make no sense.

Again, It could also mean in its original state, it was that way.
 
This is another logical fallacy called reification, the attribution of speech to an entity which has no capacity to speak. Science says nothing at all. Scientists might speak on the subject. The age of the earth, universe, etc. has nothing directly to do with rocket science, calculus, physics, etc. They are different realms.

The same scientists who worked for NASA may have opinions about the age of the universe, but they have no science on the matter. The problem is that science is the process of making assertions based on available evidence, then testing them repeatedly to see if the assertions are correct, or changing them and re-testing. Scientists cannot test the big bang theory or creation because it is non-repeatable and untestable and therefore outside the realm of "science".

Even when scientists try to delve into the study of origins, they must make untestable assumptions, which puts their study outside science. It is those assumptions which often lead to the conclusion that the earth is old. With the right assumptions, this pseudo-science can come up with any conclusion the 'scientist' desires.

at one time, all of the major scientists of the world thought the world was flat.

We need to take a history lesson and realise, Science does not know everything..

Not to mention, it does not matter, Bowman is in error. Many modern scientists believe in a young earth. People like bowman just do not consider them scientists. You waste your time talking with him..
 
It says the Earth was without form and void it could have been that way for millions of years.

And the 4th commandment seems to contradict that idea.....Just saying.....

I still lean that maybe the earth is very old, as you stated, but that the creation is relatively young. I do not buy into the idea that God created through evolution. That idea is insane to say the least....
 
And the 4th commandment seems to contradict that idea.....Just saying.....

I still lean that maybe the earth is very old, as you stated, but that the creation is relatively young. I do not buy into the idea that God created through evolution. That idea is insane to say the least....

I dont buy into Evolution either but if you have ever wondered where fossils come from, check out the book of Jubilees
and the Sons of God. It isn't in the Bible but it is an ancient Jewish book that provides an answer that ties in with DNA and Cloning.
 
I dont buy into Evolution either but if you have ever wondered where fossils come from, check out the book of Jubilees
and the Sons of God. It isn't in the Bible but it is an ancient Jewish book that provides an answer that ties in with DNA and Cloning.


That's easy, A worldwide, global, catastrophic flood.
 
This is another logical fallacy called reification, the attribution of speech to an entity which has no capacity to speak. Science says nothing at all. Scientists might speak on the subject. The age of the earth, universe, etc. has nothing directly to do with rocket science, calculus, physics, etc. They are different realms.

The same scientists who worked for NASA may have opinions about the age of the universe, but they have no science on the matter. The problem is that science is the process of making assertions based on available evidence, then testing them repeatedly to see if the assertions are correct, or changing them and re-testing. Scientists cannot test the big bang theory or creation because it is non-repeatable and untestable and therefore outside the realm of "science".

Even when scientists try to delve into the study of origins, they must make untestable assumptions, which puts their study outside science. It is those assumptions which often lead to the conclusion that the earth is old. With the right assumptions, this pseudo-science can come up with any conclusion the 'scientist' desires.


What a load of garbage, as spoken like a true YEC.

SR & GR are the most proven principles in all of physics, and they state that the Universe is billions of years old.
 
[SUP]If God didn't make the age of the earth an issue then why do we?





TITUS 3:9-11
9
[/SUP]But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. [SUP]10 [/SUP]Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, [SUP]11 [/SUP]knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.

You're using this passage out of context. He's not talking about such things. He's talking about the Law.
 
Even at the most basic level, we must understand the Garden of Eden and all of creation as originally being perfect. That's kind of the freaking point! Also, the Bible talks about the New Heavens and New Earth being a return to the Edenic state. If that state was a return to a fallen creation, we as Christians, are without hope. God created Adam and Eve and they experienced the same perfect relationship with God as God had as the Trinity (Father, Son, Spirit). Without a perfect creation, the gospel is meaningless. That's how much it matters, Pottersclay.
 
"Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the religious belief that the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of God during a relatively short period, between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago."

What does the Bible teach?

young earth creationism is also a -scientific- belief...

...if you can wrap your brain around the idea that science allows and even thrives on competing models presented on equal footing
 
God made everything that we are measuring by, so age is indecipherable beyond human memory. Why He made things look old to science is the same reason that he will send a delusion when the lawless one is revealed in 2 Thessalonians 2;10-12 10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. God is unchanging so I see no reason that he would not delude unbelievers at any time.
 

at one time, all of the major scientists of the world thought the world was flat.

We need to take a history lesson and realise, Science does not know everything..

Not to mention, it does not matter, Bowman is in error. Many modern scientists believe in a young earth. People like bowman just do not consider them scientists. You waste your time talking with him..

Can you name any of these 'Scientists that thought the earth was flat?. I always thought that this idea was pre scientific. General Science as a discipline is only a few hundred years old Who are these Scientists who believe in a Young Earth and what evidence do they have. Scientists do not know everything. The whole point of Scientific enquiry is to find out by putting forward a theory and then finding evidence to support the theory.
 
I know WHAT a day is, the question was what is a LITERAL day with God. the bible states a day with the Lord is as a 1000 days.

The only reason God tells us this in the Bible is because God is not affected by time.

The Hebrew language is descriptive enough to let us know if God was describing a different time period than a day when He was discussing creation with Moses.

The pictures God is given us since creation is six with a seventh period of rest. The earth is not even six thousand years old because that will be the end of it all before the 1,000 years of peace.

Looking at the Jewish calendar we can more or less calculate where we are because +-200 years "got lost in translation" somewhere along the line
 
Can you name any of these 'Scientists that thought the earth was flat?. I always thought that this idea was pre scientific. General Science as a discipline is only a few hundred years old Who are these Scientists who believe in a Young Earth and what evidence do they have. Scientists do not know everything. The whole point of Scientific enquiry is to find out by putting forward a theory and then finding evidence to support the theory.

So this is how we do things? We say science is only a few hundred years old. so we do not have to listen to anything before?

That does not sound very sincere to me.


Your right though, they do not know everything, The age of the earth is one of those things. No one alive was there, so all we can do is guess.. or make theories based on what we know. the problem is OEC's have to to go off the thought that things today happen the same as they did in the begining or else their science falls apart
 
Well, get your popcorn ready, and be careful of well intended man-made traditions on Genesis.

The KJV phrase "without form, and void" does not mean a formless nothingness in the Hebrew of that Scripture. That's an assumption from men's traditions, something the KJV translators thought also.

"without form" is Hebrew tohuw, which means something gone into desolation, and a ruin. In other words, it's a word used to show something once of value having gone into a worthless condition.

"and void" is Hebrew bohuw, which alternately means 'an undistinguishable ruin' (Strong's 922).

Gen 1:2
2 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.
KJV

Those phrases in bold are the same kind of ideas used to describe the later event of the flood of Noah's day. It's about a world-wide flood upon the existing earth there. That "face of the waters" are the same waters being described in the next 6 through 9 verses in Gen.1.

Follow those Gen.1:6-9 verses about those "waters" of Gen.1:2...

Gen 1:6
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
KJV

What waters? Those "waters" of Gen.1:2. They are overspread upon the whole earth at Gen.1:2. Here, God is dividing those waters upon the earth underneath. That "firmament" means the sky, an atmosphere above the waters. God is forming today's sky above the earth with that.

Gen 1:7
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
KJV




Part of those waters went up above the waters left on the earth and formed today's sky, for that is what clouds are, full of water moisture in a vapor state. The remaining waters He left beneath, upon the earth, those waters still covering all the earth (lot of water being talked about here).

Gen 1:9-10
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas: and God saw that it was good.
KJV





By God moving the waters left upon the earth to one place, the dry land underneath appeared. That is not a creation of the land of the earth. It is God moving the waters left so the earth actually can re-appear.

At Gen.1:1 is when God originally created the heavens (plural) and earth, in a Perfect condition.

At Gen.1:2 the earth is shown in a ruined condition from a flood of waters upon all of it.

The ruined condition of the earth is the event Apostle Peter was really talking about in 2 Pet.3 when he said some are willingly ignorant that "... by The Word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." (2 Peter 3:5-6).

Many have thought Peter was talking about the time of Noah's flood with that. He wasn't. He was talking about a more ancient flood that God brought upon the earth to destroy the time of Satan's original rebellion against Him. The time prior to Noah's flood belongs to this same present earth age we are in today, which is why Noah and his family left the ark to walk upon the same earth condition before the flood of Noah's day. The white dove bringing back an olive branch to the ark reveals this.

But in the time of old between Gen.1:1 and Gen.1:2, God shook this ancient earth along with that flood of old, ending Satan's rebellion. That was the event described at the end of Hebrews 12, where it states 'once more', God will not only shake the earth only, but also heaven (Heb.12:25-27).

Nowhere in God's Word are we told specifically WHEN Satan originally rebelled against Him, and fell to the earth. But the when can... be understood once all of God's Word and the parables He gave about it in the OT are understood. In Jer.4:23-28, this shaking of old that had to have happened before this present world is about the original fall of Satan to the earth.

In Rev.12:3-4, we are shown how Satan (as that "red dragon") drew one third of the stars (angels) into rebellion with him. That did not happen after the days of Adam and Eve. It happened before. And we are shown Satan then had a beast kingdom setup when he did that which had only "seven crowns" compared to the final one in our days of Rev.13, which is to have "ten crowns". That is why that original beast kingdom in Rev.12 is linked with the time of his drawing a third of the angels into rebellion with him.

In the parable of Ezek.28 with God pointing to Satan as the anointed cherub that was in His Garden of Eden, that was about Satan's original rebellion and fall. What location does Gen.2 point to where God's Garden of Eden was? On earth, before He removed it off this earth to Heaven where it is now with Him. Thus Satan's original rebellion involved the ancient earth that God shook and brought a flood of waters upon at Gen.1:2.

God's original Perfect creation of the earth at Gen.1:1 is what Apostle Paul's subject of Romans 8:18-25 is about. Paul says there the creation was made subject to vanity, and in hope as we, to be delivered from the bondage of corruption. That begs the question of just when God put His creation into the state of vanity it's in today. Some will say at Adam's fall, but that is not when He did that. At Satan's overthrow is when God did it, shaking the earth, the hills and mountains being moved, and for this reason the earth mourns per Jer.4:23-28 and the sky above is in blackness (storm clouds, an imperfect weather system of today).

Truly, what Paul said that the sufferings of this present time cannot be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us when the future new heavens and earth is established by God. Per Revelation, that means no more sea, no more death, no more pain, no more hot and cold, God's River established once again on earth that will heal the waters left on the earth, and the tree of life bearing its fruits that will never be quit producing. Those are not conditions upon today's earth that we see, and they are hard to even be understood compared to today's imperfect state of His creation.

This is why tropical fossil remains of tropical animal and plant life have been found at both poles on the earth, the Woolly Mammoth found in the Arctic region frozen solid still with vegetation in its mouth, and undigested in its stomach, showing it was grazing in a green field when it was suddenly buried in water that was instantly frozen. Scientists have tried to come up with theories of earth plates shifting the land masses to account for that, but those ancient fossils are also found in lands closer to the equator.

Even geologists recently have discovered that the Sphinx on the Giza Plateau has signs of water erosion at its base, pointing to that area once having tropical rains, while throughout known history by man that area has been a desert. They have also come up with theories of super-cooling storms that brought ice ages upon the earth to account for the frozen Woolly Mammoths, yet they haven't accounted for all the waters the Mammoth was instantly frozen in.

Something scientists don't let out, is that the fossil record of the earth reveals a time of ancient animal and plant life having ended at one point in the fossil record with a layer of nothing, and then a creation of new life shown in a layer above that. The dinosaurs were part of that lower fossil record.

Imagine then, an original Perfect creation by God, when the creation was not in a bondage state like today, no storms, a literal Paradise upon the whole earth, and God's River healing all the waters upon earth it comes into contact with, and that will be close to how this earth was when Satan was created perfect in his ways before he rebelled against God. In Ezekiel 47 you can read about some of that being re-established here on this ancient earth in the future.
 
Well said DP. We must study bible with the same people.
It is so hard to discuss bible with people that make a basis from one sentence in the bible.

A perfect example is the assumption it is ok to eat pork today. They quote God sent this down on a carpet and told paul to eat it. 90% of christians say yep the bible says its ok. God NEVER said it was ok but a million ppl here will disagree.
 
So this is how we do things? We say science is only a few hundred years old. so we do not have to listen to anything before?

That does not sound very sincere to me.


Your right though, they do not know everything, The age of the earth is one of those things. No one alive was there, so all we can do is guess.. or make theories based on what we know. the problem is OEC's have to to go off the thought that things today happen the same as they did in the begining or else their science falls apart

Some native American tribes believed the earth was supported by a Giant Turtle and then there is the tale of Atlas who supported the world on his back. In the middle ages some believed that if you sail too far you would fall off the edge of the world because 'everyone knew' it was flat. Even on this site there was someone who was convinced it is flat and nothing would convince him otherwise. If you want to listen to this good luck if that is 'how you do things'
 
Some native American tribes believed the earth was supported by a Giant Turtle and then there is the tale of Atlas who supported the world on his back. In the middle ages some believed that if you sail too far you would fall off the edge of the world because 'everyone knew' it was flat. Even on this site there was someone who was convinced it is flat and nothing would convince him otherwise. If you want to listen to this good luck if that is 'how you do things'

well how could the world think these things, if their scientists did not preach them..

You just proved my point for me,, thank you.

who is to say, if the lord tarries for another 1000 years the scientists of today will not look like quacks who did not know what they were talking about. and had things only partially right?