Jump to content
IGNORED

“Five Biblical reasons I am not a Young Earth Creationist”


one.opinion

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.14
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

https://geochristian.com/2019/10/04/five-biblical-reasons-i-am-not-a-young-earth-creationist/

I read this interesting article a littler earlier this morning that may lead to some interesting discussion. :)

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  20
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  263
  • Content Per Day:  0.07
  • Reputation:   210
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  12/27/2013
  • Status:  Offline

OneOpinion, your link essay  was an extremely interesting read. I think you know this but I am writing for the youth around the globe really.We have to be careful  to not let science be the final word in any biblical topic or our faith in Christ. However physics, chemistry, biology ,geology, electrical engineering, aeronautics etc. were invented and founded by deeply religious/confessing Christians. Christians must study science(STEM) in accredited, even the best, universities and be the best as we always have been-thanks to Christ Jesus's guidance.

-The Christian geologist in the link might be right or wrong about the age of the earth, but he is certainly wrong in putting his faith in science on par with his faith in God's only word, the Bible.

Science has been proven to be limited-"dead"-by the mathematician Kurt Gödel's 2 Incompleteness Theorems which even Stephen Hawking said.( Hawking based his famous theories on the work of confessing Protestant Christians James Clerk Maxwell and the devout evangelical Wernher Heisenberg {Heisenberg won the physics Nobel for the creation of quantum physics}.) Heisenberg said  in his last letter to his friend Einstein that :" Only the LORD God can know the position of a (subatomic )particle". {re:Heisenberg's famous Uncertainty Principle}

 Stephen Hawking(it was religious Christian physicists who did the really hard work in physics;Einstein used the tensor mathematics of confessing Christian Bernhard Riemann for General Relativity)  admitted this in his essay/lecture : Kurt Gödel and the End of Physics(which underlies all of science).-  free on the web-.(Gödel derived his landmark discovery because of the work and discoveries of the deeply religious Christian   preeminent mathematician(an ethnic Jewish-Christian) Georg Cantor (inventor of set theory,transfinite numbers-numbers beyond infinity-Even David Hilbert said: "George Cantor has allowed us to enter into the paradise of mathematics.") Eminent physicist Freeman Dyson agrees and so did Herman Weyl and other scientists(that Gödel's theorem killed science).

---So science has been proven to Not even be able to ever fully understand the natural world/universe; so  Christians definitely cannot let science guide us in matters of the Christian faith.---

However it is fascinating how the Bible knew of some things that science is only now learning. Interestingly  the great Bible student Sir Isaac Newton (discovered gravity and calculus)said he "searched the Bible for science "and that that  "the  Only Son of God Jesus Christ will return in 2060."

Christians may show how the Bible knew of many scientific discoveries first; but  true Christians must  realize and accept that FAITH (in Christ)is the ultimate way we understand reality.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.14
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

7 minutes ago, rontiger said:

OneOpinion, your link essay  was an extremely interesting read.

First, thanks for checking it out! I was considering copying/pasting the entire essay to try to stimulate discussion.

8 minutes ago, rontiger said:

We have to be careful  to not let science be the final word in any biblical topic or our faith in Christ.

Agreed, my relationship with Jesus Christ is far more important to me than any scientific discussions - the age of the earth, or otherwise.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.14
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

I should probably add that I ended up at a discussion board somewhere (I can't remember where, or I would link to it) where the author caught some criticism regarding the title of his essay. After some fair criticism, he agreed that a title more along the lines of "Why I believe the Bible does not require acceptance of young earth creation". Most of his arguments focus on why acceptance of truth in the Bible can still be consistent with acceptance of a geologically old planet - they do not really provide positive evidence for an old planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

That's probably a good stand.   The Bible neither supports nor rules out a young Earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,695
  • Content Per Day:  0.45
  • Reputation:   583
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  01/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/11/1968

Hi, it does make an interesting read. However I am not convinced in how the writer tried to dilute what is a literal day.  To me an evening and morning is emphasizing a literal day, the writer did not do enough to convince me otherwise.  

 

But I otherwise agree with that article about the discrepancies in the YEC position, when I read Genesis 1 I immediately see that a watery earth existed before even the first evening, so an old earth is more biblical.

YECs rather deny that the "earth" and "waters" (that exist before the first day) in verse 1 are literal , even though ironically claim that they have the most literal interpretation of Genesis 1. Weird concepts like earth=matter, and the waters= a distant water canopy over the universe are introduced to justify the contradiction that the earth and waters exist before day 1, yet are created in day 3.

To correctly understand Genesis 1 I feel the following needs to be correctly understood:

1) a day = a day, evenings and mornings related to light is an indicator that this is a light based 24 hour day. The sabbath concept also indicates a specific cycle of weeks from that day forth. 

2) the word "earth" means land.  Dry land. There is slight ambiguity in verse 1, because the dry land is under the sea, but day 3 clears this up, when the portion of submerged land,  is then called "dry land" when it surfaces. 

3) the creative words in Genesis 1 are BARA to create from nothing     ASAH to do/make/produce/show  and the phrase  YATSA bring forth/send/go

Much was created, but the sun and the moon were shown/visibly produced (ASAH not BARA)

4) Biblically the life is in the blood (and us modern humans like to see it as in the brain too).  We need blood and brains to be true  living creatures, curiously the bible does not mention living creatures when mentioning the plants. But with sea life, birds, and land animals,, they are associated with living/life. The life is in the blood. 

With this in mind I have for years regarded creation week as preparing an inhospitable world for animals containing life-blood (and brains)

Initially we have a dark world, only oceans, no land, anoxic, no oxygen, no sunlight, thick mists on the surface, no ice caps, warm sulfuric oceans. Bacteria and small bloodless organisms are created to give the planet oxygen, and to change the atmosphere over thousands/milllions of years. 

1)Then the spirit of God stirs the waters, and the lifts begin to thin a bit. They thin enough to let in light. The day/night cycle is detected. Day 1

2)Then the thick mists lift up, creating a visible space below them, we have visibility on the surface. Day 2

3)Then dry land (erets NOT planet earth) appears, dividing the ocean into seas, eg Mediterranean, Dead Sea etc. Plants were created.Day 3

4) Then lights in the sky were "produced" (shown) ASAH.  The mists thinned even further, making not just light, but stars, moon and sun visible. They were shown/asah on day 4. Day 4

Now the planet is ready for animals with LIFEBLOOD (and brains)

5) Birds and Fish

6) Land animals and humans

7) day of rest

I believe this is the correct way to view creation week, it is more literal than YECs who not only have the problem of believing in literal days before even the sun was made, they misunderstand the word "erets" from day 3 which means land, not earth. The bible even tells us it means land, yet YECs still think it means planet earth.  And they are less literal with the meaning of the word earth in v1 for some reason not believing it means dry land or planet earth, even though they insist it means planet earth in day 3. And they introduce an unobserved concept like a "water canopy".

So I agree with the writer that there are biblical problems with the YEC view, but do not agree that one can water down the meaning of days, or the genealogy of Adam.  Animals with lifeblood were created less than 7000 years ago.  

Edited by ARGOSY
  • Well Said! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

Animals with lifeblood were created less than 7000 years ago.  

We have examples of human settlements much older that that.   No way to get around it.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  44
  • Topic Count:  229
  • Topics Per Day:  0.06
  • Content Count:  10,900
  • Content Per Day:  2.96
  • Reputation:   12,145
  • Days Won:  68
  • Joined:  02/13/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  08/14/1954

4 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

Animals with lifeblood were created less than 7000 years ago.  

There are two distinct events of creation between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It's easy for most to miss this, so we'll skip that to avoid getting "into it" and derailing the thread by going off-topic. I'm just curious as to what kind of blood prehistoric creatures had flowing through them as they had their time to roam the globe we know as earth. 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,695
  • Content Per Day:  0.45
  • Reputation:   583
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  01/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/11/1968

11 minutes ago, BeauJangles said:

There are two distinct events of creation between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It's easy for most to miss this, so we'll skip that to avoid getting "into it" and derailing the thread by going off-topic. I'm just curious as to what kind of blood prehistoric creatures had flowing through them as they had their time to roam the globe we know as earth. 

The fossil record shows a continuation of lifeforms. There's no gap between an ancient grouping, then a modern grouping. 

 

Your way of looking at the verse isn't the only way to look at it. 

Edited by ARGOSY
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,695
  • Content Per Day:  0.45
  • Reputation:   583
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  01/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/11/1968

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

We have examples of human settlements much older that that.   No way to get around it.

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

Can you give precise  reasons to trust the dates given? 

  • This is Worthy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...