s/o of the Ken Ham convention thread - questions

[StaceyinLA]

I don't want to start a huge debate, and I didn't want to ask in the thread since it was really pretty lighthearted and I didn't want to bring it down, but I have a question or two.

 

I really have no real staunch position on YE vs OE, though I do tend to go with a YE just based on my faith. However, when we had this discussion at a Mom's Night meeting, it was said that if you rejected the YE position, and the literal 7-day creation, you were basically not taking the Bible as literal and, therefore, not really "believing" what it says. Their position seemed to be that if you'd question that, you could question other foundational things in the Bible (and I can see that point).

 

Now idk if I really buy into an OE position, and I definitely do not believe in evolution; I'm for sure a creationist. Can one be an OE creationist? If so, what does that belief system look like? And if you are a YE, must you believe that what Ken Ham is spouting is 100% truth? Is there any middle ground?

 

Is there any possible way we could have a rational discussion regarding my confusion on this topic?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

My issue with Ken Ham is not only that I think he is wrong, but that he declares anyone who does not believe the same as him to be "not a true Christian" and an "attacker of the faith". Creationism is NOT a salvation issue and not taking the Bible literally in regards to Adam and Eve does NOT mean you automatically question the rest of the Bible.

[StaceyinLA]

I realize creationism is not a salvation issue, nor is the age of the earth, but if you take a fairly critical part of the overall story written in the Bible and pretty much disregard its truth, could you not do the same with other parts? How do you decide which parts to believe and not believe.

 

FWIW, I am mostly asking for direction on believing IN creation and how one can support that belief with an OE POV. I stated that I do believe in creation.

[Jean in Newcastle]

There are theistic evolutionists. They believe that a creator started the evolutionary process. Some believe that the "days" in Genesis are more indicative of ages or periods of time rather than the same 24 hour days that we have today.

[Parrothead]

I'm an old earth creationist who believes in theistic evolution. I believe God created heaven and earth and the universe via the Big Bang. Animals came and went. They also evolved as per God's plan. I do not believe man evolved from monkeys.

[Georgiana Daniels]

You can be YE and not be a Ken Ham devotee :)

[misty.warden]

I don't want to start a huge debate, and I didn't want to ask in the thread since it was really pretty lighthearted and I didn't want to bring it down, but I have a question or two.

 

I really have no real staunch position on YE vs OE, though I do tend to go with a YE just based on my faith. However, when we had this discussion at a Mom's Night meeting, it was said that if you rejected the YE position, and the literal 7-day creation, you were basically not taking the Bible as literal and, therefore, not really "believing" what it says. Their position seemed to be that if you'd question that, you could question other foundational things in the Bible (and I can see that point).

 

Now idk if I really buy into an OE position, and I definitely do not believe in evolution; I'm for sure a creationist. Can one be an OE creationist? If so, what does that belief system look like? And if you are a YE, must you believe that what Ken Ham is spouting is 100% truth? Is there any middle ground?

 

Is there any possible way we could have a rational discussion regarding my confusion on this topic?

 

 

The first underlined portion is a slippery slope argument, an informal fallacy, and assumes that there are only two options, literal belief or not being a "real" Christian. ETA this is how I read it because as I understand it I am not required by the Church to believe that the Bible is the literally inerrant word and that every sentence is to be taken literally. If your denomination believes this, of course I can see how not believing the generations and days were the same as they are today would be a serious problem. Depending on your denomination, personal interpretation of scripture and/or how literally you are expected to believe the tenets of that church before you are considered out of sync or communion or whatever can vary wildly. Some allow disagreement with the "official" interpretation and others do not, expecting members to take it on faith.

 

The second underlined portion is exactly how I feel, I would identify as an Old-Earth Creationist with the caveat that not everyone who uses the same label believes exactly as I do. I believe God exists outside of time as we experience it, so the six days of Genesis could be metaphorical, God could work at what we would describe as "super speed" (He is God after all, why not?) allowing all of the work to happen in what we would have experienced as six days had we been there, or any number of other possible explanations. I believe God created and any discrepancy between what He actually did and how we understand what happened is because we are not God.

 

But I also believe it doesn't really matter, as in it doesn't effect my salvation or anyone else's as far as I know, may the Magisterium correct me if I'm wrong. I also don't think we're owed an explanation, or are even capable of understanding the entire plan as He has laid it out, and the obsession with counting generations or assigning literal scientific dates to when which dinosaur was where or doing what goes right over my head.

[Cricket]

I don't know where I am on the issue. I was raised YE. Honestly Ken Ham and people like him have done more to push me away from a YE point of view than defend it to me. To tell Christians to answer people with scientific data with, "well, were you there?" is just so wrong. I don't believe God is a God of chaos and I believe He wants us to use the brains He gave us for science, art, music, etc. Tim Keller has written an article that really got me thinking and addresses many of your questions. It's here ( http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf ) if you are interested. It is important to address these concerns and I think people like Ham hurt Christians with their attitude that these questions are Satanic attacks or something.

[Erin]

it was said that if you rejected the YE position, and the literal 7-day creation, you were basically not taking the Bible as literal and, therefore, not really "believing" what it says. Their position seemed to be that if you'd question that, you could question other foundational things in the Bible (and I can see that point).

This is legalism, pure and simple and Christ died so we didn't have to follow legalistic rules anymore.

 

Personally, I believe God is the Creator, but I also believe that what are a thousand years in His sight (the biggest number-word ancient Hebrew had, btw) are but a watch in the night. Ps90:4

 

Additionally, so far above my thoughts and ways are His, as to be the heavens above the earth. Is55:8-9 He flat out tells us that He does things differently than we can understand. His time is not my time and I simply can't imagine trying to stuff the Creator of all into the small box of my own limited understanding.

OTOH, He gave us an insatiable curiosity and and intellect unrivaled by anything else in His creation.

 

Why can't He continually reveal Himself and His Creation as the millennia pass? :001_smile:

[Molly]

I'm very much like you, believe in a YE because of what the bible says, but do not think it is a salvation issue. My other reasons for believing are mainly the way the earth behaves in terms of change and natural events. I don't necessarily think it is 6,000 to 10,000 years old, but due to evidence to the contrary, I can not believe it is billions of years old.

 

While I do use a few Ken Ham publications, having watched an interview or two has really brought concerns about the message he is speaking. It will not change me using the material for teaching my children, but I do watch out and discuss anything I have a slight concern with.

 

To the person who mentioned evolving from monkeys, I do suggest you learn what evolution is teaching. They definately do not teach that.

[Pawz4me]

it was said that if you rejected the YE position, and the literal 7-day creation, you were basically not taking the Bible as literal and, therefore, not really "believing" what it says. Their position seemed to be that if you'd question that, you could question other foundational things in the Bible (and I can see that point).

 

There are allegories and metaphors throughout the Bible. Most people readily admit that. So to my way of thinking it's entirely possible the stories of creation in the Bible are allegories or metaphors. I don't see how one can authoritatively rule that out, when to my way of thinking there's just no way to know.

 

And if you are a YE, must you believe that what Ken Ham is spouting is 100% truth?

 

(I'm most definitely not YE, so take from this what you will. Like most everything else I'm posting here, it's JMHO) -- Only if you believe that any one mere human has the right to dictate what millions of others believe or shouldn't believe about the Bible. Is there any reason you would think that Mr. Ham's definition of who is Christian or not has any more legitimacy than any other person's definition? Who gave him the right to decide? Do you think any mere human has the right to say someone is Christian or not based on a single and rather narrow-minded criteria? Based on what we know of Jesus' kindness and compassion and love, do you think what a person believes about earth's creation matters to Him? (I ask all these questions in sincerity, and perhaps to help someone think the matter through.)

 

Is there any possible way we could have a rational discussion regarding my confusion on this topic?

I think "rational" is in the eye of the beholder. Much like the interpretation of what may or may not be allegory or metaphor in the Bible. ;)

[Lily_Grace]

I think you can absolutely look at some parts of the bible as allegorical. My take on the 7 day creation model is this:

 

A day is a measured piece of time. Who did the measuring? How? If the sun wasn't even invented until the 3rd day, what constituted a "day"? Why do we put limits on God and force him into a narrow box that the human mind can accept, instead of allowing Him to work his model?

 

There are discrepancies in the bible that definitely cannot be taken as literal truth. Joshua made the sun stand still. And how did that work, exactly, since the belief at that time was that we were the center of the universe? Even creationist texts accept laws of physics. Allowing the "sun to stand still" would mean that the earth stopped spinning. How is that possible??

 

The Pearls are rather fond of Proverbs, and 'Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.' There are many who will testify otherwise, as abuse after abuse case rocks our nation.

 

These cannot be taken literally. There are many, many parts of the bible that we disregard because customs fall away or we have a new way of looking at things (like, we don't kill non-virgins who get married). I look at Genesis as a 'God's people' story of how they came to be. The time frame isn't necessary, but the timeline is, if that makes sense. I don't see Adam and Eve as the first people on earth, but as the first Jews. Otherwise, Cain wouldn't have had a need to be afraid when he left his parents. There wouldn't have been other people, and certainly not cities. He wouldn't have needed to be marked.

[Heather in Neverland]

http://www.reasons.org/about/who-we-are/hugh-ross

 

 

This is the OE answer to Ken Ham's organization. Hugh Ross has written good books on the topic.

 

While I am YE in my views, I do not believe OE is heresy and I believe those that do are turning a rib issue into a spine issue.

[Momof3littles]

I grew up as ELCA and was never exposed to the idea of YE until I was an adult. I grew up in an area with lots of Protestants, but they were UCC, ELCA, etc. and pretty much every Protestant I knew was OE.

 

I have always personally believed in evolution, but where I grew up OE creationism was the overwhelming POV.

[mom@shiloh]

I don't know where I am on the issue. I was raised YE. Honestly Ken Ham and people like him have done more to push me away from a YE point of view than defend it to me. To tell Christians to answer people with scientific data with, "well, were you there?" is just so wrong. I don't believe God is a God of chaos and I believe He wants us to use the brains He gave us for science, art, music, etc. Tim Keller has written an article that really got me thinking and addresses many of your questions. It's here ( http://biologos.org/...white_paper.pdf ) if you are interested. It is important to address these concerns and I think people like Ham hurt Christians with their attitude that these questions are Satanic attacks or something.

 

Am I allowed to 'like' this times 10?? I am YE and I am sure that Ken Ham says some things that I would agree with, but the strident "I am right and you all are wrong" tone tends to turn my ears off. On the other hand, Tim Keller's Biblical, calm and reasonable approach has me standing and cheering.

[poppy]

From Cricket's link:

Question #1

:

If God used evolution to create, then we can’t take Genesis 1 literally, and if we can’t do

that, why take any other part of the Bible literally?

 

Answer

:

The way to respect the authority of the Biblical writers is to take them as they want to be taken.

Sometimes they want to be taken literally, sometimes they don’t. We must listen to them, not impose our

thinking and agenda on them.

[magnificent_baby]

I agree that OE/YE itself is not a salvation issue. However, I think it is a slippery slope. 

On a side note, I was saddened by the other thread. I respectfully didn't comment because there was a warning to skip. Whether or not one is a Ham fan, it was a little hurtful to read through. I may disagree with another's beliefs but would never laugh and snort or elude to someone being dumb that holds beliefs other than my own.

[Muttichen]

I don't want to start a huge debate, and I didn't want to ask in the thread since it was really pretty lighthearted and I didn't want to bring it down, but I have a question or two.

 

I really have no real staunch position on YE vs OE, though I do tend to go with a YE just based on my faith. However, when we had this discussion at a Mom's Night meeting, it was said that if you rejected the YE position, and the literal 7-day creation, you were basically not taking the Bible as literal and, therefore, not really "believing" what it says. Their position seemed to be that if you'd question that, you could question other foundational things in the Bible (and I can see that point).

 

Now idk if I really buy into an OE position, and I definitely do not believe in evolution; I'm for sure a creationist. Can one be an OE creationist? If so, what does that belief system look like? And if you are a YE, must you believe that what Ken Ham is spouting is 100% truth? Is there any middle ground?

 

Is there any possible way we could have a rational discussion regarding my confusion on this topic?

 

I am YE. I think the problem with theistic evolution is that if you accept it, you have to give up critical beliefs that are foundational to Christianity. If you don't have a literal Adam and Eve, you don't have the Fall. If Adam and Eve and the Fall are myths, what do you do with the theology in Romans? Some people say the earth is old, but God intervened and made a literal Adam and Eve. But then, was there death before the Fall? You can take or leave what Ken Ham teaches (I honestly have never heard him or read his stuff), but I think you need to be careful about throwing out a literal interpretation of Genesis.

[bethben]

Can you believe God created Adam and Eve as full grown or that He created trees as mature trees and didn't just seed the earth? Then why can't we believe that He created the rocks to have age or the stars to be visible from far away immediately? I suggest that anyone who believes the earth is young research why some scientists believe that. There are good and valid reasons. Science is not pure. The scientist worldview is always a factor- especially in age of the earth science.

 

Beth

[*Michelle*]

This is an excerpt from a longer piece, but it sums up just such a belief:

 

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

 

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

 

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

 

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

 

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

 

 

ETA:

 

As the Catechism puts it, "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.

[MFG]

Ken Ham has never impressed me as a particularly scholarly or insightful OT exegete. Neither does he hold any position of responsibility or authority in my Church, nor in any other organization of which I am a member. Therefore, I fail to see how I am under any obligation to answer his "arguments".

[T'smom]

In Hebrew, the creation story is a poem. I do not believe it was meant to be taken literally. I DO believe in s literal Adam and Eve, and I certainly believe that the Bible is inerrant. I believe some Christians are focusing on the wrong things. The Bible tells us that when we get to the end, God will say to us "when I was thirsty did you give me something to drink, when I was hungry, did you give me food, when I was naked, did you clothe me, when I was in prison, did you visit me? Whatever you did to the least of these you did it to Me" (Obviously, a very quick paraphrase of a much longer passage.) It doesn't say He's going to ask us how old we thought the earth was. I think this question shows that He doesn't care about that, He cares how we treat people......so that is where my focus lies. If other people want to say that I'm not a real Christian because I'm not decidedly young earth? Well, I don't care. It's not them that I am trying to please.

[Aslana]

One thing I do wish Christians (in general) would take into consideration is that pushing the very strong views that Ken Ham pushes does nothing more than turn those of us who are not "saved" away from your belief. In short, it's a huge turn off. Why would I want to become the kind of person my mother raised me not to be (I'm speaking of Ham here. Being blunt is one thing, being so adamant that everyone but you is wrong to the point of calling everyone else sinners and casting them straight into hell, is doubly wrong).

 

I am staunchly old earth and agree with the science of Evolution (notice I did not use the word believe as that requires faith, of which science is not). But I do know that one can reconcile their faith with the science. The easiest way to do this is to read both sides of it. And learn what not to read--don't read the extreme side one way that says "literal 7 days, etc.." or the side that says "monkeys to man (because evolution does not espouse this)"; but instead read the sides that tell you how each can be reconciled without the name calling, bashing, thumping, and condemning to hell.

 

Ken Ham's books are not books I'd recommend for that. Likewise, much as I love Dawkin, I wouldn't recommend his staunch side of it either (to someone researching). Instead, I'd start out with a simple reading of what Darwin actually said and recommend On the Origin of Species and go from there.

[gardenmom5]

Now idk if I really buy into an OE position, and I definitely do not believe in evolution; I'm for sure a creationist. Can one be an OE creationist? If so, what does that belief system look like? And if you are a YE, must you believe that what Ken Ham is spouting is 100% truth? Is there any middle ground?

 

Is there any possible way we could have a rational discussion regarding my confusion on this topic?

 

this is the first time I've even heard of ken ham - and I can see why some find him entertaining. (not in the way he intends.) I'd find him wearisome in very short order. (he has no position or influence in my belief system - so his opinion is irrelevant to me.) the only reason I didn't do dinosaurs with dudeling was he was terrified of them. rex from toy-story might be cute, but the animorphic dinosaurs at our science center aren't.

 

I happen to believe that time only is measured unto man. iow: we don't know how long a "day" is to God. Day can also be expressed as - creative periods. we also don't know how long adam and eve were in the garden. could have been a LOOOONG time.

 

even in a cosmological sense - there's a lot of we don't know. a more significant portion than many would like to admit of what is today presented as scientific fact, is only theory.

 

eta: I happen to believe that TRUE science fact and TRUE doctrinal understanding will perfectly agree with each other. (and the ken hams of the world aren't worth my time.)

[Butter]

Can one be an OE creationist?

 

 

Absolutely. Who is to say a "day" during creation is an exactly 24 hour day like we have today. A "day" in Genesis could very well mean a period of time. OE/YE debate seems to hinge on the days being exactly 24 hour days or creation periods, so if you believe God created the earth and everything on it, but believe in creation periods rather than 24 hour days, you can most definitely be an OE creationist.

[TechWife]

I realize creationism is not a salvation issue, nor is the age of the earth, but if you take a fairly critical part of the overall story written in the Bible and pretty much disregard its truth, could you not do the same with other parts? How do you decide which parts to believe and not believe.

 

First, let me say that I believe it all. I also believe that how the earth was created is not spelled out in scripture and that it is not a salvation issue. But, in answer to your question, there is a theological concept known as "soul competency," which, in a very rudimentary definition, means that because I am a believer and have the Holy Spirit in me to guide me, It is not "I" on my own who decides, but Christ, who lives in me, guides me to an understanding of His Word as I read and study.

[Rene']

Can one be an OE creationist? If so, what does that belief system look like?

 

I'm an Old(er) Earth Creationist and I don't believe in evolution. I believe that I actually take the bible more literally than YEC. My belief system is called The Gap or Ruin-Reconstruction. Here is an article that explains it: http://kjvbible.org/gap_theory.html, and another one that is also important: http://kjvbible.org/satan.html

 

In a nutshell, the belief is that there was a gap of time between Genesis 1 when God created the heaven and the earth, and Genesis 2. The 7 days are 7 literal days. There are many, many reasons why I believe the Gap to be the truth, but one of the biggest clinchers for me is found in the following two verses:

 

 

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

 

Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited:

 

Those phrase "without form" and the word "vain" are translated from the same Hebrew word - tôhû. In Genesis 2 we find the earth in a state that God did not create it in.

 

ETA: I don't believe that this is a salvation issue.

[Saddlemomma]

I really use to struggle mightily with this very idea. How do we know when something in the Bible is metaphor, literal, allegorical, etc.. Well, I did some soul searching, listening to STR.org podcasts, praying, and researching (in the Bible and other sources). After all, I'm responsible for my daughter's education, and I take that very seriously (as espoused in the Bible). So, I want to get things "right".

 

From all my research, I've come to a very simple conclusion: We can never know all things! That's it in a nutshell. God invented time. God exists outside of time. We do not have the mental capabilities of understanding even that! Remember the verse: "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." 2 Peter 3:8 Therefore, I believe that God was speaking in a context we, humans with limited capabilities compared to His, could understand. I believe He used the word "yom" (which could mean a literal 24-hour day, or a longer period of time, or an age) so that we could understand that a certain period of time passed before each of His actions. Do I know, for sure, how much time? No, and I don't think it really matters. I think God was just trying to communicate to Moses that over a course of "time" He created. That's the main focus. He did it. IMHO, believing one way or another does not jeopardize your salvation.

 

I think we, as Christians, spend too much time splitting hairs over things that don't, in the BIG picture, really matter. Doing this creates division and strife within the Christian body which plays into the hands of the "world". Instead of concentrating on working together, as a body of believers, for the greater good, we're fighting amongst ourselves over petty interpretation differences and legalities (isn't this something Jesus condemned in the Pharisees). Is it pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib? Who cares as long as you are saved? Jesus is coming in the end that's what matters. Is it YE or OE? Who cares as long as you know Who created?

 

Your salvation rests in the fact that you have acknowledged Jesus Christ as you Lord and Savior; you recognize that He died for your sins and rose on the third day; that His atoning blood washed away your sins when you asked for forgiveness; that you believe in the Trinity; that God is the one and only God; that the Bible is the inspired word of God written down by over 40 authors in 66 letters and documents.

 

As for pre-, mid-, post-tribulation? I'll know when it happens. As for the actual age of the earth? It will be one of the first questions I ask when I see Jesus!

[Saddlemomma]

I realize creationism is not a salvation issue, nor is the age of the earth, but if you take a fairly critical part of the overall story written in the Bible and pretty much disregard its truth, could you not do the same with other parts? How do you decide which parts to believe and not believe.

 

FWIW, I am mostly asking for direction on believing IN creation and how one can support that belief with an OE POV. I stated that I do believe in creation.

 

 

You can check out these articles:

• http://www.reasons.org/articles/old-earth-creationism-a-heretical-belief'>http://www.reasons.org/articles/old-earth-creationism-a-heretical-belief
  
• http://www.reasons.org/articles/does-old-earth-creationism-contradict-genesis-1-2
  
• http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creationmodels.html'>http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creationmodels.html
  

 

and these websites:

• http://www.reasons.org/
  
• http://www.str.org/
  
• http://www.reasonablefaith.org/
  
• http://www.godandscience.org/
  

[Lily_Grace]

The idea of Genesis as a poem intrigued me, and so I went searching. Lots of sites talk about how it's a poem, but this is the best explanation I found (along with how to interpret it): http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_genesis_1.html

[Susan in TN]

It may depend on your definition of literal. I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible in the sense that there are many types of literary genre and techniques and those should be understood in order to gain a clear understanding of scripture.

 

That being said, just because a passage is poetic doesn't mean that it is not also literally true. This is where it can get confusing and it's important to let the clear portions of scripture interpret those portions that are not as clear.

 

 

[Erin]

If you don't have a literal Adam and Eve, you don't have the Fall.

 

Maybe YOU can't believe that, but again, I try not to limit God to my own understanding.

 

Adam means "man," as in "mankind" or just "the man." It's dual purpose.

To be sure, homo sapiens/mankind are a sinful specie! We're the only specie that can sin, really, and most evolutionists would agree with this. Though of course atheistic evolutionists would never call it sin...

At some point God breathed life into man--a consciousness that isn't found in other species. And with that came the ability to sin.

[laughing lioness]

 

I really have no real staunch position on YE vs OE, though I do tend to go with a YE just based on my faith. However, when we had this discussion at a Mom's Night meeting, it was said that if you rejected the YE position, and the literal 7-day creation, you were basically not taking the Bible as literal and, therefore, not really "believing" what it says. Their position seemed to be that if you'd question that, you could question other foundational things in the Bible (and I can see that point).

 

Now idk if I really buy into an OE position, and I definitely do not believe in evolution; I'm for sure a creationist. Can one be an OE creationist? If so, what does that belief system look like? And if you are a YE, must you believe that what Ken Ham is spouting is 100% truth? Is there any middle ground?

 

Is there any possible way we could have a rational discussion regarding my confusion on this topic?

 

 

And the people who state the above are reading the Bible in Hebrew, not a translation, right?! They've done in-depth, personal study on the topice, right?! they aren't just sputtering back a convention speaker they heard, right?!!!

 

I think Ken Ham is a great speaker. I have also seen and heard him attack fellow Christians publically and in a way that causes dissension (way before the defluffle with SWB) and hurt in Christian as well as non- christian contexts. I thought the point was to glorify God, not be "right". Clanging cymbols (1 Cor 13:1) and all of that).

 

There are plenty of OEC's out there who take an innerant view of the Bible (Reasons to Believe).

[Lindi]

trip post

[Lindi]

Like another poster, I think the main problem with Ken Ham is his insistence that eveyone see the bible the way he does and if they don't, they are either not Chrstian or on the slippery slope toward perdition.

 

You can take any issue in the bible and say, "If you don't believe this part the way I do, you must not believe the bible." My dfd was raised Eastern Orthodox. The first time I took her to our Evangelica Covenent Church, we had communion (she didn't partake by her choice). Afterwards, she asked the pastor, "Do you believe in the Real Presence?" (this means, do you believe that the blood and wine actually turn into the physical body and blood of Chrsit?" Our pastor very graciously said, "No, but If you do, we respect your opinion." To which she responded (being an asperkid) - "well, then, you don't believe the bible!"

 

Afterwards, after I explained why the pastor was being polite, loving and inclusive in this situation and she wasn't in this situation - I talked to her about metaphors, a concept she did understand. I said that the disagreement was not over whether the bible is true but whether "This is my body and blood" was metaphorical or literal or somewhere in between.

 

I think the same is true of the creation debate. We can all beleve in the bible and interpet it differently. Elsewise why are there churches that baptize infants and some that baptize believers? Why do some churches believe in 5 point Calvinisim, some in 4 point or 3 point, etc? Why do some have open communion and others closed? Should a Nazarine accuse someone in the PCA of not being a Christian? The two don't disagree on whether the bible is true or on the essetials of the faith (such as in the Apostles' Creed). They disagree on an interpretation.

 

Unity in essentials

Liberty in non-essentials.

Love in everything.

[Lindi]

triple post!

[*Lulu*]

Unity in essentials

Liberty in non-essentials.

Love in everything.

 

 

This is a lovely sentiment and speaks to the heart of many devisive issues in the Christian community today.

 

Thank you.

[Shahrazad]

Disclaimer: As I've mentioned in other threads, I am not a Christian.

 

I do have a question, though. It seems like the primary issue that causes people to follow YE is the belief in the literal 7 day creation and that a day MUST equal 24 hours. However, the Bible was not written originally in English so my question would be, have proponents of YE studied it in the original form to be sure that the word used for day is specific to a 24 hour term in Hebrew? The reason I ask is that we (Muslims) also have a very similar creation story (Adam and Eve, creation in 6 days) but in Arabic the term for 'day' actually refers to a period of time and is not solidified into a 24 hour day as we know it so we believe one day could be thousands of years in the past and in terms of creation.

[celticmom]

OP, you might find the following sample lesson from Omnibus helpful in seeing how it's possible to revere the Bible yet not take the Genesis account literally. Click on the Genesis Session 2 link.

 

:iagree: I was thinking about linking that same lesson, now I don't need to.

[LisaKinVA]

Disclaimer: As I've mentioned in other threads, I am not a Christian.

 

I do have a question, though. It seems like the primary issue that causes people to follow YE is the belief in the literal 7 day creation and that a day MUST equal 24 hours. However, the Bible was not written originally in English so my question would be, have proponents of YE studied it in the original form to be sure that the word used for day is specific to a 24 hour term in Hebrew? The reason I ask is that we (Muslims) also have a very similar creation story (Adam and Eve, creation in 6 days) but in Arabic the term for 'day' actually refers to a period of time and is not solidified into a 24 hour day as we know it so we believe one day could be thousands of years in the past and in terms of creation.

 

 

In Hebrew, the word day is used in several different ways (literal day, part of a day, a longer, unspecified period of time). There are some I've talked to who have told me that if I "just studied the meaning of the word day, I would know without a doubt that the correct interpretation was 24hrs." However, studying the various uses of the same word throughout the OT has led me to the belief that it could be one or the other -- and both are legitimate. There are other issues that draw me away from the YE issue, though.

[JuanitaL]

It may depend on your definition of literal. I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible in the sense that there are many types of literary genre and techniques and those should be understood in order to gain a clear understanding of scripture.

 

That being said, just because a passage is poetic doesn't mean that it is not also literally true. This is where it can get confusing and it's important to let the clear portions of scripture interpret those portions that are not as clear.

 

Yes! Try to interpret it according to the genre of literature to which each individual book belongs. Some books cover more than one genre - Genesis can also be considered at least law and narrative. Along with that line of thinking, I would value the opinion of Jewish scholars over someone like Ken Ham, since they would probably have a much closer idea of how the original audience would have received it.

[gardenmom5]

Maybe YOU can't believe that, but again, I try not to limit God to my own understanding.

 

Adam means "man," as in "mankind" or just "the man." It's dual purpose.

To be sure, homo sapiens/mankind are a sinful specie! We're the only specie that can sin, really, and most evolutionists would agree with this. Though of course atheistic evolutionists would never call it sin...

At some point God breathed life into man--a consciousness that isn't found in other species. And with that came the ability to sin.

 

we believe that all things were created spiritually (like a model) before being created in the physical. animals have spirits too. what people have that animals don't is the ailbity to go against that "instinct" that drives animals, the ability to choose. we may train animals to do what we want, but it's not the same as them having the ability to choose their own actions against their instincts.

 

about 30 years ago, it was all over how scientists had traced the mRNA to one woman. they believed we all descend from her. It even made the cover of TIME.

.

[gardenmom5]

 

In Hebrew, the word day is used in several different ways (literal day, part of a day, a longer, unspecified period of time). There are some I've talked to who have told me that if I "just studied the meaning of the word day, I would know without a doubt that the correct interpretation was 24hrs." However, studying the various uses of the same word throughout the OT has led me to the belief that it could be one or the other -- and both are legitimate. There are other issues that draw me away from the YE issue, though.

 

you know, in this "day and age", you just can't be surprised by how people define words. ;) (iow: even "today" "day" doesn't *always* mean 24 hours in generic conversation.)

 

I also find it helpful to look at what the definitions of words were in the 15th/16th centuries (much of the King James was taken from an earlier translation). even in that time, the meaning of some english words has changed.

[Erin]

we believe that all things were created spiritually (like a model) before being created in the physical.

:confused1:

That's not Biblical... Certainly not a literal interpretation anyway.

To the rest, i'm not sure why you are responding to my post. Do you think you're disagreeing with me?

[Laura Corin]

I do not believe man evolved from monkeys.

 

 

I don't know anyone who believes that.

 

Laura

[*Lulu*]

 

 

I don't know anyone who believes that.

 

Laura

 

 

No, but I know quite a few people who believe that those who believe in evolution do.

[Parrothead]

 

 

I don't know anyone who believes that.

 

Laura

 

 

As BLA5 said, a great many people who are strict creationists believe that evolutionist believe we evolved from monkeys

[Laura Corin]

As BLA5 said, a great many people who are strict creationists believe that evolutionist believe we evolved from monkeys

 

 

Oh. Okay then.

 

Laura

[Hen]

not sure where I am in the OE /YE area...I actually don't care too much...but, my husband is in the Gap theory camp, which Rene' brought up. It's an interesting idea and leaves room for the fossils and old rock layers. Scofield - (Scofield bible) also held to this view - so it's been around for a while and some influential Bible scholars have embraced it.

 

The way Ken Ham is behaving embarrasses me - I hate the whole dividing into camps thing and the legalism / judgement he is fanning. I'd love to see Ken Ham call out Scofield as a heretic.

[gardenmom5]

[/size][/font][/color]

:confused1:

That's not Biblical... Certainly not a literal interpretation anyway.

To the rest, i'm not sure why you are responding to my post. Do you think you're disagreeing with me?

 

yes - I am disagreeing with you. you stated animals

To be sure, homo sapiens/mankind are a sinful specie! We're the only specie that can sin, really, and most evolutionists would agree with this. Though of course atheistic evolutionists would never call it sin...

At some point God breathed life into man--a consciousness that isn't found in other species. And with that came the ability to sin.

 

you make it sound as though animals are just a shell of a physical body with nothing there, there. any animal owner will tell you, animals have emotion, they have loyalty, they have feelings,

. (I LOVE this video. :lol: )