-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Does It REALLy matter If A Christian Believes Either "Young/Old Earth?"
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
It isn't an essential matter of salvation.
The Bible is not clear about the age of the earth, only the passage of time since the casting out of the Garden of Eden. Even that has some difficulties depending on how one believes certain passages.
I don't know why so many people get so worried about people, like myself, who adopt a old earth view or even some who are in the BioLogos camp. All affirm the same thing as the Scriptures that God is the Creator. The "who" is far more important than the "how."
Robert Snow
New Member
No, is doesn't matter at all.
To me personally it matters, because it calls into question whether any scripture can be properly understood. If God calls a billion years a day, then why can't other words he uses have a completely different meaning than the commonly accepted meaning of a word?
I believe in a literal 6 day/24 hour per day creation because that is what the scriptures simply say. If God wanted us to understand that these days were long periods of time he could have easily said so. Why could he not?
I believe in a literal 6 day/24 hour per day creation because that is what the scriptures simply say. If God wanted us to understand that these days were long periods of time he could have easily said so. Why could he not?
2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
I agree with it being a literal 6 day/24 hour day.
It's important because it's Bible. However in saying that, if I find out one day I'm wrong, at least I will be right about who created it. It is more important the who than the how, but that doesn't mean that how isn't important. Genesis lays it out with language that leans toward a 24 hour day. I have no reason to make it figurative instead of literal.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, but this is speaking of how God perceives time, not man. Who were the scriptures written to?
If you believe that God wrote his scriptures for the express purpose of communicating with men, then you must believe that God would use language men could understand. God does not use misleading language, he is not the author of confusion.
This is one of my main objections to Limited Atonement for example. The scriptures numerous times say Jesus died for ALL MEN, but Calvinists insist he was only speaking of the elect. If God wanted to say Jesus only died for the elect, couldn't he easily have said so in unmistakable language? I am a mere man and I can easily express this. Is man more intelligent and better able to precisely express himself than God? Ridiculous.
But that is exactly what Calvinism strongly implies when it says ALL MEN only means the elect.
If God wanted to say he took long ages to create the heavens and the earth, couldn't he have easily said so? Why would he not?
BINGO!!!
If the context does not say "take this spiritually/figuratively/allegorically", then why tell God - "I know you said 6 days, but I'm sure you really meant 6 gazillion years."
I'd rather Him tell me later that I took His word TOO literally, than that I let others opinions force me to take it too liberally; but this is just me.
Yes!
Here is why. To believe in an older earth means to accept that death occured before the fall. The teaching of the older earth brings with the Ice AGe teaching, prehistoric animals which died off. Yet Scripture says sin brought death, not that death existed before sin. Sin brought several deaths but physical death is definitly one of them. Romans 5:12 says death came by sin. So for there to be an older earth is not scriptural.
Here is why. To believe in an older earth means to accept that death occured before the fall. The teaching of the older earth brings with the Ice AGe teaching, prehistoric animals which died off. Yet Scripture says sin brought death, not that death existed before sin. Sin brought several deaths but physical death is definitly one of them. Romans 5:12 says death came by sin. So for there to be an older earth is not scriptural.
True, and I was joking of course. However, with that being said, God has used figurative language. Here in Genesis, I see no reason to think God is using figurative language.
Is that all you think about, Calvinism?
That's why I teach a literal 6 day/1day of rest creation week. That's how the Bible teaches it.
Tom Butler
New Member
I'm a young earther, but a different opinion is not a test of fellowship for me.
Brother, your questions are on point, and so is your answer.
Fixed your quotation of Romans 5:12 for you.
Yet another outstanding question, Jesusfan.
The problem with holding either view, earth less than 10,000 years, or more than 1 billion years, is neither view can be supported based on all scripture. In Job 38, God clearly taught that we do not know how God did it, only that He did it.
What is wrong with the young earth view, God created everything in 6 24 hour days about 4000 BC. Anything that seems older was created then with apparent age, like the wine at Cana. Light was created in transite revealing a supernova that never happened, but creates the illustion that a star exloded 150,000 years ago. This view answers all the questions and is bullet proof, but seems unattractive because the heavens declare His glory, not His deception.
On the other hand, scripture pretty clearly lays out God created Adam about 4000 BC, because we have all the generations listed. So unless we redefine dust to mean modifying a preexistent primate, we cannot move the date back far enough to fit something like cave drawings dated more than 10,000 years ago.
Therefore, knowing I have no answer, I plead Job 38, the bible does not tell us.
The problem with holding either view, earth less than 10,000 years, or more than 1 billion years, is neither view can be supported based on all scripture. In Job 38, God clearly taught that we do not know how God did it, only that He did it.
What is wrong with the young earth view, God created everything in 6 24 hour days about 4000 BC. Anything that seems older was created then with apparent age, like the wine at Cana. Light was created in transite revealing a supernova that never happened, but creates the illustion that a star exloded 150,000 years ago. This view answers all the questions and is bullet proof, but seems unattractive because the heavens declare His glory, not His deception.
On the other hand, scripture pretty clearly lays out God created Adam about 4000 BC, because we have all the generations listed. So unless we redefine dust to mean modifying a preexistent primate, we cannot move the date back far enough to fit something like cave drawings dated more than 10,000 years ago.
Therefore, knowing I have no answer, I plead Job 38, the bible does not tell us.
Van, starlight was a difficulty for young earth creationists until recently. There is real evidence that the speed of light was billions (yes billions) of times faster just several thousand years ago. This theory was first advanced by Christian physicist Barry Setterfield back in the 80's. He noticed a slowing of light from all measurements of light speed even allowing for operator or mechanical error. Of course, his work was met with much ridicule and skepticism. Two secular physicists set out to prove him wrong, but confirmed his findings. Since that time many other secular physicists and cosmologists have submitted data supporting this theory. If true, this would explain how starlight from the deepest regions of space arrived almost instantaneously on Earth.
Search Barry Setterfield or Light Speed Slowing to find many articles on this.
Last edited by a moderator:
And if the speed of light has changed, what about the basis for dating? Jut maybe the half-life of the active elements has slowed also, or sped up, or remains unchanged---!
Who REALLY knows.
Which is to say that all this OE YE evolution stuff is nothing more than faith - yes, FAITH. You either believe what science tells you or you believe what God tells you. Neither can be proved or dis-proved, so it's strictly a matter of FAITH.
The only difference is -- in what: The WORD or the text book.
To paraphrase, "As for me & my house, we'll trust the WORD."
Who REALLY knows.
Which is to say that all this OE YE evolution stuff is nothing more than faith - yes, FAITH. You either believe what science tells you or you believe what God tells you. Neither can be proved or dis-proved, so it's strictly a matter of FAITH.
The only difference is -- in what: The WORD or the text book.
To paraphrase, "As for me & my house, we'll trust the WORD."