[Pastor Isaac Peters]

Re: Young earth creationism. What are your arguments against it ?

So your salvation depends on your faith of a young earth ? could you explain, why ?

Without a young earth, Christianity would completely fall apart. Do you agree with me that Christ died to save us from something, and in the absence of that something, God's temporary sacrifice of Himself to Himself would have been completely unnecessary? That something, dear friend, is the sin that Adam brought into the world:

Romans 5:18-19: Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Note the emphasis on one man's offense and disobedience. Scripture talks about a literal single Adam, not some sort of allegory for mankind in general.

Now the only way we know anything about Adam is through the Bible. The only way we know anything about Adam from the Bible is through a literal reading of Genesis; if any part of it were read figuratively, we'd have to read the whole thing figuratively, and then we'd have no basis for believing that the literal single man called Adam ever existed. A literal reading of Genesis, of course, leads us to young-earth creationism.

So there you have it. No young earth => no literal Adam => no need for Christ to die for our sins => no basis for Christianity. That is why salvation depends on our faith in a young earth.

[Elihu702]

Re: Young earth creationism. What are your arguments against it ?

Does the Bible or God say the earth is older than we say it is? If you don't believe God who can you? And what happens if you call God a Liar?

could you please show, where the bible says explicitly, the earth is six thousand years old ?

[James Dewitt]

Re: Young earth creationism. What are your arguments against it ?

could you please show, where the bible says explicitly, the earth is six thousand years old ?

Read this

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=3802

[Elihu702]

Re: Young earth creationism. What are your arguments against it ?

Without a young earth, Christianity would completely fall apart. Do you agree with me that Christ died to save us from something, and in the absence of that something, God's temporary sacrifice of Himself to Himself would have been completely unnecessary? That something, dear friend, is the sin that Adam brought into the world:

Romans 5:18-19: Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Note the emphasis on one man's offense and disobedience. Scripture talks about a literal single Adam, not some sort of allegory for mankind in general.

Now the only way we know anything about Adam is through the Bible. The only way we know anything about Adam from the Bible is through a literal reading of Genesis; if any part of it were read figuratively, we'd have to read the whole thing figuratively, and then we'd have no basis for believing that the literal single man called Adam ever existed. A literal reading of Genesis, of course, leads us to young-earth creationism.

So there you have it. No young earth => no literal Adam => no need for Christ to die for our sins => no basis for Christianity. That is why salvation depends on our faith in a young earth.

i fully agree with you. If Genesis, and Adam and Eve, would not be a real story, the bible and the plan of salvation would be worthless.

According to Dr.Hugh Ross, the genalogies of the bible however must be interpreted, and not be taken literally. Lets see what he writes :

http://www.reasons.org/genesis-genealogies

When names are intentionally left out of a genealogy, it is referred to as “telescoping.” In a telescoped genealogy only the highlights are given, usually the names of the most important and relevant people.

the telescoping of genealogies was a fairly common practice in ancient times. Such telescoping is perfectly acceptable and literal (based on Hebrew word usage)—even if it may be disconcerting to modern readers

some argue that our conclusions about other Biblical genealogies may not apply to Genesis 5 and 11. Those holding Ussher’s chronology estimate that Adam and Eve were created around 6,000 years ago on the assumption that the Genesis genealogies are complete (see Genesis Genealogies on page 20). Nothing in the text, however, requires that these genealogies be complete. Biblical scholars who hold that the genealogies are telescoped would place the creation of Adam and Eve at around 10 to 30,000 years ago but perhaps as late as 60,000 years ago.

Typically when a genealogy is telescoped, the number of names is reduced to an aesthetically pleasing number, usually a multiple of either 7 or 10 and less important names are omitted until that number is reached. For example, the genealogy of Genesis 4:17-18 contains 7 names. The genealogies in Genesis 5:3-32; 11:10-26; and Ruth 4:18-22 all have 10 names each. The genealogy of the nations (Genesis 10:2-29; 1 Chronicles 1:5-23) contains 70 names. Matthew arranged his genealogy (Matthew 1:2-17) into 3 groups of 14 names each. There are 14 names from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the exile, and 14 from the exile to Jesus Christ. To get the groups of 14, Matthew omitted at least 4 names (see below) and counted Jeconiah’s name twice. (See Matthew’s Genealogy on page 16.) Matthew clearly indicates in his gospel that that arrangement was intentional (Matthew 1:17). Whereas Matthew’s genealogy is broken into sections, Luke’s genealogy (Luke 3:23-28) is given as a single list. Luke has 14 names from Abraham to David, 21 from David to the exile, and 21 from the exile to Jesus Christ (in contrast to Matthew’s 14 names each). Luke also has an additional 21 names from Abraham back to Adam. (See Luke’s Genealogy on page 17.)[7]

Prominent Conservative Theologians Who Hold That The Genesis Genealogies Are Telescoped:
William Henry Green, “Primeval Creation,” Bibliotheca Sacra, April 1890, pp. 285-303.
B. B. Warfield, “On the Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race,” reprinted in Biblical and Theological Studies (P & R, 1968), pp. 238-261.
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 40-41.
James Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, Part II, Chapter IV.
R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 147-52.
Francis Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time.

[GodIsAlmighty]

Re: Young earth creationism. What are your arguments against it ?

If God can create the universe, then why do people question such silly things as how He could make it like it is today in 6,000 years? Of course He can. And he can do it in any order he wants, too. Tell me: why would the Lord wait billions of years before His people came into existence? It's stupid. A few days is the most I'd be able to put up with a big farm filled with only things that don't know of your existence (with all due respect to the many farmers at Freehold).

EDIT:

According to Dr.Hugh Ross, the genalogies of the bible however must be interpreted, and not be taken literally. Lets see what he writes

This is ridiculous. God did not write "And on this day came Adam and Eve" because he was speaking metaphorically, and actually meant "The people made in my image were originally monkeys millions of years ago".

[James Dewitt]

Re: Young earth creationism. What are your arguments against it ?

i fully agree with you. If Genesis, and Adam and Eve, would not be a real story, the bible and the plan of salvation would be worthless.

According to Dr.Hugh Ross, the genalogies of the bible however must be interpreted, and not be taken literally. Lets see what he writes :

2nd Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Matthew 4:4 Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.


Do you see anywhere that says you can pick and choose what to read and follow? I think not, God seems crystal clear on the subject. Do you some how think that you are qualified to analyze the word of God? Do you possess the ability to tell us just what God meant? Where you there?

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: Young earth creationism. What are your arguments against it ?

In a telescoped genealogy only the highlights are given, usually the names of the most important and relevant people.

Genesis 4:18 (King James Version)
18And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.

So you are saying there might have been someone unimportant in between these generations? If that were the case, then someone would not have begotten the next as it clearly states. If what you are saying is true then Irad, for example would not have begotten Mehujael, but rather would have begotten some other dude, who begat Mehujael.

Basically, what you are suggesting is that God might be a liar. Enjoy Hell.

[Elihu702]

Re: Young earth creationism. What are your arguments against it ?

First, light doesn't show whether it is old or young. It remains the same light. It is impossible for scientists to measure the distance to the stars. All they have is theories on how fast stars move across the sky is supposedly related to how far away they are. Except there is no proof for these theories. No spacecraft sent out by scientists has ever encountered a star, which obviously means that scientists don't really know where the stars are.

Your argument about days not being days is ridiculous. If a day is a thousand years, do you think we shouldn't rest or go to church for the next 6000 years? Our week is a perfect mirror of the week in which God created the universe and rested. Even Jesus Himself reaffirmed that weeks are to be 7 regular days.

Secular science has very accurate ways to measure the distance of stars. We should take these results seriously, in the same manner, as scientists do. Just to say, the universe is six thousand years old, because the bible says so, and dismiss scientific evidence, is counterproductive. No atheist will believe a christian , if he will show a world view, which is completely different than what science evidences. I don't want to say, we should dismiss the bible. But we should try to search further, to find the truth.

http://www.reasons.org/unraveling-starlight-and-time-0

This is a serious obstacle to the efforts of the young-earth movement to minister the Gospel to unbelievers, particularly to scientifically literate unbelievers. Much of the young-earth apologetic depends on the idea that the earth and the entire physical universe is no more than several thousand years old. This position appears to us as believers to be impossible to reconcile with any reasonable interpretation of the data of nature; it is also manifestly false from the perspective of unbelieving scientists. Young-earth claims on the age issue are so obviously mistaken, in fact, that many non-Christian scientists do not believe that young-earth apologists are honest people, which gives them yet another reason (or excuse) to reject the Gospel35. Perhaps the clearest instance of the impossibility of young-earth "science" is the light-travel problem, but this problem characterizes the entire young-earth position on the age-of-the-universe/age-of-the-earth issue36.


There are compelling reasons, why many christians are old earth creationists. I don't know yet, how Dr.Hugh Ross explains, human kind is max. 60 thousand years old, but the universe and the earth are billions of years old.

Maibe the gap theory could be compelling..... ?

http://www.reasons.org/unraveling-starlight-and-time-0

But the young-earth community has not seemed able and/or willing to examine itself. Our restraint seems to have been interpreted by proponents of Starlight and Time as an inability on RTB's part to respond to Starlight and Time. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the interest of the credibility of its Christian testimony, we appeal to the young-earth movement to undertake the long-overdue reassessment of the validity of Starlight and Time and, now, New Vistas.

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: Young earth creationism. What are your arguments against it ?

God created the stars with light already en route to the Earth. He did this in order to test our faith and send astrologers to Hell. What is so difficult to understand?

[Elihu702]

Re: Young earth creationism. What are your arguments against it ?

Genesis 4:18 (King James Version)
18And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.

So you are saying there might have been someone unimportant in between these generations? If that were the case, then someone would not have begotten the next as it clearly states. If what you are saying is true then Irad, for example would not have begotten Mehujael, but rather would have begotten some other dude, who begat Mehujael.

Basically, what you are suggesting is that God might be a liar. Enjoy Hell.

First of all : I think your radicalism, and fast and sudden judgement of me, is completely out of place. Is it that way, that you want to attract people to the gospel ? by threatening with hell in the first sentences ? sorry to say, but i think that does not work at all. I am a VERY experience debater at atheist forums, and i don't use such kind of tactic. It doesnt work, and neither do i believe, that is the way, God wishes us to approach unbelievers. What attracts people, is Gods love and mercy, and not legalism.

Secondly : I am not holding position of any of the statements i present. What i propose here, is a thoughtful debate, where arguments can be brought to the table and discussed. In a wise, and relaxed manner. If you are unable to do this, i guess, i will search another christian forum, where people act wiser.

[GodIsAlmighty]

Re: Young earth creationism. What are your arguments against it ?

Secular science has very accurate ways to measure the distance of stars. We should take these results seriously, in the same manner, as scientists do. Just to say, the universe is six thousand years old, because the bible says so, and dismiss scientific evidence, is counterproductive. No atheist will believe a christian , if he will show a world view, which is completely different than what science evidences. I don't want to say, we should dismiss the bible. But we should try to search further, to find the truth.

Secular science is constantly changing. The Holy Bible does not. Let the atheists continue to worship monkeys, they do not take the Bible in a serious manner, and they dismiss it without biblical evidence, so why try to play their game?

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: Young earth creationism. What are your arguments against it ?

Waaah! I will take my ball and go home!

So on Judgment Day, when God asks you why you chose to burn in Hell for all eternity instead of basking in His freely given love and radiance, you will tell Him, "because Billy Bob was mean to me"?

[Elihu702]

Re: Young earth creationism. What are your arguments against it ?

God created the stars with light already en route to the Earth. He did this in order to test our faith and send astrologers to Hell. What is so difficult to understand?

would you please stop about sending people to hell ? it seems almost you enjoy this idea, and God as well ??!! Jesus came to save humans, not to condemn them to hell !!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlight_problem

The central problem with the "in-transit" idea is that, if it is true, then events that astronomers are now observing and interpreting as having happened at vast distances away from the Earth never actually happened. For example, in 1987 astronomers observed a supernova (an exploding star) approximately 170,000 light-years away from the earth (SN 1987A). Alongside the visible light from this explosion, they also observed gamma rays and x-rays as predicted by theory, all strongly indicative that they were observing an actual event.
However, if the universe is only 6,000–12,000 years old, what the astronomers observed did not actually happen as the data suggested. Instead, it would imply that all of the radiation from this "event" was carefully arranged in space approximately 10,000 light-years away from the Earth, such that when the Earth reached 1987, this radiation would reach it and give the impression of a supernova event which never actually happened. Consequently, the in-transit theory is often rejected for theological reasons, as it suggests that God created a "false history" of events that never took place.[1][2]
Another counterargument constructs a reductio ad absurdum; if the universe were created with a false history, it becomes difficult to claim that it took place at any particular time. It could even have been created last week. (This thought experiment is sometimes referred to as Last Tuesdayism, Last Thursdayism, etc.)

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: Young earth creationism. What are your arguments against it ?

The central problem with the "in-transit" idea is that, if it is true, then events that astronomers are now observing and interpreting as having happened at vast distances away from the Earth never actually happened.

Why is that a problem?

It is the scientists who are creating a "false history of events".

[Elihu702]

Re: Young earth creationism. What are your arguments against it ?

So on Judgment Day, when God asks you why you chose to burn in Hell for all eternity instead of basking in His freely given love and radiance, you will tell Him, "because Billy Bob was mean to me"?

I opened this thread with a specific issue in mind. And its not about anal sex, and neither people going to burn in hell. So, please spear me from such off topic posts. i wish a conversation with people, who seek the truth and understanding, and have meaningful thoughts to present, and help me clear some ideas.