Young Earth/Old Earth

[Sereni-tea]

The word Yom is translated many times as a period of time, not only a 24-hour period.

It can be, but I think the literary context here better fits a literal 24 hour period, especially with the evening and morning refrain. John Lennox (whom I have a great deal of respect for) translated it as 'a day' and then viewed indefinite period of time inbetween the days. This I think had some merit, but again to me this is trying to fit science in the text, something that is not necessary, nor would it have been how the original audience would have read it.

Sorry if I am being confusing. My views don't fit well into a typical OEC view, but it certainly doesn't fit into YEC.

 

[Carbon]

It can be, but I think the literary context here better fits a literal 24 hour period, especially with the evening and morning refrain. John Lennox (whom I have a great deal of respect for) translated it as 'a day' and then viewed indefinite period of time inbetween the days. This I think had some merit, but again to me this is trying to fit science in the text, something that is not necessary, nor would it have been how the original audience would have read it.

Sorry if I am being confusing. My views don't fit well into a typical OEC view, but it certainly doesn't fit into YEC.

No reason to be sorry. I appreciate your understanding. I'm not 100% convinced either way. Info is a good thing.

 

[Carbon]

Also, I would say eating and not eating would cause death. Do you agree?

If you eat a plant, it dies. If you don't eat, you die.

 

[Sparrow]

Hmmm ... I am not sure how that fits into the text. Is this how the orginial audience would have understood it?
In any case I think we are both in agreement that nothing material was created on the first day.

I really don’t know how the original audience would have understood that very first Light because they weren’t there. I do know that today, we understand far more about scripture than any of those who originally received it because it has been so lovingly and miraculously preserved for us over thousands of years. We can actually hold it and read it for ourselves. We can see how prophecies have been fulfilled over time and read stories of faith for our own light-bulb moments of encouragement. We can obtain understanding and wisdom to keep us out of darkness. We know who we were before we walked in the Light, and we know who we are now in Christ. Huge difference. There are so many scriptures that associate God with light and so many that associate Satan and evil with darkness. I believe God has been the Light since Day One and His nemesis was the darkness. Just my thoughts….

 

[Carbon]

I have always found it puzzling why some would say that God created the Earth/Universe to look old.

For example, the Cambrian explosion around 500 million years ago. Which I believe is the first sign of life, if anything this should and probably does give the evolutionists a big headache that they just cannot get around.

@SovereignGrace said: Why can't the earth be created to look older, too?

For what purpose?

Some have said to confuse secular scientists. Really? For what, there already confused.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Why would [God] create something young but make it look old?

The problem is not just that certain things "look old." Personally, I'm not even sure that's something to be concerned about. Maybe it is. I don't know.

The problem is that these things which look old tell a story—about things that never happened, if young-earth creationists are right. Lake varves, ice cores, distant stars and galaxies and so forth, the marks of their age tell stories of events that never happened—which would make God a deceiver or liar. He created lake varves that contain organic material from previous seasons that never happened, he created ice cores that contain ash from volcanic eruptions that never happened, he created stellar evidence of galactic collisions that never happened—and on and on.

God being a deceiver or liar, creating evidence of events that never happened? That is the problem.

I would like to believe [young-earth creationism], as I had for the first 20 years or so as a believer.

My question is, "Why?"

Why would you like to believe young-earth creationism?

I'm not 100% convinced either way.

What is preventing you from embracing an old-earth creationism?

---

The Bible says death came by sin.

Death came through sin to whom? All men, all people, all mankind (Rom 5:12; cf. v. 18).

 

[Carbon]

The problem is not just that certain things "look old." Personally, I'm not even sure that's something to be concerned about. Maybe it is. I don't know.

It is used for an excuse.

The problem is that these things which look old tell a story—about things that never happened, if young-earth creationists are right. Lake varves, ice cores, distant stars and galaxies and so forth, the marks of their age tell stories of events that never happened—which would make God a deceiver or liar. He created lake varves that contain organic material from previous seasons that never happened, he created ice cores that contain ash from volcanic eruptions that never happened, he created stellar evidence of galactic collisions that never happened—and on and on.

God being a deceiver or liar, creating evidence of events that never happened? That is the problem.

I agree with most of what you said here.

My question is, "Why?"

Why would you like to believe young-earth creationism?

Probably because I was brought up believing such.

What is preventing you from embracing an old-earth creationism?

Probably old luggage. Also, my pastor was OEC but now is a YEC, I need to find out why he changed.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I agree with most of what you said here.

Most? I am curious to discover what you didn't agree with—not to argue but to learn.

Probably because I was brought up believing such.

So, it's the comfort of tradition? I totally get that.

Probably old luggage.

What old luggage is preventing you from embracing an old-earth view? Even just one example, if you're willing to publicly share.

Also, my pastor was OEC but now is a YEC, I need to find out why he changed.

I would love to know that, too. I hope you find out.

 

[Carbon]

Most? I am curious to discover what you didn't agree with—not to argue but to learn.

Well like I said, I am not 100% convinced. So, using expressions like this "God a deceiver or liar" Though you're not saying He is, it just picks things up to a whole new level. So, instead of saying, I believe everything you said,......

So, it's the comfort of tradition? I totally get that.

I think so. I know I am not free from these things entirely.

What old luggage is preventing you from embracing an old-earth view? Even just one example, if you're willing to publicly share.

Like I said, i was brought up believing in a YE, Don't the rest go without saying?

I would love to know that, too. I hope you find out.

Yes, eventually I will ask him

 

[Carbon]

So, when I look into this subject, there seems to be an enormous amount of evidence for an old earth. Even dinosaurs existed millions of years ago turning to coal and such. It's like this earth was built to accommodate man. Why does it have to be only 6000 years old? Could it be new? Absolutely. But it sure does not seem so. I just do not see the benefit for Christians that the earth must be young. We have an expanding universe, our scientists can see it, which shows about 14 billion years. I think proving (not that we have to) that the universe is expanding is more important than being 14 billion years. Considering an old earth, it fits right in with the creation story.

Death before the fall of plants and animals is possible and does not go against scripture. God created man and chose from them to be the bride of Christ, Christ came to redeem God's chosen, the Spirit gathers them. Where are animals in this?

If dinosaurs died millions of years ago and because of it, enriched the earth for humans, which if we look seems to fit. Other than having to find ways to rule that out or claim God created the earth to look old? That's not an issue?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Well, like I said, I am not 100% convinced. So, using expressions like "God is a deceiver or liar," although you're not saying he is, just picks things up to a whole new level.

How would you describe it, then, if God created evidence of an event that never happened? I am happy to learn ways of toning down my rhetoric.

I was brought up believing in [young-earth creationism]. Don't the rest go without saying?

The reason why I am curious is that I was once a young-earth creationist, too, and I was pleased to discover that I basically didn't have to give up anything integral to that view when embracing this old-earth creationism. The first chapters of Genesis are interpreted literally, they record historical events, Adam and Eve were real people, they lived 6,000 years ago in an actual garden in Eden, the fall really happened, the days of Genesis 1 were normal days, etc. Pretty much the only things I had to give up were the ideas that (a) Genesis is about the dawn of natural history, and (b) Adam was the first human to exist. Everything else I have retained.

That's why I wanted to know what old luggage was preventing you from embracing an old-earth view, because it's possible you wouldn't have to give it up at all.

 

[Carbon]

How would you describe it, then, if God created evidence of an event that never happened? I am happy to learn ways of toning down my rhetoric.

I'd have to think about that for a while. And still not sure I can come up with anything. You have a valid point.

The reason why I am curious is that I was once a young-earth creationist, too, and I was pleased to discover that I basically didn't have to give up anything integral to that view when embracing this old-earth creationism. The first chapters of Genesis are interpreted literally, they record historical events, Adam and Eve were real people, they lived 6,000 years ago in an actual garden in Eden, the fall really happened, the days of Genesis 1 were normal days, etc. Pretty much the only thing I had to give up was the idea that Adam was the first human to exist. Everything else I have retained.

I believe Adam was the first human God created. There is no evidence to think otherwise.

That's why I wanted to know what old luggage was preventing you from embracing an old-earth view, because it's possible you wouldn't have to give it up at all.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I believe Adam was the first human God created.

That follows only if Genesis 2 is a recapitulation of the sixth day of creation. If it is not, if it is sequential rather than synoptic, then Adam is not the first human God created (Gen 1:26-28).

 

[Carbon]

That follows only if Genesis 2 is a recapitulation of the sixth day of creation. If it is not, if it is sequential rather than synoptic, then Adam is not the first human God created (Gen 1:26-28).

I believe it is.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I believe it is.

Because ...?

 

[Carbon]

Because ...?

Well, I have a long answer and a short one. I'll give the short one for now.

Because it would make sense, it's logical and we have to start somewhere.

I think starting with one person, and then another makes more sense than making, say, 10,000 and using the same scriptures.

 

[Inertia]

I had a thought one day...

I know, I know...

And I asked Inertia about it. I said that since Time Dilation is true, and the Theory is we got the Moon due to a Planetary Collision; perhaps God brought the Moon to Earth in a few days, from across the Universe. Time Dilation would mean one planet was four days old, but the other planet would appear to be 13.8 Billion years old in just four days. The collision would explain why the Earth appears to be Old and Young...

Inertia said the premise had already been thought of, but dismissed. I can see why; but it was nice to find out that Scientists considered it...

Hi @ReverendRV -

Well, there is/was that promise, that is:

"But I, the LORD, make the following promise: I have made a covenant governing the coming of day and night. I have established the fixed laws governing heaven and earth." (Jeremiah 33:25)

About those fixed laws -the phrase 'ultra-fine tuned' came about through studying creation.

Both day and night - simultaneously.

"God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day" and the darkness "night." There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day." (Genesis 1:2)

______
.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Well, I have a long answer and a short one. I'll give the short one for now.

Because it would make sense, it's logical and we have to start somewhere.

I think starting with one person, and then another makes more sense than making, say, 10,000 and using the same scriptures.

It makes sense initially—until you examine the text closely. It starts to fall apart almost immediately.

Anyway, thanks for your answers. I won't hit you with any more questions at this time.

 

[Wordsmith]

Greetings there, bro. Let’s consider the following:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Now since this verse is so important, let's look at it closely. Does it say when God created the heaven and the earth? No, it doesn't. Does it say that the earth is only 6,000 years old? Nope. So, when was the beginning? Let’s check out some more scriptures.

Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; 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: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

In the passage above, God says that He did not create the earth in "vain" and formed it to be inhabited.

The Hebrew word for “vain“ is "tohu" and it means desolation, utter waste. So Isaiah 45:18 is saying that God did not create the earth in a desolated state or as a wasteland. Let’s look at Genesis 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.

It says here that the earth was without form and void, which is the exact same word "tohu" used in Isa. 45:18.
Actually, the phrase is "tohu va bohu“—without form and void, which means totally and utterly desolate and wasted. But not to worry; there is no contradiction. Consider that the word “was” in Genesis 1: 2 was mistranslated and that it should read “became“—became void…. So what happened? In verse 2, something must have happened, and this event could have happened billions or trillions of years ago. Is this the reason we see evidence of it in the geological layers of the earth’s crust, in the fossils pressed between the rock, in the bones of dinosaurs?

According to the notes in the "Dake's Annotated Reference Bible “the Hebrew word “hayah” in the KJV is Trans. (became) 67 times, (becamest or came to pass) 505 times, (become) 66 times, and (come to pass) 131 times, but for some reason in Genesis 1:2 it is translated (was)…Gen. 1:2 And the earth was (became) without form.”

—to be continued?

Thanks for bringing this up I thought I was going to have to be the controversial one again.

 

[Wordsmith]

Point to ponder. Where in the time line of Genesis did satan rebel against God?