Christians: Does age of earth matter?

Exodus 20 "SIX DAYS shall you labor and work and rest the 7th ... FOR IN SIX DAYS the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth AND the springs of water.."

So "yes" the "exact timeline" for how long it took to MAKE the earth IS specified equating the DAY of Sinai with the DAY of Genesis 1.

In The Gospels we have geneologies going back to Adam (Luke 3 for example) given as a FOUNDATION for accepting Christ as the promised Messiah.

In Romans 8 we are told that creation was subjected to suffering and death through the sin of man.

In Romans 5 we are told that death entered through the sin of man.

In the myths of evolutionism we are told that "death, starvation, carnage, disease, tooth-and-claw extinctions" were the "ordained" means of glorious "creation".

The contrast "Could not be" greater.

The mind must choose darkness over light to embrace evolution over the Gospel and yes - it must also ignore all the young-earth geochronometers "Rationalizing away" as many as it can.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Kent Hovind has an excellent timeline on the geneologies that is worth getting. I've seen it, don't own it yet, but hope to own it soon.

 

How much bacteria does your -sort- of science tell you that you can have without the sun?

And then on the other hand there is always that pesky "Word of God" giving us "details" that we can "trust".

Remember Peter?

So yes - God was speaking to Moses "Face to face" Numbers 12:8

Why not trust God to be "accurate" in His own "account"?

He tells us that the pre-flood humans lived for almost 1000 years.

But you say that is "too long".

He tells us that "IN Six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth" -- and you say "that is too short".

Do you think the Hebrews as Sinai were just "used" to seeing solar systems created in Six days so that is why God lied to them about it?

Do you think they were "used to seeing people live for 1000 years each" so that is why He lied to them about that too?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Lots of bacteria live without sunlight, and funguses too! There are even bacteria that are unable to live except away from oxygen.

 

Ok so - you think maybe dividing the waters is a term for "creating living bacteria"?

You think that evolution provides a "model" for bacteria existing without the sun --- at absolute zero in space? - How do you propose that bacteria evovle outside of a solar system?

In any case - it appears that God is the creator of life and that the first living systems appear on earth - the 3rd day.

I don't think that point is very "hard to get" when reading the Gen 1-2:4 account. Rather it is a question of whether some will choose to believe it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The proper and correct dating of the age of the earth matters to the extent that either the Word of God prevails over the speculative imaginations and vain words of some men or some men will rule over the world in the name of their own human imaginations and authority.

 

It also matters because the Word of God forms links going all the way back to the Genesis 1-7 foundation.

"editing the foundation" to fit bad-science and poor-data only compromises the Gospel - it does not advance science or salvation.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I merely pointed out a fact, that many bacteria live without light and even without oxygen. This is perfectly true, and if that seems to you to mean bacteria had to have been created when the waters were divided I personally find the connection kind of strange. Those whom God inspired to write Genesis were completely unaware of bacteria and I don't see anything to suggest He told them anything about bacteria at all.

That said, we learn from science that the earliest record of life forms were indeed of single celled creatures.

The theory of evolution gives us theoretical reasons why this would have to be so.

Here's the bottom line. Just as you have stopped believing the literal words of Genesis regarding the cause of day and night and have gone over to the idea that the earth rotates, so have I stopped believing the literal words of Genesis regarding the cause of species diversity and have gone over to the ideas of deep time and common ancestry. And for exactly the same reasons in both cases - we believe the evidence.

I believe that when you are asking me to disregard the substantial evidence - some of it seen by me directly - you are, in essense, asking me to commit intellectual suicide for the sake of conforming to your interpretation of Genesis. I am not psychologically prepared to do that.

Whatever you think of that state of mind I have just shared with you - please respect the fact that it is genuine. I really feel that way.

It would be like asking you to give up your belief that the earth rotates, causing night and day. Anyone who demanded that of you would surely be asking a bit much, wouldn't you agree?

That's how it feels to me to be asked to give up my knowledge that the earth and the universe are billions of years old and that all present life on earth is physicaly descended from the same original life.

 

Did GOD know about bacteria? Did GOD create bacteria? Did GOD reveal HIMSELF or did man reveal GOD?

 

BobRyan,

I am puzzled by your post.

You ask how many bacteria can live without the sun. There are a number of bacteria which do not rely on photosynthesis for production of energy. There are, indeed, bacteria which can live without sunlight. But tell me...of what relevance is this? Do you contend that the sun is also young based on the same reasoning you use to determine that the earth is young? I notice you don't answer my question of when bacteria were created. But I will not say that I am surprised.

Are there no parts of the Bible that you find to be non-literal? If there are any parts of the Bible that are non-literal, I suggest that perhaps the creation account might be among them. Or do you have it on authority that God meant that He created the earth in 24-hour periods? Because I don't see that these are 24-hour days in the text.

When, BobRyan, have I ever said that humans living for 1000 years is "too long?" Please point out to me where I ever indicated what you claim I say.

Does Numbers 12:8 indicate that God specifically told Moses the Genesis account face-to-face? Not in my Bible.

I don't claim that God lied about anything to anyone. Ever. Only that the Bible might mean something other than what you think it means. Perhaps yours is the private interpretation?

I have read the Genesis account of the third day. And as many times as I read it, I find no mention whatsoever of bacteria or viruses. I read about vegetation. But bacteria are not seed-bearing plands or trees. So perhaps this does not describe the creation of bacteria.

I actually think that the omission of certain living things...such as bacteria...from the Genesis account proves my point. That God was explaining creation to a pre-scientific culture in terms that culture could understand. Bacteria and viruses are not mentioned in the account because the culture did not even know of their existence, and God did not provide the Genesis account in order to teach them science.

I think I am trying to stay close to Gina's point in this post...that it is not necessary to believe in a young earth to believe the Bible. One must only posit that the Genesis account is not literal as it relates to creation. The Genesis account doesn't even include the most numerous living organisms on earth. How did they get left out? How do you Young Earth folks explain viruses and bacteria?

I actually find DNA analysis to be the single greatest evidence for evolution. Who is to say that God did not use some form of evolutionary process as his mechanism for Creation?

Not everyone will choose to completely ignore the most reliable scientific data merely because this data is inconsistent with some interpretations of Genesis. Somehow I think God will understand that we do not choose to ignore observation of the natural world if we believe in Him and His sacrifice.

Do any of you young earth folks think that belief in a young earth is necessary for salvation? If so, I would like to hear your arguments.

 

Lets be more specific then.

How much watering down does the text "tolerate"?

What can we get by with and still not do damage to the Gospel? How much leeway is built into the text for us to go off and still have a good Gospel?

Notice that the "untrustworthy word of God" model taken by some denominations has logically led them to question the "real meaning of marriage" in today's world. Do you really think they would have done that with a literal view of Genesis 1 and 2?

Notice that in Matt 5 when confronted with errors about divorce and adultery - Christ's solution was to go BACK to the veracity of the Creation "account" saying "it was NOT this way at the beginning" and then he quotes Genesis 2 regarding Marriage.

Paul makes his case on the trustworthy FACT of Genesis 1-3 that it was man who was MADE first, that through ONE man ALL sin and death came in and that Eve sinned first - was tempted and sinned first. These are the minute "details" in that "account" that is so denied by our atheist evolutionist friends - and some Christians as well.

Paul says that death spread to all men due to the sin of the FIRST man - ADAM.

Not only the fact God made from ONE blood all nations of the earth BUT also that the first man was Adam.

The very Law of God - draws authority from the "reliability" of the Genesis "Account" saying "For IN SIX days the Lord MADE... and rested the SEVENTH day".

Even our evolutionist Hebrew scholars amoung the Orthodix Rabbi's - "admit" that the Exodus 20 text does not "allow" for any other interpretation other than literal days.

Evening and morning - one rotation of the planet.

God chose that the foundation doctrine in His Word begins with Christ as Creator. "Messing around with that" - destroys the entire Gospel.

The NT authors come back to that same point in John 1, Colossians 1, Rev 14 etc etc.

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. One question is how much of your gospel can you really keep when you cut and paste the rest of scripture?

#2. Another quesiton -- How much wiggle room is there in the text itself without violating its clear and obvious meaning to the primary audience?

Were the Angels created on day 3, 4, 5? If the creation of life outside of earth is not documented in Genesis 1 - then how dogmatic can "we be" about applying the Genesis 1 text to things outside of our solar system?

Were the rocks of earth created on day 1 or do we in fact find that the earth was here and that water is here as well at the start of day 1? Why is there no "let there be water"?

Maybe there is a non-life starting point for Day 1 that presupposes an even earlier creation of all matter in the universe and even allows for creation of life previous to earth (as in the case of Angels etc).

Even if not - the most you can get is instant creation of our solar system during creation week.

In Christ,

Bob

 

BobRyan and Gina,

I appreciate the need for caution with regard to contradicting the Bible. Did you know that for years and years the science of geology tried as hard as it could to make everything it found fit best with the account of Genesis including a single global flood? This was true until about the 1800s. So we are talking almost two mellinia after Christ when the greatest scientific minds of the western world adopted the view of the irrefutable truth of Genesis and tried to make their observations square with that.

Then they gave up. Because they wanted to? No. Because the evidence before their eyes demanded it.

Do I believe God could create the whole world in 6 days? Of course I do. Nothing is impossible to God. In him all things hold together.

So I am stuck asking myself...if God created all life on earth in 6 days, why did He make it look as if it took much longer than that? Could God do that? Of course He could. But I do not consider it to be in God's nature to deceive. Because nowhere in the Bible can I find a single instance of God's lying to anyone about anything. Not even to test the person. That is the province of the devil.

Ok...but Satan can't create...can he? So now I have to believe that either all the scientists in the world are making up all of evolution and the age of the earth OR that God created the world in such a way that it would "lie" to people in contradiction of some interpretations of Scripture OR that some interpretations of Genesis must yield to the objective data. Please tell me where I go wrong here if you think I go wrong. If you think the Scripture of Genesis is right as you interpret it, then which of my other two scenarios do you accept? Or do you accept another that I wasn't creative or intelligent enough to come up with?

Because I agree that these things matter. They matter so much that I'm actually reading books trying to "disprove" on a scientific basis the theory of evolution. I would like for the disproof to work. But I don't think that it will.

Gina and BobRyan, does either of you understand molecular biology on a cellular level? If you do...you will find something amazing if you look at the natural world. And it has to do with mitochondria. These are little organelles which some think are bacterial in origin which live in and provide energy to eukaryotic cells.

Mitochondria are unlike other inheritance. Regardless of your gender, you get all your mitochondria from your mother.

Look at variations in the genetic makeup of certain mitochondrial DNA. It just so happens that these variations correspond substantially to the theory of life posited by Neo-Darwinists. Why is this so? Do you not care why this is so?

BobRyan,

God has authority to set laws for man regardless of how long He chose to take to make man. God's commandments do not require the accuracy of the Genesis account for their validity.

How much watering down does the text tolerate? I think the text has to tolerate enough modification in understanding it to reconcile it with present secular scientific observations. Provided, however, that one always remember that there is not such a thing as a scientific fact and our present understanding might just be wrong. Such that it remains possible that the literal reading of Genesis is accurate. Remember that one reproducible or generally agreed-on contrary observation will disprove a scientific theory.

By the way, BobRyan, have you yet found when the Bible says God created bacteria and viruses? And, if not, do you believe that bacteria and viruses exist?

By the way, even if one believes evolution, does there not have to be a cut off point at which a primitive hominid is or is not "man"?

BobRyan and Gina, what beliefs about the Genesis account do you two believe are essential to salvation?

 

BobRyan,

I think you get more than just the solar system.

"The waters" are in genesis 1:2 in my Bible. This is before the acts of creation begin. (Of course, I think Christian Bibles change genesis 1:1-2 from the Jewish Hebrew versions somewhat and I'm not sure if "the waters" is part of that change.)

In answer to your questions:

1. I can keep anything that doesn't have to be reinterpreted to be consistent with the best objective data. And I keep even that as a reason to continue testing any contrary falsifiable scientific theory.

2. I perhaps don't concern myself enough with the meaning of the text to the primary audience. Because I'm not the sort to join what I perceive as a modern-day "Flat Earth Society." An understanding of the text which is contradicted by observation of the natural world seems to me to be an improper understanding of the text. Even if that understanding is claimed by some current scholars to have been the "plain meaning" to the original audience.

The purpose of the Bible does not appear to me to be teaching mankind science. I believe that the Genesis account has God making the stars on the Fourth Day. After there was already vegetation on earth. So one does get more than the solar system from the Genesis account, BobRyan.

"The heavens" were created in the beginning according to Genesis 1:1. This to me is consistent with a pre-creation story creation of the angels.

Maybe I don't get as much out of Genesis 1 as I should, but the entire point seems to me to be that God created everything that is. And that God has a special relationship with man, whom He created in His own image. And that God regarded the creation as good when God was done.

 

There's no quesion in my mind that we all take a little away from the literal interpretation of Genesis. We reintepret to suit our present knowledge. We've got to!

Maybe where we entertain doubts we give the benefit of the doubt to the literal interpretation but where we really know something to be true, we reinterpret the Bible to suit what we know.

We can't help it! That's the way it works if you think the Bible is God's word for us all!

THUS - when the Bible says over and over that the sun rises and the sun sets, we automatically, without even thinking about it, simply map that into our understanding that the earth rotates.

THUS - when the Bible says that all creeping things that have four legs and wings are unclean except those with the big jumping legs like grasshoppers and locusts, we automatically, without even thinking about it, simply map that into our understanding that insects have six legs.

THUS - when the Bible speaks about God creating the firmament and causing it to separate the waters above from the waters below, we automatically map that into our understanding of space over our heads and land/water at our level.

The real problem is, some of us have been convinced by the evidence that evolution and deep time are true and others have not.

The interpretation we allow ourselves follows naturally.

It won't do to say we MUST FOLLOW THE BIBLE LITERALLY. Nobody does that when we are fully convinced in our own minds that the revelation from God cannot be speaking literally on a given subject. (See examples above).

Believe it or not, there was a time when the rotation of the earth had the same doubtful standing in the minds of non-scientific churchmen, both protestants and catholic, and they therefore castigated strongly the upstart notions of men like Copernicus and Gallileo that the earth rotates and moves. On sound exigetical interpretation of the Bible that it plainly says it is the Sun that moves.

It is a mystery to me why opponents of science today cannot learn from this embarrasing church history, and instead choose to repeat it.

 

I've answered this before but REITERATE OUT OF EXPERIENCE: In a nutshell, I WAS indoctrinated in evolution, and for nearly 28 years or more it kept me from believing in the Word of God. I didn't even consider that the Bible could be true.
Now, I can't PROVE my belief in creation is correct, I simply believe it because scripture says so.

You're either sold out to God or sold out to secular humanism.

As for the negative results (besides doubting God's Word), its core message is: we're animals, survival of the fittest, and sin doesn't really exist (cultural relativism).

I'm just an agonomist (not a REAL scientist like these gentlemen) so my understanding of astronomy and molecular biology is extremely limited.
But, I do know your eyes (ie; observations) can fool you; its easy to 'see' something and jump to the wrong conclusion; that is why we rely on statistical analysis and experimentation.

Its a short step from abandoning Genesis to abadoning the Gospels.

Cotton

 

When did secular humanism get into this discussion? I think you are operating on some hidden assumptions that could be seriously questioned here.

Secular Humanism is not the same thing as evolution. Evolution is a finding of science. Secular Humanism is a philosophy - an entirely different thing. One doesn't have to take them as a package. One can give God the glory for creation of all things and still accept the findings of evolution, because He created evolution!

Ecc 3:18-19: I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity

Huh? Science cannot discuss the subject of sin. It is a value judgement to term something a sin, and science deals in objective determination of what exists. Making value judgements is not science, but something else, like maybe philosopy or religion.

Then don't abandon Genesis. Just don't feel obligated to interpret it in a literal fashion where it does not coincide with what science has demonstrated to have happened. The narratives still have much to teach you and they are profitable for instruction in righteous, doctrine, and so forth.

 

Paul, Paul, Paul…

Listen to you, you say God created all things and in the next breath contribute it all to evolution. What a contradiction!

Now where in the bible does it say that God created evolution?

Genesis 1:1, the very opening verse of my bible anyway, says God in the beginning created the heavens and earth. I don’t see the word evolution, do you?

Genesis also says that God created man in HIS image. Not a monkey’s image. I don’t see evolution even hinted at.

You either believe Genesis or you don’t, it’s Genesis and how God says He done it or it’s naturalistic (atheistic) evolution, b/c God says nothing about evolution, NOTHING. No matter how hard you try, you can’t possibly force the two together. It doesn’t work, so you’re left with a decision.

 

It's not 'my' position, Gina. It's God's. It's what HE said He did. Yes, of course He could do anything at all. But of all the possibilties He had, He chose what He did and He told us what that was in Genesis, with references to it through out the Bible.

If one does not believe God knows how to communicate clearly with men, then it is fine to 'reinterpret' Genesis et al. But then one is stuck with man's ideas, and where does one draw the line? Does one discount, as Thomas Jefferson and others have done, everything that does not 'make sense' or seem to fit with 'current ideas' and 'accept' the rest of the Bible? If that is the way it is, then the words of Jesus, of Paul, and the entire idea of salvation itself is up for grabs -- which is exactly what we are seeing in the liberal branch of Bible study today.

God either knew what He was talking about, or He didn't. He could either communicate clearly with us, or He couldn't.

If either of those negatives apply, how can anyone trust anything else in the Bible? If God's ways have to fit into the tiny box of man's comprehension/understanding and agreement, we are in major trouble! God becomes no more than a crippled Superman.