Menu

Young Earth Creationist Ministry's Biggest Critics: Christians

S
sermonindex


For 30 years, Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis has advocated a literal, straightforward reading of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. Interestingly, his staunchest critics have been fellow Christians.

Ham believes that God is the Creator of the universe and that it took six literal days for God to create everything. That view, he says, is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as infallible. To reject that belief is to undermine that authority.

Yet many Christians, he laments, not only dismiss the literal reading of the Creation account but also feel embarrassed by it. ...

read more; http://www.christianpost.com/news/young-earth-creationist-ministrys-biggest-critics-christians-86624/l

L
Lysa


In the article, it states a follower of Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe) called Ken Ham a piece of crap. We can't pick our followers, now can we?

But I started listening to debates between the two back in the 90's and I must say that Ham got very personal and disrespectful towards Ross in them and that that is why I quit listening anything Ham said (but that's my personal opinion of him). Disrespect doesn't win an argument.

That is why I thought this article was "ironic"!!!

God bless,
Lisa

PS: I'm no scientist but I cannot see the earth being 6000 years old but that is just me.

I
iceman9

Just out of curiosity how old do you think the earth is? Thousands of years, Millions, Billions, Trillions, Quadrillions, Quintillion, Sextillions, Septillions, Octillions….?

It is a sad state the Church is in when we think we need to cram what we read in science books (which changes every year) into God’s Word just to make ourselves feel smart.

Carbon dating has been proven to be so inaccurate; but let’s take what “science” has come up with and force it into the Bible; this will make us more relevant.

So let’s all agree with the atheistic scientist and say that the earth is… ummmm let’s see… this week it is a Vigintillion years old; now the scientist will see we are smart and they will now agree with us there is a creator and will repent and get saved…. Yaaaaahhh.

Let’s not stand on God’s unchanging Word and instead stand on the shifting sand of science and show the world the power of God on the Church. That should work.

L
Lysa


iceman,

I don't know how old the earth is but I do think it's a LOT older than 6000 years old! And b/c I don't agree with a young earth, you insinuate that I don’t stand on God’s word! That's pretty presumptuous on your part.

Does the Bible speak of dinosaurs? And yet we know they existed.

Does the Bible speak of the creation of other solar systems? And yet we know they are out there and they just keep on going!

I'm trying to point out graciously, brother, that there is a LOT around us that the Bible doesn't make any mention of and how do you explain it? Or do you just explain it away?

God bless you,
Lisa

D
DEADn

But when it comes to science do we pick and choose what is correct and not correct even if it doesn't seem to line up with the Bible? Even the flu shots that are given each year is based on Science but many people get them.

Medical stuff is based on Science and yet alot of people don't think twice about doing to the doctor, getting surgeries, being up prescription medicine and so forth.

When it comes to things such as Creation old/young Earth stuff it is like politics. When a person begins getting personally it is usually because they cannot produce evidence to support their doctrine/claim especially when an opponent and knock their platform over. Then all they have left is to get personal. It becomes human nature and agenda.

Hugh Ross seems to use what we know in the Bible and what we know about Science and puts them together from what I have seen. Does Ken go strictly by the Bible? That is could be one dimensional.

John

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

I don't pretend to know the age of the Earth. However, I can safely count the years from Adam. Personally, I lean to a very literal interpretation of Creation.

How do I "overlook" what scientists and my own research has often told me about the age of the planet and the universe?

It isn't that I "overlook" it at all. Rather, I trust in the unlimited, omnipotent nature of God.

Remember: Nothing is outside of God's control. God can make a single second last for trillions of years. God can speed up the speed of light. In fact, God is not confined to "time" or "space" at all.

God could have created a "mature" universe in much the same way that a painter can paint a building that is "weathered."

As for the dinosaurs: A fossil is not a record of death...but a record of catastrophe. If an elephant dies in some African field, its bones will eventually whither away by the elements. This is not true of dinosaurs. The existence of their bones represent a catastrophe that preserved the bones. The Bible offers an explanation or world-wide catastrophe through the flood.

Also, it can be argued that dinosaurs DO appear in the Bible. Not only do we read of the leviathan and behemoth, but we also read about a DRAGON.

Satan is often described as an "ancient dragon." This might allude to the time in the Garden where Eve was beguiled through a "serpent." For his punishment, the serpent was cursed to crawl upon its belly. So, what did a serpent look like BEFORE that punishment? After all, the serpent was cursed above all "beasts of the field."

In Revelation, we read of Satan being considered the "dragon." In fact, in Revelation 12:9, we see a connection between a dragon and a serpent:


And the great DRAGON was cast out, THAT OLD SERPENT, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. - Revelation 12:9

Now, there are many the theories about this world presented by both scientists and theologians. My faith in God causes me to give up my doubt to him. I KNOW that God exists -- and I have more faith in God than even what I think that I know of science.

Like I said, God is omnipotent and omniscient. He can stretch time so that a second lasts for millions, billions or even trillions of years. Eternity is just that -- ETERNAL. God is present in Eternity. He allowed John to be "caught up" so that he saw things that would not take place for thousands of years. How? John likely had a glimpse from the scope of eternity.

There is an old saying that we used to have on a refrigerator magnet growing up: "DON'T WORRY ABOUT TOMORROW -- GOD IS ALREADY THERE." The same is true of yesterday, today and forever. God is there. His mind cannot be understood by the wisest of wise men. Therefore, I endeavor to trust Him even when what I learn might tell me something entirely different.

I hope that this makes some sense. We can rest assured that God created this world and all that is in it. How did he do it? I have no idea.

T
TMK

Chris wrote:

"He can stretch time so that a second lasts for millions, billions or even trillions of years."

Yes, but then it is no longer a second, is it? And why would He do such a thing? Its sort of like saying a dog has 5 legs if you call a tail a leg. But a tail is NOT a leg, regardless what you call it. If you are suggesting that the 6 days of creation may have really been eons long because God made the "seconds" last longer back then, then I believe you are really saying that it took eons to create the universe.

I am an old earther, but I really could care less one way or the other. I don't think any major and vital doctrine REALLY hinges on this, like Ken Ham does.

The "God created the universe with an appearance of age" argument has always bugged me-- even when I first heard it long ago. Sure, God could have done this(He can do what He wants, after all), but WHY would He have done so? Seems a tad deceptive. And since I don't believe that God is ever deceptive, I don't believe He would create a universe with an appearance of great age (when it was really brand new) knowing that mankind would one day have science to study the creation.

H
hulsey

TMK wrote:

"He can stretch time so that a second lasts for millions, billions or even trillions of years."

Yes, but then it is no longer a second, is it? And why would He do such a thing? Its sort of like saying a dog has 5 legs if you call a tail a leg. But a tail is NOT a leg, regardless what you call it. If you are suggesting that the 6 days of creation may have really been eons long because God made the "seconds" last longer back then, then I believe you are really saying that it took eons to create the universe.

______________________________________

Hi TMK,

This may just be Chris musing about the possibilities; however, it is very possible according to theoretical physics. A second is still a second even if it takes a billion years. The reason is a matter of perspective. A second of time may pass on the earth while a billion years has passed in different parts of the universe, but from the perspective of the earth it was only a second.

S
staff

Hi Lysa,
One of my main problems with millions of years or even more than the time laid out specifically from Adam to present is the subject of "death".
If before Adam "death "is on the earth then their is no need of a Saviour,
Their are other issues though but its the one that jumps out,
Yours Staff

S
staff

Hi Deadn,
I listen to Grady McMurtry who uses the bible literally but also explains the science behind it which is also important of this subject.
http://www.creationworldview.org

He explains about fossils,ways of aging the earth,circular reasoning etc and I find him very good.


He says this
If anyone believes in an old creation they are saying that the death of a nephesh organism (an organism possessing a soul) occurred prior to human sin; that death is common, that death is not special, and that human sin is not the causative agent of death coming into the universe. They would believe that life and death have been going on for millions and billions of supposed years; that sin is not especially important to God. It would mean that the death of Christ on the Cross is meaningless! Such a position would mean that God is not absolutely righteous, but only relatively righteous.
“For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.” 1 Cor. 15:21


Yours Staff

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

A second is a measurement that, according to Relativity, is dependent upon relative placement in "space-time." God is not bound to space, time or space-time.

My statement was simply a musing about the unlimited power and authority of God. Moreover, I wasn't suggesting that God "stretches" a second. I am simply saying that God can make more things happen within a second.

For instance, a man typically ages for one second during one second. However, it is possible for God to "speed up" that aging process to where he ages 70 years in a mere second. Now, God probably doesn't go around doing such things often, but it is not outside of the scope of His power and authority. However, during Creation, he could have made what we would assume to be TRILLIONS OF YEARS worth of acts in six days.

Remember: The laws of nature did not exist when God created this world. He is the Author of such things rather than a follower. God designed the laws of nature (observed through "science") as "guidelines" for the universe subsequent to Creation...yet He is not bound to them.

All that I am trying to say is that we can't approach God through the scope of human understanding of "science." Science is all about "observation" and we cannot "observe" just how He created the universe. As was true with Job, God did not consult us when He created the world and the universe. Yet, men feel free to speculate about it all of the time.

T
TMK

hi staff--

is there not physical death and spiritual death?

The lions and tigers eating the plants in the garden were killing plant cells when they were eating them, weren't they?

We know that creatures ate prior to the fall. Why did they have to eat?

H
hulsey

Hi TMK,

The Bible differentiates between plants and animals and even between land animals and fish.

Theologically, eating a plant is not death.

S
staff

Hi Tmk,
I think that whether Christian or non the reason to add more than the literal 7 day creation and adding millions of years is to accomodate the view that evolution is possible.What is peculiar to Christians who believe in millions of years is that they choose to believe atheist secular scientists over Christian Scientists.I can see why Christians who believe in a literal 7days young earth creation get stirred up by the issue;because they see it as an assault on the role of Jesus as a saviour but the reason Christians who believe in millions of years gets stirred up is because they want to acomodate world science view and try to make the gospel more plausible/acceptable to the world.

It is clear that the death that entered through Adam was Physical death and Spiritual death in the sense that
perfection was lost.Death entered humans through Adam;Their was no death-life-death-life death cycle regarding humans before Adam and thus Adam was not the result of evolution.
Adam is clearly the first person created and is a real person because it gives us his age and the length of his days,his children and is also referenced in the new testament as existing and his importance.
Regarding plants and animals-
What happened the plant cells in our present world may have been different to what happened at the beginning?Maybe the cell didnt die when eaten before the fall.
When Jesus ate the fish on the shore after he was risen and perfected what happen the fish in his stomach,we dont know how it was processed when a perfected body was in question.
We know the perfected body did not need nourishment for sure and whether with a perfected body digestion is nessacary I dont know except with Jesus it wasnt.Perhaps before the fall eating was for a different purpose,
Yours Staff

S
staff

Hi All,
Just a few points:
For evolution even if it were possible which I am convinced it is not their would have to be a series of children been born over millions of years which couldnt happen as Childbirth came in after Adam n Eve.We dont even know would their have been childbirth if Sin had not occurred;in heaven their is no husband and wife.When we go to heaven or are raptured we will get an incoruptable body.

Did Adam have an incorruptable body,if he did then is digesting a corruption?

Also the bible says that "all the days of Adam were 930 years"
not some but all which means that included day 6 and 7 of creation til his death.If 6 and 7 are literal days their is no reason to doubt days 1 through 5 as been literal either.

It is easier to go with a literal interpretation of the bible than not.I dont buy the arguement that why we dont agree with a literal interpretation is that it has to do with the noble search for truth,it is to accommodate the world view of millions of years in an attempt to make the gospel more acceptable,
Thanks for considering my views Staff

T
therick2018

Who are we going to listen to, God or man? If we can well trace the geneologies of the Bible why would we deny them? It seems they give us a well defined range of the earths age. Definately portrays a young earth model.

What God made was good. Then because of man's rebellion sin and death entered the world. Does anyone think that death and decay are good? Would God describe it as good? Denying the biblical truth that death entered the world when Adam and Eve sinned is an attack on the Gospel of Christ.

The Lord does give knowledge and reason, to His enemies, so this doesn't mean that scientist don't have any giftings or smarts. However it does mean that unbelieving scientist will in many things will perceive and teach facts wrongly.

It seems to me that the closer one gets toward evolutionism the greater the decay of their Gospel preaching.

Isa 8:19 And when they say to you, "Inquire of the mediums and the necromancers who chirp and mutter," should not a people inquire of their God? Should they inquire of the dead on behalf of the living?
Isa 8:20 To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.

G
ginnyrose

For the record, I would like to say I believe the WORD when it says that God made the world, the universe in the 'evening and the morning were the ____ day' time frame.

We all benefit from scientific studies, great advances have been made in our lifetimes with new discoveries being made all the time. However, what is stated as fact, promoted as fact, marketed as fact is often modified, changed or discarded with the passing of time. So, how reliable is 'scientific studies'?

In my lifetime so many studies have been made that told us this and that is unhealthy, should not eat it because it will cause 'whatever' and hasten your march to an early grave only to be debunked a few years later. In fact the thing that was told to be eschewed is now being promoted as being healthy! This has happened so many times I no longer listen to the experts and eat what I want - scientific studies be hanged! Actually, most of the time there is money involved - degrade an old reliable but replace it with a new product we just made that will enhance your existence!

Since this is the case with things I live with, what is there to make me believe this mindset does not permeate other disciplines?

L
Lotis

The ONLY POSSIBLE explanation for everything appearing older than 6,000-10,000 years is that God created a "mature" universe. Whether carbon dating is inaccurate or not is irrelevant...it would take much longer for the light from the stars in the sky to reach us than a million years let alone 10,000. Here is the problem however, we have absolutely no evidence in the bible that God did create a mature universe...you could argue that he did, based on the fact that light from the stars and sun seem to be present on earth at the point of their creation.

But there are many other factors pointing towards the universe being MUCH older than that...do a simple search on Google for "evidence against a young earth theory" and see what you come up with. I just read an article on cosmogenic nuclide dating, which is a form of dating totally separate from carbon dating that also demonstrates that the earth is much older than thousands of years... Don't worry, the bad science wont get on you ;)

I have absolutely NO problem with anyone believing the earth is young, because frankly, it is completely possible an omnipotent God could create the universe in its current state. But you have to ask yourself...why would he? Is he TRYING to trick us poor humans? Is he TRYING to make himself look less credible in the eyes of the secular world? Is he TRYING to steer people away from himself? I doubt it, considering Romans tells us he uses the beauty of his creation to display and direct people to himself, so much so that it should be obvious to even the heathen.

The question many of us have to ask ourselves is not "how old is the earth?", it's "what would happen to my beliefs if I am wrong?" Is our faith so weak that we can't accept that these very probable scientific explanations for the universe do not and can not remove one iota of God's greatness? Is our faith based on the fact that evolution is false and the earth is young, or is it based on Christ? If they found out alien life existed on mars tomorrow, or came up with some inexplicable, undeniable proof that evolution is right and we are wrong, or that the earth is billions of years old, what would that matter to us? Our faith is based on Christ, not the creation story, and especially not some foolish and blind battle against science.

Is the creation story literal? Maybe. But evidence SEEMS to point in a less literal beginning for mankind...but so what? I don't care much how the earth was formed or how we came to be, because I believe God was the artist behind it all either way, and my faith is based on Christ and him alone. Not on science or our gimmicky christian ways to try and explain the "boogy man" of science away. Every argument we could possible come up with in either direction of this questions has been brought up before and explained away by both sides. There is nothing new under the sun, people much wiser and smarter than us have pondered these questions, the fact remains...we don't know.

H
hulsey

Hi Lotis,

There are many creation models in existence that show the plausibility of a 6,000yr old creation time frame.

What's not talked about are the equally daunting problems that "old earthers" have with the universe.

The universe has been recently measured at 150 billion light years across. That's a major problem for a 15 billion year old universe. The measurements would be 75 billion light years in either direction. If light and time are constants and the universe is only 15 billion years old then we should only be about to measure 30 billion light years across or 15 billion light years in either direction.

You are free to believe what you like and I won't try to convince you otherwise. But there are "young earth" creation models that make sense of the evidence we find in the earth and in the universe.

Edit:
Here is a link to several articles on astrophysics:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/astrophysics

H
Heydave

The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge.

To poscess OmniSCIENCE is to have ALL knowledge.

I am not Omniscient ( I do not have ALL knowledge). Only God is Omniscient. I trust God above any other source of (lesser) knowledge.
If God says it, I trust Him because only He KNOWS.

How He does it, I don't know. I don't need to know how, but just that He does and did. Maybe I'm too simple, but hey...I'm happy!

L
Lotis

Hulsey, I totally hear you, and that's why I wrote that last few sentences on my post:

"Every argument we could possible come up with in either direction of this question has been brought up before and explained away by both sides. There is nothing new under the sun, people much wiser and smarter than us have pondered these questions, the fact remains...we don't know."

I will gladly admit that I don't know, I believe the word of God to be true and absolute, and I also see the clear evidence of a non literal creation story. And as I mentioned, EITHER of these explanations to me, depletes God of his greatness exactly 0%.

What I fear, is an attitude of: Science = bad, bible = good. Science and religion can and do co-exist peacefully if they are allowed to. If we do believe in an omnipotent God, he is the one who "created" science after all. It's as if we are afraid that if science is right on these matters, than our God is suddenly nullified, and so we rationalize all sorts of reasons they can't be true, but often, we look like fools (and not in the good way). It is 100% possible to believe in an omnipotent God and to acknowledge the evidence of cold hard science.

Heydave, I get your post and I think that is a fine attitude to have if you're comfortable there, but for MANY, like it or not, this answer/attitude will not suffice for them. That's why it's so important that our message and our faith is in Christ, and not in anything else. How many attempts to evangelize have turned into pointless arguments about evolution? Creation? Science vs Religion? The entire dark ages were arguably brought about because of religions rejection of science. Share Christ and his love with the world, seek His kingdom first in all that you do, and these side issues become just that, side issues that don't really matter.

Hope no one takes this post as argumentative or hostile in any way to any one, because again, regardless of what we believe in regards to the origins of the earth, we share something greater in common. Jesus Christ.

G
ginnyrose

____________________________________________________________
QUOTE:
"If God says it, I trust Him because only He KNOWS."
____________________________________________________________


AND God is the only Being that has proved to be reliable. Man IS NOT! Hey! Even the evolution theory changes - and the fact it is called a theory proves it is just that. SO, why call it a fact?

Our oldest son, Lynford, earned a BS degree in microbiology at the Mississippi University for Women in 1992. He told me that if you study biology, get the facts straight as taught in the first year class, utilize them in critical thinking in reference to origins, this whole evolution theory breaks down.

Lynford also shared how one day a professor was waxing eloquent about evolution concerning origins when the students snickered inwardly - made the fellow mad. No one dared to object him verbally but in their spirit they were doing a grand job and he sensed it! ... BTW, this happened at a state university...:-)

My God is such a marvelous God and to think humans work to discount his creativity seems to be a slap in his face. I trust his word and He has never failed me yet. My God can create as he wills and I know no other god can.

EDIT: If people cannot trust the creation story, how on earth can they trust the the WORD when it speaks about heaven? or hell? or the worlds to come? Did hell evolve? Heaven evolve?

God made heaven - it is the work of his creativity, and done just right. I anticipate living is perfect place - almost too good for an imperfect people, don't you think? But God promised and I will take his word for it. And it is beautiful! No man's creativity can match His!

T
TMK

Just wanted to clarify-- even if the earth is 6 billions years old, it does not follow that macroevolution is true. Hugh Ross, a main proponent of old-earthism, is no believer in macro-evolution- nor am I.

There still is not nearly enough time for macroevolution, even if the earth IS billions vs thousands of years old.

And someone in a prior post indicated that the belief in a billions of years old universe somehow affects our acceptace of Jesus as Savior or somehow weakens the gospel.

That I don't get at all. Regardless of the earth's age, mankind fell and needs a savior.

L
Lotis

I agree TMK.

Ginnyrose: how does the idea that the earth is older than many think damage the greatness of God or his creativity in any way? Would it not be just as incredible and amazing and great of him to have done the same things over a longe period? Why does believing what science makes clear have to in any way butt heads with God and his greatness?...I don't believe it does. Both can coexist without damaging His greatness or His glory. We love to pick and choose which science is ok for us, there is "good science" (medicine, tech.) and "bad science" (ancient earth)...except both exist off the same principles.

Again: why does believing science to be true (while acknowledging it may not be true) have to conflict with God at all...?

H
Heydave

Hi Lotis,

I'll let Ginnyrose speak for herself, but my thoughts are:

There is good science (knowledge) which is provable and there is theoretical science, which has not been proven.

I think the issue is with theoretical science that is not provable. If that science conflicts with what God says, then why would a Christian even consider it may be true.

Some scientist tell us the earth is millions of years old and that many forms of life existed and became extinct before mankind even appeared on the earth. They cannot 'prove' this though. However God says in His word that death came in through Sin and Sin came in through Adam (6000 years ago). Therefore the 'theory' of evolutionary science (even if this does not include man) disagrees with God's word. So why should I believe man's theory and dis-believe God's word?

S
sermonindex

Moses wrote Genesis. Jesus quoted from Genesis.

Since that time no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,
(Deuteronomy 34:10)

And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
(Matthew 19:4)

-------

Moses and Jesus are trustworthy because they knew God personally.

Moses spoke with God like a Friend speaks to a friend. (Exodus 33:11)

Jesus was in the bosom of the Father. (John 1:18)

-------

God's has unimaginable power and ability.

And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
(Matthew 19:26)

-------

Conclusion:

I think God can tell a simple story about creation and at the same time have created it according to how He said He did. Theologians have no problem giving God power over time, space and matter--since He created them.

*edited for clarity

F
FireinmyBones1

A massive problem that I see here, even if we're not aware of it, is that we are Greek/Alexandrian thinkers, trying to make sense of a Middle Eastern/Semitic Bible. Greek thought is rational, and literal. Hebrew thought is abstract, visual, and has no problem with employing metaphor.

For instance, undeniably, Christ predicted that He would "come" in 70 AD in judgment against Jerusalem. However, since we are Greek thinkers, we read Christ's words and assume that for Him to "come" He must appear visibly on a white stallion in the sky. However, when we learn to see through the lenses of a Hebraic mind, we see that there is no problem whatsoever with using metaphor to describe something that really looks nothing like the metaphor.

For instance, read the following passage of scripture (Psalms 18:7-15):

7 The earth trembled and quaked,
and the foundations of the mountains shook;
they trembled because he was angry.
8 Smoke rose from his nostrils;
consuming fire came from his mouth,
burning coals blazed out of it.
9 He parted the heavens and came down;
dark clouds were under his feet.
10 He mounted the cherubim and flew;
he soared on the wings of the wind.
11 He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him--
the dark rain clouds of the sky.
12 Out of the brightness of his presence clouds advanced,
with hailstones and bolts of lightning.
13 The LORD thundered from heaven;
the voice of the Most High resounded.
14 He shot his arrows and scattered [the enemies],
great bolts of lightning and routed them.
15 The valleys of the sea were exposed
and the foundations of the earth laid bare
at your rebuke, O LORD,
at the blast of breath from your nostrils.

Now, when you read these spectacular words, we really don't get a good understanding of what exactly David is talking about. I mean, we have David telling us that "God came down", and there's lightning, and fire, and hailstones, and the oceans floor is being exposed...yet, if we rewind and read the Bible's own description of the Psalm, we see that something very different actually happened:

"For the director of music. Of David the servant of the LORD. He sang to the LORD the words of this song when the LORD delivered him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul. He said: . . ."

You see, as fantastical as the events David spoke of were, they were actually speaking of the fact that God delivered David from the hand of Saul and from his enemies. Now, surely God did not actually come down and do all of the craziness which David records, but He did bring David into victory. And so, we see that the Hebraic mind thinks and words things in metaphor.

The Alexandrian/Greek mind is rational, and must take every word literally. However, when it comes to the Bible, sometimes reading it literally means reading it figuratively.

Therefore, it would stand to reason that the opening chapters of Genesis may in fact contain metaphorical language. This does not take away from the scripture, or from the reputation of Christ for quoting from it. If anything, it would simply make the Bible more cohesive and consistent in that metaphoric language is employed throughout it's various texts.

Let's be careful not to so quickly dismiss an idea, simply because it goes against our current understandings. There's nothing evil, or heretical about wondering whether or not the creation account is figurative.

Again, this is a side issue, and it is Christ alone that our hope is anchored in. If it was ever proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth was billions and billions of years old, my faith would be completely unshaken. Why? Because I put my hope in the finished work of Christ, and the truth about God which He reveals. The date of the earth, however, is not an essential doctrine.

Peace.

S
sermonindex

Article from Creation.com:
-------
Did God create over billions of years? And why is it important?
-------
http://creation.com/Did-god-create-over-billions-of-years
-------

This is a short article about many of the points made in this thread. It emphasizes a young earth creation.
Here's a portion:


First, we need to understand where the concept of an old earth came from. The idea of millions or billions of years simply is not found anywhere in Scripture; it is a concept derived from outside of the Bible. In 1830, Charles Lyell, a Scottish lawyer, released his book Principles of Geology. He stated that one of his aims was “To free the science [of geology] from Moses.”1 He built his ideas upon those of another geologist, James Hutton, who advocated a uniformitarian interpretation of the world’s geology. Lyell argued that the thousands of feet of sedimentary layers (laid down by water or some other moving fluid) all over the earth were the result of long, slow, gradual processes over millions or billions of years (instead of the processes of Noah’s Flood). He believed that processes observed in the present must be used to explain the geological history of the earth. So, if we currently see rivers laying down sediment at an average rate of say 1 mm (4/100th of an inch) per year, then a layer of sedimentary rock such as sandstone which is 1,000 meters (3,300 feet) thick must have taken about a million years to form. This ‘present is the key to the past’ assumption (and its variants) is a cornerstone of modern geology. It involves a rejection of the biblical account of a global watery cataclysm. The millions of years assigned to the various layers in the ‘geological column’ were adopted long before the advent of radiometric dating methods—well before radioactivity was even discovered.

Image by Daniel Smartt

But here’s the theological problem. Those rock layers don’t just have rocks or granules in them. They contain fossils. And these fossils are indisputable evidence of death—and not just of death, but carnivory, disease and suffering. There are remains that have tooth marks in them, and even animals fossilized in the process of eating other animals. There is evidence of disease, cancers, and infection; and general suffering from wounds, broken bones, etc. Biblically, we understand these things only began to happen after the Fall. But because of the Bible’s detailed genealogies, there’s no way for the biblical Adam to exist millions of years ago, before death and suffering started happening in the uniformitarian time scale. The implication of long-age belief is that God ordained death before the Fall of man, but the Bible clearly states that it was Adam’s actions that brought death into the world (Romans 5:12).

F
FireinmyBones1

Believing in an "old earth" does not mean that one believes there are millions of years in between the days of creation. Therefore, belief in an old earth does not have to mean that death preceded Adam.

S
sermonindex

Now, when you read these spectacular words, we really don't get a good understanding of what exactly David is talking about. I mean, we have David telling us that "God came down", and there's lightning, and fire, and hailstones, and the oceans floor is being exposed...yet, if we rewind and read the Bible's own description of the Psalm, we see that something very different actually happened:

"For the director of music. Of David the servant of the LORD. He sang to the LORD the words of this song when the LORD delivered him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul. He said: . . ."

You see, as fantastical as the events David spoke of were, they were actually speaking of the fact that God delivered David from the hand of Saul and from his enemies. Now, surely God did not actually come down and do all of the craziness which David records, but He did bring David into victory. And so, we see that the Hebraic mind thinks and words things in metaphor.

The Alexandrian/Greek mind is rational, and must take every word literally. However, when it comes to the Bible, sometimes reading it literally means reading it figuratively. 

Therefore, it would stand to reason that the opening chapters of Genesis may in fact contain metaphorical language. This does not take away from the scripture, or from the reputation of Christ for quoting from it. If anything, it would simply make the Bible more cohesive and consistent in that metaphoric language is employed throughout it's various texts. Jeff.

Brother Jeff you are right about the rationalistic mind and its greek roots etc, but I have to say that your point is self defeating precisely because of this reality.
Just to take one small point from the Psalm you quoted.

And he sent out his arrows, and scattered them; Yea, lightnings manifold, and discomfited them” Psalm 18:14

Because this is a song in praise of God’ hand against Saul and for David, it means that David is concerned to give the praise to God Himself and not the men who fired those arrows. Yet the deeper meaning has to do with God’ will in Saul’ defeat and David’ victory. You can call this figurative if you want to call it figurative, but David was concerned with truth and not figures of speech.

When king Ahab was killed by an arrow which was randomly shot in the midst of battle one could reasonably assert that this is a rational statement. However when you realise that this random arrow was preceded by a prophecy that king Ahab would die in battle, despite 400 prophets assuring him to the contrary this “random” arrow takes on a more fearful meaning. The arrow was not only shot randomly but it entered into Ahab through the division in his armour. How precise is the Lords intentions. Micaiah who told king Ahab that he would die in battle could have been seen as making a figure of speech, yet the Lord Himself directed a random arrow to the only weakness in a kings armour and thereby took his life as He intended. (1 Kings Chapter 22)

The moment you apply greek rationalistic thinking to the word of God you immediately remove more than half of its reality. It is by faith that we are able to comprehend the Scriptures and not by rationalistic thinking and reason. If not then we can simply remove most of the Scriptures and be left with nothing at all.

H
hulsey

Hi FireinmyBones1

I wouldn't read Genesis like I read the Psalms and I wouldn't read the Psalms like I read Apocalyptic writings. The cultural divide is not as great as some would make it. You are correct in that the Hebrew mind was capable of abstract thought, but they were equally capable of exact rational expression.

Psalm 104 is an excellent example of Hebrew abstract thought and poetic expression of the creation of the World. The writing in Genesis fits more with Historical writings.

L
Lysa

My friends,

Do we all or do we all not agree the very first sentence of the Bible “in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” right? This is the creation story. I tell ya, it’s awesome!

Here is a debate, if you are up to the challenge to give a honest listen to Hugh Ross...

Here is a shorter interview instead of 2 1/2 hours of a debate!!

Ken Ham vs Hugh Ross
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgueGotRqbM

God bless,
Lisa

Here is the one I posted:
God, Darwin or...Both?
Part II (Hugh Ross starts speaking at 19 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ltCG2ibbV0

T
therick2018

What about the genealogies?

It seems the Scripture clearly records the genealogies from Christ back to Abraham and from Abraham to Adam. Am I missing something? Because the doctrine of the two natures in the One Person of Christ, His Deity and humanity, and His being the promised Seed of the Woman its seems important that there would be no missing links in the record. Even the life spans of those who lived longer before the flood is carefully recorded. These genealogies are inspired writ. They are there to be for our profit, that we might be fully equipped and competent for every good work. These records make a strong chain which prevents "millions" of years. But something much more like 6000. Plus as quoted from the previously posted AIG article. Many of the cases in which evolutionist and old earth scientist point to as being proof of "millions" of years have fossils in them. That puts death before Adam and Eve if we believe the genealogies. I'm not against science' but rather against scientist who mock God's Word. They are always saying that old accursed phrase "Did God really say?". If the first seven days in Genesis weren't literal why should any of the others in Scripture be?

Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Jer 31:35 Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar-- the LORD of hosts is his name:
Jer 31:36 "If this fixed order departs from before me, declares the LORD, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever."

T
therick2018


C
ccchhhrrriiisss

Hi Lysa,

I watched this debate and it left me deeply troubled. While nearly all of these men said some things that I agree with, I am troubled when men try to proclaim things that they know very little about.

Ken Ham came across as very aggressive. That is not a problem when he is right (as long as he did so with tact...but at times he did not). However, there is a problem when individuals who know little of formal science meander from theology yet utter far-reaching proclamations about science.

While I agree with many of Ham's points, it seemed evident to me that he is very quick to paint the argument (and anyone who believes differently from him) with too broad of a brush.

For instance, Mr. Ham took issue with Dr. Ross's acceptance of God creating the world with a big "bang" -- which is observed and accepted by scientists. Moreover, Ham seems to categorize anyone who accepts a "big bang" at Creation as belonging to the same large group of heretics because the "bang" doesn't seem to line up with Ham's interpretation of the first six days of creation.

It would have been interesting to listen to Ham explain why observations by astrophysicists of a "moving universe" appear to reinforce the idea that God created the universe that "flees" from His presence. Why is Ham so adamant that the theorized bang (and observations of the universe fleeing from a single place) is somehow heretical?

Does anyone know Ken Ham's educational background?

Like I said, I lean to a literal interpretation of the Genesis account. I believe in God's omnipotence and unlimited power. I KNOW that God exists. This is the fundamental element of faith (that we must believe that He is...and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him). My views of science are decidedly seen through the lens of my faith. However, I am aware of apparent (and I emphasize the word "apparent") discrepancies of the Genesis account. I don't ignore those things. However, I approach them -- and all things -- with the knowledge that God can do anything (at Creation and the Eternity that surrounds it).

Like I said, I always find it disturbing when I hear men who are not trained in science and are highly skeptical of it and extremely bold with their creation theology yet still rely on some science as a defense for a particular position. I would rather here someone admit that they just don't know about many of these things yet still trust God above all.

S
sermonindex


"Ken Ham earned a bachelor's degree in Applied Science, with an emphasis in Environmental Biology, at Queensland Institute of Technology and a diploma in Education from the University of Queensland."

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ham

T
TMK

therick wrote, regarding geneologies:

"These records make a strong chain which prevents "millions" of years. But something much more like 6000."

I dont think anyone here is suggesting that Adam was created millions of years ago (even evolutionsits think that "modern man" appeared less than a million years ago). I believe the earth is billions of years old but I have no issue whatsoever with the accuracy of the geneologies.

H
hulsey

Chris wrote:

For instance, Mr. Ham took issue with Dr. Ross's acceptance of God creating the world with a big "bang" -- which is observed and accepted by scientists. Moreover, Ham seems to categorize anyone who accepts a "big bang" at Creation as belonging to the same large group of heretics because the "bang" doesn't seem to line up with Ham's interpretation of the first six days of creation.

Hi Chris,

Just some clarification on a few points here. The 'big bang' has not been observed by science. A Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) is what is observed and is postulated to be the after effects of a big bang. The big bang theory has existed for some time now but has only recently gained acceptance even well after the CMB was first observed. It's still controversial among scientists as are all origin hypothesis. The most popular hypothesis at one time is called the Steady State theory which postulates that the universe has always existed.

S
sermonindex

Lysa,

Hugh Ross seems like a great guy from the short bit of the video I watched. Genuine, peaceful, intelligent. But I too, like Chris, lean towards a literal reading of Genesis.

There's a book devoted to the rebuttal of Hugh Ross called Refuting Compromise, if you're interested. Its a book I would like to read at some point. Anyway, I found a link to an information page about the book with a chart containing the main differences listed clearly between Hugh Ross and YEC. The chart is about 15% down the page of the following link:

-------
http://creation.com/refuting-compromise-refutation-of-hugh-ross-introductory-chapter-and-reviews
-------


Blessings to you all

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

Hi hulsey,

I apologize for the wording of my previous post. I meant to express that most scientists generally accept the "big bang theory" because of the observations that they have made regarding the direction by which the physical universe seems to be moving from one place.

My problem with Ken Ham's position isn't so much his refusal to acknowledge just WHY those scientists feel the way that they do, but the way he treats those who do. I don't believe that the universe just happened by a "bang" that resulted from a great cosmic accident. However, I do think that it is plausible that the world fled from God's presence when He spoke the world into existence. The "observation" of scientists could simply attest to this.

I hope that this makes a little more sense.

C
Compton

Hi everyone,

I've always felt this topic is a worthwhile discussion, even though we won't always agree with one another conclusions.

There are two authors that I feel contribute to this discussion, whether we believes science is a source of heresy or the foundations of all human knowledge. One topic these authors both discuss in particular is the Copernican revolution.

Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and Paul Feyerabands "Against Method," both dismiss the narrative that the Church irrationally and obstinately stood against science in rejecting the new idea that the earth was not the center of the universe. In their books, they point out that the contemporary scientific community also rejected the new theory. The reasons scientists of the time dismissed the idea was because it went against the foundational premises of their own science; in other words they fought the idea not because they were anti-science, but because they were good scientists adhering faithfully to the scholarship of their day.

Both authors indicate that only as one generation dies off can a new paradigm emerge triumphant. In fact, the heliocentric idea proposed by Coperrnicas would need several generations to become fully accepted by scientists as reality.

I am not against "science" and enjoy learning about many fields of study from electronics, to paleontology, to neurolinguistics. However, i am wary that some materialist philosophies get a free ride just by positioning themselves as science. Especially when it comes to cosmology, the scientific establishment seems to claim exclusive jurisdiction on issues that are just too important to humanity to leave to scientists alone. Often science plays a neat little materialistic trick in order to become this sole arbitrator of reality; what it cannot measure it dismisses as irrelevant, or worse yet, as nonexistent.

Every civiilization before us has set out to find the truth, some even producing sophisticated schools and scholars, yet so far they have only succeeded in passing on mythologies that amuse the civilizations who follow. Given this historic precendent, i think its worth considering that science is still too young for us too assume this pattern has finally been broken, and that our age alone is free from its own biases and illusions.

Just my thoughts here:)

Thanks,

MC

S
sermonindex

I have been watching Kent Hovind a lot lately, you might find this video good on the Age of the Earth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY

Garden Of Eden

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoRSBGD7vbA

Bible and Dinosaurs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoRSBGD7vbA Chrissss you might like this evidence

Lies in the Textbooks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8GgrUposII

H
hulsey

NoahJD Said:

Hugh Ross seems like a great guy from the short bit of the video I watched. Genuine, peaceful, intelligent. But I too, like Chris, lean towards a literal reading of Genesis.

Hi NoahJD,

To be fair, Hugh Ross and Ken Ham have a long history. I have a dvd of one of their debates that they did on the John Ankerberg show. The debate was very poorly moderated and really wasn't moderated. It was Hugh Ross, Walter Kaiser, and the moderator, John Ankerberg against Ken Ham and he brought astrophysicist Jason Lisle with him. Hugh Ross was arrogant and condescending while Ankerberg served to quash any rebuttal Ken Ham produced. Fortunately he had Jason Lisle with him who could have handled the other three all by himself.

Hugh Ross not only believes in long ages he also doesn't believe the flood account. He teaches that it was a large local flood.

S
sermonindex

Here's that chart put in a different format.


HUGH ROSS (OEC)
vs
CREATION MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL (YEC)

-------
The earth and universe are billions of years old.
vs\t
The earth and universe are about 6,000 years old.
-------

The days of creation were really vast ages.
vs
The days of creation were ordinary days.
-------

The sun and stars were created before the earth, and merely ‘appeared’ to a hypothetical observer on earth on the fourth ‘day.’
vs
The sun and stars were created on day 4, after the earth (created on day 1).
-------

The seventh day is still continuing, supported by the alleged ‘fact’ of no new species arising in the last 10,000 years.
vs
The seventh day was also about 24 hours long. Some populations become reproductively isolated (unable to interbreed) today, which, by definition, means that a new species is formed.
-------

Animals were eating each other, dying from natural disasters, and suffering from many diseases, for millions of years before mankind existed.
vs
Creation was originally ‘very good,’ while death, suffering, and disease ultimately are the result of Adam’s sin, which resulted in God’s curse upon His creation.
-------

God created almost all species separately.
vs
God created comparatively few ‘kinds,’ and many ‘species’ are the results of non-information increasing diversification of the created gene-pools, especially after the Flood.
-------

God created Adam 60,000 to 10,000 years ago [this range incorporates the possibility that Adam post-dates Aboriginals’ arrival in Australia, ‘dated’ 40,000 years ago]. Neandertals were not true humans but soulless hominids.
vs
God created Adam about 6,000 years ago. Neandertals, like Homo erectus, are fossils of true humans who descended from Adam, and likely lived shortly after Babel.
-------

The order in the fossils is a record of distinct ages with vastly different creatures existing, all the results of separate creative acts by God over periods of time.\t
vs
Much of the fossil ‘order’ reflects the different stages of burial in a worldwide Flood and subsequent local catastrophes, as well as different ecosystems.
-------

Noah’s Flood was restricted to the Mesopotamian river valley.\t
vs
Noah’s Flood covered the entire globe.
-------

God had to intervene supernaturally to produce the different racial characteristics, to help the people separate at Babel.\t
vs
Adam and Eve had the genetic information to give rise to all the different ‘races’ (people groups) today, allowing for non-information-gaining mutations. The racial characteristics arose after small people groups became separated after Babel.
-------

source: http://creation.com/refuting-compromise-refutation-of-hugh-ross-introductory-chapter-and-reviews

S
sermonindex

The following is an extract from Watchman Nee “The Mystery of Creation.”

In the original Hebrew, this initial verse of the first chapter of Genesis contains seven words which carry within themselves a sense of independence. These divinely revealed words do not say that in the beginning God “formed” or “made” the world out of certain raw materials. No, the heavens and the earth were created. This word “created” is “bara” in the original. So that in the beginning God bara the heavens and the earth. This word “bara” is used three more times in Genesis 1 and 2: (1st) “And God created [bara] the great sea- monsters, and every living creature that moveth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind” (1.21); (2nd) “And God created [bara] man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (1.27); and (3rd) “And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it he rested from all his work which God had created [bara] and made” (2.3). To “create” is to “call the things that are not, as though they were” (Rom. 4.17). These sea-monsters and living things not only had physical bodies but also had an animated life within them. They therefore required a direct creative act of God. Thus it is only reasonable that the Scriptures should use the word “created” rather than the word “made” in these passages. In similar manner, though man’s body was formed out of the dust of the ground, his soul and spirit could not be made out of any physical material, and hence the Bible declared that “God created man in his own image.”

Genesis and Geology

In the first two chapters of Genesis three different words are used for the act of creation: (1) “bara”—calling into being without the aid of pre-existing material. This we have already touched upon; (2) “asah”—which is quite different from “bara,” since the latter denotes the idea of creating without any material whereas “asah” signifies the making, fashioning, or preparing out of existing material. For instance, a carpenter can make a chair, but he cannot create one. The works of the Six Days in Genesis are mainly of the order of “asah”; (3) “yatsar”—which means to shape or mold as a potter does with clay. This word is used in Genesis 2.7 as follows: “And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground.” Interestingly, Isaiah 43.7 illustrates the meaning and connection of all three of these words: “every one that is called by my name, and whom I have created for my glory, whom I have formed, yea, whom I have made.” “Created” signifies a calling into being out of nothing; “formed” denotes a fashioning into appointed form; and “made” means a preparing out of pre-existing material.
The words “In the beginning” reinforce the thought of God creating the heavens and the earth out of nothing. There is really no need to theorize; since God has so spoken, let men simply believe. How absurd for finite minds to search out the works of God which He performed at the beginning! “By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God” (Heb. 11.3). Who can answer God’s challenge to Job concerning creation (see Job 38)?

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” This heaven is not the firmament immediately surrounding the earth; rather, it points to the heaven where the stars are. It has not undergone any change since it was created, but the earth is no longer the same.
To understand the first chapter of Genesis, it is of utmost importance that we distinguish the “earth” mentioned in verse 1 from the “earth” spoken of in verse 2. For the condition of the earth referred to in verse 2 is not what God had created originally. Now we know that “God is not a God of confusion” (1 Cor. 14.33). And hence when it states that in the beginning God created the earth, what He created was therefore perfect. So that the waste and void of the earth spoken of in verse 2 was not the original condition of the earth as God first created it. Would God ever create an earth whose primeval condition would be waste and void? A true understanding of this verse will solve the apparent problem.

“Thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens, the God that formed the earth and made it, that established it and created it not a waste, that formed it to be inhabited: I am Jehovah; and there is none else” (Is. 45.18). How clear God’s word is. The word “waste” here is “tohu” in Hebrew, which signifies “desolation” or “that which is desolate.” It says here that the earth which God created was not a waste. Why then does Genesis 1.2 state that “the earth was waste”? This may be easily resolved. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1.1). At that time, the earth which God had created was not a waste; but later on, in passing through a great catastrophe, the earth did become waste and void. So that all which is mentioned from verse 3 onward does not refer to the original creation but to the restoration of the earth. God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning; but He subsequently used the Six Days to remake the earth habitable. Genesis 1.1 was the original world; Genesis 1.3 onward is our present world; while Genesis 1.2 describes the desolate condition which was the earth’s during the transitional period following its original creation and before our present world.

Such an interpretation cannot only be arrived at on the basis of Isaiah 45.18, it can also be supported on the basis of other evidences. The conjunctive word “and” in verse 2 can also be translated as “but”: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but the earth was waste and void.” G. H. Pember, in his book Earth’s Earliest Ages, wrote that:

the “and” according to Hebrew usage—as well as that of most other languages—proves that the first verse is not a compendium of what follows, but a statement of the first event in the record. For if it were a mere summary, the second verse would be the actual commencement of the history, and certainly would not begin with a copulative. A good illustration of this may be found in the fifth chapter of Genesis (Gen. 5.1). There the opening words, “This is the book of the generations of Adam,” are a compendium of the chapter, and, consequently, the next sentence begins without a copulative. We have, therefore, in the second verse of Genesis no first detail of a general statement in the preceding sentence, but the record of an altogether distinct and subsequent event, which did not affect the sidereal [starry] heaven, but only the earth and its immediate surroundings. And what that event was we must now endeavour to discover.

Over a hundred years ago, Dr. Chalmers pointed out that the words “the earth was waste” might equally be translated “the earth became waste.” Dr. I. M. Haldeman, G. H. Pember, and others showed that the Hebrew word for “was” here has been translated “became” in Genesis 19.26: “His wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.” If this same Hebrew word can be translated in 19.26 as “became,” why can it not be translated as “became” in 1.2? Furthermore, the word “became” in 2.7 (“and man became a living soul”) is the same word as is found in Genesis 1.2. So that it is not at all arbitrary for anyone to translate “was” as “became” here: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, [but] the earth became waste and void.” The earth which God created originally was not waste, it only later became waste.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1.1) and “in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is” (Ex. 20.11). Comparing these two verses, we can readily see that the world in Genesis 1.1 was quite different from the world that came after Genesis 1.3. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. In the Six Days God made the heaven and earth and sea. Who can measure the distance that exists between “created” and “made”? The one is a calling into being things out of nothing, the other is a working on something already there. Man can make but cannot create; God can create as well as make. Hence Genesis records that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but later on the earth had become waste and void due to a tremendous catastrophe, after which God commenced to remake the heaven, earth and sea and all the creatures in them. 2 Peter 3.5-7 expresses the same thought as well: the heavens and the earth in verse 5 are the original heavens and earth referred to in Genesis 1.1; the earth mentioned in verse 6 that was overflowed with water and which perished is the earth covered with water which became waste and void as mentioned in Genesis 1.2; and the heavens and the earth that now are as spoken of in verse 7 are the restored heavens and earth after Genesis 1.3. Hence the works of God during the Six Days are quite different from His creative work done in the beginning.

The more we study Genesis 1, the more we are convinced that the above is the true interpretation. In the first day, God commanded light to shine forth. Before this first day, the earth had already been existing, but it was now buried in water, dwelt in darkness, and was waste and void. On the third day, God did not create the earth. He merely commanded it to come out of water. F. W. Grant has stated that “the six days’ work merely sets the earth into a new program; it does not create it out of nothing.”∗ On the first day, God did not create light, He instead commanded light to shine out of darkness. The light was already there. Neither did God create heaven on the second day. The heaven here is not the starry heaven but the atmospheric heaven, that which surrounds the earth. Where, then, did all these come from if they were not created during the Six Days? The one answer is that they were created at the time of the first verse of Genesis 1. So that subsequently, there was no need to create but simply to remake.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Note that there is no detailed description here. We therefore do not know whether the original heaven and earth were created instantaneously or through many ages. Was it done in thousands of years or in millions of years? In what shape and how large? We only know that God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. Neither do we know how many years elapsed between the time of the first verse and that of the second verse of Genesis 1. We do not know when God created the heavens and the earth, nor do we know how long was the period after the original creation that the desolation described in verse 2 occurred. But we do believe that the original, perfect creation must have passed through many many years before it became waste and void. Such a long period would be enough to cover the so-called pre-historic age. All the years which geology demands and all the so-called geologic periods which it distributes among those years can fall into this time frame. We do not know how long the earth underwent change nor how many changes there were before it became waste and void because the Scriptures do not tell us these things. Yet we can affirm that the Bible never states that the age of the earth is but six thousand years in length. It merely shows that the history of man is approximately six thousand years old. By understanding the first two verses of Scripture, we can recognize that there is no contradiction between the Bible and geology. The attack of geologists against the Bible is merely beating the air. How marvellous is the word of God.

Personal Note:

It is grievous when believers actively question the validity of the Word of God and lend themselves to science no matter how many scientist agree or disagree. The moment we stop trusting God and His abilities whether with regard to the Scriptures and their trustworthiness or whether in regard to His ability to “hide” His activities from evil unbelieving men we are in danger of having no basis for understanding anything at all in this life except that we ourselves are sufficient to its enquiry. Such a thing is preposterous because no one is equal to such an enquiry at all. If we don’t resist the day it will overtake us in the end.

F
FireinmyBones1

hulsey,

While I understand that the Psalms are not all apocalyptic in nature, there are certainly some Psalms which do employ apocalyptic imagery. The particular Psalm which I quoted is a very good example of this. Apocalyptic literature employs language that seems to be describing the end of all things, the destruction of the world, etc..., when in reality, it is sometimes merely describing the victory of God in any given situation.

I also agree with you that Genesis is not to be read as though it were a Psalm, or an apocalyptic book. My point is simply that we rarely think about the fact that the Biblical writers, and original readers, had a very different way of thinking than we do in the Hellenized 21st century. We are still stuck in Greek rationalism, which causes us to miss out on a great deal of meaning in the scriptures.

For instance, many are still awaiting the events of Matthew 24, when Christ told us as plain as day that those events would unfold in the first century. Why do we stumble over that so much? Simply because of Christ's usage of apocalyptic, and metaphoric language! My point is not that Genesis is an apocalyptic work, which must be read as though it were mere metaphor. I'm simply stating that the Hebrew mind had no problem with employing metaphor in order to describe abstract thoughts, or grandiose ideas.

I, myself, would probably lean more towards a literal interpretation of Genesis, though, for me, it really does not effect my faith one way or another. All I am attempting to do is offer some insight into the way that the Biblical writers thought. It is very possible that Moses was expressing the creation account in symbolic language, but then again, he may not have been. The point is that we ought not to be dogmatic and divisive over issues that are clearly side issues. It is not compromise for someone to interpret Genesis metaphorically, anymore than it is compromise for someone to interpret Revelation literally. I, myself, believe that Revelation is a book which speaks of the first century destruction of Jerusalem, albeit in very veiled, and apocalyptic language. However, to the one who insists it be taken "literally", and believers that it is descriptive of future events, though I disagree passionately with that position, I will not accuse them of compromise!

We ought to extend grace to one another when it comes to interpretations of non essential, Biblical issues. That is all. :)

Peace.

S
staff

hi chrisss,
according to dr grady mc murtry the big bang theory has not been accepted with any credibility for decades by evolutionary scientists but as with all these theories they assume a life of their own and like some darwinian ideas carry on as been gospel for years after ,staff

L
Lysa

hulsey wrote:
To be fair, Hugh Ross and Ken Ham have a long history. I have a dvd of one of their debates that they did on the John Ankerberg show. The debate was very poorly moderated and really wasn't moderated. It was Hugh Ross, Walter Kaiser, and the moderator, John Ankerberg against Ken Ham and he brought astrophysicist Jason Lisle with him. Hugh Ross was arrogant and condescending while Ankerberg served to quash any rebuttal Ken Ham produced. Fortunately he had Jason Lisle with him who could have handled the other three all by himself.

Here is the full 3 hour and 45 minute debate.

Everybody will be able to see for themselves how arrogant Hugh Ross is compared to Ken Ham, who interrupts Ross constantly.

John Ankerberg Show
Debate on Science and the Bible
Ken Ham, Jason Lisle VS Hugh Ross, Walter Kaiser
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa2qyoqwejU

God bless,
Lisa

L
Lysa

Chris wrote:
Like I said, I always find it disturbing when I hear men who are not trained in science and are highly skeptical of it and extremely bold with their creation theology yet still rely on some science as a defense for a particular position.

Ham has a Bachelor’s degree is Applied Science and nothing higher.

Hugh Ross has a Ph.D in astronomy which makes him an astrophysicist. Correct? (I'm going on memory!)

God bless,
Lisa

L
Lysa


Noah,

Ross’s view of creation is from the heavens while Ham views creation from the earth. So there is going to be a bit of difference in their models. Please know that Ross is a heavy believer in the Bible, just b/c he's a astrophysicist doesn't mean he doesn't believe in it.

I used to listen to Ken Ham in the early 90’s and I got tired of his disrespectful attitude but while listening I heard a debate between him and Ross and from it loved Ross’s demeanor and respect (which he has not lost over the years) and THAT is what intrigued me enough to listen to Ross’s perspective of creation which after a couple weeks of studying and listening, I agreed with.

You’re encouraging me to read Ham but why will you not give an entire book or an entire interview to honestly listen to an astrophysicist? It’s entirely up to you, brother! I judge you not!

God bless,
Lisa

H
hulsey

Ken Ham's and AIG's view of creation is from the Bible first according to their own testimony not 'the earth'. They believe in a young earth, so-called as 6,000yrs is in no way a short amount of time, because Genesis and other Biblical texts related to creation when rightly interpreted teach a 'young earth'. The science follows when rightly interpreted.

As far as credentials go, Ken Ham is the president and founder of AIG that employs large numbers of doctorates including Ph.D.'s in all the relevant fields of science of which Jason Lisle (astrophysicist Ph.D.) is just one example. He, Ken Ham, was a researcher for ICR (Institute for Creation Research), the most academic of the creation science think-tanks. It is geared toward professional scientists. He left to found AIG, an organization geared more toward the layman.

A brief summary of the young-earth creationist view can be found here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v6/n1/yec-view-summary

H
hulsey

Here is a video on distant starlight by astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/Distant-Starlight/distant-starlight

Here is the biography of this highly credentialed Ph.D. who works for AIG. His credentials include astronomy research using the SOHO spacecraft:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_lisle.asp

L
Lysa


Hulsey,

Let's just agree to disagree! I have explained why I prefer Ross over Ham from the beginning of this discussion.

This is really a different perspective (like tomato / tomoto) and we will really NEVER really know until the great day and we'll probably all be wrong somehow!!

God bless,
Lisa

H
hulsey

Hi Lysa,

Agreed. We only know in part and prophesy in part till the Lord returns.

S
sermonindex

Lysa,

I just watched a bit of the long debate on the John Ankerberg show. Sorry about not watching the whole thing.

I understand why you got turned off by Ham. I personally was never led to AIG. Creation.com may be better in some respects, I don't know for sure.

The book I recommended was not by Ham. My post was not mainly for you to read the book, that was in passing, but for the thread to see the OEC vs YEC chart (for discussion).

Hope this clarifies.

T
therick2018

TMK wrote,

"I dont think anyone here is suggesting that Adam was created millions of years ago (even evolutionsits think that "modern man" appeared less than a million years ago). I believe the earth is billions of years old but I have no issue whatsoever with the accuracy of the genealogies."

Dear TMK,

How can the above square with Scriptures? We know about how long it has been since Adam and Eve. How can you explain millions of years of the earth's existence including death, decay, and fossils before the Fall of our first parents? How can one biblically believe in death before the fall of man? The Bible specifically teaches that soley because of the fall of man that death and sorrow came upon this world. How is death and decay good? God made this world good, not corrupt or diseased! Was God's glorious and magnificent creation really created or made subject to disease, death,competition, enmity, rotteness, decay, and stinking animal carcasses before the fall? To me this is an unbiblical and horrifying prospect. Surely death and sorrow for even the beast and creation is soley a result of the wickedness of man (Joel 1:15-20). All things were made by, for, and to the glory of Christ. How does a diseased, dying creation give Him glory? How does it reflected His very nature and character as the pure, true, perfect, beautiful and living God?

Someone beforehand mentioned that plants died before the fall because they were eaten for food. First I would suggest that possibly plants themselves didn't perish, but rather their fruit was used as food for man and beast (Gen 1:11, 29-30). Secondly I think there is a clear distinction between plant life and that of animals and humans. Creatures that have the breath of life and blood (Gen 1:30, Lev 17:14).

Also, Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day. Adam lived for 930 years. If the sixth day of creation was a normal 24 hour day then why would have any of the other days of creation been any different? Or else the Bible is not true and Adam is much much older. It seems to me that it is a great twisting of Scripture to insert millions of years into the first 5 days of creation and then say that that day 6 was a 24 hour day. I do not want to be rude, but I must say I fear that "millions of years" is a denial of the truth and sufficiency of the Word of God.

Please don't use Ken Ham's sinful attitude, if it was, as an excuse to nullify his arguments. Scripture has to be our final authority.

The carnal mind is enmity against God (Rom 8:7). We must have hearts that tremble at the Word of God. The scientist of the world, even those who claim to be christian, are subject to the ultimate authority of God's word.

If death and decay existed in the creation before man then will there, whatever be your eschatology, be death and corruption in the new earth?

Scripture teaches that God is good to all; every part of His creation (Jon 4:11, Ps 147:9). God gave man authority over all the earth and to have dominion over it. But because of the fall of the superior creature, the whole world was affected by sin. Thus the first animal that died was the animal that God made skins out of for Adam and Eve to cover their nakedness/sin. This was the first animal sacrifice, the first typology of the sacrifice of Christ, which followed the first promise of the Gospel following Adam's sin (Gen 3:15). The first animal died as a demonstration of the curse of God against sin. This was a forerunner to the Hebrew practice of animal sacrifice for the atonement of human sin which was all a shadow portraying the true atoning work of Jesus Christ. Unless we eat His flesh and blood we have not life.

Because the sin of man brought death into the entire creation only in Christ can there be a reconciliation of all things.

And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. (Col 1:20)

No matter how subtle, or seemingly insignificant, I fear bringing death into the world before the Fall is an attack upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

T
TMK

Hey Rick-

It's nothing personal. Like I said very early on I certainly might be wrong about the age of the earth. It doesn't really matter to me one way or the other. You are much more passionate about this than I am, obviously- and that's a good thing.

I just don't believe that humans were running around with T-rex's and stegosuaruses and brachiosauruses. Then again, maybe that is how they built the pyramids- using brachiosaurs like Fred Flintstone did in the quarry.

If the earth is 6000 years old it creates problems like this. Where are all the dinosaurs mentioned in early literature? Dragons? Leviathans? I am not convinced. If they died out after the flood, does that mean they were only around for a couple thousand years? And what about the asteroid that hit in the Yucatan? Where does that fit in?

I know that Ken Ham et al have explanations for all this but they simply dont make sense to me.

And what about "cave men?" i.e neanderthals and such. The Bible says that the earliest of humans were very cultured- farming, building cities, building arks.

Again, I know Ken Ham has answers for all this, I just don't buy it.

I think the Bible and science are consistent. Where the two seem not to be consistent, there is either a misintepretation of scripture or the misinterpretation of science. Ken Ham says it is the latter, old earthers say it is the former. Of course there may be a combination of both.

Again I find it startling that you would say the gospel hinges on the age of the earth. The gospel is that Jesus came to save sinners. I don't think we need to complicate it be adding additional unnecessary elements.

S
sermonindex

I thought the gospel hinged upon the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ? I find it more marvelous there is an empty tomb in Jerusalem. Can a Moslem claim Mohamed rose from from tbe dead? Or a Buddhist say Buddha rose from the dead

Whether the earth is 6 thousand o6 billion years old does not speak to the condition of the human heart. Only the stoning work of Jesus Christ?
Our faith does not rest on the age of the earth. But did Jesus rise from the dead?

I hear these people who debate this age issue. But do they understand tbe truth of Jesus? They read Genesis. But do they understand the gospel of John.

The Bible is not meant to be a science text book. It is meant to reveal the truth of Jesus Christ. When one makes tbe Bible to be anything other than that one gets into trouble. The Bible s a book of faith, not science.

I wonder what people who get into this issue will have to show for it in eternity. Has anyone been won to Christ through winning a literal earth debate. Frankly just don't get it. But then against my betters I am an intellectual pygmy. Guess I did not evolve enough.

Bearmaster standing down.

H
hulsey

Just a short note on the youtube video showing the debate between Ken Ham and Hugh Ross. I watched a good portion of it and it struck me that I wasn't watching the same debate that I have on DVD. I was confused because the set was the same, debaters the same, etc. Then I got my dvd series out to look at it to make sure it was the same and the note on the back of the dvd states that the tv series which you see on youtube is heavily edited. Almost three hours of debate has been removed. The dvd which is a 10 part series seen all in context shows a completely different debate.

T
therick2018

TMK wrote

"Again I find it startling that you would say the gospel hinges on the age of the earth. The gospel is that Jesus came to save sinners. I don't think we need to complicate it be adding additional unnecessary elements."

Dear TMK,

The age of the earth is not the main issue for me. I think we can know that from Scripture. The main point I am driving is that it is wrong and unscriptural to bring death into the world prior to the Fall of Adam and Eve. Death is a direct result, spiritual and natural, of Adam's sin; it is God's righteous judgment against those who rebel against Him.

My understanding is that most or all who hold to old earth believe that there was death and corruption in the world prior to Adam and Eve. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Bearmaster wrote "I thought the gospel hinged upon the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?"

I agree whole heartedly, the Gospel does hinge on these things. But now I ask. Why did Christ die? Why was He buried? Why did He rise again from the dead?

It was because man rebelled against the good Lord and in his great sin brought death, spiritual and natural into the world of man, body and soul. It brought curse, sweat, death and sorrow to the whole of God's creation. Remember oh remember God created all things good! Death is not natural. People aren't supposed to die, creation isn't supposed to die and rot. God in grace sent His Son to redeem His people from death and sin. Not only do Christians have pardon and new hearts and natures, and seated with Christ in heavenly places, but we look forward to glorified bodies in the resurrection. A new heaven and a new earth.

But if such things as death and corruption existed before the Fall then it must have been made that way by God and therefore Adam's sin can't be connected with the corruption and death we see in this world. If Adam had never sinned I suppose he still would have died at some point according to this view for death must not be inherently evil. Surely this cannot be.

The very reason Christ died, was buried, and rose again was to redeem His people from their sins, to save them from all the penalty and disaster they brought upon themselves by their sin against God.

We can't rightly know what sin, death and judgement are unless we search out, study, and believe in all the revealed Word of God. We can make cliches out of phrases such as "Jesus died, was buried, and rose again". But what do these things means. We have to define these things by what the whole council of God says. To rightly understand sin and death we have to know what God says about it in His Word.

I agree Bearmaster, the empty tomb is marvelous. But why? What's the big deal about death? Isn't it just a natural part of God's creation? No the empty tomb is amazing because man been held captive to death for centuries, as a direct result of Adam and Eve's sin against God. The whole creation has been groaning and travailing under the curse of God and the power of death. Death, the result of sin, is not a natural foe, but a supernatural one. But now there is the Redeemer!

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

S
sermonindex

This is pretty much what I was going to say, not that my view matters. And its also the driving point of Creation.com. They go into more detail about what long ages and death before Adam implies, and also the consequences the world takes on due to the evolutionary worldview--which is just a hop, skip and a jump away.

not wanting to cause harm,

Noah

S
sermonindex

I just watched a short video about the case for middle-age creationism from Hugh Ross:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZITt-bckl0

It was a really good video. 23 mins

I think I will look into how amrkelly's post about time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2/1:3 fits with the data Hugh Ross talks about. Praise God.

I'm sorry, I believe I started the wrong spirit in this thread.

Blessings to you all

Noah

This discussion is archived and closed to new replies. Start a new discussion to carry the subject on.
Archived
1 of 62 posts

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate