Archived

Christian Particularism

Read 11821 times

Nicholas Olsen

  • **
  • 282 Posts
    • View Profile
Young Earth vs Old Earth
« on: November 22, 2011, 10:24:48 pm »
I want to open this topic up but only to discuss each view on their interpretations of scripture. I know at some point science will be brought up, but only if it's relevant to a specific passage.

Young Earth (6,000 to 10,000 yrs old)
  • Genesis 1, 2, & 3 is read literally that contains everything that happened in the beginning of the universe to animals and the 1st Human. (adam)
Old Earth (100,000 to 4.5 billion yrs old)
  • Genesis 1, 2, & 3 contains some allegory and some literal truth.
Personally i side with the Old Earth because scripture presents what happened (not how) without a definite time table. We just know the sequential order using "days".

For example, God commands the land to produce living things to each according to their kind. (Genesis 1:27) I can't tell you what that looks like, nor how long it takes from the command to every living animal being created. From Scripture alone, there is not much in my opinion that we can grasp.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyb7SQefYMA

1

Justin Green

  • **
  • 889 Posts
    • View Profile
Young Earth vs Old Earth
« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2011, 10:03:04 am »

Old earth for me.  It doesn't seem like God would create the earth in 144 hours and then deceive us with the appearance of age if He intended for us to learn something about His power and wisdom through scientific study (which I think He intended).


2

Nicholas Olsen

  • **
  • 282 Posts
    • View Profile
Young Earth vs Old Earth
« Reply #2 on: November 24, 2011, 01:20:24 am »
I should probably rewrite the intent of this, because i'm trying to see how and why each view rejects theories like evolution, global flooding during human existence and more.

It's like both sides look at the same evidence and come to widely different conclusions. Global flooding seems to be a hot button because each side looks at the Grand Canyon and concludes there was global flooding and others do not. I could be given articles and papers that show both sides, but it's like i have to somehow know "proper" geology to see who is right.

This is why i talk about scriptural grounds, because it is "Thee Source" that makes claims and once we know a definitive claim, then we can test it.

If there was a global flood around 2000BC then we should have overwhelming evidence, yet there are many(if not more) that say around 2000BC there was no global flood reviewing the same "evidence" that brings us them to that conclusion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyb7SQefYMA

3

FNB - Former non-believer

  • ***
  • 4048 Posts
  • Do you REALLY make your decision based on reason?
    • View Profile
Young Earth vs Old Earth
« Reply #3 on: November 25, 2011, 11:25:49 am »
Sonick92 wrote: I should probably rewrite the intent of this, because i'm trying to see how and why each view rejects theories like evolution, global flooding during human existence and more.

It's like both sides look at the same evidence and come to widely different conclusions. Global flooding seems to be a hot button because each side looks at the Grand Canyon and concludes there was global flooding and others do not. I could be given articles and papers that show both sides, but it's like i have to somehow know "proper" geology to see who is right.

This is why i talk about scriptural grounds, because it is "Thee Source" that makes claims and once we know a definitive claim, then we can test it.

If there was a global flood around 2000BC then we should have overwhelming evidence, yet there are many(if not more) that say around 2000BC there was no global flood reviewing the same "evidence" that brings us them to that conclusion.


Many Christian scholars will defend a local flood and understand the bible as using phenomonological language to describe the flood.

4
Young Earth vs Old Earth
« Reply #4 on: December 22, 2011, 04:36:48 pm »
"But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
(2 Peter 3:8 ESV)

This seems like a relevant passage to consider for this topic.
Also, also you may be able to glean some insight from the earlier verses of 2 Peter 3. Have a look.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." -C.S. Lewis

5

Nicholas Olsen

  • **
  • 282 Posts
    • View Profile
Young Earth vs Old Earth
« Reply #5 on: December 22, 2011, 10:41:25 pm »
Most YECs will say that Genesis 1 & 2 give clues that say it's a 24 hour day, but in Genesis 1. We see the ordering of "days" made by morning and evening, but on day 4; we see the creation of the sun separating day & night.

What i see is a redundancy if i were to take the 1st day as 24 hours, because why would you mention an establishment of the "day & night" cycle of earth if a 24/7 time reference used before day 4? An historical or chronological writing won't be redundant, so i think "evening & morning" and "day" mean something other than 24 hours. Hebrew vocabulary isn't large so they had to expand on the use based on context.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyb7SQefYMA

6

Jared Baker

  • **
  • 726 Posts
    • View Profile
Young Earth vs Old Earth
« Reply #6 on: December 24, 2011, 12:13:11 pm »
I take an Old Earth, evolutionary position, and I'm inclined toward both the literary framework view and the phenomenological view Jeff mentioned. I'd point out, however, that most day-age OECs do see their interpretation as literal because the Hebrew word yom can be understood to mean "age" as well as 24 hour day or 12 hour day.
"I begin with the principle that all men are bores. Surely no one will prove himself so great a bore as to contradict me in this." - Søren Kierkegaard
"As soon as man began considering himself the source of the highest meaning in the world and the measure of everything, the world began to lose its

7

Michael Peck

  • **
  • 21 Posts
    • View Profile
Young Earth vs Old Earth
« Reply #7 on: December 27, 2011, 12:55:26 am »
I have always been partial to old earth because I feel that it is ignorant to dismiss science and choose to embrace something as literal when it could easily be allegorical. However, I have recently stumbled upon an article that really blew my mind. I was pretty overwhelmed but it was a wonderful and intelligent read. I would love to hear anyone elses opinon on the article and how it looks at the age of the universe according to the Bible.

   

    http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html?mobile=yes&c=y

8

ksilvey10

  • **
  • 7 Posts
    • View Profile
Young Earth vs Old Earth
« Reply #8 on: December 27, 2011, 04:43:45 pm »
Problem is if the sequential order is right, those plants had a long time to go without the sun.

But a bigger problem is that God said the earth was all good until sin.  Old-earth says species were going extinct and had all kinds of diseases before sin. I'd say you would have to through out the sequence of events in Gen 2 and 3 as well.   Also, you would have to probably believe that humans would be attacked by beasts sin or no sin in the picture, which would make God the author of suffering as well.

This is why I think that it is of some consequence whether you take Gen at least somewhat literally or not.

9

Nicholas Olsen

  • **
  • 282 Posts
    • View Profile
Young Earth vs Old Earth
« Reply #9 on: December 27, 2011, 10:37:37 pm »
I don't see how death disease can't be considered good if God intends that too happen. I mean forest fires are needed because some tree seeds need extreme heat to be released. You know insect life and bird life could be destroyed. I feel inclined to say God called it "good" because He set the intended purpose.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyb7SQefYMA

10

ksilvey10

  • **
  • 7 Posts
    • View Profile
Young Earth vs Old Earth
« Reply #10 on: December 29, 2011, 12:56:43 pm »
That does make some sense.  So is it human suffering that we need focus on? I'm fine with that idea.

11

Michael Peck

  • **
  • 21 Posts
    • View Profile
Young Earth vs Old Earth
« Reply #11 on: December 29, 2011, 04:24:54 pm »
I have always thought since i was a teenager that human suffering caused no problem or contradiction of a morally perfect God. I feel that in a universe were humans are endowed with free will that it is necessary for suffering to exist. There would be a lack of free will if humans were unable to cause others harm or stress, which goes agaisnt the while point of human existence: a loving fellowship with God.

   

   On suffering through natural causes I feel that God allows things like disasters etc. to occur because he set our Universe into motion and set the laws in place. All things occur naturally and I see no moral problem with allowing suffering through a process of existence.

12

troyjs

  • ***
  • 2753 Posts
    • View Profile
Young Earth vs Old Earth
« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2012, 09:22:58 pm »

can we revive this thread please?

“Knowledge of the sciences is so much smoke apart from the heavenly science of Christ” -- John Calvin.
“I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels” -- John Calvin

13

Nicholas Olsen

  • **
  • 282 Posts
    • View Profile
Young Earth vs Old Earth
« Reply #13 on: January 19, 2012, 11:02:57 pm »
I suppose defining what it means to suffer, have pain or some sort of despair in hebrew culture is what we need to get at, because God didn't make man to live under water or inside the earth. If Adam was an air breathing man, then breathing in food instead of swallowing it would be painful. I honestly don't think Adam would have tried too or did it by accident, but if he did, then would Adam have felt pain?

If God made it us to eat, breathe and live a certain way, then it follows that God didn't intend for us to do things a certain way. It only makes sense that my skin isn't meant to be near extreme heat and pain drives me away from the extreme heat. I'm in no place to judge what mechanisms God put in man/nature in a pre-fall world to keep man doing what He intends instead of straying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyb7SQefYMA