What is your view on creation?

What is your view on creation?

  • The world was created in six literal days in the recent past

    Votes: 127 80.4%
  • The world was created in the distant past and the days of creation are not literal.

    Votes: 14 8.9%
  • God created the world in the distant past using evolution.

    Votes: 7 4.4%
  • Not sure.

    Votes: 10 6.3%

  • Total voters
    158
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think one of the often unthought out arguments with regard to the age of the Earth that Christians who believe the Earth is very old is that we have no idea how the fall effected creation. It is impossible for us to arrive at an age of the Earth through scientific means because as Christians we affirm that the creation was radically altered and corrupted by the Fall.
 
No. I didn't mean that there might be billions of years from the creation of Adam until now. At the most tens or hundreds of thousands.

Many creationists and biblical scholars agree that there are gaps in the biblical genealogies.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

I would agree with you, but I have heard some people claim that these gaps in the genealogies allow for the Earth to be billions of years old. That would have to be one big gap.
 
No. I didn't mean that there might be billions of years from the creation of Adam until now. At the most tens or hundreds of thousands.

Many creationists and biblical scholars agree that there are gaps in the biblical genealogies.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

I would agree with you, but I have heard some people claim that these gaps in the genealogies allow for the Earth to be billions of years old. That would have to be one big gap.

The problem with that, apart from the fact it does not comport with a realistic view of the Scripture genealogies, is that if they are trying to reconcile Scripture with current popular and false science, even evolutionists themselves only posit that "man" has been on earth for 2.3 million years, and "modern man" much less than that, so no-one is saying that man has been around for billions of years anyway.

The evolutionists will desperately cling to their false theory, but when it is finally discarded there will be much reassessing and recalibrating of timescales to go with that.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
The evolutionists will desperately cling to their false theory, but when it is finally discarded there will be much reassessing and recalibrating of timescales to go with that.
And then the bigbangers will have a case of the redshift blues...
 
I think one of the often unthought out arguments with regard to the age of the Earth that Christians who believe the Earth is very old is that we have no idea how the fall effected creation. It is impossible for us to arrive at an age of the Earth through scientific means because as Christians we affirm that the creation was radically altered and corrupted by the Fall.

Agreed. Beyond that, we also have biblical testimony that the aging process in humans changed considerably over the time period of the book of Genesis, and is different today than it was as recently as the time of the Exodus. It's certainly possible that this is connected to larger changes in the aging process of things on earth. The dating methods in use by most scientists today assume that the rate and process of aging and decay has always been the same as it is today, but that assumption likely is false.
 
I did vote, because the question spoke only of six literal days. I was hesitant on the "recent past" portion, because I don't think thousands of years ago is all that recent.

6-8k years is quite recent though compared to "hundreds of millions of years", which is generally what the evolutionists purport.

Of course as Victor pointed out that this may not work depending on how one measures time before the the sun and moon were created. BTW I am not a macroevolutionist.
 
The amount of carbon 14 being constant back then would have to be observed to be known and, as i understand it, since no one was around back then that puts it into the realm of historic science and not operational science. Also consider the question of if carbon 14 decayed at the same rate with certain pre~andeluvian atmospheric differences like for instance a firmament. Or had the same saturation amounts.

Here is a quote from page 82~84 of "The New Answers Book" 2007 general editor Ken Ham, which the same information is available at Doesn

A Critical Assumption

A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.

Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.

In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).

If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.2

Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.

The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.3

What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.
Magnetic Field of the Earth

Other factors can affect the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere. The earth has a magnetic field around it which helps protect us from harmful radiation from outer space. This magnetic field is decaying (getting weaker). The stronger the field is around the earth, the fewer the number of cosmic rays that are able to reach the atmosphere. This would result in a smaller production of 14C in the atmosphere in earth’s past.

The cause for the long term variation of the C-14 level is not known. The variation is certainly partially the result of a change in the cosmic ray production rate of radiocarbon. The cosmic-ray flux, and hence the production rate of C-14, is a function not only of the solar activity but also of the magnetic dipole moment of the Earth.4

Though complex, this history of the earth’s magnetic field agrees with Barnes’ basic hypothesis, that the field has always freely decayed.... The field has always been losing energy despite its variations, so it cannot be more than 10,000 years old.5

Earth’s magnetic field is fading. Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845, scientists say.6

If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere was less in the past, dates given using the carbon-14 method would incorrectly assume that more 14C had decayed out of a specimen than what has actually occurred. This would result in giving older dates than the true age.
Genesis Flood

What role might the Genesis Flood have played in the amount of carbon? The Flood would have buried large amounts of carbon from living organisms (plant and animal) to form today’s fossil fuels (coal, oil, etc.). The amount of fossil fuels indicates there must have been a vastly larger quantity of vegetation in existence prior to the Flood than exists today. This means that the biosphere just prior to the Flood might have had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than today. This would further dilute the amount of 14C and cause the 14C/12C ratio to be much smaller than today.

If that were the case, and this C-14 were distributed uniformly throughout the biosphere, and the total amount of biosphere C were, for example, 500 times that of today’s world, the resulting C-14/C-12 ratio would be 1/500 of today’s level....7

When the Flood is taken into account along with the decay of the magnetic field, it is reasonable to believe that the assumption of equilibrium is a false assumption.

Because of this false assumption, any age estimates using 14C prior to the Flood will give much older dates than the true age. Pre-Flood material would be dated at perhaps ten times the true age.
 
No. I didn't mean that there might be billions of years from the creation of Adam until now. At the most tens or hundreds of thousands.

Many creationists and biblical scholars agree that there are gaps in the biblical genealogies.
I voted literal six days and recent past.

Maybe Harold Camping was close to the real date, i.e., 11,000+ years:

TimeHasAnEndDates.jpg
[Click to Enlarge]

Camping relies on an examination of Peleg's geneology to conclude that the term “begat” as used in Genesis Chapters 5 and 11, must have, at least in some instances, reference to a relationship other than that of an immediate father-son.

;)
 

Attachments

  • TimeHasAnEndDates.pdf
    27.5 KB · Views: 3
I let the Scriptures interpret the Scriptures instead of letting science force it's worldly view on the doctrine.
 
Many creationists and biblical scholars agree that there are gaps in the biblical genealogies.

I have heard some theories which imply gap in the early genealogies but it doesn't make sense to me. In the Gospel of Luke, Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way up to Adam, it would seem odd that Luke would have taken the time to trace literal genealogies up to Noah but then only include the "generalized" genealogies prior to the flood up the Adam. Why not generalized the genealogies prior also and only include David, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Shem and Noah?
 
Many creationists and biblical scholars agree that there are gaps in the biblical genealogies.

I have heard some theories which imply gap in the early genealogies but it doesn't make sense to me. In the Gospel of Luke, Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way up to Adam, it would seem odd that Luke would have taken the time to trace literal genealogies up to Noah but then only include the "generalized" genealogies prior to the flood up the Adam. Why not generalized the genealogies prior also and only include David, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Shem and Noah?

In comparison of the various biblical genealogies there have been found gaps in the genealogies after the time of the Patriarchs also.

The genealogies aren't "literal" if complete, or "metaphorical" if they have gaps, or untruthful if they have gaps. Are we presuming that a genealogy is untruthful if it has gaps? Is this just a presumption on our part? Do we always presume that when we are presented with a genealogy, it will have no gaps? I know that my family tree going back to 1682 has gaps in the main line.

What did Israelites expect from familiy trees? Did they always expect gap free family trees, or condensed family trees especially if a very long period of time was covered, or just the main people to be mentioned?

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
"In the beginning"

"In the beginning" - the Hebrew for this can be used for an undetermined, or unspecified period of time. My understanding is then "in an unspecified period of time, God created the heavens and the earth" and then at a time of His choosing (unspecified period of time later), God carried out the work of Creation in six literal days. Besides, what is "time", except a measurement of the speed of light? What is light? Well, the Bible tells us God is light, and also God said "let there be light". It can be inferred then that God is/determines/controls time, and until He spoke it into existence, light(time) was not.

This satisfies the "appearance of age" in geology and the observed expansion of the universe, and then reconciles nicely with the apparent recency of the earth as we understand it. It matches the Scripture's position for there being no death before the Fall, for the earth WAS, but it was formless and void, i.e. without life, until God breathed life into it, and then only grew until death entered through the one man.

Works for me. Happy to discuss, prepared to consider alternative interpretations.

Searched ESV text for "in the beginning". Searching on the Hebrew word gives more results, because "in the beginning" isn't the only translation of the word. These search results will suffice for now.
Showing 10 of 10 results.

Genesis 1:1 (Genesis 1) The Creation of the World
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Ezra 4:6 (Ezra 4)
And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.

Proverbs 20:21 (Proverbs 20) (included for completeness of the search results, not really relevant to this discussion)
An inheritance gained hastily in the beginning will not be blessed in the end.

Jeremiah 26:1 (Jeremiah 26) Jeremiah Threatened with Death
In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came from the Lord:

Jeremiah 27:1 (Jeremiah 27) The Yoke of Nebuchadnezzar
In the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came to Jeremiah from the Lord.

Jeremiah 49:34 (Jeremiah 49) Judgment on Elam
The word of the Lord that came to Jeremiah the prophet concerning Elam, in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah.

I know, these are from the NT, but it's interesting isn't it, how the sense applies here also ...?

John 1:1 (John 1) The Word Became Flesh
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:2 (John 1)
He was in the beginning with God.

Philippians 4:15 (Philippians 4)
And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only.

Hebrews 1:10 (Hebrews 1)
And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
 
I am a 100% 6 day believer. I cannot see the Bible say anything but 6 days. I also read a book on 50 scientists saying why they believe in the 6 day creation. Was a great read.
 
I voted for the world being created in six literal days because God said, "And the evening and morning were the first day." Also, to account for the apparent age of the earth, how old was the man Adam on the first day? Adam and the world were created with an apparent age. There may be ways one may look at the Hebrew word for day that lead one to think the day spoken of is an age instead, but the day is spoken of in the context of one morning and one evening. In order for the day to be an age it must consist of many evenings and mornings, but the words say there was only one evening and morning. We use the word day in various ways such as "in our day" and "one day" and "this day," but the context of our words communicates what we mean.

It does not seem likely that God would create the universe and allow it to exist with the ordinary operations of matter for many, many, many years and then create light on the first day. For my part, the evening and the morning of the first day includes verses one and two. However, I do see room for varying views concerning the period of time before verse three, but not so far as to allow the existence of life in the age of dinosaurs before verse three. How would they live and eat without light? Besides, I don't not know it to be necessary to look further into revelation than what revealed. What seems to matter most is that God called light out of darkness and established a pattern for us by creating the world in six days; and so were we saved, amen.
 
And I just thought of this: God told us he made the world in six days (Exo. 20:11).

Yes. This would seem to go against a gap between the creation of the Heavens and Earth, and the forming and filling of the Heavens and Earth on the Six Days, but I'm not sure whether Genesis 1 should be interpreted by Exodus 20, leading to the elimination of a gap, or whether Exodus 20 should be interpreted by the greater detail of Genesis 1, leaving the possibility of a gap, during which there was a rebellion in the Heaven of Heavens and the downfall of Satan and his angels.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
Many creationists and biblical scholars agree that there are gaps in the biblical genealogies.

I have heard some theories which imply gap in the early genealogies but it doesn't make sense to me. In the Gospel of Luke, Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way up to Adam, it would seem odd that Luke would have taken the time to trace literal genealogies up to Noah but then only include the "generalized" genealogies prior to the flood up the Adam. Why not generalized the genealogies prior also and only include David, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Shem and Noah?

In comparison of the various biblical genealogies there have been found gaps in the genealogies after the time of the Patriarchs also.

The genealogies aren't "literal" if complete, or "metaphorical" if they have gaps, or untruthful if they have gaps. Are we presuming that a genealogy is untruthful if it has gaps? Is this just a presumption on our part? Do we always presume that when we are presented with a genealogy, it will have no gaps? I know that my family tree going back to 1682 has gaps in the main line.

What did Israelites expect from familiy trees? Did they always expect gap free family trees, or condensed family trees especially if a very long period of time was covered, or just the main people to be mentioned?

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


I haven't research this subject in details so I won't pretend to be an expert on the subject but could you explain quickly how we can prove there are gaps in the genealogies? From my simple understanding the genealogies given in the bible seem to reflect pretty accurately the time line we can find from many secular historical account (at least after the flood). Even if we allow a few gaps it would certainly not amount to tens or hundreds of thousands years. If the genealogies since the flood seem pretty literal, why would we assume there are huge gaps in the genealogies given in the bible prior to the flood?
 
Many creationists and biblical scholars agree that there are gaps in the biblical genealogies.

I have heard some theories which imply gap in the early genealogies but it doesn't make sense to me. In the Gospel of Luke, Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way up to Adam, it would seem odd that Luke would have taken the time to trace literal genealogies up to Noah but then only include the "generalized" genealogies prior to the flood up the Adam. Why not generalized the genealogies prior also and only include David, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Shem and Noah?

In comparison of the various biblical genealogies there have been found gaps in the genealogies after the time of the Patriarchs also.

The genealogies aren't "literal" if complete, or "metaphorical" if they have gaps, or untruthful if they have gaps. Are we presuming that a genealogy is untruthful if it has gaps? Is this just a presumption on our part? Do we always presume that when we are presented with a genealogy, it will have no gaps? I know that my family tree going back to 1682 has gaps in the main line.

What did Israelites expect from familiy trees? Did they always expect gap free family trees, or condensed family trees especially if a very long period of time was covered, or just the main people to be mentioned?

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


I haven't research this subject in details so I won't pretend to be an expert on the subject but could you explain quickly how we can prove there are gaps in the genealogies? From my simple understanding the genealogies given in the bible seem to reflect pretty accurately the time line we can find from many secular historical account (at least after the flood). Even if we allow a few gaps it would certainly not amount to tens or hundreds of thousands years. If the genealogies since the flood seem pretty literal, why would we assume there are huge gaps in the genealogies given in the bible prior to the flood?

Yes, I would have to study it further myself. A comparison of the biblical genealogies show that they allow for gaps. How big the gaps are or how many or how many more years they would add to the 6,000 of Ussher would be a Q, I haven't looked at. Creationist A.J. Monty White gave a maximum of 100, 000 years, but how he came up with that figure, I don't know.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
1) Saying 6/24 hr days is incorrect as a day isnt literally 24 hours itself. This is why we have leap years... Not to mention Scripture's definition is morning and evening. So from the pulpit I say 6 literal days.

2) After preaching through Genesis and studying the genealogies I am fully convinced of a young earth and that Lightfoot's dating is at least very close (4,004 BC).
 
I thought this recent article written by G. I. Williamson was outstanding. A Defense of Six-Day Creation

"I’m well aware of the fact that our tolerance of “day-age,” “analogical,” and “framework” views is seen by some as a very good thing. It shows that we are not stick-in-the-mud fundamentalists. And for this reason we can still be people who are respected by intellectuals and scientific people. We can even join with them in ridiculing people like Ken Ham for their attempts to uphold and defend a literal reading of the Genesis account of creation. I am willing to admit that at one time I felt attracted to this viewpoint. I also wanted to be respected. And there certainly have been aspects of fundamentalism that I disagree with.


But when it comes to such a fundamental of the faith as the doctrine of creation, I am not ashamed to say that I have reached the point where, on this doctrine, I am more in harmony with them than with much of the material written by those who reject six-day creation.


This is what troubles me. There seems to be more of a consensus in denial than in affirmation. There is much more said about what did not happen, than upon what did happen. I’ve read material over and over again, defending the day-age view of creation. I’ve also done the same with respect to arguments for the analogical view and the framework view. And I cannot say that I have ever been able to clearly understand any of these three concepts. The one thing that seems clear in all three of these views is their rejection of the view that prevailed throughout the history of the church until the rise of the theory of evolution. I therefore want to state why I no longer believe that these negative views should ever have been tolerated in the first place."
G. I. Williamson

.... Click the link above to read the Ole Scholar's thoughts.

I also found this to be very good.
Creation and Charity: A Six Day Creationist Proposes a Third Way | Cosmic Christianity
 
Last edited:
"In the beginning" - the Hebrew for this can be used for an undetermined, or unspecified period of time. My understanding is then "in an unspecified period of time, God created the heavens and the earth" and then at a time of His choosing (unspecified period of time later), God carried out the work of Creation in six literal days.

Hi Michael :p oops found you online!

I disagree with how our pastor explained "in the beginning" in his sermon at http://eastgatebiblechurch.sermon.tv/9037197. (But agreed with his defense of 6/24 using Exodus 20:11. There are a lot more scriptural proofs (Both the OT and NT) for why it is a literal reading and not anything fantastical like "Day-age", "Analogical" or "Framework". It's not "An unspecified amount of time". Genesis 1-2 tells us exactly how long God took: 6 literal days, morning and evening.

Jesus himself believed in a young creation. Luke 11:50-51. The Apostles did too. The Jews were told to keep a 24hour Sabbath, after six 24 hour days of working precisely because God told them: "FOR I CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH IN SIX DAYS". Not billions, millions, not hundreds of thousands of years, but Six days.

EDIT: To clear up confusions about when I said "Owen explained in the beginning" - I was not referring to John Owen at all!!! (He is too verbose for my small brain to read. Another 20 years time then I would perhaps begin to read Owen...)
 
Last edited:
Peairtach said:
Yes. This would seem to go against a gap between the creation of the Heavens and Earth, and the forming and filling of the Heavens and Earth on the Six Days, but I'm not sure whether Genesis 1 should be interpreted by Exodus 20, leading to the elimination of a gap, or whether Exodus 20 should be interpreted by the greater detail of Genesis 1, leaving the possibility of a gap, during which there was a rebellion in the Heaven of Heavens and the downfall of Satan and his angels.
How would that look, since Exodus 20 includes heaven and earth within the six days of Creation?
 
assuming there are gaps in the genealogy, where is the exegesis that substantiates these gaps being 10,000 to 100,000 years?
 
We can even join with them in ridiculing people like Ken Ham for their attempts to uphold and defend a literal reading of the Genesis account of creation.

Am I reading this wrong is this a blast at Answers in Genesis?

he one thing that seems clear in all three of these views is their rejection of the view that prevailed throughout the history of the church until the rise of the theory of evolution.

Now that is a great quote!

Jesus himself believed in a young creation. Luke 11:50-51.

Oh yeah! I was going to add this too
A very important question we must ask is, “What was Jesus’ view of the days of creation? Did He say that He created in six literal days?”

When confronted with such a question, most Christians would automatically go to the New Testament to read the recorded words of Jesus to see if such a statement occurs.

Now, when we search the New Testament Scriptures, we certainly find many interesting statements Jesus made that relate to this issue. Mark 10:6 says, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’” From this passage, we see that Jesus clearly taught that the creation was young, for Adam and Eve existed “from the beginning,” not billions of years after the universe and earth came into existence. Jesus made a similar statement in Mark 13:19 indicating that man’s sufferings started very near the beginning of creation. The parallel phrases of “from the foundation of the world” and “from the blood of Abel” in Luke 11:50–51 also indicate that Jesus placed Abel very close to the beginning of creation, not billions of years after the beginning. His Jewish listeners would have assumed this meaning in Jesus’ words, for the first-century Jewish historian Josephus indicates that the Jews of his day believed that both the first day of creation and Adam’s creation were about 5,000 years before Christ.1
Oh that's a quote from Ken Ham lol yesss! found here:

Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days? - Answers in Genesis
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I disagree with how Owen explained "in the beginning".

Could you reference the explanation you disagree with? Are you talking about his dealings with "Mr.B" in Vindiciae Evangelicae, where he says the following?
Sorry Victor, wish2bflying is from the same local church and I wrote colloquially, referring to Owen Nugent, our pastor (who himself believes in 6/24 creation, but is sympathetic towards analogical/framework...) I've edited my post with the sermon referenced
 
I know a lot of people who believe the earth is older than it is because of the way the earth looks with its mountains and valleys, canyons and so on. And because they are or were told that these things took millions of years to be made, going by the standard of things now. But I am a hobby gold prospector and see evidences of the global flood catastrophe in many of the places I search. Ancient, by Bible standards of thousands of years old not millions, old elevated river beds now high up on hillsides, fragmented with sections on one hill and then on another, showing that once a mighty water system ran in a certain direction but that there is no such river system there now. Great river wash deposits at the base of mountains. Things like that. I believe that with the great flood in the days of Noah there were huge upheavals and reshaping that went on with it and because of it there appears, or it give's the appearance of, greater age. That many of these things, the mountains and canyons, were formed during and by the flood and the upheavals and so on. Fossils are found on mountains, even fossil shells deep underground in our opal fields. To me, all evidence of global flood activity with the laying down of huge amounts of sediment and upheavals giving us the world we see today. All caused by and during the flood. That's how I see the world looking the way it does today.
 
I support #1 as probable, but not certain. (and most definitely disagree with #3)

I do think there is a poetic wordplay to Genesis 1 and a potential that the day's are used in a way that emphasizes a period of time rather then a literal day.

I would state however I don't trust Science dating the earth at all - it has a clear agenda.

I would still believe in essentially what scientists would describe as a young earth (if a rewording of #2 was provided), but does the day HAVE to be 24 hours for me... No, and I give no quarter to ideas along the lines of #3.
 
I disagree ...

Hi Michael. I believe in a young six day creation. My proposal is neither "Day-age", "Analogical" or "Framework". It fits none of those flawed propositions. It is, simply:

God did this:
[1:1]*In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Either here ...
[2]*The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

... or here, an unspecified period of time later, God carried out His work of Creation in six literal days, carrying on thusly:
[3]*And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. [4]*And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. [5]*God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
(Genesis 1:1-5 ESV) ... etc.


I believe in a young creation. I believe God could have done everything including Gen 1:1 in the six literal days, but I also believe it could be read the other way and not be unbiblical, or in conflict with anything else in the Bible, and believing it would not be heretical or worth separating over.

I also wholeheartedly accept and believe that Adam and Eve were created as fully formed adults with the appearance of age, and God is well within his power and right to have created everything with the appearance of age, and for that to not be considered deceptive (an accusation I've heard many times).

My main point is to anyone who wants to point to the apparent age of the rocks and the expansion of the universe as EVIDENCE AGAINST Creation. My assertion is that it is evidence FOR the validity of the Bible and the creation account, not evidence AGAINST, when one considers "in the beginning" in this way. It is simply drawing the objector BACK to the Bible to shut their mouths rather than turning to the knowledge of men and arguing about scientific dating methods being flawed, etc.

As always though, the presupposition should be that God is God, and He does what He pleases, and we believe His Word. The objector who denies God through his reliance on his own flawed reasoning will come up with other reasons for denying the God he knows in his heart to be true.

I hope this has helped to clarify what I was trying to say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top