If you believe God created the earth....

[Miss Marple]

I think if it really mattered, and if God wanted us to know, He'd have flat out told us.

 

We aren't meant to know everything. We know the big stuff - God made the earth and everything in it. How he made it, and how long it took just. don't. matter. Arguing over it is distracting from the main point - God is amazing and did all THIS (waving arms around at scenery).

 

:iagree:

The point of the first few chapters of Genesis seems to be more of a "whom" rather than a "when".

[Lovedtodeath]

Because for a certain subset of Christians, being anything other than a YEC reading Genesis as a literal historical and scientific account means questioning the truth of the Bible as a whole. Other Christians do not accept this assertion, hence the big theological controversy.

I am trying to stay as uncontroversial as possible. :o

 

I have been researching what different denominations believe and the requirements, sinner's prayers and creeds they have... and well, there are statements about my sin, about mankind's sin, about God, about Jesus, about salvation, but I have yet to see a creed that includes anything that a OEC or TE does not believe. KWIM?

[LibraryLover]

The site I posted above has some good articles on discussion this with kids. http://www.oldearth.org/old.htm

 

 

What a great link. Thank you.

[LibraryLover]

Wow. A lot of OE people here. Far more than I would have guessed.

[KatA]

:iagree:

The point of the first few chapters of Genesis seems to be more of a "whom" rather than a "when".

 

:iagree: I occasionally listen to sermons by Britt Merrick from a church in California. He said gave a sermon on Hebrews 1:2 that I made sure to make a mental note of:

 

"The age of the earth is not a test for orthodoxy. Whether you believe God did it in 6 24-hour days or God did it in millions of years, neither camp can reject the other as being unorthodox or heretical... Therefore one camp should not be arrogant toward the other, should not belittle the other, should not reject the other... If you don't believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, if you don't believe in the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, you don't have orthodox Christianity. If you don't believe that atonement is only through the cross of Jesus Christ, you don't have orthodox Christianity. If you don't believe that God created all things, you don't have orthodox Christianity. Some things are a test for orthodoxy. But the age of the earth is not...

Neither view is proven with scientific finality and since there are unproven or even unprovable presuppositions associated with earth, we need to chill."

[sbgrace]

Thank you everyone who replied and for all the great links! I've been reading them and it's been really helpful.

 

I think if it really mattered, and if God wanted us to know, He'd have flat out told us.

 

We aren't meant to know everything. We know the big stuff - God made the earth and everything in it. How he made it, and how long it took just. don't. matter. Arguing over it is distracting from the main point - God is amazing and did all THIS (waving arms around at scenery).

 

I agree it doesn't matter. The thing is I think some personality types are great with saying it's amazing God made all this and we can't figure out the specifics and others are driven to integrate facts and understand the how as well as the why. I've got a child like that.

 

So even though I have told him that God didn't give us all the specifics because it doesn't matter, I am trying to figure out how to approach questions about science and God that are mixed in his mind. For example this last week he asked me about hominids and why they started to look more and more human and why we share so much genetic material with them. That has been stewing in his mind for a while apparently and when he asked me I was not prepared. I said some things I now am not sure were correct and, in fact, I'm actually thinking were likely wrong. I have a thinker kid and I don't want to tell him something now that will later be proven wrong. Yet, with this child, I can't just say we don't know. I mean I could but it's not the right approach for him.

Edited October 12, 2012 by sbgrace

[Mommy22alyns]

I would say that I lean towards an age of the universe in the billions and theistic evolution. I believe that God exists outside of the human conception of time, and therefore the "days" of creation could represent something other than 144 modern hours. There could also be a gap between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 like some theologians believe.

 

However, as all things are possible for God, I am open to the possibility of a more recent creation in the equivalent of 144 modern hours of a seemingly "old" earth with fossils already in it, light already en route, etc.

 

I don't know, but I don't think reading Genesis as a literal historical and scientific narrative is necessary for believing that the Bible is the true Word of God.

 

:iagree:

[melissad2]

Hmmm. I'm not really sure what I believe anymore. I thought I believed in old earth but sometimes I lean toward young earth. I'm still sorting it all out. Although I don't think it matters one way or the other.

[KrissiK]

I voted "other". I firmly believe that God created the earth exactly as Genesis says. I don't believe in evolution at all. However, I cannot be dogmatic about the young earth/ old earth argument. I think there's evidence for both, and since no one was there...... Dh is staunchly old earth, but I just don't know, and really am not passionate about the subject.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

really am not passionate about the subject.

I am passionate about the subject. I LOVE it! I am just not dogmatic about it. :)

[MyLittleWonders]

:iagree:

The point of the first few chapters of Genesis seems to be more of a "whom" rather than a "when".

:iagree: I believe, and am teaching my boys, that Genesis 1-11 are wisdom books. They tell the story of the need for God, not the scientific background for how we got here. I come from a Protestant background that was YE/6 days and honestly, it helped to destroy my faith (YMMV; it was just my personal experience). Now I am Catholic and my faith has grown while learning about the wisdom contained in those first 11 chapters. BTW, I voted "old earth--allegorical, literary, or otherwise representative account."

[Crimson Wife]

Wow. A lot of OE people here. Far more than I would have guessed.

 

Most Christians are not YEC's. A 2007 Gallup poll found that of self-described Christians, only 31% were YEC's.

[Miss Marple]

Most Christians are not YEC's. A 2007 Gallup poll found that of self-described Christians, only 31% were YEC's.

 

I heard one speaker say that YE is typically an American view and that the majority of European and other Christians lean toward OE. I haven't researched it myself but thought the distinction was interesting.

[GWOB]

I'm in the old earth/theistic evolution camp, but I reserve my right to be wrong;).

 

My salvation is found in Jesus, not Genesis.

[SunnyDays]

My salvation is found in Jesus, not Genesis.

 

I think we need a bumper sticker!! :)

[GWOB]

I think we need a bumper sticker!! :)

 

Word.

[raceNzanesmom]

I believe in a literal 6 day creation. No where else in Scripture does a day not mean a day. However, it isn't a salvation issue so as long as one believes GOD did the creating I'm ok with it.

[Rident_Mama]

Salvational? No.

 

Interesting to speculate about? Yes!

 

We are of a different stance, I suppose. Looking at the original Hebrew, not every "created" actually means "immediately came into being"...in several instances, it means "to put in order"...the earth was there (without form and void), the sun and moon were there, the water that had not yet been separated was there, plants/animals/humanity was not there. So while we believe in an Old Earth, we also believe in a New Creation that took place over 7 days. That God would have put so much planning and design together in order to increase His family...it is truly a glorious creation!

 

It is good for you & yours to be questioning!

[Joanne]

I believe spiritual force/energy created and formed and fueled the universe.

 

Since you did not specific a *Christian* concept of God in the subject line, I feel I qualify to answer.

 

I believe all creation stories are just that: stories. They serve (and served, at the time) the same psychological function. As such, I do not grant more validity to the Islamic understanding vs. the Christian vs. Greek myths.

 

In terms of the Christian content offered by the Bible, I believe that the "pre-story" is not only a STORY, I believe from a literature and cultural standpoint it was SUPPOSED to be an allegory, Adam and Eve prototypes. In fact, I think we actually lose something when we impose a literal, historical, scientifically accurate expectation to it.

[Lovedtodeath]

I have a similar understanding to the Genesis account... if it is a true historical account then God allowed it to happen in order to teach us. I feel that all of history has the purpose of teaching us. So if something written in the Bible was there for the purpose of teaching even though it wasn't an actual event, then I get that.

[Rene']

I voted "other". I am old earth, but believe the 6 days are literal 24 hour days. I believe in a gap of time between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. It's sometimes referred to as the Ruin/Reconstruction theory.

[LucyStoner]

 

In terms of the Christian content offered by the Bible, I believe that the "pre-story" is not only a STORY, I believe from a literature and cultural standpoint it was SUPPOSED to be an allegory, Adam and Eve prototypes. In fact, I think we actually lose something when we impose a literal, historical, scientifically accurate expectation to it.

 

:iagree:

 

I think the result is much less profound when interpreted as literal history.

[LibraryLover]

Most Christians are not YEC's. A 2007 Gallup poll found that of self-described Christians, only 31% were YEC's.

 

The board has had many heated discussions about evolution/OE/YE, so the poll numbers here surprise me.

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't believe in evolution at all.

 

When you say you don't believe in evolution, what do you mean by that? Do you mean you don't believe that man descended from another biological ancestor or do you mean that you don't believe in speciation of any kind? Because I actually had a knock-down-drag-out fight on another board about what people generally mean when they say this.

 

I heard one speaker say that YE is typically an American view and that the majority of European and other Christians lean toward OE. I haven't researched it myself but thought the distinction was interesting.

 

Most American Christians are still Old Earth. But, yeah, almost no Europeans believe in YEC.

 

No where else in Scripture does a day not mean a day.

 

This is not exactly true, or at least, it's not the whole story.

 

http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm

 

http://www.oldearth.org/yom_hebrew.htm

 

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dayagedefense.html

[caroljenn]

I'm a young earther. The Bible starts with creation as its foundation. If we take all of the other events in the Bible literally, we should take creation literally too. I subscribe to Answers in Genesis magazine, which explains how a lot of the creation events could realistically have taken place in such a short timespan.

[Mrs Mungo]

If we take all of the other events in the Bible literally, we should take creation literally too.

 

But, we don't. Otherwise, we would believe in a geocentric universe. A geocentric universe was accepted church doctrine. Galileo was labeled as a heretic for promoting the heliocentric model of the solar system. He was tortured until he recanted his statement. He was blinded, imprisoned for life, threatened with execution because The Bible has the earth at the center of the universe. We speak of the rising and setting of the sun, even though we KNOW it is not *literally* true that the sun rises and sets. We know the earth is spinning and the sun only appears to rise and set.

 

Biblical evidence for a geocentric model of the universe:

http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric.shtml

[TravelingChris]

I am an OE. I heard a very interesting lecture about 12 years ago about ancient writing techniques. Basically, the idea is that repeating with greater details was very common. So the first three days correspond with the second three days as greater details. Anyway, I don't see how you have 24 hour days when there is no earth and no sun. I agree with those who say it isn't a salvation issue.

[bolt.]

If we take all of the other events in the Bible literally, we should take creation literally too.

The thing is, that "we" don't take all other 'events' in the Bible literally.

 

A brief list: We don't take Job literally. We don't take Song of Solomon literally. We don't take Isiah's parable of the vineyard literally. We don't take Ezekiel's talk of shepherds literally. We don't take Hosea's talk of marriage and reconciliation literally, nor Micah's (Malachi's?) mention of divorce. We don't take Jesus' parables literally. We don't take Paul's discussion of 'children of the free woman' in Romans literally. We don't take 'you were buried with Christ' literally, nor 'circumcision of the heart' literally, and we don't take 'children of the light' literally either. Last but not least, we don't take (all) of the book of Revelation literally.

 

On the contrary, we prove quite adept, in most situations, of discerning when a Bible text is (or could be) non-literal in its intent. This is an important skill, and not an act of faithlessness in approaching the sacred text. Yes, there are disagreements through that discernment process, and often people agree to disagree -- but no one *actually* takes all the 'events' of the Bible literally... it's just a matter of which 'events' get sorted into which categories and why.