Hey all. In the light of last spring’s LaSierra fiasco about teaching evolution, as of late on Spectrum and AToday, the currentdebate is Ancient Earth/Young Earth-Special creation/Evolution.

I am amazed how many SDAs consider themselves theistic evolutionists and how they can honestly reconcile their views and consider the scriptures an infallible authority of truth. This is, of course, not an SDA issue. There are many TEs in other faiths (I went head to head with a Catholic on another Christian forum who is a TE).

Do I believe that the earth/universe and everything in it was created 6000 years ago? No. I don’t. However, neither do I believe man evolved from single cell organisms.  To remove the special creation of man and replace it with evolution is to completely remove the importance of sin, fall, redemption and glorification. All these Christian themes are woven into the fabric of special creation. Genesis 1 is not a textual island that can be removed from scripture and all else remains the same. It is the foundation of the theology and reliability of the scriptures.

I just don’t understand how these Christian folk can wipe away all of Genesis as metaphor, make the counsel and beliefs of Christ, Peter and Paul null and void, and still claim to believe in the concepts of sin, fall, redemption and salvation. It makes no sense whatsoever. When you do away with special creation and call the prophets, apostles and Christ Himself, deluded or mistaken, then how in the world can you then say, ‘Oh, well I believe the concepts on such and such that they taught’. That makes no sense! Especially when these concepts are an out flowing from special creation.

I have yet to hear how the concepts of sin and fallen nature fit into the evolutionary picture.

What say you?

Why do you have a problem with the world being 6,000 years old, or of a similar time frame?

Welcome Gary to 4TG!

It doesn’t matter how long ago the world was created, but I believe in a relatively young earth possibly closer to 11,’’ve seen000 years based on some evidence i’ve seen.

Guibox wrote:

I just don’t understand how these Christian folk can wipe away all of Genesis as metaphor, make the counsel and beliefs of Christ, Peter and Paul null and void, and still claim to believe in the concepts of sin, fall, redemption and salvation. It makes no sense whatsoever. When you do away with special creation and call the prophets, apostles and Christ Himself, deluded or mistaken, then how in the world can you then say, ‘Oh, well I believe the concepts on such and such that they taught’. That makes no sense! Especially when these concepts are an out flowing from special creation.

I have yet to hear how the concepts of sin and fallen nature fit into the evolutionary picture.
-------------------------------------------------

The key word above seems to be “Christian”. It is dificult how someonee truly born again can deny these concepts.

Stan

Thanks Stan for your welcome. I have always believed that the world is 6,000 years old. I have taken that from 2 sources. First, being a Seventh-day Adventist, I believe that the writings of Ellen White are inspired. One note here, a messenger of God can give their opinion about something, but when they say something like “I was shown”, etc., then I take what they say as not being a true fact, written in their own words. She has used the 6,000 year time frame several times in her writings.

In 1974 when I was going with a group of people to a man’s house to do some Bible studying, I saw a chart of his that he had drawn out of the time from creation to our time. He used a chronology of Bible characters to show the time in years from creation to our time. Of course, you get nearly 1,000 years right off the bat with Adam’s length of life. And from there to the flood is goes pretty quickly with the longevity of those earlier people from the creation. I know there are others who have used this method to arrive at the time between creation and now.

I understand that some have arrived at up to or around 10,000 from the creation until today. I don’t understand that since it’s a matter of mathematics to calculate ages and connect them together. I haven’t done this myself and have had to rely on others works, so I don’t have anything I have done personally to show for this.

I suppose there is room for error since there may be some questionable data for whatever reason that may be.

With those 2 evidences, Ellen White’s comments on the world being 6,000 years old (I learned that first.), and then confirming information from the chronology of the Bible characters, especially from the creation to the birth of Christ, which is generally believed to be 4,000 years old, we can safely arrive at the 6,000 figure from the creation to our times.

If we have either historic data, or some way of actually validating our information, and that data can be verified as true (of course based upon believable evidence), then we should use that as true.

That’s my take on this, and if any other has solid evidence going another direction, I’d like to know about it.

I do have a real problem with evolution because more and more scientific evidence and data are showing that the theories that support evolution are just not believable when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it. I know that there is a creation institute of some kind in Texas. I also know that a Gentry and his son have done work in this area, and I have looked at both of those areas, to some degree, but not in depth, and they all have scientific reasoning, as well as Bible reasoning, to support that it was a Creator who created the earth we live on.

I’m not one really to get into a lot of depth in this subject since what evidence I have in my own mind, some of what I have mentioned above, and that which I have thought out over the years, always brings me back to the earth being created by a Creator, and that the earth is in the age of 6,000 years old.

There’s one thing I attempt to do and that is look at something from the other side, and try to free myself from my own thinking on any subject. That’s not always easy to do, but at least it gives me an opportunity to evaluate something from somewhere else other than what I personally believe. When I say I attempt to do this I mean that I try to free myself from what I actually believe and see what the other side is actually saying, and consider that for a while.

I did that when I was in my very early 20’s, and in this case, I considered myself agnostic, or even atheist. I was raised in a Christian home, and had no reason to do this except, as a young man, I was exploring my own beliefs. I don’t recommend a person go this far, but in my case, I did consider that the world wasn’t really created, and was an evolutionary happening.

I resolved this over a period of time (I don’t recall how long but it was probably less than 2 years.) when I was reading in Job how God asked Job, chapter 38, some pretty pointed questions relating to His creation. That set me to thinking, “And Gary, where were you when all this took place (creation)?” True, that wasn’t scientific, but it did start me to think seriously about this subject that I’d always accepted as there being a Creator who created this earth we live on.

Yes, I considered myself to be an agnostic or an atheist for a period of time, but I didn’t stop reading my Bible or going to church. That may appear to be a split life, and yes, it was, but I did want to know for my own self about creation or evolution, and it didn’t take me years to resolve the issue for my own self. Of course, again, my background as a Christian had relevance during that time since I was not raised to be an atheist or agnostic.

As a person of older years, I understand people of younger years going through cycles of learning, gathering facts, evaluating, and coming to conclusions. Truth is always truth, whether we understand it correctly or not. Centuries ago the world was thought to be flat. Now we know the truth. The truth was always there. It took time and study to verify this to all who would know the truth, and set clarity to this issue, even to the doubters. The round earth is visibly verifiable for us today. However, something such as the creation of the world, and the years from creation to now can be reckoned more by scientific data and mathematics, and good sound reasoning. We see it with our minds eye and have to reason out what is truth, based upon the evidence of what we do know, and weed out that which we thought was true, and then find out that it wasn’t really true.

Spiritual things follow a similar pattern. Faith in something has to be in our thinking in order for us to believe it. Otherwise, we won’t believe it. But when we have faith in something, we will normally be willing to put our full weight onto it.

I didn’t mean to make this so long, but I attempted to briefly overview several areas.

Gary

Thanks Gary for your background information.

There are gaps in Usher’s chronology that raise questions about the 6000 years.  11000 years is probably closer to the truth, but again, what does it matter? 

When EGW said “I was shown”, it can be proven that some of these statements were actually copied from other sources rather than being shown in vison.

Maybe this can be called inspired plagiarism?

Stan

Hi Gary,

May I also welcome you to the 4TG website/forum!

One of the best sources of “bible based” creation information is found here:  http://www.answersingenesis.org

In Christ,

Gary - 02 October 2010 01:02 AM

Why do you have a problem with the world being 6,000 years old, or of a similar time frame?

Two reasons.

1) That there was already existing material before creation
2) That the cosmology of the Hebrews was primitive special creation or not

1)

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. Genesis 1:2

This occurs before all life is created. In other words, the possibility that some sort of matter existed before life as we know it is present. The hard matter of the earth was ‘without form’ (it hadn’t been shaped yet) and ‘void’ (empty of living things). God doesn’t work in the same time frame, there was no such thing as ‘time’ as we know it. This matter could very well have been ‘billions’ of years old before ‘form’ replaced the ‘void’. God’s Spirit moved ‘upon the face of the waters’. Water and its chemical compounds were already there. This was before the ‘expanse’ ‘raqia’ or what we would call the atmosphere was created.

Notice this phrase in Genesis 1:6

Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”

This expansion separated the water that was there pre-creation. The water and ‘formless void’ earth, existed before light was created. The creation of oceans and other bodies of water that separated themselves from dry land was really not a ‘creation’ at all on the second day. It was simply a gathering of what already existed; from what was left over after the raqia separated the waters. 

Which brings me to number 2.

2) The Hebrews believed that this raqia, this expansion, was solid and covered the earth. It was a dome. All the stars, clouds and other celestial objects were underneath this expansion. Sort of like the New York snow globes you can by at the trinket stores.  If you didn’t know any better and did not have telescopes etc, that is exactly what the primitive eye would observe. Above this raqia was water as Genesis 1:6 says.

This is why during the flood, the bible says

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

The waters above the raqia, where the separation took place at creation, came through the windows and emptied itself (or at least that’s how Moses described what we would call torrential downpour). Moses didn’t have telescopes or anything to determine that what he explained was not exactly as he saw it. In his cosmology, this solid raqia opened up (like we would slide open an attic door in our ceiling) and let all the water from above it come down. We know differently now. Hence, the way that Moses explained it IS primitive and must be taken into consideration.

I know that this sounds like an argument that evolutionists make, but it is not. I just think that there is a possibility for old earth/special creation and 6000 year earth is not an issue that we should get too hung up on. I think that negating special creation however, specifically the creation of man, is a whole other story.

Interesting explaination Guibox and it would explain certain perceived conflicts between ages of organic mater and ages of rocks.  However, carbon 14 in diamonds seems to imply that all matter cannot be more than 14,000 years.

How would this concept deal with Gen 1:16 when God creating the Sun & Moon on the 4th day?  Like you said, there would have been no light.  If the earth existed for potentially long periods, without tidal action or solar heat, why would there be water on the face of the earth and not solid ice?  Have you also thought about where the earth matter would have come from?  God does things that I can’t explain, of course, but my understanding of God tends to lead me in the direction that God does things with a purpose.  What purpose would there be in creating a planet and leaving it to wander through a galaxy, without a solar system, for unknown periods of time and then all of a sudden showing up to finish what He started potentially millions or billions of years ago?  On the other hand, if our goal is to reconcile to “scientific” reasoning, then a planet could not form without a sun.  If we don’t believe that God created the sun on the 4th day than why would we believe anything in Gen 1 - 3?

You started by quoting Gen 1:2, what about Gen 1:1 where it says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, then in Gen 1:2 we have the Spirit hovering over the face of the waters on the earth… later all forming the first day… I don’t see the text supporting a gap, do you believe in the gap theory?

My think my dad also believes that mater existed prior to special creation and I’ve heard him say similar things.  I’m not decided… I think it can be fun to speculate, but I don’t want to wander outside the text.

One thing I do know, once God shows up, amazing things happen!

I am glad that you are back in this forum and I return now and then to look through your posts…

Regards,
Bill.

Bill - 10 November 2010 11:49 PM

You started by quoting Gen 1:2, what about Gen 1:1 where it says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, then in Gen 1:2 we have the Spirit hovering over the face of the waters on the earth… later all forming the first day… I don’t see the text supporting a gap, do you believe in the gap theory?.

Hey Bill!
Genesis 1:1 is simply laying out the fact of creation. Kind of like a fireside teller giving the conclusion and then revealing how it all came to pass. “Diamond Jim was a great man and because of him we have freedom in this land...let me tell you the story!’ That there was preexisting matter still is a part of God’s creation regardless of when it happened.

I don’t know why God would create matter but let it sit. The fact remains that if we are going to take Genesis literally, we must look at it all and Moses tells us that before the first day of creation, God’s spirit ‘moved over the waters’ and ‘the earth was without form or void’. It doesn’t say that God created the earth but that He created life on the earth.

guibox - 11 November 2010 06:06 AM

Bill - 10 November 2010 11:49 PM

You started by quoting Gen 1:2, what about Gen 1:1 where it says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, then in Gen 1:2 we have the Spirit hovering over the face of the waters on the earth… later all forming the first day… I don’t see the text supporting a gap, do you believe in the gap theory?.

Hey Bill!
Genesis 1:1 is simply laying out the fact of creation. Kind of like a fireside teller giving the conclusion and then revealing how it all came to pass. “Diamond Jim was a great man and because of him we have freedom in this land...let me tell you the story!’ That there was preexisting matter still is a part of God’s creation regardless of when it happened.

I don’t know why God would create matter but let it sit. The fact remains that if we are going to take Genesis literally, we must look at it all and Moses tells us that before the first day of creation, God’s spirit ‘moved over the waters’ and ‘the earth was without form or void’. It doesn’t say that God created the earth but that He created life on the earth.

Thanks for responding Guibox!  After having read so many of your posts, going back years, it is nice to connect.

Ok, I could see that way of viewing the texts… It doesn’t deal with why God would have created the earth and let it sit and then melted the water and heated up the planet core, etc., but He could have.  Is your purpose in viewing an earlier creation of matter (earth) simply to reconcile to a scientific belief?

Bill - 11 November 2010 12:49 PM

Is your purpose in viewing an earlier creation of matter (earth) simply to reconcile to a scientific belief?

I think that if the Bible does give some leeway regarding an old earth, then we should be open to the science that supports that.  I just think that the importance is on the special creation of man as opposed to the age of the matter that makes up the earth. The Bible supports that conclusion. I think making the 6000 year old earth a hill to die on is not necessary and science and religion can be somewhat reconciled on this matter.

When science and history are finding certain cultures to be 6-8000 years old, we should be open to the possibility that are genaeological rendering of the biblical text could be off...and that is okay. When we say that man evolved from sludge, that is where the massive discrepency lies between Christianity and science. For some reason so many in our church and in other Christian denominations are happy accepting the Bible’s concepts of sin, fallen man, redemption and glorification of the body but believe we also evolved.

This is completely incompatible. The special creation of man is the foundation of which all these other beliefs are based on. To remove special creation is to remove sin, the need for a savior, the fallen image of man and the restoration of it too. For some strange reason, theistic evolutionists ignore this and think that Genesis 1 is a textual island that stands alone.

Thanks for the further explaination Guibox.  I’m totally with you on the special creation issues.  Of course those are completely incompatible with science as is the flood.  A global flood would virtually wipe out all life and evolution would have to start again and with the greatly reduced timeframes, this would mean evolution would be impossible.  Leaving the door open to special creation and that is not acceptable therefore no possibility of global flood will touch the lips of any secular scientist.

There is much evidence that the earth is not very old.  The moon is travelling away from us and if we were to work backwards it wouldn’t take billions or even millions of years before contact.  I mentioned carbon 14 in diamonds.  There is the erosion of the coastlines.  Genetic evidence that we all decended from a single woman sometime in the last 100,000 or so years, I can’t remember them all but there are others.

Most of the secular scientists are downright hostile and biased toward Bible and special creation/flood.  Also their views will not consider the evidence for young earth because of its implications so they are not considering all the evidence.  Something that happens in this forum frequently!

I agree that we should be open to the science that supports an old earth, but we should also be critical of it like we would be any evidence and compare it with the opposing evidence.  That gives us an advantage.  The other side will only consider one line of evidence.

Well, I would agree there are more important things to ponder in the universe!

Thanks again and enjoy your Sabbath!

guibox - 27 September 2010 09:07 AM

When you do away with special creation and call the prophets, apostles and Christ Himself, deluded or mistaken, then how in the world can you then say, ‘Oh, well I believe the concepts on such and such that they taught’. That makes no sense!

Kinda like the folks that teach Jesus could not be trusted by God, eh?

”God could not trust His beloved Son with men while carrying on His benevolent work for their salvation, and final exaltation to His own throne. He sent angels to attend His Son and preserve His life, till His mission on earth should be accomplished, and He should die by the hands of the very men He came to save.” {RH, December 24, 1872 par. 22}