Young earth vs. ancient earth- where do you stand?

[Guest]

howdy all--

where do you stand?

On a scale from 1 to 10 (1 being absolutely certain the earth was created in 6 literal days and less than say 20,000 years old) and 10 being absolutely certain that the 6 days is not literal and the universe is many billions of years old, where would you place yourself on this continuum?

I am interested in your answers.

TK

[Guest]

I used to be a young-Earther. I read the Henry Morris books, etc. Now I'm an old-Earther. The age of the earth no longer has any relevance to my theology, so I'm willing to go wherever the evidence leads. On a scale of one to ten, I'd say seven or eight.

[Guest]

Hi TK

The age of the earth no longer has any relevance to my theology, so I'm willing to go wherever the evidence leads.

Yeah, I can agree with that! Plus, I just can't make myself care that much....so I'd say 5.

[Guest]

3..............................................

[_Paidion]

Creation days with evenings and mornings, geneologies which can be traced from Adam, establish in my mind a young earth.

...as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin... Romans 5:12

Paul stated that death came into the world through sin. But Old Earthians belief in death having occurred long before sin came into the world.

Jesus' words quoted from Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’

The word "them", as is clear from the context, refers to people.
With this statement, Jesus seems to imply that people existed from the beginning of creation. But Old Earthians would have them come into existence millions of years later (even those who do not believe in Adam and Eve as historic personages).

I think the belief in a young earth is very relevant to the faith. If the old earth view is correct, then then the statements of Moses, Paul, and Jesus are unreliable. From this, one might infer that the rest of the Bible may be unreliable, too.

So I place myself as 2. You probably wonder why I don't say "1". I guess I allow for the remote possibility that Moses, Paul, and Jesus were all mistaken about this matter, even though they might have been correct about most or all other matters.

[Guest]

Okay, Paidion, I'm going to try harder to get concerned about this topic.

[Guest]

I have to place myself at...

3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592
3078164062862089986280348253421170679821480865132823066470938
4460955058223172535940812848111745028410270193852110555964462
2948954930381964428810975665933446128475648233786783165271201
9091456485669234603486104543266482133936072602491412737245870
0660631558817488152092096282925409171536436789259036001130530
548820466521384146951941511609...

Circular reasoning on both sides.

[Guest]

Back in the day (by which I mean an unspecifed but roughly definable time frame in the past which was actually about oh, 25 years long, give or take a few); I voted "1."

But these days, (estimated as the last 27,375 literal 24 hour increments or so); my vote is "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10"

Since we can't expect ancient Hebrew writers to know a single thing about modern scientific theory...it's impossible expect them to...imnsho....

We Westerners sure do have a hard time embracing paradox, eh? 'Just can't seem to be able to "think" like those folks in the Bible Days can we? lol But if you for any reason might wanna rack yer brains some more, check this out:
tribalogue: the days of creation, by gerhard f. hasel
Rick

[Guest]

funny, christopher. i understand what you mean-- it seems this is one of those issues that whatever viewpoint i am reading at the time (e.g. ken ham of answersingenesis vs. hugh ross) i tend to agree with what i am reading. very wishy washy of me.

In HS i believed in a literal 6 day creation, but still felt the universe was ancient. once i "learned" that the two are not compatible, i lost faith in the literal 6 day view because to me the evidence for the ancient age of the universe is overwhelming. but i still dont believe in evolution, etc. my current tendency is to side with OEC because it seems to better explain the facts.

however, i also agree with michelle that it does not really make a difference to me, theologically. any apparent discrepancy between scripture and science is obviously due to our misinterpretation of one of the two.

TK

[Guest]

Jesus' words quoted from Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’

Paidion, since Jesus was responding to a question about divorce, is it possible he could have been refering to creation of man and not the earth?

Creation days with evenings and mornings,

One question I have is this. It wasn't until the fourth day that God said "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years," So how long were the days before? Could evening and morning be just a poetic way of saying, in our vernacular,"The dawing and setting of an era(day) in creation"?

I find it hard to be categorical with Genesis since there are a number of quesitons that are not easily answered. Like Cain's wife.

Right now I'm probably an 8 or 9 simply because the Genesis account is not crystal clear to me, as far as time is concerned, and different scientic fields point to an older earth. I am by no means a hardliner and could be persuaded otherwise. I am a scientific novice after all.

Steve

PS..

geneologies which can be traced from Adam

I've heard that there are gaps in the genealogical records that seem to point to persons of significance rather than naming every individual. I've haven't check myself though. I've also heard that some genealogies in the bible differ as well, which would seem to back up this theory. Have you heard of this?