Old Earth vs. Young Earth Creationism

[evangelist6589]

I pre-ordered this book (https://www.amazon.com/Creation-Evo...preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch) and await its arrival on my iPad on the 21st.

I am a young earth creationist, however this is not to say the other arguments presented in the book do to hold water. I know some of you on this board hold to old earth creationism and that of the arguments of Hugh Ross. Can you explain your view and how you contradicted it from the scriptures? It would appear to me that a literal reading of the Bible concludes a young earth model, so I am wondering if the other views in this book are contracted from the scriptures themselves.

I believe Ron Rhodes holds to the Intelligent design model. How is this view different?

 

[Jerome]

Can you explain your view and how you contradicted it from the scriptures?

I am wondering if the other views in this book are contracted from the scriptures themselves.

Anyone else know what word OP is trying to use?

I've read it over and over and I'm stumped.

 

[Deacon]

"contracted" - that's like a disease. Derived might be a better word.


Whole books are written to explain creationist views – it can’t be done effectively in a forum setting;
But I can touch on what influenced my thoughts.

I come from a biological science background. I followed a progressive creationist model for many years being introduced to this model after reading a book by Bernard Ramm, who coined the term and promoted the model in his classic book, A Christian View of Science and Scripture (1954).

I’ve literally read hundreds of books on the topic, always searching for better understanding, never fully satisfied.

More recently I thoroughly enjoyed a book by John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One.

Walton book progresses through a series of propositions which form a basis for how to interpret Scripture. He effectively removes the age of the earth debate from the realm of biblical truth. The book will most certainly make you think differently Scripture and its relationship to science.

I am personally satisfied with his model and finally rest comfortably in this approach to understanding Scripture and how it relates to science.

Rob

 

[Jerome]

I see Crossway is offering a book on debunking theistic evolution. Just $60.00 and its publication date is Nov. 30.

Reformed Baptist pastor Fred Zaspel is one of the contributors:

www.crossway.org/books/theistic-evolution-case

provides the most comprehensive critique of theistic evolution yet produced

 

[evangelist6589]

"contracted" - that's like a disease. Derived might be a better word.


Whole books are written to explain creationist views – it can’t be done effectively in a forum setting;
But I can touch on what influenced my thoughts.

I come from a biological science background. I followed a progressive creationist model for many years being introduced to this model after reading a book by Bernard Ramm, who coined the term and promoted the model in his classic book, A Christian View of Science and Scripture (1954).

I’ve literally read hundreds of books on the topic, always searching for better understanding, never fully satisfied.

More recently I thoroughly enjoyed a book by John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One.

Walton book progresses through a series of propositions which form a basis for how to interpret Scripture. He effectively removes the age of the earth debate from the realm of biblical truth. The book will most certainly make you think differently Scripture and its relationship to science.

I am personally satisfied with his model and finally rest comfortably in this approach to understanding Scripture and how it relates to science.

Rob

At least you appreciate books. However can the old earth creation model come from a literal reading of the scripture?

 

[Deacon]

...can the old earth creation model come from a literal reading of the scripture?

Progressive Creationism is a concordist theory that uses a literal approach to interpreting Scripture.

Hugh Ross's Reason to Believe [LINK] has many good resources. I haven't read his recent stuff (and don't see any particular reason I will in the future)...
but if you are interested I'd point you towards his book, A Matter of Days [LINK] (or for a less complete explanation you could read the material on their web site).

Rob

 

[evangelist6589]

Progressive Creationism is a concordist theory that uses a literal approach to interpreting Scripture.

Hugh Ross's Reason to Believe [LINK] has many good resources. I haven't read his recent stuff (and don't see any particular reason I will in the future)...
but if you are interested I'd point you towards his book, A Matter of Days [LINK] (or for a less complete explanation you could read the material on their web site).

Rob

The book I linked to in the OP Hugh Ross is a contributor as well as Ken Ham and others. Its a debate like book.

 

[TCassidy]

Hugh Ross is a Big Bang theorist and a Day-Age theorist.

He puts a gap of 9.2 billion years between verse 1 and verse 2 of Genesis chapter 1, without any grammatical justification in the Hebrew text.

He believes the heavenly bodies, including the sun, moon, and stars, were created in, or as a result of, the "Big Bang" and that the earth was covered in dense clouds which made the sun, moon, and stars invisible from the surface of the earth. And the "Let there be light" of verse 3 was just the thinning of the clouds allowing the light to reach the surface.

The only problem with that is Genesis 1 has no mention of clouds and the word יהי (hayah - let there be) is a statement of creation (to become). There is a Hebrew word for “appear” (rahah) which is NOT used in this passage.

He fails to understand that verse 2 is a circumstantial clause setting the conditions that existed at the beginning of the narrative in verse 3. And the earth ( והארץ) was ובהו (without form - unformed) and תהו (void/empty - unfilled).

He then, in complete contradiction/denial of the Hebrew grammar, inserts millions of years between the days of creation.

There is no textual/grammatical substance anywhere in the bible for Dr. Ross’s creation story and he offers no textual support from Genesis or anywhere else in the Bible. His theory is based on his own imagination and the fiction contained in the big bang, which denies the obvious meaning of the Hebrew text.

Sorry, but Hugh Ross is NOT someone you want to put your faith in.

 

[Yeshua1]

The book I linked to in the OP Hugh Ross is a contributor as well as Ken Ham and others. Its a debate like book.

BIG problems with that view is that the Bible does not supoport Evolution at all, and the problem of death before sin happened!

 

[TCassidy]

BIG problems with that view is that the Bible does not supoport Evolution at all, and the problem of death before sin happened!

[Sigh] Hugh Ross doesn't "supoport" evolution either. He is a Progressive Creationist.

 

[BobRyan]

I pre-ordered this book (https://www.amazon.com/Creation-Evo...preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch) and await its arrival on my iPad on the 21st.

I am a young earth creationist, however this is not to say the other arguments presented in the book do to hold water. I know some of you on this board hold to old earth creationism and that of the arguments of Hugh Ross. Can you explain your view and how you contradicted it from the scriptures? It would appear to me that a literal reading of the Bible concludes a young earth model, so I am wondering if the other views in this book are contracted from the scriptures themselves.

I believe Ron Rhodes holds to the Intelligent design model. How is this view different?

Young Life on Earth... old Earth.
The bible says that before day 1 of creation the Earth already has water covering the surface of the deep. So who knows how long it was in that state?

 

[BobRyan]

[Sigh] Hugh Ross doesn't "supoport" evolution either. He is a Progressive Creationist.

[sigh] how exactly does Ross distinguish his story from Theistic Evol? I thought he was just happy not to be an atheist evol..

 

[Yeshua1]

[Sigh] Hugh Ross doesn't "supoport" evolution either. He is a Progressive Creationist.

How long before sin entered into it though after death did?

 

[Sapper Woody]

My viewpoint is the "Apparent Age" theory. We know that God created mature animals, mature plants, and mature humans. These things appeared as if they had been there for some time.

It's no stretch then to believe God created a mature Earth, which looked like it had been there for some time.

Simply put, I believe that God created the Earth a relatively short time ago (10,000 years, give or take a few millennia), but created it to look as if it had been there much, much longer.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[BobRyan]

My viewpoint is the "Apparent Age" theory. We know that God created mature animals, mature plants, and mature humans. These things appeared as if they had been there for some time.

For a reason. A day day old "zygote" as "Adam" would not survive.
A bunch of animals with no vegetation to eat - except for seeds planted in the ground would all die.

An Earth with no fully form O2 rich atmosphere would not be good for life.

An Earth without tectonic plates that moved would have died out too soon

The theory used by atheists of what "God should do if the Earth were young" is pretty much half-baked

 

[percho]

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
James 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Questions.
Where was the devil, the sinner, from the beginning at Gen 1:1?
Had the devil already sinned?
Did the sin of the devil bring forth death? Death of what?
What about this power of death that the devil has?

1 Peter 1:18-20
Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Redeemed from what? Redemption, foreordained before the foundation of the world. Is world, the earth or a system of order?
Why, foreordained redemption from (?) before the foundation of the world.?
Where was the devil, the sinner from the beginning, before the foundation of the world. Kosmos.

To open their eyes, to turn from darkness to light, and the power of Satan (<?) unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.Acts 26:18

How long has darkness and the power of Satan (the devil Heb. 2:14) been around on the earth? Gen 1:2 In the world?
Light = God?

 

[church mouse guy]

"contracted" - that's like a disease. Derived might be a better word.


Whole books are written to explain creationist views – it can’t be done effectively in a forum setting;
But I can touch on what influenced my thoughts.

I come from a biological science background. I followed a progressive creationist model for many years being introduced to this model after reading a book by Bernard Ramm, who coined the term and promoted the model in his classic book, A Christian View of Science and Scripture (1954).

I’ve literally read hundreds of books on the topic, always searching for better understanding, never fully satisfied.

More recently I thoroughly enjoyed a book by John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One.

Walton book progresses through a series of propositions which form a basis for how to interpret Scripture. He effectively removes the age of the earth debate from the realm of biblical truth. The book will most certainly make you think differently Scripture and its relationship to science.

I am personally satisfied with his model and finally rest comfortably in this approach to understanding Scripture and how it relates to science.

Rob

I am asking for a friend, ok?, but how does one remove the age of the earth debate from the realm of Biblical truth? Just asking.

 

[Deacon]

I am asking for a friend, ok?, but how does one remove the age of the earth debate from the realm of Biblical truth? Just asking.

I'd point him to the book. You can pick it up on Audible for free if you've never joined before.

Here's a presentation of John Walton >>LINK<<
>Genesis is an ancient cosmology (an ancient understanding of the world)

>The Israelites received no revelation to update or modify their “scientific” understanding of the cosmos.

>God did not reveal a new cosmic geography to the recipients of Genesis, rather he worked with what they had.

>There is no modern science embedded in Genesis.

Some Christians approach the text of Genesis as if it has modern science embedded in it or it dictates what modern science should look like. This approach to the text of Genesis 1 is called “concordism,” as it seeks to give a modern scientific explanation for the details in the text. This represents one attempt to “translate” the culture and text for the modern reader. The problem is, we cannot translate their cosmology to our cosmology, nor should we. If we accept Genesis 1 as ancient cosmology, then we need to interpret it as ancient cosmology rather than translate it into modern cosmology. If we try to turn it into modern cosmology, we are making the text say something that it never said. It is not just a case of adding meaning (as more information has become available) it is a case of changing meaning. Since we view the text as authoritative, it is a dangerous thing to change the meaning of the text into something it never intended to say.

John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 14–15.​

Rob

 

[Deacon]

*****

 

[Aaron]

Young Life on Earth... old Earth.
The bible says that before day 1 of creation the Earth already has water covering the surface of the deep. So who knows how long it was in that state?

It says the earth had no form, and was empty. Here you're saying the earth had form and was full of water.