Age of the Earth...

Plenty of Baptists don’t accept Young-Earth Creationist theory.
And Yes, far too many churches (Baptist and others) have it integrated into their Statements of Faith.
My opinion; It’s a relic of the past and pastors have more important and relevant concerns to deal with so they don’t concern themselves with studying about it.

Rob

 

I hold to Both a young and old earth view.

The word “was” from the verse, “and the earth was without form and void” can also be defined as “became”.

For example, “The car was crushed” can also be “The car became crushed.”

The wording is awkward to the ear in English.

However, does that mean there were creatures and humans we now find in fossils from are made prior to Adam?

No. The Hebrew, “tohu” and “wabohu” means formless and waste (dust). And beside the water covered the earth.

Such was sudden and therefore no fossils would have been formed.

As the Word put all things back together, the creative process established our current physical properties and reflect our timeline with no consideration that God allowed the natural world to appear much older than what it actually is. he used old parts to build something new. So those professing to be wise would become confused and confirmed (imo) in rebellion.

This is not some supposed gap theory, but holds to both an old original formation and new creation.

Being “Baptist” or of some other persuasion has little importance to God, for eternal life is found in only one source and by one core change in a person.

The source is in the Son of God, and the core change comes by belief that He is raised from the dead. By such a belief, that person is in total surrender of the heart, mind , soul, and strength to the will of God for them, for the Savior, is Lord and the command is to Love the Lord with all your hear, mind, soul and strength.

 

The Six Days of Creation.


In Hebrews 11:3 the writer says; “By faith we understand that the worlds were set in order at God’s command, so that the visible has its origin in the invisible.”

Calvin translates it; “so that they became the visibles of things not visible,” or, not apparent. And then says; “thus the same truth is taught here, as in Rom. 1:20, where it is said, that the invisible things of God are made known to us by the creation of the world, they being seen in his works.”

He continues; “God has given us, throughout the whole frame-work of this world, clear evidences of his eternal wisdom, goodness, and power; and though he is in himself invisible, he in a manner becomes visible to us in his works.”

Calvin, J., & Owen, J. (2010). Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews (p. 266).

But what if the entire universe, eternally in God’s mind, and decree became visible over the course of six days. The spiritual and eternal now clothed with time, space and matter? The same way metal shavings when dusted on a piece of paper with a magnet below, reveal the magnetic waves?

Like a huge house, light-years across. Where God flips the switch and all the lights come on at once. Taking moments for what would take trillions of light-years using space-time measurements?

 

Yeah, I get what you’re saying. In visiting a large church, my curiosity was piqued enough to inquire into this very point. I had to ask three pastors to finally get their official position. The first two were uncertain. The third said they had none, because historically the church tends to do science rather poorly. You don’t say.

 

Pink held to it and drew an interesting allegory on regeneration from the theory.

It's odd, many of those who object to the notion of a gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 have no qualms whatsoever to inserting a thousands of years gap between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel.

 

Pink:

“.....It is now over a hundred years ago since Dr. Chalmers called attention to the fact that the word "was" in Genesis 1:2 should be translated "became," and that between the first two verses of Genesis 1 some terrible catastrophe must have intervened. That this catastrophe may have been connected with the apostasy of Satan, seems more than likely....

What is found in the remainder of Genesis 1 refers not to the primitive creation but to the restoration of that which had fallen into ruins...........

......We have little patience with those who labor to show that the teaching of this chapter is in harmony with modern science.......

Turning from the literal meaning of what is before us in this opening chapter of Holy Writ, we would dwell now upon that which has often been pointed out by others, namely, the typical significance of these verses.........

1. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." As we have already observed, the original condition of this primary creation was vastly different from the state in which we view it in the next verse.........

So, too, in the beginning of this world’s history, God also created man, and vastly different was his original state from that into which he subsequently fell.........

2. "And the earth became without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." Some fearful catastrophe must have occurred. Sin had dared to raise its horrid head against God, and with sin came death and all its attendant evils. The fair handiwork of the Creator was blasted.........

No less tragic was that which befell the first man. Like the original earth before him, Adam remained not in his primitive state. A dreadful catastrophe occurred. Description of this is given in Genesis 3. By one man sin entered the world, and death by sin.........

3. "And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Here is where hope begins to dawn. God did not abandon the primitive earth, which had become a ruin. It would not have been surprising, though, if He had. Why should God trouble any further about that which lay under His righteous judgment? Why should He condescend to notice that which was now a desolate waste? Why, indeed. But here was where sovereign mercy intervened. He had gracious designs toward that formless void. He purposed to resurrect it, restore it, refructify it......

The analogy holds good in the spiritual realm. Fallen man had no more claim upon God’s notice than had the desolated primitive earth. When Adam rebelled against his Maker, he merited naught but unsparing judgment at His hands, and if God was inclined to have any further regard for him, it was due alone to sovereign mercy. What wonder if God had left man to the doom he so richly deserved! But no. God had designs of grace toward him. From the wreck and ruin of fallen humanity, God purposed to bring forth a "new creation." Out of the death of sin, God is now bringing on to resurrection ground all who are united to Christ His Son. And the first thing in bringing this about is the activity of the Holy Spirit. And this, again, is a prime necessity. Fallen man, in himself, is as helpless as was the fallen earth. The sinner can no more regenerate himself than could the ruined earth lift itself out of the deep which rested upon it. The new creation, like the restoration of the material creation, must be accomplished by God Himself [emphasis mine].

4. "And God said, let there be light, and there was light." First the activity of the Holy Spirit and now the spoken Word. No less than ten times in this chapter do we read "and God said." God might have refashioned and refurnished the earth without speaking at all, but He did not. Instead, He plainly intimated from the beginning, that His purpose was to be worked out and His counsels accomplished by the Word. The first thing God said was, "Let there be light," and we read, "There was light." Light, then, came in, was produced by, the Word. And then we are told, "God saw the light, that it was good."

It is so in the work of the new creation. These two are inseparably joined together—the activity of the Spirit and the ministry of the Word of God. It is by these the man in Christ became a new creation. And the initial step toward this was the entrance of light into the darkness. The entrance of sin has blinded the eyes of man’s heart and has darkened his understanding. So much so that, left to himself, man is unable to perceive the awfulness of his condition, the condemnation which rests upon him, or the peril in which he stands. Unable to see his urgent need of a Savior, he is, spiritually, in total darkness. And neither the affections of his heart, the reasonings of his mind, nor the power of his will, can dissipate this awful darkness. Light comes to the sinner through the Word applied by the Spirit. As it is written, "the entrance of Thy words giveth light" (Ps. 119:130). This marks the initial step of God’s work in the soul. Just as the shining of the light in Genesis I made manifest the desolation upon which it shone, so the entrance of God’s Word into the human heart reveals the awful ruin which sin has wrought.

5. "And God divided the light from the darkness." Hebrews 4:12 tells us, the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." This is not a figurative expression but, we believe, a statement of literal fact. Man is a tripartite being, made up of "spirit and soul and body" (1 Thess. 5:23). The late Dr. Pierson distinguished between them thus: "The spirit is capable of God-consciousness; the soul is the seat of self-consciousness; the body of sense-consciousness.’’ In the day that Adam sinned, he died spiritually. Physical death is the separation of the spirit from the body; spiritual death is the separation of the spirit from God. When Adam died, his spirit was not annihilated, but it was "alienated" from God. There was a fall. The spirit, the highest part of Adam’s complex being, no longer dominated; instead, it was degraded, it fell to the level of the soul, and ceased to function separately. Hence, today, the unregenerate man is dominated by his soul, which is the seat of lust, passion, emotion. But in the work of regeneration, the Word of God "pierces even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit," and the spirit is rescued from the lower level to which it has fallen, being brought back again into communion with God. The "spirit" being that part of man which is capable of communion with God, is light; the "soul" when it is not dominated and regulated by the spirit is in darkness, hence, in that part of the six days’ work of restoration which adumbrated the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, we read, "And God divided the light from the darkness."

6. "And God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters . . . . and God called the firmament heaven" (Gen. 1:6, 8). This brings us to the second days work, and here, for the first time, we read that "God made" something (Gen. 1:7). This was the formation of the atmospheric heaven, the "firmament," named by God "heaven." That which corresponds to this in the new creation, is the impartation of a new nature. The one who is "born of the Spirit" becomes a "partaker of the Divine nature" (2 Pet. 1:4). Regeneration is not the improvement of the flesh, or the cultivation of the old nature; it is the reception of an altogether new and heavenly nature. It is important to note that the "firmament" was produced by the Word, for, again we read, "And God said." So it is by the written Word of God that the new birth is produced, "Of His own will begat He us with the Word of truth"(Jam. 1:18). And again, "being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God" (1 Pet. 1:23).

7. "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God said. Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself" (Gen. 1:9-11). These verses bring before us God’s work on the third day, and in harmony with the meaning of this numeral we find that which clearly speaks of resurrection. The earth was raised out of the waters which had submerged it, and then it was clothed with vegetation. Where before there was only desolation and death, life and fertility now appeared. So it is in regeneration. The one who was dead in trespasses and sins, has been raised to walk in newness of life. The one who was by the old creation "in Adam," is now by new creation "in Christ." The one who before produced nothing but dead works, is now fitted to bring forth fruit to the glory of God...."

 

A very Godly friend of mine who happens to be a leading scientist with instruments on both the recent Mars rovers wrote a peer reviewed paper on radiometric dating from a Christian perspective. Young earth Christians have not appreciated his paper, but it is good science and it ultimately asks this question:
Can we accept that the data points to an old earth or must we assume that God only made the earth to look old when it is relatively young?
Dr Wiens didn't intend the paper as a theological treatise, but as a paper that would explain the science behind dating minerals. Unfortunately, it seems young earthers felt he was threatening the integrity of God, which is far, far from his intent. You can read his paper and see for yourself. I, for one, have no problems with an ancient earth.
Radiometric Dating

 

thanks ... watching a documentary series called "The Days of Noah" by the Laymen Ministries. 4 disc pack. So far, it's very similar to the Ken Ham productions.

I don't have a problem with an "ancient earth" either until the basis is to demonstrate evolution as taught by Darwin/successors is true. I don't have a problem with the earth's being quite old until we seek to discredit "the Deluge" by suggesting formations like the Grand Canyon were made with a little bit of water and a whole lotta time rather than a little bit of time and a whole lotta water.

I think the actual age of the earth will remain a mystery until That Day when we will know as we have been known and to the extent declaration of the earth's age isn't used to validate false teaching about God ... it's not really relevant anyway.

But we (mankind) continue to rebel/reject God ... building massive orbital telescopes in a frantic search for something which will disprove the existence of God.

 

the Church isn't the only organization which does (sic) science poorly. Have had a front row seat to that fiasco the last 2 years.

 

I try to take the Bible at its word.

evening came and morning came ... 6 straight/consecutive occurrences.

To me, that means the beginning of the first week of 7 x 24 hour periods.

God could have used billions of years, but I am persuaded He did it in 6 days about 6000 years ago.

When God spoke something into existence, I understand it to mean precisely THAT. How long does it take to speak it? Billions of years? perhaps, but I don't think so.

 

I agree, however, God did not create what was without form and void. That is against His character, “He is not the author of confusion.”

Certainly God did the work in 6 days, though I’m not certain about the 24 hour days prior to the creation of the sun, moon, and stars.

However, God did not start with a blank pad, rather, He moved over water that needed divided so the earth would emerge.

 

Was Adam created as a baby or as a man?

 

there's nothing without God. how was the without form/void something on which to base the condition?

what a rabbit hole THAT is.

the celestial bodies aren't necessary for the creation of time ... they mark time, they don't create it. Evening came and morning came. That was stated for the first day. obviously a day without a sunrise/sunset ... but a 24 hour period isn't 86'd because there was no moon/sun.

 

Not certain what you mean by this question.

 

Taking the Bible at its word...
2 Peter 3:8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

As you alluded to in another post, the issue one has with evolution theory is when it poses the idea that sin is is not based upon an original rebellion against God, but instead is a created concept that originated in the mind of humans. This second hypothesis rejects a higher power as creator of all things and replaces humans as the creators of their own reality. It is the hypothesis we, as Christians, reject. Science is science. It is at its core, inductive thinking. Observe, hypothesize a question with an answer, test via a measurable method to see if the questions answer is replicated or fails. It does not answer if God does or doesn't exist.
We know from Romans 1 that humans, left to only observing nature, can see a creator, but they will always, due to their rebellion, seek to replace God with a created something. Only if God breaks through and his Word penetrates the rebellious soul, will a person bow to God. Therefore, the Christian who uses scientific method will ultimately glorify God in the work of science. Persons like my friend, Dr Wiens, and the head of the NIH (National Institute of Health), Dr Francis Collins, will be excellent scientists who point us all toward God as Creator.

 

I do not believe this contradicts the understanding of Gen 1. This verse in 2 Peter addresses the omnipresence of God He's outside of time . space . matter. I don't fully understand that but I recognize evening came and morning came means ... a 24 hour period is completed after the work that day was finished. Moreover, this pattern established the Law of the Sabbath, Shabbot, The Shemitah year (this year is one) ... and the year of Jubilee.

I think the effort to jamb that understanding is to allow/promote "we don't/can't know." But we can know.

 

well, like I said, it's a rabbit hole and I get beyond my ability to articulate it pretty quick ... but the question simply serves as a point about which to consider whether we can know God created the universe in 6 calendar days or not.

 

The six days pretain to earth and the earth week with the seventh day, Genesis 1:3-31, Genesis 2:1-4, Exodus 20:11.

 

Question: With no sun and no rotating earth, how is a day exactly 24 hours long?
God may have been speaking literal earth day, but perhaps not.