Where did YEC begin??

[Greta]

When someone say, as they mentioned above, that one YEC explanation for us being able to see light that must have traveled for millions of light years is that God made things to look as if they had developed over time, that is a very odd statement, and I suspect that many of the Church Fathers who were believed in a more literal sort of creation account would have been very uncomfortable with it.

I agree. It makes God into a deceiver, a liar. I am beyond uncomfortable with that.

[Jasperstone]

Psalms 102:25

 

“Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.â€

 

The above verse should be considered by the YEC. If the earth is young, then why use the word old?

[livetoread]

What's YLC?

Young Life Creationism. The belief that the earth and the universe might be very old, but life was created more recently in six days.

[Jasperstone]

And when you consider Genesis Ch 1:1

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.(period)

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.

 

The word "WAS" translates in the Hebrew (haw-yaw) which means "To become"

So Versus 2 should be read- And the earth *became void*.

If it became void there had to be something there to begin with that was destroyed.

This show that some time pass between versus 1&2 (Could be thousands or millions of years)

 

In Genesis 1:28 God tells Adam to go and replenish the earth. If you are to replenish something there has to be something there prior to this. Like when you refurbish a house etc..

 

Anyway, that's how I see the earth being old, while still believing a literal interpretation of Genesis. :-D

[Jasperstone]

Young Life Creationism. The belief that the earth and the universe might be very old, but life was created more recently in six days.

Cool, will check them out.

[Slartibartfast]

It has been around for a good long while hasn't it?

 

The Scopes Monkey Trial was in the 1920s.

 

http://www.ushistory.org/us/47b.asp

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/monkeytrial/peopleevents/p_darrow.html

[Joanne]

It has been around for a good long while hasn't it?

 

The Scopes Monkey Trial was in the 1920s.

 

http://www.ushistory.org/us/47b.asp

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/monkeytrial/peopleevents/p_darrow.html

 

Yes, but Creationism as "science" is much more recent. Creationism as a business even more recent.

 

It's become commercialized, wrapped in other sale-able goods complete with exploitation.

[foxbridgeacademy]

I would think the idea has been around and accepted since the beginning of Judaism.  With the enlightenment came a better understanding of the natural world and our place in it so I would think that's when minds began changing, away from YE to an acceptance of geologic time.. this would be for Christians of course, other cultures/religions have different stories many putting the Earth at millions to billions of years old.  

 

I was raised Pentecostal and AFAIK they all preach YEC. I never bought the explanations for Dinosaurs or the rest and would ask lots of questions till I pretty much got booted from Sunday School class.  My dad always said that God put the Dinosaur bones in the Earth to test the faith of believers.  My mom never bought it either and explained it that how do we know how long a "day" was?  A day in the Bible could be representative of eons  or epochs. 

[Bluegoat]

 

Everywhere. From the creation of the world to the battles against the foreign peoples to populate the Land of Milk and Honey given by God Himself, to the kingdom of David, to the birth of his descendant Jesus, to Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. 

 

 

 

My point is, you are just assuming all of these things are meant to be historical claims.  That is an assumption based on a particular way of interpreting the text.  It is not, as some like to think, simply self-evident.

 

Many Church Fathers from the beginning thought that is was not historical or only partially historical, based on the text itself. 

 

 

Because God is timeless? Because he is the same yesterday, today, tomorrow? Because the bible wasn't written with the idea that academic studies would be necessary for one to glean the meaning of the "word of God"? Just throwing out ideas, really. I don't believe there is reason to accept any of the bible's claims, but others do, and they don't agree with each other about these claims. I find it interesting when things that must be taken on faith are challenged, but then other things equally taken on faith are left alone, assumed to be true. I was particularly curious why Princess wants to think no one here might accept that belief in YEC indicates personal salvation in some way. I'm wondering why it would be a bad thing to accept that belief as true. It's clearly believed by many people (and is the inspiration for this thread), so there are many who accept this as a positive thing. I'm wondering why one would hope that's not the case here.

 

 

We aren't timeless - there is no form of literature that could be used that would be natural for all people that have ever read Scripture.

 

And in any case - we don't see that, do we.  In fact, it corresponds in form and convention to the types of literature that we would expect from the period when the texts were actually produced.  And narrative history as we know it today, or even as it existed later in the Roman period, wasn't something we would particular expect to see.

 

 

You're assuming there is a right way to understand the will and mind of God. This is an impossible task to pursue, as there are no objective means by which this claim can be explored. Written sources like the bible are, as you illustrate, assumed to mean different things according to different schools of thought. Ultimately, this these beliefs rest on personal faith, and there is no objective source by which one person's personal faith can be measured for accuracy with regards to a thing that cannot be identified or measured in any objective way. 

 

 

I am saying there are ways of understanding Scripture that are wrong and inappropriate because they are irrational in one way or another.  There are plenty of ways personal belief can be measured for accuracy.  Faith does not mean "unverifiable belief".

[albeto.]

My point is, you are just assuming all of these things are meant to be historical claims.  That is an assumption based on a particular way of interpreting the text.  It is not, as some like to think, simply self-evident.

 

Many Church Fathers from the beginning thought that is was not historical or only partially historical, based on the text itself. 

 

The bible claims the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus are historical events. There is no extrabiblical evidence to support this, and yet most Christians accept this as an event that happened and was subsequently recorded. This is why I find it interesting that people will challenge one faith-belief while accepting another. That contributes to my question to Princess about why it would be unpleasant to think about people here belief in YEC is related to salvation. It seems to me no less sad than to think belief in a literal death and resurrection is related to salvation.

 

We aren't timeless - there is no form of literature that could be used that would be natural for all people that have ever read Scripture.

 

And in any case - we don't see that, do we.  In fact, it corresponds in form and convention to the types of literature that we would expect from the period when the texts were actually produced.  And narrative history as we know it today, or even as it existed later in the Roman period, wasn't something we would particular expect to see.

 

 

Understood. Nevertheless, people do believe claims in the bible that go against conventional knowledge. If I were to simplify my question to a specific reference, it would be this discrepancy between belief in YEC and the resurrection as it pertains to salvation, and why one is lamentable while the other is respectable.

 

I am saying there are ways of understanding Scripture that are wrong and inappropriate because they are irrational in one way or another.  There are plenty of ways personal belief can be measured for accuracy.  Faith does not mean "unverifiable belief".

 

 

I would argue any belief in the claims of supernatural events, and many of the natural events contained in the bible, from Genesis to Paul's claims are irrational. And yet... rational people adopt, embrace, and defend these very beliefs. 

 

I'm curious how one draws the line between one irrational belief and another. I know there's no rational way to do this, so any answer will be subjective. Mostly, I'm wondering why Princess hopes no one accepts that a belief in YEC is indicative of salvation in some way. I shouldn't pick on her personally, though, so Princess, I don't mean to nag you into answering. I'm open to anyone's comments, and if no one wants to comment, that's fine too. I'm just trying to explain in this post, not badger you personally. I hope that makes sense. 

[HRAAB]

I just typed up a post then lost it.  Briefly, my bil, a Baptist minister, and his wife do believe that a belief in YEC (Genesis account) is necessary for salvation.  This is a belief that has developed over the last 10 years or so because I definitely remember them saying in the past that belief in YEC was not a salvation issue.  However, this is not what they now state.

[PeacefulChaos]

So I haven't really thoroughly read a ton of the responses, but I keep seeing a theme pop up - that a lot of people 'haven't heard of it before, until _____ (usually homeschooling)' sometimes with a 'despite living _____' thrown in.

 

I would venture to guess that the reason so many haven't heard of it - including myself, to an extent - is that it isn't important.  I'm not saying not to talk about it or whatever... I'm just saying it seems like there are those who perceive it to be much more important than it is to the Christian community.

 

I know NO Christians who talk about YEC.  Ever.  I have no idea what other Christians believe about it.  It doesn't matter.  Similarly, it doesn't matter what I believe about it.  It wouldn't affect my being a Christian.  It's not something that we ever discussed in church growing up, or anything like that.  I think that for most of us, it happened however it happened and we're okay with that.  We may have leanings one way or another, but it's not something that defines our faith or anything like that.  It's just not important.

 

Anyway, I guess I just wanted to throw in there that I don't think that it's a big deal to most Christians - and that those who do think it's a really big deal are a serious minority.  

 

 

ETA: FORGOT to mention this part - I think the reason we see it more in the homeschool community is because it is something that we are coming across as educators, as opposed to just people walking around.  We're actually having conversations that we wouldn't generally have - I see no reason why else we would be looking into YEC POV as opposed to others.  But I'm not the type of person who looks at that stuff anyway, maybe some people are.  It's not something that would have entered my radar, however, had I not been looking at science and stuff for my kids.  Does that make sense?