What is your view on creation?

Discussion in 'Natural Revelation and God's Creation' started by Bill The Baptist, Sep 14, 2013.

  1. The world was created in six literal days in the recent past

    127 vote(s)
  2. The world was created in the distant past and the days of creation are not literal.

    14 vote(s)
  3. God created the world in the distant past using evolution.

    7 vote(s)
  4. Not sure.

    10 vote(s)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Zach

    Zach Puritan Board Junior

    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.
  2. Bill The Baptist

    Bill The Baptist Puritan Board Graduate

    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.
  3. Peairtach

    Peairtach Puritan Board Doctor

    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
  4. Mushroom

    Mushroom Puritan Board Doctor

    And then the bigbangers will have a case of the redshift blues...
  5. Jack K

    Jack K Puritan Board Professor

    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.
  6. earl40

    earl40 Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    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.
  7. GloriousBoaz

    GloriousBoaz Puritan Board Freshman

    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

  8. Ask Mr. Religion

    Ask Mr. Religion Flatly Unflappable

    I voted literal six days and recent past.

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

    [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.


    Attached Files:

  9. jandrusk

    jandrusk Puritan Board Sophomore

    I let the Scriptures interpret the Scriptures instead of letting science force it's worldly view on the doctrine.
  10. Fogetaboutit

    Fogetaboutit Puritan Board Freshman

    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?
  11. Peairtach

    Peairtach Puritan Board Doctor

    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
  12. wish2bflying

    wish2bflying Puritan Board Freshman

    "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;
  13. Free Christian

    Free Christian Puritan Board Sophomore

    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.
  14. sevenzedek

    sevenzedek Puritan Board Junior

    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.
  15. sevenzedek

    sevenzedek Puritan Board Junior

    And I just thought of this: God told us he made the world in six days (Exo. 20:11).
  16. Peairtach

    Peairtach Puritan Board Doctor

    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
  17. Fogetaboutit

    Fogetaboutit Puritan Board Freshman

    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?
  18. Peairtach

    Peairtach Puritan Board Doctor

    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
  19. Romans922

    Romans922 Puritan Board Professor

    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).
  20. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    I thought this recent article written by G. I. Williamson was outstanding. A Defense of Six-Day Creation

    .... 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: Sep 17, 2013
  21. SinnerSavedByChrist

    SinnerSavedByChrist Puritan Board Freshman

    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: Sep 17, 2013
  22. Afterthought

    Afterthought Puritan Board Junior

    How would that look, since Exodus 20 includes heaven and earth within the six days of Creation?
  23. THE W

    THE W Puritan Board Freshman

    assuming there are gaps in the genealogy, where is the exegesis that substantiates these gaps being 10,000 to 100,000 years?
  24. GloriousBoaz

    GloriousBoaz Puritan Board Freshman

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

    Now that is a great quote!

    Oh yeah! I was going to add this too
    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: Sep 17, 2013
  25. SinnerSavedByChrist

    SinnerSavedByChrist Puritan Board Freshman

    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
  26. VictorBravo

    VictorBravo Administrator Staff Member

    Aha! Thanks for clarification. I was worried about some obscure Owen controversy I hadn't heard about.
  27. Free Christian

    Free Christian Puritan Board Sophomore

    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.
  28. KevinInReno

    KevinInReno Puritan Board Freshman

    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.
  29. wish2bflying

    wish2bflying Puritan Board Freshman

    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.
  30. JimmyH

    JimmyH Puritan Board Junior

    The article by G. I. Williamson is indeed outstanding. Thanks so much for posting the link.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page