Why should I care about old earth vs. new earth creationism?

[Anastasia]

Why should I care about old earth vs. new earth creationism? Isn't the most important point that God made it? Does it really make a difference if the world was created in 7,000 years or literally 7 days in our earth hours? Either way, He made it and is in control.

 

[annsni]

Well, to me it comes down to this: Do we trust the Word of God? It says things happened one way so can we say it happened another way?

 

[Alcott]

Yes, like it can say Abe will have descendants as vast as the stars, and they will come through his son, Isaac, and that is taken to mean his blood descendants, which later scriptures affirm. But then later still, Paul says that promise is actually for those who in a spiritual way inherit Abe's faith.

Is the question binary? ... old earth or young earth? Blood kin or faith kin?

 

[DHK]

Yes, like it can say Abe will have descendants as vast as the stars, and they will come through his son, Isaac, and that is taken to mean his blood descendants, which later scriptures affirm. But then later still, Paul says that promise is actually for those who in a spiritual way inherit Abe's faith.

Is the question binary? ... old earth or young earth? Blood kin or faith kin?

Genesis is a history book. It begins with creation, the first six days including Adam and Eve, and then it ends with the life of Joseph. It is a literal story of the beginning of the nation of Israel, if not the human race. In the NT Paul makes some spiritual applications. Note that they are spiritual applications.
The Lord says to Abraham that his descendants will be AS vast as the stars.
The word "as" indicates a simile, and thus a figure of speech. It simply means "numberless," or "too many to count."
Otherwise the history given is to be taken literally. There is no reason not to take it literally. And therefore a young earth is determined by the historical context of the book.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Why should I care about old earth vs. new earth creationism? Isn't the most important point that God made it? Does it really make a difference if the world was created in 7,000 years or literally 7 days in our earth hours? Either way, He made it and is in control.

Who is the One speaking that Genesis one records? May I reword your question to fit the answer to my question?

"Why should I care what God says?"

 

[just-want-peace]

Who is the One speaking that Genesis one records? May I reword your question to fit the answer to my question?

"Why should I care what God says?"

Bolded mine

This hits right to the crux of the issue.

"The Lord says to Abraham that his descendants will be AS vast as the stars.
The word "as" indicates a simile, and thus a figure of speech. It simply means "numberless," or "too many to count."

Bolded Mine
God did not say, "And the evening and morning were as the 3rd day."

 

[Deacon]

For hundreds perhaps thousands of years believers functioned perfectly well secure in their conviction that the sun revolved around the earth.
The bible was used to support the belief.
The facts eventually became so overwhelming that theologians reassessed their understanding of scripture and changed the way they understood the bible.

For some of us with a scientific background, it's difficult to reconcile what we see in the world God made, with the old interpretation of how the world was made.

Scriptures tell us that God reveals himself in his work of creation and in scripture.
Old earth creationist attempt to reconcile the two forms of revelation.
Changing our interpretation means we need to broaden the way we understand scripture.

Old earth creationists believe that God is faithful and true to his word. We believe that God’s is true to his promises.

Why should you care?

Because the Christian life is a process of integrating our everyday life experiences with the biblical truths that we learn from scripture.

Rob

 

[Dr. Walter]

For some of us with a scientific background, it's difficult to reconcile what we see in the world God made, with the old interpretation of how the world was made.

I would question the "scientific" legitimacy of that background. For example, for nearly the past 150 years it is has been "scientific" fact that all current life forms developed from lower non-existent transition forms of life which in turn developed eventually in primorial soup from non-living materials.

Educated idiots under the label of "scientific" advancements.

The reality boils down to the difference between "And the Lord said" versus "Dr. So and so said." That is the choice in Genesis one as it is a report of what "God said" and did.

 

[Alcott]

Genesis is a history book. It begins with creation, the first six days including Adam and Eve, and then it ends with the life of Joseph. ........Otherwise the history given is to be taken literally. There is no reason not to take it literally. And therefore a young earth is determined by the historical context of the book.

Alright, I don't have much time, and I know what I'm probably starting here. One quick one... did Jacob really wrestle all night with God, with God asking Jacob to let him go? If not, who was it? And why didn't Jacob recognized whoever it was?. And if it was not God, is Jacob's new name Israel untrue, as he did not struggle with God (we're talking literal here)?

 

[Jedi Knight]

Well, to me it comes down to this: Do we trust the Word of God? It says things happened one way so can we say it happened another way?

Yea,what the sister said! :type: Did you also know what Satans first tactic was? To question "did God really say?" Genesis 3:1..... Same ol same ol. If he can get you to question God's word on elementary things as Genesis creation accout....that's opens the door for other questions. Example..... "Did Jesus really rise from the dead?" "Is Jesus really God?". ect. ect. basic stuff.

 

[DHK]

Alright, I don't have much time, and I know what I'm probably starting here. One quick one... did Jacob really wrestle all night with God, with God asking Jacob to let him go? If not, who was it? And why didn't Jacob recognized whoever it was?. And if it was not God, is Jacob's new name Israel untrue, as he did not struggle with God (we're talking literal here)?

See what happens in this narrative:

And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: (Genesis 18:1-3)

Abraham saw three men. One of them he addressed Lord, which at first seems to be an address of respect.

By this time the narrative uses the word Jehovah (the KJV has the word LORD in all caps), and one might assume that Abraham knows by now that it is Jehovah that he is speaking to:

And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old? (Genesis 18:13)

And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way. (Genesis 18:16)
--These two men are two angels as we find out shortly.
Thus the three "men" are two angels and the Lord--a theophany.

And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD. (Genesis 18:22)
--The angels go toward Sodom (to rescue Lot and his family) and Abraham begins to plead with God for Lot's deliverance.

My purpose in relating this is that we have two angels and God himself appearing in the flesh, taking on human flesh, eating and drinking with Abraham as normal men. They walked, talked, ate, and did all that normal men would do. They laid aside their angelic powers, and God his divine powers until it was needful to use them.

And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.
26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. (Genesis 32:24-26)

I believe the man was either an angel (possibly Christ, but not dogmatic), and that Jacob literally wrestled with this being until the break of day. He limped the next day, and until the rest of his life. That was the reason for it. Because he had wrestled with God (Christ), he was blessed of God, and his name changed.
It teaches us the spiritual lesson of travailing in prayer, wrestling with God so to speak.

And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. (Genesis 32:28)
And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. (Genesis 32:30)
--Jacob was convinced that he had seen God.
No doubt this was another Christophany.

 

[Anastasia]

Ok, good points about we should care what God says, but as for the degree of literalism and stuff, a lot of you are Calvinists, aren't you?

 

[DHK]

Ok, good points about we should care what God says, but as for the degree of literalism and stuff, a lot of you are Calvinists, aren't you?

And a lot of us aren't.

 

[David Lamb]

Ok, good points about we should care what God says, but as for the degree of literalism and stuff, a lot of you are Calvinists, aren't you?

But there are plenty of Christians who are not Calvinists (both on the Baptist Board and generally) who take the first chapters of Genesis as literally as they take the last. I'm not sure what point you are making here. Sorry.

 

[BobRyan]

For hundreds perhaps thousands of years believers functioned perfectly well secure in their conviction that the sun revolved around the earth.
The bible was used to support the belief.
The facts eventually became so overwhelming that theologians reassessed their understanding of scripture and changed the way they understood the bible.

For some of us with a scientific background, it's difficult to reconcile what we see in the world God made, with the old interpretation of how the world was made.

Scriptures tell us that God reveals himself in his work of creation and in scripture.
Old earth creationist attempt to reconcile the two forms of revelation.
Changing our interpretation means we need to broaden the way we understand scripture.

Old earth creationists believe that God is faithful and true to his word. We believe that God’s is true to his promises.

1. You are describing eisegesis not exegesis. Eisegesis asks "What do I need the bible to say so that my bias and preferences are preserved".

Exegesis asks "What is the most accurate way to render the meaning of the text regardless of my preferences, biases etc".

2. If the Word of God is really so "plastic" that it can be bent to whatever purpose evolutionism can dream up - where do you stop? When is some other preference for Bible-bending not as "legit" as the preference for belief in evolutionism?

It is a house of cards. If you cut Genesis out from under the Bible -- you are going after the Creator Himself as well as the trustworthy nature of His wor.d

Darwin freely admitted that after some serious effort he found no way to marry the two together.

You cannot serve two masters.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

--These two men are two angels as we find out shortly.
Thus the three "men" are two angels and the Lord--a theophany.

And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD. (Genesis 18:22)
--The angels go toward Sodom (to rescue Lot and his family) and Abraham begins to plead with God for Lot's deliverance.

My purpose in relating this is that we have two angels and God himself appearing in the flesh, taking on human flesh, eating and drinking with Abraham as normal men. They walked, talked, ate, and did all that normal men would do. They laid aside their angelic powers, and God his divine powers until it was needful to use them.

And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.
26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. (Genesis 32:24-26)

I believe the man was either an angel (possibly Christ, but not dogmatic), and that Jacob literally wrestled with this being until the break of day. He limped the next day, and until the rest of his life. That was the reason for it. Because he had wrestled with God (Christ), he was blessed of God, and his name changed.
It teaches us the spiritual lesson of travailing in prayer, wrestling with God so to speak.

...--Jacob was convinced that he had seen God.
No doubt this was another Christophany.

In John 1 and Rev 19 -- John describes Jesus (God the Son) as The Word.

The purpose of the Word is to reveal infinite God in a finite form. Paul says that in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form.

Thus when God the Son takes on the form of a man in the OT and meets with Abraham or Jacob this is not an OT author claiming "God is just a man". It does not lesson the role and stature of God the Son to engage effectively in His role as "The Word" to finite beings.

JWs think of Christ as nothing more than a high order of Angel in the OT - they might condemn Christians who claim that Christ is appearing to Jacob and Abraham as "a man" -- supposing that we think God is nothing more than "a man". But appearing in the "form" of some person (such as a man) is not the same as God ontologically being nothing more than a man. Where as the JW view is that Christ was really ontologically nothing more than a high angel in the OT. Two very different things.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[billwald]

Do old earth people love God and neighbor differently than do young earth people?

 

[Walguy]

Do old earth people love God and neighbor differently than do young earth people?

Since old earth people are willing to choose the word of men over the clear statements of the Word of God, don't you think that implies a difference in their love for God?

 

[Anastasia]

I think a more charitable approach would be to show that things that are observable with God-given intellect, like science, do not have to contradict a literal interpretation of scripture. If something cannot mix between science (or scientific reasoning in the context of the materially observable) and faith, then something is wrong because both are different tools, maybe not entirely the same level, but both useful none-the-less in understanding the world in which we live. Archeology is considered a science and yet has validated historical aspects of scripture. Scientific reasoning need not be a threat to truth.

You might even talk about historical interpretation using either early Christian writers or long ago Jewish writers to discuss how they viewed Creation, or possibly nuances of the Greek Septuagint translation that have an implication in young earth or old earth understandings because of the differences in language-I do not know if such is possible, but I might ask if I was going to be dogmatic about one view or the other.

Granted he did not use the same material application as a traditional scientist, but Paul was quite a rational thinker and writer, not just one who believed because of a conversion experience. He expounded on truths far greater than the timeline of creation and did so in ways that appealed to logic and what people had or could observed. Paul's approach at times went beyond scripture said this, so you should believe it. Take the resurrection for instance. He did not leave it as Jesus rose (maybe this was not written in Gospel form yet, but it was something the apostles could certainly talk about), but he explained why it had to be this way that He was resurrected from the dead. Call my crazy, but I think that sometimes, in light certain evidences and reasoning, Biblical truths can actually quite reasonable compared to anything else, not just a matter of blind faith.

 

[Anastasia]

Well, to me it comes down to this: Do we trust the Word of God? It says things happened one way so can we say it happened another way?

Do old earth people love God and neighbor differently than do young earth people?

Since old earth people are willing to choose the word of men over the clear statements of the Word of God, don't you think that implies a difference in their love for God?

Old earth and new earth creationists both affirm the truth of Genesis. This is why they believe that God created the world, that God created us, that God breathed life into us, that there is a Satan, an adversary who wants to separate men from God, and that Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden, though some might not believe that either Adam and Eve's kids were incestuous or mated with angels. The also *interpret* what is said differently.

Most Christian old earth creationists, which included a number of early Christians, hold that God told us to love Him with all of our heart, mind, strength, and soul and to love one another as ourselves. They believe that Genesis sets the stage for 2/3 of the Bible to tell about preparing the way for Christ and the last 1/3 about the fullness and fulfillment of that promise and the depth of His love and power of that love. The believe that God made covenants with His people and even sent His only Son to die so that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have ever lasting life and that He is the way, the truth, and the life, without whom no one comes to the Father. They also believe that we love Him because He first loved us, and that greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friend.

I am sorry if I went overboard on my previous reply. I thought I read somewhere on this thread a discounting of science with a reference to it siding with evolution or something. Perhaps I read too late without checking before I finished replying.