God used Evolution to 'create' man

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

All I know is thdt his comments came from the KJ.

I seriously doubt Geisler depended on the KJV to arrive at his conclusions. That would be incredibly shoddy work for someone capable of reading the ancient Biblical languages.

I found an essay by Dr. Geisler that would be interesting reading. Of course this is his opinion and not the only possible viewpoint, but I want to emphasize that there are trusted, conservative Biblical scholars that conclude that the Bible does not necessarily teach a young earth.

Here is the link - http://normangeisler.com/does-believing-in-inerrancy-require-one-to-believe-in-young-earth-creationism/

DOES BELIEVING IN INERRANCY REQUIRE ONE TO BELIEVE IN YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM?

---

DOES BELIEVING IN INERRANCY REQUIRE ONE TO BELIEVE IN YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM?

by Norman L. Geisler

 

The age of the earth is a hotly debated issue among evangelicals.  Old Earthers believe, like most scientists, that the universe is billions of years old. Young Earthers, measure the age of the universe in terms of thousands of years. The debate is not new, but the insistence by some Young Earthers that belief in the inerrancy of the Bible demands a Young Earth position is relatively new.

                                         The Biblical Status of the Young Earth View

            In order to establish the Young Earth view one must demonstrated that there are (1) no time gaps in the biblical record and that (2) the “days” of Genesis are six successive 24 hour days of creation.

 

Possible Gaps in Genesis

 

Unfortunately for Young Earthers, these two premises are difficult to establish for many reasons.  (1) There could have been a gap of long periods of time before Genesis 1:1 (called Recent Creationism).  (2) There could be a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 (called the Gap Theory with or without and intervening fall of Satan, as C. I. Scofield had it). (3) There could be long gaps between the six literal 24-hour days (Alternating Day-Age Theory).  The point here is not to defend any one of these views, but it is to note that belief in an Old Earth is not incompatible in principle with belief in inerrancy and a literal interpretation of Genesis. (4) There are known gaps after Genesis. For example, Mathew 1:8 affirms that “Joram begat Uzziah.”  But in 1 Chronicles 3:11-14 it mentions three missing generations between Joram and Uzziah.  Likewise, Luke 3:35-36 lists one missing generation (Cainan) not mentioned in Genesis 11:20-24.

 

So, with demonstrable gaps in the genealogies, the “Closed-Chronology” view needed to support the strict Young Earth view is not there. This would mean that a Young Earth view of creation around 4000 B.C. would not be feasible.  And once more gaps are admitted, then when does it cease to be a Young Earth views?

 

 

Evidence that the “Days” of Genesis May Involve more than Six 24 hour days of Creation

 

Not only is it possible that there are time gaps in Genesis 1, but there is also evidence that the “days” of Genesis are not 6 successive 24 hour days, called the Day-Age View (see Hugh Ross, Creation and Time and Don Stoner,A New Look at an Old Earth).  Consider the following:

(1) First, the word “day” (Hb. yom) is not limited to a 24 hour day in the creation record.  For instance, it is used of 12 hours of light or daytime (in Gen.1:4-5a).

(2) It is also used of a whole 24 hour day in Genesis 1:5b where it speaks day and night together as a “day.”

(3) Further, in Genesis 2:4 the word “day” is used of all six days of creation when it affirms: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day [yom] that the LORD God made them” (Gen. 2:4).

(4) What is more, on the “seventh day” God “rested” from His work of creation.  But according to Hebrews 4:4-11, God is still resting and we can enter into His Sabbath rest (v. 10).  So, the seventh day of creation rest is still going on some 6000 plus years later (even by a Young Earth chronology).

(5)  Further, there are biblical alternatives to the strongest argument for a 24 hour day.  (a) For example, numbered series with the word “day” (as in Genesis 1) do not always refer to 24 hour days, as Hosea 6:1-2 shows.  (b) Also, “evening and morning” sometimes refers to longer periods of time rather than 24 hours, as they do in the prophetic days of Daniel 8:14.  (c) And the comparison with the work week in Exodus 20:11 need not be a minute-for-minute but a unit-for-unit comparison.  Further, the seventh day is known to be longer than 24 hours (Heb. 4:4-11).  So, why cannot the other days be longer too?  (d) As for death before Adam, the Bible does not say that death of all life was a result of Adam’s sin.  It only asserts that “death passed upon all men” because of Adam’s sin (Rom. 5:12, emphasis added), not on all plants and animals, though the whole creation was subject to “bondage to corruption” (Rom. 8:21).

(6)  Others like Hermon Ridderbos (Is There a Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science?) took the “days” of Genesis as a Literary Framework for the great creative events of the past.  Still others (Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture) considered the “days” of Genesis to be six 24 hour days of revelation (wherein God revealed what he had done in the ancient past to the writer of Genesis) but not literal days of creation.Again, the point here is not to defend these views but to point out that there are alternatives to a Young Earth View, most of which are not incompatible in principle with a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture.

(7) The Relative Time View claims the Earth is both young and old, depending on how it is measured.  Gerard Schroeder, a Jewish physicists (inGenesis and the Big Bang), argued that measured by God’s time when He created the universe it was only six literal days of creation.  But measured by our time, the creation of the universe is billions of years old.

(8) The Apparent Age View proposes that the universe just looks old, even though it is young.  The book by Philip Henry Gosse was titled Omphalos(1857), meaning navel, proposing that Adam had a navel, even though he was created as an adult.   Likewise, on this view the first tree would have had rings in them the day they were created.

If there is evidence for Gaps in Genesis and longer period of time involved in the six day of Genesis, then the Young Earth view fails to convincingly support its two pillars.  At a minimum it leaves room for reasonable doubt.  In view of this, one can ask why is it that many still cling to the Young Earth view with such tenacity.

 

 

A Theological Assumption

 

For some the belief in a Young Earth seems to be based on a kind of intuition or faith in God’s omnipotence.  It reasons that if God is all powerful, then certainly He would not have taken millions of years to make the earth.  However, by reduction ad absurdum, one could ask why God did not create it in six minutes or six second rather than six days? If He is all-powerful and can make something from nothing, then why did He not create the whole thing lock-stock-and barrel instantaneously!

The Evolutionary Fear

Many Young Earthers seemed to be afraid to grant long periods of time for fear that it may help support an evolutionary conclusion.  However, this is unnecessary for two reasons.  First, time as such does not help evolution.  Dropping red, white, and blue confetti from an airplane a thousand feet above the ground will not produce an American flag in one’s yard.  And going up to ten thousand feet (and giving it more time to fall) will not help.  Time as such does not organize things into complex designs; it further randomizes the material.  It takes an intelligent cause to form it into an American flag.  Further, separating God’s supernatural acts of revelation to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and the prophets by many hundreds of years does not make them less supernatural.  It just makes his revelation progressive over a period of time.  The same could be true of God’s acts of creation, if they were separated by long periods of time.

Second, there are plenty of other problems with macro-evolution for it does not explain (without an intervening intelligent cause) how (a) something can come from nothing; b) how non life cannot come from life; c) how non-consciousness can produce consciousness, and d) how non-rational beings can produce rational beings.  Longer periods of time as such do not overcome any of these problems; it takes intelligent intervention to do it.

As we have seen, both premise of the Young Earth View are open to serous objections.  There is no air-tight case for a Young Earth from a biblical point of view.  So, while it may be compatible with inerrancy, nonetheless, inerrancy does not necessitate a belief in a Young Earth.

 

The Historical Status of the Young Earth Theory

 

            Historically, the Young Earth View has never garnered an important, let alone a crucial role in the history of the Church.  It was known to the early Church Fathers (see St. Augustine, City of God 11.6), but it was never made an essential doctrine, let alone given a special status.

First of all, Young Earth creationism was never given a creedal status in the early Church.  It does not appear in any early creeds or in any other widely accepted creed in the history of Christendom.

 

Second, it was not granted an important doctrinal status by the historic Fundamentalist (c. 1900).  That is, it was not accepted or embraced by the Old Princetonians B. B.Warfield, Charles Hodge, or J. Gresham Machen.

 

Third, Young Earth creationism is notably absent in the famous four volume series (1910-1915) The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truthedited by R. A. Torrey and C. C. Dixon.  In fact, not a single article in this landmark set defends the Young Earth Creationism view.  Indeed, all the articles on science and Scripture were written by scholars favorable to an Old Earth view.

 

            Fourth, the founders and framers of the contemporary inerrancy movement (ICBI) of the 1970 and 80s explicitly rejected the Young Earth view as being essential to belief in inerrancy.  They discussed it and voted against making it a part of what they believed inerrancy entailed, even though they believed in the “literal” historical-grammatical view of interpreting the Bible, a literal Adam, and the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis. Given this history of the Young Earth view, one is surprised at the zeal by which some Young Earthers are making their position a virtual test for evangelical orthodoxy

 

If the Young Earth view is true, then so be it.  Let the biblical and scientific evidence be mustered to demonstrate it.  Meanwhile, to make it a tacit test for orthodoxy will serve to undermine the faith of many who so closely tie it to orthodoxy that they will have to throw out the baby with the bathwater, should they ever become convinced the earth is Old.  One should never tie his faith to how old the earth is.

 

Even if the Young Earth view were true, it would not thereby earn it a position in the Christian Creed or the equivalent.  That is another matter altogether reserved for truth that are essential to the Gospel (see Geisler and Rhodes, Conviction without Compromise).  There are many minor Christian doctrines that have not earned creedal status along with The Apostles’ Creedwhich declares of creation only that “I believe in God, the Father Almighty,the Creator of heaven and earth” (emphasis added) and nothing about how long ago it happened.

 

Some Concluding Comments

 

After seriously pondering these questions for over a half century, my conclusions are: (1) The Young Earth view is not one of the Fundamentals of the Faith. (2) It is not a test for orthodoxy.  (3)  It is not a condition of salvation.  (4)  It is not a test of Christian fellowship. (5) It is not an issue over which the body of Christ should divide. (6) It is not a hill on which we should die. (7) The fact of creation is more important than the time of creation. (8) There are more important doctrines on which we should focus (like the inerrancy of the Bible, the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and the death and resurrection of Christ, and His literal Second Coming.  As Repertus Meldenius (d. 1651) put it: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty, and in all things charity.” And by all counts, the age of the earth is not one of the essentials of the Christian Faith.

[Behold]

23 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Christianforums.net seems to have mostly sincere Christians.   And even where people differ, there's not some of the bitter accusations you see elsewhere.  It's an enjoyable,and Christ-centered forum, as with a few exceptions, this one is.  Sorry you left.

It's an interesting story.  I was posting on a science forum, and I happened to mention I was a Christian.   One atheist was offended and told me that I didn't understand how "barbaric" Christianity is.   I said. "Well, call me the barbarian, then."    He was offended again, but most people there thought it was funny, and the name stuck.

I've looked around, and I can't find an actual Hebrew scholar who says that a number along with "yom" automatically makes it period of time.   Can you?

Arabic-speaking Christians will.   That's  the term used to name the God of Abraham in Arabic.   It just means "God" as "God" does in English.   The proper name is "Yahwe."   

It's just the way it is.   If you don't use words as others use them, you'll always be miscommunicating.

 

I thought it was you.

You're so obvious.

Did they ban you and JLB  from that  forum, and that is why you and a few others are here now to abuse real believers, if they put up with you?

I watched you for years there attacking  Legit Christians with your smug sarcastic tone and endless politically corrected misinformation.   

I noted that you still have that "tone".

And  had this forum a more politically driven conception, you would have liked it a lot more, especially when it came time for a New Presidential election, as then you could annoy and abuse anything and everything that is related to "republican" or "conservative"...... which you are neither, unless you have changed your party and your entire political (affiliation)  point of view.

Have you?   I kinda doubt it would be possible.....actually.

That  other site you mentions, that you say is mostly sincere christians,  is known online and reviewed heavily,  as being the hotbed of deceivers.  It is created by a group, a family, and they invest all their time on it, attacking anyone who understands Grace or preaches it.

One of the owners, or she is married to them, use to be a Mod there.  'REBA".   She has numerous alts and pretends to be other people.  She came here a few months ago as an alt, and i pm'd her and shined a little light.  Hadn't seen her since.....

That entire group of "owners", who want you to give them support money, are the most devout pack of legalists that i have ever found on a forum, and ive been on forums for many years, all over the world.

I'd rate you the same, and soon i'll find you on a Thread here that is talking about Allah, or "OSAS", and we will have a firm discourse.  Believe it.

And you just again tried to teach that "allah" is not strictly the god of Mohammed's tribe that they chose from 300 others, as their "one",...,,  by saying its just a "name".. a title, ..... but thats a deceit , that you taught on the forum you were describing as genuine christianity.  And that is also a deceit.

It is also a deeply offense to God and Christ for you to be equating  a  Christ rejecting religion as "same" as Christianity, but that won't slow you down.

The title is not the same.  The belief system is not the same.   The GOD is not the same.  Christ's Heaven and Mohammed's 63 virgin paradise is not the same.....  And the end result of believing one or the other is NOT the same subsequent to death.

 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Behold

[one.opinion]

18 minutes ago, Prodigal Son said:

It (science) rejects the supernatural. Thats something that if we don't agree on will get us no where.

Yes, science does (and should) limit itself to observable, physical, measurable phenomena. It should also leave room for realities beyond its own limitations.

21 minutes ago, Prodigal Son said:

Also if your claiming ToE to be unequivocal fact then we'll get nowhere either. 

No, there is certainly extrapolation of observed facts to unobservable explanations. I happen to think the evidence supports ToE, but I am perfectly comfortable saying "I accept evolution as a tool of God's creation" rather than "God created through evolution. Period."

[Behold]

On 8/22/2019 at 6:06 PM, A Christian 1985 said:

What can we deduce logically with regards to how life in general, and man in particular have gotten here?

2. The Hebrew word translated 'breath' may equally be (and is in some other verses) translated as spirit.

 What I am leading up to is this: man the physical creature evolved,

The evolution of intelligence was a consequence of the process of natural selection it is not possible to clone a man from a woman. God cloned Eve from Adam so that the required trait would be retained by Adam's offspring.                               

Honestly, the Mod's here should have a "tab" that they can select that allows for an instant deletion of any "Christian Troll" who cuts and pastes atheistic nonsense on 20 forums in the same hour, just because they think its funny.

But instead, ............ here they are.

I have to admit i love this nonsense he-she-them ??  wrote about "cloning Eve".   Thats pretty funny stuff...... as if God Cloned Eve from Adam, as apparently this  Threader believes....., SO... then why would Eve have a Womb ? or where is Adam's?  And how do we know that Eve had a womb, and Adam didnt?   Because they CREATED BABIES.....

So, Is this Threader rewriting Genesis as : The evolution of the womb at the instant of a "clone"?

Really its just hilarious., and if you want to keep posting, then enjoy yourselves, as a good laugh is medicine for the heart.

Someone should tell them tho, that neither Adam nor Even had a belly button.

Is this the mark of a "clone'?

Have you checked to see if you still have yours?

 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Behold

[one.opinion]

4 minutes ago, Prodigal Son said:

However I don't reject your position and hope you don't reject mine.

Thank you, I don't reject your position at all. I have family members that I love and respect deeply that have concluded that we should "agree to disagree". My main focus in these types of conversations is to convey that it is possible to accept both the inerrancy of the Bible and the scientific evidence supporting evolution that God has made available.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Behold said:

Did they ban you and JLB  from that  forum, and that is why you and a few others are here now to abuse real believers, if they put up with you?

I still post there.   But they did remove a few people who couldn't keep their anger in check.   A while back, the management decided that more civility was called for, and the people who didn't like that, apparently left or were asked to leave.    If you can, you might want to go back and take a look.

1 hour ago, Behold said:

I watched you for years there attacking  Legit Christians with your smug sarcastic tone and endless politically corrected misinformation.   

I guess you probably wouldn't like it, if you're still into dividing "legit Christians" from the rest.

1 hour ago, Behold said:

And you just again tried to teach that "allah" is not strictly the god of Mohammed's tribe that they chose from 300 others, as their "one",...,,  by saying its just a "name".. a title, ..... but thats a deceit , that you taught on the forum you were describing as genuine christianity.  And that is also a deceit.

"Allah" is the name Arabic-speaking Christians use for God.  That's just the way it is.  

The word Allah has been used by Arabic people of different religions since pre-Islamic times.^[8] More specifically, it has been used as a term for God by Muslims (both Arab and non-Arab) and Arab Christians.^[9] It is also often, albeit not exclusively, used in this way by Bábists, Bahá'ís, Mandaeans, Indonesian and Maltese Christians, and Mizrahi Jews.^{[10][11][12][13]} Similar usage by Christians and Sikhs in West Malaysia has recently led to political and legal controversies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah

Jews, Muslims, Samaritans, Christians, and  a few other religions follow what they identify as the God Who spoke to Abraham.   From a Christian point of view, they don't get it completely right, but as Paul said about the Ephesians:

Acts 17:23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: ^p‘To the unknown god.’ ^pWhat therefore you worship ^qas unknown, this I proclaim to you.

My thought is that we should never deny anything that's true and holy in other denominations.   

1 hour ago, Behold said:

It is also a deeply offense to God and Christ for you to be equating  a  Christ rejecting religion as "same" as Christianity, but that won't slow you down.

I know that you don't intend to be dishonest here, but if you stopped and thought about it, no one, much less me, said that Judaism or Islam are the "same" as Christianity.    It was always your temper that got you in trouble, but I don't think you have any malicious intent.

At any rate, let's not trouble the good people here, with any lingering resentments you or I may have had elsewhere.    I forgave you a long time ago, for anything you might have done, and if I've hurt you in any way, I do ask your pardon.   Let's leave it at that.

And those "what's your political orientation" tests on the net pretty much still rate me as "left libertarian" or the like usually more libertarian than left.

 

 

Edited December 12, 2019 by The Barbarian

[omega2xx]

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I seriously doubt Geisler depended on the KJV to arrive at his conclusions. That would be incredibly shoddy work for someone capable of reading the ancient Biblical languages.

To know for sure all you need to do is compare what he said against what eh KJ says.

I found an essay by Dr. Geisler that would be interesting reading. Of course this is his opinion and not the only possible viewpoint, but I want to emphasize that there are trusted, conservative Biblical scholars that conclude that the Bible does not necessarily teach a young earth.

Here is the link - http://normangeisler.com/does-believing-in-inerrancy-require-one-to-believe-in-young-earth-creationism/

That depends on who is right. 

Possible Gaps in Genesis

The "Gap theory" is not supported by Scripture

First of all they had o change a word in the original text to try and shoe horn it in.  In Gen 1:2 they changed "was" to "became."  That alone should eliminate the theory."About that time evolution was becoming popular and some theologians were afraid science would make the Bible not inerrant.  So they changed he word, which Scripture says we are not allowed to do.

(1) First, the word “day” (Hb. yom) is not limited to a 24 hour day in the creation record.  For instance, it is used of 12 hours of light or daytime (in Gen.1:4-5a).

Basically we consider a day divided into 2 parts, day and night.  At the right equinox there is 12 hours of day and 12 of night.  That argument makes no sense.

(3) Further, in Genesis 2:4 the word “day” is used of all six days of creation when it affirms: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day [yom] that the LORD God made them” (Gen. 2:4).

That is from the KJ.  Then NASB has "account" instead of"generations."

4) What is more, on the “seventh day” God “rested” from His work of creation.  But according to Hebrews 4:4-11, God is still resting and we can enter into His Sabbath rest (v. 10).  So, the seventh day of creation rest is still going on some 6000 plus years later (even by a Young Earth chronology).

That passage does not say God is still resting and in Jn 5:17 Jesus says God is working until now.

(5)  Further, there are biblical alternatives to the strongest argument for a 24 hour day.  (a) For example, numbered series with the word “day” (as in Genesis 1) do not always refer to 24 hour days, as Hosea 6:1-2 shows.

That passage has "after 2 days"  and "in the third day."  That sounds like 24 hour days to me.

(b) Also, “evening and morning” sometimes refers to longer periods of time rather than 24 hours, as they do in the prophetic days of Daniel 8:14.

That verse says, "and He said unto me.  Unto 2300 days, then the sanctuary shall be cleansed.  That is from the KJ and it certainly does not indicate the days will be longer than 24 hours.

The NASB has "...for 2300 evenings and mornings ; then the sanctuary will be cleansed. An evening and a morning is 1 day.

I was going to comment on all what he said, but it taking too much time., and nothing he said is convincing.

His main problem is using a faulty translation to determine what is right.

Love, peace, joy

 

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

---

 

 

The age of the earth is a hotly debated issue among evangelicals.  Old Earthers believe, like most scientists, that the universe is billions of years old. Young Earthers, measure the age of the universe in terms of thousands of years. The debate is not new, but the insistence by some Young Earthers that belief in the inerrancy of the Bible demands a Young Earth position is relatively new.

                                         The Biblical Status of the Young Earth View

            In order to establish the Young Earth view one must demonstrated that there are (1) no time gaps in the biblical record and that (2) the “days” of Genesis are six successive 24 hour days of creation.

 

Possible Gaps in Genesis

 

Unfortunately for Young Earthers, these two premises are difficult to establish for many reasons.  (1) There could have been a gap of long periods of time before Genesis 1:1 (called Recent Creationism).  (2) There could be a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 (called the Gap Theory with or without and intervening fall of Satan, as C. I. Scofield had it). (3) There could be long gaps between the six literal 24-hour days (Alternating Day-Age Theory).  The point here is not to defend any one of these views, but it is to note that belief in an Old Earth is not incompatible in principle with belief in inerrancy and a literal interpretation of Genesis. (4) There are known gaps after Genesis. For example, Mathew 1:8 affirms that “Joram begat Uzziah.”  But in 1 Chronicles 3:11-14 it mentions three missing generations between Joram and Uzziah.  Likewise, Luke 3:35-36 lists one missing generation (Cainan) not mentioned in Genesis 11:20-24.

 

So, with demonstrable gaps in the genealogies, the “Closed-Chronology” view needed to support the strict Young Earth view is not there. This would mean that a Young Earth view of creation around 4000 B.C. would not be feasible.  And once more gaps are admitted, then when does it cease to be a Young Earth views?

 

 

Evidence that the “Days” of Genesis May Involve more than Six 24 hour days of Creation

 

Not only is it possible that there are time gaps in Genesis 1, but there is also evidence that the “days” of Genesis are not 6 successive 24 hour days, called the Day-Age View (see Hugh Ross, Creation and Time and Don Stoner,A New Look at an Old Earth).  Consider the following:

(1) First, the word “day” (Hb. yom) is not limited to a 24 hour day in the creation record.  For instance, it is used of 12 hours of light or daytime (in Gen.1:4-5a).

(2) It is also used of a whole 24 hour day in Genesis 1:5b where it speaks day and night together as a “day.”

(3) Further, in Genesis 2:4 the word “day” is used of all six days of creation when it affirms: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day [yom] that the LORD God made them” (Gen. 2:4).

(4) What is more, on the “seventh day” God “rested” from His work of creation.  But according to Hebrews 4:4-11, God is still resting and we can enter into His Sabbath rest (v. 10).  So, the seventh day of creation rest is still going on some 6000 plus years later (even by a Young Earth chronology).

(5)  Further, there are biblical alternatives to the strongest argument for a 24 hour day.  (a) For example, numbered series with the word “day” (as in Genesis 1) do not always refer to 24 hour days, as Hosea 6:1-2 shows.  (b) Also, “evening and morning” sometimes refers to longer periods of time rather than 24 hours, as they do in the prophetic days of Daniel 8:14.  (c) And the comparison with the work week in Exodus 20:11 need not be a minute-for-minute but a unit-for-unit comparison.  Further, the seventh day is known to be longer than 24 hours (Heb. 4:4-11).  So, why cannot the other days be longer too?  (d) As for death before Adam, the Bible does not say that death of all life was a result of Adam’s sin.  It only asserts that “death passed upon all men” because of Adam’s sin (Rom. 5:12, emphasis added), not on all plants and animals, though the whole creation was subject to “bondage to corruption” (Rom. 8:21).

(6)  Others like Hermon Ridderbos (Is There a Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science?) took the “days” of Genesis as a Literary Framework for the great creative events of the past.  Still others (Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture) considered the “days” of Genesis to be six 24 hour days of revelation (wherein God revealed what he had done in the ancient past to the writer of Genesis) but not literal days of creation.Again, the point here is not to defend these views but to point out that there are alternatives to a Young Earth View, most of which are not incompatible in principle with a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture.

(7) The Relative Time View claims the Earth is both young and old, depending on how it is measured.  Gerard Schroeder, a Jewish physicists (inGenesis and the Big Bang), argued that measured by God’s time when He created the universe it was only six literal days of creation.  But measured by our time, the creation of the universe is billions of years old.

(8) The Apparent Age View proposes that the universe just looks old, even though it is young.  The book by Philip Henry Gosse was titled Omphalos(1857), meaning navel, proposing that Adam had a navel, even though he was created as an adult.   Likewise, on this view the first tree would have had rings in them the day they were created.

If there is evidence for Gaps in Genesis and longer period of time involved in the six day of Genesis, then the Young Earth view fails to convincingly support its two pillars.  At a minimum it leaves room for reasonable doubt.  In view of this, one can ask why is it that many still cling to the Young Earth view with such tenacity.

 

 

A Theological Assumption

 

For some the belief in a Young Earth seems to be based on a kind of intuition or faith in God’s omnipotence.  It reasons that if God is all powerful, then certainly He would not have taken millions of years to make the earth.  However, by reduction ad absurdum, one could ask why God did not create it in six minutes or six second rather than six days? If He is all-powerful and can make something from nothing, then why did He not create the whole thing lock-stock-and barrel instantaneously!

The Evolutionary Fear

Many Young Earthers seemed to be afraid to grant long periods of time for fear that it may help support an evolutionary conclusion.  However, this is unnecessary for two reasons.  First, time as such does not help evolution.  Dropping red, white, and blue confetti from an airplane a thousand feet above the ground will not produce an American flag in one’s yard.  And going up to ten thousand feet (and giving it more time to fall) will not help.  Time as such does not organize things into complex designs; it further randomizes the material.  It takes an intelligent cause to form it into an American flag.  Further, separating God’s supernatural acts of revelation to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and the prophets by many hundreds of years does not make them less supernatural.  It just makes his revelation progressive over a period of time.  The same could be true of God’s acts of creation, if they were separated by long periods of time.

Second, there are plenty of other problems with macro-evolution for it does not explain (without an intervening intelligent cause) how (a) something can come from nothing; b) how non life cannot come from life; c) how non-consciousness can produce consciousness, and d) how non-rational beings can produce rational beings.  Longer periods of time as such do not overcome any of these problems; it takes intelligent intervention to do it.

As we have seen, both premise of the Young Earth View are open to serous objections.  There is no air-tight case for a Young Earth from a biblical point of view.  So, while it may be compatible with inerrancy, nonetheless, inerrancy does not necessitate a belief in a Young Earth.

 

The Historical Status of the Young Earth Theory

 

            Historically, the Young Earth View has never garnered an important, let alone a crucial role in the history of the Church.  It was known to the early Church Fathers (see St. Augustine, City of God 11.6), but it was never made an essential doctrine, let alone given a special status.

First of all, Young Earth creationism was never given a creedal status in the early Church.  It does not appear in any early creeds or in any other widely accepted creed in the history of Christendom.

 

Second, it was not granted an important doctrinal status by the historic Fundamentalist (c. 1900).  That is, it was not accepted or embraced by the Old Princetonians B. B.Warfield, Charles Hodge, or J. Gresham Machen.

 

Third, Young Earth creationism is notably absent in the famous four volume series (1910-1915) The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truthedited by R. A. Torrey and C. C. Dixon.  In fact, not a single article in this landmark set defends the Young Earth Creationism view.  Indeed, all the articles on science and Scripture were written by scholars favorable to an Old Earth view.

 

            Fourth, the founders and framers of the contemporary inerrancy movement (ICBI) of the 1970 and 80s explicitly rejected the Young Earth view as being essential to belief in inerrancy.  They discussed it and voted against making it a part of what they believed inerrancy entailed, even though they believed in the “literal” historical-grammatical view of interpreting the Bible, a literal Adam, and the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis. Given this history of the Young Earth view, one is surprised at the zeal by which some Young Earthers are making their position a virtual test for evangelical orthodoxy

 

If the Young Earth view is true, then so be it.  Let the biblical and scientific evidence be mustered to demonstrate it.  Meanwhile, to make it a tacit test for orthodoxy will serve to undermine the faith of many who so closely tie it to orthodoxy that they will have to throw out the baby with the bathwater, should they ever become convinced the earth is Old.  One should never tie his faith to how old the earth is.

 

Even if the Young Earth view were true, it would not thereby earn it a position in the Christian Creed or the equivalent.  That is another matter altogether reserved for truth that are essential to the Gospel (see Geisler and Rhodes, Conviction without Compromise).  There are many minor Christian doctrines that have not earned creedal status along with The Apostles’ Creedwhich declares of creation only that “I believe in God, the Father Almighty,the Creator of heaven and earth” (emphasis added) and nothing about how long ago it happened.

 

Some Concluding Comments

 

After seriously pondering these questions for over a half century, my conclusions are: (1) The Young Earth view is not one of the Fundamentals of the Faith. (2) It is not a test for orthodoxy.  (3)  It is not a condition of salvation.  (4)  It is not a test of Christian fellowship. (5) It is not an issue over which the body of Christ should divide. (6) It is not a hill on which we should die. (7) The fact of creation is more important than the time of creation. (8) There are more important doctrines on which we should focus (like the inerrancy of the Bible, the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and the death and resurrection of Christ, and His literal Second Coming.  As Repertus Meldenius (d. 1651) put it: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty, and in all things charity.” And by all counts, the age of the earth is not one of the essentials of the Christian Faith.

 

[dhchristian]

On 12/7/2019 at 2:26 PM, The Barbarian said:

On 12/7/2019 at 2:06 PM, dhchristian said:

What if he preplanned this so that mankind could be saved by faith? 

Since God is truth, it seems impossible that He would fake evidence to make it look as though it were other than it is.   I suppose if you don't think God is always honest, it might make some sense.

Gerald Aardsma has a different idea about that, which bypasses the contradiction of God being dishonest.    You might want to see if that one makes sense to you.  

Your response was totally irrelevant tot the Point I made to One Opinion. Just a lot of Blah, Blah, Blah. Here is the Original point I made.

On 12/7/2019 at 2:06 PM, dhchristian said:

On 12/7/2019 at 1:54 PM, one.opinion said:

On 12/7/2019 at 1:06 PM, dhchristian said:

If You believe he could, why is it that you deny that he did as he said, despite the evidence?

I don't believe God would create the universe 6,000 years ago with an apparent age of billions of  years. This would seem to be inconsistent with His character, as God is not deceptive.

What if he preplanned this so that mankind could be saved by faith?  that our faith is not founded upon the Wisdom of man.... Paul affirms this. That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. (1 Cor.2:5) 

Do You see this?, and the Omnipotence of God to do as he says? 

Well, I am going to show you a couple of examples of God being "Deceptive"....

1. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: (2 Thess 2:11) Notice God sends a strong delusion.

2. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. (Mark 4:11-12) Here We see Jesus, (God Incarnate) Concealing the mysteries of the Kingdom from those who reject the Him.

3. Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: (Romans 16:25-26) Here we again see a concealing of a Mystery awaiting a future revelation, And Specifically, that being Salvation By Faith, Exactly as the point I made originally expressed.

You See, God is not being deceptive, He wants us to receive Him By Faith and Believe his Word by Faith, Not because the evidence points to it logically. You cannot argue a person into the Kingdom of God, they HAVE to receive it by faith, and Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.(Heb. 11:1). That faith includes the belief that he is Omnipotent and able to create the Earth and everything in it in 6 days according to His Word, despite the evidence from science or evolution or ancient aliens and fallen angels against this. So I choose to have faith in the Word of God and trust Him at His Word, Because my faith is not half hearted faith, But full faith that is beyond my understanding and comprehension.... That your faith may Stand not in the Wisdom of men, but the Power of God. (1 Cor. 2:5)

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.....Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (1 Cor. 1:20-21,25) 

 

[one.opinion]

51 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

I was going to comment on all what he said, but it taking too much time., and nothing he said is convincing.

I have no problem with you holding a different interpretation.

53 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

His main problem is using a faulty translation to determine what is right.

I do have a problem with your assumption that he didn't use texts with ancient language. This really doesn't make any sense.

[one.opinion]

15 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

That faith includes the belief that he is Omnipotent and able to create the Earth and everything in it in 6 days according to His Word

I do believe He is omnipotent, and I do believe that He could have created the universe in 144-hours or instantaneously.

You and I just disagree on what the physical evidence means. I think it reflects God's creative action, you see it as a test of faith. Regardless, we both agree that He is a beautiful and omnipotent Creator.